Which Civilization game was the first for you to lose franchise "core identity"

[VGT]

While I'm reading player stats thread, one discussion happen there that got me curious. Have my own strong contender there but I'm wondering how big of being in a bubble this is for me, because I know other choices are showing up in discussions, so would love to see greater response from community. How far back in your opinion franchise lost its core identity - whatever that identity is. No strict definition here, it's what you feel it is.

I didn't want to include civ 1 for a reason that first game by definition doesn't have identity to live up to, it will merely define it for the future. But if you have some good arguments that civ1 somehow is the black sheep I've added it as an option. Love to hear explanation.

I was considering, but in the end didn't include spinoff's. Alpha Centauri, Civ Rev, Beyond Earth - those by definition should be a place, where developers could and should boldly experiment.
I'm wondering if placing this poll in civ7 subforum could skew results one way or another. If you think there is better place for this thread, let us know and maybe moderators could move it.

Anonymous poll with single choice option.

 

[Snowygerry]

Missed Civ 5 because I was still playing Civ 4, Civ 6 certainly has not lost the core attraction for me I'v been playing for a few years now and it can still hook me as a casual player.

Could have said 7 but that would have been dishonest since I haven't tried it yet

 

[VGT]

Missed Civ 5 because I was still playing Civ 4

But would that mean it's civ5 in your case? Since it wasn't able to drag you out of civ4? I recall a lot of players staying with 4 for a long time, so for sure you were not alone

 

[j51]

I voted 6. It’s really hard for me to explain why though. I honestly think it’s too sandboxy, too loose. It’s just a bunch of different mechanics thrown up against the wall and not tied together. I know I’m quite an outlier on this. It’s why I actually really like 7, even in the incomplete and frankly messy state it’s in. At least it has a coherent core of systems that depend on each other. They need to be tightened. But I also think 7 is so different that it’s not a traditional civ game at its core either. It shouldn’t have been in the numbered sequence maybe, but released as a spinoff (Civ Ages perhaps?). 7 is just more of a type of game that I like than 6 was. (6 too could have been released as spinoff with a title like Civ Builders.) 5 was the probably the last Civ game that felt that way for me, but I really like 7 and want to see where it goes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I voted 6. It’s really hard for me to explain why though. I honestly think it’s too sandboxy, too loose. It’s just a bunch of different mechanics thrown up against the wall and not tied together. I know I’m quite an outlier on this. It’s why I actually really like 7, even in the incomplete and frankly messy state it’s in. At least it has a coherent core of systems that depend on each other. They need to be tightened. But I also think 7 is so different that it’s not a traditional civ game at its core either. It shouldn’t have been in the numbered sequence maybe, but released as a spinoff (Civ Ages perhaps?). 7 is just more of a type of game that I like than 6 was. (6 too could have been released as spinoff with a title like Civ Builders.) 5 was the probably the last Civ game that felt that way for me, but I really like 7 and want to see where it goes.

You're not the only one. I believe civilizations from 4 to 6 suffer from the same problem (that's why I didn't mark it as losing core identity). One expansion mostly improve the game, two - bloat it. And Civ6 is the worst in this regards, because it has the most different mechanics stitched together.

P.S. That's why I'm one of the few people who actually hope for 4th age expansion for Civ7 (if done right). With only one expansion focused on expanding game mechanics I hope it will stop at the right spot.

 

[britesparc]

So I've played extensively Civs II-VI. I'm not some strategic wunderkind like some folk here; I mostly play for the vibes and the sandbox emergent story-generating capabilities. I'm skipping VII because it's the first one that won't let me play the way I want; the first one that seems to severely reduce the openness of the franchise. So for me it's the first one to lose that core identity.

Every Civ I've played, I basically play the same way. I know stuff like hexes and 1UPT and districts are quite big changes from the early games; but I can still play V and VI the same kind of way that I played III and IV.

I like big maps, few opponents, and lots of open land to explore and settle in. I like to build as many cities as possible. And I like to see what narrative unfolds. This means I have to be in complete control of the game; not just my identity as a civilization, but my opponents, the land, the time, everything.

