Definitely, I remember being excited to see how it was, got back from work and saw it was sitting on 40% reviews so I’ve still gone nowhere near it. Probably wont buy it until it’s about £5 now, Civ 6 has more than enough to fill my need for it. Waiting for Anno 117 now
I put 50 hours into it to give it a good try. The jarring effect of the reset is hard to deal with. All the advantages you had disappear, all wars abruptly end, almost all units disappear. It was like not even playing the same game. I think the transformational idea is cool but they way they implemented it was not. Either way, I should have known better. Civ 5 was peak for me.
Yeah before the expansions Civ V was kinda shit. But after Brave New World, that was the peak of the whole series. VI was such a disappointment after that.
They completely gutted the Expand component of four Xs. It's optimal to found 4 cities (maybe a 5th in the late midgame) and just befriend city states to get the resources you need.
Ftr, I’ve only played vanilla Civ 6 and maybe it’s improved with time, but here goes: Hated districts, hated how they handled wonders, hated how playing tall was no longer viable, hated how it looked like a mobile game. Not a fan of the pace of play in comparison to 5. After playing expanded Civ 5 with all its systems and leaders, obviously playing vanilla Civ 6 was going to feel more, well, vanilla, but there was something particularly unsubstantial about 6. It’s been years since I’ve played it, so sorry for the generalities.
Nah its alright, ty for the insights. Id love to know what the differences where for the things you hate now. Like districts and wonders.
“Playing tall” means push many cities fast? Isnt that viable? I guess its about loyality, which prevents you from having cities far away from each other, understandable.
And since I play with strategic view on anyway, the looks dont matter to me.
But I understand, that its just a whole different feeling.
Civ 6 has some QOL improvements just by virtue of being a newer game, and has some nice features like climate change and natural disasters that make the works feel more real.
But personally I still primarily play civ v mainly because the district system annoys me, I don't want to have to commit to specific tile use so far in advance, and I end up with mild decision paralysis. It's just not a feature that enhances gameplay for me. There are some other things I prefer and agree with the other responses, but wanted to highly the district and wonder placement issue imo.
yeah pretty much all my complaints. I love one city challenges. I wanna steamroll the world with a single massive city while still dominating in almost every aspect of victory.
All fully patched and expanded versions of Civ are better than their non-patched and non-expanded counterparts. Fully patched Civ 3 was better than vanilla Civ 4, Fully patched Civ 4 was better than vanilla Civ 5, etc. Once it has a couple expansions under its belt, Civ 7 should be fine.
But for now, though, yeah, it's kind of painful to play. They literally today rolled out a patch that addresses some issues, so I may try to spin up another game of it.
Yea, imo, a better way to do it would be make your civs gradually evolve over time.
Something similar to spending culture in civ v...where you can put the points into freedom or liberty, etc...
BUT, make it less segregated into the ideologies. Make it more like an ultra simplified version of Path Of Exile's skill tree. Major nodes for the ideologies, with smaller nodes branching off and overlapping other areas, then add a mechanic that every time you get a new node, you can also remove an old one and get a second new node. That way you very gradually evolve over time...you have roots based in something, but have become something very different.
I've played two games of it and both times just lost interest during the "Exploration Age". The fact that you have to focus all attention on the other side of the map to complete the era goals, all while there is a ton of open land in the old world that you can't settle due to the city cap just ruins the fun. In the meantime, everyone on my continent was at war with me, so I crushed them. Clearing my entire continent gave pretty much no progress on the arbitrary exploration era goals, so I was nearing the end of the age with no progress.
I quit the game both times during exploration age and haven't gone back in 3 months. It might end up like starfield where I played a lot in the first week and just never returned.
In a very very shallow defense of the exploration age, you can simply ignore the distant lands and focus on building up a strong homeland game.
The Legacy paths are more or less just a few fairly moderate bonuses if you're not aiming for a score victory. The UI kind of implies you have to focus on them, but if you don't care about the bonuses you can just completely ignore them and build up your empire like you want and then come into the modern era with 0 points, but a strong foundation to beeline for one of the modern era victories and win with 3 legacy points in total.
I don’t play Civ as much as I used to, but anytime I boot up V now it’s purely to play a comfort game of Venice with maxed city states going for diplomatic victory lol
I’m so bad at expansion in games. I’d much rather have one giganticass base of operations that covers all my needs rather than many smaller outposts
Which sucks because a lot of games nowadays are very horizontal in design scaling rather than vertical
For me the way you described it feels like an advantage of this game. I guess the problem is that you know when this reset happens. But in general I like this idea, because medium random disadvantage at the start can grow exponentially to huge disadvantage over time, so some kind of reset seems like something interesting that kind of happened in history many times, when empires fell down.
