This happens with every new Civilization game

[Ruibarian]

I've played Civ since Civ 2, pre-Test of Time. Now, I can't say what really happened with Civ 3 and Civ 4 - I'd imagine no one can because we just weren't connected the way we were back than, and essentially no one was firing up their modem to go on GameFAQs.com to make a complaint forum post because we just had better things to do back then.

However, since Civ 5's release, the community of the previous game has always fractured. Civ 5 got rid of unit stacking, with "1 unit per tile" being the new rule. Because the previous games had near-infinite unit stacking (There was a technical limit that you couldn't reach without cheating in more units), people hated City States, and online multiplayer was broken for YEARS.

When Civ 6 came out, the Civ 4 Andy's still hated 1UPT, complained about "carpet of doom" scenarios where you had to shuffle congested piles of units for hours in end-game military scenarios around mountains, there were complaints about the brighter game being "too cartooney" (which is hilarious because they made civ vii more realistic and I've already heard Potato McWhiskey complain about missing the bright blues that indicated science buildings EVEN THOUGH he also complained that it looked cartooney when civ vi came out).

Look. You might not like everything. It might not be the game for you. Maybe you'll like it better with some DLCs - many players experienced that, with Civ 4, 5, and 6, once the first DLC was out the game felt way better. Or maybe you just skip this one, maybe Humankind or Old World or any number of other very good 4X games are more your cup of tea these days. That's okay.

But please, stop assuming everyone feels the way you do. Most of us like when Civ VII innovates in ways that most AAA companies are too afraid to do.

[madcynic]

Word.

[Qoojo]

At civ 5 release, the 1upt change signaled the end of times on the forum.

[madcynic]

I remember the complaints when they went to 3D. Now THAT was the end of all that's good and decent.

Edit: Spelling

[LumBiii]

https://youtu.be/MXDmcviXw9U?si=g_jCxe36eFQ699Ox

[dcbobo]

Originally posted by LumBiii:

https://youtu.be/MXDmcviXw9U?si=g_jCxe36eFQ699Ox

absolutely doesn't apply

[Gigantoad]

Originally posted by LumBiii:

https://youtu.be/MXDmcviXw9U?si=g_jCxe36eFQ699Ox

This.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Ruibarian:

I've played Civ since Civ 2, pre-Test of Time. Now, I can't say what really happened with Civ 3 and Civ 4 - I'd imagine no one can because we just weren't connected the way we were back than

Civ IV was 2005, hardly the dark ages of pre-internet times. Civ III took a bit of flak for ditching the wonder movies, as well as bundling multiplayer as an expansion. On the whole though I don't recall any real strong feelings about it one way or the other - kind of understandable since most of it's changes beyond the obvious graphics/UI modernisation were under the hood, and the audience had been slightly spoiled with Alpha Centauri a few years earlier.
Civ IV generally got hailed as a return to form, but then it's main shift was to 3D graphics. Other than that it primarily just added to what was already there - even bringing back the Wonder movies and bundling multiplayer in with the base game. In fact the only thing I can think of that vanished from 3 to 4 was the ruler look changing with the era they were in, but I think everyone was too distracted by the fact they were now animated 3D models to notice.

Key difference I suspect though is that they've always been relatively conservative with changes to the core game. Any kind of negative response up until V was inherently going to be muted because by and large the base mechanics are the same in IV as they were in the original. The shift to hexes and the one unit per hex in V was probably the most radical change in the franchises history up to this point. Though even then, V still by and large played the same as Civ has always played. Yes it also added city states, but they're basically just one city AI civs for the most part (the same applied to Civ VI, you got districts, but at the end of the day they're not massively different to tile improvements to begin with). The other thing I suspect might be an issue is that previously there's been a lack of competition in the space. Beyond Activision's Call to Power back in the Civ III days there's not really been an attempt to take the Civ throne except by Firaxis.
VII therefore was pretty much guaranteed to hit backlash given it's making two radical changes at the same time - separating civ and leader plus slicing the game up into three era's. As with Civ V, they might have gotten away with doing one or the other, but both at the same time is a pretty big gamble. Doesn't help that those changes also seem to be borrowed from Humankind; not to put too fine a point on it but taking two of the least liked features from a less popular competitor is not usually considered a sound strategy for success.

[X_MasterDave_X]

I play Civ since Civ1 on my Amiga. Cant talk about Civ1/2 because this was clearly before Internet. At CIv3 Release i hadnt time to play, as i was just married. But from Civ4 Release there were always a big cry from the community at Release. Usually most of the Players hated the newest Civ, and told that the Civ before was Godlike. Same as Civ5 came out....especially this 1 UpT made most People cry. And Civ5 needed many years to become loved by the People. I thought this would never happen, as even years later People hated the Game. Just at the time as Civ6 came out...Civ5 was like Jesus walking on water. Then so many said, Civ5 was the best Civ ever. I had to lough, as i dont have the same Alzheimer most have here...or are just to young to remember.

Now the same with Civ6, that was also so much hated all the years before. Just become loved since 1-2 Years, if i rememeber right.

Now CIV7 is right from the Devil.....i bet until 1-2 years before Civ8 comes out.....the new Son of Satan then.... ;)


People are so crazy.....and most really seem to have Alzheimer. every time again.
Not much different to other Series at the Game Market.

[WeirdWizardDave]

There is no equivalence between the reception of Civ 7 and any previous Civ. 5's switch to 1 unit per tile directly addressed the most frequent complaint about older Civ games in the form of the stack of doom. It was pretty universally praised at the time. Civ 6 got some flak for its graphical style but generally won people over with the way it refined and improved upon most aspects of 5.

