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

[ColtSeavers]

Voted 1 because I can't promise I'll never buy the game. Maybe for 2,99 or as part of a bundle or something. But nothing I've seen impresses me. The direction they're taking the franchise is opposite from what I like. I had thousands of hours in both Civ V and VI, and they've lost me. I'm curious to see how this game will be received.

That's exactly how i feel!

 

[Gori the Grey]

I, for one, am excited that we're only five days away from getting a new poll!

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I, for one, am excited that we're only five days away from getting a new poll!

I hate to burst your bubble, but I think that's a European December 24, and not an American December 24...

 

[Civinator]

So I am very unhappy about several revealed game mechanics of Civ 7 (especially civ-switching and the handling of leaders) I am impressed by the number of different units shown in the videos and screenshots and that these units have a much better graphical quality than the units in Civ 4, 5 and 6. In my eyes the graphical quality of these so-called 3D-units in Civ 7 are the first ones that reach the quality of modded Civ 3 units. Is there a thread about all these different identified unit modells in Civ 7 ?

So all in all there is no need for me to change here something from my vote in the original poll and to vote here in that additional poll.

 

[Isengardtom]

Tonight’s stream will be interesting to see.
In Civ 6, I find the modern age(s) just turn(n) into a click next turn spam until victory. I lost interest in my game by then and just want it to finish

Civ 7 with the overbuilding alone already feels like a plus

After the stream I keep my vote on 9.

Excited about

- cities , towns and the urban and rural district mechanics with the overbuilding. Looking forward to making some visually interesting gems, especially with all those different styles of buildings.

- I like the concept of the commanders and the reduced unit maintenance- although I don’t enjoy playing domination, I will definitely give it a chance here (in Civ 6 I found it more annoying than fun, same with religious victory, especially on bigger maps)

- economic victory is a great addition. Religious victory doesn’t have to come back

- influence feels much more interesting than “faith”. This together with the diplo system is very interesting to me. Much more than the World congress of Civ 6 and all the resource trading

- like the idea of the legacy paths and ages where I feel I can start with a cultural path in Antiquity, move to treasure fleets in Exploration and try to go for a science victory in modern
That sort of flexibility possibly allows for sone challenges without have to always do deity plays where the AI is just granted more bonuses to make it harder
(Reduced snowballing is a major plus for me)

- The UI has grown on me, although still a bit mixed on some of it, I love the next turn wheel .

- Some interesting leaders. I like the fact that they were not all heads of state. For me a “leader” is a broader concept than that.
- also like the look of most of the more recently announced leaders

- other things I’m excited about : the fact they make tall and wide viable, use of specialists (in Civ 6 they were more gimmick), use of railroads, factories, ideology


I’m a bit “meh” on the religious gameplay in exploration at first glance

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I'm sad to say I gave it a ZERO. I suppose I could change my mind since the game hasn't even been released but Firaxis seems to have completely lost the plot.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

2.

I have to admit that my excitement dropped almost to zero. I stopped watching any news and videos shortly after gameplay reveal.

I dislike the huge cities (urban sprawl everywhere... terrible) but it's the mandatory civ switching that killed all hype.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I dislike the huge cities (urban sprawl everywhere... terrible)

Same here, I hoped for a while that it was just for advertising and such, but it appears to be real gameplay (from what I saw, maybe not that much but enough to convince me), and the "bombastic" musics (terrible when trying to think) that not every are, but still. On top of that I would really dislike if it were like in Civ6 when you listen to other civs musics, it creates such dissonance and also to a point you don't even listen to your civ music anymore, ever. (or rarely, or anyway I can hardly mind it - annoying is annoying after all)
However, I quite like the way they handled civ switching, with prerequisites that try to look natural. But that's certainly not enough to retain my attention, and I strongly consider not buying it. After all, I got still Civ6 Deity to crack, and unless I manage to win all my Deity games the same way everytime like with Civ5 (for me Civ5 is much easier than Civ6 in Deity), I'll probably stick with it till the end of times, unless I go back to Civ5, Civ4, Civ3 and/or Civ2. (Civ1 too ugly even by the times, but maybe for science if I manage somehow to get it and run it)
So my excitement got from 6, to 6, to 3 and now it's approaching 1. (not 0 because if someone gives it to me for free, I will probably try it, just like with Civ6 (never bought it)).

 

[eyememine]

I am at 3. I was angry already that they decided to split the game in three mini games which destroys any immersion. Now the fact that they hold back the fourth mini game to sell it as a dlc later on and thus destroy the original game makes me think that I might pass on this. And I play Civ since 1991 and always could cope with the changes from edition to edition.
It feels like they completely have lost the idea what Civ is about.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Now the fact that they hold back the fourth mini game to sell it as a dlc later on and thus destroy the original game makes me think that I might pass on this.

"Destroying the original game" was there too with Civ5 expansions too IMO. Mind you, in Civ5 vanilla units had only 10 HP... the fact that they increased it to 100 in Gods & Kings (or whatever Civ5 first expansion was, I'm losing track ) was justifying the buy alone. However, they could have done the same with the vanilla version, because it's so much better and doesn't break or add any rule... IMO this means they were not so much confident about the selling of they expansion...
And with Brave New World they added ideologies, that shuffled the late game quite a bit, and is seen nowadays as one of the best feature of Civ5, especially compared to Civ6.

There is no way someone will play Civ5 without expansions nowadays. So the vanilla game was well and good "destroyed", from a certain point of view. (spoiler : it was for the better in the case of BNW, but kind of lazy is the case of G&K IMO)

 

[serikas]

Voted 4 now 3. I can’t stop thinking that devs forgot what made civ franchise successful. Civ didn’t survive because it had the best game mechanics. Sure civ had been all about alternative history but mixing leaders and civilizations sounds something far beyond. Now the leaders and the civilizations feel like something completely different that just borrowed names from historic ones.

