Game reminds me of Civilization Revolution

[qsnoopyjr]

I was looking at the images of the game, builds are somewhat zoomed in and focused, this is just like Civilization Revolution.

I have to say Civ 7 has the worst leader designs, Civilization Revolution is way better, thats 2008 game btw.

Civilization Revolution was nothing special but back then all I had was an Xbox360. Think I probably logged 40 hours and called it a wrap, many other really good games out during the time, and nothing to write home about Civilization Revolution.

But its just odd, I look Civ 7 and the nostalgic is not from the Civ games, its from Civilization Revolution. It's the world layout and what not and somewhat the leader animations and look, but Civilization Revoluton has a bit different leader look vibe and its better than what Civilization 7 has. Civilization Revolution leaders artwork were nothing compared to the ones in 2,3,4,5.

7 seems to be for the younger crowd, so if they unsure why what happened. This game isn't for those that been enjoying the Civ series since long ago. This game totally different and cheap made, doing the artwork like you did, younger crowd aint having it, neither is the core base.

For 8 and future, slowly make changes as in vibe younger crowd attracting for 1 to 3 leaders to see if people enjoying it or not liking it, and same with the gameplay. Civ 7 seems to have went in a full younger crowd leaders, and they went all in for the younger crowd base is what it feels like to me. Their fault they where they are with the reviews and feedback. Disappointment.

It's like they want younger to play but make it very tedious. Young crowd don't like tedious, and crowd since decades ago, they don't like young crowd push in how these talk and look and so on. Keep it history based keep it Civilization like, not talk like talking to young player base.

This game just doesn't mix well, too many agendas or goals they had in mind and conflicting that hardly anyone enjoys it.

[universecreep]

I think the Dev team ran out of original ideas for Civ which is why they borrowed so many from other games.

Civ has always done this but not to such an extent.

They probably need to hire a new team to make any expansions they plan to offer. They need an injection of original thinking into the formula.

[jariel]

i strongly disagree. i think this is at least partly a return to those glory days of civ 2 and smac, it has that kind of gameplay vibes, there are must have things like there were must have wonders in those and the ai really comes at you specially after 1.2, decisions matter, something i couldnt say from 5 and 6.

[ParabolaWaVe]

Before innovating in anything, its necessary to understand tradition. Learn the rules well, and eventually you'll be able to break them.

With a development team that clearly didn't understood what was good of the previous games and why they were fun, it was pretty much impossible to redesign the game for a new generation while retaining the older players, and innovating in a good sense.

Somebody could say that I can't possibly know for sure that the Civ 7 team doesn't understand the game, that I'm making a wild guess. But its certainly shocking that even before release, with its features and changes still on paper, so many potential consumers knew that the game was going to be badly received, yet the developers themselves never realized that. Its a real pity, because the entire 4X genre is just Civilization and a couple more games.

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Civ Revoultion is so underrated given what it accomplished. It faithfully recreated the Civ formula on controller-based consoles, while also being incredibly accessible to first-time players. What's more, it was a spin off; meaning it wouldn't risk polluting the good will built up between 4 and 5 should it have failed.

Sidenote: Can you believe there was only a five year turnaround between Civ's 4 and 5? Firaxis was really cranking 'em out back then. Same for 6, which came only six years after 5. Makes you think, huh? But I digress.

If they'd have simplified Civ7 a bit and called it "Revolution 2" instead, we'd all be singing a different tune on this game. Although rare, there have been successful strategy games to come out exclusively on console - Halo Wars come to mind, as does the aforementioned Civ Revolution. However, when you try to blend the core gameplay to please both crowds, you end up pleasing no one. Case in point: Supreme Commander 2, Company of Heroes 3, and of course, Civ7.

[RedLabel]

They need to draw some inspiration from Paradox, move away a bit from board game mechanics and embrace more simulation mechanics. For example, the pop system in Paradox games (i.e Stellaris, Victoria 3), pop system interfaces with many systems including the dynamic ideology and political leanings of your population. It influences the economy, discontent, immigration / emigration, political parties and potential rebellions / civil wars.

Introduce markets with supply and demand mechanics, (i.e Old World, Stellaris, Victoria 3). In Civ, each era the market could gain an additional component of complexity (i.e loans and investments to other civs). I mean there's so many ideas they could implement in Civ, they just need new leadership amenable to fresh ideas.

Civ feels like it's moving towards the Mario Party type games and it's the wrong move, I'd say the majority of the target audience that really shells out money for these games are adults and older people. I think the average 4X/strategy enjoyer tends to be smarter than the playerbase of other game genres, give them mechanics and systems that stimulate the mind.

[jariel]

Originally posted by RedLabel:

They need to draw some inspiration from Paradox, move away a bit from board game mechanics and embrace more simulation mechanics. For example, the pop system in Paradox games (i.e Stellaris, Victoria 3), pop system interfaces with many systems including the dynamic ideology and political leanings of your population. It influences the economy, discontent, immigration / emigration, political parties and potential rebellions / civil wars.

Introduce markets with supply and demand mechanics, (i.e Old World, Stellaris, Victoria 3). In Civ, each era the market could gain an additional component of complexity (i.e loans and investments to other civs). I mean there's so many ideas they could implement in Civ, they just need new leadership amenable to fresh ideas.

Civ feels like it's moving towards the Mario Party type games and it's the wrong move, I'd say the majority of the target audience that really shells out money for these games are adults and older people. I think the average 4X/strategy enjoyer tends to be smarter than the playerbase of other game genres, give them mechanics and systems that stimulate the mind.

If they wanted to do the best posible strategy game they ofcourse would do things like that, but after 3 the trend has been obvious, they dumbed these down every time but with 7, with this they tried to do it super easy to new players so you stay at the map and even at the end get the "win" and hard to long time players so that if you actually want to have a nice run, then its quite challenging. So the strategy is obviously to please as many ppl they can, and it has worked, they dominate this genre in sales. The next good strategy game wont come from these big companies cos it aint in their intrest, it will be some indie passion project that sets the new standards and then these big companies have to follow.

[The Doctor]

You know, I actually respect that you guys don't like Civ 7 and I appreciate your reasons for not liking it. I don't even mind you telling us why you don't like it over and over again because some of you, but certainly not all, actually care about the game and feel left behind or some other sentiment.

What does bug me is the pointless hyperbole, the stupid analogies and baseless speculation that are mere expressions of your loathing for the game. Mario Party game, made for younger audiences, super easy for new players? Those are laughable and can't be taken seriously. That really is how children communicate their dislike for something.

Whether you like the game or not, this is not an easy game for a new player at all. Some folks can't beat the game on the easiest difficulty and that's been true for the franchise for a long time. This is not a dumb game at all. It may not be 'smart' enough for you but it's far from being a Mario Party mobile game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBA-01wn_fk

If you actually want people to respect your opinions, why not keep them real and avoid the emotional nonsense?

Oh, and Civ Revolutions had black Cleopatra. ;)

[TigerRus]

Just in case someone actually thinks i like this game. I DONT, Its terrible. I may even post again tomorrow.

Firaxis refund everyone and lets move on

[keviinb]

Having a terrible UI with confusing and overly complex systems does not make a game more challenging.


"How can Civ7 be made more challenging on the higher difficulty levels?"

From most serious players ( check Civ Fanatics ) this version of "Civ "is considered super easy .

"With all other versions of Civ I have definitely had the one more game feeling, but I am not sure Civ 7 is challenging enough for an experienced 4X strategy player."

"Civ 7 deity is easier than the previous titles"

"I don't think there's much doubt Civ 7 deity is too easy"

"However it's still too easy to beat the AI in war, and by the middle of exploration I've managed to almost catch up to the crazy AI science/culture yields."


So Joe , the game is not easy for a new player as the UI is a confusing pile of a steaming mess .

This game is and often said more suitable for younger players, a console market with a leveling meta .

Fix the UI and re-brand Civkind as a mobile game

[jariel]

Well i consider my self as a civ player, been playing these from the first one, a lot, a better part of my life, and war win has been hard in 2 games, it was some expansion of civ 2 and those were wery specific scenarios, other one was alien atack and other one usa civil war, the only way to take a fortified city was to keep every tile and starwe them.

