I doubt Ara will be a Civ 7 killer, but I can see a lot of strategic players move to Ara, as it feels more like a spiritual successor to the Civilization games. The thing is Civ 7 is looking for the casual players, while Ara will be harder to get into for casual players. Great job Raptop on highlighting both games.
Game is bad from point everything's is smaller more for pvp choice cut to minimum map cut to small only removing work is jus apsurd they only actually improved graphics. Only improvement rivers
Civ V is definitely my favorite. From the seemless gameplay, to the leader screen animations, the more realistic-looking visuals, resource icons, and fog of war, music, narration... I like that even in its absurdity, it presents itself as serious but in a sincere way that is full of personality.
Civ 5 was the GOAT. 6 with its exploded cities looked awful and I hated managing all the districts with housing and whatnot. I woulndt mind if a Civ 5 city grew by one or two tiles when it hit 10 or 20 population but why does one city cover half a continent?
I like Civ 5 because I find it extremely replayable, especially with all my favorite mods. I own Civ 6 but I found that having each building on a seperate hex, especially on what are rather small maps is silly. Having your cities and other civilisations cities touching each other was a game killer for me. I went back to Civ 5. Previously I liked Civ2, though it was slightly buggy.
@@ferrisbuellertube the districts can be seen like small townships, it is actually quite accurate to what war looks like etc. Fighting through district after district. I mean, if that's the problem play less Civs in a larger world and the scale fits again.
Its kinda funny, I thought Civ 7 looked pretty gorgeous, and it does, but man, Ara’s scaling and art style just blows it out of the water in my eyes, plus organic regions and what seems to be more focus on exploration complexity in the early game, and it has totally sold me
i would say they look simply different. Ara tries to have everything realistically scaled, which makes it impossible to recognize smaller things just by looking at it. I personally prefer Civ because even without zooming in, I can recognize at least some things without relying on (pretty unattractive) icons.... not as great as in Civ4. But you cannot improve on perfection... ;) But the landscapes are amazing in Ara, no doubt.
At a glance, it looks like History Untold is doing something we really haven't seen before: Taking the City Builder genre and combining it with Turn Based Strategy. It doesn't look cartoony. The cities look like real cities, not icons. The animations help create the appearance of a game that isn't actually paused during each turn - something that is alive and dynamic. Each turn looks like more of an "active pause" - and everything I'm seeing is definitely contributing to excitement. This game quickly went from a "what's that" while I scrolled past, to something that I'm genuinely excited to see. At a glance, while Civ 7 looks very beautiful, it also looks like a sort of continuation of the art style of Civ 6. Ara looks like something truly new.
I'm listening to the dev diary playlist on Ara's youtube channel, and the team is full of ex firaxis that felt that many ideas they had didn't mixed well in an established institutions like CIV.
What they missed, but are so close to, is this: at game start you don’t have a Civ, just a leader. Through the first age, choices you make or resources you exploit or the religion you build lead you to pick a Civ and that Civ choice would be limited to a set of civs matching your choices. And then they could just have a classic mode without switching
THE LEADER HAS TO MATCH HIS/HER CORRESPONDING -HISTORICALLY CORRECT- CULTURE/CIV. HAVING ROOSEVELT LEADING CHINA, ALEXANDER LEADING THE ZULUS AND NAPOLEON LEADING JAPAN IS THE STUPIDEST THING THIS FRANCHISE COULD MAKE UNLESS IT PURPOSEFULLY AIMED FOR ITS DOWNFALL. BOYCOTT THIS SHIT
sounds like something that's a cool idea in theroy, but in practice would be a frustrating experience. Would probably lead to a frustrating amount of restarts because you didn't get the start to allow you to choose the civ you wanted. Customization shouldn't be rng/map based.
I knew that Napoleon was in Egypt. Conquering or just being at the current territory of some country should not lead to situation where you can tie this nation/civ to other nation/civ. I wonder how representation of indigenous nations of Americas, islands of Pacific, Africa will feel when their civ will lead to colonisation nation s. It is ridiculously more awful than starting with some leader in ancient era and then lead them to current times. CIV was never meant to be perfect representation of history events but pairing the nations in such a stupid way will do more harm to this franchise than the previous solution.
@@BurningSpear213 They're fake fans. They think that Civilization is historic. In reality, Civilization has always played on things like: what would happen if the Roman Empire arrived in the industrial age? What if Egypt originated in the North Pole? This is Civilization and this is what it always has been.
I loved building roads with builders. I loved the culture and religion in civ 4. I liked between-town trading in Colonization (but hated, that it didn't have endless). I liked the style of Civ 5. I am currently playing Civ 6 with "Take Your Time" mod. Only domination victory and x10 slower tech and civics. This makes the game fun, you actually have time to use your units, before upgrading them in just a few days. Real nice longplay setting.
From Civ VI to the early leaks of Civ VII, I really appreciate the developers are trying a lot of new things to keep the title running. But imo I feel like they keep reminding me how wonderful and perfect Civ V is lol
I mostly play Civ V because I don't have to micromanage so much compared to Civ VI, that means between work and parenting, I can catch a couple of hours and finish the game instead of leaving it half way.
That's sounds really cool. I like it. Or if you go evolve rout. Make it make more sense. Ecrustions however you spell it. Becomes Roman's which become Italians. But that kinda breaks down as some civs may step on each other. English become Americans. But the English also would make it to a late game cov as well. I like your idea the most. You start as a unknown clan. Then become a civ.
This - civ6 put in so many systems to keep track of that it feels more like micromanaging as compared to executing a strategy. So many things to prioritize that you miss something or the other, and it still has the civ 5 thing of "expand or die", but with many penalties on expansion
Neither did i. Got tiresome really fast. I choose a certain civ for a reason, so i want to stay with it the whole game. You cannot really build a connection with your civ, since whats the point when you have to change anyways.
Civilization went from trying to simulate the grow of civ to gamey mechanics for 4x enjoyers. I still feel IV was the best just for the great mods it could support.
I’m optimistic. I also don’t like humankind but I think the mechanic is just implemented poorly in that game. In humankind you switch cultures six times. On a normal game speed (around 300 turns in a game) that means that you will culture shift around every fifty turns. Civ VII only has three separate eras and its standard game time will be longer than a game of humankind or even Civ VI from what I’ve heard. Also the fact that civilizations will be able to develop into historical continuations of those civilizations such as Egypt into the Abassids and so on.
@@nickdentoom1173I think another approach they could have taken rather than being the Egyptians or the Greeks or the Americans, they could have not included any of those things and had you name the civilization yourself. You could have at each era, chosen a specialty such as production or gold or something like that, and at each era you pick an ideology and by the modern age you are then assigned a civilization based on the choices you made.
@@Cannabionic Personally played civ as an RP game (started with civ 1) and dont enjoy the move towards a pure board game. However i understand i may be in the minority.
I miss Ara a lot since the last alpha ended. It is in my opinion a wonderful, innovative game, and I am currently more excited about it than I am about Civ 7. :) My biggest worry about 7 isn't any of the announced gameplay changes, it is greed. The price is steep, and they are already charging for future DLC now, almost 6 months before the base game is released. With Civ 6, they kept piling on content, often poorly developed and poorly integrated, rather than improving and fixing existing stuff. I believe this is the reason why, whereas Civ 5 got dramatically better with its expansions, Civ 6 did not. I worry that they are continuing on the same track with 7. After all, selling yet another pack of leaders and a gimmicky new game mode is probably more profitable than, for example, admitting that the World Congress is poorly done and reworking it. Ara's devs on the other hand, seem eager to make the best possible game, and need to make a name for themselves. I think Ara is also a lot more fairly priced.
