Patches? DLC? Anything?

[Sojurn]

Is there anything on the horizon for patches, QOL improvements or even DLC to help fix this boring, dissatisfying mess of a game?

At this stage, it feels worse than Civilization: Beyond Earth or whatever it was called. That at least had some interesting takes on the traditional formula.

Civ7 just throws that established, well loved formula out the window.

I hate, with a passion, the era changes. When it was announced I had a sinking feeling, but I thought I should give it the benefit of the doubt, as even Civ6 and the sci fi one were actually enjoyable, even if it is just a little.

I'm so disappointed and I'm beyond the time period to refund the game given Steam's policies, and given the type of game this is.

So, is there anything to say for the future of this... ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥?

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Civ:BE was mostly a re-skin of Civ V. The problem there was more about having to pay full-price for something that was not very different from a better game they had already put out and that people usually already had bought.

Meanwhile, Civ 7 is so drastically different that it feels like a different series entirely.

IMO, Civ 7's civ-switching makes less sense than if they had decided on leader-switching. They basically had the right concept and applied it to the wrong mechanic. Switching leaders each era could be nonsensical but would at least make more sense than switching civs since, well, people are mortal.

Instead, they went with switching civs, which makes no sense.

Instead of letting me play Persia and have 3 different leaders, they made it so I can play Xerxes for 3,000 years but have 3 different civs. Which is hilarious if the intent was to self-parody the series, but is a little less funny when no, they seriously thought that would work.

[SpitfireMkVIII]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

Civ:BE was mostly a re-skin of Civ V. The problem there was more about having to pay full-price for something that was not very different from a better game they had already put out and that people usually already had bought.

Meanwhile, Civ 7 is so drastically different that it feels like a different series entirely.

IMO, Civ 7's civ-switching makes less sense than if they had decided on leader-switching. They basically had the right concept and applied it to the wrong mechanic. Switching leaders each era could be nonsensical but would at least make more sense than switching civs since, well, people are mortal.

Instead, they went with switching civs, which makes no sense.

Instead of letting me play Persia and have 3 different leaders, they made it so I can play Xerxes for 3,000 years but have 3 different civs. Which is hilarious if the intent was to self-parody the series, but is a little less funny when no, they seriously thought that would work.

Dang, that'd have been a real good idea. They should've went with that!

[charnode]

The funny thing is, that switching out the persona or leader works. Games like Crusader Kings have proven it time and time gain. Especially, if you weave some dynasty flavour into it. Kind of a shame that Civilization VII feels so much like you're playing on rails and there is no real immersion with your civilization ... that should stand the test of time? I guess?

[Sojurn]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

Civ:BE was mostly a re-skin of Civ V. The problem there was more about having to pay full-price for something that was not very different from a better game they had already put out and that people usually already had bought.

Meanwhile, Civ 7 is so drastically different that it feels like a different series entirely.

IMO, Civ 7's civ-switching makes less sense than if they had decided on leader-switching. They basically had the right concept and applied it to the wrong mechanic. Switching leaders each era could be nonsensical but would at least make more sense than switching civs since, well, people are mortal.

Instead, they went with switching civs, which makes no sense.

Instead of letting me play Persia and have 3 different leaders, they made it so I can play Xerxes for 3,000 years but have 3 different civs. Which is hilarious if the intent was to self-parody the series, but is a little less funny when no, they seriously thought that would work.

The concept itself isn't totally without merit, many civilisations fall, are conquered by others and evolve into something new.

However, in this franchise, the way the game is set up, I don't think it works. I think it works better in Humankind because that game was built from the ground up for that being a key feature of it.

Humankind also has it's own flaws, many of which even relating to the era system itself.

I simply do not think it works for Civilization. It's not part of the soul of the franchise, let alone all the mechanical systems at play.

CIV:BE was absolutely a reskin, and yet it had some really different mechanics, but it didn't mess with the core systems of the game. Something I feel they should have done with Civ7.

[Caerimonia]

Civ:BE and Civ VII aren't all that different. Unlike what people who haven't played it usually say, BE is no reskin of Civ 5, and made a lot of important changes that wouldn't have fitted into the main series: focus on narrative and special events, totally modified tech trees (they aren't even trees anymore), different cultural and social systems, modified natural wonders with some Centaury elements on it, heavily modified explorer and worker units, very different barbarians or in this case, planet fauna, solar energy collection... And the list goes on. There's not that much of Civ 5 on it, except maybe for the game engine and land resources. The big difference is, in BE, these changed elements work for that game, because they fit its own planet colonization setting well. Not so in Civ VII.

Not everybody would be on board with the dinasty stuff. I honestly hate what Old World did with it... its everywhere on the game, but to me, it feels more like its own isolated layer or mini game, instead of being well intertwined with the 4X systems of proper empire management. For me its a big turn off from that game. And I think we come back to another thread, on why, as a game franchise, its important to have your own personal vision instead of mindlessly copying what your neighbor is doing.

Why copying Old World would be better than copying Humankind? Why not think of new features that actually make sense for this particular game? For which its main theme is longevity, time? No disrespect intended, but it seems like the solution for a Civ VII already divided in boxing rounds, is for many folks just replacing what should be the mandatory change about once these rounds end.

