Should I get founders or deluxe editions?

[RedCourtJester]

I also think their willingness to talk about the game(s) and the dev process provide indicators about whether people are going to be optimistic and give them the benefit of the doubt or not. Those who see a trend towards more board game and narrative and less sandbox as a central problem will be more worried than you or I, I think. To me, the care they put into the game comes across when I see them talk and the focus on "feeling" like a Civ game that they talk about makes me willing to give them the benefit of the doubt too.

I also think "sandbox" isn't going to define the Civ franchise forever. The joy of exploring 3D spaces with platformer-collectors (Mario, B-K, Donkey Kong, Jak/Ratchet, etc.) disappeared past a certain paradigm shift. The joy of 3D dungeon puzzles disappeared from Zelda past a certain paradigm shift. RPGs are generally no-longer turn-based, MMOs are less about grinding, etc. etc. All these things exist, but more in terms of nostalgic small-budget indie experiences, not as the front-lines of big-budget development. At some point, genres become rote, overdone, or outdated, we see this in every media industry and not just games.

Put another way, at some point "freedom to explore" no longer explores anything interesting or different, and genres set aside exploration to open up totally new spaces/axes to "explore down." Think Mario 64/Sunshine "exploration" and "freedom of movement" (quite novel at the time) versus Mario Galaxy linear paths and heavily restricted movement. As long as VII (or whenever Civ abandons sandboxing) does something cool and engaging with a lack of sandboxing, I think that is okay.

 

[Zaarin]

RPGs are generally no-longer turn-based

Expect a comeback for turn-based RPGs after the absurdly overhyped BG3 broke everything. (I'll forgive BG3 if it gets me Pillars of Eternity III with the budget and publisher support it deserves with Josh Sawyer 100% fully in control.)

 

[RedCourtJester]

Expect a comeback for turn-based RPGs after the absurdly overhyped BG3 broke everything. (I'll forgive BG3 if it gets me Pillars of Eternity III with the budget and publisher support it deserves with Josh Sawyer 100% fully in control.)

As someone who has never had the patience for TTRPGs and found DnD worldbuilding fundaments to feel fairly...generic?, I am just a bit of a BG3 detractor, but only as a matter of personal preference. While I in no way want to say it was a bad game (it clearly isn't, and that dev team deserves massive kudos for bringing a full experience to launch), my impression from the online discourse is that people enjoyed it in spite of the TTRPG combat, not necessarily because of it.

Furthermore, and again I want to insist that this is totally fine, because I am guilty of it myself for a lot of games including Civ VI and VII, but I strongly suspect BG3's success may have been, at least in some substantial part, supported by "safe horny" apologism.

 

[Aeon221]

Observation: satisfaction with Civ5 on release tends to be related to Civ5 being one's first Civ game. Those who joined the series with Civ5 enjoyed it, while those who played previous titles hated it. Personally, even with expansions I'd consider Civ5 the second worst game in the franchise, only above Civ3.

I enjoyed 5 quite a lot and still enjoy it today with Vox Pop.

It was obviously not my first Civ game.

 

[Zaarin]

As someone who has never had the patience for TTRPGs, I am just a bit of a BG3 detractor. While I in no way want to say it was a bad game (it clearly isn't), my impression from the online discourse is that people enjoyed it in spite of the TTRPG combat, not necessarily because of it.

Furthermore, and again I want to insist that this is totally fine, because I am guilty of it myself for a lot of games including Civ VI and VII, but I strongly suspect BG3's success may have been, at least in some substantial part, supported by "safe horny" apologism.

Turn-based combat can be fun; I thought PoE2 implemented it very well. Larian's previous game DOS2 did it pretty well. BG3's slavish reproduction of DnD combat (and overall mechanics) is tedious. (I'm a big fan of TTRPGs and a big detractor of DnD.) I generally see praise directed at BG3's writing and acting, but I found both middling. What I think BG3 did very well was reactivity to the player's actions--but with BG3's juvenile writing, I don't think that makes a good game. (Same indictment against Larian's prior work, TBH: amazing engine that supports incredible freedom of decision making...written like a middle schooler's edgy fanfic.) But I digress.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Turn-based combat can be fun; I thought PoE2 implemented it very well. Larian's previous game DOS2 did it pretty well. BG3's slavish reproduction of DnD combat (and overall mechanics) is tedious. (I'm a big fan of TTRPGs and a big detractor of DnD.) I generally see praise directed at BG3's writing and acting, but I found both middling. What I think BG3 did very well was reactivity to the player's actions--but with BG3's juvenile writing, I don't think that makes a good game. (Same indictment against Larian's prior work, TBH: amazing engine that supports incredible freedom of decision making...written like a middle schooler's edgy fanfic.) But I digress.

