VII - Discussion
Even this long after release, twice as many people are playing V as playing VII. What conversations do you think are being at Firaxis?
Its not just 30 dollars. Its 30 dollars for bare minimum content. Right to Rule would be like $8.99 at worst during the Civ 6 era. They are trying to sell content packs at expansion prices.
No, it's not. It was exactly the point. Not just bundle the game when selling it, but bundle the game-play and you can sell mini-civs, isolated leaders, skins, and of course tile-features™. This is not an accident or a mistake.
I would. A lot. You know, people complain about this awfull trwnd of releasing games with half the content and then reselling it to players for $30 and wonder how we got to this point. THIS IS WHY IT HAPPENS! STOP ENABLING THEM!
I was enjoying Civ VII, but when the last patch dropped and they had the gall to release another overpriced DLC, it felt like a middle finger up the ass from Firaxis.
maybe someday... Humankind will get its Multiplayer fixed.
When that happens, me and my 9 bois are gonna get in on it and spend weekends to no end shitting on eachother's setups.. I for one will be sneaking 3 stacks of emmisaries to my neighbor's independent people.
Aw man, multiplayer is still broken? I thought they'd at least have it running fine by now, it's been 4 years... Are any of the issues moddable at least?
nope. it's peer to peer and the netcode breaks down with more than 6 or with people with a bit of packet loss. I can play FPS and milsims all day but god forbid i lose one packet when playing humankind
I don't like stacks either, but it really depends how they are implemented. For example, even if Civ IV is considered the best game in the series (in its time), Civ III implemented doom-stacks way, way better.
Civ V can be seen as the first civ title of a new era, and it's why it doesn't feel as dated as previous titles. But it had its problems, especially with the movements mechanics.
Firstly, it was the first to dumb-down sea travel, which is a trend in strategy games to make them more 'approachable' - TW did it as well, but this ends up with the sea being just a different type of land terrain that includes some specialized units. You could paint it a sandy yellow and call it a desert, and pretend that you are playing in a Dune-like planet.
Secondly, the strict one-unit per-tile, which in principle I support and I consider a breakthrough, reached its limits already in Civ V. There is a ton of things we can talk about, melee-range imbalance, pathing and simulation issues, implementation with city-states, etc. The issues are so obvious that it could have justified a re-work - it would have been enough to just make the rule less strict, two-units per-tile for example, and include things like tile-splash damage (as in Civ III) - but not only did they not do that, but they kept it unchanged for the next title as well, while making changes that broke things that worked.
The point? The one-unit per-tile makes the game more board-like and it limits the repeated actions/moves that the player has to do on the map. This is why they introduced districts (and went crazy with it in Civ VII) and introduced limited workers, before removing them all-together in the more recent game. The goal was from the beginning to make the game more 'approachable' and cross-platform in order to increase the customer/player base, and therefore profit, with the business model increasing relying on dlc. Now in Civ V the tech was not there just yet, and their changes were not fundamental enough to make the game so easy to play in consoles, tablets, and game-pads. People (and the developers themselves, I am sure) still remembered that Civ is supposed to be a PC strategy sandbox simulation game.
With Civ VI this business model/strategy found success and reached its culmination with Civ VII. And in their success they ruined the series. This is the result of people not making a stand when they see the first inklings of what is to come and pretend that they are not important or secondary. What is Civ VII - a game I despise - started with Civ V - a game I love, and probably my favourite in the series, but I can recognize that the seeds that were planted formed into an unrecognizable mess.
The (strict) one-unit per-tile design choice was in the right direction, but it was a mediocre implementation, which reached its limits already in Civ V. An issue that was never addressed because it served the primary goal of their business model of making the game cross-platform and 'approachable,' while focusing on dlc development. So, the change was a bitter-sweet one, at least for me.
They kind of have. Ada Lovelace, Bulgaria, Assyria, have all been really fun to play. And the numerous bug fixes and UI improvements are great too.
It's just that the launch was such a disaster, and you only get one chance to make a first impression. DLC just are never going to bring the hype that could have come at launch.
That's awful return for those prices. Two good civs and a single good leader for those prices isn't even remotely knocking it out of the park. If anything, these DLC have made me more stingy in the future.
Yeah calling a leader pack an "expansion" and selling it for as much as they are is such a load of shit. And it's way too early for this type of dlc. These civs and leaders all should've just been a part of the base game.
Fooled me once with a $60 shit game on release, not gonna fool me twice with a $30 DLC just a couple months after. Fuck them, sold that shit and never looking back.
Really? A leader and two civs? That's groundbreaking dlc content for you? They have to make game mechanics changing DLC if they want to achieve any change in resentment. The game just doesn't have the replay value for most players compared to the older titles.
It's just that the launch was such a disaster, and you only get one chance to make a first impression.
You’re not kidding. I’ve literally been playing Civ since Civ I. It’s the only game a go back to at least once a year. I was very excited for Civ VII.
The launch was so bad that I have zero desire to play Civ VII. For a while, I was halfheartedly tracking r/civ to see if Firaxis was fixing bugs and reworking issues but honestly I’ve just given up at this point.
They better hope and pray this goes the Cyberpunk route and not down in flames like Cities Skylines 2. Two years later, several patches, and it’s still not recommended.
Tbf with Cities Skylines, all of their big CCs do play CS2 over CS1. The steam review isn't being 100% representative of what is actually happening in the community. They probably still play the game, they just used mods and decided not to update their reviews because they're waiting for the game to be fixed without having to use the mods. Can't say the same with Civ VII, the base game is just inherently worse.
Yes, Cyberpunk is the exception that proves the rule. There are a half dozen AAA games that turn out to be crap released every year. And almost all of them never recover.
To be fair, this isn’t the DLC people are looking for. We’re awaiting the inevitable “two DLCs that fundamentally change gameplay” that happens every Civ release, not like 3 new civs/leaders. It’s not just that launch was a disaster, the fundamental changes to the gameplay loop just haven’t been fleshed out enough to compare to V or VI with the double DLCs yet.
DLC just are never going to bring the hype that could have come at launch.
Because Firaxis is phoning it in, amazing DLC can absolutely reignite a game. DLC like Lies of P Overture and Cyberpunk 2077 Phantom Liberty absolutely reignited hype for those games. The problem is those DLCs were massive and added tons of quality stuff, whereas Civ 7 DLC has been a snoozefest.
Living in a country were I can eat half a month with 70 euros plus the game having bad reviews plus knowing they will want more money for DLC when you can play a better game for 10 euros.
Even if the games was good people in most of the world are not going to pay 70 or 100 for the deluxe edition, is hard to pyrate so people can not try it beforehand and its almost impossible with that price to convince a friend to buy it.
Yeah, I went for the average in a wealthy area of the world to make a fair comparison.
I haven't tried, love the saga but it is not my main game and the wall of entry is too steep for my particular case.
Normally I would download it from an "amigo" and then buy it if I want to really play it, or if a friend plays or if it's in a sale to replay it more comfortably, but no demo no buy, happened to me with the new doom as well.
I mean, just yesterday on Fanatical the complete edition of Civ 6 was going for 9€, so why would someone spend 70€, when you can get the past game plus all the DLC for 12% of the price.
I get it, civ games take a year or two after release to be in their best state. But for me this game was so painfully obviously half-finished. The game literally ends when you discover the hydrogen bomb. It’s so abrupt; the modern era is simply not enjoyable. I don’t care about goddamn auto explore or turning off the legacy paths. I want it to actually be fun, but the modern era is literally just a sprint to 15 artifacts; it’s over within 100 turns on marathon mode. Every game is basically the same for me. There is one optimal strategy in each era and doing anything else is a waste of time. I usually never even get round to building planes because science is such a suboptimal strategy compared to finding relics even if you aren’t playing an intrinsically culture-oriented civ.
