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

[Snowygerry]

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.
(...)

That is true yes, there are many "magic" effects, and it's not always clear where they come from, governors grant special abilities, but so do wonders and city states, religion and golden ages etc.

Why is it my workers that could move 5 hexes just a turn ago are suddenly reduced to two ? How was my next door neighbour I intended to rush able to build a city wall in a single turn ? For beginning players these things are not always clear.

Edit, for example in my current game I get free promotions, turns out that is an effect from my military alliance with Victoria which I have maintained throughout the game reaching level 3, this also gives me 15% production toward military units IF either I or my ally are at war, and +5 combat against units of players at war with me or my ally.

In a long game on a large map there are likely hunderds of such effects in play at any one time, almost impossible to keep track of them all and plan accordingly, you really just have to roll with it and see what gives...

The end result is indeed a certain randomness that wasn't there in previous versions of the game, I agree.

 

[fantsu]

V but just because it was the first one that was unplayable at release. It felt rushed for profits cause they knew it could be patched again and again to make it work.

 

[Uberfrog]

All of them feel like Civ games to me, even the CivRevs (not listed).

The specific changes made in Civ 7 may not be popular, but I don’t think they’ve harmed the core appeal of the series for me.

 

[Kev1916]

Depends on how you perceive "Core Identity" -

Civ Vii certainly is the only version created exclusively with the console in mind, and not a very good one at that.

With insidious micro transactions created even before launch .
That alone should be enough to exclude it from any list that mentions "award winning Civ series "

​

 

[trev1972]

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.

I did get fun out of civ 6, but agree with much of this, i can remember being astonished at how poor the AI was.
When you look at the huge success firaxis had with civ 6, it is no surprise 7 went the way it did in my mind

 

[VGT]

24 hours later and 100+ votes in I'm happy I asked this question to the community. While for some of you breaking point was civ games I almost universally adore, it was really interesting to read reasons why particular version doesn't gel with someone and I think it's nice to have this single thread to combine all those various things. It shows that different people like/dislike different things in this series.

As poll results goes, I was expecting civ5 to be first major braking point. Especially with it's rocky start after praised (mostly - as I learn here even civ4 is breaking point for some) civ4. From those years I recall that many stayed with civ4 for a while.

First small surprise was ~10% for civ6. Here I felt it was almost universally liked, but during its lifetime I mostly spent playing it, not reading forums, so this for sure was my personal bubble. I fully understand reasons described for it and maybe even agree. When I would summarize my best civ games, it would be that I loved 4 for a challenge it provided, and then 6 for fun it provided. Challenge left the room so complaining about AI in modern civs I understand.

Second small surprise for me, is that civ5 is not that far behind civ7. Personally with all the other signs I still don't feel it, but maybe a positive can be taken from here that civ7 still has chance for redemption arc knowing civ5 full history at this point.

Bigger surprise for me was that a third still did not encounter their bad civ game. Adding this poll option was almost an afterthought. I wanted mostly to ask which civ failed you assuming there was one for everyone, but just before posting at I realized that maybe this option is also needed. As many post here showed this series went through substantial changes over the decades so that many people saying it's still ok with every iteration is a success I think.

PS. Not closing further discussion in any way. Just instead of responding one by one I wanted to thank through this summary post.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It was a good idea for a poll.

And well executed. I.e. not "Is there any previous number of the series that failed as miserably as 7 has at capturing the core identity of the franchise?"

We had a lot of such polls, with loaded questions, right after release.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I also like that the poll has "Civ 1" option and that this option has some votes. Most likely people just joked, but I see it as declaration that this talk about identity is pretty meaningless.

 

[Siptah]

I also like that the poll has "Civ 1" option and that this option has some votes. Most likely people just joked, but I see it as declaration that this talk about identity is pretty meaningless.

Or that it had not found its identity yet with civ 1. Which might make sense for some people that came to the franchise later on.

 

[Gori the Grey]

We need a new poll: Has the Civ franchise not, in seven iterations, yet managed to find its core identity?

j/k, in case that's not obvious

 

[P_S_]

First small surprise was ~10% for civ6. Here I felt it was almost universally liked, but during its lifetime I mostly spent playing it, not reading forums, so this for sure was my personal bubble. I fully understand reasons described for it and maybe even agree.

I mean on Youtube for example people are very fond of Civ VI, and it still pulls a good player count on Steam alone. So I'd guess generally it's very well regarded by many people, with the picture being more split as seen here when it comes to views on it by older fans.