This tracks very well with my impressions.

 

[ombak]

I also think "sandbox" isn't going to define the Civ franchise forever. The joy of exploring 3D spaces with platformer-collectors (Mario, B-K, Donkey Kong, Jak/Ratchet, etc.) disappeared past a certain paradigm shift. The joy of 3D dungeon puzzles disappeared from Zelda past a certain paradigm shift. RPGs are generally no-longer turn-based, MMOs are less about grinding, etc. etc. All these things exist, but more in terms of nostalgic small-budget indie experiences, not as the front-lines of big-budget development. At some point, genres become rote, overdone, or outdated, we see this in every media industry and not just games.

Put another way, at some point "freedom to explore" no longer explores anything interesting or different, and genres set aside exploration to open up totally new spaces/axes to "explore down." Think Mario 64/Sunshine "exploration" and "freedom of movement" (quite novel at the time) versus Mario Galaxy linear paths and heavily restricted movement. As long as VII (or whenever Civ abandons sandboxing) does something cool and engaging with a lack of sandboxing, I think that is okay.

I like your mention of Zelda because, to me, the experience that most closely resembled playing the original Zelda when I was a kid, was playing Breath of the Wild 30 years later, in my 40s, after owning a PC and not owning a Nintendo console for almost as long, and even though the perspective/genre etc., is so radically different.

I suppose that's why "it feels like Civ" is an important statement to me. Now, I don't think it could feel much like Civ in a different genre (and there's a whole separate conversation about genre vs. what hardware can do when comparing games 30 years apart like the Zelda example).

I want a new game that feels like Civ. If I want an old game, I can play the old one (I still play the original Zelda sometimes, though rarely do I play old Civs, I also go back and play Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate sometimes, though not as often... I wonder if BG3 will do it for me).

And of course, none of that addresses the Founder's/Deluxe edition question. As much as I am sentimental about the franchises I love, the only collector's editions I happen to have of any game, are some that I was lucky enough to work on (i.e.: I didn't go out of my way to pick up the CE). I'm always tempted by Collector's Editions (or Deluxe, etc.) but usually just get the equivalent to a Founder's as long as the additional cost gets me in-game stuff like DLC/season pass, any collector's type stuff is a bonus, but not a determining factor for me.

 

[Dale]

I know no one can literally answer that question for me but I am struggling a little to even figure out the full differences between the 2 since they don't really have a good side by side comparison. Am I correct in my assessment that the Founders edition is literally identical to the deluxe edition plus the right-to-rule collection which is post-launch(with no included information on when it will release or if it will be exclusive), 2 leader personas, and then some cosmetics for an extra 30 USD? Or am I missing something?

Not sure if this will help you OP, but I made this spreadsheet so I could visualise all the Civ7 content across editions. This information is from civilization.com, both the pre-order and FAQ pages.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Expect a comeback for turn-based RPGs after the absurdly overhyped BG3 broke everything. (I'll forgive BG3 if it gets me Pillars of Eternity III with the budget and publisher support it deserves with Josh Sawyer 100% fully in control.)

Actually, looking at Owlcat games and Pillars of Eternity, they all surely move from awful old school "real time with pauses" style to turn-based. And I really like it, because it allows much more tactical freedom, especially if the system allows tactical gameplay (XCOM turn-based combat was fantastic).

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure if this will help you OP, but I made this spreadsheet so I could visualise all the Civ7 content across editions. This information is from civilization.com, both the pre-order and FAQ pages.

View attachment 706622

This is extremely helpful. Do you mind if I put this in a pinned thread?

 

[ombak]

Not sure if this will help you OP, but I made this spreadsheet so I could visualise all the Civ7 content across editions. This information is from civilization.com, both the pre-order and FAQ pages.