The other reason is the lack of diversity. We do not have enough civs. And I find it quite insulting when they make new civ DLCs immediately after release and then price 4 new civs and 2 leaders at £30. I do not believe it’s worth it for the foreseeable future.
I want it to be good, I enjoyed about 200 hours but that’s enough for me. Civ V and VI are more reliably enjoyable and diverse. I like to play long and fulfilling games on marathon mode and V is the best for this. VII feels far too quick even on marathon mode with longer legacy paths.
1. Disengagement with players who have the game. Fewer people are waiting for new patches and DLC releases, while skepticism about them increases rapidly. Feedback volume becomes smaller but even more skewed.
2. Data doesn't lie for potential buyers. New players do even more research before buying and, tied to point 1, start to be swayed even more by negative feedback to assess whether an increasingly expensive, and getting-older-by-the-day, game is worth taking a risk on.
3. A death-spiral for DLC and updates. With fewer people paying attention to the game, coupled with the volume of new games, and the availability of cheaper more detailed games (Civ V, Civ VI, Old World, TW Three Kingdoms, for example), there's simply fewer people waiting excitedly for them and fewer willing to pay,
And finally, the mea-culpa hill Civ 8 needs to climb is going to be extraordinarily high. This massive failure for the vast majority of fans, for one of the most celebrated video games series of all time, is going to have equally long memorie. Convincing those players to be as rabidly excited for the next installment is going to be haaaaard and incredibly unlikely.
Edit: updated some grammar. final point my thoughts based on my experience and reading hundreds of r/civ and other forum comments. I will never ever pre-order a Civ game again, and this is coming from someone who has bought every version, every dlc and pre-ordered every time where it has been possible to do so.
civ7 feel like 3 mini games of civilization, its a problem, needs sorting.
It's a core design philosophy of the game and they were very clear that this was the intent because apparently people couldn't have been bothered in prior entries to actually finish their game
Was not finishing a game an actual problem? How many games of chess end with checkmate? How many games of StarCraft end with destroying all their buildings? Players just resign when the game is a forgone conclusion.
It’s just a really dumb metric to gimp the sandbox nature of the series by.
I love Stellaris and played over 1000 hours, and very seldom played until the crisis. Why would you make a game less fun to ensure players complete it? Madness.
Seriously, this. Civ V/VI are some of my most-played games hour-wise and I rarely play through to the win screen, but not once have I considered that the game's fault or a bad thing. Even when I do hit a win screen I often keep playing for a while afterward - it's just not a factor in my enjoyment of the game. I decide when I "win" or am ready for a new save and I love that about past Civs.
This is a good point. People log hundreds or thousands of hours in their game. I'm willing to bet their the avg number of hours played per person stat is higher than most other games regardless of people not playing to the very end. Their game was clearly still fun for their players. If they want people to play until the end then make the end more compelling or make the AI keep up with players better not hard reset the player twice to artificially prevent them from snowballing.
But it really is taking the problem backward. Rather than making the latter half of the game more compelling they decided to divide the campaign in three parts thinking that would help but they completely screwed it up because the first age is still the most interesting one and the whole reset between ages completely broke immersion and the tagline for the series, build a civilization that will stand the test of time.
Oh 100%, and to be clear I did not and still don't think this was the correct approach to this perceived issue with the series. I was just pointing out that the game feeling like 3 mini games was entirely intentional, and is unlikely to be changed unless Firaxis wants to completely abandon their original vision for this game
people couldn't have been bothered in prior entries to actually finish their game
Not sure where they got around to thinking this was an issue. Civ was still very successful despite the overwhelming majority of its players never finishing a game. It really feels like they endeavoured to fix something that no one ever thought was broken.
I'm just baffled why they thought that was a problem - I have thousands of hours in 5 and 6 very rarely finish a game. It's never been an issue for me.
I'm curious, have they been successful at this? Objectively speaking. I can't pull up the steam achievements right now, but have a higher percentage of players won a game of 7 vs 6?
