Classic mode

[Darkboss]

Age system is really divisive

Please start working on giving us a Classic mode where we can play a single Civ from start to finish.

I am not asking anything to be removed from those that like the new system, but this doesnt feel like Civilization for a lot of us

[parent child bowl]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

Originally posted by Yoni the Hero:

imo there is no point in paying 70$ or even worse, 130$ just for a fresh coat of paint, im glad the game is different and it should be, because if im paying this much, it better not pull a fifa on me, and if i want my good original civ, ill play 6, or even 5 if im feeling adventurous. i just finished my first game as xerxes king of kings and had a great time.

I am glad you are having a great time, my proposal doesnt remove anything from your experience

That's incorrect. Your mode costs resources that could be used to improve the things Yoni paid for.

Introducing a new mode will always have the bitter aftertaste of the main mode being worse than it could be because of it.

[Larkis]

Originally posted by TyCobb:

Originally posted by Anonymous:

It's hard because a lot of the game's features are tied to the ages system. Things like legacy paths, crises, and tech trees. FXS will undoubtedly supplement this system with DLC and expansions.

Eh, Humankind did it. Humankind's biggest downfall was the fact that they would not allow duplicate cultures in the same game. There was always a chance the AI grabbed a culture you were planning on using, but that was also due to how much they planted their feet in that mechanic with the dynamic empire names and whatnot.

Civ 7 has the different civs, but if they just make it the AI can't take a civ already chosen, I don't think a player that wants to play Russia is going to be mad the AI already beat them to it if they are allowed to still choose it.

In terms of crisis, I bet most already turn it off. lol

Legacy paths can just be one giant track of milestones that give attributes. There's no reset so there's no need for all of the dark age / golden age stuff. If you're trailing in science that's on you and the AI will punish you just like in every other civ game. Wars magically ending, cities converted back to towns, units randomly upgrading, etc is just stupid as it stands right now.

For the tech trees.... combine them :WH3_greasus_rofl:

In CIv 7 all Nations swap at the same time. In Singleplayer, the player can choice first his new civ, so it would not happen that the Ai get a Civ, the players want.

[MagicHp]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

I know that resources are limited, but since the amount of people that dislike the feature is big enough, i think it is reasonable to ask that a portion of the Dev time is used to provide content for that portion too

There are examples of Civilizations not changing names for several milleniums. China, Greece are two examples. If anything, the weird thing would be to keep the same LEADER for 6k years

Where do you get that "the amount of people that dislike the feature is big enough" ? Is that just based on the Steam forums ? Because those are obviously known to be a perfect representation of each and everyone's opinion if course ^^

China wasn't united for a very long time, although it was considered a defined geographical place for a very long time, it has not been considered a full-fledged "civilisation" for 6000 years, not even close.

Greece was indeed an old civilisation, but that one died a long time ago and turned into a simple country that has not much influence outside of its borders.

Originally posted by G3N0:

Its weird to you that a Civ doesnt change its name but not weird to you that Harriet Tubman is in Rome?

It is indeed weird, but quite not as much as having the same leader in power for 6000 years ;)
That is a part of the game aspect of this, you can't change that without changing the basis of the game, and this is not Crusader Kings.
Besides, having Harriet, Napoleon or anyone in any civilisation thousand of years before they were born IRL is just a way to easily select the base specs of the civilisation you are building.
Game mechanics are weird, but some of that weirdness can be avoided sometimes.

[Flash]

I would like this as well. If they had just added a few new features, increased graphics and did not do the changing civ thingy, their game wouldve been a massive success for the majority (and the ones liking the swapping civs wouldnt have seen this new idea)..

Love the glossy graphics although the interface shouldve been plain single coloured or with a shifting color with some transparency so is not as distracting as this. Probably a mod in a month or 2 :)

[DadouXIII]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

I know that resources are limited, but since the amount of people that dislike the feature is big enough, i think it is reasonable to ask that a portion of the Dev time is used to provide content for that portion too

You have 6 other Civ games you could play without an age system.
You can let us have this one.

[Flash]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Originally posted by Darkboss:

I know that resources are limited, but since the amount of people that dislike the feature is big enough, i think it is reasonable to ask that a portion of the Dev time is used to provide content for that portion too

You have 6 other Civ games you could play without an age system.
You can let us have this one.

