Civ VII will become better, but will never be the Civ some wanted

[Fabiano]

I understand most changes, but I cant support the drive factor behind them. It seems that what the Devs wanted was to turn Civ more "gamey", more reward oriented...I will not say it became a mobile game, but for sure they were inspired by the mobile's philosophy of "keep the player engaged by trowing flash rewards at him every minute".

For me, Civ was always a relaxing game...start small, grow bigger at your own pace, do what you want to do (talking about king or bellow dif). Now, I feel pressure to run towards objectives and always rushing to the "the first" civ to reach this or that. Also, the "reset at every Age" is terrible for players like me.

I know they will fix the lack of polish and the mecanics will become more deep with every DLC, but I dont think they can change the core philosophy behind the changes.

I will probably play more Civ VII in the years to come, but Im already waiting for VIII to come as the Civ that I wanted...

(sorry the grammar errors)

[DadouXIII]

Every new Civ game is not the Civ game *someone* wanted.
So many different people play Civ games for different reasons.
That's the best thing about it, every person can find what they want in a different release.

Not every new Civ game needs to be a prettier reskin of the last one, and that's a GOOD thing!

[Fabiano]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Every new Civ game is not the Civ game *someone* wanted.
So many different people play Civ games for different reasons.
That's the best thing about it, every person can find what they want in a different release.

Not every new Civ game needs to be a prettier reskin of the last one, and that's a GOOD thing!

Not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but I understand what you are saying. The devs having the guts to change its a good thing. But, at least for me, the direction they choose feels wrong. For me, VII feels like a game apart from the main series, like Beyond Earth. I would bet that when VIII comes around, the marketing will use phrases like "back to the core of civ games" "back to the roots" etc.

[Dr.Acula]

The whole era switch is a total deal breaker for me and the more I read about the less appealing it is.

1. It changes relationship status between nations (cancelling wars)
2. It changes units moving stuff around at random
3. You have to select new civ aspects
4. The civ aspects are not all availabl but depend on what you did before meaning you have to play a certain way to potentially unlock the civ/leader you want

It's just an overall terrible concept.

[Flash]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Every new Civ game is not the Civ game *someone* wanted.
So many different people play Civ games for different reasons.
That's the best thing about it, every person can find what they want in a different release.

Not every new Civ game needs to be a prettier reskin of the last one, and that's a GOOD thing!

Every new product revision has some changes. But calling a Fanta a Coca cola makes no sense just because their both Fizzy drinks
A lazy spinoff of the Civ series with lost vision and branding it as a Civilization game does not make it one. You can enjoy the game, but dont keep calling it a Civ game.

Also this is the most pathetic edition of the Civ games. I had to tell them to stop asking me for support on bugs because of how little testing or respect they have for the customer for Civ 7. I was never this annoyed in Civ 6 support... MAYBE BECAUSE IT FOLLOWED game vision and expanded/modified features UNLIKE CIV 7

or because they had more talent and intelligence while developing Civ 6 and its predecessors. This Civ 7 is a lost cause no matter how many bugs they fix. Hopefully mods can rectify a lot of it.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Fabiano:

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Every new Civ game is not the Civ game *someone* wanted.
So many different people play Civ games for different reasons.
That's the best thing about it, every person can find what they want in a different release.

Not every new Civ game needs to be a prettier reskin of the last one, and that's a GOOD thing!

Not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but I understand what you are saying. The devs having the guts to change its a good thing. But, at least for me, the direction they choose feels wrong. For me, VII feels like a game apart from the main series, like Beyond Earth. I would bet that when VIII comes around, the marketing will use phrases like "back to the core of civ games" "back to the roots" etc.

At this point, it simply isn't possible to guess what marketing will be saying when Civ VIII is announced. Civ VII has just launched and has a lotof developoment time ahead of it. Except in the case of the very worst possible scenario that people could imagine, development won't halt after the first proper expansion drops but that's extremely unlikely. (I'd say THAT is the worst possible scenario for Civ VII)

This game will almost certainly get two expansions after all the pre-sold DLC is finished so I'd say we're good for at least another 2 years. And it would need a further 3-5 years minimum after that to develop an all-new game so it's not happening this decade.

