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

[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.

 

[AriochIV]

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

December 2024, not December 24th.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

December 2024, not December 24th.

This century is still new to me, I require all four digits.

 

[kaspergm]

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

Right, sorry, I can see that could be misread. But as Arioch states, it was intended to be read as December 2024.

Since the first poll was started late september, and this poll was started around mid november, my intention was to start next (and final) poll around mid january, to get the temperature when we were drawing very close to release and to allow each poll to run about the same time. But of course, someone might start a poll before I pull the trigger if they want to.

 

[BlueWildRye]

Well, I finally pre-ordered standard edition. Reading the fine print, it said that Right to Rule and Crossroads would be available for free in the base game if you wait a couple of months after release, so I'm fine waiting for those.

 

[pokiehl]

Well, I finally pre-ordered standard edition. Reading the fine print, it said that Right to Rule and Crossroads would be available for free in the base game if you wait a couple of months after release, so I'm fine waiting for those.

I don’t think that’s the case. Where are you getting that idea from?

 

[Krikkit1]

I don’t think that’s the case. Where are you getting that idea from?

I think they may be available for purchase a few months after release

 

[vorlon_mi]

I will happily vote in the new poll. I would respectfully suggest that we add another option, something along the lines of "Received it as a holiday present."
I've got more to say, after watching the Exploration Age livestream recording. I will have even more to say, after watching the Modern Age livestream recording.

 

[Isengardtom]

[7] Quite excited as always before the launch.
But I have never had so many doubts and concerns.
I don't like the fact the game ends in 1950.
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.

- mentioned in other threads but feels like 1950 is a temporary placeholder for future DLC to advance further
- diplomacy can’t be much worse than in Civ 6
- I agree on the narrative events. I hope there are not too many of them.

 

[zaint]

Sadly i have lost most of my interest in this game. The Civ-series used to be one of my favorite games, starting with Civ 1 on my old 386sx but sadly the game has developed to something that made me lose interest to it. It started with Civ6 and seeing how Civ7 looks...well. It's not Civ anymore. At least not for me.

Besides, i wont pay money for a civ game where 1/4 of the game is even available at release but have to be bought thru a future expansion? So much greedy BS from Firaxis. It would be like if EA would make you buy and expansion for the NHL-series just so you can play the 3rd period.

And not having actual leaders leading the countries is just strange. I would rather see them in a leaders court system where they bring additional benefits to a civ, but as a leader, no. And i know you are going to say what about Gandhi. .Well, you are +30 years to late with that one...

 

[Zaarin]

Besides, i wont pay money for a civ game where 1/4 of the game is even available at release but have to be bought thru a future expansion?

People keep saying this, but there is no evidence to back this up. There is no evidence for a fourth age specifically, and Civ games have always had expansions--expansions that were planned before the game's release. That's not cut content; that's normal game development. Ed's only comment was that they had plans to expand the Modern Age in the future--did you feel cheated because Brave New World also expanded the Modern Age?

And not having actual leaders leading the countries is just strange.

They've made a point of it now, but Civ has never restricted itself to only heads of state. Aside from Gandhi, Civ3 had Joan of Arc; Civ5 had Gajah Mada; Civ6 had Eleanor, Kupe, Ambiorix, and Catherine de Medici; and multiple iterations of Civ have featured Empress(-consort) Theodora, Boudicca, and Dido. This isn't new for the Civ franchise.

I'm not saying that you have to like Civ7, but both of these points are factually wrong.

 

[BlueWildRye]

I don’t think that’s the case. Where are you getting that idea from?

It's not an idea, go to the official page for preordering and read it. It states on the website that at least Right to Rule will be added to the base game for free by September, and the Steam pages mentions Crossroads as also being available in the base game after March I believe.

 

[Isengardtom]

People keep saying this, but there is no evidence to back this up. There is no evidence for a fourth age specifically, and Civ games have always had expansions--expansions that were planned before the game's release. That's not cut content; that's normal game development. Ed's only comment was that they had plans to expand the Modern Age in the future--did you feel cheated because Brave New World also expanded the Modern Age?


They've made a point of it now, but Civ has never restricted itself to only heads of state. Aside from Gandhi, Civ3 had Joan of Arc; Civ5 had Gajah Mada; Civ6 had Eleanor, Kupe, Ambiorix, and Catherine de Medici; and multiple iterations of Civ have featured Empress(-consort) Theodora, Boudicca, and Dido. This isn't new for the Civ franchise.

I'm not saying that you have to like Civ7, but both of these points are factually wrong.

I would even argue that Civ 7 feels more fleshed out than 6 where big mechanics were added with rise and fall impacting the game from start to finish.

And as for the leaders, there’s still enough heads of state and more will be added no doubt.

I’m also a bit cautious with DLC and often it can be a cash grab but when it’s micro transactions or loot boxes or that sort of thing. Here at least you have the choice when they add a civ or leader if you’re interested in adding them to your or not.

 

[Evolena]

It's not an idea, go to the official page for preordering and read it. It states on the website that at least Right to Rule will be added to the base game for free by September, and the Steam pages mentions Crossroads as also being available in the base game after March I believe.

They will be free only if they are included inside the Deluxe and/or Founder Edition. They will be available for purchase later on.

 

[chaosprophet]

People keep saying this, but there is no evidence to back this up. There is no evidence for a fourth age specifically, and Civ games have always had expansions--expansions that were planned before the game's release. That's not cut content; that's normal game development. Ed's only comment was that they had plans to expand the Modern Age in the future--did you feel cheated because Brave New World also expanded the Modern Age?

And even if one think /am convinced Ed meant they will likely add a 4th age, the game at release with the three ages seems very complete in total of content and in how long you would expect a game to last compared with previous civs. The main reason to me they ended the game at 1950, regardless if they will add another later on or not, is that with how they have mechanics limited to each age, the age works well ending at where it ends. Things changes a lot after 1950, both in diplomacy, tech, military developments and how wars are waged, etc.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

- mentioned in other threads but feels like 1950 is a temporary placeholder for future DLC to advance further

Yeah, but it still feels like cut-off content that should be there. I have nothing against paid DLC, but this kind of practice (on the edge of acceptability) shouldn't be welcomed imo.