Is the game good now? Didn't see any threads about this. (Most of them are for the older games)
buy an ad faggot
>>2285600no, still shit
they are working on a "no civ switching" mode. that's all I know
>>2285600damn the game looks so good tho
>>2285600Its been good from the start, the complaints are from the same faggots that cried when civ 5 removed unit stacking aka cancerous trash. The Ages mechanic acts as a soft reset, which helps mitigate the number one problem with 4x games, which is that wins tend to snowball into inevitable victories that you play out for 150 turns. Switching civs at age ups allow you to adapt to changing circumstances which also helps balance. The only real complaint is that certain civ leaders are gay and woke - which is true, but minor.
>>2286357
>>2285600this time no dlc will save this dumpster fire they made.
>>2286357>game too easy, guys!>well, should we add more difficulty settings, work on the AI, or figure out some endgame mechanics?>No, fuck that gay shit. We will utterly break the gamplay flow, completely undercutting the satisfaction of even getting the snowball rolling. That will show the tryhard faggots who have been playing the game wrong.>uhh, I don't kn->you're fired>*game flops*>directed by robert weide
>>2285653They're finally backtracking on their civ-switching autism?
>>2285600Maybe I'll buy it when it's cheaper and the expansion adds more stuff. For now, meh. At least the civ switching is more reasonable than in Womankind
>>2286898It absolutely isn’t. In HK it doesn’t soft reset the game, interrupting wars and destroying any production towards military units.
I gave it my first real try last night and was starting to legitimately enjoy it until the age ended and I was forced into another civ. Probably one of the most bizarre and dumb choices they could have made in a game about building A FUCKING CIVILIZATION from the ground up. I want to play Rome and win or lose as Rome.
>>2286971Really? I still haven't played Civ 7, that's bad. I was talking more about which civs you can change into
>>2287025That really doesn’t bother me in HI because HK sets out to be even less connected to actual history than Civ in the first place. Speaking from a purely gameplay perspective it’s actually pretty cool that you can choose whatever best suits your needs in that moment.Civ7 however is like playing 3 short games in one session rather than one long one. When an era ends everything gets reset from your armies to your cities/towns. It’s jarring and annoying and makes the turns before the era change worthless. What’s the point in continuing to wage a war if you know it’s arbitrarily over in 2 turns and you can’t take that city? Also the civs which you can transition to might be tangentially related to the one you had previously but a lot of the connections are still a stretch. That’s another reason why when people bitch about HK in that regard I just roll my eyes.
New Dev update. Are we back?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_rI5Fm_WGY
>>2286357quality bait
I can't stand their inability to grasp what scale this game is supposed to be at>it's a civilization building game>but you also need to worry about where this heckin school goes>look at how big these cities are!>ignore that the entire map is taken over with sprawl
>>2286995> I want to play Rome and win or lose as Rome.which is weird because it feels like Rome just mostly stopped being Rome after a certain point. like sure wow roman legionnaires, and then what did they do in the next 'age' or 'era'? I don't even know what Rome became after that. pizza, pasta, or whatever?
>>2287962me personally (and I'm NTA) I like the concept of switching civs...at least on paper when it's more "realistically railroaded. for example you start as Rome and become either HRE or Normandy then modern France or whatever. so it's more historically grounded and ain't woke
>>2287913It’s because they ran out of innovative ideas especially after the backwards step that hexs turned out to be and it’s insane reduction of the map size
>>2287913The worst part it isn't even the right kind of sprawl.>real life>wilderness replaced with farms and villages, then city sprawl>Civ 7>wilderness replaced with random shitAt least 6 understood this basic concept.
>>2286357switching civs doesn't matter for animalistic retards with no imagination, which devs also happen to be
>>2286357buy an ad you retard
>>2288153>At least 6 understood this basic conceptDid it though? I mean I see what you’re saying but the world just felt completely out of proportion to me between hex’s, maps sizes, etc. I feel like unique terrain regions were actually better captured in a square grid. Also fucking ridiculous that civs like Canada just put hockey rinks on every other tile, which looks and feels worse than what 7 is doing. Yield porn coomers are just coping about the weird unique improvements some civs get.
>>2288248It did on at least some level. You were 'supposed to' replace farms with neighborhoods in the late game. I do think there were some unnecessary districts in 6 (airport), but there was at least this idea of "you should have more improvements than districts". Now it's all just districts, thus the city sprawl in the early game.
>>2285600It's dead, Jim. It will never be good. You need to let it go.
>>2285600People doomed about V when it's released, And then VI. It's just a cycle at this point.
>>2285600>Is the game good now?kek
>>2288330Yeah but 5 eventually became a decent game and 6 did enough interesting new stuff that didn’t completely wreck the formula. If you’re implying 7 will eventually get to that point without all of its “innovations” being ripped out then you’re on drugs. Although I wouldn’t mind if they did that, because it would essentially be 6 that I can look at for longer than an hour.