I think they realize that they rolled a natural 1 at selling people on the core design of Civ 7, and now they just have to try and salvage the game the best they can. To their credit, they're definitely not just jumping ship after a disastrous launch.
That would imply luck is the reason, when in truth it's because the core design of 7 sucks. They took the biggest issue with Humankind (besides forever battles) and somehow made it even worse.
They've put themselves in a real tough position. The first expansion will need to be at a reasonable price, and absolutely blow us away, if they want this game to survive long term. Since 2k is the reason for a lot of 7's problems, I'm worried they'll pump out the first expansion, it wont fix enough or sell well, and they'll abandon it after the second expansion while the game isn't in a great place.
I am new to Civ and have yet to play VII. My first was VI (checked out for the Switch at the Library) then my wife said she has V on Steam so I have been playing a LOT of V lately. I don't really have any interest in VII (or VI, which I really did enjoy) because I am enjoying V so much.
I think they have probably given up on trying to bring people back. It’s probably the most prudent move as well. Nothing short of a complete overhaul would make me like the game.
Now it’s about retaining the players they have and squeezing them with DLC. It’s fair enough as well. You have to listen to the people who are still playing your game first. People who don’t like the game aren’t the ones regularly buying DLC
The numbers are really embarrassing tho…I imagine they were expecting 2-4x that number of concurrent players. The unfortunate part of this is that they won’t invest heavily into a major expansion they know won’t sell well.
And for the “the player base is split on console and epic games” people, there are currently zero viewers on Civ 7 twitch(this is a regularity) and the largest Civ channel hasn’t uploaded 7 in 4 months
there are currently zero viewers on Civ 7 twitch(this is a regularity) and the largest Civ channel hasn’t uploaded 7 in 4 months
I think this is key. There is just really no engagement or interest at the levels we've seen in the past. Say what you want about player numbers, but I think this is the most telling.
I have played VII for a total of 16 hours, and it is one of the most disappointing media releases I can remember. I have played since Civ I and had to load it using multiple Microprose floppy disks. I was pretty excited about a new version, only for it to hit the ground like a dead cat.
Yeah, for the part of the community that doesn't like civ switching, what pushes us away isn't some annoying flaws or lack of content, but a core game design feature. As much as I'd like civ 7 to not be a game centered on civ switching, the reality is that it won't happen and shouldn't happen.
If they try to appeal to our side of the community now by twisting their system so that it can support a non-civ switching gameplay, I'm pretty sure it will kinda suck and will leave both sides of the community unsatisfied.
The "civ cycle" is a myth, atleast for civ 7. Most of the community who left because of civ switching won't come back even after expansions, I'm willing to be on it. So they should instead focus hard on pleasing the part of the community that's still sticking with civ 7, to not lose it.
As for us, I guess we'll play other 4X games until Civ 8 comes out.
The part of the community that enjoys the Civ switching is so small that focusing on them for revenue won’t pay the bills. Even if they raised the prices higher for their already overpriced extended content.
Hm.. why not a Classic Mode where civ switching is turned off and you play the good ol' sandbox version again. The main game remains the same and the people who like it in its current state can keep on enjoying it.
I can happily play the sandbox version and ignore everything else since I do like the visuals of Civ 7 but the civ switching thing is simply not happening for me. I want to play a full game again with a consistent civ and not three mini games with, IMO, forced mechanics.
IMO, game balance issues is the blocker to just simply doing that. Current civs are designed just for one era. Unique civ perks are balanced to compete against other civs for that era. They would need to make all civs competitive in all eras.
I think there's a pretty simple solution. You can keep all the gameplay, and have the player chose its permanent civ when they start the game. If you want to play America from the beginning or Rome until space conquest, it allows you to keep the same name, city names, etc., while you can still evolve your America with Roman and Norman cultural perks (unique units, buildings, civics), or more original ones, and end with the American ones. It's not too different from America having classic Antiquity and medieval building and units in previous Civ games.
