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.

[pi73r]

Originally posted by 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?

Yea, people buy bad/average stuff in masses. Boring pop artists got the best sales. Same as bad politicians are elected. People will buy/support the thing that is close to them and most people are average. Witcher 3 is bad game gameplay wise and it's probably the most overrated game in history. That's all pretty common knowledge. Im not saying humankind was great ( a great 4x title nowadays would be Old World) but pretty much anything is better than Civ 6.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by pi73r:

Yea, people buy bad/average stuff in masses. Boring pop artists got the best sales. Same as bad politicians are elected. People will buy/support the thing that is close to them and most people are average. Witcher 3 is bad game gameplay wise and it's probably the most overrated game in history. That's all pretty common knowledge. Im not saying humankind was great ( a great 4x title nowadays would be Old World) but pretty much anything is better than Civ 6.

So you are basically saying you know better than a huge majority of people, and - according to metacritic (comparing Civ6, Old Wolrd and Humankind) - also the averaged consensus of critics. That would need some detailed backing it up, which we don't have the time for. And by the way, in case you try to pull this off: Yes, Civ4 was great. One may argue better than Civ5 or Civ6, totally valid. But your statement was "the last good" was Civ 4. With Civ6 merely having 6 points less than Civ4 on metacritic, I do - addition to my other points - challenge that statement in particular.

I'm not saying you might under no circumstances be right. Just that this is a hard-to-prove position and a highly exposed one. Immediate evidence hints against it, and other explanations for this observation (like you are just wrong, or you try to make a point of being somehow a "better gamer" to feel good, or you are just trolling) seem to also have merit.

Would you agree that on this basis, it is very difficult, if not futile, to continue the discussion?

[Damedius]

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 think 5 and 6 tried to go with anti-wide mechanics. The biggest knock on 4 is that it looks so dated. Which isn't a surprise since it came out almost 20 years ago.

[skunkno1]

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.

Humankind may be better than Civ6 but I disagree about Civ5. Civ5 is probably my favorite Civ game with the exception of Civ2 and for Civ2 nostalgia is a big part of it I think since that's the first version I played. I agree that Civ4 is awesome though. It was awesome how you could zoom out and see the globe. I was disappointed that was out for Civ5.

[anynamewilldo]

Humankind sucked because the ai always got a pretty good starting city tile turn one but the player has to save at turn one and scout 6 turns in every possible direction saving and restarting save scumming to find a starting tile as good as the ai's turn one tile.
Starting a game 5-6 turns behind the ai even doing your best 'cheating' save scumming is fudge brown.

[Jameswood]

I've played all the civ games since civ2 and I've not been following the civ7 dev updates and only just watched my first gameplay vid. WHAT THE ♥♥♥♥? That's civ now? I didn't play Humankind so i don't know how similar it is, but I agree with you OP, if you asked me, I would not have guessed that was a civ video I just watch. Not sure what all they changed but it seems like a lot.

[Many-Named]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

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

Yes because we are comparing cannon balls and oranges not two similar 4x games here.

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by Alopen:

A huge reality for Civ is that games are rarely finished and they are trying something new to attract players to the end game.

My primary criticism of every Civilization game I've ever played is that they become less interesting and enjoyable the closer you get to the end game, even if you're in the lead and likely to win. Civ games are always fun to start, but always a chore to finish. I'm hoping Civilization VII is able to keep that "new game" feeling from beginning to end.

[KHP]

When I heard Civ 7 was coming out I stopped playing Civ 5 and started playing Civ 6. Why? Because I've been around for all 7 Civ launches and each time the initial release sucks. That's why I don't play a new game until the next one comes out.

[Nats]

Originally posted by KHP:

When I heard Civ 7 was coming out I stopped playing Civ 5 and started playing Civ 6. Why? Because I've been around for all 7 Civ launches and each time the initial release sucks. That's why I don't play a new game until the next one comes out.

Also you get the full game plus all dlc at a greatly reduced price. I also dont play new games now on release, but cant say I wait for ten years before playing them lol. Civ 6 was the worst Civ for a while I thought, but I feel they've been on a downward trend for ages. I keep thinking I am missing something due to their popularity, but when I start playing them I get bored.

Yet Humankind has me fascinated. If Civ 7 is more like Humankind I might like it more than the previous Civ games. But I dont like how its been trimmed right down for the dlc and deluxe/founder editions. That stinks.

I know I can buy it off-Steam for around £40 but even that is too much for what I am getting. No way I am paying £60 for it though that's for damn sure. That is just a rip off price. I will wait for the reviews with interest.

[Townsendvol]

Originally posted by 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.

Pretty much how I feel.

[sprenkledavid]

These arguments about which Civ is best and which sucks have been going on for, well, decades. Which is the sign of an excellent franchise. Personally, I just enjoy each new one when it appears and then roll on to the new one when it arrives. But if you want to stick with a particular favorite, that works too.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Suisight:

So you are basically saying you know better

No he is only giving his opinion, as you are. Everything we say is saying we know better. Because we think we do or we'd have the same opinion.

The fact is we do buy avg software, because all that is sold is avg software, if we refused to buy it, noone would own any. Because it is all avg to poorly made. imho, it's made like this for 2 reasons, everyone is lazy and updates let you charge more money. In reality, everyone is lazy and updates actually cost the company money.. if we don't pay for the updates, the company goes bust.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by Martin:

Originally posted by Suisight:

So you are basically saying you know better

No he is only giving his opinion, as you are. Everything we say is saying we know better. Because we think we do or we'd have the same opinion.

The fact is we do buy avg software, because all that is sold is avg software, if we refused to buy it, noone would own any. Because it is all avg to poorly made. imho, it's made like this for 2 reasons, everyone is lazy and updates let you charge more money. In reality, everyone is lazy and updates actually cost the company money.. if we don't pay for the updates, the company goes bust.

Sorry, but "just my opinion" is not free ride ticket for poor reasoning. He said "*was* better" or "last good civ *was*". Not "better for me" or similar. His statements had an objective claim.
These would have to be justified. I would be kinder if the statement had been "I liked x better".

Apart from that, claiming everything is average to poor is either statistically impossible or useless as you seem to invent some kind of absolute scale of software quality that for some reason only uses the lower half of the scale. Why?
And on top of that: You claiming that ALL the software (I'd stick with games, but your call) made by the people earning their living with it would at best be average is just condescending to the maximum. And I seriously doubt your qualification to issue such a judgement.

[Dendrazzik]

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.

yup...