Regarding Civ 6, it seemed to me that it shipped from the start with too many features, so there was little room to add more in the expansions and in the end it just felt like it had everything and the kitchen sink in it. Definitely prefer the way they are approaching Civ 7 with more elegant and evolving gameplay - hopefully both it and Ara will be great games!
After all of the bugs that borked civ 6 and how it made you shell out crates of cash throughout its lifespan, I don't think I can ever again purchase a civilization game early on, much less preorder. Ara looks exciting, but need more info.
Civ 7 already has 6dlcs planned for year one... Expect cut content, new leaders and a couple civs (one per era?) for 20bucks each... Plus breaking all mods each time. THIS is the biggest red flag for me. I ll rather give my money once to ARA.
@@wisekodiak2668 Firaxis also left the console versions of Civ 6 unsupported for over two years between the end of the NFP & the surprise announcement of the Leader Pass port in summer '23. The final version fixed a lot (but not all) bugs. But it was radio silence for years. They sold a bugged Monopolies & Corporation DLC from Day 1 that wasn't patched until 2 1/2 years later.
@@etienne8110 Yeah, Paradox/Creative assembly behaviour. Tons of DLCs that you must buy in order to have a decent experience and you end up paying $150
I'm glad new ideas are being tried out, though it may or may not end up in an enjoyable experience in the end. It will be interesting to try it out. My only real concern for me personally is the idea I love a new concept but it fails and dies on the vine so I don't get future games with that concept.
The civ change might help to fix one of the long standing problems Civ has always had - civilisations with unique units or bonuses that are only actually useful for a very limited part of the game (or in some cases, only in very specific circumstances). If Firaxis are really on the ball they could even make the choice interesting - for Rome for example two possible choices could be Byzantium, who's unique bonuses start off strong early in the next age but wane over time, or Italy who's bonuses start weak but get stronger as you reach the Renaissance.
In the recent dev stream, they talked about it. It’s basically like you’re hoping as you said in the comment. There’s benefits to advancing your nation or not. It’s really neat.
if ppl would stopp calling games "killer of this or that game" we could actually start enjoying each game for what it is. but i get it gotta work the algorythm.
Thats a bad take, if a series is changing to something its not and someone comes in and fixes it themselves then yeah a series going downhill deserves to be killed
already pre order Ara (i know, i know). with everything that this game is, plus the fact that you can have 36 nations playing at once, just blew me away.
To me, Ara has fully earned my pre order by what they have shown, the only way they could disappoint would be for the game to not be what I have seen and heard, and I also have confidence that won’t happen. Couple that with the fact that the preorder actually GIVES you free stuff, and I’m totally on board. Ara is the kind of game where my preorder money will likely go right into developing more content and helping to polish the game, and I’m ok with that
Ara I was immediately interested... Civ 7 I was immediately turned off and I have played thousands of hours of Civ since Civ 2. Civ 4 is the highwater mark in my mind but Civ 5 is also very good. Civ 6 was very disappointing in my opinion, it was to easy. You just rush 2 warriors then 3-4 slingers and when you got archery upgraded them and you could take city after city in the early game and be unstoppable because happiness was removed. I also remember having artillery 1 hex from a city and the AI (on deity) having 3 horsemen in the city and they never attacked my artillery, just sat there and let the city get bombarded.
@@etienne8110 Why? I just started playing Vox Populi to try it out and it's OK if you want a simpler and more casual version of Civ 6. In Vox Populi you can just spam cities and grow them indefinitely without having to worry about housing or amenities, or happiness and health like in Civ 4. Also less mechanics and everything's just simpler. Maybe Vox Populi has more buildings than Civ 6? Anyhow, I still like it because sometimes Civ VI feels a bit too tedious
@@Pseudoplasmagore i don t know what vox populi you played? Which diff? Etc.. You can play wide on liberty, but vox also allows you to play tall on oligarchy. You don t get the district planning of civ6, but otherwise there are just more meaningfull choices to make all the way.
I, 79 yrs, am a civ fan. I have played civ 1,2,3,4,5,6. col 1,4, & alph cent space games. I still have 3,5, and 6, col4, and alph,on my computer. I dislike 4 & 6 for the same reason. The knowledge advancements are, to me, utterly confusing and graphics are cartoonish. My favorite is civ 5 in which i have 6,200+ hrs invested in it. It is straight forward and easy to play. I usually play with myself and 2 computer generated opponents.
I find it funny, a lot of people are writing that you have to change Civs in Humankind. You don't! You are offered the choice to transcend and remain with Babylon for the entire game. The game rewards you for it, but it is designed to switch to take the benefits of the changing world. Humankind was a good change of pace but it has issues that bring the enjoyment down for me.. I bought both of these games with my goal to play Civ 7 for the entire year. Ara looks promising for a first try.
Districts were a nice idea to had a planning layer to the game. They just lacked that little something to make it feel like they were impacted by the map.
You didn't mentioned "advanced access" sh*t,so 2k is really an anti-consumer company and this is even huge let down for me. I really hope Ara will take crown from them. I was hoping same for Humankind..
It would take years to dethrone civ, not just a single attempt. Cities skyline managed it but only because of the sorry state of sim city and it didn t went that well for skylines2...
The thing I miss from both games (way more Civ than Ara) is the personality of the leaders. Removing backdrops in Civ 6 was a huge step down from the immersion, and my only dissappointment about seeing Ara was the lack of those backdrops - it's just similar to Civ 6, but more realistic models.
I really wish games would advance the border system. Borders should never be automatic, they aren't in real life. Borders should be drawn/declared and then defended. If there is a resource you want send the military and defend it no matter who builds a city or where they build it. Borders should also be negotiable and have the ability to be re-drawn. Changing borders could be negotiated in peace terms. Or be able to pay your neighbour to change the border with cash or tech. Also crossing a border shouldn't automatically start war, the offend Civ should have the option to declare war or not depending on the situation. They may not want to take on a powerful Civ that is really just trying to get there trireme through coastal waters or get a unit back into friendly territory. It would add to the strategy and depth of the game. The whole idea of declaring territory would add new dimension. Civs might over declare but then others could just move in and test your desire or ability to defend it. You'd have to be careful not to declare more than you can defend because you'd lose prestige that way, lose diplomacy points maybe. So many more and interesting ways managing borders could be brought into these games
Civ 2 is my jam. Consulting the bickering council, the jammin' wonder videos, the tech tree I had down pat... yeah it's my favorite and Alpha Centauri is as close I can get to a port.
Yeah, I'm going to play CIV7 because of the ability to change your civilization, like you could in Humankind. Personally, I was hoping for this feature in CIV for years (especially when I played a game like Age of Empires III, thinking: "Ah, that would be cool if you could do change your civilization in a game like CIV like it did in real human history" and then Humankind did it and I loved it. And yeah, you can probably keep your civilization, like you could keep your form of government in CIV6 or like you keep your civilization in Humankind. It might just be "outdated" ie, when it comes to perks for that civilization. In fact, I think in Humankind you got a bonus to your score if you kept your civilization, because you would now be playing at a bit of a disadvantage. So maybe something like that?
I think from what I’ve seen regarding Civilization VII is that it’s taking the player away from interacting with opposing leaders in the first person. The player is now just someone in the audience going along for a ride. That is a very soulless approach by Firaxis when I’m wanting to make a civilization “my own”. I don’t think I’ll be picking it up anytime soon in its current state.
