How long "encore" ...

[Gafotir]

After years of EU4, that i loved, when EU5 lauched, i decided to wait 1year before getting interested as obviously EU5 was very far from being ready, but with this year gone i am not even remotely hearing anything that leads me to want to play it. When i read the comments, and even listen to quite a few content providers who mostly imply it because they dont want to anger paradox, the game still feels like a catastrophy.
How long "encore" before it becomes interesting to play ?Do i have to wait another year ? Is it even going to reach a point where it is playable without frustration ? Or is this the same miss than civ7 was to CIv6 ?

[CengizHan]

5 years :D

[Noname]

There are people calling it fun already right now. For me it's at least a few more years until they decide where they want to go with the game.

For now there is 0 clear vision of how they want this game to look. They change core mechanics by 180 degrees each major patch, and there is no guideline for anything in those changes.

Main focus seems to be to make the player suffer and not have fun. They try to slow you down to a crawl right now, and they find ways to slow you down even more with every patch. Now they started to mess with economy, food system, and combat systems that game started with and were promoted as very important changes (removal of hourly ticks messed with how combat works from 1.4 onward).

More focus in the development team is on changing things that already are in game and are functioning more or less stably rather than fixing big bugs / problems. It almost always ends in a situation where fixing one thing breaks two others.

I would say standard Paradox experience by this point. Fixing game step by step by locking part of fixes behind DLC paywalls.

If you own a copy of the game, you can try yourself, if you don't it's hard to tell. You can like it already, or it will be a waste of your money. It's like 50/50. I personally would wait for some Steam sale and a -50% discount to get the game in the state that it is now. More or less, it's like an open beta where beta testers (players) need to pay for participation.

[Reginaldo]

I stopped played this game a while ago, and everytime I look at the game it appears to be getting worse and it's identity getting less-clear. If it continues on that trajectory, you can probably just never play it.

[Mindzen]

Its becoming like Stellaris. You never want to learn the game because the next update is changing foundational mechanics so you just wait til the next update to play over and over.

Also, im not sure im even willing to invest the energy and time learning the game anyway. Seems better to just relearn eu4 which I havemt played in a while.

[IceQ4]

Its a fun game, its dynamic but not, its accurate but not. Its literally a paradox. if you don't mind that its truly amazing. its good anyway. it really is. I just don't like the feature removal of things. Like i played stellaris from earliest days up to now. And they changed a huge part of so many things but they managed imo much better because theres no "uh its fantasy but also history" because trying to merge fantasy with history isn't really working that great imo.

I think they would fare much better if none of the situations would be so hardcoded around dates but rather dynamic threshholds of values. Then most of anything could be dynamic and be ignored or not, followed or not without truly beeing so restrictive like it is now.
This is probably why people liked mission trees better than some events here, there you could progress whenever wherever in many occasions.

But tbf i think its a good game better than stellaris was when it launched. It has enough content and depth, and so much doesn't change. its still numbers.

But i also don't think civ 7 was a miss, i think ppl just don't like change. A new game is a new game be it the same title, and that is, in itself producing a lot of friciton sadly. as expectations and reality doesn't match up. I don't even think its because of the amount of content compared to the last one bc of the many dlcs already out. thats just a excuse for poor system design.

[ABoxFullOfKittens]

Originally posted by IceQ4:

Its a fun game, its dynamic but not, its accurate but not. Its literally a paradox. if you don't mind that its truly amazing. its good anyway. it really is. I just don't like the feature removal of things. Like i played stellaris from earliest days up to now. And they changed a huge part of so many things but they managed imo much better because theres no "uh its fantasy but also history" because trying to merge fantasy with history isn't really working that great imo.

I think they would fare much better if none of the situations would be so hardcoded around dates but rather dynamic threshholds of values. Then most of anything could be dynamic and be ignored or not, followed or not without truly beeing so restrictive like it is now.
This is probably why people liked mission trees better than some events here, there you could progress whenever wherever in many occasions.

But tbf i think its a good game better than stellaris was when it launched. It has enough content and depth, and so much doesn't change. its still numbers.

But i also don't think civ 7 was a miss, i think ppl just don't like change. A new game is a new game be it the same title, and that is, in itself producing a lot of friciton sadly. as expectations and reality doesn't match up. I don't even think its because of the amount of content compared to the last one bc of the many dlcs already out. thats just a excuse for poor system design.

You had me up until you asserted civ 7 wasn't a miss. Thems fighting words.