I found as a long time civ player that this is the most chalenging civ after civ 3. It ofcourse depends what you consider as win, to me win is a nice run and in this it means doing all the win conditions and futures. Allso i havent lost a civ game, i cant even remember when, probably at civ 3, but in this after 1.2 i lost a game and i dont mean lost like ai took the win condition, i mean it came trough my ribs and crushed me.

edit.. now that i think of it, saying that this is easy gives me a feeling that its talking in comparison to previous ones and if it is, specialy to 5 or 6.. its totaly absurd, like my memory aint that good, but wasnt it than in the other one you could take out armies with one bow? and in the other one you cold send a f... hercules or that short fellow to take out entire civilizations, no military needed... ridicilous, ai in this aint even near perfect but it defenetly is best civ ai ever.

[z3rk]

I think the biggest issue with any longstanding franchise is, that the people who made previous games, usually are no longer with the company. Ofc it might not be true for games that releases each year or so,
But there was what 8-9 years between Civ 6 and Civ 7. And another six years between 6 and 5.
It might be the same company, firaxis, but the people are hardly the same because people come and go all the time. Same for Sid Meier's, the game has his name in the title but he hasn't been part of development of what, any game past Civ 4? He's a producer and whilst he can come and shoot some ideas, he's not any vital part of game development.

So, the company is the same but the people creating game are different, and it shows, their ideas, their solutions their improvements and signature all amalgamated into....this.

And we've seen that already with DA: veilguard, that was released 11 years after the DA: Inquisition, in hopes to restart the franchise. Completely new people, completely new ideas, almost complete detachment from previous games and what made them good.
And it tanked, tanked hard. It could have been a good game on it's own, kind of mediocre, but slapping Dragon Age to it's name made it what it was, a faillure. Same with Civ 7, if that was some random Civ: whatever, standalone game, as a branch from the franchise, i'd bet it would get much more praise, but as a Civ 7, it's simply too detached from predecessors to not look at it with previous games optics.

So yeah, I agree that this is made for completely different people. Is it a success? Well with all limited metrics available for us, it is not, far from it.
Can they turn it over with next iteration? Highly doubt it.

[jariel]

"all limited metrics available for us, it is not, far from it." not true, i think no one has current sales but it broke all the previous records for pre sales, and those sale numbers are from the companyz point of wiew the only numbers that matters.

[RedLabel]

Take 2 Quarterly Earnings are due May 15, they'll be posted here: https://www.take2games.com/ir/quarterly-earnings

We'll see if they highlight sales or any positive metrics, if it's positive they will. But if its bad they might omit them and at most say it did not meet expectations, then paint a rosy outlook for the future and quickly move on. That's how it usually goes with these things.

[z3rk]

Originally posted by jariel:

"all limited metrics available for us, it is not, far from it." not true, i think no one has current sales but it broke all the previous records for pre sales, and those sale numbers are from the companyz point of wiew the only numbers that matters.

Yes but then again, now every major game has a pre-order option with some crap-like bonuses.
I had to check and yup, you could pre-order Civ 6, if you did so, you'd receive Aztecs civilization, that would be available for all after 90 days, so, that could have been pre-ordered and Civ 7 was better at pre-sales.

However, how many copies did they sell, 1 million 2, 5? We don't know, why we don't know, cause they did not share it, which is telling, you want to hype investors and players with big numbers.
AssCreed boasted they got 3 million players (not sold copies) in a week or so,
Expedition 33 sold 2 millions after 2 weeks and posted this information straight away,
Civ 6 sold 1 million copies after a 2 weeks and boasted it, so why did not civ 7?

Also, the one and only reliable metric for the number of players, shows that the numbers are dwindling (after 2 big patches). historically always new civ was underperforming compared to previous title. But hardly to 2 previous titles

With their rather dumb move to release DLC on day 1, the said DLC is sitting in abysmal 10% approval rate, worse are probably only games that no longer works on steam (if there are any)

On Metacritic, reviewers give it 78, user score is at 3.8 (maybe review bombed, who knows).

On steam, which is more reliable (and counts only users that have bought the copy hence limiting review bombing), it sits at, mixed 48%. And whilst we ofcourse can say that reviews don't matter, not a single company/developer out there just shruggs shoulders to poor reviews, it's not how stuff/marketing works

So yeah as i said, it's far from doing good, especially with their model in mind that milks the future playerbase. With low players and low engagement, you won't be able to dish out a lot of DLCs to give you steady income, no critical mass= no revenue
And, shareholders were obviously promised green pastures not some 'maybe we'll breakeven'.

So as RedLabel said, if there won't be anything in their quarterly earnings, it's cooked