Sid Meier was inspired by the civilization board game designed by Francis Tresham in 1980. I think it is a shame that some sort of credit for Francis is not given. I have played all iterations of the computer Civ. From Civ 1 to Civ 5, I increasing played more hours overall on each subsequent version. However I only managed 63.7 hours with Civ 6; as I was not keen on its cartoon style. I do plan to purchase Civ 7, and I am really hoping that it becomes a favourite, and not something I play for a few hours and then uninstall.
I am going to need to transform myself into a millipede so i can count on my legs the number of times people will say "I was wrong about CIV VII, it's actually a lot of fun."
Civ 5 is my favorite and mods have added so much replay value. Civ 6 (after all the DLC) has more mechanics and content than 5 but i hated the art style direction and some additions like the Dark Age mechanic. Im mildly enthusiastic about Civ 7 and will buy it eventually, they toned down the cartoony art style and finally added navigable rivers, but im not a fan of using Humankind's most divisive feature of "evolving"/changing civs mid-game. I like their 33/33/33 dev philosophy, but I also dont see anything that justifies the price hike for vanilla civ 7 Im actually more intrigued by ARA than Civ 7 currently but want to know more about how ARA's progression works. Can i really evolve from an agrarian settler society to launching ships into space, and is the gameplay loop fun enough in the mid-game and late-game? we'll see
I don't understand why they felt like the civ switching is necessary. If they wanted to try and implement an "era" change maybe they could give the government type more importance. For example, you found Rome, starting as a kingdom then the next era you could pick to change to a Republic or empire or stay in a kingdom and sorta organize it that way. I always loved the idea you can throw all these famous world leaders down on a map and see who comes out on top at the end and the civilization itself is tied to the leaders so I don't want to lose that.
The only thing I would really care about is if they would finally improve the AI. The AI and diplomacy in any civ game feels for me like it was in civ2. Then the AI cheats and no matter what you do they always have the same amount of stuff, so it is not a strategy game any more. I am not really interrested in MP because it just takes to long and want to play marathon but that is impractical im MP.
@@DavidBrown-im4ph like for example?Ialso wanted meaningful diplomacy. i liked the idea of the resource system in millenia, but there is about zero diplomacy about it.
Not really hyped about this one. The changes are okayish, they adapt to fit the new gold standards. But there are a lot of red flags: balancing issues, predatory commercial practices, dumbing down of fonctions. I m more interested in financing newcomers like ARA history untold, which seems to bring new mechanics to the genre, rather than veying for an easy to exploit cashcow...
I'll be cautiously optimism about Civ7, since it seems like they addressed the problem I have with Humankind's system and actual put some restrictions on how you advance to another culture, but that would really need to be carefully crafted in a way that make sense and don't create the gamey feeling like Humankind. Either way, I will wait at least a year after release to be sure the game is fleshed out. Currently ARA has more interesting idea and execution imo.
Between Civ VII and ARA, I choose to just keep playing Civ VI, and maybe go back to V at some point. Both games are disappointing, and are not what a true civ fan as myself is looking for.
I'm looking at both games. I'm leaning towards Ara as Civ5 is the best. Period. I'll get both because I still play Civ5, Beyond Earth, and Civ6. The issue with how they showed off Civ7 was that they didn't let you guys go nuts over an 8-12 hour day and just play the game, on standard pace. They really needed to show the Act change over to really disprove it's not going to be bad like Human Kind was.
Just rambling... Someone needs to make a game called "borders" in which you start out borderless but eventually establish working borders that you need to protect. Inside the borders your cities growth is determined by how much food you can grow and transport without spoilage. After the initial growth into open world territory to expand borders you fight and negotiate. Establish colonies only to lose them to rabble rousers who rise up and expand into new lands instead of yourself! Tech should be based on a lot factors like supporting think tanks in society, tradesmen learning things naturally from foreigners. Tech should be obtainable just by fighting opponents, "look they are using branches with strings to shoot sticks at us, lets figure out how to do that ourselves!" Each tech should have different factors to determine how it is obtained so it's easier for some societies to get based on game choices along the way. Transportation would be a key factor in a play through success. So it would be a cross between Civ and transport fever. Battles would require huge logistical support, food, gas, ammo, people, vehicles. I suppose in the long run the game would end with a lot of stalemates, all nations all having the same tech, I suppose the random natural resource placements would play a huge part.
I thought Firaxis explained the change between ages during their 20 minute presentation. They showed that there will be trees, which have objectives to unlock different Civilizations, which you can then choose from in between Ages. You can always stay the same Civ. But you will need to do certain objectives (like build a certain amount of horseman I think was one example they showed.) In order to unlock a different Civ that you can then choose if you want in between Ages.
@@Bluecatte You are correct, you have to chose a new civ, however they give you the option to chose the historically accurate path which would be what your original civ evolved into. They explain this in the gameplay showcase. So in their example if you pick Egypt you can chose Songhai which is the African power that rose after Egypt. So it's still historically accurate.
Ara's multi-phase simul turns sounds awesome. Great tactical potential, beautiful aesthetic, and looks to offer some strategic depth as well. I am excited :D
I been playing since 3 and these games are classics all of em, I play 6 right now once and a while but getting back into it and I’m ready for this new adventure of Civilization
I've played civ since 1 back in 1991. I played each game continously, right up until the next iteration was released, which I enthusiasticly went aboard in immediately. I prepurchased both civ 5 and 6, because my faith in Sid Meier's studio is unmatched by any other. It I clocked 2800 hours in 5, but only 2100 in 6. Something about 6 put me off a bit. The climate disasters hit too early/easily IMO, and there was some weird decisions (IMO) regarding making great people invoulnerable for some reason, and also the UN council votes were very weird, I thought. I actually stopped playing 6 more than a year ago: I just got tired of it, and went on to other things. When 7 was finally announced, I was super hyped, right up until the gameplay reveal stream, which I thought was a big let-down. None of the things feels really new for CIV, I think. The navigable rivers is the great new thing, and the CIv-culture-swapping. I mean navigable rivers are fine, but that other thing just baffled me. I did try Humankind back when that came out, but it never grew on me. Now I'm just going to play ARA next month, and see how that goes. I really love that they employ Simultaneous turns. Something like that (and a Globe rather than the tired old cylinder world would have fittet perfectly for CIv7) .. Have a nice day :)
Honestly, I don’t get why people are so mad at Civ 7. We haven’t really gotten to see much about it except what we were told in the trailer which isn’t much, and to me personally, what we have seen seems pretty fun and interesting.
I wish they would allow changing of leaders within the same Civ through the Eras, but understandably, it would, at a minimum, triple the leaders for every Civ. American Civ Example: Antiquity - Ben Franklin Exploration- Abe Lincoln Modern - Teddy Roosevelt Start with any of those 3 and either select a new leader at the start of a new era or elect to keep your current.
I'm still playing Civ 4. The modding community is amazing. There is a mod called caveman2cosmos that takes humanity from the age of cavement all the way to exploring the solar system and beyond. Then there is fall from heaven, which is another winner. There just doesn't seem to be as much support for mods with civs predecessors.
I haven't really enjoyed a civ game since Civ 4. From the gameplay footage I have seen it looks like Civ 7 is addressing some of my gripes about awkward unit movement/scouting, so I am more than willing to give them a chance. The "civilization change" mechanic everybody's freaking out about actually feels like an implementation of the old Rhye's & Fall of Civilization mod for Civ 4, which I really enjoyed back in the day.
