How so? We learned nothing we didn't already know. I really wish an interviewer would ask harder questions. Part of it isn't his fault, the devs are like politicians dodging questions. Huge dodge on no England in the game for example. I am American and I think it's 100% unacceptable England isn't in the game, but like... Hawaii is. Unreal.
Thanks for doing this interview. I'm looking forward to being able to mod the game and add some leaders. Maybe some Civs too, though adding a Civ seems to be a lot more work.
Uh, no you wouldn't. You would know more about what people who vote for Kamala Harris THINK history was. These people think a black man invented the light bulb.
10:00 As Turk, I really hate seeing Suleiman over and over again, just give us another leader. give us Mehmed II who you know conquered Istanbul. Or give us Osman who built Ottomans. Or hell give us another Turkish empires instead of Ottomans.
So, how will a true earth start work with this new leader system? Also, I really hope there's more units this time around Example infantry and mechanized infantry.
I hope a lot of upcoming civs and leaders and features will be free. I’d hate for it to end up being an annual $60+ for the next few years in order to get everything.
I have a feeling that there will be free features but probably not as many free leaders. Every time they released paid DLC for civ 6, the base game also say improvements as well. Depending on the pricing, I will likely be very selective of which dlc packs I get, then get the rest of them on sale later.
The deluxe and founders edition shows that the earlier leaders you can buy will have bundles with the value of $30. Can we can buy these things separately? i don't know.
While the idea of "free stuff" is always appealing, I would actually urge a different line of thinking. They're running a business, adding content costs resources. So having a pricetag is inevitable. Instead of wanting free content, I'd want the content that is presented under a pricetag to be meaningful and impactful. I'm note than happy to pay an annual $60, be that as one major expansion or 2-3 smaller chunks that in total represent an addition to the game with equivalent content to the core game on release. Part of that excites me about the new design is that it opens up that possibility. They can now add not just civ/leader combo slots. But individual civilizations or leaders that were previously kinda out of bounds. But also add an entire different age. And have that lead to either a 4-age gameplay loop. Or perhaps a 3-age run that doesn't end in modern.
@@hunterricketts3004 You better mentally prepare yourself to pay for everything because they sure as shit won't be giving it away for free. The game isn't even out yet and they're already selling extra content, preying on people's FOMO
I'm glad you made this video, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in Life until $75,000 biweekly began rolling in and my life went from a homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer!!!!!!❤️
I thank LAUREN RITA TRACY who has always been there to help me with detailed analysis and recommendations that I would not have had access to otherwise.
YES! That is exactly her name (LAUREN RITA TRACY). I saw her interview on CNN News and so many people highly recommended her and her trading skills❤❤❤❤
Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to be honest: These questions are far too softball. ALL interviews from everyone have been. Nobody who has been keeping up with the game learned a thing we didn't already know. How about: 1) Explain to me how SPECIFICALLY you guys improved the AI. Give examples, and list problems in Civ 6 AI. Did you fix those issues? 2) How about giving the AI incremental bonuses, rather than just having it cheat through the moon on Deity from turn 1? 3) Why did you nerf the game down to 10 max players (it might even be 8? 8 is the biggest I have seen previewed) when we could have like 20+ players in older games? Do you realize at this point, we can't even play an Europe map or Mediterranean map scenario? Why did you go that direction? 4) Did you include a map editor at launch this time? If not, why? What is so hard about including map making tools at launch? Did you include any pre made maps? or scenarios? You know, like Civ 2 did? 5) Do we/can we have the option for a Section of a world, rather than a tiny planet every time? Maybe I don't want frozen poles on my map every time, maybe I want the map focused on the desert region or temperate region of a map. Do we have that option? If not, could you explain why? Thats some off the top of my head.
I think those are good and worthwhile questions but I don't think this youtuber necessarily asked softball questions. He asked about the ages system, unconventional leader choices, modding tools, and balance. Those are all hot button things that people are contentious about. I hope someone else asks specifically about the AI (neither of these developers are on the AI team) but I don't think Pravus did a bad or soft interview at all.
I definitely agree about the ai. I live C6. But deity being stacked at the start and if you survive (& never build pyramids and Machu pichu) long enough- you snowball to victory anyway. But we lost all the fun of ever building the early wonders due to stacking
While there is some merit to this line of thinking. I'd strongly argue 2 points to consider. 1- The focus you're giving is highly weighted towards a small subsection of high-end players, developers have to take their full playerbase into account when designing a game and not just the top end best players. And a very competent AI while appealing to that high-end group, ultimately won't be relevant for a majority of players. Meanwhile many of those high-end players end up playing against *OTHER HUMANS* primarily if not exclusively. (It's not reasonable to expect an AI with human-level competence...) Which directly leads into the other point... 2- Making competent AI is not easy. Civ has traditionally always gone with the resource boost route giving their higher difficulty AI access to additional stuff. While it'd be the dream to have an AI opponent that starts on equal footing but is capable of making decisions on human-equivalent level. That simply isn't easy to achieve particularly in games with as many variables as Civ. Notably also because you then have to straddle the line between having an AI that is good enough, and one that is TOO GOOD. I'd strongly encourage looking into the programming and design side of AI and learning about what goes into it. As it is my experience that the vast majority of people who'll complain about these issues tend not to realize what it is they're asking for... ---- Your third point is in my opinion very obvious. Performance. The performance of CIV games on larger maps with more players (or really any 4X title) tends to be abysmal as games drag on. Which is true even for people who have high-end PCs. Referring back to the prior first point. They're developing a game not just for the rich few who buy the latest hardware at the drop of a hat. And that means sometimes dialing down a few parameters like map size or number of max players is an easy solution to the scaling performance problem. 20+ player games were possible in order games because they were significantly less demanding on PC resources. And let's not pretend like we don't both know that those 20+ player games ran like dogshit mid-to-lategame. --- 4th and 5th point are totally valid. And an interesting counter to point #3. As running a section of a world ties smoothly into having a 4/6/8 max player run as opposed to a full planet. Running sections of the world would also enable more detailed map designs, rather than more zoomed out abstractions. Which could open up a whole new angle of gameplay decisions.
Nothing wrong with adopting a no-preorder principle. Or judging "deluxe" editions based on value for content. Or even rationalizing that in this day and age, there's no reason to buy at launch at all when 90% of titles will see a 30-50% reduction in price within 6-12 months after the initial release.
22:45, This worries me. This dev is intentionally misinterpreting what you asked. All games allow you to edit code from the game files, modding brings the ability to ADD new content which they both didn't even address.
The modding tools allways come later! It was same with civ4, civ5 and civ6! They have to develop those tools and that takes time. The devs use tools that cost several tens of thousend dollars. End used tools needs something else. They have to bee rather easy to use. Be able tomimport 3D models from some other program! Etc. It is not just test films, because these games has become so 3D depended. Modders have to have skill to use some free to to use 3D modelling program like tinker CAD or some other outside 3D modelling program in the side of modifying the game files.
I'm not believing this natural ending bit. There will be DLC very soon, with the 4th act also putting in new leaders to exclude many more prominent people and leaving out the British civ at any age in the game is an obvious push to a forthcoming DLC. The whole thing, including the at-launch editions, just points toward a gigantic cash grab. The game itself looks fine but the monetisation is a big concern.
There is no question there will be a fourth age. It's like questioning if the sun will rise tomorrow. 100% a cash grab, also leaving out countries like England is insane having to pay for a real nation while Hawaii and native Americans are free is a clear cash grab. The hilarious part about Hawaii is their crap AI can't even handle island maps so you HAVE TO play on Pangea so that the AI has a chance. Civ 7 won't change that.
I'm expecting 200 dollars of dlc in the future like civ 5 and civ 6 and frankly all civ 5 and civ 6 dlc was worth it. At this point the box game should be 40 dollars at launch.
@@PravusGaming Maybe not even futuristic age, but having them lean into a variable age game loop. Kinda like how in Reus you can have different age progression. Adding options like a Future Age, Dark Ages/Medieval Age, Renaissance/Victorian Age -- and then either running multi-age runs (up from 3 to 4 or more) or alternately setting up a 3-cycle of different ages. Not ending in modern but in a different one. The monetization potential is obvious, but in my opinion not a bad thing if what is provided is value for money.
Have you considered watching until the end? The game will have mod support, they just haven't created any tools for it yet (and dok't let youtube commenters convince you their promises are lies)
They have gotten super lazy. Games used to release WITH mod tools. How hard is it to at least release with a map editor to make our own maps? Why is that so damn hard? I personally HATE the randomly generated maps, and pretty much exclusively play maps made by myself or other users. Game busied to ship with pre made maps. You literally pay more and get less every new version.
what made civ great is writing history the way you want to ,in a word this game appears to be contrived. Knowing certain events are going to happen at the same time every game takes all of the excitement out of it for me unfortunately.
great graphics, great...oops, that's all. Literally, the playing time in a given era is between an hour - an hour and a half, which is completely absurd! I've seen many reviews where players would start the game, get to the ability to spawn a legion, spawn a legion, and by the time the legion even made it to the battlefield and engaged in battle - the era was ending! This is complete absurdity! Realistically, a player has about 150 - 170 moves per era. Absurd! I don't want to be pressed for time with events that after the fourth or fifth replay of the era will repeat themselves over and over again! I like to play on a huge map and model my strategies based on the number of opponents around me, terrain, judging whether the terrain is suitable for defense or offense, in general - building my own strategy and me deciding when and how everything ends! And not the game to put me in time hoops! Absurd! The way to manage cities, resources is very nice, it must be admitted. The combat units, buildings and graphics are generally great, but the way the potential player is placed in a too-short time bubble that prevents them from fully and fully enjoying their achievements in a given era is disgusting and off-putting! This game (it's not Civilization, but rather Road to WWII!) is an easy pass for me. Maybe in a year - two - three, when it's 30 - 40$ with all the DLC and no other games on the market, I'll think about it.Alexander, George Washington, Attila, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Saladin, Suleiman, Richard the Lionheart, Joan of Arc, Boudica, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga and a host of great personalities to finish with...Harriet Tubman and with few exceptions a crowd of anonymous people? Like I said - easy pass for me. (I do not bind and impose my opinion on anyone. To those who will play it, I wish hours filled with pleasant emotions!)
Where are you getting these numbers from? I've heard people who have preview access say games still take about 8-12 hours. With about 150 turns per age, that 450 turns in total, so about 2 games of Civ VI at online speed. I've never been able to finish a game in one session so I doubt you can finish an age in less than 2 hours.
Fair argument. By engaging with the content you just mentioned is an easy pass for you, you've just told the youtube algorithm you're interested in seeing more of it.
