The hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually

[sixty4half]

So we're a rumor mongering forum now?!? WTH did i just read?

 

[CliffCo]

To me there’s far too much negativity towards Civ7 both here and on Reddit. I played over 4,000 hrs on Civ6 in just 4 yrs but when I took a break from playing Civ7 for a while until some patches were released, I tried going back to Civ6 but I couldn’t get back into it and preferred to play Civ7 even with some of the bugs. It’s got a lot better on PC since the 1.2.0 patch and I’m loving the new mechanics. I’m not saying the game is perfect yet but I don’t agree with some of the negativity surrounding it.

 

[MutilationWave]

@tman2000 and @Gorbles

I really enjoyed reading your guys' back and forth. T I generally disagree with you pretty consistently but that has changed with these posts. G I generally agree with you and that has not changed.

I don't know what to think about the ayahuasca story but props to you T for understanding psychedelics.

All I really have to add isn't much. I bought founder's edition because civ is one of the best series of games and I love them all in one way or another.

I would not personally feel betrayed if they offered a 30% discount tomorrow. They have to get players to pay devs to make patches and expansions, and that is my chief concern.

I do believe something terrible happened to cause the game to come out like this after seven years. Even though I love playing it, I'd be lying if I didn't say it is deeply flawed. But not unfixable.

Not sure what I'm really trying to say here but thank you and everyone else who participated for a pretty good, respectful debate.

 

[0urBall]

Just to play devil's advocate on the city naming for a bit, I think Firaxis thought that it would be so minor that people wouldn't notice it was gone, as well as being a device to "show off" the civ switching. As you would have 1/3 of your cities with different names for each civ you switch to by Modern era. That they were able to release the functionality so quickly after launch could suggest that they always knew how to put it in, and just decided not to, rather than forgot/ran out of time to add it. An honest, if silly, mistake as it just added to the list of underbaked items people felt were lacking in CivVII

 

[evonannoredars]

Just to play devil's advocate on the city naming for a bit, I think Firaxis thought that it would be so minor that people wouldn't notice it was gone, as well as being a device to "show off" the civ switching. As you would have 1/3 of your cities with different names for each civ you switch to by Modern era. That they were able to release the functionality so quickly after launch could suggest that they always knew how to put it in, and just decided not to, rather than forgot/ran out of time to add it. An honest, if silly, mistake as it just added to the list of underbaked items people felt were lacking in CivVII

Two months after release feels like quite a while. If it was only a few things missing, it could've been an honest mistake, but considering the sheer number of other basic QoL features and UI polishes that were added later/are yet to be added, I think the 'released before it was ready' scenario seems more likely.

The content updates are interesting though. Previously, from what I can tell, civ games released with everything in it, with only minor additions in later updates. The content updates of Civ 7 are much larger in comparison, but they feel more like stuff they planned to add but didn't have time rather than ideas they came up with post-release (although the resources seem like a bit of both imo).

 

[Krikkit1]

Just to play devil's advocate on the city naming for a bit, I think Firaxis thought that it would be so minor that people wouldn't notice it was gone, as well as being a device to "show off" the civ switching. As you would have 1/3 of your cities with different names for each civ you switch to by Modern era. That they were able to release the functionality so quickly after launch could suggest that they always knew how to put it in, and just decided not to, rather than forgot/ran out of time to add it. An honest, if silly, mistake as it just added to the list of underbaked items people felt were lacking in CivVII

And what’s worse is the functionality could have been worked in to narrative events…when you promote a town from previous eras/one you captured from another civ to a city do you keep the same name or change it to the new civ or customize it.

 

[Siptah]

The content updates are interesting though. Previously, from what I can tell, civ games released with everything in it, with only minor additions in later updates. The content updates of Civ 7 are much larger in comparison, but they feel more like stuff they planned to add but didn't have time rather than ideas they came up with post-release (although the resources seem like a bit of both imo).

I also have this sentiment. If my memory serves me correctly, the question whether distant lands and homelands would be symmetrical for the civs was raised in the stream that showcased the exploration era. When Ed answered (something like "good idea, we need to look into that"), he gave a meaningful glance to the other person in the stream. I can't believe that this is something that never came up in their internal discussions and in exchange with their test group, as it is such an obvious question. Back then, I wasn't sure how to interpret that glance. Now, I tend to think that it meant: "We haven't found a good solution for this, at least not one that we can implement for launch. So, we will have to disappoint you there."

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Closed per OP request