***Sid Meier's Civilization VII***
- Thread starter Tombstone
- Start date
I hope you're put into a cannon & fired into the sun.
Joke ! Joke ! I don't hope that at all - but this is one of the most successful turn-based games of all time.
It's like saying you hope Doom won't be an FPS.
Last edited:
Given this game is getting a Switch port, it should run decently on a wide range of PC hardware.
Last edited:
Caporegime
According to the minimum specs they released a few days, you should be fine just not for max settings.
I'm only just happy with how Civ 6 runs so we'll see.
Caporegime
Yep, that's the basis for my hope that it won't blow my Steam Deck up!
A game like this you can run it at 30fps and it'll be alright, being turn based.
turns take ages though no doubt with an old cpu
Later in the game sure, but its a slow paced game anyway. If you play with full movement and combat animations enabled, that will take longer than the turn processing time anyway.
Man of Honour
Jesus, the prices on games, especially "enhanced" editions are bonkers.
A bad decision by the developers that doesn't inspire confidence that they won't have made similar bad choices elsewhere...
The history of civ shows the objection to this isn't about the characters skin colour and/or sex. It's just an incoherent casting when there's literally no reason to do this, even within the DEI worldview, as previous Civ's have had plenty of 'diversity'
I've played every Civ extensively from the first but i think this will be the first I'll leave for a year or two to wait for the expansions to come out and the price to drop.
Edit: i see they have decided to include Confucius and Niccolo Machiavelli which is a departure from previous games where all the leaders were.... well actually leaders of nations/ tribes etc at one point or another either formally as head of states or less formally like Gandhi.
But at least thoose two did hold high influential positions in goverment unlike Tubman.
The history of civ shows the objection to this isn't about the characters skin colour and/or sex. It's just an incoherent casting when there's literally no reason to do this, even within the DEI worldview, as previous Civ's have had plenty of 'diversity'
I've played every Civ extensively from the first but i think this will be the first I'll leave for a year or two to wait for the expansions to come out and the price to drop.
Edit: i see they have decided to include Confucius and Niccolo Machiavelli which is a departure from previous games where all the leaders were.... well actually leaders of nations/ tribes etc at one point or another either formally as head of states or less formally like Gandhi.
But at least thoose two did hold high influential positions in goverment unlike Tubman.
Last edited:
It may not be about those qualities for some, but on this forum you can guarantee it bloody well would be, especially amongst the usual people who base their whole personality around making a big deal out of these sort of things.
I suppose it's also a coincidence that you were very vocal and active in the dragon age thread
That whole post was a literal "I'm not <some'ist> but".
I suppose it's also a coincidence that you were very vocal and active in the dragon age thread
That whole post was a literal "I'm not <some'ist> but".
Last edited:
Its a difficult one when it comes to the USA, if you are attempting to provide a male and a female , with leadership qualities, for each Civ for example, its very easy to do so with England, Scotland, Russia, France, China and so on but its a real struggle to come up with names of females in American history that could be attributed leadership aspects. As you point out, its not the first time that Civ has had people who werent actually leaders and tbh I simply do not have any problem with Harriet Tubman (I'd preferred Martin Luther King myself) and certainly not enough of a problem with it to decide not to buy Civ 7 (its already a day one purchase for me
)Its a difficult one when it comes to the USA, if you are attempting to provide a male and a female , with leadership qualities, for each Civ for example, its very easy to do so with England, Scotland, Russia, France, China and so on but its a real struggle to come up with names of females in American history that could be attributed leadership aspects. As you point out, its not the first time that Civ has had people who werent actually leaders and tbh I simply do not have any problem with Harriet Tubman (I'd preferred Martin Luther King myself) and certainly not enough of a problem with it to decide not to buy Civ 7 (its already a day one purchase for me
It's not the inclusion of Tubman that's concerning enough in an of itself (as leaders traditionally can be included/ excluded at the players whim) but rather what's now diriving some of the decisions at Firaxis. After all theres whole rafts of existing Civ 6 leaders who I never bothered with because I either preferred the attributes/ role playing aspect of other Civs/ leaders. Ive said before that this was going to be the 1st Civ game I personally was going to hold of on purchasing to start with and see what state it was in when the price started to drop. I appreciate the whole finding a female leader for the USA might be hard but is it the case they're going to try to do this for all leaders? To be paired male/ female? Because that will exclude a whole host of previous leaders from being included from launch or later on because they're really going to struggle to find female counterparts to Genghis or Shaka for example.
