Incorporates 3rd-party DRM: Denuvo Anti-tamper
Requires 3rd-Party Account: 2K Account for Online Interactions
Somebody please wake me up when these atrocities are gone. (And thanks, Steam, for making them easy to discover.)
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
243 points (98.8% liked)
Games
37947 readers
1093 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
also no hotseat multiplayer
The game is lietarlly half cooked, and they clearly wanted to sell the other half piecemeal as DLC.
The game literally only has 3 eras. Every other civ game has 6.
But don't worry, they're adding Mount Everest.
What a fucking joke
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'll pick up Civ 7 in a few years when I can get the full pack for a reasonable price. It's the way Civ works.
load more comments
(1 replies)
puts on flame resistant hazmat suit
... Civ 7 is the Civ series shitty attempt at copying Humankind, Humankind is currently $12.50 USD, $25 for all DLC + base game, and is a way better deal than Civ 7 at $70, if not just actually a better game than Civ 5 or Civ 6 + all their existing DLC/expansions.
Haven't played Humankind yet, but Amplitude's previous Civ/4X-like "Endless Legend" was amazing and very fresh take on the genre. And it looked like Firaxis were already trying to copy some of it in Civ 6, so I'm not surprised this trend continues.
Civ peaked at Civ 4 and all its expansions for me.
Yes, doomstacks were a problem, but hard pivoting all the way over to Civ 5's only one unit per tile led to a whole bunch of other bullshit in the opposite direction.
Humankind ... just has better inter game system synergy, and those individual systems seem better thought out, more engaging and less... cheesable, exploitable, to a great extent due to how everything meshes together.
The first few months after launch absolutely were rough, with some pretty significant bugs in specific, but often crucial scenarios... but they got ironed out, and the result is great.
Also a lot of the initial backlash was from the pollution / global warming mechanic... they quickly added an option to just turn most of its effects off, but to me the entire thing read as a bunch of people being used to massively colonizing, industrializing and war mongering and then being angry that ... that has consequences.
Guess those people have trouble grasping the concept of an externality.
Oh well, they've all been filtered, recent steam reviews are 'very positive.'
Thanks for the tip, any chance it runs natively on Linux?
Natively? I don't think so.
But I've been running it via proton on my steam deck for... over a year now, only real problem is the HUD is a bit smallish.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I played the Humankind demo and found it to be genuinely awful and borderline unplayable. I’m surprised it’s caused this much panic amongst 2K, unless Humankind has gotten a lot better since the demo.
I never played the demo, started with the full game... maybe a couple weeks after launch.
As I said in another reply, yeah, it absolutely was rough on a technical level for the first few months, a good number of actually fairly common edge cases where the game's systems would break, things wouldn't actually work as intended, as described by the game itself.
But, after about 6 months, they fixed basically all of these... and didn't really even have to do like major tweaks to the balancing of the game... the problems were technical implentations of the designed game, and once they got those ironed out, the game as envisioned was now actually the game as it performed.
Go pull up the steam store page right now: Overall score is still 'Mixed' it did indeed have a rough launch... but Recent Reviews are 'Very Positive'.
The people that bothered to stick with it... well they seem to very much like where the game is now.
So, I'd say yes, the general consensus of people still playing it is that it did indeed improve significantly.
Also, its pretty undeniable that 2K, Civ 7, very much did try to ape some, but not all, of the changes that Humankind put on what is basically the Civ formula, that just never occured to them.
The entire concept of you and other players basicslly just having the avatar of your civilization remain the same for all time, but the civilizations themselves change, with historical eras?
Thats one of the most obviously visible differences between Humankind and any Civ game that existed ... prior to Civ 7.
It is also, somewhat ironically, one of the main reasons those initial reviews of Humankind were 'Mixed': a whole lot of Civ fans just thought the whole idea was stupid, and were vocal about it.
... And then Civ 7 does the same idea, but more watered down, with only 3 eras, 3 different civs per playthrough, as opposed to Humankind's ... well basically 6 + 1, where that + 1 represents your pre-civilization nomadic tribe/culture, basically playing a fairly different kind of game, prior to building your first real city and thus advancing to your first choice of civilization.
Also, worth throwing in here I guess: Advancing through eras works with a similar mechanic as to racing to build wonders in Civ: You can only have one player as each civ at a time, so if you really want to have first dibs and the full range of civs to choose from, you have to be the first to era advance, otherwise another player may beat you to it and pick the one you were planning on.
But, it also works differently than wonders: Wonders are just built by a city in Civ. Eras in Humankind are advanced by earning points for completing basically era specific mini objectives... and you have a range of different options to choose from, maybe you go for numerous easier objectives, or focus on a few, more difficult ones.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Isn't this the rule with every civ launch? They're all somewhat half-baked on launch (although 7 admittedly looks quite a bit less baked than the others).
That said, I feel Civ formula seems to be in decline. To me Call To Power was peak civ ( yeah, fight me ), but while 3,4 and 5 were great "second-bests", I couldn't really get into 6 and I'm not really planning on playing 7 ( not with this 3-age format anyway ).
At a certain point they're beating a dead horse. Outside of graphical updates (which I thought the cartoon-y look of the leaders in civ 6 was a huge downgrade), the core gameplay is still mostly the same throughout the series.
I watched a video on civ 7 and it seems like they really tried to shake up a lot in the game, I think for this reason that they needed to try something fresh to stay relevant. But really this is to its detriment rather than benefit.