Once you limit that - once you allow identities to change over a game, once you put in time jumps or forced unit upgrades, once you lock off sections of the map, once you add settlement limits - it's the game dictating my story, not me developing it organically.

Civ VII might be good; I might enjoy it. I probably would, I like Humankind and Ara and Old World. But the charges are too big for me; it's lost its inherent Civ-ness. It's the first one that doesn't feel like I can play the way I want, the first one to change its core. So hopefully they'll either add a mode to bring that back or at the very least restore it for Civ VIII.

 

[Leucarum]

The identity has been there for all Civ games IMO.

Civ5 is the only one I couldn't get into, but it was something where the game mechanics felt off, not because it wasn't Civ any more.

 

[ombak]

I've been playing since Civ I and don't feel like the game ever lost its identity. Reading some of the conversation about this on other threads, I wonder if it's because I'm not a prescriptivist when it comes to definitions and don't think an identity requires meeting some immutable definition of 4X but is much more of a subjective experience.

 

[KingKarikatus]

Well, I played the Civ 1 a LOT when I was a kid and before I found out that there are sequels to it. It was my favourite game and still is at my top list. I really liked the precision the game was made with. I really liked discovering everything possible in the game and even after years I was still finding new things. In my opinion it was a very well-made game.

The civ 2 was basicaly the civ 1 with few stuff improved(like so called "dead branches" of tech tree that no one really researched were incorporated into main tree) and some stuff like alliances, new units and techs were added. Except the weird graphics a great game.

I never tried civ 3 so I won't comment it.

And civ 4, that's where it died. The game is...how to say...it seems unfinished. Like someone had limited time for it and was doing it on the last minute. Yes, it's right that few interesting things were added here but for me it wasn't that magical anymore. The fighting is also a bit absurd, when AI just attacks you with their whole army on one tile and you have to destroy them one by one. The late game seems also very unbalanced.

I never played civ 5 so I won't comment it.

Civ 6 was good. It wasn't really that "civy" but it was still a very good game that I played a lot. Many interesting stuff was added and it seemed more balanced than civ 4.

Civ 7.....shouldn't be called Civilization. Really, it just contains so many stuff that certainly doesn't belong to civ. For example: Settlement limit. For real, when I played civ, the first thing I did was mass produce settlers and build cities EVERYWHERE. And now a city limitation? In a game based on getting and developing cities? And it's not just that. I agree with all what @britesparc said about "forcing" your gameplay. Also lot of good, advanced systems from civ 6 were abandomed here. I was excited for that game to be released and when it did....It was just a huge disappointment.

So for the question I think I vote both Civ4 and Civ7.

 

[P_S_]

I voted for VI. It's not because it doesn't feel like a Civ Game per se, but because it has many mechanics that feel random in relation to other mechanics (as posters above said) and imho don't belong in a Civ game, the ones that spring to mind immediately are gouvernors (which I flippin' detest) and leader agendas.
Gouvernors just feel.... wrong. Way to gimmicky and annoying to handle for me, but impactful enough that I can't just ignore them.
Leader agendas on the other hand just tend to entirely dominate the relationship with another leader, and I think they were handled better in VII, where they're generally more sensible and with enough work you can still befriend and even ally a leader though you fail their agenda.

I won't comment on Civ VII other than that I actually enjoy it (with a bunch of UI-Mods) but wish it was a spin-off, because it sure feels like it.

Settlement limit

YES! It's the second worst attempt in the series to balance expansion (global happiness in V being the worst one) when they had the perfect solution in IV with new cities just... costing money before they return the investment.

 

[j51]

I voted for VI. It's not because it doesn't feel like a Civ Game per se, but because it has many mechanics that feel random in relation to other mechanics (as posters above said) and imho don't belong in a Civ game, the ones that spring to mind immediately are gouvernors (which I flippin' detest) and leader agendas.
Gouvernors just feel.... wrong. Way to gimmicky and annoying to handle for me, but impactful enough that I can't just ignore them.

OMG I hated governors with a passion. Basically every new feature that was introduced in R&F was terrible and then RT added the awful world congress again. (I’ve never liked that). Civ 6 vanilla was actually really good (except for religious combat) and felt like Civ IMO but it was the expansions which ruined it.

 

[Siptah]

In a way, civ 3 destroyed a lot of what civ was about for me. But that happened probably more because of me and my experience back then compared to the game itself. Yet, unique units, attributes, borders, and cultural flipping changed the game a lot indeed. 4 felt close enough to 3, but 5 then played like a very different game at release. It‘s obviously still civ and you‘re right at home as a veteran, but the game changed in fundamental ways. With 6, even more so. And by that time, I was so much accustomed to the new civ games, that the older ones felt wrong in a kind of way. Between 2 and 6, there is a huge leap, and few stones were left unturned. And while I dislike civ 6 nowadays (especially its expansions), I think that huge leap was for the better, and I prefer if new games take the last one as a base and not civ 2 or 4.

 

[AD1730]

I voted for VI. It's not because it doesn't feel like a Civ Game per se, but because it has many mechanics that feel random in relation to other mechanics (as posters above said) and imho don't belong in a Civ game, the ones that spring to mind immediately are gouvernors (which I flippin' detest) and leader agendas.
Gouvernors just feel.... wrong. Way to gimmicky and annoying to handle for me, but impactful enough that I can't just ignore them.
Leader agendas on the other hand just tend to entirely dominate the relationship with another leader, and I think they were handled better in VII, where they're generally more sensible and with enough work you can still befriend and even ally a leader though you fail their agenda.

I won't comment on Civ VII other than that I actually enjoy it (with a bunch of UI-Mods) but wish it was a spin-off, because it sure feels like it.


YES! It's the second worst attempt in the series to balance expansion (global happiness in V being the worst one) when they had the perfect solution in IV with new cities just... costing money before they return the investment.

Civ 6 is bloated. It's the only Civ game that I believe was made worse by its DLC. Too many mechanics shoved together with no connection.

 

[Siptah]

OMG I hated governors with a passion. Basically every new feature that was introduced in R&F was terrible and then RT added the awful world congress again. (I’ve never liked that). Civ 6 vanilla was actually really good (except for religious combat) and felt like Civ IMO but it was the expansions which ruined it.

Agreed. Playing GS is probably the least civ feel for me of all titles.

 

[aieeegrunt]

OMG I hated governors with a passion. Basically every new feature that was introduced in R&F was terrible and then RT added the awful world congress again. (I’ve never liked that). Civ 6 vanilla was actually really good (except for religious combat) and felt like Civ IMO but it was the expansions which ruined it.

Civ 6 is bloated. It's the only Civ game that I believe was made worse by its DLC. Too many mechanics shoved together with no connection.

The Mod Customizarion VI allows you to disable most of the crappy mechanics added in the expansions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The Mod Customizarion VI allows you to disable most of the crappy mechanics added in the expansions.

Mods could do a lot of things, but I believe they are a bit out of scope of this thread.

 

[j51]

The Mod Customizarion VI allows you to disable most of the crappy mechanics added in the expansions.

Yeah that mod is beyond essential! Even if it really nerfs some civs, it’s totally worth it. (And why did the Mapuche of all civs get a bonus related to governors anyway?)

 

[Krikkit1]

Civ3 when they made civ specific units

(which is why Civ 7 returns to it a little bit by allowing me to play with Zeros And Legions in the same game.)

 

[socratic]

OMG I hated governors with a passion. Basically every new feature that was introduced in R&F was terrible and then RT added the awful world congress again. (I’ve never liked that). Civ 6 vanilla was actually really good (except for religious combat) and felt like Civ IMO but it was the expansions which ruined it.

I still play vanilla Civ 6 for single-player games. The Golden Ages alone make some civs so absurdly powerful (looking at Russia and Khmer). The expansion mechanics feel like they were made for multiplayer. The BBG mod keeps most of it (granted after some rebalancing) and it feels way more satisfying.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I voted Civ 7.
Even though I'm a newer player, got into it playing Civ 6, all the older games at least still have that Civilization feel to me which is "building a civilization to stand the test of time". In Civ 7 its "build an empire, made up of 3 different civilizations " to stand the test of time.