Say what now?
Sid Meier’s Civilization VII Collector’s Edition + Game Bundle
Own the Sid Meier's Civilization® VII Collector's Edition or the PC (Steam) Game Bundle, complete with exclusive collectibles and digital bonusesfinalbossbundle.com
They are selling a version of the collectors edition for £140 and you don't even get a copy of the game?!!!and if you do want the game it's £260!!
I really hate the nonsence we now get at a new 'AAA+' games launch. This really has to be a year or two down the line purchase now. And thats hoping thry don't go full on Stellaris style nonsence route where the 'full' version ends up costing you the best part of £200 with all the DLC.
What are the other decisions at Firaxis that you have an issue with? It surprises me, as someone who has also played every Civ game since Civ 1, and amassed over 1000 hours played in almost every Civ game since the first one, buying Civ 7 is simply an absolute given for me. Upon that track record of the past 30+ years and the amount of time I played each one, I havent seen anything or heard anything that puts me off buying Civ 7, so I'm intrigued to know what the decisions are that Firaxis have made which has turned you (who has also played and enjoyed all the previous Civs) off buying Civ 7? Perhaps its something major that I have missed the news of
It may not be about those qualities for some, but on this forum you can guarantee it bloody well would be, especially amongst the usual people who base their whole personality around making a big deal out of these sort of things.
I suppose it's also a coincidence that you were very vocal and active in the dragon age thread
That whole post was a literal "I'm not <some'ist> but".
You sort of people really are ridiculous .
You either know or would know if you spent any time playing Civilisation games that this isn't what you're alluding to.
Previous Civ games have had very little issue, criticism or push back including black leaders, female leaders and indeed female black leaders.
But of course, this has previously been done in a fashion that was at least somewhat internally coherent.
My issue with this is the same as with the abomination that is 'Tash' in the Veilguard and other associated gameplay elements. That issue being whether the insertion of those characters and themes was done to make the game better and more immersive or to push a very 'current day' and particular political messaging.
Last edited:
The difference between the bundle with/without the game is 125.
so they are charring 125 for the game now? and some crappy sounding dlc included.,
minimal description to fit the new steam rules where they have to tell you something...
fluff in the collectors edition looks crap too....
the statue looks like its probably 3d printed crap, and it's 3 inches tall..
The clock looks kinda cool, but I'm guessing it's plastic ands not actual metal, lets faced itr they say its premium, but don't even mention a single word about the material it's made from.. so cheap plastic from chyna
also overpriced.
real collector editions are buying a 3d printer and printing out something that's actually good, you only need to skip 3-5 collector editions to pay for the investment, then just print off other peoples designs...
With how hated the big studios already are, you'd think they'd want to give real value for money....... disgusting pricing for cheap tat
so they are charring 125 for the game now? and some crappy sounding dlc included.,
wow amazing, but what actual gameplay features and improvements? or is it just the basic cash cow content? it's not like it says "major expansion"
minimal description to fit the new steam rules where they have to tell you something...
fluff in the collectors edition looks crap too....
the statue looks like its probably 3d printed crap, and it's 3 inches tall..
The clock looks kinda cool, but I'm guessing it's plastic ands not actual metal, lets faced itr they say its premium, but don't even mention a single word about the material it's made from.. so cheap plastic from chyna
also overpriced.
real collector editions are buying a 3d printer and printing out something that's actually good, you only need to skip 3-5 collector editions to pay for the investment, then just print off other peoples designs...
With how hated the big studios already are, you'd think they'd want to give real value for money....... disgusting pricing for cheap tat
Last edited: