The ui is not the biggest problem with this game

[gudwnsdl10]

The changes to civilizations and eras are truly disastrous. The core fun of the series—where the civilization you choose grows over time and ultimately achieves victory—has been completely stripped away.

Even worse, the fact that you have to play as different leaders just to unlock their skill trees, as if this were an RPG, is absolutely dreadful.

I started playing from Civilization IV, and while there were changes up to Civilization VI, the core enjoyment remained the same.

However, Civilization VII has deviated from the essence of the series. It lacks coherence, is not fun, and feels as unfinished as a pizza thrown up by a drunk person. On top of that, it’s overpriced

[WeirdWizardDave]

Yes, the more I think about it the more I conclude Civ 7 isn't a civ game. It's 3 separate 4x games set in 3 different eras which has a sort of campaign mode that lets you chain them together.

Its not a grand game that lets you play through the entire history of civilisation anymore, its a focused set of era specific games. Its probably tighter and more competitive. But it has lost the essential ingredient that set Civ apart from other 4x games. I don't know if they can fix this somehow with DLCs and expansions.

[Melhadf]

Look at the files, it's 3 games with a wrapper to make it appear as one game. It's probably why the UI is so terrible, they set it early for internal testing and dev, and then couldn't change it because it's 3x the work.

[ayrtep]

I refunded. Lots of problems but for me the biggest was not being to play on any larger than standard maps.

[Maichrasar]

I'm not sure how much you've played or tried to learn how the changes work, but we still grow over time. We still choose bonuses and abilities, and adapting to the map and interactions with other players, just like in previous games. But instead of being locked into one archetype from the start, we can change our bonuses to better fit the situation.

Even when we go to the next age, our 'civ' remains, and continuing to grow bigger and stronger until we ultimately achieve victory in the modern age (or before that if we eliminate everyone else, but I doubt we can conquest win at Antiquity age since they kinda split us apart and we can't cross deep sea before Exploration age). They could have made a choice to stay the same with buffs or debuffs as needed, but it's totally not 'disastrous', 'dreadful', or got 'completely stripped away'.

It's a new game with a new iteration of the gameplay, and nothing here change the fact you can go back to play any other games you like while (if you still want to) waiting until this one feels right for you.

[martinolund]

No, you don't have to play different leaders, you can keep the same leader through the ages if you want, I've done so in my current play-through.

I started with an Egyptian leader in the country/culture of Egypt and then in the 2nd act I kept my Egyptian leader but I did change the country/culture to Abbasid and if we read about the Abbasid Caliphate, they did take over Egypt at some point in history and so far that is translating just fine in my game.

I'm curious to see what choices I get in the 3rd act! Need some sleep now though hah ha, I've been at it with the just-one-more-turn for the last 4 hours and it is now 3 AM. Can't even remember a game that had me playing 13 hours straight lol.

Well, we're all different, either you like the game or not, vote with your wallet accordingly.

[gudwnsdl10]

Originally posted by Maichrasar:

I'm not sure how much you've played or tried to learn how the changes work, but we still grow over time. We still choose bonuses and abilities, and adapting to the map and interactions with other players, just like in previous games. But instead of being locked into one archetype from the start, we can change our bonuses to better fit the situation.

Even when we go to the next age, our 'civ' remains, and continuing to grow bigger and stronger until we ultimately achieve victory in the modern age (or before that if we eliminate everyone else, but I doubt we can conquest win at Antiquity age since they kinda split us apart and we can't cross deep sea before Exploration age). They could have made a choice to stay the same with buffs or debuffs as needed, but it's totally not 'disastrous', 'dreadful', or got 'completely stripped away'.

It's a new game with a new iteration of the gameplay, and nothing here change the fact you can go back to play any other games you like while (if you still want to) waiting until this one feels right for you.

Civilization VII is not about civilizations growing; instead, the leader you choose arbitrarily changes civilizations as they progress.

If you have a lot of horses, you become the Mongols. If you have a lot of silk, you become China. This completely deviates from the core concept of previous Civilization games, where your chosen civilization advances through time to achieve victory.

I don’t know if this system is enjoyable for you, but for me, it certainly isn’t.

The crisis system that comes with era changes is also incredibly frustrating. Other similar games have crisis systems too, but in Civilization VII, it doesn’t create a sense of challenge or add to the gameplay experience. Instead, it simply triggers through deus ex machina mechanics, providing nothing but frustration.

[tainawoman]

For me the problems are:
- this is not sandbox anymore. The fixed objectives force you to play only how the designer wants.

- it seems to me that the focus now is not your empire and civilization, you can't even grow or beat second age without boring relations with other civs and a gazzillion pop ups that come with this. You cannot trade inside your empire, only with other civs and you must colonize.

- civ was like a board game and I loved that. You build an engine and then you can concentrate on what you want, Now this is gone, you must follow objectives and then, at the end of an age, almost everything is destroyed. Creating vs destroying and killing, this iteration of a game is focused on destroying, which is horrible for me.
I played the game always thinking Why should I evolve a town if anyway it will be downgraded or build something if in the next age will be destroyed. For me this is a nightmare, no board game designer would do that.

- now you are forced to play boxed in. I don't think that even after patches we would be able to choose how many AI civs to be in the game. That's because you must be always at war or be always attacked by someone (cause you cannot conquer the independent cities in the first age and I couldn't gather enough influence for befriending all of them - 2 from 7, and 4 of them sent wave after wave of enemies). That's like always having indestructible barbarian camps near you. As I said, always destroying something.

[Maichrasar]

Originally posted by gudwnsdl10:

Civilization VII is not about civilizations growing; instead, the leader you choose arbitrarily changes civilizations as they progress.

If you have a lot of horses, you become the Mongols. If you have a lot of silk, you become China. This completely deviates from the core concept of previous Civilization games, where your chosen civilization advances through time to achieve victory.

I don’t know if this system is enjoyable for you, but for me, it certainly isn’t.

The crisis system that comes with era changes is also incredibly frustrating. Other similar games have crisis systems too, but in Civilization VII, it doesn’t create a sense of challenge or add to the gameplay experience. Instead, it simply triggers through deus ex machina mechanics, providing nothing but frustration.

What are you talking about? What is civilization growing if not change? In previous civs, if you have better resources to copy-paste military units, even though you start as a science-base civ, domination victory is better and likely to be your win. Changing is growing. You still advances through time to achieve victory.

Unlocking civ doesn't mean you HAVE to be that civ. You still have plenty of choices, and even 'historic choice' like playing as Ashoka and go Maurya > Chola > Mughal. More historically accurate than American in ancient era or Babylonian in Atomic era since you really have experience the 'advances through time'.

Crisis is the challenge, to test your current 'civ' if it's good enough as it is or your build is crumbling and changing civ bonuses from one archetype to another will help you survive better. Whether or not it's done properly is another thing.

Also, if it's not for you, then it's not for you. Again, it's a new game with a new iteration of the gameplay. The core 'gameplay' is change, but the core 'concept' of 'your chosen civilization advances through time to achieve victory' is still the same.

[SakuraKoi]

One fault I always found is that most civs had specific bonus units and buildings that very much forced specific playstyles over the whole game to actually make use of while also telling one (especially with units) the best time is right then.

I don't particularly read up on the details but that would definitely be a nice change for me, to have at least 3 if one chooses so.

But well, whom am I arguing with:

On top of that, it’s overpriced

One who may as well have no credibility. Games have cost $60-$70 for long, no one is forcing you to get Advanced Access (which OP evidently does not even have, <2h to make such claims is quite bold) and inflation did not hit us at all. Folks have been getting utterly spoiled by Steam Sales.

[Flynn Winch]

Civilazion 6 had problem with the mechanic change at the start, but some where worked out, the change on the workers for exemple was to hard at first, but the way it work on Civ7 is realy interesting, they mixed old mechanics about city expanding, citizen growth and worker in a good way

there so much good potential, the "era" things is a miss, it does a soft reset each time, its so strange, having to "farm" leaders is also bizarre, i hope it can be desactivated for multiplayers, the Rogue Lite Civ is not for everyone.

For me the biggest loss is that "End of modern Era" that end with a realy low potential of fun tech, a low amount or wonders, and you can't even have fun with that game you progress, you are forced to stop enjoying what you made at some point, and it doesnt even happen for balance purpose, it happen only because completing the win condition kill the chrono...