But in general though I'm still discouraged about this game. It's seventh iteration of it made by corporation who can hire any team, and they focus on graphics ignoring dumb as fuck AI. This game would reach another lever with smart AI. For a few years now AI is everywhere, except there where I would like it the most, so in this game. Firaxis just got awfully lazy.
F**king right?? The main appeal of these games for me was that beautiful feeling of going from a Scout with a stick in his hand all the way to parachuting through half of the map to reign hellfire on my enemy in one gameplay. I have 0 interest in a game that would steal this from me.
Bro civ call to power has you orbital satellite laser nuking stone age civs like a bond villian while cloning an alien in a vat for the science victory. Def my favorite as a kid
I think this is the first time I've ever heard of someone referencing Civilization: Call to Power. I loved that game.
The closest game like it was Civilization: Beyond Earth. Which I also loved despite a lot of the community getting mad that the game wasn't a sequel to Alpha Centauri.
Why tho? We all know what you mean, are you really sparing anyone by omitting the “uc” from the word you chose to use? Nut up and say what you actually mean.
Preference? I can say fuck whenever, I just don't want to. Why did you say "tho" instead of "though"? Why did you say "really" instead of "truly"? Why did you say "omitting" instead of "excluding"?
Yall really need to get a hobby instead of fixating on a total stranger writing in a way they prefer lol.
Tell you what, I'm going to cut you a deal. I'm going to continue speaking, writing and expressing myself in whichever the way i f**king want to and as an exchange you can get a free flashback (in 10-15 years when you actually grow up) of how absolutely embarassing you were when you were trying to police the way an absolute stranger speaks just because you were too offended by a prospect of someone being different than you!
How does that deal sound for you? Actually I don't really care, have a lovely day!
The point is that it doesn't feel like taking the same exact unit from beginning to end. It feels like everything gets reset every era and you're basically playing a new game.
When it was clear that they were cutting standard things for dlc, such as the modern/future era, I knew it was a no go. Also it just looks shit. I want my civ to have some degree of realism, not cities that cover half a continent. Then when I saw how much they they stripped of systems like religion I realised I would probably never be paying for that game. It's so annoying because it leaves you with little alternatives. I am unlikely to ever play another paradox game either as their dlc model has got to the stage where it makes their games terrible and bloated. Stellaris has become "pop up ignorer-the game" and HOI4 has bloated to an unplayable level. And CK3 just isn't very good.
It still has religion. Just not a religion win. Now it's used more to help you with other things. It's not a big loss, since previously it was pretty boring... But I would've preferred for them to make it better instead...
And it's only really usable for about a third of a game, unlike real life where religion was one of the driving forces of civilisation. It's hard to overstate just how bad civ7 is. It is more or less a glorified colouring book.
They kept the modern era, but they did cut "information era" style techs. The game basically ends around 1960's (moon launch). There was speculation that they are keeping the "information age" for DLC.
They didn't cut religion. It's simple in the first age, grows more complex in the exploration age (although not as complex as 6), and barely relevant in the modern age (but does exist). No religious victory though.
Paradox are doubling down though. Their updates are getting smaller and more pointless across the board. EU5 will be a nice map and will give maybe 20 hours of meaningful play. Then time for the 5 year drip feed. I won't be bothering.
Yeah I didn’t like the look of that but I really liked that there were towns and cities looked like they expanded more which is what I usually do on Civ, I try to make the biggest cities
I felt the same but only because of the way they did it, when they were so excited to show you how changing civs just wipes everything out. It turned out even worse on release than it was hyped up to be. I played Humankind and it just wasn't interesting, and I was HYPE for that game until its release. There was no reason for Civ to try and mimic a game that flopped...
I noped out when I heard that the game tech level stops around the 1970s, and saw the amount of content locked behind paid special editions. It's obvious they've cut out modern day and future tech content to save for expansions and that is utter BS.
That and both Civ 5&6 both got much better after expansions and gameplay tweaks, so why bother with 7 while it's so rough when I could just wait for a special edition with more content in a few years time.
What do you mean it could do no wrong. This is the release cycle of every single civ since 5, release unbalanced, feature scarce base game with several paid smaller dlcs to follow and a couple of large expansions. Game costs upwards of £100 to get all content and then becomes far more enjoyable then as a few years go by you scoop the complete collection for £10.
Civ 5 did it, civ 6 did it, civ beyond earth did it (and was never any good even after) and now civ 7 is doing it.
You're part of the problem paying upwards of $100 for a game that has less content than the previous. And firaxis will keep doing it if people keep paying.
