Is it just me or Civ 7 makes me realize that we were all too harsh on Civ 6's changes?

[Scott]

Civ 6 changed a lot about Civ, but at least it was still Civ.

Civ 7 doesn't even look like a Civ game. It looks like a carbon copy of Humankind.

The only postives I see from Civ 7 is how they handle combat and the artsyle is more Civ 5 like, but they completely nuked the rest of the game.

[Alopen]

Sorry. Can't agree. A) Humankind tried some new things that worked on paper but didn't work for immersion. Changing civs in that game was more of a race to the next era and the stacking bonuses from civ to civ in that game just snowballed like crazy. The developers never balanced the game properly. B) city sprawl covered continents by the end game (another massive design flaw) which forced every battle to be a massive siege by the modern era. C) Civ 7 seems to have focused on changing ages to have more meaning with different goals in each age, getting to face players and the AI at their peak instead of fighting Teddy in ancient era or Augusts in modern era where his bonuses have vanished. Now you can face the Normans or Spain in the exploration age where they are at their height. A huge reality for Civ is that games are rarely finished and they are trying something new to attract players to the end game. I would give it a fair shake instead of blowing off their attempt. I have never hated a Civilization game. Even 5 when we switched to single unit stacks which definitely took some getting used to.

I do suspect that Firaxis watched Humankind and saw what worked and what didn't. But other than the concept of changing civ, I see zero similarities. Your very identifiable leader remains the same. Humankind just gave a random name to each leader that you could care less about and never could remember who led which civ. I will not have an issue remembering historical figures which gives me an anchor to identify other players and AI.

[colostmy4]

Just because oranges and cannon balls are typically both spherical does not mean they are the same thing.

[Suisight]

I don't share the basic sentiment that Civ7 is not a Civ game. From what I watched, I feel like so many changes really point forward and push the series - something several earlier titles were missing on a larger scale (still being good games, though).

To claim Civ7 is no Civ, one would have to define what a Civ game constitutes. I won't do that now, but to me, it feels like the important elements are there and they are connected in both proven and innovative ways.

[Oaks]

If Civ7 is a Civ game is a subjective call. All franchises need to change and evolve through the years. If they manage to with their souls intact is the question.

To me it is a Civ game. There is a lot of new stuff going on, but it also maintains a lot of familiarity.

[Marshal]

Looks a lot better than civ 6. I’ve never been more intrigued about a Civilization game than now.

I’m just concerned that my partner will have a row at me due to asking for one more turn….

[sprenkledavid]

Having watched a lot of gameplay footage, I can safely say Civ 7 looks very much like all the other Civ games. You're making the same sort of decisions after a new turn starts: units to move, production queues to fill, science and civic choices to make, diplomatic overtures to respond to, etc. And you're playing the game on a hex grid with settlements and terrain that's a lot like every other Civ game.

It amazes me that some people complain that Civ 7 is too much like other Civ iterations, and others complain it's too different. One is tempted to assume that some people . . just like to complain?

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Oaks:

If Civ7 is a Civ game is a subjective call. All franchises need to change and evolve through the years. If they manage to with their souls intact is the question.

Yeah, but hitherto Civ always stuck by the old 30% the same, 30% improve and 30% changed mix, and rather sensibly retained the core mechanics it was famous for. VII to me looks like they're changing those core mechanics so I'd expect it to be divisive.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the OP on this one; while it's not quite a carbon clone of Humankind it does look like they've borrowed several of the mechanics. While there's numerous opinions on why Humankind failed, one thing they do tend to agree on is the game was simply boring, which doesn't bode well for Civ (funnily enough, the same criticism people made of Midnight Suns ...)

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by TRScott116:

Civ 6 changed a lot about Civ, but at least it was still Civ.

Civ 7 doesn't even look like a Civ game. It looks like a carbon copy of Humankind.

The only postives I see from Civ 7 is how they handle combat and the artsyle is more Civ 5 like, but they completely nuked the rest of the game.

Yes and no.

Civ 6's districts grew on me. That change ended up being better than I originally acknowledged.