7 is getting flak for a number of fairly minor but annoying UI, polish and missing options which can and probably will get fixed fairly quickly. But it also has taken a massive step away the core idea of what a Civ game is with the Ages, especially as the 3 age sub games we got leave huge gaps in the history of civilisation which now takes place off screen with essentially no player interaction beyond clicking on a new civ to play.

I maintain its actually a good game in isolation, solid strategy, kinda 3 games in 1 with the 3 different ages to play through. Lots of cool innovations and improvements (albeit with a number of lost or missing stuff too). But the game doesn't exist in isolation, it is the next instalment in a series and, for many people, it has changed the formula to no longer fit in that series. The disappointment that causes is going to manifest in negative reviews.

[LumBiii]

Originally posted by dcbobo:

Originally posted by LumBiii:

https://youtu.be/MXDmcviXw9U?si=g_jCxe36eFQ699Ox

absolutely doesn't apply

you are immune to facts :D

[Natureboy99]

Then there are some of us who feel Civ 7 didn't innovate enough!! I think there is a chance this Civ won't follow the typical pattern. The launch reviews are a lot closer to Beyond Earth than 5 or 6. Bugs and UI is worse than usual. Monetezation schemes are more anti-consumer than before. They're squeezing us harder. $10 MSRP increase to $70 isn't enough for them. I think they're basically gambling with their entire company. I like the concept of making later ages more engaging. All victory types are a slog in the later ages in Civ 5 and 6. I like the concept of new civs appearing mid history. But the execution here is very arbitrary and unrealistic and lacking fun. For me I have loved the new features in every single vanilla Civ release. This is the first time I'm scratching my head at the lack of ambition, execution, and polish. Polish they can fix with patches, but I can't decide if this game has bad bones or not.

[Fluke]

Nonononono, wrong wrong wrong.

New Civ games have less CONTENT than previous Civ games. For example, Civ 5 had no religion on launch, the number of leaders and civs are less because DLC added in so much, etc, etc. Previous Civ games had 6-7 years of additional content so the new game always feels less full but it never ever felt bad.

New civ games were ALWAYS UNIVERSALLY PRAISED upon launch. This is a fact. We have proof. Steam reviews have always been at least 75% on launch, most well over 80%. 51% is not even close to normal

Metacritic:
Civ 2 - 94
Civ 3 - 90
Civ 4 - 94
Civ 5 - 90
Civ 6 - 88
Civ 7 - 81

81! So much lower than the usual 90+

And 1UPT yeah people were very nervous about but it was overwhelming embraced over moving stacks of 30-40 units, show me the people who are dying to go back to moving 30+ units one by one every turn.

Firaxis also apologized for the launch of Civ 7 which has never happened before so the facts disagree with you, the people disagree with you, history disagrees with you and the DEVELOPERS disagree with you.

[joutsenlaulu]

Originally posted by X_MasterDave_X:

I play Civ since Civ1 on my Amiga. Cant talk about Civ1/2 because this was clearly before Internet. At CIv3 Release i hadnt time to play, as i was just married. But from Civ4 Release there were always a big cry from the community at Release. Usually most of the Players hated the newest Civ, and told that the Civ before was Godlike. Same as Civ5 came out....especially this 1 UpT made most People cry. And Civ5 needed many years to become loved by the People. I thought this would never happen, as even years later People hated the Game. Just at the time as Civ6 came out...Civ5 was like Jesus walking on water. Then so many said, Civ5 was the best Civ ever. I had to lough, as i dont have the same Alzheimer most have here...or are just to young to remember.

Now the same with Civ6, that was also so much hated all the years before. Just become loved since 1-2 Years, if i rememeber right.

Now CIV7 is right from the Devil.....i bet until 1-2 years before Civ8 comes out.....the new Son of Satan then.... ;)


People are so crazy.....and most really seem to have Alzheimer. every time again.
Not much different to other Series at the Game Market.

I looked at Steam reviews from 2016 and they were nothing like Civ7 is having now. I mean even positive reviews are mentioning issues, especially about poorly executed UI programming.

By the way not so long ago I found some old usenet (?) posts about Civ1 release on PC and Amiga. They were quite euphoric, maintaining hall of fame of players who beat the game earliest on each difficulty level. Patches were scarce and differences in the happiness system were explained in detail.

Of course no game like that was made before. It was amazing to have something like Civilopedia, leaders (civs) had personalities and they even included facial expressions. It was really really rare to have this kind of dedication at that time. I wish Sid Meyer was still Sid Meyer and not just some bystander in the corner...

[Natureboy99]

Originally posted by Fluke:

Nonononono, wrong wrong wrong.

New Civ games have less CONTENT than previous Civ games. For example, Civ 5 had no religion on launch, the number of leaders and civs are less because DLC added in so much, etc, etc. Previous Civ games had 6-7 years of additional content so the new game always feels less full but it never ever felt bad.

New civ games were ALWAYS UNIVERSALLY PRAISED upon launch. This is a fact. We have proof. Steam reviews have always been at least 75% on launch, most well over 80%. 51% is not even close to normal

Metacritic:
Civ 2 - 94
Civ 3 - 90
Civ 4 - 94
Civ 5 - 90
Civ 6 - 88
Civ 7 - 81

81! So much lower than the usual 90+

And 1UPT yeah people were very nervous about but it was overwhelming embraced over moving stacks of 30-40 units, show me the people who are dying to go back to moving 30+ units one by one every turn.

Firaxis also apologized for the launch of Civ 7 which has never happened before so the facts disagree with you, the people disagree with you, history disagrees with you and the DEVELOPERS disagree with you.

Interestingly, Beyond Earth has an 81 meta.