Compare to other Sid's Civs

[TheCr33pur]

I am curious how this game compare to last series, the fifth, fourth, etc. Doesnt really say much on the store page. Still looking for some videos on youtube, so on.

Another Sid Meier's Civilization game, what went wrong with the previous series? Making this is suppose to be better than the rest?

[Andra]

Civ 5 is probably more macro - with everything just being in your city and all. It was fun for its time and I liked it.

Civ 6 stretched things into districts and had a cartoon-y art style that was hit or miss with a lot of people. I liked it less than 5, but I still had more fun than not.

Civ 7 plays with ideas of eras and progression, and kind of does a middle ground on district building from 6 and macro from 5. I like it more than 6 as a result.

And nothing went wrong with the previous series. They were popular in their own ways. I'm not sure what you mean by "what went wrong". Things went mostly right, hence why they got funding for a new sequel. That's how businesses and game devs work.

[TheCr33pur]

Originally posted by Andra:

Civ 5 is probably more macro - with everything just being in your city and all. It was fun for its time and I liked it.

Civ 6 stretched things into districts and had a cartoon-y art style that was hit or miss with a lot of people. I liked it less than 5, but I still had more fun than not.

Civ 7 plays with ideas of eras and progression, and kind of does a middle ground on district building from 6 and macro from 5. I like it more than 6 as a result.

And nothing went wrong with the previous series. They were popular in their own ways. I'm not sure what you mean by "what went wrong". Things went mostly right, hence why they got funding for a new sequel. That's how businesses and game devs work.

Thanks for the feedback, like everything else making a new model or series, cause either different or lack of interests.

So i guess this is entirely something new, i didnt like the sixth series much. Mostly involves with the launcher and the game i been hearing isnt stable to play. Fifth series is pretty good, never had an issues with it and they remove the stack of doom on each hex. So on fourth was a cool game, be able to zoom out and see the entire globe. Seem bugged time to time though.

I think i will wait and see what develops on this one and probably wait until it is on sale.

[WeirdWizardDave]

Civ 7 is essentially a reboot of the series or a spin off. It changes the basic formula from a sprawling game that spans history to a tight game of set ages, slices of history in effect. There are other changes too, but that is the big one that is going to potentially cause a lot of disappointment if you're a fan of the past games.

[Mad]

It's hot garbage so far. Previous civ 4-5-6 were able to improve on the model but this one is a mix of weird ♥♥♥♥♥ that no one care about.

Previous dlc for civ 6 have the most sales in history so you knew they would try to milk civ 7 out of everything they could. And it shows right from the start. Don't waste your time on it. Subsequent dlc's or civ 8 will fix but not before graphs show they had the wrong team to plan 7.

[just.dont.do.it]

Originally posted by TheCr33pur:

I am curious how this game compare to last series, the fifth, fourth, etc. Doesnt really say much on the store page. Still looking for some videos on youtube, so on.

Ever since 4 Civs go towards experimenting with certain "staple Civ3" mechanics. Some were drastic, some not.

Compared to 4, Civ7 is a "new era" civ where lots of core mechanics are changed. Basically these are very different and it's better not to compare them lest we drag into tons and tons of specifics.

Compared to 5, Civ7 is a lot more "compact" and split up, with rules being set up in such a way that you will hit your max empire size quite soon and will always be dealing with some pretty substantial limits regarding your expansion. Not to mention regular era resets, which are yet another limit about how far you can push your empire into one particular direction. Also compared to 5, AI is a lot more competent about moving his armies on the map (something that Civ 5 broke completely while introducing "1 unit per tile" rule).

Compared to 6, Civ7 is a lot less targential, 6 had lots of systems requiring a lot of attention from player (like infamous district planning; or religion pressure), whereas Civ7 is mostly about just cities and armies again. Districts are lot less powerful (and thus require much less focus), tangents like religion or trading aren't all that complex and require minimal attention.
Also compared 6 (and same to 5), AI is reasonably good at moving units around the map - which wasn't at all true for 6.

[Andra]

I'd suggest start with 5 if you're new. Not only was it good but it's probably cheap as chips right now. This one is controversial for a lot of reasons, not least of which is culture war and just the internet being an angry place right now.

[TheCr33pur]

Originally posted by Andra:

I'd suggest start with 5 if you're new. Not only was it good but it's probably cheap as chips right now. This one is controversial for a lot of reasons, not least of which is culture war and just the internet being an angry place right now.

Got like 341hrs into firth series. It was a okay game and yes the internet is going into rage atm. Too many things is happen out there and making their lives sad.

Going to wait until this on sale then grab it, least keep checking on the news and updates. I just found out there is no UK or England nation in the game, that is no good, they need to put that back in there.

[Kamigami]

To me Civ 7 feels very similar to Civ 5... not because of how the game works, but in how fans are reacting to it on release.

Civ 4 was a refined version of Civ 1, 2, and 3. It was (and is) beloved by people who liked how Civ 1, 2, and 3 worked. It was the Windows XP of Civ games.

Civ 5 upended all that, radically changing how the map was laid out (hexes) and how units worked (one per square). You'd have thought the world was ending based on the backlash. Some of that was legitimate, as some things - notably the AI - were pretty broken in the process. It was the Windows Vista of Civ games.

Civ 6 refined Civ 5, fixing broken things like the AI, and polishing the rest. It's the Windows 7 of Civ games. Also, much of the issues with Civ 5 had been patched & smoothed over with DLC and mods over time, making the Civ 5 to Civ 6 transition fairly smooth.

