25
Civilization 7's game changing update was 'personally challenging' for its creative director, as being able to play as a single faction 'wasn't part of the original vision' (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 4 days ago by [M] to c/turnbasedstrategy@piefed.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The original vision was bad and the creative director should feel bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Having not bothered with a new civ game in a long time since they are all basically the same, I don't blame her for trying.

    That said I know nothing about this, sounds like it was garbage. Civ needs to give it a rest for a decade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago*

    At risk of sounding like a shill, have you tried Age of Wonders 4? Or AoW Planetfall?

    I long burnt out of Civ (especially with how dumb the AI/combat got), but I find them refreshingly creative. Like it distilled clunky systems, and fleshed out/overhauled other systems so the gameplay is actually fun. They aren’t perfect games, but now I can never go back to Civ.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 9 points 3 days ago

    However, as noted by executive producer Dennis Shirk, Civilization 7 ended up "polarising the audience" when it was released, particularly disliked by veteran fans of the series.

    Glad to see the civ change mechanic was so bad they had to remake the game. 7 was such a huge disappointment. As someone who likes all the Civs, 7 was plain terrible. If people are playing a civ for a certain power and that power ends at an era then change the power and not how the game is played.

    Civ 7 is wall to wall poor design.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 3 days ago (7 children)

    Guess I'm in the minority, but I love changing civs through history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Yea it’s great for a game that doesn’t have the tag line ‘will your civilisation stand the test of time’. It does not befit the civ series they should have made that stuff a game mode for 6 first and see how it is recieved. But they just went for it. Really alienated me.

    I might give 7 a try in a year or two if they take it to a place I like.

    I personally love Paradox’s ‘Millenia’ take on the genre but it didn’t so well so they stopped the game. But what they made is awesome, it really could have been something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    also like, i feel civs already had a pretty decent amount of change just from new policies and religion choices? I would have fleshed that out more, using the systems to add more fundamental but still gradual changes to the vibe of a civilization.

    Like imagine if there was more interplay between tech/policies/religion so e.g. certain milestone techs or just unlocking enough of them in a short time caused a "societal revolution" that lets you make some juicy changes to religion/policy. You unlock/use the atom bomb and get a choice to pick how your civilization should respond to this new concept: maybe you embrace anti-proliferation which makes both you and anyone attacking you take a hit to happiness for using nukes, or you learn to stop worrying and love the bomb which just straight up gives you passive happiness for every nuke you posses and using them makes your people squeal with delight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Absolutely! Their argument also feels like a multiplayer only argument where they got just tired of trying to balance everything.

    I would have loved a deeper better integration of religion, especially in the later eras. The argument “we are past enlightenment religion matters less” has been proven to be false. Just look at some nations out there re-employing religion to strengthen their nationalism. A concept that I would love to employ in the game, not so much in RL though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 days ago

    On that note i'd also like to see "basic" non-religious beliefs be more viable, it's always bothered me a bit how the whole religion system is basically just structured after the abrahamic religions and their history.
    Like yeah sure lock me out of a "proper" religion if i don't go after it from the start, but that shouldn't mean my civilization is just filled with apathetic agnostics or norwegians who'll convert to 5 different religions within the span of 100 years like it's fast fashion.. You should at least be able to keep adding those teensy weensy bonuses every now and then and maintain some defense from religious pressure.

    Let me play as dogmatic militant atheist ancestor worshipers dammit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent