What kind of player is Civ VII designed for? :: Sid Meier's Civilization VII General Discussions

Sid Meier's Civilization VII

All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos News Guides Reviews

Sid Meier's Civilization VII > General Discussions > Topic Details

Charbecue 1 Sep @ 11:39am

What kind of player is Civ VII designed for?

I've spent over 1,800 hours playing Civ V and almost 2,000 playing Civ VI. Plus who knows how long playing the ones that came before Steam. But I suppose that at my heart I'm a "casual" player of the Civ franchise. I almost always play on normal difficulty because I'm never after a challenge, just fun. My goal is always to build the largest and most prosperous empire I can until I accidentally win the game (usually via culture).

And this is the heart of why I'm currently very disappointed with what I know of Civ VII so far. Granted, the game is still half a year away from launch right now and nobody's gotten to play it past the first age, but from what I've seen it's like the game was designed to specifically oppose my preferred way of playing. City caps... age-restricted expansion... having to fail to stand the test of time with my chosen people twice before I can actually succeed... who wanted this? Who asked for it? I'm betting nobody, so why take this route?

I really hope it isn't because of trying to cater to consoles and systems of lesser design. I want everyone to have the chance to play no matter what device they use, but I don't want it to come at the expense of my game being limited to make it happen. And if that IS the reason, then I'd offer that maybe the devs could use their time to streamline performance rather than create unwanted systems that nullify performance issues by limiting gameplay scope. I have a high-end PC, and while I don't like how slow Civ VI gets by the time I'm getting toward the endgame on my huge maps, I still play my game that way... EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

The Civilization series has a legacy to live up to... a responsibility to make each new game in the series better than the ones that came before. I've played other games with these features/limitations before and none of them have ever held my attention for more than a few dozen hours at most, let alone the thousands I've spent in Civ.

I'm not pre-ordering Civ VII, and with as drastic a departure from classic Civ as this game is, It isn't going to be a day-one purchase either, most likely. Without getting to play a sizable demo I'll have to depend on watching other people play on YouTube to decide if the game is right for me, or if it's a "wait until years down the road when it's having an 80% off sale" type game.

I've been waiting years for a new installment in the franchise and words on screen can't really do justice to how let down I am by these design choices. Is all this drama and worry meaningless and misguided? Maybe. Could I still find ways to enjoy my experience in the game as currently presented? Possibly. My point is that I shouldn't have to. It isn't a cheap game by any means, and you can only demand prices like this with a proper pedigree and reputation. But in my eyes, they've let their thoroughbred show-dog breed with a random mutt and are trying to sell the pup as purebred.

It's clear this game isn't being designed for me. How about you?

< >

Showing 1-15 of 53 comments

Shepard-Commander 1 Sep @ 11:43am

Not for me either. I will be skipping it and hope that the dev team involved with this has nothing to do with Civilization 8.

kensw 1 Sep @ 12:31pm

It seems to be designed for casual console players - there are lots of them so they should still make plenty of money even without civ fans.

Mr. Man! 1 Sep @ 3:04pm

it needs to be as accessible as possible to the widest audience and piecemeal as much as it can be. sad that it's the way it is but that's just the brave new world we are in today.

Wish Bear 1 Sep @ 3:20pm

remember when EA killed the SimCity franchise in 2013. I am worried another of my beloved franchises is going to be killed by the executives dumb decisions for a quick cash grab. Look at 5 and 6....civilization DLC for days all behind a paywall....but in 7 you have to change your civ 3 times....that is 3x the DLC at least.

Shepard-Commander 1 Sep @ 4:01pm

Originally posted by Wish Bear:
remember when EA killed the SimCity franchise in 2013. I am worried another of my beloved franchises is going to be killed by the executives dumb decisions for a quick cash grab. Look at 5 and 6....civilization DLC for days all behind a paywall....but in 7 you have to change your civ 3 times....that is 3x the DLC at least.

I'm really hoping we can get a prominent influencer to lead a boycott on this thing. There are numerous reasons why at this point.

