Is this the end?

[grumble]

I have been playing Civ since Christmas 1991 when the first version was given to me as a present.
I have loved every version since then - each new version was a shock but eventually I always came to love the latest version the most.
Consequently I have been looking forward to Civ 7 until now.
But they seem to be intending Civ 7 to be called a Civ game but actually to be nothing of the sort.
They seem to think what we want is not a game in the Civ tradition but a sort of poor man's Humankind (which I gave up on after 24 hours)
Yet I see people are pre-ordering it - I can only assume they have not seen how awful it looks.
They are entitled to make a completely different game aimed at a completely different type of player but it is perverse to call it Sid Meier's Civ.
(Will we ever know what Sid thinks of this tragedy?)
It looks to me like this is the end of the REAL Civ story

[Zero, Dark Knight]

No it's not the end, the game is highly successful and in the top 10 sales charts of Steam, will also be in the high sales end of PS5 and Switch and Xbox

Next.

[ParabolaWaVe]

Rather than the end, it could be a new beginning. Big gaming is in creative decline for a while, AI is taking over from human developers with real creativity and, honestly, it looks like the indie scene is the future once again.

In decades past, computer games were the work of two friends selling floppies from home. Maybe the small guys need and deserve once again a chance, taking the place of the big multinationals that took over gaming while they take the exit door.

Strategy is a friendly genre towards indie developers, after all. I don't think we'll be left with no games to play.

[Zero, Dark Knight]

Originally posted by The Gray Fox:

Originally posted by Zero, Dark Knight:

No it's not the end, the game is highly successful and in the top 10 sales charts of Steam, will also be in the high sales end of PS5 and Switch and Xbox

Next.

The game getting lots of preorders isn't evidence that its a success. Civilization is a household brand name when it comes to video games it topping the charts when it comes to presales isn't even a surprise. They could hand us ♥♥♥♥ in a box and most would preorder it.

When a year down the line the game's playerbase looks like Humankind's, preorders aren't going to save it

Share holders and gamers have very different ideas of "Success"
Gamers just want something fun and playable.

Share holders want a return on investment in either flat cash (stock value) or dividend payments.

This game is very much a success, for the developers.

If it's one for the players. Who knows? Have to wait until it's launched. I think players will like it though.

[Brahlam]

Lol, what a ridiculous thing to say. Dont buy it man... especially saying you opposed any iteration so far and then started to love it, just wait for a free weekend then, like they always happen, and build your opinion then. Deciding this on a few images and what you think this will play like when you have no first hand knowledge and experience is poor decision making.

[magnumaniac]

Civilization, as a franchise, ended when they changed to hexes and 1UPT. The releases since then have been generic 4x games with little to recommend.

Fortunately, all releases up to Civ 4 (including SMAC) can be played without online requirements and will therefore remain available to me forever.

[Shepard-Commander]

Originally posted by Zero, Dark Knight:

Originally posted by The Gray Fox:

The game getting lots of preorders isn't evidence that its a success. Civilization is a household brand name when it comes to video games it topping the charts when it comes to presales isn't even a surprise. They could hand us ♥♥♥♥ in a box and most would preorder it.

When a year down the line the game's playerbase looks like Humankind's, preorders aren't going to save it

Share holders and gamers have very different ideas of "Success"
Gamers just want something fun and playable.

Share holders want a return on investment in either flat cash (stock value) or dividend payments.

This game is very much a success, for the developers.

If it's one for the players. Who knows? Have to wait until it's launched. I think players will like it though. :2017stickyhotdog::lunar2019deadpanpig:

You have no idea what sales numbers are now. It's pretty easy for a AAA title to get in the top 10 when nothing else is going on.

[Oliver]

Originally posted by grumble:

I have been playing Civ since Christmas 1991 when the first version was given to me as a present.
I have loved every version since then - each new version was a shock but eventually I always came to love the latest version the most.
Consequently I have been looking forward to Civ 7 until now.
But they seem to be intending Civ 7 to be called a Civ game but actually to be nothing of the sort.
They seem to think what we want is not a game in the Civ tradition but a sort of poor man's Humankind (which I gave up on after 24 hours)
Yet I see people are pre-ordering it - I can only assume they have not seen how awful it looks.
They are entitled to make a completely different game aimed at a completely different type of player but it is perverse to call it Sid Meier's Civ.
(Will we ever know what Sid thinks of this tragedy?)
It looks to me like this is the end of the REAL Civ story

By comparing Civ7 to Humankind I assume you're referring to the switching of civilizations at the end of ages and the decoupling of civilizations from leaders.

my initial reaction was that these mechanics would destroy historic immersion.

Which is a big deal for me as I only play TSL Earth and enjoy realism.

However, there appears to be some capability of controlling what civs you can switch to.

This means that even if the vanilla game allows you to do ahistorical civ switches.

The modding community can create chains that would be more realistic.

For example:

Rome > France || Portugal || Spain

Modders could even add the possibility to continue as the civ you were in the previous era but with some additional era specific buffs.

I preordered the founders edition and after playing for a bit to familiarize myself with the mechanics, I'll immediately be diving into the code of these mechanics.

I honestly believe these mechanics will allow modding community to make this the best civ game of all time.

[Zero, Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Shepard-Commander:

You have no idea what sales numbers are now. It's pretty easy for a AAA title to get in the top 10 when nothing else is going on.

Fair, we can't take anything an average user of Steam says at true value or any specific value or quality.

...
...
you're also an average user of Steam.

[Bartoccioni]

Oliver says: "I honestly believe these mechanics will allow modding community to make this the best civ game of all time."

---
The problem is that expecting this to be a good game because of the mods is not a good thing... Firstly, the game itself should already be good, without needing "fixes"

Secondly, if it depends on mods, from what we're seeing with what has already been shown and the example that was Civ 6, this game will have more DLCs than ever! And each new DLC can make a mod become incompatible and need an update... And from what we're seeing in the amount of topics, comments and people furious with this game, I believe that many modders won't stay in Civ 7 for long and their mods will stop being updated one by one as they migrate to other games or simply give up on Civ 7.

[Shepard-Commander]

Originally posted by Oliver:

Originally posted by grumble:

I have been playing Civ since Christmas 1991 when the first version was given to me as a present.
I have loved every version since then - each new version was a shock but eventually I always came to love the latest version the most.
Consequently I have been looking forward to Civ 7 until now.
But they seem to be intending Civ 7 to be called a Civ game but actually to be nothing of the sort.
They seem to think what we want is not a game in the Civ tradition but a sort of poor man's Humankind (which I gave up on after 24 hours)
Yet I see people are pre-ordering it - I can only assume they have not seen how awful it looks.
They are entitled to make a completely different game aimed at a completely different type of player but it is perverse to call it Sid Meier's Civ.
(Will we ever know what Sid thinks of this tragedy?)
It looks to me like this is the end of the REAL Civ story

By comparing Civ7 to Humankind I assume you're referring to the switching of civilizations at the end of ages and the decoupling of civilizations from leaders.

my initial reaction was that these mechanics would destroy historic immersion.

Which is a big deal for me as I only play TSL Earth and enjoy realism.

However, there appears to be some capability of controlling what civs you can switch to.

This means that even if the vanilla game allows you to do ahistorical civ switches.

The modding community can create chains that would be more realistic.

For example:

Rome > France || Portugal || Spain

Modders could even add the possibility to continue as the civ you were in the previous era but with some additional era specific buffs.

I preordered the founders edition and after playing for a bit to familiarize myself with the mechanics, I'll immediately be diving into the code of these mechanics.

I honestly believe these mechanics will allow modding community to make this the best civ game of all time.

If I ever hear the phrase "modders will fix it" ever again...

[gromenawer]

Having a good name, good hype, and previous good record is not guarantee of not flopping.

- Sim City 2013 was also hyped, and had a lot of activity at launch. The franchise is now dead. And the torch went to Paradox which also killed it with Cities Skylines II, despise the success of the previous one.

- Diablo III couldn't be more hyped, also successful release, great critic scores, and it took 10 years to recover.

- More recently, Mass Effect: Andromeda. Super hyped, everyone loved the idea; total flop.

- Kerbal Space Program II.

I played Civilization since the first installment, have thousand upon thousand of hours, and it the series that got me hook to other grand strategy games. I would hate to see it dying like that. But as of right now, I only see a game with terminal cancer metastasize in the whole gameplay, asking for more than $70 (dlcs not included) so it can pay for it operation.

Not good.

[Navy~]

Civ was best when it tried to recreate our human society through different systems. Now everything is about chosing a PERK , 5% culture , 10 % research its like they switched from being realistic to being a mobile game with this kind of gameplay.

They oversimplified everything. No workers/builders, remember when in civ 4 you could transit from cottages to mines/farms? basicaly switching from an economic powerhouse to a more production based economy , well that was nice. Now you can't even chop a tree to plant a farm instead of a lumber mill ? really ? In civ 6 we had a ton of unique improvements, if you wanted faith you went with monasteries , nazca lines etc, if you wanted culture you had others but now ?

No barbarians? I can't think of a more iconic thing in a civ game than being rushed by barbs.

Leaders with different PERKS like its a card game or something. Everyting is a PERK now, instead of fun systems that would put your brain on use mode.

All youtubers keep saying this London scenario where it changed hands under different rulers at some point in history, ok.. they went for realism here and forgot all about it the next day? Nothing is realistic anymore.

3 ages , no more medieval, renaissance, industriaal. No, now we have 3 gamified ages, for prosperity.

Cap on cities ? really ? Let me choose playing tall/wide not place a cap on it. Imagine the Mongols if they had a cap on cities. "Wait Genghis, of United States, you can't conquer anymore cities or we will suffer -50% culture -50% happiness and a -5% diplomacy with Benjamin Franklin of Mali".

Sadly they lost their ways. Can't wait for this generation of developers to go do something else for a change. It feels like every game is going into the ground these days. Generation Pokemon.

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Bartoccioni:

Oliver says: "I honestly believe these mechanics will allow modding community to make this the best civ game of all time."

---
The problem is that expecting this to be a good game because of the mods is not a good thing... Firstly, the game itself should already be good, without needing "fixes"

Secondly, if it depends on mods, from what we're seeing with what has already been shown and the example that was Civ 6, this game will have more DLCs than ever! And each new DLC can make a mod become incompatible and need an update... And from what we're seeing in the amount of topics, comments and people furious with this game, I believe that many modders won't stay in Civ 7 for long and their mods will stop being updated one by one as they migrate to other games or simply give up on Civ 7.

Well I haven't played a vanilla game of Civ since the 1000 ad scenario in Civ4. I wouldn't expect this game to be any different.

I personally find Civ5 and Civ6 to be unplayable without my collection of mods. But that's because of my preference for realism.

The vanilla versions served as great foundations though and today I actually enjoy playing Civ6 as much as I did Civ5

Just enjoy the odd vanilla upon release and tweak to your preference. This has always been my experience with the civ series.

[bumbaclad]

civ5 vanilla fan here; thought the dlcs ruined it. Civ6 districting sounded great in theory but just made the game a mess of prerequisite conditions and that coupled with the broken economy and progressive distortion of history and language just made that a stinker of a game.

Humankind was terrible so definitely a concern. It sounds like they are doing this so the research gaps get closed to make a more 'fair' game but really it just disincentives research specializations so I hope they balance for that issue and it turns out better than it sounds; but it does sound like an awful change that really goes against the heart of what civilization has been.

The troop engagement system, which hopefully inst just an artistic change, would be a huge improvement to what we've had in the past which was just hurry up and spam bombardment while the turn loads.

I'd say civ likely ended with 6 but I am still trying to be optimistic however much they never fail to disappoint.

[wickliffce02]

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

Civilization, as a franchise, ended when they changed to hexes

Hexes are the bread and butter of many, many physical and electronic games. The hexagon can be perfectly tessilated and also vastly better represents facing over a rectangular grid.