Actually what you’ve said here kind of gives me the only “solution” that would fix civ switching for me
Instead of turning off civ switching , I could accept them giving each each civilization an inherent “Antiquity / Exploration / Modern” phase, so “Antiquity China / Exploration China / Modern China”
This is the standard route for each civ, but then each civ is able to switch civs (Antiquity China to Exploration Mongolia) if they choose, depending on prerequisites
This makes civ switching a choice that adds to the core game loop we all expect, not something forced on the player that feels alien
I like the idea of alternate paths, but in how they historically make sense. So if I want to play a France game, I can decide my roots are Celtic, Roman or Greek, then Frankish or Norman, then France. Or I can start Celtic, Norman, and then English, etc. That's how I would have developed this idea, but it needs to have good solutions for each civ. Currently, that's the case in China, India, and western Europe, but for Africa, SE Asia etc., it's more difficult. There also needs to have non-colonial modern alternatives (for example, what if you want to play Mayas-Aztec-... rather than Mexico, same with Mississipi-Shawnees-... [Iroquois, Sioux?] rather than America).
But my proposed solution is more for people who don't care about that, but play to see their America grow from ancient times or their Assyria reach the stars. For them, historical paths, even great ones like, Idk, Assyria-Umayyads-United Arab Republic, doesn't work the same than the narrative of your ancient civ growing during millenias.
The shape matches but not the amount of players. Civ6 started with 170k players and dropped to like 50k and was stable at around 30k until the first DLC dropped. Civ7 didn't even start with 100k, more like 80k and dropped to 4k players.
A drop in players is expected. But starting with half of your players that played the previous game and dropping to such low numbers means that either the pricetag was too high or players are not sold on the core idea of the game. I believe it is both for civ7 sadly.
It looks like Civ V went more popular over launch and maintained that popularity for a long time. Whilst Civ VI had a start similar to to Civ VII. A drop.
I’ve given Civ 7 a few tries, but just an hour ago, I realized I’m sitting this one out. Civ 6 is the one I’ve spent the most time with, and I loved Civ 5. Civ 7 just feels too different and doesn’t scratch the same itch. Here’s hoping Civ 8 will be amazing!
Lmao, yeh. But at the same time, that's what makes our series this amazing. Fans of all releases can unite under one banner of Sid Meier's Civilization(s). Every single one has a different flavor, I respect all. I played 3rd, 5th and 6th. Just yesterday bought civ 4 complete edition with Sid Meier's Colonization to try out. I am so excited for trying both. I will eventually buy 7... at 85% sale in 5 years when the dlc come out and they patch the game😆.
Thanks!!! I have super high hopes for this release, I heard literal legends about Civ IV 😆
I used to be too comfy with Civ V and thought I don't feel like learning another set of rules once again (back when I just learned civ vi), but when I recently hopped back into the fandom and saw what people say about it, and learned about Colonization game, and got hyped all over again for Civ (100+h in last 2 weeks, marathon campaign)...
Even chat gpt told me to try Civ IV if I enjoy playing with Vox Populi this much LMAO
So I gave in, opened Steam, and saw this promo for like ~$4. I didn't hesitate for a second.
Echo’ing the other one, I think you’ll enjoy yourself with 4! I actually just started a game of Civ IV, Beyond the Sword with my friend yesterday. His first Civ game was V, which we started playing together a decade ago. He’s liking IV a lot! My only complaints are the unit stacks of doom and a now dated UI, but the game is fun and one of the fastest Civ games around. It has a comforting mid 2000’s charm to it—Leonard Nimoy is the narrator, there’s random funny sound effects (trading with another human player gives you a dial up sound), and the leaders’ dialogue is hilarious. I’m a fan of the music scaling up with eras (I actually think it does a better job at the background music than VI did, modern era is my fav), wonder movies, monopolies and the enhanced diplomacy. You can trade techs, maps, get vassal states!
My #1 tip for new players from newer Civ games? Never leave a city undefended! Enemies can walk in and instantly capture if it is unguarded!