Cirrus

1 Sep @ 9:59pm

My feeling is that in civ 7 it will be easier to expand (some civs) than in civ 5. Civ 5 is not expand wide game.

So if you can tolerate civ 5 tall game, this is even better.

Badgag 1 Sep @ 11:12pm

900 hours of Civ V, 1000 hours of Civ VI here. I probably won't buy Civ VII anymore. Apart from the graphics, nothing has been improved, as far as I can see. They even ripped essential game elements out of the game. This is no longer Civilization.

Many-Named 1 Sep @ 11:51pm

Originally posted by Wish Bear:
remember when EA killed the SimCity franchise in 2013. I am worried another of my beloved franchises is going to be killed by the executives dumb decisions for a quick cash grab. Look at 5 and 6....civilization DLC for days all behind a paywall....but in 7 you have to change your civ 3 times....that is 3x the DLC at least.

It's not just the new DLC oriented strategy, facts are that Firaxis experienced a big brain drain a few years back and now we're paying the price for it.

The Doctor 2 Sep @ 12:54am

Originally posted by Many-Named:
Originally posted by Wish Bear:
remember when EA killed the SimCity franchise in 2013. I am worried another of my beloved franchises is going to be killed by the executives dumb decisions for a quick cash grab. Look at 5 and 6....civilization DLC for days all behind a paywall....but in 7 you have to change your civ 3 times....that is 3x the DLC at least.

It's not just the new DLC oriented strategy, facts are that Firaxis experienced a big brain drain a few years back and now we're paying the price for it.

Civ is one of the franchises (but not the ONLY one or even the first) that pioneered the post-release development system. Civ 3 had some DLC, called expansions back then of course as has every Civ since. Civ V had the most so far. I suspect Civ 7 will end up being the game with the most DLC/expansions at the end though.

Last edited by The Doctor; 2 Sep @ 12:54am

R0x0r 2 Sep @ 1:47am

The only respite I and some of us have is that I've seen many (don't know percentage-wise of course) civ fans that despise/abhor the direction the franchise is going and are actually not only being vocal BUT speaking with their wallets. Let's see if it amounts to anything at all, but I have serious doubts 😔.

#10

Oaks 2 Sep @ 3:25am

Approaching this with cautious optimism. I started with Civ 2 and have enjoyed each successive Civ more than the last.

Granted, Civ 7 does not look and play how I imagined it would, but they haven't let me down yet.

There is of course, a first time for everything.

#11

gromenawer 2 Sep @ 3:25am

Originally posted by Many-Named:
Originally posted by Wish Bear:
remember when EA killed the SimCity franchise in 2013. I am worried another of my beloved franchises is going to be killed by the executives dumb decisions for a quick cash grab. Look at 5 and 6....civilization DLC for days all behind a paywall....but in 7 you have to change your civ 3 times....that is 3x the DLC at least.

It's not just the new DLC oriented strategy, facts are that Firaxis experienced a big brain drain a few years back and now we're paying the price for it.

Is not even big brain leak, if they were normal brain level they would just copy-paste the previous formula. But so far:

- Game mechanics that flopped Humankind.
- DRM and online account.
- Games reduced to 5 players maximum (self increase to 8 max mid game).
- High price, 120€ for the Early Access and 70€ for the late access; even in countries like Poland and Ukraine.
- No hotseat.
- Poor leaders design and animation (check Augustus or Himiko)
- Despise high price, monetization is modeled after microtrasactions (FoW tiles) and future DLCs.
- No workers.
- No barbarians.

Just for comparison:

- Civ 4 and 5 introduced new mechanics that everyone loved. Civ 4 complexity if brutal compared to Civ 6, and of course with everything released about Civ 7 so far.
- No DRM, no online account required in Civ 5 or previous.
- Civ 4 has around 32 maximum players and the map was HUUUGE. Civ 5 I think it was around 12.
- The complete, I repeat complete, editions with all DLCs of Civ 4 and 5 were around 80$-90$ adjusted for inflation.
- Hotseat
- Civ 5 leader design was fantastic and included background animation. Even Civ 3 introduced leaders changing costumes as era progresses.
- Workers and barbarians included at launch.

With all that said, they are offering a much more reduced and watered down game version ever. They are hardware restricted by the Nintendo Switch (2017), but they are offering less features than Civ 5 (2010) and by far Civ 4 (2005). The only thing that arguably is in their favor is graphics fidelity restricted by GPU power,

EDIT: Forgot to add, navigable rivers in favor of Civ 7. Congratulations for reaching the technical complexity of Transport Tycoon (1994).

Last edited by gromenawer; 2 Sep @ 3:31am

#12

Oaks 2 Sep @ 7:35am

Originally posted by gromenawer:
Originally posted by Many-Named:

It's not just the new DLC oriented strategy, facts are that Firaxis experienced a big brain drain a few years back and now we're paying the price for it.

Is not even big brain leak, if they were normal brain level they would just copy-paste the previous formula. But so far:

- Game mechanics that flopped Humankind.
- DRM and online account.
- Games reduced to 5 players maximum (self increase to 8 max mid game).
- High price, 120€ for the Early Access and 70€ for the late access; even in countries like Poland and Ukraine.
- No hotseat.
- Poor leaders design and animation (check Augustus or Himiko)
- Despise high price, monetization is modeled after microtrasactions (FoW tiles) and future DLCs.
- No workers.
- No barbarians.

Just for comparison:

- Civ 4 and 5 introduced new mechanics that everyone loved. Civ 4 complexity if brutal compared to Civ 6, and of course with everything released about Civ 7 so far.
- No DRM, no online account required in Civ 5 or previous.
- Civ 4 has around 32 maximum players and the map was HUUUGE. Civ 5 I think it was around 12.
- The complete, I repeat complete, editions with all DLCs of Civ 4 and 5 were around 80$-90$ adjusted for inflation.
- Hotseat
- Civ 5 leader design was fantastic and included background animation. Even Civ 3 introduced leaders changing costumes as era progresses.
- Workers and barbarians included at launch.

With all that said, they are offering a much more reduced and watered down game version ever. They are hardware restricted by the Nintendo Switch (2017), but they are offering less features than Civ 5 (2010) and by far Civ 4 (2005). The only thing that arguably is in their favor is graphics fidelity restricted by GPU power,

EDIT: Forgot to add, navigable rivers in favor of Civ 7. Congratulations for reaching the technical complexity of Transport Tycoon (1994).

While it's a interesting list, you are essentially comparing aspects of a game you don't like to aspects of games you like. There, it's all a bit lopsided since you left off the controversy/things you didn't like.

I remember waiting a good long time to buy Civ5, because all my Civ playing friends hated it at launch. They finally came around after the first dlc.

Plus, do you remember how the leaders in Civ3 looked? Nightmare fuel

#13

gimlikos84 2 Sep @ 9:25am

Civ7 already looks much better then Civ 5 - 6 combined.I hate Civ6 , and Civ5 was just ok.The best Civ game will always be Civ4.Civ7 for me looks very interesting , and something new after Civ4

#14

sim-h

2 Sep @ 11:19am

I love what I've seen of Civ VII. I've played since Civ II. In answer to the OP I think this game will appeal more to those interested in historical paths through the game. The Pax West showcase showed the different paths to a modern empire, for example Romans->Normans->French. I find that very interesting, especially as there will be multiple possible paths. They also showed a path through three different sub-civs of India by the way. People do not seem to get that you are not 'switching Civilization' each age, you are developing your one, single Civilization in a new direction and under a newly evolved ruling/dominant culture which has a different name to the one in the previous age.

Sure, there is still some development to do, and leader models to improve maybe. There are a couple of things I didn't like the look of (Insta-gaining new cities as an option at the start of a new age? Seems weird but we don't have all the info yet) - but overall I am very happy with the direction they look to have gone in.

Last edited by sim-h; 2 Sep @ 11:20am

#15

< >

Showing 1-15 of 53 comments

Per page: 1530 50

Sid Meier's Civilization VII > General Discussions > Topic Details

Date Posted: 1 Sep @ 11:39am

Posts: 53