 

[Kyriakos]

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

 

[Disgustipated]

Since the other thread is locked, I'll post it here. I am excited I got this in my stocking. So let's hope it's good. I wasn't entirely sure if I would get this expensive of a game as a gift, but was happy I did. As for the dlc, I may wait for sales on those, they seem a bit pricey.

For kicks, when I accepted the gift, it gave me the option to "play it now", I had to click on it. As expected, gives an error that the game is not released.

 

[Vandlys]

Voted 4 now 3. I can’t stop thinking that devs forgot what made civ franchise successful. Civ didn’t survive because it had the best game mechanics. Sure civ had been all about alternative history but mixing leaders and civilizations sounds something far beyond. Now the leaders and the civilizations feel like something completely different that just borrowed names from historic ones.

So, enlighten us, what do you know that the devs forgot about what made the franchise successful?

Personally, I think it's their 30/30/30 rule, and they are implementing that here again. I see some very vocal people on this post expressing their disappointment, but I also see a lot of people looking forward to the changes. Personally, just going by the reactions I see, I don't see why Civ VII would necessarily become a failure.

As for my level of excitement, I pre-ordered the Founder's edition, I stopped watching most news about the game, and I'm sure I'll be pleasantly surprised about a lot of things, and disappointed in others. It was the same for me going back all the way to Civ IV, but I enjoyed every iteration (also Beyond Earth) afterwards nonetheless. It's not a binary feeling. I can be thoroughly irritated by some design choices in VI, and love others. I just don't let the negative things ruin my enjoyment if the positive things are prevalent enough.

Since the other thread is locked, I'll post it here. I am excited I got this in my stocking. So let's hope it's good. I wasn't entirely sure if I would get this expensive of a game as a gift, but was happy I did. As for the dlc, I may wait for sales on those, they seem a bit pricey.

For kicks, when I accepted the gift, it gave me the option to "play it now", I had to click on it. As expected, gives an error that the game is not released.

Now THAT would have been a gift

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

My initial excitement has been significantly tempered.

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?)

I don’t love the implementation of certain civs, such as America. Its unique civilian and buildings are neither particularly unique nor emblematic. It more than any other civ would have benefited from Great People.

The omission of Great People and Great Works was another grievous blow. I loved seeing the artwork of the paintings pop up.

I dislike that the game ends circa WWII with respect to its inspiration. I would have preferred a tech tree that reaches to modern times with crypto currency, predator drones, A.I. generated art, etc. but we’re not even getting the Cold War, alliances like NATO, or a World Congress.

Finally, some of the Legacy paths are disappointing. I would have preferred having corporations in the Modern Age instead of a focus on railroads. And the focus on Relics for the Exploration Age is an odd implementation of Religion. I like the idea of Legacy Paths in theory, but rarely in implementation.

 

[eyememine]

"Destroying the original game" was there too with Civ5 expansions too IMO. Mind you, in Civ5 vanilla units had only 10 HP... the fact that they increased it to 100 in Gods & Kings (or whatever Civ5 first expansion was, I'm losing track ) was justifying the buy alone. However, they could have done the same with the vanilla version, because it's so much better and doesn't break or add any rule... IMO this means they were not so much confident about the selling of they expansion...
And with Brave New World they added ideologies, that shuffled the late game quite a bit, and is seen nowadays as one of the best feature of Civ5, especially compared to Civ6.

There is no way someone will play Civ5 without expansions nowadays. So the vanilla game was well and good "destroyed", from a certain point of view. (spoiler : it was for the better in the case of BNW, but kind of lazy is the case of G&K IMO)

The absolute main idea of the game is to accompany one civilisation from the cradle to the grave, from the beginning to the end. whether units have 10 or 100 or 2348 HP is not part of the main principle of the game. It might affect your fun with the game but it does not destroy the core of the game.

What "grave" / "end" does mean is debatable, I'll give you that, but one thing is sure: it is not in the past.

So, instead of "one civilisation from the beginning to the end" we get "three or four civilisations from the beginning to somewhere in the past, or so, well, we don't care, all we care for is that the children of our CEOs can buy their fourth car, hurray!". if only they had the honesty to at least rename the game into civilizations VII.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Personally, I think it's their 30/30/30 rule, and they are implementing that here again. I see some very vocal people on this post expressing their disappointment, but I also see a lot of people looking forward to the changes. Personally, just going by the reactions I see, I don't see why Civ VII would necessarily become a failure.

As for my level of excitement, I pre-ordered the Founder's edition, I stopped watching most news about the game, and I'm sure I'll be pleasantly surprised about a lot of things, and disappointed in others. It was the same for me going back all the way to Civ IV, but I enjoyed every iteration (also Beyond Earth) afterwards nonetheless. It's not a binary feeling. I can be thoroughly irritated by some design choices in VI, and love others. I just don't let the negative things ruin my enjoyment if the positive things are prevalent enough.

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.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

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?)

Wait, what!?

There won't be England, Germany nor Russia in the base game!? That's already confirmed?

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Wait, what!?

There won't be England, Germany nor Russia in the base game!? That's already confirmed?

It’s confirmed that one of those three won’t be in it. We just don’t know which one yet.

 

[durfal]

Wait, what!?

There won't be England, Germany nor Russia in the base game!? That's already confirmed?

We know about 8 of the 10 modern civs already and everybody suspects (with some reasoning) that 2 of the 3 will be in game. But that one is left out.