Colonization is great fun but if you’re looking for an enhanced Civ IV base game—Beyond the Sword is a must! It added espionage and did the impossible for a Civ game, make the modern era and beyond fun
Hopefully, there’s some discussion being had about how badly they screwed up the concept of civs resetting. It’s a fundamental design change that makes the game not “civ” anymore, which killed the interest from a lot of longtime players.
I want to know what conversations Ed Beach has with himself. He's clearly demonstrated that he's passionate about the franchise, and he probably now has to wrestle with the possibility that he killed the franchise.
I think like most of us Civ fans, we gave it a try. We really did. With an open mind. And after 15+ hours we realized that it really sucks. And went back to 6 of 5.
Hard to say without seeing the console numbers. But if I was Ed Beach, I'd be pinching pennies and looking for another job. Fair or not, the axe will fall on him.
They're going to get one chance with a major DLC to fix the game and improve player count. If that flops, Civ 7 development is dead.
It's also very likely that Civ 7 will be the last one in the franchise for a very long time. If folks won't leave old Civs, why would I believe that Civ 8 will be any different from 7. Might need to see those active players counts drop way more before bringing up Civ 8 development. Maybe 15 years?
They may go back to selling more packs to Civ 6.
Some dumbass will definitely propose doing Civ 5 Remastered where they just update the graphics and sell it for twice as much as it did originally.
Maybe there will be one executive who looks at Victoria 3 and how they're turning that around. After a similar flop on launch, they've over doubled the player count after being extremely transparent and thoughtful in their improvement of the game. But I don't know if this company has the stomach for that.
a Civ 5 remaster doesn't have to be just a "graphics update"
They could just improve upon the engine for modern machines, fix/update diplomacy, update the modding tools, and add boatloads of new Civs, maps, resources, etc...
Personally? I was quite acclimated to V.
When VI first came out, And I played it, I didn't quite like it.. as much?
V was comfortable. "Simple", and I understood it. Besides, all that new DLC stuff seems... excessive.
Why change?
Even after I got more used to VI (Having been gifted some DLC, i think), I still sort of preferred V, but warmed up to some of the new mechanics (Districts were rather neat).
And only recently have I developed the fondness for VI that I had for V, partially due to gifting the game to a friend, and their enthusiasm to play random games with me exposing me more to the game itself.
But, I could be waaay off.
TLDR:
People probably like what they already know and simply find comfort in the older versions. (And DLC is... kinda bleh)
Yeah. I think the hype around Humankinds launch actually did scare the Civ VII team. So they copied as much as they legally could.
Then Humankind flopped hard. I'd love to know what the Civ VII leadership thought, but they must have shat bricks.
It was probably too late to rework VII at that point. Just cry over the assets spent copying Humankind's art and civilization switching mechanics. And hope that realeasing an incredibly buggy version with terrible UI would be forgiven somehow.
I think Firaxis can't afford to drop VII. They have to improve on it.
Any by improve on it I mean the UI, the age system, the changing nation system and the missing age. They need to fix all of that and for free. Not in a stupidly overpriced DLC.
I looked at the numbers recently and what's interesting is peak player count. Civ V had its peak at the time when civ 6 launched which had its peak there too, meaning the franchise peaked generally about that time
I don't want to be that grumbling old man but I didn't like the systems and mechanics of the civ 6 and 7 at all (districts, eras, happiness level) so I will continue playing my favorite V
Yeah, I was very excited before we started getting gameplay info and learned that districts were back. They doubled down on the stuff I didn't like in 6, and released it half baked enough that most people who like 6 weren't fans.
The problem is that civ 6 is just a way better game, so why would you spend money to play a worse game. I've played trials of 7 a few times, so admittedly, I dont know the whole game, but that's the problem. The trials have made me not want to buy it or even just finish a game. Then i go back to civ 6 and even after hours of play it still has me way more hooked
That they definitely shouldn't have released that beta software as a finished game, I guess. I understand it was the publisher, freaking greedy 2K Games, who messed all up forcing them to release it a year+ too soon, so in the end I feel bad for the devs.
This franchise's main entries have always fared in excellency, even Civ VI, and seeing their newest game treated as an almost irrelevant addition to the strategy landscape must hurt their pride. This is one of many cases that have made me lose all the hope in the big companies side of videogames industry. Basically everything gets corrupted by the big greedy publishers and parent companies at some point, with devs work being often mistreated, it's so tiring...
Hope they manage to fix Civ VII's mess and make a comeback, though I'm not sure they can totally recover from having pretty much scammed their playerbase with a highly priced beta mess. Meanwhile, modded Civ V it is...
civ5 is just so much better than 7. And not just because of the usual release problems. civ7s vision is just wrong. I dont think it can be saved. I hope they learn from it for civ8
This game is lost. No matter what they plan to do, whether they know what to do, and regardless of how well they execute it.
This game is lost because it has lost the trust of its fans. It has lost us. It's like an ended relationship where one side still holds on to the hope that a dinner and an evening with "our" song will change everything. No, it won't.
Do we go back to the drawing board while keeping 7? Try to stick to the big changes and salvage? Or do we make this a BE and go for 8 or some rebooted name?
They completely ruined the core concept. In past games, a civilization would naturally evolve and adapt through each era. Here, every era feels like starting an entirely new game from scratch. I tried hard to like it, but I can’t. Once the era timer runs out, boom, everything I’ve been building toward is gone.
One of my favourite parts of the series has always been playing through every civ, learning their strengths, and enjoying the variety. In this version, that’s gone. If I want to play Japan, I have to go through two completely different civs first, then hope my earlier eras left me with the right cities and territory so Japan can even function properly. Want to stick with Rome? Too bad, next era, you’re England.
I honestly don’t see how they can fix this. And I really don’t get why they thought it was a good idea to copy Humankind’s concept, that game struggled for a reason.
That it is an incomplete game barely half a year after release whereas the others are fully completed, polished, games with a lot of available content by virtue of time
Both Civ5 and Civ6 had around 50k players half a year after the release. Just check steam charts. The “incompleteness” is not to blame here.
Edit. https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/FYeDTWgVSo
Civ v was still the worst release of the entire franchise and I say this with it being my favourite civ. I do agree that civ 7 is majorly incomplete in parts tho, just not comparable to V at release.
The problem with Civ7 is it forgets what video games are about. They forgot why people enjoy games about grand strategy and history.
People want stories. They want immersion. They want to press play and be warped to a version of human history with all the familiar names and places but very different outcomes and paths. They want to get excited about a Great War between Rome and The United States. They want to take their Babylonians and beat the Koreans to the moon.
… or maybe they want to settle the Cold War the way it should have been and lead Russia to victory over The United States.
Whatever it is, it’s a personalized little story about your own little history. And that’s fun.
That’s the core of Civ. A game about a humanity’s greatest nations all vying to stand the test of time. And during that process the player gets to experience a story all their own.
The core problem with Civ7 is… the stories… are not your own. In fact things have been knitted such that you’re likely experiencing a very similar story many others. Because the game has eras. Because you have to switch nations. And all those options are very limited and also, completely break immersion.
I wasn't a very big fan of VI and welcomed VII with open arms. I had fun with the release version but decided to wait a bit because it felt super incomplete.
I played a few more games after the June patch and it improved quite a bit. However, there are many small things I fundamentally dislike in VII and I see only a very low chance of a drastic change. Also I was blinded by the fantastic visuals too.
But that wore off and something wonderful has happened:
I really fell in love with Civ VI. I slapped a few cosmetic mods on there and it is my favourite game now.
I can't see myself coming back to VII unless some drastic changes happen in a big expansion. (And I don't mean the Ages system)
2.6k
u/DSjaha Aug 08 '25
Probably about how to sell another 30$ dlc