Civ I was not like the original board game. Why all the flak that this one is not like previous titles?

[Stormwalker]

Civ I was Sid Meier's computer version of the board game Civilization. However, it was not by any stretch, the same as the original game. He created a game series that we have enjoyed for decades.

Why then is everyone so resistant that they are trying a new direction with this version?

I would think that due to their success with past versions of the game, the audiences would have a little faith in their ability to make yet another good version of Civilization.

I for one, am looking forward to seeing where the game will go and seeing how the new mechanics play out.

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

Originally posted by Rudel:

The system already failed for Humankind and it has several flaws:

- it aims at stopping snowballing. Which IMO is a shame, because snowballing means players understand the game and use it to their advantages. It basically is a tool for devs who don't want to balance their game properly.

- it feels EXTREMELY weird to meet Friedrich of the Maya.

- also in earlier games, you know what you are up to when you met Shaka or Hannibal. Now it's completely meaningless.

Overall, it's a weird system.

Chinese proverb
“The wise learn from the mistakes of others, fools from their own mistakes and idiots never learn”
😅😅😅

[taomastercu]

Originally posted by Stormwalker:

Originally posted by taomastercu:

The Paradox games literally started as tick base(sorta real time with pause) even though they were based on a board game. Because no one in the 80s/90s had a vested interest in 1 to 1 board game/video game adaptations. But OP doesn't care about facts.

Have you ever been to the Complete Strategist in NYC? There are hundreds of gaming stores that do nothing but sell and have Board Games and have places for people to play them.

Not the point of the thread child, go away and stop trolling.

I'm not debating the significance of the board game market. We've all been to BoarGameGeek, it's not a secret board games are a dcent sized market.

I'm saying no one has strong opinions on board game adaptations and their faithfulness to the original.

[Skull]

Originally posted by seven_stars:

Their main core feature this time was taken right from Humankind, along with many other mechanics. It was one of the major complaints about Humankind. So we shall see if Civ players warm up to it or not over time.

And Humankind took Civ’s entire formula and used it to make their game. I challenge you to find anything other than changing civilizations per age that Humankind did that you can say isn’t like a Civ game.

[Larkis]

Originally posted by Stormwalker:

Civ I was Sid Meier's computer version of the board game Civilization. However, it was not by any stretch, the same as the original game. He created a game series that we have enjoyed for decades.

Why then is everyone so resistant that they are trying a new direction with this version?

I would think that due to their success with past versions of the game, the audiences would have a little faith in their ability to make yet another good version of Civilization.

I for one, am looking forward to seeing where the game will go and seeing how the new mechanics play out.

Cause some people are not able to adapt. So they cry in pain, when there old dogmatic thinking moves slowly to exctinction.

[kritz]

It's the "un-fun factor." Civs 1-6 were fun, right out of the box, even when they later got better via update or dlc.

Civ 7 is un-fun. It's restrictive, preprogrammed, deeply complex and obscure, and really, REALLY hard to see. The thrill is gone.

I love the Civ series. I hope that, in the face of overwhelming criticism, the devs can rescue this title.

[Skull]

Originally posted by kritz:

It's the "un-fun factor." Civs 1-6 were fun, right out of the box, even when they later got better via update or dlc.

Civ 7 is un-fun. It's restrictive, preprogrammed, deeply complex and obscure, and really, REALLY hard to see. The thrill is gone.

I love the Civ series. I hope that, in the face of overwhelming criticism, the devs can rescue this title.

Civ 4 and 5 were barebones and boring right out of the box. I dealt with it with 4 but with 5 as much as I liked the culture system I didn’t stick with it and came back when ideologies came out. Civ 6 was also far from prefect and while I had a lot of fun with it in the beginning a lot of people were just bored with it.

[SkunkPlaysGames]

Originally posted by Larkis:

Cause some people are not able to adapt. So they cry in pain, when there old dogmatic thinking moves slowly to exctinction.

This type of arrogance is precisely why so many formerly colossal video game companies are pushing up daisies.

"Who cares what the fan base wants!" Bold strategy. We'll see how it unfolds.

[Many-Named]

Originally posted by Cheeky little sausage:

Originally posted by Stormwalker:

OK. So the Devs saw something they liked about another 4X game and decided to explore those concepts in the Civ game. Again, makes perfect sense. The WHOLE series was the same thing. A Board Game adapted to a better more interesting computer came.