I think Civ 7 has done something unique, its allowed me to look elsewhere and Ara looks like to be something I would enjoy and yes I played Humankind and stopped playing it and went back to playing Civ 5/6.
I plan on buying both... Ara is going to be interesting like with the a Civ dying if they are last when an event happens. However, i think the grind of late game will hinder Ara potential. I really want to see how the Eras of Civ 7 will work, and will it be fun to plan three game in one run through... If i had to choose, I would go with Civ 7 because Civ games usually have good mod support.
Don't get your hopes up about the Civ 7 mod support... Gen 5 had mods, gen 6 had less acces to mods. The way Civ 7 is set up, while probably don't have any mods at all.
"will your civilization stand the test of time?" can also still leave the option to stay as the same "civ" you are by just giving more of its own bonus. whilse more of your bonus makes sense to keep pace with the other civs but you get to double down on your already gained bonuses, HOWEVER you wont have the diversity of other "civs" in the game. It will be harder to "stand the test of time".
You got it right when you said something like that Civ is just trying to be as different as possible while ARA is just trying to be as good a game as it can be
Civ VII: I've been bored with the Civ series since Civ 5. This will be my last stab at this series. If it is doesn't employ enough new mechanics I will stop buying them. Ara: Sounds interesting and will definitely be trying it out. Memoriapolis: This is the most interesting one for me. I prefer city builders to civ builders and this one combines both.
I can't wait for both to come out. Im looking forward to Civ 7, I feel like HK had a lot of great ideas but didn't execute them well. Im not too worried about not playing the same civ, I just wonder how relationships will be affected when civs change. Im glad ara is coming out in a few weeks, looks pretty good
Breh, I played CIV II-III and loved them when they came out. I bought CIV 6 in 2016, played until I won a few times and then moved on. Now I have gone back to CIV 6 after 8 years and I have been loving it! I enjoy CIV 6 vanilla as much as I did when playing CIV back in my teens!
Simple fix to solve hate: Make civ changes optional like in HK. If you want to take the Aztecs to space you can. If you want to min\max w civ changes you can. Forcing change on players = bad. Award a "legacy" bonus for staying Aztec that counters not getting age relevant units etc. Don't steal my Roman legion musket lines.
I hate automated battles in Ara , and I hate the art style,I know its realistic , and the graphics looks great , but I preffer Civilization 7 art style , and the combat system is much better in Civ7. Also Ara is more complex , and more complicated then Civ7.
This. The only thing I like from Ara, aesthetically, is the diorama look. I really love it. And that's it. But I do prefer the Civ 7 style, which it's a balance between big enough for you to admire it and identify it quickly and at the same it doesn't look misplaced or something. It's great.
People who think Ara is the next civ are the same who think The Old World is a good Civ game. It'll be boring, dated and stale. Civ VII is actually making fun progressions in game design
I played VI, mostly stopped due to immortal being too easy and deity being too restrictive in play(tired of AI beelining and warring me by turn 20). Mostly play Old World now. I'm not happy with civ VII monetization policy, leader animations or especially the civ switching. Unfortunately none are likely to change. ARA is what I am currently looking forward to most.
Lets see... Civilization has been developed more or less 33 years with 18 different civ game installments. I'd imagine that a snowball has more chances in hell to survive that Civilization Killer to succeed, but GOOD LUCK!
I play more 6 because all of my friends play it and I have all the DLCs and mods, but I prefer 5's balance because you could build tall or wide. In Civ 6 if you don't build wide then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Ara seems promising but I'd need to see a more detailed review. Personally speaking, it looks like it might have a bit too much micro management but hard to say.
I'm waiting for both (big civ fan here) but damn Ara looks like something that can show us a new approach for making such games, can't wait for the launch. (One thing that impresses me is the 30+ leaders we get on launch, truly amazing ❤)
I’d love to see someone take the ideas of Dune: Spice Wars and apply them to a grander scale. A Civ game utilizing those mechanics and gameplay would be amazing.
Thanks for taking a look at Civilization VII! If you'd like to play the game yourself, as well as support the channel, click here tinyurl.com/mded9kzw
Ara actually looks like a game that innovates instead of copying what Humankind did...
I doubt Ara will be a Civ 7 killer, but I can see a lot of strategic players move to Ara, as it feels more like a spiritual successor to the Civilization games.
The thing is Civ 7 is looking for the casual players, while Ara will be harder to get into for casual players.
Great job Raptop on highlighting both games.
Game is bad from point everything's is smaller more for pvp choice cut to minimum map cut to small only removing work is jus apsurd they only actually improved graphics. Only improvement rivers
I believe Mongolians conquered China and also Otomian empire conquered Egypt
Civ V is definitely my favorite. From the seemless gameplay, to the leader screen animations, the more realistic-looking visuals, resource icons, and fog of war, music, narration... I like that even in its absurdity, it presents itself as serious but in a sincere way that is full of personality.
Civ 5 was the GOAT. 6 with its exploded cities looked awful and I hated managing all the districts with housing and whatnot. I woulndt mind if a Civ 5 city grew by one or two tiles when it hit 10 or 20 population but why does one city cover half a continent?
I like Civ 5 because I find it extremely replayable, especially with all my favorite mods. I own Civ 6 but I found that having each building on a seperate hex, especially on what are rather small maps is silly. Having your cities and other civilisations cities touching each other was a game killer for me. I went back to Civ 5. Previously I liked Civ2, though it was slightly buggy.
Agreed
@@ferrisbuellertube the districts can be seen like small townships, it is actually quite accurate to what war looks like etc. Fighting through district after district. I mean, if that's the problem play less Civs in a larger world and the scale fits again.
Civ IV had the best mods and challenge/balance
Its kinda funny, I thought Civ 7 looked pretty gorgeous, and it does, but man, Ara’s scaling and art style just blows it out of the water in my eyes, plus organic regions and what seems to be more focus on exploration complexity in the early game, and it has totally sold me
exactly my thoughts
Same here.
My budget allows one game and between ara and civ 7 and it s 6dlc planned for year one...
The choice was obvious.
i would say they look simply different. Ara tries to have everything realistically scaled, which makes it impossible to recognize smaller things just by looking at it. I personally prefer Civ because even without zooming in, I can recognize at least some things without relying on (pretty unattractive) icons.... not as great as in Civ4. But you cannot improve on perfection... ;) But the landscapes are amazing in Ara, no doubt.
For real, I'm more excited to play Ara than Civ 7
We shall see. I don’t even know if id give Ara a chance
At a glance, it looks like History Untold is doing something we really haven't seen before: Taking the City Builder genre and combining it with Turn Based Strategy. It doesn't look cartoony. The cities look like real cities, not icons. The animations help create the appearance of a game that isn't actually paused during each turn - something that is alive and dynamic. Each turn looks like more of an "active pause" - and everything I'm seeing is definitely contributing to excitement. This game quickly went from a "what's that" while I scrolled past, to something that I'm genuinely excited to see. At a glance, while Civ 7 looks very beautiful, it also looks like a sort of continuation of the art style of Civ 6. Ara looks like something truly new.
I'm listening to the dev diary playlist on Ara's youtube channel, and the team is full of ex firaxis that felt that many ideas they had didn't mixed well in an established institutions like CIV.