>>2288632>Yeah but 5 eventually became a decent gameNaeh, it was as fine a game at launch as it was with BNW.Civ4 players hated it at launch, and then civ5 apologists tried to tell the civ4 players that it was good once bnw was out, while it never actually fixed the issue civ4 players had.
>>2288634nta but I played both 4 and 5 on their launches and in all honesty they both benefited greatly from their expansions. I did, and still do dislike 5 and 6 for the same reason and that's because while the hex system is fine and 1upt isn't horrible either the AI is still shitbrick utter retard drowning in puddle tier at using it. Definitely not a fan of not humankind 7 but it's barely a civ game anyway. My shitty 2c at least.
>>2288641>shitbrick utter retard drowning in puddle tier at using it.I think in civ6 the problem might be more that the AI just won't project force, it can move good enough in 1upt, but unless they're at war and an enemy is exactly at their border, they just try to move their units as close to their opponents capitol as possible to declare war which means you can just delay the war by herding them away.If they just declared war, and when at war produced units to attack your units and cities they'd manage so much better.I say that because there isn't the same type of gridlock you saw in civ5 due to 1upt.I'm not sure if corps and generals helped mitigate that, or if the AI just too bad at making units.
>>2288632>but 5 eventually became a decent gameActually got worse with bnw.> did enough interesting new stuffAll 6 did was add boring and mindless micro stuff that doesn't work well with the core systems.Both 5 and 6 got worse over time.Ironically that is the one thing they have in common with 4.
Since leaders aren't tied to civs why didn't they add a custom leader maker like civ 6 had custom religions?
>>2293922Because they don't want people making Hitler.
>>2293922>why did the ideologues who oppose liberty not grant the player more liberty
>>2287913It's so bizarre how they kept making the map smaller from Civ 5 to 6 to 7, all while making cities massively bigger at the same time. Having the entire planet covered in urban sprawl in the Modern Era of Civ 7 is straight up vomit inducing.
>>2293922Because you have to play the brown women anon, YOU HAVE TO!
>>2285600Could they just have the civ 7 art director do a visual overhaul on a civ 6? At least that one was playable.
When will they add Hideyoshi so I could have him be the leader of Korea
>>2296177Sengoku was supposedly leaked along with Heian Japan
>>2295942ive never played a woman leader. desu its kind of pointless because you only see the ai leaders
At this point just learn from your mistakes and work on civ8.
>>2293922Because people already say they ripped off Humankind with the addition of morphing civilizations. No need to make it even more apparent.
>>2296373Firaxis is lucky they exist at all at this point. They already killed the XCOM franchise SOMEHOW.
>>2296380XCOM was never that good of a series tbqh
>>2295904This is one my biggest and I think generally one of the most underrated complaints of the nu-civ series, and it partially comes from the switching to hex tiles. Now, did it have to? No. I’m not sure if the exercise is that hexes or the new gamers are harder on RAM but I suspect that would be bullshit given you’re dealing with far less units compared to civ3.Nu-civ fans kindof mock the scale argument and act like Civ being treated like a digital board game is preferable somehow. I discovered Civ when I found civ3 at a scholastic book fair when I was in like 4th grade. It took me awhile to grasp how to play it over the next couple of years, but part of what kept bringing me back was the vast scale of it compared to games like AoE, EE, or C&C. For me Civ had always been about the larger scale. The biggest disappointment about 5 for me was how the map usually had unclaimed land right up into the modern era, how tiny even the largest maps felt, and how balance was over optimized for tall play and how warfare generally just became a pain in the ass via happiness and puppets.
>>2296509Execuse*, games*
>>2296367>you only see the ai leadersYou see both leaders in the diplomacy screen in Civ VII.
The pirate civ looks cool
>>2295904Maps have been getting smaller since civ 3. Civ 4 maps seem small compared to 3 and civ 5 are small compared to 4.
>>2296504Way better than civ.
>>2296504>XCOM was never that good of a seriesUFO Defense was pretty greatTFTD was kinda just a pain in the ass, thoughGood thing they never made any more and just let the game die after that
>>2297093I always felt 1 and 2 to be the largest with how many you can (and should) cram in.
>>2285600It will never be good, because it's Beyond Earth 2: Civ Edition
>>2296380It's the reverse - the fact the first XCOM was good was an accident, the franchise as such was utter trash.Reminder XCOM, the one you are thinking about, was 3rd game in the franchise. That's how bad said series is - you aren't even aware of the prior games due to their shitness and blandness.
I enjoy civ vii. It's definitely not perfect, but i like it.
>>2297208*cities
What will you do if you're taking charge of civ 7
>entire thread of complaints about worthless things like woke aesthetics or that changing civs "doesn't fit" a civ builder despite being way less retarded than romans existing in the modern times or whatever>the one comment talking about whether game mechanics are fun and good is called shilling and baitjust nuke this fucking board at this point
>>2311491t. wokesterJokes aside, maybe because all of the gameplay complaints have been said already?
I support wokeness
>>2311504>namefagof course you do
>>2311524What's wrong with BIPOC representation?
Any idea when the next news of DLC drop?
>>2285600no
>>2286357lmao