Civ 6's cartoonish terrain map NEVER grew on me. The pastel, gaudy color scheme for the map in Civ 6 was bad from start to finish all those years.

Civ 6's UI was also cartoonish and clumsy.



So, I don't know... there are areas of Civ 6 I still feel justified in being a tad harsh towards.

[skunkno1]

It looks like a Civ game to me, but the jury's out on whether it looks like a Civ game I can get in to. Making Civ switching optional instead of mandatory would go a long way towards getting me on board. Not that the devs care too much about my opinion specifically.

I do agree about the graphics and art style though...the game LOOKS great. It's the mechanics I'm a bit iffy on, and at this price point I want to be all in before dropping my cash.

[Oaks]

Originally posted by archonsod:

Yeah, but hitherto Civ always stuck by the old 30% the same, 30% improve and 30% changed mix, and rather sensibly retained the core mechanics it was famous for. VII to me looks like they're changing those core mechanics so I'd expect it to be divisive.

"It might surprise you to know that from our playtests and feedback, the actual experience of playing an Age in Civilization VII feels very familiar to a traditional game of Civ. As many of our fans know, Sid Meier has a rule of thirds when designing a sequel: 33 percent brand new features, 33 percent improving previous features, and 33 percent staying roughly the same. We're continuing that tradition with Civilization VII, as it is critical for us that this game "still feels like Civ."

- Civ 7 website.

[Nats]

There is a lot that has come from Humankind - not just the eras and the divorced leaders, but also the change to cities and towns, and the lack of builders. I bet there are other changes we havent seen yet as well. I feel Amplitude could have a good case for suing Firaxis because they have obviously lifted a lot from Amplitudes game.

Of course they can't lift the main fact that Civ is right boring to play now and Humankind is a much better, more fun game.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by Nats:

There is a lot that has come from Humankind - not just the eras and the divorced leaders, but also the change to cities and towns, and the lack of builders. I bet there are other changes we havent seen yet as well. I feel Amplitude could have a good case for suing Firaxis because they have obviously lifted a lot from Amplitudes game.

Of course they can't lift the main fact that Civ is right boring to play now and Humankind is a much better, more fun game.

Yeah right... stop the steal.

But seriously, I'm happy to see that the developers of Civ 7 looked around and included some real change - that this was inspired by other takes on the genre is obvious, sure. The best outcome of this would be that these innovative elements are being implemented based on decades of experience and are thus perfected. Worst case is that they are flawed as in these earlier, other titles. But from what I've seen so far makes me optimsitic.

[pi73r]

Actually humankind was still better than civ 5 and 6. Last good civ was 4 and people only buy 5 and 6 because they are casuals who follow big titles.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by pi73r:

Actually humankind was still better than civ 5 and 6. Last good civ was 4 and people only buy 5 and 6 because they are casuals who follow big titles.

I don't think elitism will help your point. Do you want to claim that these games were bad but people tend to like bad games? In very basic terms, a good product is one that many people buy - so you would need to come up with an explanation why other, less successful games are actually "better". And even if you do - there would still be many/more "people" tending to buy the worse game (from your perspective), as you admitted yourself. So strategically, I feel your argument is flawed.

And regarding its merit on the basic of content: No, there are very serious, non-casual gamers feeling Civ5 and Civ6 were good games. Or do you mean only the true scotsmen? And finally: No, Humankind was not the better Civ. It had many flaws next to some great ideas. As stated above, I feel confident that Civ 7 may take some of these ideas and implement them better (including e.g. long-time experience on the bread-and-butter elements).

That would be a win for all lovers of the genre. What is bad about this?

[Martin]

Originally posted by TRScott116:

Civ 6 changed a lot about Civ, but at least it was still Civ.

Civ 7 doesn't even look like a Civ game. It looks like a carbon copy of Humankind.

The only postives I see from Civ 7 is how they handle combat and the artsyle is more Civ 5 like, but they completely nuked the rest of the game.

I'd say it looks alot like humankind, but isn't. I'm not totally sold on ages.. but then I also don't like golden eras or dark ages in civ6. or many other aspects. I wish the game just played from Year 2000bc to 2000ad + one more turn.