What they missed, but are so close to, is this: at game start you don’t have a Civ, just a leader. Through the first age, choices you make or resources you exploit or the religion you build lead you to pick a Civ and that Civ choice would be limited to a set of civs matching your choices. And then they could just have a classic mode without switching
THE LEADER HAS TO MATCH HIS/HER CORRESPONDING -HISTORICALLY CORRECT- CULTURE/CIV. HAVING ROOSEVELT LEADING CHINA, ALEXANDER LEADING THE ZULUS AND NAPOLEON LEADING JAPAN IS THE STUPIDEST THING THIS FRANCHISE COULD MAKE UNLESS IT PURPOSEFULLY AIMED FOR ITS DOWNFALL. BOYCOTT THIS SHIT
thats real cool
sounds like something that's a cool idea in theroy, but in practice would be a frustrating experience. Would probably lead to a frustrating amount of restarts because you didn't get the start to allow you to choose the civ you wanted. Customization shouldn't be rng/map based.
@@Brodaddy1000 you miss where he said "could have classic without switching"
Mighty Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte how will you lead Egypt in Sid Meier's Civilization 7?
Napoleon did conquer Egypt...
It's not really any more silly than having the USA or Canada existing in the stone age.
I knew that Napoleon was in Egypt. Conquering or just being at the current territory of some country should not lead to situation where you can tie this nation/civ to other nation/civ. I wonder how representation of indigenous nations of Americas, islands of Pacific, Africa will feel when their civ will lead to colonisation nation s. It is ridiculously more awful than starting with some leader in ancient era and then lead them to current times. CIV was never meant to be perfect representation of history events but pairing the nations in such a stupid way will do more harm to this franchise than the previous solution.
Hopefully this time he won't run away leaving behind his army
@@BurningSpear213 They're fake fans. They think that Civilization is historic. In reality, Civilization has always played on things like: what would happen if the Roman Empire arrived in the industrial age? What if Egypt originated in the North Pole? This is Civilization and this is what it always has been.
I loved building roads with builders. I loved the culture and religion in civ 4. I liked between-town trading in Colonization (but hated, that it didn't have endless). I liked the style of Civ 5. I am currently playing Civ 6 with "Take Your Time" mod. Only domination victory and x10 slower tech and civics. This makes the game fun, you actually have time to use your units, before upgrading them in just a few days. Real nice longplay setting.
From Civ VI to the early leaks of Civ VII, I really appreciate the developers are trying a lot of new things to keep the title running. But imo I feel like they keep reminding me how wonderful and perfect Civ V is lol
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Civ IV*
CIV V**@@pedroconradoalvesdeassis7817
Civ VI seemed pretty good to me.
Civ V, perfect? Just wait until you discover the best civ and all the mods still in development today lol
I am so EXCITED to play Ara: History Untold !!!!
Ara ara
Civ VIII will have OFans as a tech tree research item
Got me sold. LOL.
Tbf, Red Light district might be a good new district. Reducing faith for gold or something
@@regalroyn1011 that's honestly a brilliant way to go about it. Converting gold into tourism in the lategame.
@@boki1693Jfc
Let’s hope not..
I mostly play Civ V because I don't have to micromanage so much compared to Civ VI, that means between work and parenting, I can catch a couple of hours and finish the game instead of leaving it half way.
That's sounds really cool. I like it. Or if you go evolve rout. Make it make more sense. Ecrustions however you spell it. Becomes Roman's which become Italians. But that kinda breaks down as some civs may step on each other. English become Americans. But the English also would make it to a late game cov as well. I like your idea the most. You start as a unknown clan. Then become a civ.
This - civ6 put in so many systems to keep track of that it feels more like micromanaging as compared to executing a strategy. So many things to prioritize that you miss something or the other, and it still has the civ 5 thing of "expand or die", but with many penalties on expansion
The Civ change is exactly what I don't like about Humankind....
Neither did i. Got tiresome really fast. I choose a certain civ for a reason, so i want to stay with it the whole game. You cannot really build a connection with your civ, since whats the point when you have to change anyways.
Civilization went from trying to simulate the grow of civ to gamey mechanics for 4x enjoyers. I still feel IV was the best just for the great mods it could support.
@@sebd9690 That's my favourite Civ also.
I’m optimistic. I also don’t like humankind but I think the mechanic is just implemented poorly in that game. In humankind you switch cultures six times. On a normal game speed (around 300 turns in a game) that means that you will culture shift around every fifty turns. Civ VII only has three separate eras and its standard game time will be longer than a game of humankind or even Civ VI from what I’ve heard. Also the fact that civilizations will be able to develop into historical continuations of those civilizations such as Egypt into the Abassids and so on.
@@nickdentoom1173I think another approach they could have taken rather than being the Egyptians or the Greeks or the Americans, they could have not included any of those things and had you name the civilization yourself. You could have at each era, chosen a specialty such as production or gold or something like that, and at each era you pick an ideology and by the modern age you are then assigned a civilization based on the choices you made.
Civ VII: Let's make Humankind 2!
Ara: Let's make Civ VII!
Now Humankind needs to make Ara :/
@@tyalikanky Achievement unlocked: Mexican standoff!
Civ 4 Beyond the Sword's Rhyes and Fall mod was the first to add Civ swapping.
You mean Civ VII?
@@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze im really good at spelling i swear
Incorporating the most divisive feature of Humankind into Civ7 is just plain crazy!
Civ keeps trying to be a board game whereas Ara seems like a actual video game
I've always enjoyed the board game style that Civ brings. I've played every single Civ game, and have loved them all.
Civ keeps trying to be decent but after Civ 4 they keep going downhill
What does that even mean Lol
That's literally what makes Civilization so great and unique...
What you're saying makes no sense. Just don't play Civ if you don't like it. Wtf?
@@Cannabionic Personally played civ as an RP game (started with civ 1) and dont enjoy the move towards a pure board game. However i understand i may be in the minority.
I miss Ara a lot since the last alpha ended. It is in my opinion a wonderful, innovative game, and I am currently more excited about it than I am about Civ 7. :)
My biggest worry about 7 isn't any of the announced gameplay changes, it is greed. The price is steep, and they are already charging for future DLC now, almost 6 months before the base game is released. With Civ 6, they kept piling on content, often poorly developed and poorly integrated, rather than improving and fixing existing stuff. I believe this is the reason why, whereas Civ 5 got dramatically better with its expansions, Civ 6 did not. I worry that they are continuing on the same track with 7. After all, selling yet another pack of leaders and a gimmicky new game mode is probably more profitable than, for example, admitting that the World Congress is poorly done and reworking it.
Ara's devs on the other hand, seem eager to make the best possible game, and need to make a name for themselves. I think Ara is also a lot more fairly priced.
Regarding Civ 6, it seemed to me that it shipped from the start with too many features, so there was little room to add more in the expansions and in the end it just felt like it had everything and the kitchen sink in it. Definitely prefer the way they are approaching Civ 7 with more elegant and evolving gameplay - hopefully both it and Ara will be great games!
After all of the bugs that borked civ 6 and how it made you shell out crates of cash throughout its lifespan, I don't think I can ever again purchase a civilization game early on, much less preorder. Ara looks exciting, but need more info.
same feeling for me. In addition i am so disapointed to see a civ game that allow egyptian to become mongols on same map...They killed the game
Same here
Civ 7 already has 6dlcs planned for year one...
Expect cut content, new leaders and a couple civs (one per era?) for 20bucks each...
Plus breaking all mods each time.
THIS is the biggest red flag for me. I ll rather give my money once to ARA.
@@wisekodiak2668 Firaxis also left the console versions of Civ 6 unsupported for over two years between the end of the NFP & the surprise announcement of the Leader Pass port in summer '23.
The final version fixed a lot (but not all) bugs. But it was radio silence for years.
