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

[trev1972]

I enjoyed 5 and 6, but four was the last to completely grip me.

Seven feels like a continuation of the direction 5 and 6 went to me. It was a step too for me however

 

[Gedemon]

It's about the feeling for me, and the switch was somewhere between 5 and 6, when some immersive layers where stripped of the game and it stopped being about "building an Empire to stand the test of time" to just be "playing a board game on a computer".

Thanks to modding, I could bring back some of the old feeling in civ5, and later in HK, but never in civ6.

civ4 was the last to give me the "core experience" without needing mods.

 

[j51]

Before V playing on tsl maps was a core experience for me but the move to 1upt (which I like mostly) made it feel ‘wrong’.’

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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.

I love V but the caps on city settlement are tear-inducingly ridiculous. In my last game after I had conquered the only other civ on the continent, I was forced to leave off settling vast tracts of land because the Happiness, Culture and Science costs totally offset any advantages of the new cities. So I had this whole continent to myself, but settling more cities would only punish me

 

[queenpea]

I voted VII -- it's the first version of the game which hasn't connected with me and has failed to pull me in.

I think, in a few words, it is because it is less immersive than previous versions. Between civ-switching and the free leader choice, this is the first iteration of the game where I feel credulity has been strained to a breaking point. The tagline of the game is to "build something you believe in", and so far, I just haven't been able to.

 

[P_S_]

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.

Agreed. I find it interesting that it is recommended by most people as the most beginner friendly civ game, when I myself struggle with all the stuff to keep track of when playing with all expansions. That being said, when I tried to get my wife into Civ, we started with VI but didn't click at all; we tried again sometime later with IV and she got hooked quickly. Tried to play VI again and she hates it with a passion. I guess Civ VI is often claimed to be the best entry for beginners because it's the newest title the entry point for many newer fans.
That being said, I found myself enjoying Vanilla a lot back when it launched.

Civ3 when they made civ specific units

That's a wild take! I totally respect it, just didn't expect it at all. Would you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious. (My introduction to civ was essentially Civ Rev where there really aren't uniques.)

I love V but the caps on city settlement are tear-inducingly ridiculous. In my last game after I had conquered the only other civ on the continent, I was forced to leave off settling vast tracts of land because the Happiness, Culture and Science costs totally offset any advantages of the new cities. So I had this whole continent to myself, but settling more cities would only punish me

That mechanic kept me from giving it another try for a long time, but I've come to genuinely enjoy the game as of last year. It's about the mindset of accepting this stain of birdcrap and rolling with it, then it's really fun.

 

[Evie]

Civ never had a franchise core identity beyond "Historically inspired (but not restricted) 4X where famous historical figures control a loosely defined "civilization" that might be a political entity, or a cultural agglutination, or something)."

I fell in love with II not so much for the core gameplay, but for the ease of almost-unlimited modding potential that was accessible to almost anyone - that, to me, was the core back then...right up until III ditched that right out for unit animations and more advanced graphics that immediately shunted total conversion mods out of the reach of the vast majority of people. It was its own game, and it never lived up to what I liked best about II. IV was something of a successor of III (but even then were only loosely related), but was another reinvention, and so on.

I kind of laugh at people who point to V, VI or VII as some sort of breaking point to an established tradition. Breaking point, yes, but one in a long tradition of other breaking points.

 

[Kev1916]

 

[bladex1200]

I would say after Civ 4 the series' core identity was lost. That didn't mean it wasn't fun, but Civ 5 was the first game where the concept of "tall vs wide" (as if the point isn't to be as wide as possible, but being wide has huge difficulties that make it hard to go wide) was taken seriously enough that the base game encouraged tall play out of the gate. That, to me, turned the franchise from a 4x empire builder into more of a board game. And board games are fun! I love board games. But I wouldn't say the core "one more turn" loop is facilitated by board game optimization. Endless growth facilitated the gameplay loop, and V kind of hides the lack of endless growth with endless numbers going up. Still a fun game, but very different from III and IV (which were the entries I grew up with).

 

[aieeegrunt]

7 no question. The previous titles could have various mechanics you may or may not have like to varying degrees, but it was still building an empire to stand the test of time

 

[WeirdDud]

I started with IV BtS, and I dont know if the franchise ever lost its identity wholesale to me from then till now, but the biggest dissonance I've had between theme & mechanics was VI R&F.

 

[Krikkit1]

That's a wild take! I totally respect it, just didn't expect it at all. Would you elaborate? I'm genuinely curious. (My introduction to civ was essentially Civ Rev where there really aren't uniques.)

Well they removed the full althistory sandboxness there. Only Rome could build Legions, only English could have Redcoats, only certain civs were industrial, etc.

After Civ2 the core identity changed, the civs weren’t a label that you got to define anymore, they were a gameplay element decided on by the devs.

 

[Aldor]

I liked the versions up to Civ 5, but I never really got into Civ 6. With 5 (and the earlier versions), and also with Civ BE, it's possible to fire up a game and play through it in a reasonable time (which is 3-4 hours for me). It just doesn't work the same way with 6 for me. Everything takes too long, and in addition it feels like the game is designed to go out of its way to annoy me as a player.

A full Civ 7 game also takes a long time...but at least there you have clear stop points, with each age a separate game for itself. I don't know if 7 will have the same longevity as 5 (or BE) did, but for now I prefer it very much to 6.