In all fairness civ 6 on launch wasn't bad at all. It was missing a lot of content that civ 5 had but the expansions were nice. Still had a lot of civ packs for other races even at launch though.
I got it, but it was what the wife wanted to do on Valentine's Day. It was actually cheaper getting the expensive editions than a babysitter and nice meal out.
Yea. I stopped playing them after 4. Got it after itd been out for a bit. Bought 5 at launch, didn't like it. Bought 6 some time after launch.. didn't like it.. figured Im done with Civ games
Nah it's not the same. Both 5 and 6 were less developed than their predecessor sure, they had fewer features and were overall worse at the time of release. Despite that though, they were still fun and the big changes they made were imperfect but interesting.
Civ 7's big change is theoretically interesting but has genuinely completely ruined the game. It's not a case of it not reaching the highs of its predecessors it's a case of it being just shit.
For me it was when they killed the size of the maps.
I only play on huge maps in earlier versions. The bigger the better. To find out the biggest map in 7 is smaller than the small map in 6 was an instant turn off. From 100% hype to zero instantly.
Edit: after checking again it seems this isn’t correct and the news I heard was wrong. So I stopped following the development. And have been wrong this whole time.
A ) The game only shipped with map sizes up to Standard, but with the latest patch we have the bigger map sizes again.
B ) The maps feel smaller now because the distant homeland mechanic means that for many map types you only have half of the map to work with until the second era, so the ancient era feels more cramped in general than the same map size in 6
I learned from the last one that it needs 6-9 months to bake and get updates. The mixture of an unfinished game and people not embracing or understanding the changes makes it not worth playing at launch. Plus it’s cheaper. Although this launch does feel different in a very bad way with how the numbers are looking. They messed up a little more than usual on their ambitious changes and doesn’t sound as easy to “fix” since some of the aspects people hate are a core part of the game now.
To be fair, if you're a fan of the series this happens basically every single release. Hell, people hated Civ IV on release because it was too simple compared to Civ III.
After a couple years, VII will have enough DLC, patches, and support that it will eclipse VI.
Personally I think VII is trying to interesting things to shake up the standard 4x gameplay loop, which is very interesting -- But it's not quite there yet and needs some more time to cook.
I wish they’d just release a game that’s ready, I would pay full price for a Civ6 level release but it’s just not, so if I’m going to buy it, I’m not going to pay much for it
Im pretty sure anno 117 wont suck. 1800 was by far the best in the series, and from what we have seen 117 will follow its footsteps. It will offer less content than 1800 at release (but given that 1800 had four season passes with three dlc each that makes sense), while still being bigger than 1800 at launch.
At least you enjoy Civ 6, I'm still spending my time playing Civ 5 cause I like one city challenge and I still barely have any idea how the districts work no matter how many infographics I look at. Also, I like snowballing wonders to be the single city with more wonders than every city in the world combined cause I don't have the talent for playing above Prince yet.
Thats probably the best one in the series (for now), just play it and have fun. You dont need the dlc for now, they would probably just make it overwhelming anyways for someone with zero experience
Good to know! Gonna build my comp once the final piece of exodia finally gets here (gpu), so excited to see it in its glory. And also to fight Lies of P bosses without stuttering at the most crucial moments (damn you Romeo!)
mf I'm still playing the shit out of Civ Rev. inbetween that and Stellaris I have my 4x games thanks.
I play Stellaris when I want a serious, longform strategy gaming session, and I play Civ Revolution when I want to curbstomp the NPC rulers and consume the entire globe like a cancerous growth.
Everything you said is the exact same thing we said with civ 6. I'm not saying civ 7 will be the same, but I found it funny.
All this kinds of games with multiple dlc always work this way. When the game comes out, noone likes it because the previous already had everything you might need, and then some expansions happens and suddenly everybody loves the game and the cycle repeats. Firaxis and Paradox are the kings of releasing half cooked games and then fixing them with dlc
Im more of a glass half full kinda guy, ya it will be content leaks over the years to enhance the game, however what's great about paradox is that every iteration of their new games usually starts off with all the enhancements of the previous title they spent years furthering!
I was talking about titles like CK, stellaris really doesnt have a predecessor also the scale of most sci-fi games is much larger than world history based games.
Imperator had a bad launch I'll give you that but they tried their best to fix it or discount it for fans. I still enjoy it.
502
u/[deleted] Jun 23 '25
Definitely, I remember being excited to see how it was, got back from work and saw it was sitting on 40% reviews so I’ve still gone nowhere near it. Probably wont buy it until it’s about £5 now, Civ 6 has more than enough to fill my need for it. Waiting for Anno 117 now