I still don't get what their argument is.

How many people do you think played the board game? The comparison is meaningless. I've played every Civ game since Civ 1 on the Amiga. Never played the board game. Had no idea it exists.

Comparing Civ 7 to Civ 4, 5 or 6 for example is much more realistic.

Voted the most meaningless comparison ever. Seriously what's OP point again? I mean past the meaninglessness?

[metropolitan75002]

Originally posted by Many-Named:

Voted the most meaningless comparison ever. Seriously what's OP point again? I mean past the meaninglessness?

That's particularly meaningless considering that "Sid Meier's Civilization" was never meant to be a video game adaptation of the "Civilisation" board game.

The core mechanics of Civilization (turn-based game on a tile-based map with cities producing units) were inspired by another video game from 1977 called "Empire".

Sid Meier knew the board game though and it certainly inspired him the general theme (obviously civilizations)... and maybe also the tech tree (that we can find in both games).

[Many-Named]

Originally posted by metropolitan75002:

Originally posted by Many-Named:

Voted the most meaningless comparison ever. Seriously what's OP point again? I mean past the meaninglessness?

That's particularly meaningless considering that "Sid Meier's Civilization" was never meant to be a video game adaptation of the "Civilisation" board game.

The core mechanics of Civilization (turn-based game on a tile-based map with cities producing units) were inspired by another video game from 1977 called "Empire".

Sid Meier knew the board game though and it certainly inspired him the general theme (obviously civilizations)... and maybe also the tech tree (that we can find in both games).

Exactly, they are reaching for straws here.

[Natureboy99]

People find the bugs and unpolished UI unacceptable in a $70 game. Also the new features aren't landing as well as 5 and 6 new features. For me I wanted a lot more ambition than what we got. It's unpolished Civ 6 with a poorly redesigned age and leader systems.

[metropolitan75002]

Originally posted by Natureboy99:

People find the bugs and unpolished UI unacceptable in a $70 game. Also the new features aren't landing as well as 5 and 6 new features. For me I wanted a lot more ambition than what we got. It's unpolished Civ 6 with a poorly redesigned age and leader systems.

Civ5 was definitely very controversial with its optimum around 5 or 6 cities whereas former civs allowed having 40+ cities.

Hexes and 1UPT also considerably narrowed down the scale of the action, converting the map from strategic level to tactical one. That was surely controversial and many fans were lost (including me). But others arrived, and they were more numerous.

We'll see if Civ7 will have the same fate as Civ5 or a different one. It's too soon to tell.

[merle]

Too true. I used to play the board game ("I have two dye for your three ochre. Yes, you know piracy is coming with it") and understand how Civ PC games are totally different.

And there is zero reason to believe that each iteration of the board game (I believe we had an xpac then too) is going to remain static - just like the PC version.

Nothing wrong with Civ 7, versus Civ 6 versus Civ 5 versus etc.

People do not play board games and it appears the same mindset of instant gratification is coming in to ruin the complexity that is Civ 7.

2 hours and you're asking for a refund? Lol. Go play a FPS.

[nitebird27]

Every time I fall into "I HATE THIS" with this game, I remember that when I first got Civ 6, I hated it and didn't play it for two years. And now I absolutely love it.

I'm not in love with Civ 7 yet, but I still have had to pry myself away from playing, so something is working! I'm going to give them time to improve it before giving up.

[Skull]

Originally posted by nitebird27:

Every time I fall into "I HATE THIS" with this game, I remember that when I first got Civ 6, I hated it and didn't play it for two years. And now I absolutely love it.

I'm not in love with Civ 7 yet, but I still have had to pry myself away from playing, so something is working! I'm going to give them time to improve it before giving up.

You’re not the only one.

4 I stuck with pretty much the whole way through. 5 was boring as hell until they added things like the culture victory, world congress and ideologies, 6 I didn’t like the art style but it grew on me.

For 7, it’s depended on which leader I’m playing as. Amina was alright, Augustus too but Charlemagne, oh man. Charlemagne has been my favorite leader of all time so far. In the modern age I was getting free tanks every 10 turns and just dominating the map. Never had so much fun warmongering.