I'm not sure if the three age thing is to "even the playfield" on those marathon long sessions when one civ runs away with the ball so to speak, but really that's one of my favorite parts of the series. Like it's awesome to take out some cavemen with navy seals or launch nukes when everyone is cowering in fear. If everything gets massively reset, then why even try to get ahead? I've not played the game so there could be more nuance but that's my general impression.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not paying $120 Australian for it no matter how improved it is
Yeah that's honestly the main thing for me too. It's $120 Canadian for the Deluxe version. My price point is like... $30, especially since by all accounts it's not even finished.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Civ6 still isn't in a state that I'm happy with playing it over civ 5, or even civ4. What makes them think I'd give civ7 the time of day?
should have kept that Luigi kid as QA
No ghandi = fuck you.
You know they're going to bring him back as DLC
Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
As the article says, it's history repeating itself. This one made more foundational changes to the formula than 6 did over 5, and once again, if you're looking to play a Civ game, the old game is still going to be cheaper. I loved 6 when it came out, but when friends were curious about dipping their toes in, I just referred them to 5 because it was almost as good and far cheaper to try out. Civ 6 charts compared to 5 around the same time period are similar. I haven't picked up 7 yet just because I'm still trying to get through other games, but I'm looking forward to it.
I just referred them to 5 because it was almost as good
Why do you consider Civ 6 better than 5?
Edit for anyone else wanting to answer: Please specify whether you're including Brave New World (or Gods and Kings) in your comparison, since those expansions significantly improved upon the original Civ 5 release.
I'm not the person that you asked, but I do hold the same opinion. My biggest reasons are:
- Civs are far more incentivised to expand in VI, resulting in more conflict
- Districts make city placement a much more complicated question
- The city state influence game is much more interesting than just a spending race and also has more game-changing rewards
- The culture and science victories are much more interactive with other civs now, rather than just hiding away and waiting for a bar to fill
I don't think V is bad by any means. It was the one that got me into the series after bouncing off III and IV. I just think that most of the changes in VI were improvements
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
From what I've seen, Civ 7 is trying too hard to be Humankind. I don't really want try it.
I mean, the ages thing grew on me. It was way too common in other civs to just snowball early and dominate the rest. Any modern civilization was just bad, because by the time they got online it was over.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm still playing 4
Me too. It's still the best and the most moddable.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's honestly been one of the most disappointing games I've ever picked up. Civ 6 was my first. I would play it well into the night. I was addicted.
At this point I forgot civ 7 even came out until I saw this to remind me. I played maybe 250 turns total over a couple games and dropped it. I have no desire to pick it up. The map generation is bad and the age system is formulaic. Makes it feel like on the rails for the same thing every single game.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Holy shit, 5 is 15 years old now?! It still feels new. How old is 3?! Because that is my first civ
load more comments
(1 replies)
Civ 7 is out?
When this game came out, took it as my cue to buy Civ 6 + the DLCs.
I'm sure I'll move on at some point, but I'm currently running maybe 30 mods on civ 6, and they are mostly QoL. Parts of both gameplay and UI are just poorly thought out even to this day. So I was expecting the new game to be released in a state I'd dislike. It might take longer to improve than I thought, though.
Bring back the UI team from 6 and I'm sold.
Has there even been a Civ release that was great at the start? I had the old Civ 2 "Multiplayer Gold Edition," which my friend, who had the original, said had a much better AI. Give it a little while and see what they can do to make Civ 7 better, then it'll sell well.
Has there even been a Civ release that was great at the start?
Does Alpha Centauri count as a civ game?
load more comments
(6 replies)
Civilization 4 was good at launch. Naturally it got even better over time.
Worth a mention that 4 is the most recent of these games released primary on physical hardware. That meant patching was a more difficult process so they actually had to hire a bunch of play testers to test stuff (and fix the problems they found). Contrast that to the approach of the most recent three games, which had their customers pay $70 for the privilege of being beta testers.
This is a shitty way to develop games. We should be mad about it because we deserve better.
I honestly forgot about civ 7. Wow what a crazy long month it's been..
As always the best route is to wait for first expansion and buy it then for like $40. Most of the bugs should be worked out by then, and the first expansion usually has all the original planned content that they ran out of time and rushed the game out before it was ready to go.
The entire series really peaked with civ 4 and 5. 4 was the more complicated, less streamlined but still really fun game, where each game kind of felt like a dnd campaign where tons of random things could happen and you had a lot of flexibilty with your Civilization. And Civ 5 was streamlined, simplifed to be easier to learn, and while choices were reduced, the more streamlined nature made it easy to jump into a game, and civs still had uniqueness about them, and its also great fun.
Civ 5 is also a beautiful game. The artstyle has this epic, renaissance painting quality, and every world leader looks badass and awesome. Even the portraits of the units, like the worker and scout looked like something out of an italian paimting. The artstyle felt more authentic and mature, at least to me, and they haven't really recaptured that epicness and beauty since.
I mean, each of these games are just the same as the previous but with less content more or less?
They do make changes throughout the series, but every new game is a complete reset to a basic game so they can sell you all the DLC and expansions to make it into a full game.
Civ 7 is out now? Jesus. I can only handle the strategic view from civ 5
I haven't tried civ7 yet but I really like humankind, the only 4x game that I actually finished thrice. If only Humankind didn't die, maybe it would have had more content added.
It's more expensive for a worse game than V or VI, both of which can be had for the price of dirt.
Not surprising.
view more: next ›