I'd say it's even possible this will get more DLC to expand the number of cultures and leaders well after the second expansion drops just like Civ VI got. It was still getting leader expansions a little more than 2 years ago (Nov 2022). So if you're holding on to Civ VIII, you've got a very long wait ahead of you.

Secondly, this game has got hammered on release, worse than any Civ game has had on launch before, absolutely no argument there, But much of this is going to die down as the new content starts coming in. Not next month but slowly over the next 6 months.

I don't expect user reviews will be much better than Mixed until the end of the year but I think this game has been more successful finacially than the reviews and forum posts suggest and we'll likely see an improved version of Civ VII rather than a return to a previous version. Which would that be? I absolutely do NOT want a return to either V or VI at all and I think most folks would agree with that. I think this is the direction Civ is going for at least one more version.

Because outrage never really seems to abate online, the forum is always going to have a lot of negativity but we'll also see far more positive discussions and eventually, it will just be seen as the same pointless negativity you found on Civ V and VI boards years after their release. (I'm not talking about NOW)

[Dr.Acula]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

This game will almost certainly get two expansions after all the pre-sold DLC is finished so I'd say we're good for at least another 2 years. And it would need a further 3-5 years minimum after that to develop an all-new game so it's not happening this decade.

I'd say it's even possible this will get more DLC to expand the number of cultures and leaders well after the second expansion drops just like Civ VI got. It was still getting leader expansions a little more than 2 years ago (Nov 2022). So if you're holding on to Civ VIII, you've got a very long wait ahead of you.

It honestly is a really sad state the gaming industry is in when you have to hope that the initial disaster release needs to be fixed with DLCs that will cost more money and that you have to hope for that to even be released because the initial sales are looking pretty bad.

[Flash]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

This game will almost certainly get two expansions after all the pre-sold DLC is finished so I'd say we're good for at least another 2 years. And it would need a further 3-5 years minimum after that to develop an all-new game so it's not happening this decade.

Secondly, this game has got hammered on release, worse than any Civ game has had on launch before, absolutely no argument there, But much of this is going to die down as the new content starts coming in. Not next month but slowly over the next 6 months.

Because outrage never really seems to abate online, the forum is always going to have a lot of negativity but we'll also see far more positive discussions and eventually, it will just be seen as the same pointless negativity you found on Civ V and VI boards years after their release. (I'm not talking about NOW)

1. Yes they cant stop development before they release their promised DLCs list cause that would be legal scandal. So thats a plus

2. Not really. It wont. Games with poor implemented features versus a game with total core separation AND instead of learning, they tool several steps backwards in game development.. Sort of embarrassing so while posts will quiet down its not something people will deny anytime in the future.

3. See this is one thing people dont understand. Noone came to Civ 7 after experiencing a flop. People may have not liked some features in Civ 6 but it was in fact an expansion and new game experience from Civ 5 or civ 4 to civ 5 etc. (aka succession)
So of course everyone believed this big company would somehow bring greatness and a link to what they saw from the trailer of changing civ. They didnt expect a half as* broken title with so many bugs after 6 previous titles. The changing civs didnt bring excitement more as to make the game boring graphics change for its majority

So people questioning Civ 7 sales are just dumb. They went off what was EXPECTATIONs. You see customer perception when Civ 8. I myself told the devs directly I will never buy future Fireaxis games until much later at a deep discount and testing. They've got a lot of promise to make and implement to sell Civ 8 if they want the financial momentum and sales after screwing people over

Sorry for long post (;.;)

[Alopen]

Originally posted by Dr.Acula:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

This game will almost certainly get two expansions after all the pre-sold DLC is finished so I'd say we're good for at least another 2 years. And it would need a further 3-5 years minimum after that to develop an all-new game so it's not happening this decade.

I'd say it's even possible this will get more DLC to expand the number of cultures and leaders well after the second expansion drops just like Civ VI got. It was still getting leader expansions a little more than 2 years ago (Nov 2022). So if you're holding on to Civ VIII, you've got a very long wait ahead of you.

