The Civ franchise - a different perspective

[The Doctor]

I've played the base games of Civ 3, 5, 6 and 7 at launch since I discovered Civ 2. I was out of the country when Civ IV launched but I picked it up when I visited the old country along with the Warlords expansion but I had followed the forums (obviously not Steam discussion boards - there are others for those who are keen to find a 'gotcha').

Civ 3 launched with a new feature that I absolutely loved - the cultural borders that prevented enemy units from entering without a DoW or an Open Borders treaty. Therefore, i was as happy as a pig in poo playing Civ 3 every day until I finally bought Civ IV and Warlords on holiday.

People tend to forget how bare bones a new version of Civ is when compared to its fully fleshed out predecessor. It was so with Civ IV as well where people tend to evaluate it when BTS came along and made it the best version of Civ ever. I don't agree with that as I absolutely hated Corporations but otherwise liked it.

Civ V was absolutely horrible at launch. It was extremely buggy and the AI couldn't play with the all-new 1UPT military game at all. I gave up on it after my second session with it and returned for Gods and Kings where no improvements were found. It didn't help that I didn't like the new religion mechanics either preferring for it to have a somewhat less important role in the game. (Civ 3 did it best IMO) I swore off the Civ franchise at that point and it was only the insistence of a friend that encouraged me to try Brave New World and I actually enjoyed it again. That's where almost all my hours of play came from.

Civ VI was surprisingly good on launch compared to previous Civs but the new art style was controversial and some also folks hated the unpacked cities. Plus it was missing SO much that Civ V had at the end of its life so the community's focus was largely on all that was buggy and not working properly.

Civ VII however, has been the best Civ game on launch for me. Of course, it's got many of the same teething problems, bugs and systems not balanced that have been a part of every Civ launch since 3 but it just feels like it has more than other base games. But it also has the ages and culture shifting mechanisms which a lot of fans hate so the focus is all on what's wrong with it and especially on what's missing. I feel like religion has been put in a better place in the game than it was in Civ V and VI.

So, the perspective offered here is that a new Civ game has always been rough at launch, some much worse than others but all unfairly compared to the fuil game that came before. Previous launches have had similarly (but not proportionally) controversial changes which badly split the community as well, particularly Civ V.

But it's not offered to diminish how obnoxious the ages and culture shifting systems are for some folks, the outrage over the expensive, front-loaded DLC with GB and Carthage being a part of to boot, or to imply that the backlash is somehow underserved. It is but there'a also a bit of serious nonsense getting mixed in with the 'good' stuff and part of that is that previous Civ games were 'good' at launch. They weren't.

[jariel]

I think the noise is calming down after 1.20, its starting to be there, or even is, ofcourse its the internet there will always be those who just pour their frustrations in life where they find a place, its actually kind of funny, in way way back they blamed the elf's, gods etc now days they blame the devs, studios, athletes and teams etc :) and for sure there are those who just hate the age change, culture swapping and crisis, the core changes in this game.

Its so subjective, there are plenty of things that can affect liking or not liking something, one can be just outgrown of something and dont even realise it.

I will always remember civ 3, i was allready then a "grown man" and a father, and i allmost cried when i tried to play that, in my opinion it still is absolutely horrible, i was so sad, for weeks, and angry, they had ruined my game :) :) and 5 upset me allso but it was more like this 7 it just needed some getting used to.

This whole arguing in the internet about a game is so stupid, for sure its a good thing to write a review, or once or twice tell about the game mechanics one likes or not, but this need to bash a game, like you get a reward if it doesn't sell or ppl dont play it is so stupid, and the over defending it too, the game doesnt need it, it even does well or not and even that has only minimal affect of the thing that matters, the personal experience, does one enjoy playing the game or not.

And for sure these games havent ever been ready from the get go, the ad ons in many cases changed the original game hugely. Comparing a new game to old one that has countles dlc and at least 2 major ad ons is absolutely ridicilous.

[cheetah1546]

I've played a few franchises for a long time. One being Football Manager. My experience in Civ games is limited, mostly on V. But one similar thing (to other posters here) is that the newest iteration, FM24 was the first one I disliked.

I did like that you couldn't just go in someone's borders.

And yeah in multiple gaming franchises people love one entry when it's at the point of no longer really needing updates. But then can't stand the new launch. Which is unfair

One issue I remember with Civ V. It took more time between me hitting launch and it actually loading than any game I have ever played.

I liked the religion in it. Though I wasn't a fan of espionage at all.

I skipped over Civ VI entirely. I realize it's the most popular one now. But even when on sale, I cannot justify buying it and all that expensive DLC too. I know they're going to do the same with this one. But I'm still not doing that.

Yeah VII has good things going for it. Which is why I always say to give the devs more time.

[Bandit17]

I'm just trying to remember what I had for dinner last night.

I spent a lot of hours on Civ starting at Civ 2 but really falling in love with IV. I also couldn't play Civ 5 at launch as the AI was so horrible I would just laugh at it dance around one of their cities and not even attack me as I took it. Each new expansion brought me back though and it did really finish strong.

Civ 6 surprised me and I got hooked quickly. Eventually though I realized I was restarting a lot of games because I didn't get a Prophet or I would get bored with the heavy worker/religion micro. Also, knowing that the game was already won halfway through the playthrough didn't help. The poor end game AI never building a standing Navy or having almost no air units and the combat would just get stale as the game progressed.

Civ 7 has really spoken to me. I am really into hobby board gaming and one of my favorite types is Area Control with tight resource mechanics and involving rounds where there are soft resets to allow weaker players a chance to catch up if they play well. That is Civ 7 but just with a lot more depth and time involved. Even though the AI is far from perfect I have had some epic land and naval battles to keep me up all night. Really looking forward to what is coming down the pipeline.

[jariel]

I think that in this one the speed that they have improved the problems has actually been spectacular.. i dont remember was it 5 or 6 but i think that they did the re spawn map in second expancion.. or something like that.. maybe the backlash has been that severe that there has been some hard talks and emergency meetings but they pushed the dlc stuf etc back and went all in in these 2 latest patches and they have done brilliant job.

[wildmick]

played all the civ games since 2. i don't understand the backlash.. i'm loving it.. civ 6 had me at like 5k hrs played.. i'm almost up to 1k for 7.

Sure its not perfect.. I really like i don't have to give a crap about religion. Wish there was more freedom of choice, the legacy path stuff is very linear. It becomes a meta to research this, then that, then this, do this, do that, send 4 serttlers off to distant lands.. blah blah.

Thankfully gedemon quickly got the ynamp mod up n working pronto, to enjoy the world map options that firaxis seem incapable of reproducing themselves.

base game max size is standard.. it can be modded to HUGE. Why wasn't it HUGE out of the gate? Why isn't there a world map in the base game.. its civilisation.. not randomisation.

[DadouXIII]

Originally posted by cheetah1546:

Which is why I always say to give the devs more time.

I don't understand it when people who have been playing Civ games for a while keep forgetting that a new Civ game on day 1 is essentially an unfinished experience.
We've seen this time and time again.
Either buy it day 1 and push through the growing pains, or buy it 1-2 years later after it's been fixed and it having receive 1-2 expansions.

[cheetah1546]

Originally posted by DadouXIII:

Originally posted by cheetah1546:

Which is why I always say to give the devs more time.

I don't understand it when people who have been playing Civ games for a while keep forgetting that a new Civ game on day 1 is essentially an unfinished experience.
We've seen this time and time again.
Either buy it day 1 and push through the growing pains, or buy it 1-2 years later after it's been fixed and it having receive 1-2 expansions.

Yeah waiting is almost always best if you have the strength to do it.