Civ VII thoughts? Beyond getting to exercise one's knowledge of Roman numerals?

[TheOtherTed]

I just discovered that VII dropped recently.  However, that discovery was through a youtuber whom I kind of trust, but who left a mostly negative impression of the game.  I won't get into that person's complaints, but I would like to hear some opinions, good, bad, and/or weird.

 

I also wouldn't mind some impressions of Civ VI, while we're on the topic.  I'll admit, I dropped that game for the dumbest of reasons - the bobble-head leaders really annoyed me for some reason.  Much preferred the more realistic portrayals and animations of Civ V.

[Glacier Peak]

I'll chime in on Civ 6. I was an absolute fan of the series from Civ 3 to Civ 5. Bought all the expansions and the space one too. Loved everything about the game - music, character animations, game mechanics, story/ history. Civ 6 altered the game for me to the point it no longer felt like Civilization. 

[TheOtherTed]

55 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

Civ 6 altered the game for me to the point it no longer felt like Civilization.

I sort of felt that way about Civ 5, but I chalked that up to a learning curve.  Took me longer than I'd like to admit, but I did eventually climb that curve.  That said, I never got into Civs 3 or 4.  This is ancient history, and thus involves very fuzzy memories, but I thought Civ 3 added mechanics that I just couldn't grok.  Simple enough design wise, but left me with a feeling of "... but, why?"  As for Civ 4.  I was too deep into MMOs at that point, and seeing Civ 5 pop up on Steam was a something of a wake-up call.

[Glacier Peak]

11 minutes ago, TheOtherTed said:

I sort of felt that way about Civ 5, but I chalked that up to a learning curve.  Took me longer than I'd like to admit, but I did eventually climb that curve.  That said, I never got into Civs 3 or 4.  This is ancient history, and thus involves very fuzzy memories, but I thought Civ 3 added mechanics that I just couldn't grok.  Simple enough design wise, but left me with a feeling of "... but, why?"  As for Civ 4.  I was too deep into MMOs at that point, and seeing Civ 5 pop up on Steam was a something of a wake-up call.

I would've loved playing Civ 1 and 2 when they came out, but I wasn't able to. My introduction to the series was Civ 3, so that's my defining comparison. I totally understand a franchise choosing to evolve over time instead of reiterating the same game over and over.

[TheOtherTed]

So what was it about Civ 6 that made it feel like it was no longer Civilization?

[Glacier Peak]

The visuals and game mechanics. It's also a bit much to have to relearn how to play with each successive release title.

[TheOtherTed]

Fair enough.  I may be showing my age and failing eyesight here, but I found the Civ 6 map itself to be weirdly distracting.  And, yeah, Civ 5 was a very different game from Civ 2, which, even though it wasn't my first Civ, sort of set the benchmark for me.  The Giant Death Robot eventually won me over, though, even if I only built them in one playthrough.  If you've ever played Eve Online, it feels like the equivalent of building a Titan.  Scary to encounter, but not exactly an optimal use of resources.

[Techwright]

Civ VII:  I'm taking the "let's see in 6 months" approach.  I've seen a lot of negative reviews on it (Steam reviewers have it at Mixed right now, which is 5 rungs down on the ranking scale), and there's no way I'm shelling out $70, or even $20, for that rank.  I would like to hope they'll make every effort in 6 months to fix what the players feel is broken.  But if there's little change in 6 months, I'll be putting it in the "review every 6 months" category.

 

I loved the early Civ games.  At some point, I don't remember which one, a Civ game ruined it for me.  It felt like they'd moved the game too far off the heart of the series design.   I personally would be very, very happy if they did a remake of Civ II, mostly just improving the graphics to modern standards, and most especially improving the opponent AI.  One thing that has always annoyed me in Civ games is the potential for an AI power that you've been treating exceptionally well to suddenly declare war on you, with no build up and no reason.  It's 2025, and AI is all the rage.  Build in one that acts much more like a human, and Civ II Redux could be the best of the series, despite being largely the earliest model.

[TheOtherTed]

Nope.  Uh-uh.  Nobody's taking my psychotic Gandhi away from me 😡

[Techwright]

25 minutes ago, TheOtherTed said:

Nope.  Uh-uh.  Nobody's taking my psychotic Gandhi away from me 😡

 

That has got to be one of the funnier parts of the game series, especially if Gandhi controls nukes.

 

I get together with a gang every few months for a Halo gaming night.  I'm there for the friendship and the pizza. I don't own an X-box, or even the PC version of any Halo game, so I stink at it.  I therefore play under the code name "Gandhi".  Another guy's son plays under the handle "A Small Child".  We therefore have the occasional announcements of "Gandhi has killed A Small Child" and "A Small Child has killed Gandhi".  😁

[merrypessimist]

I played all six previous Civ games (God help me, I'm old) and have minimal interest in the seventh iteration.  I feel the series really peaked around four, and went slowly but steadily downhill in terms of design and execution after that.  Five and six were very pretty, but not particularly fun. 

[Hedgefund]

I'm a civ megafan.  I won't say my hours played but Malcolm Gladwell would say I should be an expert.  

 

I've noticed a pattern that I tend to dislike (even hate) a new iteration but I've found once I adjust to the new mechanics my enjoyment goes way up.  I hated Civ 5 with the fury of 1,000 exploding suns until I got used to no unit stacking and now far prefer no stacking.  Eventually, especially all the DLC were released, I got into it, like, to rate it 10/10.

 

Civ 6 followed a similar path.  I even stopped playing Civ 6 for a couple of years but about 2 years ago decided to give it another go.  A couple more DLC were released and then it clicked, how to best utilize adjacency bonuses, religious combat, that sort of thing and Civ 6 is also now sitting at 10/10 too.

 

Because I had such a long break, I have a lot still remaining on my Civ 6 "to-do" list, I'm barely at 2/3 of achievements completed.  I haven't even won with every leader yet. 

 

With that in mind and more importantly operating a computer that is definitely not up to spec, I'm planning to wait a year or so, see the sales and new DLC and buy it then.  I'm definitely going to buy and I'll hate it for a few weeks, then I'll adjust and I'm expecting history to repeat and I'll be back at 10/10.

 

Even if the game developers don't make a 10/10 product the modding community is amazing and they tend to shore up deficiencies whether UI or game play.

[Mopery]

Player since Civ 1, loved them all(probably Civ 2 the best) until Civ 6. I mean, the game is about micromanaging, but 6 took it to a whole other level. I just don't care about fine tuning every detail of a city to build an army which will MAYBE be able to take a city or two by the second age. I guess I miss the carefree days of Risk-style warfare, amassing armies to lay wastes to foreign lands, razing cities, salting the Earth...*begins to foam at the mouth*

 

But I digress.

 

It's like they're trying to stuff 10 tons of crap into a 5 pound sack anymore.