[Mirmel]

Originally posted by Sojurn:

The concept itself isn't totally without merit, many civilisations fall, are conquered by others and evolve into something new.

True, but in this game you already *know* that all the civs will fall and that removes a lot of mystery and "what if" scenarios. There is nothing you can do to prevent your own civ from falling and resetting even.

It would possibly have been more fun to see civilizations break up in two, like east and west Rome, or maybe something like the breaking up of the colonial empires rather than just resetting and force-morphing into a new civ. Maybe in combination with having new civilizations rapidly rising to power throughout the eras rather than this plain reset mechanic. As it is now, it is a predictable and rather boring mechanic when you already know that, no, the Egyptians will not make it to the next age.

In my last play-through, the AI had multiple wars with city switching when making peace, resulting in random unconnected empires that not only wasn't connected but also changed names and capitals a few times due to the start of new eras. At the end of the game the map looked like a kaleidoscope and I really had no emotional investment in who were even my enemies and friends anymore.

Don't want to rant too much, this is a decent game if viewed in a vacuum but it just isn't the civilization I have come to know and love anymore.

[katzenkrimis]

Originally posted by Mirmel:

You already *know* that all the civs will fall.

There is nothing you can do to prevent your own civ from falling.

it is a predictable and rather boring mechanic when you already know that, no, the Egyptians will not make it to the next age.

In my last play-through...

That's just knowing history. Everyone loves history but not everyone loves video games.

Next to war, video games draw more complaints than anything in the world. Children appear to be experts on the subject. With zero life experience.

At one point, during the Roman Empire's peak, one out of every five people on earth was Roman. Yet, we know that Rome doesn't last forever.

That's not a spoiler alert. If you were their leader, you would have failed, too. It was already written and inevitable. They just didn't know it at the time.

America's future is already written, too. You just won't be alive to see it. You will see a tiny chunk of the future when the game is finished. Albeit fictional.

---

I love the new era transitions. It's true to life. I just don't like how the game decides where my military units will be set up after the transition. We should be allowed to decide that for ourselves.

Who was in charge while I was gone, the Keystone Cops? Why are my ships in a landlocked area? Why are my units randomly scattered across my empire? It takes 50 turns to gather them up just to continue beating on Napoleon's head.

There is no time to spare in a game like this. The harder the difficulty, the less mistakes you are granted.

I finally won a military victory on sovereign. Despite Civ VII missing two expansions and only being half a game, it was still a lot of work. The problem is, you can tell that the ending isn't really the ending. It's a Too Be Continued type of a game.

Nobody in their right mind should be satisfied with the way that this game stands today. There is much to complain about from all sides.

However, that will change in two years.

[Caerimonia]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

At one point, during the Roman Empire's peak, one out of every five people on earth was Roman. Yet, we know that Rome doesn't last forever.

That's not a spoiler alert. If you were their leader, you would have failed, too. It was already written and inevitable. They just didn't know it at the time.

America's future is already written, too. You just won't be alive to see it. You will see a tiny chunk of the future when the game is finished. Albeit fictional.

Sorry to drop by and comment on your answer. Which might be correct regarding history. But don't forget we're talking games instead, a product of the human mind, not of the laws of history. And when the new game designers sit on the table to first discuss a project, the first question they should ask themselves is: "what is this game all about?"

And in the case of Civilization, Sid Meier couldn't be more clear about it. Its in the punchline itself: "Build a Civilization that will stand the test of time", going from pre-history, into the atomic age. That is the very essence, the central axis of the game; and all the other game mechanics and systems should be built around this concept. This is how game design works.

They ruined it. The guys at Firaxis have gotten so lazy, and so inept, that they didn't even recognized what the main concept of their own intellectual property was. They didn't understood this idea of controlling a civilization that was so old as humankind, but express itself through the passage of time in many different forms. And they offered players a very expensive game built solely on the opposite idea. They blew it... and they should, and probably will, have to openly acknowledge their failure eventually.

[KingBobCat]

Originally posted by Caerimonia:

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

At one point, during the Roman Empire's peak, one out of every five people on earth was Roman. Yet, we know that Rome doesn't last forever.

That's not a spoiler alert. If you were their leader, you would have failed, too. It was already written and inevitable. They just didn't know it at the time.

America's future is already written, too. You just won't be alive to see it. You will see a tiny chunk of the future when the game is finished. Albeit fictional.

Sorry to drop by and comment on your answer. Which might be correct regarding history. But don't forget we're talking games instead, a product of the human mind, not of the laws of history. And when the new game designers sit on the table to first discuss a project, the first question they should ask themselves is: "what is this game all about?"

And in the case of Civilization, Sid Meier couldn't be more clear about it. Its in the punchline itself: "Build a Civilization that will stand the test of time", going from pre-history, into the atomic age. That is the very essence, the central axis of the game; and all the other game mechanics and systems should be built around this concept. This is how game design works.

They ruined it. The guys at Firaxis have gotten so lazy, and so inept, that they didn't even recognized what the main concept of their own intellectual property was. They didn't understood this idea of controlling a civilization that was so old as humankind, but express itself through the passage of time in many different forms. And they offered players a very expensive game built solely on the opposite idea. They blew it... and they should, and probably will, have to openly acknowledge their failure eventually.

Perfectly said....

[Rhapsody]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRNT38prVHo