This anniversary announcement is a slap to the face

[StargazingDog]

This isn’t the game I bought. This isn’t the game that I played for the first two weeks and really enjoyed before they began making sweeping changes to core mechanics.

After a year of the game essentially being in a continuously changing alpha state, we get the announcement that the game is yet again receiving a massive makeover.

I have been gaming for almost fifty years, and this game is the most disappointing, embarrassing example of incompetence that I have ever seen. Forget Atari 2600 E.T., Civ 7 is the game that should be the new benchmark.

They supposedly had a vision, but immediately crumpled like a wet paper sack. Turning to the Discord and Reddit mob for decisions even as minor as the game’s icon. Now we are at the “first round” of the complete reversal of any hint of vision this game possibly had. Welcome to alpha phase two.

I am genuinely angry. I gave Firaxis my trust and money one year ago. They have stolen both from me. I will never again give a single penny to this developer or publisher.

 

[Gen.Washington]

No offense, but the game that released a year ago is still here. They are simply giving players the option to play in a more classic way.

 

[queenpea]

This isn’t the game I bought. This isn’t the game that I played for the first two weeks and really enjoyed before they began making sweeping changes to core mechanics.

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but which sweeping changes were implemented in February 2025?

 

[SG-17]

They supposedly had a vision

And that vision was wrong.

 

[Kwami]

No offense, but the game that released a year ago is still here. They are simply giving players the option to play in a more classic way.

Not really. They're completely removing legacy paths and introducing triumphs and turning every game into a score victory. They're spending tons of resources to implement the "play as any civ in any age" system with syncretism and all the rest. They already spent a lot of resources implementing "continuity" mode for age transitions. And since they're spending resources on all of the changes that basically undermine all of the core game systems, they aren't spending resources on improving the game for those of us that liked it before. That's a big disappointment.

 

[peter79]

Not really. They're completely removing legacy paths and introducing triumphs and turning every game into a score victory. They're spending tons of resources to implement the "play as any civ in any age" system with syncretism and all the rest. They already spent a lot of resources implementing "continuity" mode for age transitions. And since they're spending resources on all of the changes that basically undermine all of the core game systems, they aren't spending resources on improving the game for those of us that liked it before. That's a big disappointm

I kind of agree. Personally I'm in favor of the victory rework (I think it just makes it a fundamentally better game). However I was fine with civ switching and would have much preferred the dev resources went towards the base game UI (or reworking the God awful religion system). I also wasn't looking for continuity mode.

However sticking to there original vision is a lot harder to do when you answer to shareholders and your player numbers are dwarfed by those of the previous installment. I'm not piling on just pointing the realities of modern business.

 

[Kumbao]

This isn’t the game I bought. This isn’t the game that I played for the first two weeks and really enjoyed before they began making sweeping changes to core mechanics.

After a year of the game essentially being in a continuously changing alpha state, we get the announcement that the game is yet again receiving a massive makeover.

I have been gaming for almost fifty years, and this game is the most disappointing, embarrassing example of incompetence that I have ever seen. Forget Atari 2600 E.T., Civ 7 is the game that should be the new benchmark.

They supposedly had a vision, but immediately crumpled like a wet paper sack. Turning to the Discord and Reddit mob for decisions even as minor as the game’s icon. Now we are at the “first round” of the complete reversal of any hint of vision this game possibly had. Welcome to alpha phase two.

I am genuinely angry. I gave Firaxis my trust and money one year ago. They have stolen both from me. I will never again give a single penny to this developer or publisher.

Its rare that I read a comment that is more wrong and unnecxessary then yours.

As some people pointed out, the game you loved is still there. People just have the OPTION to play itdifferently. Which already seems too much for you. Then calling critics a mob is just stupud and uncalled for. When 70% of the players dislike a change they have every right to voice that concern without being labeled a mob. Thats jzst low.

Overall this thread was just created to further divide our community. Deleting it wouldnt be the worst choice, since it contributes nothing that other threads dont already cover. He just wanted the spotlight for himself to publish his rant to get at least some attention.

 

[Leucarum]

Even with these proposed changes.. Civ switching is still core. The age system is intact. I think there's a lot of hyperbole here.

Besides, was anybody really praising victories in Civ7?

 

[McSpank01]

This isn’t the game I bought. This isn’t the game that I played for the first two weeks and really enjoyed before they began making sweeping changes to core mechanics.

After a year of the game essentially being in a continuously changing alpha state, we get the announcement that the game is yet again receiving a massive makeover.

I have been gaming for almost fifty years, and this game is the most disappointing, embarrassing example of incompetence that I have ever seen. Forget Atari 2600 E.T., Civ 7 is the game that should be the new benchmark.

They supposedly had a vision, but immediately crumpled like a wet paper sack. Turning to the Discord and Reddit mob for decisions even as minor as the game’s icon. Now we are at the “first round” of the complete reversal of any hint of vision this game possibly had. Welcome to alpha phase two.

I am genuinely angry. I gave Firaxis my trust and money one year ago. They have stolen both from me. I will never again give a single penny to this developer or publisher.

Look, I think the game has been slowly.. very slowly.. getting better. and I still think the core of that game is still there.

On the other hand, I kind of agree with the sentiment. It does feel like Firaxis have spent a lot of time and energy backtracking on their initial vision of the game, and rather than going all in on making civ switching and ages really work, they have spent most of their time trying to find ways to water them down and roll back to a sort of Civ 6.5 game. For me that doesn't really meet anyone's needs and it's the worst of all worlds.

Maybe its a matter of perception, but they have come across as weak and apologetic, when what I'd want was a strong confidence in that initial vision of the game, even if it was released too early. I would have imagined they knew it was almost like an alpha when it came out, but had a roadmap of what they wanted to do to make it fully fledged. It seems obvious now that they didn't.

Instead they just released it, and used player feedback to determine the direction of the game, no matter if it aligned with their original plans or not.

I find it kind of embarrassing. I'm not convinced that Civ 7 is ever going to be a classic, but if it was, then I'd want a central vision to be stuck to.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it's very important to separate those 2 changes, because they are very different.

Ability to play as a single civ is hitting on the hottest topic of Civ7 discussions and brings polarized opinions, but it's an optional mode and it doesn't change the game for those who don't use it (although as many people said, it clearly delayed release of other features due to resources allocated).

Changes to victories and triumphs are not optional, but they aren't really questionable either. The vast majority of players said that legacy paths need changes, classic points and scoreboards need comeback and the ability to end the game in any age was promised before.

 

[UWHabs]

Look, I think the game has been slowly.. very slowly.. getting better. and I still think the core of that game is still there.

On the other hand, I kind of agree with the sentiment. It does feel like Firaxis have spent a lot of time and energy backtracking on their initial vision of the game, and rather than going all in on making civ switching and ages really work, they have spent most of their time trying to find ways to water them down and roll back to a sort of Civ 6.5 game. For me that doesn't really meet anyone's needs and it's the worst of all worlds.

Maybe its a matter of perception, but they have come across as weak and apologetic, when what I'd want was a strong confidence in that initial vision of the game, even if it was released too early. I would have imagined they knew it was almost like an alpha when it came out, but had a roadmap of what they wanted to do to make it fully fledged. It seems obvious now that they didn't.

Instead they just released it, and used player feedback to determine the direction of the game, no matter if it aligned with their original plans or not.

I find it kind of embarrassing. I'm not convinced that Civ 7 is ever going to be a classic, but if it was, then I'd want a central vision to be stuck to.

Yes, sure, BUT it doesn't really help anyone if they double-down on something that is highly unpopular and controversial.

With anything like that, they basically had 2 options given the initial feedback - either they put all their chips in on it, and really work through it, and force it as the only option. Or put in a lot of effort, basically an expansion's worth, and come up with an alternate solution that appeals to more people. I don't think civ switching itself was anything like an alpha that they just squeezed out and tested reaction on. It was a fully mapped out system... but people for the mostpart did not like it.

They very well could have kept working through the current model, and probably would have fixed up a few things. But I think in the end, they knew they had to bring in the option without civ switching. And good on them to bring that in as a free update for everyone, and not paywalling it behind an expansion/DLC.

 

[Leucarum]

I also think there's a very high likelihood that the original vision had a pretty fundamental flaw. Namely, the tension between wanting significant enough resets to prevent snowballs, versus wanting us to carry over enough stuff that our game wasn't disjointed.

I am unconvinced that that flaw could ever be reconciled without leaning heavily towards one pole or the other... And given how unpopular the resets have been, I think it makes the direction of travel somewhat inevitable. The good news is that Civ7 is getting the option to travel that distance.

 

[McSpank01]

Yes, sure, BUT it doesn't really help anyone if they double-down on something that is highly unpopular and controversial.

I'm not so sure. There might have been some early outrage at the concept of Civ Switching, but if Firaxis had really put in the work to make sure the game overall was fun, to the point where reviews were mostly glowing and there was a lot of buzz, people were playing it and making videos about playing it... well then I think those voices of outrage would get pretty quiet.