It honestly is a really sad state the gaming industry is in when you have to hope that the initial disaster release needs to be fixed with DLCs that will cost more money and that you have to hope for that to even be released because the initial sales are looking pretty bad.

Coming from Paradox games, this is par for course. But patching and updates to fix games has been a thing for 20 + years at this point with everyone.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

This game will almost certainly get two expansions after all the pre-sold DLC is finished so I'd say we're good for at least another 2 years. And it would need a further 3-5 years minimum after that to develop an all-new game so it's not happening this decade.

Secondly, this game has got hammered on release, worse than any Civ game has had on launch before, absolutely no argument there, But much of this is going to die down as the new content starts coming in. Not next month but slowly over the next 6 months.

Because outrage never really seems to abate online, the forum is always going to have a lot of negativity but we'll also see far more positive discussions and eventually, it will just be seen as the same pointless negativity you found on Civ V and VI boards years after their release. (I'm not talking about NOW)

1. Yes they cant stop development before they release their promised DLCs list cause that would be legal scandal. So thats a plus

2. Not really. It wont. Games with poor implemented features versus a game with total core separation AND instead of learning, they tool several steps backwards in game development.. Sort of embarrassing so while posts will quiet down its not something people will deny anytime in the future.

3. See this is one thing people dont understand. Noone came to Civ 7 after experiencing a flop. People may have not liked some features in Civ 6 but it was in fact an expansion and new game experience from Civ 5 or civ 4 to civ 5 etc. (aka succession)
So of course everyone believed this big company would somehow bring greatness and a link to what they saw from the trailer of changing civ. They didnt expect a half as* broken title with so many bugs after 6 previous titles. The changing civs didnt bring excitement more as to make the game boring graphics change for its majority

So people questioning Civ 7 sales are just dumb. They went off what was EXPECTATIONs. You see customer perception when Civ 8. I myself told the devs directly I will never buy future Fireaxis games until much later at a deep discount and testing. They've got a lot of promise to make and implement to sell Civ 8 if they want the financial momentum and sales after screwing people over

Sorry for long post (;.;)

I can't foresee the future. Like some folks are doing, I just extrapolate from past and present experience to make my own best guess and hopefully without emotions influencing my judgement too much. I'm not a robot after all but the element of wishful thinking is largely but not totally absent in my judgements.

I'm not sure I agree with either points 2 or 3 but I'll focus on 3 for now.

I thiink quite a few folks came to Civ VII hoping for a flop for a number of mostly good reasons. I might even have been one of them at one point.

There are a lot of folks who don't trust corporations to give us what we want as evidenced by much of what we see both in and out of the gaming industry. I'm not opening than can of worms, merely mentioning it. :D And we've always had buggy base game releases. Each Civ launch is pretty much the same in that respect - that's neither an excuse nor a defence - just a fact that many folks enjoy the game in that state regardless.

Yes, there do appear to be quite a few folks who trusted Firaxis to give them a familiar Civ experience. After Civ V, I have no idea why a long-term follower would think that unless they loved the shift to 1UPT and Civ VI's unpacking of the cities. The changes tp Civ VII that were announced were immediately controversial and attracted a huge amount of negativity and it was hard to miss, even if you didn't visit the boards of a game you would supposedly be a fan of.

It was also all over Youtube as well which you might possibly have had some interest in if you're a fan of the Civ franchise. Yes, some folks just blindly buy and there's nothing at all that you can do about it. They tend to be fine examples of 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..." after the event too. Some of them won't even learn from this lesson either.

If we follow the same pattern as we;ve seen with 3 to 4 and 5 to 6, Civ VIII will be a development of Civ VII and the changes you guys are hoping for won't come until Civ IX.

[kasnavada]

Originally posted by Dr.Acula:

The whole era switch is a total deal breaker for me and the more I read about the less appealing it is.

1. It changes relationship status between nations (cancelling wars)
2. It changes units moving stuff around at random
3. You have to select new civ aspects
4. The civ aspects are not all availabl but depend on what you did before meaning you have to play a certain way to potentially unlock the civ/leader you want

It's just an overall terrible concept.

Not, it's not an overall terrible concept.
It's a new mechanic that needs to be refined.