Sure. Just refund my money buddy..
Its a 1 off game that broke the fundamental objective of a Civilization game.. it became a Civilizations game... and cherry on top with absurd bugs a plenty
Change it to EA, give a discount instead of saying its full release and people will be more agreeable. But again.. its a 1 off. if they changed the system permanently, Good bye Civ series

[DadouXIII]

Steam has a refund function, make use of that.

[Flash]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Steam has a refund function, make use of that.

Its a civ game. By the time your looking at the features and wondering how to customize your game it goes beyond the refund time.
One would think a guy arguing for a game would know a bit more of how improbable his statement would be for most players.

Steam also started rejecting refunds after many players started requesting refunds over the time limit stating how civ games go over the time limit easily (something that they would at times agree even if against their general policy)

[DadouXIII]

In that case, why did you buy the game before learning about it beforehand?
All the features and information were out there for months so you could make an informed purchase.

[Tikigod]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Originally posted by Darkboss:

I know that resources are limited, but since the amount of people that dislike the feature is big enough, i think it is reasonable to ask that a portion of the Dev time is used to provide content for that portion too

You have 6 other Civ games you could play without an age system.
You can let us have this one.

Is it a Civilization game though?

Rather than just retype the same thing yet again:

The Civ 7 approach is a lot more goofy and disruptive from a engagement perceptive as you're now not playing as a Civilisation that you're managing through human history.

The game is designed to put you in a role of playing as an immortal RPG character wearing the skin suit of a historical figurehead that hops around timelines ruling 3 different nations across a single campaign like some kind of bureaucratic Doctor Who on a quest to max out their skill progression tree.

In previous incarnations of Civilisation, yes your nations leader was immortal, but they were also a figurehead representation of a singular nation throughout that entire campaign of human history.

Napoleon wasn't Napoleon, he was a figurehead manifestation of the French civilisation as it stood in that chosen campaign and represented all that the French had achieved across history.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't Abraham Lincoln. He was a figurehead used in that campaign to represent all the United States stood for as a civilisation in that campaign.


It worked. Largely because you were playing a single civilisation throughout history, start to finish.

So having some iconic consistent representation of that very civilisation made sense.



In Civilisation 7, you're not playing as a Civilisation that you're leading through history anymore. You're playing as a time travelling time lord with so much of the game designed to focus on that character and RPG mechanic with intentional effort made in the games design to disconnect you from the civilisation you're meant to be playing as.

Which acts as a constant reminder that you aren't playing Civilisation anymore.

And the Civ 7 'Era system' as a mechanic:

Benjamin Franklin rules the Greek civilisation and builds the Pyramids.

The Greeks are then faced with a massive upheaval but manage to overcome it and remain affluent as a civilisation but their civilisation collapses anyway because of magical dragons. Greece no longer exists as a nation or a culture for the rest of history.

Benjamin Franklin then forms the Mongolian culture from what remains of Greece.

The Mongols build Notre dame before they're also faced with a massive upheaval, they manage to also overcome it and remain affluent as a civilisation but it collapses anyways this time because of a wizard. The Mongolians no longer exist as a nation or a culture for the rest of history.

Not to be disheartened Benjamin takes the tattered remains of the Mongols and founds the Mexican culture.

Under the guidance of Benjamin Franklin, Mexicans build the manhattan project becoming the worlds first nuclear super power. And dominate the world fearing reality bending Dragons and Wizards no more.

Where exactly is the Civilization game series here?

How is a 4x game with stronger focus on playing a timeline hopping historical figure leading different disjointed nations through history, a 'Civilization game'?

Let's not confuse "Am I still having fun?" with "Is this actually a Civilization game?".

As the two are completely different questions with answers that have no relation to each other.

[Central]

Originally posted by Flash:

I would like this as well. If they had just added a few new features, increased graphics and did not do the changing civ thingy, their game wouldve been a massive success for the majority (and the ones liking the swapping civs wouldnt have seen this new idea)..