[Whimpy]

I'm 1 turn away from the modern age and had to think for a few minutes to remember what civilization I was playing as. :/ I'd rather been locked to 1 civ and had the possibility to evolve to different archetypes (temple builders/steppe warriors/sea people) depending on the choices I made ingame.

[olarnser]

Originally posted by tainawoman:

For me the problems are:
- this is not sandbox anymore. The fixed objectives force you to play only how the designer wants.

- it seems to me that the focus now is not your empire and civilization, you can't even grow or beat second age without boring relations with other civs and a gazzillion pop ups that come with this. You cannot trade inside your empire, only with other civs and you must colonize.

- civ was like a board game and I loved that. You build an engine and then you can concentrate on what you want, Now this is gone, you must follow objectives and then, at the end of an age, almost everything is destroyed. Creating vs destroying and killing, this iteration of a game is focused on destroying, which is horrible for me.
I played the game always thinking Why should I evolve a town if anyway it will be downgraded or build something if in the next age will be destroyed. For me this is a nightmare, no board game designer would do that.

- now you are forced to play boxed in. I don't think that even after patches we would be able to choose how many AI civs to be in the game. That's because you must be always at war or be always attacked by someone (cause you cannot conquer the independent cities in the first age and I couldn't gather enough influence for befriending all of them - 2 from 7, and 4 of them sent wave after wave of enemies). That's like always having indestructible barbarian camps near you. As I said, always destroying something.

You can't make an independent town yours, but you can "disperse" them and the town will disappear from the map. So no, they are not invincible.

[Aeekto]

One thing is realy annoying:
you are at war and basicly overrunning the enemy and only 1 turn from taking over 3 cities to get the 12/12 for domination.... then boom, new era, all your units gone at the front, forced peace and you have to rebuild your armies, except the defensive forces in your cities.

Or the fact that there is no option at all for "fast movement" "fast combat" or "minimising all popups".

And let's not even talk about missing options when creating a game
... no world settings, no rule settings, just nothing. Everything is so basic similar to console games or mobile games

[BLiNDMaNKiND]

Originally posted by gudwnsdl10:

The changes to civilizations and eras are truly disastrous. The core fun of the series—where the civilization you choose grows over time and ultimately achieves victory—has been completely stripped away.

Even worse, the fact that you have to play as different leaders just to unlock their skill trees, as if this were an RPG, is absolutely dreadful.

I started playing from Civilization IV, and while there were changes up to Civilization VI, the core enjoyment remained the same.

However, Civilization VII has deviated from the essence of the series. It lacks coherence, is not fun, and feels as unfinished as a pizza thrown up by a drunk person. On top of that, it’s overpriced

jus this!
ripped off the core

[AHTF´184]

Originally posted by tainawoman:

For me the problems are:
- this is not sandbox anymore. The fixed objectives force you to play only how the designer wants.

- it seems to me that the focus now is not your empire and civilization, you can't even grow or beat second age without boring relations with other civs and a gazzillion pop ups that come with this. You cannot trade inside your empire, only with other civs and you must colonize.

- civ was like a board game and I loved that. You build an engine and then you can concentrate on what you want, Now this is gone, you must follow objectives and then, at the end of an age, almost everything is destroyed. Creating vs destroying and killing, this iteration of a game is focused on destroying, which is horrible for me.
I played the game always thinking Why should I evolve a town if anyway it will be downgraded or build something if in the next age will be destroyed. For me this is a nightmare, no board game designer would do that.

- now you are forced to play boxed in. I don't think that even after patches we would be able to choose how many AI civs to be in the game. That's because you must be always at war or be always attacked by someone (cause you cannot conquer the independent cities in the first age and I couldn't gather enough influence for befriending all of them - 2 from 7, and 4 of them sent wave after wave of enemies). That's like always having indestructible barbarian camps near you. As I said, always destroying something.

This aint really true, sure i understand what you mean with the scoring system, but in any other civ game if you wanted to win there was also fix formulas you had to follow. In 7 you can actually mix it up. in 5 and 6 it was pretty much only rush science so you got ahead and then spam whatever you need for the victory you went for.