I know there are some people who are so utterly opposed to civ switching on a conceptual level that they cannot even countenance the idea of liking Civ 7, but mostly I think a lot of people would forget their gripes if the overall gameplay loop was fun and well thought through.

By just sort of giving up, and hoping that they could win people around by bringing in features like this, it just seems a little pointless. There might be some who do come back for a little bit, but honestly I think the game will still be pretty far away from a good state, even with these changes. And so I guess they will just leave again.

 

[Leucarum]

By just sort of giving up, and hoping that they could win people around by bringing in features like this, it just seems a little pointless.

Civ switching is still central to Civ7 with these proposed changes. It isn't going anywhere and if you enioy it you can still enjoy it.

 

[fantsu]

I did enjoy E.T. on Atari VCS back in the day, personally.

I want all the changes to the game they can deliver. After a while it would be nice to have all the mechanics reworked somehow. Its why I am interested about VII. Might even buy it some day and have good time. People asking a lot of things, on this topic even.
You are one who isnt getting what you are asking, but that happens for others too. Modern gaming is all about patching because impossible release schedules. Blame the greed for rushing this out because GTA6, sure. That I can see valid.

 

[Krikkit1]

Civ switching is still central to Civ7 with these proposed changes. It isn't going anywhere and if you enioy it you can still enjoy it.

Also the “play as one civ”.. isn’t. You still have to switch each age.. it’s just you now have the option to switch from Rome to “Exploration Rome”. which is a different civ with some different bonuses..just enough similarities that it “feels” like Rome (so the devs hope)

They are giving us 86 new mostly fictional civs to increase immersion/provide variety.

 

[McSpank01]

Civ switching is still central to Civ7 with these proposed changes. It isn't going anywhere and if you enioy it you can still enjoy it.

Didn't say it wasn't, but they are watering down the concept, and spending time an effort on building a feature which was never part of the core idea. My main concern is the opportunity cost of doing this vs just making the game they imagined better. I think the problem is that they may not have ever had that long term vision.

 

[Gorbles]

Didn't say it wasn't, but they are watering down the concept, and spending time an effort on building a feature which was never part of the core idea. My main concern is the opportunity cost of doing this vs just making the game they imagined better. I think the problem is that they may not have ever had that long term vision.

I think visions ultimately have to meet reality. Games have to make money, because that's the world we live in.

Creative expression is very different when money isn't the bottom line. Speaking as an idealist, sometimes you simply have to be practical.

 

[MutilationWave]

I'm not so sure. There might have been some early outrage at the concept of Civ Switching, but if Firaxis had really put in the work to make sure the game overall was fun, to the point where reviews were mostly glowing and there was a lot of buzz, people were playing it and making videos about playing it... well then I think those voices of outrage would get pretty quiet.

I know there are some people who are so utterly opposed to civ switching on a conceptual level that they cannot even countenance the idea of liking Civ 7, but mostly I think a lot of people would forget their gripes if the overall gameplay loop was fun and well thought through.

By just sort of giving up, and hoping that they could win people around by bringing in features like this, it just seems a little pointless. There might be some who do come back for a little bit, but honestly I think the game will still be pretty far away from a good state, even with these changes. And so I guess they will just leave again.

I wonder how many people out there feel like I do, if y'all will indulge me to explain.

7 had huge problems at launch, and I'm not talking about ages and civ switching. I was fine with it. The UI and Civilopedia were atrocious. Game mechanics were inscrutable. Balance was laughable. No need to rehash it all, but I think most everyone can agree here. I'm also of the opinion that it has a way to go to become a great game, and the info from the Feature Workshop has me thinking we're gonna get there.

Although I've played every mainline Civ game, 7 is the first one I played at launch. From what I understand though, at least 5 and 6 suffered from similar messes at launch. That's the impression I get, I've read people saying it several times over the years.

The thing is, they got some things just SO right in 7. Number one for me, right out of the gate, were and are commanders. It reminds me of when they introduced 1UPT and hexes in 5. I could never go back to earlier civ after those changes. Similarly, I have no desire to play 5 or 6 without commanders.

 

[Evie]

And that vision was wrong.

That vision was controversial. It (seemingly) was not as successful as they hoped. And they changed it accordingly, fair enough. The idea that a vision is sacrosanct and should never change is bovine manure.

But right and wrong? When have those ever been popularity contest?

Trying to conflate your personal feelings about the game (which are perfectly valid) with some objective judgement does not actually make it the later. It just makes your take less honest.