Love the glossy graphics although the interface shouldve been plain single coloured or with a shifting color with some transparency so is not as distracting as this. Probably a mod in a month or 2 :)

no, if they did that than it should have been an expansion for civ 6.
also, currently it is on 51% positive, and many of the negative reviews call out other topics than civ changing, so it seems that the majority actually likes the change.

[metropolitan75002]

Originally posted by Yoni the Hero:

why not just play civ 6 or 5?

That's not really a fair argument as those games can only get old.

I was a big fan of the series from Civ 1 to Civ 4. But the game was very different then, it was a grand strategy Empire builder at global scale. With Civ5, the game started to grow more tactical, at a narrower scale, with hexes and 1 unit-per-tile, that was reinforced in Civ6 with districts and in Civ7 cities are totally unstacked giving the feeling that we live in a miniature world.

And those who enjoyed the epic scale that the series had until Civ4 are just lost forever. There's an impressive active community still playing the game 20 years after, continuing to mod it, but gosh the graphics are so dated. It feels like being stuck in the past.

[Central]

Originally posted by metropolitan75002:

Originally posted by Yoni the Hero:

why not just play civ 6 or 5?

That's not really a fair argument as those games can only get old.

I was a big fan of the series from Civ 1 to Civ 4. But the game was very different then, it was a grand strategy Empire builder at global scale. With Civ5, the game started to grow more tactical, at a narrower scale, with hexes and 1 unit-per-tile, that was reinforced in Civ6 with districts and in Civ7 cities are totally unstacked giving the feeling that we live in a miniature world.

And those who enjoyed the epic scale that the series had until Civ4 are just lost forever. There's an impressive active community still playing the game 20 years after, continuing to mod it, but gosh the graphics are so dated. It feels like being stuck in the past.

but in that case you never really wanted a civ 7, you wanted a remaster of civ 4.
a new entree in a series is supposed to do things differently, otherwise it should just be either an expansion or a remaster.

[thrr]

There is absolutely no question that the shift introduced in Civ 7 is massive.

They have changed the spirit and essence of what made this a very successful series throughout all these years (I have played all the games that have come out in the series, including AC and BE)

All Civ games before, from 1 to 6, are consistent in their premise, despite also introducing big and divise changes at times.

This has changed with Civ 7.

This is no longer a “Civilization” game (and this is indisputable). Yes, we can argue about it all you want, of course there is some subjectivity around this point of view, in the end .. just semantics) This is a different game. Period.

Now, this doesn’t mean this new offering results in a bad game. Not at all. In particular once the patches and upgrades and DLCs start rolling in. I am pretty sure the game will be very decent, even really fun and memorable for a lot of people. I sincerely hope the game is a resounding success and wish the absolute best to Firaxis and the entire design and development team.

But Civ 7 is not and will never be seen as a natural and worthy successor to what we have seen in the series so far.

And this breaks a decades long tradition.

And this is not what the majority of the long-term fans were expecting, which explains why a lot of people that eagerly consumed reviews and advanced coverage ahead of the launch, had faith that, despite everything that came out that worried them, this would still, somehow, pull it off and be that worthy next entry in the series.

You can only hope that Firaxis will look at all the feedback they are receiving and find a way to make room for both Civ 7 (as more of a spin-off / derivative title) and work on making Civ 8 that next entry the series truly deserves.

[Flash]

Originally posted by Central:

no, if they did that than it should have been an expansion for civ 6.
also, currently it is on 51% positive, and many of the negative reviews call out other topics than civ changing, so it seems that the majority actually likes the change.

Because civ changing was the core explanation in the initial trailer as well? Just because its the core doesnt mean that people like it.
People also buy things in the hope that the highly reputed company with a history of good games with consistent quality and delivery, with a consistent delivery towards the vision each of their games would find a way to make the loyal fan base still show loyalty and trust towards the game.

NOT a CONCEPT game priced at AAA price using the player base as their testers. Furthermore people did not even have a chance to get used to this concept because of unimplemented features, and the torrent of bugs in the game. You cant change the core... but u can fix the bugs..... so of course threads are of the other issues.

Also NO... your wrong. There are multiple threads talking exactly how you should go back to Civ 5 or in rare cases Civ 6 (people hate some features in Civ 6) because the civ changing is dumb. Its not world ending ... but it was a choice... poorly implemented... a 1 off concept.