Thanks for posting that as it reminded me that one of the DLC packs is not in the Deluxe and I was apparently also mixing up the names.

 

[pokiehl]

This is extremely helpful. Do you mind if I put this in a pinned thread?

There are some minor inaccuracies that could be fixed first or clarified. Tecumseh and Shawnee will be available for separate purchase, not all the DLC is releasing at once (it’s implied that RTR all comes out on Sept 30 looking at the chart), and generally the “natural wonder” thing for Crossroads may still need clarity.

The dates for all the dlc packs seem to have been revealed in the Switch store page but those could be estimates or incorrect.

 

[Zaarin]

There are some minor inaccuracies that could be fixed first or clarified. Tecumseh and Shawnee will be available for separate purchase, not all the DLC is releasing at once (it’s implied that RTR all comes out on Sept 30 looking at the chart), and generally the “natural wonder” thing for Crossroads may still need clarity.

The dates for all the dlc packs seem to have been revealed in the Switch store page but those could be estimates or incorrect.

I already posted it, but I'll edit that information in to clarify.

 

[Dale]

There are some minor inaccuracies that could be fixed first or clarified. Tecumseh and Shawnee will be available for separate purchase, not all the DLC is releasing at once (it’s implied that RTR all comes out on Sept 30 looking at the chart), and generally the “natural wonder” thing for Crossroads may still need clarity.

The dates for all the dlc packs seem to have been revealed in the Switch store page but those could be estimates or incorrect.

I made note of where I got the info from, and T&S being available individually later isn't clarified on those pages. I also just made this for my reference so the end date is really the only date relevant for full content purposes. Not sure what you mean by "the natural wonder thing", as that's clearly spelled out on civilization.com FAQ as "4 new Natural Wonders".

I also wouldn't rely on the Switch store page as they have to have dates due to how that store works, so are pretty arbitrary IMO. If you're getting all legal who-har about this, I also don't specify that the Switch version won't run maps Standard or higher, cross-generation validity for XBox and PS, and a number of other things. Specifically, this was made for me, a PC steam user.

Edit: Also, it doesn't really make sense for T&S to be available individually later, as then what's the point of pre-ordering? Anyways, updated based on your feedback and put in the pinned thread.

 

[pokiehl]

Edit: Also, it doesn't really make sense for T&S to be available individually later, as then what's the point of pre-ordering? Anyways, updated based on your feedback and put in the pinned thread.

It's confirmed that this DLC is separately purchasable on the Civ website here: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/civilizations/shawnee/

*Shawnee civilization is part of the Tecumseh and Shawnee Pack DLC. The Tecumseh and Shawnee Pack is included in the Deluxe and Founders Editions of Civilization VII. It is not included in the Standard Edition of Civilization VII, but is available as a bonus offer for pre-orders of the Standard Edition until February 11, 2025, and will be available for separate purchase thereafter. Internet connection required to redeem bonus content. Terms apply.

I think it's clarified in the other thread, but wanted to clarify it for folks in this thread as well since pre-order "fomo" DLC would probably rub people the wrong way.

 

[Dale]

It's confirmed that this DLC is separately purchasable on the Civ website here: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/civilizations/shawnee/



I think it's clarified in the other thread, but wanted to clarify it for folks in this thread as well since pre-order "fomo" DLC would probably rub people the wrong way.

Huh, so there is literally no reason to pre-order.

 

[Dale]

Updated to provide clarity around T&S.

 

[tedhebert]

Huh, so there is literally no reason to pre-order.

There is if you're getting the standard edition... but you're right, not if you're getting deluxe or founders

 

[chaosprophet]

That is the best type of pre-order bonuses though. Getting for free something you later could get too, but would then need to pay a bit for it. Pre-order bonuses, especially gameplay ones, that would then be unable to get are terrible. If you happen to only learn about the game / get interested on it later on then you completely missed out on some gameplay stuff. That is the type of thing I would expect of an gacha, and even those tend to have things come again or be obtainable but harder later on.

 

[Dale]

There is if you're getting the standard edition... but you're right, not if you're getting deluxe or founders

Only if you want to play T&S day 1 for free. Otherwise, wait a few months for the first 10% off sale and you'll probably get game and T&S for less.

All depends on personal value of the game and T&S.