And now with Civ 7 we have another major upheaval with the era system. And like Civ 5, the backlash to the change is intense. But like Civ 5 it will likely be patched & DLC'd & modded into a smooth experience over time. It's the Windows 8 of Civ games.

Maybe 10 years from now when Civ 9 is released, people will be complaining bitterly about how it's different than the eventually beloved Civ 7. Or maybe it will take the release of Civ 8 to create a polished version of what Civ 7 is trying to do. It's too soon to say.

[Despiser]

Originally posted by TheCr33pur:

I am curious how this game compare to last series, the fifth, fourth, etc. Doesnt really say much on the store page. Still looking for some videos on youtube, so on.

Another Sid Meier's Civilization game, what went wrong with the previous series? Making this is suppose to be better than the rest?

YouTube is tailored more for farming hits than providing real information. Toxicity is a better tool to increase hit counts than producing information and that's what they get paid for. So when you click on "Civ 7 COLLAPSE!" you just feed it while getting nothing in return.
Secondly, new things rarely get better now, they get more entrenched with marketing tactics. It's like the entire world woke up and realized what insurance companies have been doing all along: How to squeeze the most out of people while giving as little as possible back.

[WeirdWizardDave]

Originally posted by Kamigami:

To me Civ 7 feels very similar to Civ 5... not because of how the game works, but in how fans are reacting to it on release.

Civ 4 was a refined version of Civ 1, 2, and 3. It was (and is) beloved by people who liked how Civ 1, 2, and 3 worked. It was the Windows XP of Civ games.

Civ 5 upended all that, radically changing how the map was laid out (hexes) and how units worked (one per square). You'd have thought the world was ending based on the backlash. Some of that was legitimate, as some things - notably the AI - were pretty broken in the process. It was the Windows Vista of Civ games.

This is just revisionist history, Civ 5 addressed many long standing complaints about the Civ series with its move to one unit per tile. Yes there were some who were against it but the overwhelming reaction to Civ 5 when it came out was extremely positive. It sold like crazy and was a huge success. Yes it got even better with the expansions but the base game was very well received by critics and players alike. Its simply wrong to compare the backlash to 7 with the way 5 was received.

[reoman56]

Civ 7 is garbage tier compared to Civ 5 and Civ 4. Civ 7 is a DLC platform designed to siphon money out of your pocket for the next eight years or so.

[Despiser]

Originally posted by WeirdWizardDave:

Originally posted by Kamigami:

To me Civ 7 feels very similar to Civ 5... not because of how the game works, but in how fans are reacting to it on release.

Civ 4 was a refined version of Civ 1, 2, and 3. It was (and is) beloved by people who liked how Civ 1, 2, and 3 worked. It was the Windows XP of Civ games.

Civ 5 upended all that, radically changing how the map was laid out (hexes) and how units worked (one per square). You'd have thought the world was ending based on the backlash. Some of that was legitimate, as some things - notably the AI - were pretty broken in the process. It was the Windows Vista of Civ games.

This is just revisionist history, Civ 5 addressed many long standing complaints about the Civ series with its move to one unit per tile. Yes there were some who were against it but the overwhelming reaction to Civ 5 when it came out was extremely positive. It sold like crazy and was a huge success. Yes it got even better with the expansions but the base game was very well received by critics and players alike. Its simply wrong to compare the backlash to 7 with the way 5 was received.

Civ 5 was not well received. Vanilla was bland, boring and empty. But it did go on to be arguably the best in the series. The AI is still better than any release since, especially air and sea.

[dcbobo]

Originally posted by WeirdWizardDave:

Originally posted by Kamigami:

To me Civ 7 feels very similar to Civ 5... not because of how the game works, but in how fans are reacting to it on release.

Civ 4 was a refined version of Civ 1, 2, and 3. It was (and is) beloved by people who liked how Civ 1, 2, and 3 worked. It was the Windows XP of Civ games.

Civ 5 upended all that, radically changing how the map was laid out (hexes) and how units worked (one per square). You'd have thought the world was ending based on the backlash. Some of that was legitimate, as some things - notably the AI - were pretty broken in the process. It was the Windows Vista of Civ games.

This is just revisionist history, Civ 5 addressed many long standing complaints about the Civ series with its move to one unit per tile. Yes there were some who were against it but the overwhelming reaction to Civ 5 when it came out was extremely positive. It sold like crazy and was a huge success. Yes it got even better with the expansions but the base game was very well received by critics and players alike. Its simply wrong to compare the backlash to 7 with the way 5 was received.

No it wasn't, that is ridiculous. It was barely playable the first month with the first week being extremely rough. and it didn't even have religion. And that ain't even counting the hex change.

Had people reviewed like they to today, it would have probably been 20% positive. But we knew, they'd get a handle on it, and they did. All we could do was sit through the ai turns and ♥♥♥♥♥ on forums or game chats. People were just happy for a new civ, they weren't about to give it negative reviews.

I wish they'd release a day one build of civ 5 to refresh yalls damn memory.

[issou96]

civ 7 is a Switch game

[Martin]

One of the best changes in the game.. you're in a fight, you're loosing units.. so you make more. The problem is, in Civ 5 or 6 those new units are half a map away.. you have to manually sail them all to the location of the war.

In Civ 7, you can tell them to reinforce the commanders in the warzone and 10 turns or so later, they get teleported to that location, it's such a huge time saver, removes all the micro management of the older games.