 

[wilcoxchar]

For me it was Civ 1. I mean really, completely changing up the age system to go way past the iron age and abandoning the ancient era that defined the franchise, a random map instead of a fixed map of the Mediterranean and Middle East, including backwater civs that didn't even exist in the franchise's timeframe like England and the Mongols while ignoring classic and iconic civs from the original game like Assyria and Crete, completely getting rid of really interesting game mechanics like having your food and money be the same tokens and a limited number so that you need to balance population and money or face a tax revolt, instead dumbing it down to where you can produce as much food or money as you want, inorganic city creation where you just build a city with a settler instead of having to reach a population size in a region to found a city, moving from the more flexible region based system of the original Civ to a more rigid tile based system, I could go on. So many things that make Civ 1 spitting on the storied history of the franchise and what the true original Civilization game had built up.



I kid of course. The Avalon Hill Civilization board game was indeed the first and did have some really interesting mechanics like the aforementioned food/money token balancing, and being apparently the first game ever to have a tech or skill tree. But Civ has never lost its core identity, because one of the core identities of the franchise is that it's always changing and trying new things. Incorporating new base mechanics into the game like splitting resources into different roles like strategic or luxury resources, adding cultural borders, a split tech and civic tree, one unit per tile, districts separate from the city center, and the age and civ switching systems is just part and parcel of the franchise and why it has lasted as long as it has. The innovation and iteration of the game over 35 years it what keeps it fresh.

 

[VGT]

@wilcoxchar

 

[Xandinho]

I voted for Civ7 because I think it has been the most disruptive so far. It’s the one that has the least to do with the previous versions of the game.

 

[Skojardu]

I voted 5, because I enjoyed playing 4 before 5 and 6 using 1UPT and now my brain is rewired to dislike stacking after years of playing 5 and 6. I really like 5's art deco aesthetic, (much like I like 7's white marble with gold), but the thin-ness of your empire with one unit per tile screams "game" while 4's vast armies and better map never get into a traffic jam like the "carpets of doom" of 5 and 6. I do agree that the unit promotions are somewhat gamey, but there is enough rock - paper - scissors effects to counteract.

Hexes are trendy, but sadly for me I agree with the truncated post I am inserting here from @Marla_Singer concerning issues of scale perception:

Source: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/why-is-civ4-still-the-best-civ-game.677427/page-7 9th post

"Here are two maps of Europe at about the same scale. With about as many tiles, the square version allow to better picture bottlenecks (Bosporus Strait, Strait of Messina, etc.). See how the (A)Egean islands totally disappeared from the hex map, how Peloponnese is lumped together with Central Greece. It's like everything turns low resolution."

 

[Lebo44]

Civ 5.

While Civs I through IV captured the essence of grand strategy, Civs V through VII shifted focus. With the introduction 1UPT, hexes and districts, the gameplay leaned more toward tactical and operational strategy games.

It’s a bit like comparing Hearts of Iron to Panzer Corps: the former feels vast and strategic, while the latter is more granular and tactical. Since Civ V, the series has gradually lost some of its epic scale and grandeur.

 

[Berrern]

I voted for Civ V. The 1UPT was radical, and while I could live with this, the problem was that the AI forgot how to wage war from this version onwards.

Anyone remember the pre Civ V era, how the AI would suddenly raid you with multiple naval transports packed to the brim with 8 (or was it 6?) land-based units?

IMO CIV IV was the absolute peak of Civilization.

That being said, I'm having a blast with Civ VII, I can't stop playing! It's just a very different identity from what it once had.

 

[uppi]

I also like that the poll has "Civ 1" option and that this option has some votes. Most likely people just joked, but I see it as declaration that this talk about identity is pretty meaningless.

That and the core identity was obviously lost when they got rid of the cardboard.

 

[trev1972]

I voted for Civ V. The 1UPT was radical, and while I could live with this, the problem was that the AI forgot how to wage war from this version onwards.

Anyone remember the pre Civ V era, how the AI would suddenly raid you with multiple naval transports packed to the brim with 8 (or was it 6?) land-based units?

IMO CIV IV was the absolute peak of Civilization.

That being said, I'm having a blast with Civ VII, I can't stop playing! It's just a very different identity from what it once had.

I still remember a civ 4 game, I was playing a tsl game as england and catherine was one of my opponents.

She acted friendly but hit me with a massive surprise attack (and I mean massive)

It was a very long time ago but I think opponents had a 'plotting' mode back then

But they were a real threat, I had a massive tech advantage but still lost london

 

[agonistes]

For me it was 4.

If I ran the franchise, and I think if they want to turn the franchise around, they need to go back to 3, and add in the things from iv and v that worked. I would also incorporate ideas from the more popular mods.

Return it to grand strategy civ building.