 

[MrRadar]

I've voted 5. This was the first civ where AI lost the ability to win all types of victories present in the game and the game started losing immersion and the feel of marching history. Civ 4 was peak. After that only Dark Ages that are getting worse with every iteration.

I was really surprised at the backlash at Civ 7, after all that incomprehensible warm feelings towards Civ 6. Really? Civ 6 has all the beginnings of 7, all the design culture (or absence of it), all the germs of the disease. Awful AI, awful UI, awful post launch support. It is nearly the same game, only in a differently coloured dress. 6 and 7 are not really Civ games, they're both equally worst iterations of the franchise. AI opponents are in no way believable opponents on the world stage in a SP game. They are so incapable that there's not a slightest chance of getting any sort of immersion. They are just plain ridiculous from the start. 6 and 7 are minmaxer's and MP's game. In SP you can win an entire game in quite a short time only playing a fraction of it. Or you can win it in a longer time if you play more of what's in the game. Go figure.

 

[The Civs 6]

3. But I can't put my finger on exactly why. Perhaps because of the graphics.

 

[Evolena]

I kind of laugh at people who point to V, VI or VII as some sort of breaking point to an established tradition. Breaking point, yes, but one in a long tradition of other breaking points.

Or maybe they just can't say because they didn't play Civ back then, which is nothing to laugh at.

 

[Civinator]

For me the decline of the Civ series started with Civ 4, when a look on the map was no longer enough to be informed about the situation during the game cause of these, in my eyes ridiculous, unit promotions that are not fitting to a game with an historical epic scale. Now the UI became a topic because of that problem, as the graphics of a unit due to those ridiculous unit promotions were no longer sufficient to recognize the value of a unit on the map. The following versions added more and more "gaming-wise" features, that had nothing to do with history - on the other side these versions are games and not simulations.

But without doubt for me, the civ series lost its "core identity" with the current form of Civ 7. In its current form the series now should be named "Leader" and no longer "Civilization". The (mostly ridiculous) leaders in the current form of Civ 7 now became the overwhelming dominating part of the game and the civilizations are nearly abolished. Civ 7 in its current form in my eyes lost its connection to history and became a bizarre "wishy-washy game".

There is a reason why the word "Civilization" was wiped out in the new advertisment slogan of Civ 7 that replaced the former powerful slogan of the civ series to build a civilisation, that stands the test of time. This is an additional very obvious sign, that even by the view of Firaxis, Civ 7 has left the traditional way of playing Civilization games - and this is nothing else than changing its "core identity". Civilization now is no longer Civilization, but the game "Leader".

On the other side, for Civ 7 in my eyes it is not too late to bring it on a better path to regain its "core identity". A model for the evolution of civs instead of the current bizarre transformation of civs (combined with mostly ridiculous leaders), could be the Civ 3 mod CCM 3, that now is nearing the 10,000 downloads mark at CFC.

May be you have noticed, that this post contains several times the word ridiculous, but the peak here in my eyes is the current form of Civ 7. The current Civ 7 in my eyes unfortunately is ridicolous.

 

[Xur]

The loss of workers and “unpacking” of cities in civ6 is where the cracks started appearing for me. I still played that game, but it never engaged me like previous games. I never bought civ7 because I hate civ switching and it’s hardly a 4x game at all.

 

[KingKarikatus]

For me the decline of the Civ series started with Civ 4, when a look on the map was no longer enough to be informed about the situation during the game cause of these, in my eyes ridiculous, unit promotions that are not fitting to a game with an historical epic scale. Now the UI became a topic because of that problem, as the graphics of a unit due to those ridiculous unit promotions were no longer sufficient to recognize the value of a unit on the map. The following versions added more and more "gamy" features, that had nothing to do with history - on the other side these versions are games and no simulations.

But without doubt for me, the civ series lost its "core identity" with the current form of Civ 7. In its current form the series now should be named "Leaders" and no longer "Civilization". The (mostly ridiculous) leaders in the current form of Civ 7 now became the overwhelming dominating part of the game and the civilizations are nearly abolished. Civ 7 in its current form in my eyes lost its connection to history and became a bizarre "wishi washi game". There is a reason why the word "Civilization" was wiped out in the new advertisment slogan of Civ 7 that replaced the powerful slogan of the former civ series to build a civilisation, that stands the test of time.

On the other side, for Civ 7 in my eyes it is not too late to bring it on a better path to regain its "core identity". A model for the evolution of civs instead of the current bizarre transformation of civs (combined with mostly ridiculous leaders), could be the Civ 3 mod CCM 3, that now is nearing the 10,000 downloads mark at CFC.

May be you have noticed, that this post contains several times the word ridiculous, but the peak here in my eyes is the current form of Civ 7.

I can't agree more. In the 4th civ the decline has begun and every game added some illogical stuff. Civ 4 had unit stacking without "kill one, kill all" feature. Civ 5 added self-defending cities. Civ 6...added city founding limitations.
And Civ 7.....really the only role of "leaders" I remember was that they were pictures on negotiation screen. And now? Make a Civ game about them? Also, I think many already mentioned it here, the civ swiching should be voluntary or removed entirely. And legacy paths also sound ridiculous. Tasks? Really? YOU are the one chosing what your goals will be, NOT the game.

 

[Snowygerry]

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

I wouldn't say that - I'm just a casual player, a single civ game can take several months, currently I am happily playing Civ 6 I'm nowhere near done with it, as such I haven't felt the need to even try Civ 7, that is not a reflection of the quality of the new game, just of my slow gaming style