Why Civilization 7 Fundamentally Failed: A Case of Fixing What Wasn’t Broken

[SalzStange]

Civilization 7 stands as a textbook example of how trying to improve everything can lead to losing the soul of what made a game great. In their ambition to leave a mark and “modernize” the franchise, the new development team made the classic mistake of replacing rather than refining. Instead of building upon the solid foundation that Civilization 6 left behind, they attempted to reinvent the wheel — and in doing so, discarded many of the systems and design philosophies that longtime fans loved.

This is a common pitfall for new development teams inheriting a well-established franchise. There’s often a strong desire to put their own spin on things, to distance themselves from the legacy of their predecessors, and to prove that they too can innovate. However, this eagerness can backfire when it leads to drastic changes that alienate the core fanbase. In Civilization 7’s case, the attempt to "improve" every mechanic resulted in a game that feels unfamiliar, disjointed, and stripped of the strategic depth and charm that defined the series.

In short, Civilization 7 didn’t fail because it aimed too low — it failed because it aimed too high, trying to be revolutionary when it only needed to be evolutionary.

[TigerRus]

Well said !!

[Bandit17]

You don't even own the game and from what you have written I can tell you have very little time or knowledge on it. Not to mention your definition of "fail" is very different from those that actually matter. You know, those holding the purse strings.

This type of behavior shows that you feel personally hurt due to having a game not made in your image because it's the only reason to hang around a game's forum when you don't like the game and don't plan to play it.

[SalzStange]

Originally posted by Bandit17:

You don't even own the game and from what you have written I can tell you have very little time or knowledge on it. Not to mention your definition of "fail" is very different from those that actually matter. You know, those holding the purse strings.

This type of behavior shows that you feel personally hurt due to having a game not made in your image because it's the only reason to hang around a game's forum when you don't like the game and don't plan to play it.

You'd realize that if you read the reviews. I refunded the game and I'm keeping an eye on it to see if it ever becomes a proper Civilization again.

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by SalzStange:

You'd realize that if you read the reviews. I refunded the game and I'm keeping an eye on it to see if it ever becomes a proper Civilization again.

I looked at your reviews and it didn't show up. My guess is by "proper" you mean without core mechanics that are at the core of what makes it what it is.

[SalzStange]

Originally posted by Bandit17:

Originally posted by SalzStange:

You'd realize that if you read the reviews. I refunded the game and I'm keeping an eye on it to see if it ever becomes a proper Civilization again.

I looked at your reviews and it didn't show up. My guess is by "proper" you mean without core mechanics that are at the core of what makes it what it is.

It wouldn’t be fair to leave a negative review I couldn’t revise later just because I refunded the game. I genuinely want to give it a fair shot, which is why I’m still keeping an eye on it and regularly checking in with friends who didn’t refund because they bought a key

When I say "proper," I mean the core mechanics the base game had over the years—the original vision Sid Meier had in mind.

- There needs to be a civilization that you build up over time—not something that constantly changes or resets.
- There should be no regression when entering a new era. This whole "Age-to-Age" mechanic feels completely off.
- A good UI is a must (I know it’s being worked on).
- Big maps are essential.
- Mixing random leaders with civs that don’t match? That needs to go.
- Religion needs to be back.
- Less casual—more depth for core gamers.

Let’s get back to Civilization!

Optional (not everyone may want it, but I think it would be a great addition):
Bring back builders and citizen pops.

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by SalzStange:

It wouldn’t be fair to leave a negative review I couldn’t revise later just because I refunded the game. I genuinely want to give it a fair shot, which is why I’m still keeping an eye on it and regularly checking in with friends who didn’t refund because they bought a key

When I say "proper," I mean the core mechanics the base game had over the years—the original vision Sid Meier had in mind.

- There needs to be a civilization that you build up over time—not something that constantly changes or resets.
- There should be no regression when entering a new era. This whole "Age-to-Age" mechanic feels completely off.
- A good UI is a must (I know it’s being worked on).
- Big maps are essential.
- Mixing random leaders with civs that don’t match? That needs to go.
- Religion needs to be back.
- Less casual—more depth for core gamers.

Let’s get back to Civilization!

Optional (not everyone may want it, but I think it would be a great addition):
Bring back builders and citizen pops.

Do you know why the Age system was put in Civ 7?

So let me get this straight. Russia can build the Pyramids, America can found Taoism, the map looks nothing like Earth but Isabella leading Mexico?! Now that is a step too far!

You also state lack of strategical depth which actually flies in the face of what you are saying because Civ7 is much more of a strategy game than any previous Civ. There are a lot more meaningful choices to be made throughout a play-through and this right here shows your lack of time and knowledge on the game.

Other than stating the obvious issues almost everyone agrees on it looks like you just want to play Civ 5 or 6.

[Bhole]

I own TWO copies of the game and I agree with the OP, differing only that I don't give the Devs that much credit for intending to 'modernize' the game. Sounds a lot more like every single step of the way they completely ignored any and all feedback and forced their own vision of what they thought a CIV game should be. That's Hubris, not Vision. But I'm 99.99% with OP.

[jariel]

The reason you think that the game failed is because its too hard for you, you cant hit all those paths and futures, couldnt manage crisis and age change setted you back and it hurted your fifis, lets just keep this honest.

[Mirmel]

If this title was "Civilization 1", I would have said this is one of the best games ever made.

If when they made the sequel, "Civilization 2", they added a truly seamless experience where you could play the same civilization from start to finish in more of a sandbox experience, I would have said that they took the franchise to the next level and given it a 10/10 score.

But then, this alternate reality is just that. Alternate.
They made a really good game in Civ 7 if judged in a vacuum. But some core mechanics were, to me (and I suspect many others also), a plain downgrade from what made the previous titles feel fun and interesting.

The improvements they made in this title does not do enough to offset the deviation from the formula.

[SalzStange]

Originally posted by Bhole:

I own TWO copies of the game and I agree with the OP, differing only that I don't give the Devs that much credit for intending to 'modernize' the game. Sounds a lot more like every single step of the way they completely ignored any and all feedback and forced their own vision of what they thought a CIV game should be. That's Hubris, not Vision. But I'm 99.99% with OP.

This.

It is a very well-known problem among new lead dev with new dev's taking over a very successful franchise. Instead of gathering feedback from the community, they try to make the game even better than it is, they replace what has been perfected so far with ideas the community never asked for, thereby destroying the core of a franchise..

Civilization 7 hardly has anything to do with Civilization anymore

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by SalzStange:

It's not about that, it's just too casual for a lot of core players. This isn't the main issue. It's fixable. Same with the UI.

It is a very well-known problem among new lead dev with new dev's taking over a very successful franchise. Instead of gathering feedback from the community, they try to make the game even better than it is, they replace what has been perfected so far with ideas the community never asked for, thereby destroying the core of a franchise..

Civilization 7 hardly has anything to do with Civilization anymore

just because the micro of workers and religion were greatly reduced does not make a game more casual. That micro was replaced by more brain food in the decision making process. Influence, leaders, civs, momento's, a ticking clock (Age's) and city planning all add more strategical weight.

You do know Ed Beach was lead on this and he also worked on previous civs. Most notably the civ 5 expansions. So he is not "new".

Finally, according to Wiki Civ 7 hits all the major points of what makes a Civ game a Civ game.

[Bhole]

Originally posted by Bandit17:

Originally posted by SalzStange:

You do know Ed Beach was lead on this and he also worked on previous civs. Most notably the civ 5 expansions. So he is not "new".

Finally, according to Wiki Civ 7 hits all the major points of what makes a Civ game a Civ game.

I once worked at a Burger King, that didn't qualify me to run the company or relaunch the Whopper as New Whopper, but with turkey meat. and seriously... "wiki" ? really... c'mon.

[rodcooper76]

Can't believe that they just made a CIV rip-off of Humankind.

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by Bhole:

Originally posted by Bandit17:

I once worked at a Burger King, that didn't qualify me to run the company or relaunch the Whopper as New Whopper, but with turkey meat. and seriously... "wiki" ? really... c'mon.

So you dispute this then?

"All titles in the series share similar gameplay, centered on building a civilization on a macro-scale from prehistory up to the near future. Each turn allows the player to move their units on the map, build or improve new cities and units, and initiate negotiations with the human or computer-controlled players. The player will also choose technologies to research. These reflect the cultural, intellectual, and technical sophistication of the civilization, and usually allow the player to build new units or to improve their cities with new structures. In most games in the series, one may win by military conquest, achieving a certain level of culture, building an interstellar space ship, or achieving the highest score, among other means. Later games have introduced gameplay concepts and victories based on religion, economics, and diplomacy. Meier had adapted an approach for each new title so that it contains a third of existing features, another third that are improvements from the previous game, and the remaining third as introducing new features."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(series)

[keviinb]

"Why Civilization 7 Fundamentally Failed: A Case of Fixing What Wasn’t Broken"

Sort off the 1/3 ruled was obliterated in this mess.

Fundamentally this is almost a console port , and that is there main aim.

This version sadly is just to easy, linear and just well boring .

Best for casual multi players who enjoy a meta and leveling up toons.

to quote from the fanatics

" If there’s one recurring criticism from players who have made it to the end of a game it’s this: Civilization VII is too easy.
However, even those who’ve cranked the difficulty all the way up to Deity are complaining that it’s not as challenging as its predecessor
It’s just one of many threads on various forums claiming Civilization VII is too easy. “I had never won a Civ game on Deity in my life (been playing since Civ 2),” writes another player on the Civfanatics forum. "I didn’t even try Deity because Immortal was already a tough challenge for me.

Civ Vii wow won on first go, also being forced into the same choices will rapidly become boring

“In CIV7? I played two games on Deity—one with Amina + Aksumite, another with Ashoka + Persia—and won both with no difficulty.”