1 => war ending with rather random results at age change is one of the most discussed thing here. But, it's not the age that's the issue here, it's how war ending is handled. It can (and will) be improved.

2 => same here. Dunno why they went their current route but many have just stated that units should move less from one age to the next, that we shouldn't have to re assign units in armies. It's not a broken concept, it's a very fixable one. With a few UI improvements like showing the quantity of units lost on age transition, quantity of unit, and a few gameplay transition like "armies in the next year start with same composition as previous year, or, if deployed, take the units around them first instead of random units", it's solved.

3 => What ? New stuff acquired in game is bad ? You actually keep part of what was your first civ a build on it. Ok, that's personal opinion, but its very strange.

4 => What ? Do you have the game ? All leaders and civs are available from the start. Unlocking a particular civilization in the next have has, sadly, easily fixable UI issues (they should tell us what the conditions are). But as a whole, just playing, most of the time, I unlock HALF of the civs to choose for the next age. Choosing a particular civ for the next age doesn't require anything more than a trip to wikipedia or a game guide to check for the next age unlock conditions and a minor gameplay adjustment (conquering one city instead of another for a specific ressource, but a lot of conditions don't require that, they're just like "build 5 walls" for normans or trade with people). Doesn't force you to play a way or another, if you know what you need to unlock. Out of the 100 turns that an age last, it requires maybe 5-10 turns at the very most to steer toward the choice you want.

What isn't available from the start is mementos, but to be honest, while I use them, they feel like cheating. Probably won't be allowed in multiplayer.

Anyhow, nothing here is a broken concept. Broken record maybe given how much disinformation is thrown around, but a lot of what people cry about is not fundamentally that age transitions are bad, but that it's badly handled.

I like the game a lot, but yeah, age transition needs improvements. But the concept behind it is strong. Its implementation is at the UI level currently.

PS: I should add that they already fixed some of the age transition stuff => now city states stay at the same place when age changes, at the very start they were removed and replaced randomly on the map. There is a will to fix this from firaxis, just give them time.

[Amethyst_Cat]

Of course the negative nellies don't really know what Civ they wanted - just they didn't want this LOL

[Dr. Cheesefart]

Originally posted by Fabiano:

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Every new Civ game is not the Civ game *someone* wanted.
So many different people play Civ games for different reasons.
That's the best thing about it, every person can find what they want in a different release.

Not every new Civ game needs to be a prettier reskin of the last one, and that's a GOOD thing!

Not sure if I agree with your conclusion, but I understand what you are saying. The devs having the guts to change its a good thing. But, at least for me, the direction they choose feels wrong. For me, VII feels like a game apart from the main series, like Beyond Earth. I would bet that when VIII comes around, the marketing will use phrases like "back to the core of civ games" "back to the roots" etc.

Considering the number of players, the game may also be dropped like Beyond Earth.

[DadouXIII]

Originally posted by Amethyst_Cat:

Of course the negative nellies don't really know what Civ they wanted - just they didn't want this LOL

I can tell you that a lot of them just want Civ VI again with fancier graphics.
Change BAD!

[Dr.Acula]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

I can tell you that a lot of them just want Civ VI again with fancier graphics.
Change BAD!

Well some might've have wanted Civ 5 again with fancier graphics. Others would've wanted Civ 4 again with fancier graphics.

In the end though no one could tell you for sure what would've made a new Civ game perfect. For me there are thoughts on what they could've done but they may even have been able to just do that with more Civ 6 expansions.

What most people definitely did not want was to take core aspects of Humankind (a game that already failed with that design) and implement that into Civilization.

[rawabuca]

I have played each Civilization games as they came out on some 6 or 7 PCs and all the different windows up to windows eleven. What i liked was it could be played in a easy way, mainly with a mouse. I am 87 years of age and i played Civ to keep my mind active. Up to now all controls were easy and you could enjoy the game as you played. Now however although the graphics are better, and maybe even the game itself, it is the worst most clunky
game i have ever played. Sometimes when you put too many ideas into a game it slows it down and and instead of being enjoyable it becomes a chore, and the game plays you rather than you playing the game. I will play play civ 7 but i wont enjoy it as much as 5 or 6.
Rolfdewolf