I like the late game. My first Civ was Civ 4. I somehow completely missed civ 5, but enjoyed civ 6… I do hope the Giant Death Robots return in 7. They cracked my up, but were also just a cool unit that reflected “Future Tech” well.
The whole point of Great People was highlighting other contributors to a civilization beyond leaders. The excuse to not have Hannibal in Civ 5 and 6 was that he wasn't a leader of a government, so now doing a 180 on that just seems like an excuse to justify a monetization scheme. Not to mention the whole "become Francia as Mauryia if you unlock enough points" thing degrades the concept of a civilization itself to a perfectly malleable, almost entirely aesthetic thing. What they should have done is had concrete ancient civs that can only branch out to very specific historical successors, like starting as China and then in the Medieval Era you can become either Tang or Song depending on if you want Faith and Economy or Military buffs (as an example). None of this ridiculous magicking Ancient Egypt into Mongolia because they have cavalry. If you took out the military unit management rework, 7 wouldn't be adding anything of value to the series. And even then it's not really adding anything, just restoring the convenience of doomstacks from Civ 4 back.
Fr, like how will I destroy the English with the French if they are not in the game ? In order to have a rivalry you need to have 2 countries 🇫🇷❤⚔️❤️🏴 Not but fr how can they put Buganda but not England 💀.
I actually always finish the game. Also I noticed last year that the turns between Future Tech, and Future civics went from 7 to 8 turns down to 1 to 2 turns as well as a bunch of annoying things in late game when a city could no longer grow. And here they are today telling us what we like. Bull Sh t. I'm currently playing a game that I am on turn 367. There are five civs left and war is the best part of the game. (especially when you think you are about to lose and pull through and then get your revenge on that civ or civs) so you Science Victory, and diplomacy victory pursuers are boring. (I have been told there is no diplomacy victory possible in Civ 6, Correct me if I am wrong) Go play chess if you want boring. I like this game for building, war, and strategy. Everything else is is gathering to build up a bigger army and fight Yeaaaa!!!. But when you purposely make more clicks to use it as the excuse for shortening the game? How about the leaders who should not be in the game. Just stop. This is just the pay wall to real leaders. I've been playing this game since Civ 3, to 6 and all have had good things, and all had issues. This one will be no different. Oh And I maybe the only one but I still play and finish Beyond Earth. And If your not part of the solution you are part of the problem. How about taking out Mechs, and Nukes and this way it is balanced. there are no nukes in chess. Don't make a unit that other units can not beat I feel that kills the late game. Nukes I like the system the way it is but not sure how it would work in 7 from what I have seen. Again just sayin. Not sure I will buy this one. I will have to see it late game to decide. And why did you make huge maps if you thought people did not want to paly big?
The Civ 6 Diplo Victory requires you to vote for popular resolutions in the World Council, win victory point resolutions, build very specific wonders that have almost no other benefits and to aid countries that call for it; all of which you can’t really do if you do nothing but focus on war which is probably why you’ve never seen it as capturing capitals reduces your diplomatic favor (the currency for voting in the world council) output even to the point where you loose favor every turn.
9:35 on the topic of leaders. Given the russian war against Ukraine that's happening right now, choosing probably the most antiukrainian leader of Russia is "interesting". I'm not saying the developers are bad people, they probably had a lot of good reasons to pick her, but it is definitely tone deaf.
The more problematic aspects however are the cultural appropriation of Cossacks for the Russian empire (Cossacks are from Ukraine) and the overall representation of the Empire as cultural and enlightened, while it suppressed Ukrainian culture for so long. Sorry for bringing politics into gaming, but it is necessary. 😢
@@davidgab4448 I think they picked Catherine simply because she is one of a very few Russian rulers that are known in the USA (and are not from Soviet Union period). And perhaps the nostalgia for Civ 5 also influenced this decision. I also don't like her, as she was one of the rulers who contributed to the partitioning of Poland and she wasn't the most enlightened ruler either. I'm also a bit disappointed, as there are so many interesting Tsars or famous Russians that could have been picked instead of her. On the topic of swapping civs, I'm afraid that if they add Ukraine (or more likely Kiev Rus) or Poland as a DLC, they would be exploration era civs, and their historic path will be Russia in modern age. And I don't think many people in the respective countries will be very happy about that.
Eh, it's a videogame where isn't really much real history to its mechanics. Also, I'm 90% sure they chose Catherine because of the popularity of the TV show that portrayed her in a comedic fashion. I highly doubt any politics were at play here
@@ChristoffRevan The line being crossed is not really which leader to portray. It's the goodwashing and cultural appropriation. Catherine the great was really bad for Ukraine, taking away what little freedoms they had left, betraying old agreements and then drowning Cossack rebellions in blood. She is portrayed as enlightened and cultural and Russian empire is portrayed having some misterious soul and unique unit Cossacks. I hope you see the problem here. As for how important it is - generally not that much, but after the start of 2022 invasion of Ukraine it became more important to distinguish between Ukrainian and Russian culture and how the former was oppressed by latter. And since developers surely are aware of the biggest real life war in Europe since WW2, they neglected to see how their portrayal of Russia will be interpreted by the victims of Russian aggression.
I’m a huge fan of the Civ games and was super excited for Civ 7 until I found out about the mix and matching of leaders and countries. That, for me, is a deal breaker and unless there is a mode where you stay true to your Civ and the leader of that Civ the whole way through each age then I will not be buying the game. For me the whole point of the game was that each leader who represented that country brought their own flavor to the game and you go head to head with another. Makes it feel like Civ just lost it’s identity
The 3 clear ages also opens up the possibility of adding clearly defined ages as DLC. A bit like how Reus does, if they care to venture into that direction.