They sold a bugged Monopolies & Corporation DLC from Day 1 that wasn't patched until 2 1/2 years later.
@@etienne8110 Yeah, Paradox/Creative assembly behaviour. Tons of DLCs that you must buy in order to have a decent experience and you end up paying $150
I'm still happy with my civilization V 😅
I'm glad new ideas are being tried out, though it may or may not end up in an enjoyable experience in the end. It will be interesting to try it out. My only real concern for me personally is the idea I love a new concept but it fails and dies on the vine so I don't get future games with that concept.
@@kinjiru731 to expensive to try out
The civ change might help to fix one of the long standing problems Civ has always had - civilisations with unique units or bonuses that are only actually useful for a very limited part of the game (or in some cases, only in very specific circumstances). If Firaxis are really on the ball they could even make the choice interesting - for Rome for example two possible choices could be Byzantium, who's unique bonuses start off strong early in the next age but wane over time, or Italy who's bonuses start weak but get stronger as you reach the Renaissance.
In the recent dev stream, they talked about it. It’s basically like you’re hoping as you said in the comment. There’s benefits to advancing your nation or not. It’s really neat.
if ppl would stopp calling games "killer of this or that game" we could actually start enjoying each game for what it is.
but i get it gotta work the algorythm.
Thats a bad take, if a series is changing to something its not and someone comes in and fixes it themselves then yeah a series going downhill deserves to be killed
Welcome to what this platform has become, low effort content "creators".
already pre order Ara (i know, i know). with everything that this game is, plus the fact that you can have 36 nations playing at once, just blew me away.
To me, Ara has fully earned my pre order by what they have shown, the only way they could disappoint would be for the game to not be what I have seen and heard, and I also have confidence that won’t happen. Couple that with the fact that the preorder actually GIVES you free stuff, and I’m totally on board. Ara is the kind of game where my preorder money will likely go right into developing more content and helping to polish the game, and I’m ok with that
Ara I was immediately interested... Civ 7 I was immediately turned off and I have played thousands of hours of Civ since Civ 2.
Civ 4 is the highwater mark in my mind but Civ 5 is also very good.
Civ 6 was very disappointing in my opinion, it was to easy. You just rush 2 warriors then 3-4 slingers and when you got archery upgraded them and you could take city after city in the early game and be unstoppable because happiness was removed. I also remember having artillery 1 hex from a city and the AI (on deity) having 3 horsemen in the city and they never attacked my artillery, just sat there and let the city get bombarded.
Civ4 was so good
Civ 5 with the voxpopuli mod is still the apex for me.
I hope there ll one day be a vox populi for civ6
What Civ 4 mods have you played? I think you are missing out
@@etienne8110 Why? I just started playing Vox Populi to try it out and it's OK if you want a simpler and more casual version of Civ 6. In Vox Populi you can just spam cities and grow them indefinitely without having to worry about housing or amenities, or happiness and health like in Civ 4. Also less mechanics and everything's just simpler. Maybe Vox Populi has more buildings than Civ 6? Anyhow, I still like it because sometimes Civ VI feels a bit too tedious
@@Pseudoplasmagore i don t know what vox populi you played? Which diff? Etc..
You can play wide on liberty, but vox also allows you to play tall on oligarchy.
You don t get the district planning of civ6, but otherwise there are just more meaningfull choices to make all the way.
I know I should temper my expectations for ARA, but it looks so good I am so excited.
I, 79 yrs, am a civ fan. I have played civ 1,2,3,4,5,6. col 1,4, & alph cent space games. I still have 3,5, and 6, col4, and alph,on my computer. I dislike 4 & 6 for the same reason. The knowledge advancements are, to me, utterly confusing and graphics are cartoonish. My favorite is civ 5 in which i have 6,200+ hrs invested in it. It is straight forward and easy to play. I usually play with myself and 2 computer generated opponents.
I find it funny, a lot of people are writing that you have to change Civs in Humankind. You don't!
You are offered the choice to transcend and remain with Babylon for the entire game. The game rewards you for it, but it is designed to switch to take the benefits of the changing world. Humankind was a good change of pace but it has issues that bring the enjoyment down for me.. I bought both of these games with my goal to play Civ 7 for the entire year. Ara looks promising for a first try.
That's because they never played Humankind and just hopped on the hate train. Humankind was great.
one of the disasters in Civ 7 should be called Civ 6
Ara is more Civ than Civ 7
It really is not
Ara is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like civ
Ara looks like the next step. Firaxis has dropped the Civ ball.
You said same thing about humankind stop the dee riding 😂
@@biorgoanylchemhumankind would be better then civ if not for switching
@@Hunter_6601 No it wouldn't. Humankind was trash.
@@Hunter_6601 humankind was better than civ 6 in part to the switching
@@purgetrapscorp it had some bugs, but overall, Humankind was a solid game. Enjoyed it way more than Civ VI.
you had me sold when you said that ARA reminds you of Rise of Nations. I'm literally drooling right now
Remember, NO PREORDERS!!!!
Definitely. CD project red taught me that with cyberpunk for PC. I was so appalled that I to this day have not started the purchased game yet
I think 5 is my fav. Still not sure if I'm a fan of the districts.
Districts were a nice idea to had a planning layer to the game.
They just lacked that little something to make it feel like they were impacted by the map.
You didn't mentioned "advanced access" sh*t,so 2k is really an anti-consumer company and this is even huge let down for me. I really hope Ara will take crown from them. I was hoping same for Humankind..
It would take years to dethrone civ, not just a single attempt.
Cities skyline managed it but only because of the sorry state of sim city and it didn t went that well for skylines2...
Civ IV - Fall from Heaven
Civ IV - Caveman2Cosmos
Civ V - VoxPopuli
Nah, dont need more civ, i have everything here
+ Civ IV - Rhye's and Fall of Civilization
Civ 7 has me very concerned
The thing I miss from both games (way more Civ than Ara) is the personality of the leaders.
Removing backdrops in Civ 6 was a huge step down from the immersion, and my only dissappointment about seeing Ara was the lack of those backdrops - it's just similar to Civ 6, but more realistic models.
I really wish games would advance the border system. Borders should never be automatic, they aren't in real life. Borders should be drawn/declared and then defended. If there is a resource you want send the military and defend it no matter who builds a city or where they build it. Borders should also be negotiable and have the ability to be re-drawn. Changing borders could be negotiated in peace terms. Or be able to pay your neighbour to change the border with cash or tech. Also crossing a border shouldn't automatically start war, the offend Civ should have the option to declare war or not depending on the situation. They may not want to take on a powerful Civ that is really just trying to get there trireme through coastal waters or get a unit back into friendly territory. It would add to the strategy and depth of the game. The whole idea of declaring territory would add new dimension. Civs might over declare but then others could just move in and test your desire or ability to defend it. You'd have to be careful not to declare more than you can defend because you'd lose prestige that way, lose diplomacy points maybe. So many more and interesting ways managing borders could be brought into these games
Half of what you described already was in Humankind
I literally posted the same thing then saw your post LOL
I have played Civ 6 the most, and I liked a lot of things they did with it. it's the closest they have come to perfection for me.
Civ 2 is my jam. Consulting the bickering council, the jammin' wonder videos, the tech tree I had down pat... yeah it's my favorite and Alpha Centauri is as close I can get to a port.
Yeah, I'm going to play CIV7 because of the ability to change your civilization, like you could in Humankind.
Personally, I was hoping for this feature in CIV for years (especially when I played a game like Age of Empires III, thinking: "Ah, that would be cool if you could do change your civilization in a game like CIV like it did in real human history" and then Humankind did it and I loved it.
