this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
173 points (95.8% liked)

Games

32700 readers
1640 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ampersandrew 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They're going to have to make some fundamental changes for this one, because Civ 6 already felt like the final form of the previous design.

[–] firadin 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hard disagree. The district system of Civ 6 was half-baked, and the new one for Civ 7 seems way more interesting with districts growing more organically. Civ 6's world congress was garbage. The eras system needed serious work as dark/golden/heroic eras just didn't feel impactful enough aside from getting a monumentality era early. The new map generation with navigable rivers is a huge plus as well. The climate system in Civ 6 was a dud too, not nearly impactful enough. I think they could've made a Civ 7 which fixed all the broken Civ 6 systems and made a great game.

[–] ampersandrew 6 points 2 months ago

Speaking for myself, if the only selling point was that they revised systems that I already liked, I'd probably pass on Civ 7. Navigable rivers isn't really enough for me.