Man that bald guy talk a lot of empty corpo speak for a long time, my worry is England and the other missing traditional factions will be DLC and the community will explode. Also, China in every age but England not even in one lol (I dont really count the Normans, they conquered England sure but its not really the same.)
I agree, it's unreal and I am American. India gets to go THREE times and let's be real, have had no impact on the planet other than machine gunning out babies. England literally formed the modern world and isn't in a single age. Unreal. It would be too "white and Eurocentric" to have England instead of Hawaii or Siam I guess. I hate the 2020s. I really do.
You know what I hate about CIV they have all these cool wonders but their pointless... Why? I play Immortal/Deity and u can barely ever build them cus AI have such advantage ...I wish they can implement real AI opponents soon that dont need an advantage but are just as smart as humans. What I also hate is restarting to find a good start... They need a feature where u can choose to improve your start urself like a system where u can choose certain bonuses beforehand (nodes) that would spawn seperate from difficulty. Another is defensive war... I should be rewarded for killing 10 troops with 1 troops, by getting their gear/tech/ maybe slaves? Rather than just losing out on bonuses and such while perfectly defending as the AI turns out insane amounts of troops to throw at u
Don't care. They killed Civ for me with 6, and I have 1-5 and all the DLC for them (and I don't want to think how many hours between them all). I have more than enough titles to spend my money and time on than deal with their incomprehensible design decisions.
You cared enough to comment and watch part of the video. No one is forcing you play Civ 7. Just don't buy it and play the other titles you do own which each have their own charm.
I feel your frustration. I wish it was a more refined Civ 5 with better AI and multiplayer, more civs, larger maps, better graphics, more depth yet retaining charm. I’m not sure the devs are hearing us or looking at how strong player numbers still are for Civ 5. This looks more like Civ 6. I will give this one a try through Xbox pc, pay $10 to try for a month before buying.
@@Ernes446the player numbers for Civ 5 are 1/4 to 1/3 that of current Civ 6. Not sure who "us" is but they are catering to the people who play every Civ, not people with specific niche complaints about their specific Civ game.
I have been playing since Civ 1. Civ 5 is not all its cracked up to be, though yes, Civ 6 is the worst. 1 unit per tile killed the game. AI can't figure it out and it makes play on small tight areas (like a mountain pass or islands) awful. Simple solution would have just been what Millenia or Humankind did, limit the stacks to like 5-7 guys, but they all attack at once, so its actually army vs army, not horseman getting F'ed by a phalanx every time. Civ 4 with max stack sizes, hex grid, unstacked cities would be "the best" civ game. I have actually lost cities to the AI in modified Civ 4, never in Civ 5 or 6.
@@Cruor34You realize they literally showed in Civ 7 presentations that there's unit stacking now, right? Your main complaint is therefore defunct for this new title
No England but the US is in of course, how you can have a game about civilisation and not be able to play historically, full of woke DEI choices. Every one of these Q&A's and previews follow the same route, soft interview questions and literally not one preview that has heavily criticised this stupid design decision but when you look through the comments section over and over again you see the same complaints. The only reason these so called reviewers channels are given keys early are their blatant bias and refusal to criticise. Every one of these so called 'preview and early hands on' has followed exactly the same narrative Absolutely disgraceful
I know I'm not typically playing the role of a games journalist, but hopefully you found this useful!
This is an excellent interview, well done.
How so? We learned nothing we didn't already know. I really wish an interviewer would ask harder questions. Part of it isn't his fault, the devs are like politicians dodging questions. Huge dodge on no England in the game for example. I am American and I think it's 100% unacceptable England isn't in the game, but like... Hawaii is. Unreal.
They put a lot of thought into designing this new game. It looks like the final product aligns with their design goals.
Definitely interesting to hear more from the ordinary developers
Thanks for doing this interview. I'm looking forward to being able to mod the game and add some leaders. Maybe some Civs too, though adding a Civ seems to be a lot more work.
If this was the civilization of my childhood id know so much more about history 😂
Uh, no you wouldn't. You would know more about what people who vote for Kamala Harris THINK history was. These people think a black man invented the light bulb.
10:00 As Turk, I really hate seeing Suleiman over and over again, just give us another leader. give us Mehmed II who you know conquered Istanbul. Or give us Osman who built Ottomans. Or hell give us another Turkish empires instead of Ottomans.
Any Turkish artist, filosof that would suit better to civ7?
Cultural women?
So, how will a true earth start work with this new leader system? Also, I really hope there's more units this time around
Example infantry and mechanized infantry.
That's actually a great question and I wish I had thought of it.
@PravusGaming if you learn more about that, I'd love to hear it. Thanks for the great content!
I can answer that: It won't. No Europe maps or Mediterranean maps either. Big oversight. MAYBE on the 2nd expansion it will be doable.
@@Cruor34 that's rather unfortunate.
@@Cruor34 I definitely think they will add them in, most likely near-future all things considered.
that was amazing - lovely seeing developers listening to feedback from community - Excellent interview my dude :)
I hope a lot of upcoming civs and leaders and features will be free. I’d hate for it to end up being an annual $60+ for the next few years in order to get everything.
I have a feeling that there will be free features but probably not as many free leaders. Every time they released paid DLC for civ 6, the base game also say improvements as well. Depending on the pricing, I will likely be very selective of which dlc packs I get, then get the rest of them on sale later.
The deluxe and founders edition shows that the earlier leaders you can buy will have bundles with the value of $30. Can we can buy these things separately? i don't know.
While the idea of "free stuff" is always appealing, I would actually urge a different line of thinking.
They're running a business, adding content costs resources. So having a pricetag is inevitable. Instead of wanting free content, I'd want the content that is presented under a pricetag to be meaningful and impactful.
I'm note than happy to pay an annual $60, be that as one major expansion or 2-3 smaller chunks that in total represent an addition to the game with equivalent content to the core game on release.
Part of that excites me about the new design is that it opens up that possibility. They can now add not just civ/leader combo slots. But individual civilizations or leaders that were previously kinda out of bounds. But also add an entire different age. And have that lead to either a 4-age gameplay loop. Or perhaps a 3-age run that doesn't end in modern.
Looking at civ 6, they added a LOT of civs, leaders/personas etc over time, all that you paid for
@@hunterricketts3004 You better mentally prepare yourself to pay for everything because they sure as shit won't be giving it away for free. The game isn't even out yet and they're already selling extra content, preying on people's FOMO
I'm glad you made this video, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in Life until $75,000 biweekly began rolling in and my life went from a homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer!!!!!!❤️
That's lovely 🌹if I may ask, How did you come up with so much biweekly?
It is simply the digital market. A lot of folks in the US and abroad are getting so much from it.
I thank LAUREN RITA TRACY who has always been there to help me with detailed analysis and recommendations that I would not have had access to otherwise.
$_700k and yet still counting on. LAUREN RITA is the kind of person one needs in his or her life to be honest❤❤❤️>>>>
YES! That is exactly her name (LAUREN RITA TRACY). I saw her interview on CNN News and so many people highly recommended her and her trading skills❤❤❤❤
Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to be honest: These questions are far too softball. ALL interviews from everyone have been. Nobody who has been keeping up with the game learned a thing we didn't already know. How about:
1) Explain to me how SPECIFICALLY you guys improved the AI. Give examples, and list problems in Civ 6 AI. Did you fix those issues?
2) How about giving the AI incremental bonuses, rather than just having it cheat through the moon on Deity from turn 1?
3) Why did you nerf the game down to 10 max players (it might even be 8? 8 is the biggest I have seen previewed) when we could have like 20+ players in older games? Do you realize at this point, we can't even play an Europe map or Mediterranean map scenario? Why did you go that direction?
4) Did you include a map editor at launch this time? If not, why? What is so hard about including map making tools at launch? Did you include any pre made maps? or scenarios? You know, like Civ 2 did?
5) Do we/can we have the option for a Section of a world, rather than a tiny planet every time? Maybe I don't want frozen poles on my map every time, maybe I want the map focused on the desert region or temperate region of a map. Do we have that option? If not, could you explain why?
Thats some off the top of my head.
I think those are good and worthwhile questions but I don't think this youtuber necessarily asked softball questions. He asked about the ages system, unconventional leader choices, modding tools, and balance. Those are all hot button things that people are contentious about. I hope someone else asks specifically about the AI (neither of these developers are on the AI team) but I don't think Pravus did a bad or soft interview at all.
People are interested in the new feature that why he aksed about it. And he didnt realy have that much time with them.
I definitely agree about the ai.
I live C6.
But deity being stacked at the start and if you survive (& never build pyramids and Machu pichu) long enough- you snowball to victory anyway.
But we lost all the fun of ever building the early wonders due to stacking
Yeah saw another or these and they are basically long commercials, avoiding any critical or difficult questions.
While there is some merit to this line of thinking. I'd strongly argue 2 points to consider.
1- The focus you're giving is highly weighted towards a small subsection of high-end players, developers have to take their full playerbase into account when designing a game and not just the top end best players. And a very competent AI while appealing to that high-end group, ultimately won't be relevant for a majority of players. Meanwhile many of those high-end players end up playing against *OTHER HUMANS* primarily if not exclusively. (It's not reasonable to expect an AI with human-level competence...)
Which directly leads into the other point...
2- Making competent AI is not easy. Civ has traditionally always gone with the resource boost route giving their higher difficulty AI access to additional stuff. While it'd be the dream to have an AI opponent that starts on equal footing but is capable of making decisions on human-equivalent level. That simply isn't easy to achieve particularly in games with as many variables as Civ. Notably also because you then have to straddle the line between having an AI that is good enough, and one that is TOO GOOD.
I'd strongly encourage looking into the programming and design side of AI and learning about what goes into it. As it is my experience that the vast majority of people who'll complain about these issues tend not to realize what it is they're asking for...
----
Your third point is in my opinion very obvious. Performance. The performance of CIV games on larger maps with more players (or really any 4X title) tends to be abysmal as games drag on. Which is true even for people who have high-end PCs. Referring back to the prior first point. They're developing a game not just for the rich few who buy the latest hardware at the drop of a hat. And that means sometimes dialing down a few parameters like map size or number of max players is an easy solution to the scaling performance problem.
20+ player games were possible in order games because they were significantly less demanding on PC resources. And let's not pretend like we don't both know that those 20+ player games ran like dogshit mid-to-lategame.
---
4th and 5th point are totally valid. And an interesting counter to point #3. As running a section of a world ties smoothly into having a 4/6/8 max player run as opposed to a full planet.
Running sections of the world would also enable more detailed map designs, rather than more zoomed out abstractions. Which could open up a whole new angle of gameplay decisions.
Praise Pravus and Sid Meier's Civ!
Thanks for this video
I'm on the fence for the preorder or the deluxe versión.
Nothing wrong with adopting a no-preorder principle. Or judging "deluxe" editions based on value for content.
Or even rationalizing that in this day and age, there's no reason to buy at launch at all when 90% of titles will see a 30-50% reduction in price within 6-12 months after the initial release.
22:45, This worries me. This dev is intentionally misinterpreting what you asked. All games allow you to edit code from the game files, modding brings the ability to ADD new content which they both didn't even address.
The modding tools allways come later! It was same with civ4, civ5 and civ6!
They have to develop those tools and that takes time. The devs use tools that cost several tens of thousend dollars. End used tools needs something else. They have to bee rather easy to use. Be able tomimport 3D models from some other program! Etc.
It is not just test films, because these games has become so 3D depended. Modders have to have skill to use some free to to use 3D modelling program like tinker CAD or some other outside 3D modelling program in the side of modifying the game files.
@ that’s what my mods are for both 5 and 6. I create new models for units in the information era. Abrams and Bradley for example.
i really hope they will add another age that goes up to the tech we have rn. doesnt need to get futuristic (even tho i kinda like that)
I'm not believing this natural ending bit. There will be DLC very soon, with the 4th act also putting in new leaders to exclude many more prominent people and leaving out the British civ at any age in the game is an obvious push to a forthcoming DLC. The whole thing, including the at-launch editions, just points toward a gigantic cash grab. The game itself looks fine but the monetisation is a big concern.
I could totally believe that there will be a fourth "futuristic age" expansion in the future.
There is no question there will be a fourth age. It's like questioning if the sun will rise tomorrow. 100% a cash grab, also leaving out countries like England is insane having to pay for a real nation while Hawaii and native Americans are free is a clear cash grab. The hilarious part about Hawaii is their crap AI can't even handle island maps so you HAVE TO play on Pangea so that the AI has a chance. Civ 7 won't change that.
@@PravusGaming They'd be mad not to do that tbh, ages are such an obvious vehicle for delivering a DLC.
I'm expecting 200 dollars of dlc in the future like civ 5 and civ 6 and frankly all civ 5 and civ 6 dlc was worth it. At this point the box game should be 40 dollars at launch.
@@PravusGaming Maybe not even futuristic age, but having them lean into a variable age game loop. Kinda like how in Reus you can have different age progression.
Adding options like a Future Age, Dark Ages/Medieval Age, Renaissance/Victorian Age -- and then either running multi-age runs (up from 3 to 4 or more) or alternately setting up a 3-cycle of different ages. Not ending in modern but in a different one.
The monetization potential is obvious, but in my opinion not a bad thing if what is provided is value for money.
Not having mods is a huge disappointment for me. Maybe they release it, and then I will consider purchasing the game.
Definitely will at some point
Have you considered watching until the end? The game will have mod support, they just haven't created any tools for it yet (and dok't let youtube commenters convince you their promises are lies)
They have gotten super lazy. Games used to release WITH mod tools. How hard is it to at least release with a map editor to make our own maps? Why is that so damn hard? I personally HATE the randomly generated maps, and pretty much exclusively play maps made by myself or other users. Game busied to ship with pre made maps. You literally pay more and get less every new version.
This is because they use Denuvo
@@Cruor34Denuvo...
3 Small console games wrapped in a "civ" wrapper hard pass hopefully Civ 8 gets back on track in a few years
having learnt the heard way, will wait a good week before buying. Mostly just wanna know how buggy it is
Very!
😂
But couple of months and it is playable!
but they said earlier thay planning to add AGE 4, is that correct?
The 4th Age will be an expansion or DLC
what made civ great is writing history the way you want to ,in a word this game appears to be contrived. Knowing certain events are going to happen at the same time every game takes all of the excitement out of it for me unfortunately.
Prague and Civ? I didn’t know that was a combination
Hello Pravus, but when Rimworld?
great graphics, great...oops, that's all. Literally, the playing time in a given era is between an hour - an hour and a half, which is completely absurd! I've seen many reviews where players would start the game, get to the ability to spawn a legion, spawn a legion, and by the time the legion even made it to the battlefield and engaged in battle - the era was ending! This is complete absurdity! Realistically, a player has about 150 - 170 moves per era. Absurd! I don't want to be pressed for time with events that after the fourth or fifth replay of the era will repeat themselves over and over again!
I like to play on a huge map and model my strategies based on the number of opponents around me, terrain, judging whether the terrain is suitable for defense or offense, in general - building my own strategy and me deciding when and how everything ends! And not the game to put me in time hoops! Absurd! The way to manage cities, resources is very nice, it must be admitted. The combat units, buildings and graphics are generally great, but the way the potential player is placed in a too-short time bubble that prevents them from fully and fully enjoying their achievements in a given era is disgusting and off-putting!
This game (it's not Civilization, but rather Road to WWII!) is an easy pass for me. Maybe in a year - two - three, when it's 30 - 40$ with all the DLC and no other games on the market, I'll think about it.Alexander, George Washington, Attila, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Saladin, Suleiman, Richard the Lionheart, Joan of Arc, Boudica, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga and a host of great personalities to finish with...Harriet Tubman and with few exceptions a crowd of anonymous people? Like I said - easy pass for me. (I do not bind and impose my opinion on anyone. To those who will play it, I wish hours filled with pleasant emotions!)
Can’t you select game speed at the beginning???
Where are you getting these numbers from? I've heard people who have preview access say games still take about 8-12 hours. With about 150 turns per age, that 450 turns in total, so about 2 games of Civ VI at online speed. I've never been able to finish a game in one session so I doubt you can finish an age in less than 2 hours.
Fair argument.
By engaging with the content you just mentioned is an easy pass for you, you've just told the youtube algorithm you're interested in seeing more of it.
I like the late game. My first Civ was Civ 4. I somehow completely missed civ 5, but enjoyed civ 6… I do hope the Giant Death Robots return in 7. They cracked my up, but were also just a cool unit that reflected “Future Tech” well.
The whole point of Great People was highlighting other contributors to a civilization beyond leaders. The excuse to not have Hannibal in Civ 5 and 6 was that he wasn't a leader of a government, so now doing a 180 on that just seems like an excuse to justify a monetization scheme.
Not to mention the whole "become Francia as Mauryia if you unlock enough points" thing degrades the concept of a civilization itself to a perfectly malleable, almost entirely aesthetic thing. What they should have done is had concrete ancient civs that can only branch out to very specific historical successors, like starting as China and then in the Medieval Era you can become either Tang or Song depending on if you want Faith and Economy or Military buffs (as an example). None of this ridiculous magicking Ancient Egypt into Mongolia because they have cavalry.
If you took out the military unit management rework, 7 wouldn't be adding anything of value to the series. And even then it's not really adding anything, just restoring the convenience of doomstacks from Civ 4 back.
No England? That's insane
"eViL cOLonIZeR"
Firaxis is clearly DEI-oriented now with a woke agenda, it's obvious why they removed a lot of European country choices/leaders
Fr, like how will I destroy the English with the French if they are not in the game ?
In order to have a rivalry you need to have 2 countries 🇫🇷❤⚔️❤️🏴
Not but fr how can they put Buganda but not England 💀.
@@MauriceMonkamFAN Because people would buy a DLC adding England, but not necessarily a DLC adding Buganda
@@janolbratowski1814 *ding ding ding ding ding*
Waiting for endless legend 2 myself!
Hype!
I actually always finish the game. Also I noticed last year that the turns between Future Tech, and Future civics went from 7 to 8 turns down to 1 to 2 turns as well as a bunch of annoying things in late game when a city could no longer grow. And here they are today telling us what we like. Bull Sh t. I'm currently playing a game that I am on turn 367. There are five civs left and war is the best part of the game. (especially when you think you are about to lose and pull through and then get your revenge on that civ or civs) so you Science Victory, and diplomacy victory pursuers are boring. (I have been told there is no diplomacy victory possible in Civ 6, Correct me if I am wrong) Go play chess if you want boring. I like this game for building, war, and strategy. Everything else is is gathering to build up a bigger army and fight Yeaaaa!!!. But when you purposely make more clicks to use it as the excuse for shortening the game?
How about the leaders who should not be in the game. Just stop. This is just the pay wall to real leaders.
I've been playing this game since Civ 3, to 6 and all have had good things, and all had issues. This one will be no different. Oh And I maybe the only one but I still play and finish Beyond Earth.
And If your not part of the solution you are part of the problem. How about taking out Mechs, and Nukes and this way it is balanced. there are no nukes in chess. Don't make a unit that other units can not beat I feel that kills the late game. Nukes I like the system the way it is but not sure how it would work in 7 from what I have seen. Again just sayin. Not sure I will buy this one. I will have to see it late game to decide. And why did you make huge maps if you thought people did not want to paly big?
You are 1 person they have data on this stuff
The Civ 6 Diplo Victory requires you to vote for popular resolutions in the World Council, win victory point resolutions, build very specific wonders that have almost no other benefits and to aid countries that call for it; all of which you can’t really do if you do nothing but focus on war which is probably why you’ve never seen it as capturing capitals reduces your diplomatic favor (the currency for voting in the world council) output even to the point where you loose favor every turn.
9:35 on the topic of leaders. Given the russian war against Ukraine that's happening right now, choosing probably the most antiukrainian leader of Russia is "interesting".
I'm not saying the developers are bad people, they probably had a lot of good reasons to pick her, but it is definitely tone deaf.
The more problematic aspects however are the cultural appropriation of Cossacks for the Russian empire (Cossacks are from Ukraine) and the overall representation of the Empire as cultural and enlightened, while it suppressed Ukrainian culture for so long.
Sorry for bringing politics into gaming, but it is necessary. 😢
@@davidgab4448 I think they picked Catherine simply because she is one of a very few Russian rulers that are known in the USA (and are not from Soviet Union period). And perhaps the nostalgia for Civ 5 also influenced this decision. I also don't like her, as she was one of the rulers who contributed to the partitioning of Poland and she wasn't the most enlightened ruler either. I'm also a bit disappointed, as there are so many interesting Tsars or famous Russians that could have been picked instead of her.
On the topic of swapping civs, I'm afraid that if they add Ukraine (or more likely Kiev Rus) or Poland as a DLC, they would be exploration era civs, and their historic path will be Russia in modern age. And I don't think many people in the respective countries will be very happy about that.
