Re: Civilization VII

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:41:09 -0000 (UTC), Samuel Söderberg
<samuel@samuelsoderberg.se> wrote:

The old thread derailed...
>
Did you give them your money yet?
I refunded the game.
Not much in the way of constructive criticism.
A sequel should not be worse than the prequel!

Nope. I rarely buy games day one anyway, and while I'm a long-time fan
of Civilization, it was never something I _needed_ to get right away.
I was happy to let all the people who got the game on launch be my
beta-testers, and for it to become apparent what the publisher
intended with the game (e.g., adding post-launch DRM, MTX, etc.) But
everything I've read about Civilization VII just pushes the day I get
it further and further away.

Some of its additions are interesting... but they don't seem well
implemented and don't fit with the franchise as I know (and love) it.
The end result seems more a clone of "Humanity" than an attempt to
make the next "Civilization".

I'll get "Civilization VII" eventually, I am sure, just because it is
a Civilization game and I sort of stumble into getting every game
anyway. But paying $70 for it? Fuck that.

.
.
.
.
.

Although... maybe Civilization VII does have one major advantage over
its predecessors. The older games are so damned addictive --just one
more turn!!!-- that I play them only rarely, because they tend to
devour my life while I'm involved with them. You know what I mean;
playing the game day after day, into the wee hours of the morning. So
I engage with the games very defensively; only when I know I can
afford the exhaustion that will likely ensue, and limiting to myself
to a single campaign before it gets uninstalled. It's the only way I
can ensure my health and sanity.

But with "Civilization VII", it might just be a game so awful I don't
want to keep playing it like that. I wonder if marketing can use that
'advantage' in their ad-copy? ;-)