And yeah, you can probably keep your civilization, like you could keep your form of government in CIV6 or like you keep your civilization in Humankind. It might just be "outdated" ie, when it comes to perks for that civilization.
In fact, I think in Humankind you got a bonus to your score if you kept your civilization, because you would now be playing at a bit of a disadvantage. So maybe something like that?
No one is really upset about the civilizations growing into modern, the issue is being egypt then going to mongolia
Civ 5 was the best
I think from what I’ve seen regarding Civilization VII is that it’s taking the player away from interacting with opposing leaders in the first person. The player is now just someone in the audience going along for a ride. That is a very soulless approach by Firaxis when I’m wanting to make a civilization “my own”.
I don’t think I’ll be picking it up anytime soon in its current state.
Sid Meier was inspired by the civilization board game designed by Francis Tresham in 1980. I think it is a shame that some sort of credit for Francis is not given.
I have played all iterations of the computer Civ. From Civ 1 to Civ 5, I increasing played more hours overall on each subsequent version. However I only managed 63.7 hours with Civ 6; as I was not keen on its cartoon style. I do plan to purchase Civ 7, and I am really hoping that it becomes a favourite, and not something I play for a few hours and then uninstall.
I am going to need to transform myself into a millipede so i can count on my legs the number of times people will say "I was wrong about CIV VII, it's actually a lot of fun."
How's that leather taste, boot licker? 🥾👅
Bad things can be fun
Civ 5 is my favorite and mods have added so much replay value. Civ 6 (after all the DLC) has more mechanics and content than 5 but i hated the art style direction and some additions like the Dark Age mechanic.
Im mildly enthusiastic about Civ 7 and will buy it eventually, they toned down the cartoony art style and finally added navigable rivers, but im not a fan of using Humankind's most divisive feature of "evolving"/changing civs mid-game. I like their 33/33/33 dev philosophy, but I also dont see anything that justifies the price hike for vanilla civ 7
Im actually more intrigued by ARA than Civ 7 currently but want to know more about how ARA's progression works. Can i really evolve from an agrarian settler society to launching ships into space, and is the gameplay loop fun enough in the mid-game and late-game? we'll see
I don't understand why they felt like the civ switching is necessary. If they wanted to try and implement an "era" change maybe they could give the government type more importance. For example, you found Rome, starting as a kingdom then the next era you could pick to change to a Republic or empire or stay in a kingdom and sorta organize it that way. I always loved the idea you can throw all these famous world leaders down on a map and see who comes out on top at the end and the civilization itself is tied to the leaders so I don't want to lose that.
Ara is getting my money .
I started civ from civ 4, and I always play the latest game in the franchise, cuz I love next-gen visuals lol.
I think it would be cool to have different bonuses for fresh water and salt water bodies of water.
3:31 my guy those are some of the most conquered regions in history
The only thing I would really care about is if they would finally improve the AI. The AI and diplomacy in any civ game feels for me like it was in civ2. Then the AI cheats and no matter what you do they always have the same amount of stuff, so it is not a strategy game any more. I am not really interrested in MP because it just takes to long and want to play marathon but that is impractical im MP.
yes you are 100% we need not the best AI but an AI capable of creating an interesting and competitive story.
That's where mods come in!
@@DavidBrown-im4ph like for example?Ialso wanted meaningful diplomacy. i liked the idea of the resource system in millenia, but there is about zero diplomacy about it.
Not really hyped about this one.
The changes are okayish, they adapt to fit the new gold standards.
But there are a lot of red flags: balancing issues, predatory commercial practices, dumbing down of fonctions.
I m more interested in financing newcomers like ARA history untold, which seems to bring new mechanics to the genre, rather than veying for an easy to exploit cashcow...
I'll be cautiously optimism about Civ7, since it seems like they addressed the problem I have with Humankind's system and actual put some restrictions on how you advance to another culture, but that would really need to be carefully crafted in a way that make sense and don't create the gamey feeling like Humankind. Either way, I will wait at least a year after release to be sure the game is fleshed out.
Currently ARA has more interesting idea and execution imo.
Between Civ VII and ARA, I choose to just keep playing Civ VI, and maybe go back to V at some point. Both games are disappointing, and are not what a true civ fan as myself is looking for.
I'm looking at both games. I'm leaning towards Ara as Civ5 is the best. Period. I'll get both because I still play Civ5, Beyond Earth, and Civ6. The issue with how they showed off Civ7 was that they didn't let you guys go nuts over an 8-12 hour day and just play the game, on standard pace. They really needed to show the Act change over to really disprove it's not going to be bad like Human Kind was.
He’s people don’t understand what it’s actually going to be like: I watched the recent dev stream and it’s awesome how they have it set up honestly.
This is a really good video, thank you
I think paragons in Ara are more like the US taking in Einstein than the Iroquois becoming Germany. Not comparable.
Ara looks very interesting. The realistic graphics and stuff like being able to see the population in the cities is very pleasing to me!
Just rambling... Someone needs to make a game called "borders" in which you start out borderless but eventually establish working borders that you need to protect. Inside the borders your cities growth is determined by how much food you can grow and transport without spoilage. After the initial growth into open world territory to expand borders you fight and negotiate. Establish colonies only to lose them to rabble rousers who rise up and expand into new lands instead of yourself! Tech should be based on a lot factors like supporting think tanks in society, tradesmen learning things naturally from foreigners. Tech should be obtainable just by fighting opponents, "look they are using branches with strings to shoot sticks at us, lets figure out how to do that ourselves!" Each tech should have different factors to determine how it is obtained so it's easier for some societies to get based on game choices along the way. Transportation would be a key factor in a play through success. So it would be a cross between Civ and transport fever. Battles would require huge logistical support, food, gas, ammo, people, vehicles. I suppose in the long run the game would end with a lot of stalemates, all nations all having the same tech, I suppose the random natural resource placements would play a huge part.
Compraria ,seria um bom jogo .
I thought Firaxis explained the change between ages during their 20 minute presentation.
They showed that there will be trees, which have objectives to unlock different Civilizations, which you can then choose from in between Ages.
You can always stay the same Civ. But you will need to do certain objectives (like build a certain amount of horseman I think was one example they showed.) In order to unlock a different Civ that you can then choose if you want in between Ages.
all accounts showed so far that you HAVE to pick a different civ. which literally made no sense.
@@Bluecatte You are correct, you have to chose a new civ, however they give you the option to chose the historically accurate path which would be what your original civ evolved into. They explain this in the gameplay showcase. So in their example if you pick Egypt you can chose Songhai which is the African power that rose after Egypt. So it's still historically accurate.
Civilization 7 should have been build your own civilization imo
Exactly! At this point, there is no reason not to.
It looks amazing how they represent Palacio de Bellas Artes (México). I love it!
Ara's multi-phase simul turns sounds awesome. Great tactical potential, beautiful aesthetic, and looks to offer some strategic depth as well. I am excited :D
No game can dethrone the king. Be it Humankind, Millenia, or Ara
If we've learned anything, Mods will make civ 7 great. Whether we like the mechanic or not, there will probably be a mod for it.
I been playing since 3 and these games are classics all of em, I play 6 right now once and a while but getting back into it and I’m ready for this new adventure of Civilization
I've played civ since 1 back in 1991. I played each game continously, right up until the next iteration was released, which I enthusiasticly went aboard in immediately. I prepurchased both civ 5 and 6, because my faith in Sid Meier's studio is unmatched by any other. It I clocked 2800 hours in 5, but only 2100 in 6. Something about 6 put me off a bit. The climate disasters hit too early/easily IMO, and there was some weird decisions (IMO) regarding making great people invoulnerable for some reason, and also the UN council votes were very weird, I thought. I actually stopped playing 6 more than a year ago: I just got tired of it, and went on to other things. When 7 was finally announced, I was super hyped, right up until the gameplay reveal stream, which I thought was a big let-down. None of the things feels really new for CIV, I think. The navigable rivers is the great new thing, and the CIv-culture-swapping. I mean navigable rivers are fine, but that other thing just baffled me. I did try Humankind back when that came out, but it never grew on me. Now I'm just going to play ARA next month, and see how that goes. I really love that they employ Simultaneous turns. Something like that (and a Globe rather than the tired old cylinder world would have fittet perfectly for CIv7) .. Have a nice day :)
Honestly, I don’t get why people are so mad at Civ 7. We haven’t really gotten to see much about it except what we were told in the trailer which isn’t much, and to me personally, what we have seen seems pretty fun and interesting.
Civ 7 needs to lose hex expansion, cartoonish sims, enlarged army, not make cultural hybridity, and develop better combat.
I wish they would allow changing of leaders within the same Civ through the Eras, but understandably, it would, at a minimum, triple the leaders for every Civ.
American Civ Example:
Antiquity - Ben Franklin
Exploration- Abe Lincoln
Modern - Teddy Roosevelt
Start with any of those 3 and either select a new leader at the start of a new era or elect to keep your current.
will civ 7 be a civ killer? 😀
Yes
I'm still playing Civ 4. The modding community is amazing. There is a mod called caveman2cosmos that takes humanity from the age of cavement all the way to exploring the solar system and beyond. Then there is fall from heaven, which is another winner. There just doesn't seem to be as much support for mods with civs predecessors.
I love Civ 4 and still play it. Awesome game.
I’m just a little put off about the crafting aspect of this, seems like the micro-economic side of the game could get really tedious
I haven't really enjoyed a civ game since Civ 4. From the gameplay footage I have seen it looks like Civ 7 is addressing some of my gripes about awkward unit movement/scouting, so I am more than willing to give them a chance. The "civilization change" mechanic everybody's freaking out about actually feels like an implementation of the old Rhye's & Fall of Civilization mod for Civ 4, which I really enjoyed back in the day.
I think Civ 7 has done something unique, its allowed me to look elsewhere and Ara looks like to be something I would enjoy and yes I played Humankind and stopped playing it and went back to playing Civ 5/6.
I really love Civ: Beyond Earth with Rising Tide, it's an extremely solid game, better than Civ 5, and it runs fine on my potato laptop.
Eh?
I plan on buying both... Ara is going to be interesting like with the a Civ dying if they are last when an event happens. However, i think the grind of late game will hinder Ara potential.
I really want to see how the Eras of Civ 7 will work, and will it be fun to plan three game in one run through...
If i had to choose, I would go with Civ 7 because Civ games usually have good mod support.
Don't get your hopes up about the Civ 7 mod support... Gen 5 had mods, gen 6 had less acces to mods. The way Civ 7 is set up, while probably don't have any mods at all.
"will your civilization stand the test of time?" can also still leave the option to stay as the same "civ" you are by just giving more of its own bonus. whilse more of your bonus makes sense to keep pace with the other civs but you get to double down on your already gained bonuses, HOWEVER you wont have the diversity of other "civs" in the game. It will be harder to "stand the test of time".
Thanks for the Vid.
Am a solo player who likes playing on real world maps. I look forward to seeing how it runs.
You got it right when you said something like that Civ is just trying to be as different as possible while ARA is just trying to be as good a game as it can be
Civ VII: I've been bored with the Civ series since Civ 5. This will be my last stab at this series. If it is doesn't employ enough new mechanics I will stop buying them.
Ara: Sounds interesting and will definitely be trying it out.
Memoriapolis: This is the most interesting one for me. I prefer city builders to civ builders and this one combines both.
I can't wait for both to come out. Im looking forward to Civ 7, I feel like HK had a lot of great ideas but didn't execute them well. Im not too worried about not playing the same civ, I just wonder how relationships will be affected when civs change. Im glad ara is coming out in a few weeks, looks pretty good
Many have challenged for the throne. Yet, Civilization still holds it.
Breh, I played CIV II-III and loved them when they came out. I bought CIV 6 in 2016, played until I won a few times and then moved on. Now I have gone back to CIV 6 after 8 years and I have been loving it! I enjoy CIV 6 vanilla as much as I did when playing CIV back in my teens!
CIV 6 modded has been my favorite Civ experience so far, even over Civ 5 modded
Try Humankind
You should also try Civ IV
Ara looks sick, I’ll definitely be checking it out. As for what Civ game I stay playing, I’ve been playing Alpha Centauri :)
Simple fix to solve hate: Make civ changes optional like in HK. If you want to take the Aztecs to space you can. If you want to min\max w civ changes you can. Forcing change on players = bad. Award a "legacy" bonus for staying Aztec that counters not getting age relevant units etc. Don't steal my Roman legion musket lines.
11:40 devs made the yeeted put mechanics optional. They listened to testers and consumers.
I hate automated battles in Ara , and I hate the art style,I know its realistic , and the graphics looks great , but I preffer Civilization 7 art style , and the combat system is much better in Civ7.
Also Ara is more complex , and more complicated then Civ7.
This. The only thing I like from Ara, aesthetically, is the diorama look. I really love it. And that's it. But I do prefer the Civ 7 style, which it's a balance between big enough for you to admire it and identify it quickly and at the same it doesn't look misplaced or something. It's great.
People who think Ara is the next civ are the same who think The Old World is a good Civ game. It'll be boring, dated and stale. Civ VII is actually making fun progressions in game design
12:22 I see citizens. I’m sold
civ 5 will still be the one. Civ 7 seems so much worse than civ 6 and civ 5 is better than 6
Civ 4 is my favorite. With the Caveman2Cosmos mod, no other civ game comes close to the features and gameplay (except graphics).
Thanks. Civ 4 was the greatest game ever made imo. For me Civ 2 was close as well but 4 was supreme
"President Washington, can you lead the American people to greatness? Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?" in Civ 7, No
I played VI, mostly stopped due to immortal being too easy and deity being too restrictive in play(tired of AI beelining and warring me by turn 20). Mostly play Old World now. I'm not happy with civ VII monetization policy, leader animations or especially the civ switching. Unfortunately none are likely to change. ARA is what I am currently looking forward to most.
Lets see... Civilization has been developed more or less 33 years with 18 different civ game installments. I'd imagine that a snowball has more chances in hell to survive that Civilization Killer to succeed, but GOOD LUCK!
I play more 6 because all of my friends play it and I have all the DLCs and mods, but I prefer 5's balance because you could build tall or wide. In Civ 6 if you don't build wide then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Ara seems promising but I'd need to see a more detailed review. Personally speaking, it looks like it might have a bit too much micro management but hard to say.
Oh but it doesn't have hot-seat... that's a killer for me as that's the only way I play these games unfortunately
I'm waiting for both (big civ fan here) but damn Ara looks like something that can show us a new approach for making such games, can't wait for the launch. (One thing that impresses me is the 30+ leaders we get on launch, truly amazing ❤)
I’d love to see someone take the ideas of Dune: Spice Wars and apply them to a grander scale. A Civ game utilizing those mechanics and gameplay would be amazing.