[poll] How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 2 - November/December 24]

[Potworny]

I'm still excited, that hasn't changed, and my family who know how much time I spend on those games got me a Steam code for Christmas.

At the same time, while I like so many things about what we've seen, I worry that the devs got too little time from the publisher to finish up the game. There were plenty of mentions of things that they're still "working out" (e.g. how the homelands work for the civs from the distant lands) or which are going to be implemented later (extension of the 3rd age or a 4th one). And it's hard not to notice that there are ones that they haven't spoken about, but seem like at best unpolished content 2 months before release. The UI is inconsistent - the "next turn" button looks beautiful, while the city banners look like they're about to fall apart (and we've kind of seen that). Most people are also in agreement that the number of civs is too low, and that's very much a problem that may haunt the age system for a long time.

The biggest reasons for concern, in my eyes, stem not from design decisions, but possible pressure imposed by 2K. Developing Civ VII must have been difficult enough, but Firaxis has to pull it of on, what, 6 different systems? One of which is better suited for multiplication of numbers from 1 to 10 than playing demanding AAA games? At the same time part of the team had to develop new content for the previous game in form of a leader pass, all while having lay-offs looming over them. I'm afraid that there's some truth to SpaceCowboy's claim, as brutal as it is worded, that we're getting an early access game (though we reach such conclusion a little differently) - that's what 2K and other bloodthirsty publishers do when things take too much time. Study the past if you would define the future (and the past in question is Kerbal Space Program 2).

Another can of worms is what will 2K do if the game underperforms financially. There's plenty of criticism around the game, and I sort of wonder if it will have a big impact on the sales. I'm of course a mindless consumer when it comes to Civ and I'd probably buy everything about it, but many people may see this upcoming installment as "Humankind 2" as reductive this view is and not want it. The publisher may do many things if it is dissatisfied, and few of the options on the table will be good for the series.

If excitement for civ7 is a function of time, (for me) it's a quadratic with negative coefficient for x^2.

I don't know if I understand this without specified points in time relative to the rise and fall of the parabola. Are we past the highest point? Is the highest point related to a time of a particular stream, announcement or the release? Will it hurt the economy?

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't know if I understand this without specified points in time relative to the rise and fall of the parabola. Are we past the highest point? Is the highest point related to a time of a particular stream, announcement or the release? Will it hurt the economy?

You don't need to know the point, even if we are near the vertex, to get that with time the interest rapidly deteriorates

 

[Leucarum]

Nothing easy about it. The entire game literally revolves around the switching.

I definitely hope there is a way to adapt the system through modding. I've been on a journey with Civ switching - from "Oh God, they're making humankind", to "Ok, their implementation looks a lot better than humankind", now back around to "actually, that isn't saying much."

While I love the range of QOL improvements, the greater depth they're putting into each civ and the idea of ages - their implementation of exploration and modern eras just isn't exciting me. Here's hoping for some creative modding solutions!

 

[Cuauhtémoc's Rage]

My main complaint is in the civ choices, and especially the exclusion of essential civs (England, Germany, or Russia won’t be in the early access whatsoever) in favor of obscure and inessential choices (Buganda? Really?)

Ah, yes, the only African representation in the Modern Age is "obscure and inessential." The entire point of the Age system is to give a bit more diversity to the civs and leaders, and I think VII is doing that very well already. Considering that there's strong evidence that all three of those civs will be in the game by September (because why would Firaxis leave out Britain?), I'm more than willing to wait, in return for the wider range of civs that cover far more of the globe than Europe.

 

[Zaarin]

Ah, yes, the only African representation in the Modern Age is "obscure and inessential." The entire point of the Age system is to give a bit more diversity to the civs and leaders, and I think VII is doing that very well already. Considering that there's strong evidence that all three of those civs will be in the game by September (because why would Firaxis leave out Britain?), I'm more than willing to wait, in return for the wider range of civs that cover far more of the globe than Europe.

Buganda specifically was an odd choice, but not an unwelcome one. They might have gotten less pushback over something like Ethiopia, but I think that's fine.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I hadn't been aware of Buganda before, but after reading up on them, I'm intrigued what Firaxis will do with them.

 

[Leucarum]

There will in all likelihood be a half-butted solution we can mod in: keep your civ with no new bonuses at all, or maybe the next level is some generic bonuses.

But those solutions are just that: kind of half-butted. Totally suitable for mods and mod users, but unbecoming as the professional output of polished AAA game—especially when said solution completely undercuts the game’s central design tenet. I don’t say that derisively: I love mods and would never play Civ without them!

I guess I just don’t believe that the devs themselves are going to implement something like that without a lot more effort and consideration, which goes back my original point about there not being an easy out for them.

(I also think it would have poor optics. Folks are asking them to implement something that entirely sidesteps the game’s premise that they’ve boldly hanged their hats on. That would telegraph that even they don’t believe in their idea. At some point, a creative has to acknowledge that the die has been cast and follow through with their vision.)

I agree, I'll take a janky solution over no solution though!

 

[Vandlys]

Not sure, if Civ 7 becomes a failure, but for me, Civ 7 is not just another adaption of the 30/30/30 rule. First, the Civ Switching stuff changes the whole gameplay experience for me. Maybe because I'm a middle age white guy (and therefore more conservative?), but I loved playing my beloved Civs like England, Rome, USA or Germany all the way through the entire game. Being not longer able to do that, doesn't feel like playing Civilization to me anymore. How do you Americans say: My way or the high way? That's the way I feel Firaxis treats its players, who do not embrace their new gameplay ideas. I mean, they could have pretty easily implemented an option to keep your existing Civs, if they wanted. But they don't really seem to care about accommodating players like me that much, who just want to play the game somewhat more "conservative". Not sure how many players think like me, but looking at the respective threads here or the comment sections on You Tube, I guess it could be a pretty signifcant number.
Second, the gameplay mechanics are huge turn-off to me, especially the "board game like" features like Policy Cards or Agendas which Ed Beach apparently loves so much. Now we get events and the forced narrative during the exploration age on top of that. That's not a matter of being conservative or not, I just think it eliminates the most fun part of the Civ game, being able to play a sandbox, where you decide how you want to develop your Civ, not just follow incentives, which reward you if you play exactly the way, the Devs think the game has be played. Civ 6 started this, when they implemented the Eureaks etc., but Civ 7 apparently brings this to a whole another level, especially during the Exploration age.

I mean, I can't argue against your opinion, and it really sucks for you Firaxis seem to have taken a direction (seemingly before VII already) that diminishes your enjoyment of the game. It's never nice if you feel like you like something and devs change it in a way you don't like.

However, I do want to argue it's "not just another adaptation of the 30/30/30" rule. I think it is, you just don't like two out of the three "30s". They changed the way Civilizations are played throughout the game, and they kept the boardgame-like features like policy cards.

So, to me, you just gave a perfect example of the 30/30/30 rule, unfortunately for you, they used that rule in a different way from what you would have liked.

Personally, I'm keen to try out the new things, and hope that if you try the game when it releases you'll find enough about it to enjoy, or maybe a different game that scratches your itch

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I mean, I can't argue against your opinion, and it really sucks for you Firaxis seem to have taken a direction (seemingly before VII already) that diminishes your enjoyment of the game. It's never nice if you feel like you like something and devs change it in a way you don't like.

However, I do want to argue it's "not just another adaptation of the 30/30/30" rule. I think it is, you just don't like two out of the three "30s". They changed the way Civilizations are played throughout the game, and they kept the boardgame-like features like policy cards.

So, to me, you just gave a perfect example of the 30/30/30 rule, unfortunately for you, they used that rule in a different way from what you would have liked.

Personally, I'm keen to try out the new things, and hope that if you try the game when it releases you'll find enough about it to enjoy, or maybe a different game that scratches your itch

30 30 30 adds up to 90% of course, not 100%, and I'd argue that is an eloquent way of showing that there is a core 10% of development which is integral to the series' DNA.

to many that 10% has been fiddled with for the first time in 7. I'm about as interested in the changes proposed for Civ 7 as if they announced it was going to be an FPS game this time around, that is to say it is no longer a civ game to me.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

There isn’t a 10%. It’s a simple rule of thirds. 33/33/33.

The devs actually go into how Civ 7 fits within the 33/33/33 principle in the first dev diary: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/dev-diary/ages/

I don't think you've understood my post. I responded to someone who left space for a 10, and I feel like it's a good way of demonstrating the problems some have with the direction of this game. The Devs can say what they like, I thought 30 30 30 and an unspoken 10 is actually a neater way to conceptualise what should happen with civ. We've all been arguing over what that 10 is in reaction to this games changes. The problem with 33 33 33 is that it is in relation to the prior installment, and as far as I'm aware it's not spoken anywhere the the 33% stay the same portion is the same through the series - just that it's the same as the last iteration. Obviously unspoken there are parts of the game that have never been changed - one of those until 7, hence the 10% being a neat "this can never change" addition to keep civ feeling like civ, and not just conceptually 1/3 similar to it's immediate predecessor

That the Devs don't conceptualise that there is an equivalent 10 is probably why some fans like myself feel such a disconnect from this game. Devs may think they've fitted it into the 33 33 33 model, but for me this doesn't feel like it does.

 

[Vandlys]

I don't think you've understood my post. I responded to someone who left space for a 10, and I feel like it's a good way of demonstrating the problems some have with the direction of this game. The Devs can say what they like, I thought 30 30 30 and an unspoken 10 is actually a neater way to conceptualise what should happen with civ. We've all been arguing over what that 10 is in reaction to this games changes. The problem with 33 33 33 is that it is in relation to the prior installment, and as far as I'm aware it's not spoken anywhere the the 33% stay the same portion is the same through the series - just that it's the same as the last iteration. Obviously unspoken there are parts of the game that have never been changed - one of those until 7, hence the 10% being a neat "this can never change" addition to keep civ feeling like civ, and not just conceptually 1/3 similar to it's immediate predecessor

That the Devs don't conceptualise that there is an equivalent 10 is probably why some fans like myself feel such a disconnect from this game. Devs may think they've fitted it into the 33 33 33 model, but for me this doesn't feel like it does.

Well, sorry for that confusion, but I was referring to what the Devs have said, so it should obviously have been the rule of thirds. That said, even if you leave room for "10" there is still 30 remaining that leaves the game as is, and in your first reaction (quoted below) to see this 10 as something that is integral to the series DNA is your choice. You might as well say that that final 10% is for more change.

As for it never being able / allowed to change (not sure which meaning your 'can' refers to here), I'd argue that is true. We can still select from a multitude of civs. You still have resources with yields. You still have war. You still have win conditions. You still have settling land. You still have border expansions. You still have research trees. You still have advisors. You still view isometric top down. You still have music.. etc. Let's not pretend there is nothing left since Civ I.

30 30 30 adds up to 90% of course, not 100%, and I'd argue that is an eloquent way of showing that there is a core 10% of development which is integral to the series' DNA.

to many that 10% has been fiddled with for the first time in 7. I'm about as interested in the changes proposed for Civ 7 as if they announced it was going to be an FPS game this time around, that is to say it is no longer a civ game to me.

 

[Gedemo]

Still waiting for the hipe... it's seems there is nothing more to show...too bad

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well, sorry for that confusion, but I was referring to what the Devs have said, so it should obviously have been the rule of thirds. That said, even if you leave room for "10" there is still 30 remaining that leaves the game as is, and in your first reaction (quoted below) to see this 10 as something that is integral to the series DNA is your choice. You might as well say that that final 10% is for more change.

As for it never being able / allowed to change (not sure which meaning your 'can' refers to here), I'd argue that is true. We can still select from a multitude of civs. You still have resources with yields. You still have war. You still have win conditions. You still have settling land. You still have border expansions. You still have research trees. You still have advisors. You still view isometric top down. You still have music.. etc. Let's not pretend there is nothing left since Civ I.

There is no confusion, you offered inspiration to conceptualise the split of how mechanics in new versions of civs shift in a different way, and it's aided discussion.

As for the rest I think you've missed my point. I'm not saying and haven't said there is nothing that hasn't stayed since the start of the series. Im saying civ switching is something that has been in that 10% of things that have thus far in 6 editions never changed, and which some fans have taken as the DNA of civ that can never change in order to still be recognisable as civ. I am one of those people.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I’m still confused. There is no “10% of things that have never changed.” That seems to be some metric you’ve made up. Sid’s rule also doesn’t apply to the whole series—he is referring to changes from one entry to the other.

Forget the 10%. The point is simply that some things have never changed, including being one civ from beginning to end. These things are core to the Civ experience for a lot of people, and therefore changing them takes the game too far from what they consider Civ. I guess we all have a different threshold, for my part I can't understand why switching is such a big deal for people - but clearly it is.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don’t know if that’s even true.

I’m not sure how wise it would be as a game designer to draw a line in the sand and say that a substantive chunk should never be changed.

I’d also wager that comparing Civ 6 to Civ 1 we’d be hard pressed to find 10% or whatever arbitrary number preserved, except if we’re speaking extremely broadly and tautologically (history game is set in history).

Generally, I agree. But it was never about an actual "10%", that was just a metaphor for the elements of Civ that have never changed and have therefore become sacred for some fans.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Generally, I agree. But it was never about an actual "10%", that was just a metaphor for the elements of Civ that have never changed and have therefore become sacred for some fans.

Exactly, but sacred to fans isnt exactly how I'd put it. What makes the franchise unique and enjoyable enough to want to come back for more is what I'd say.

There has to be that hypothetical x% you never change in order to legitimately keep labelling your game as a sequel IMO, and I think in everyones opinion, it's just a matter of what the X% is, and which X% it is

 

[Krikkit1]

Nothing easy about it. The entire game literally revolves around the switching.

I think they really could solve 90% of the problem if they let you keep/choose the name and city list of your civ….so Rome can into space even if they are using Mexico’s uniques…and America can build the Pyramids (even if they are using Greek uniques to help with that)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

[7] Quite excited as always before the launch.
But I have never had so many doubts and concerns.
I don't like the idea of building the game around leaders, not civilizations.
I don't like the idea of leaders separated from their Civs.
I don't like the fact the game ends in 1950.
I don't know if I am fully convinced by the idea of changing Civs every era. It is a very risky decision with many traps.
I don't know what to think about diplomacy changes. Guess it can only be better
I have my doubts about narrative events. Might become an annoying pop-up like the World Congress.
Sorry guys but I would like to see more European Civs
I have my big doubts about the late game and final winning condition.
The way how attribute points work concerns me a lot.

What I like and can't wait:
Economic victory and resources
New combat (still hope AI can handle commanders.
Graphics
How Civs are unique (art, abilities, civics, units etc) A pity it will be weakened by one era rule.
New district system.
division into Cities and Towns with specializations
How City states work (and barbarians)
I was very open to the idea of splitting the game into 3 chapters (love the idea of a unique set of rules for each era),
But it has some bumps and possible missed opportunities.

 

[Kurtbob]

I am always excited for a new itinerary of my favorite game franchise. I still play civ 4, 5 and 6 (and 2 if I can get the workaround to play on newer OSs to comply!).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I hope @kaspergm starts a new poll soon, since this one has exceeded its end date on the title.