Eh, it's a videogame where isn't really much real history to its mechanics. Also, I'm 90% sure they chose Catherine because of the popularity of the TV show that portrayed her in a comedic fashion. I highly doubt any politics were at play here
Also too, like...why would Catherine be bad but not truly evil people like Stalin and Mao, which were in past Civ games? Where do YOU draw the line?
@@ChristoffRevan The line being crossed is not really which leader to portray. It's the goodwashing and cultural appropriation. Catherine the great was really bad for Ukraine, taking away what little freedoms they had left, betraying old agreements and then drowning Cossack rebellions in blood.
She is portrayed as enlightened and cultural and Russian empire is portrayed having some misterious soul and unique unit Cossacks. I hope you see the problem here.
As for how important it is - generally not that much, but after the start of 2022 invasion of Ukraine it became more important to distinguish between Ukrainian and Russian culture and how the former was oppressed by latter.
And since developers surely are aware of the biggest real life war in Europe since WW2, they neglected to see how their portrayal of Russia will be interpreted by the victims of Russian aggression.
I thought the map was australia
> boldest and most innovative
Where is my Alpha Centauri 2?
I’m a huge fan of the Civ games and was super excited for Civ 7 until I found out about the mix and matching of leaders and countries. That, for me, is a deal breaker and unless there is a mode where you stay true to your Civ and the leader of that Civ the whole way through each age then I will not be buying the game. For me the whole point of the game was that each leader who represented that country brought their own flavor to the game and you go head to head with another. Makes it feel like Civ just lost it’s identity
You'll be able to choose the same nation to continue through all 3 ages, but yeah...I don't know if you can force the AI to do it too
@ well if that’s the case where I can choose the same and make the AI do it then I will not have a problem buying it
@@MrItalian99 That guy is wrong, you have to change civs, it is the leader you keep all game.
Day 11: Can you please do Sterile Obsession Custom Scenario In Plague Inc, By: therecroomgaming
The 3 clear ages also opens up the possibility of adding clearly defined ages as DLC. A bit like how Reus does, if they care to venture into that direction.
Has anyone seen gameplay for PS5?
Man that bald guy talk a lot of empty corpo speak for a long time, my worry is England and the other missing traditional factions will be DLC and the community will explode. Also, China in every age but England not even in one lol (I dont really count the Normans, they conquered England sure but its not really the same.)
I agree, it's unreal and I am American. India gets to go THREE times and let's be real, have had no impact on the planet other than machine gunning out babies. England literally formed the modern world and isn't in a single age. Unreal. It would be too "white and Eurocentric" to have England instead of Hawaii or Siam I guess. I hate the 2020s. I really do.
This just in - Company in the business of making money makes a business decision that should make them money. More news at 11.
Lemme know when the game is 50% off. I'll check back in a couple of years.
You know what I hate about CIV they have all these cool wonders but their pointless... Why? I play Immortal/Deity and u can barely ever build them cus AI have such advantage ...I wish they can implement real AI opponents soon that dont need an advantage but are just as smart as humans.
What I also hate is restarting to find a good start... They need a feature where u can choose to improve your start urself like a system where u can choose certain bonuses beforehand (nodes) that would spawn seperate from difficulty.
Another is defensive war... I should be rewarded for killing 10 troops with 1 troops, by getting their gear/tech/ maybe slaves? Rather than just losing out on bonuses and such while perfectly defending as the AI turns out insane amounts of troops to throw at u
Too bad they're adding denuvo and locking civs and wonders behind paywalls. Would have liked to support these devs, but I'm sitting this one out.
Humankind 2 looks good
I was playing humankind with my friend and we named the server "Civ 7 beta test"
Thanks Papa Pravus
I hope they remove Denuvo, fix ugly ui, fix leader models and animations and sdd mod support.
yeah the UI is super ugly rn, like REALLY ugly, looks very similar to a crappy mobile game
Yey
Don't care. They killed Civ for me with 6, and I have 1-5 and all the DLC for them (and I don't want to think how many hours between them all).
I have more than enough titles to spend my money and time on than deal with their incomprehensible design decisions.
You cared enough to comment and watch part of the video. No one is forcing you play Civ 7. Just don't buy it and play the other titles you do own which each have their own charm.
I feel your frustration. I wish it was a more refined Civ 5 with better AI and multiplayer, more civs, larger maps, better graphics, more depth yet retaining charm. I’m not sure the devs are hearing us or looking at how strong player numbers still are for Civ 5. This looks more like Civ 6. I will give this one a try through Xbox pc, pay $10 to try for a month before buying.
@@Ernes446the player numbers for Civ 5 are 1/4 to 1/3 that of current Civ 6. Not sure who "us" is but they are catering to the people who play every Civ, not people with specific niche complaints about their specific Civ game.
I have been playing since Civ 1. Civ 5 is not all its cracked up to be, though yes, Civ 6 is the worst. 1 unit per tile killed the game. AI can't figure it out and it makes play on small tight areas (like a mountain pass or islands) awful. Simple solution would have just been what Millenia or Humankind did, limit the stacks to like 5-7 guys, but they all attack at once, so its actually army vs army, not horseman getting F'ed by a phalanx every time.
Civ 4 with max stack sizes, hex grid, unstacked cities would be "the best" civ game. I have actually lost cities to the AI in modified Civ 4, never in Civ 5 or 6.
@@Cruor34You realize they literally showed in Civ 7 presentations that there's unit stacking now, right? Your main complaint is therefore defunct for this new title
Woah im early 😮
first
o cool first lol
AKA : DEI Harriot Tubman.
No England but the US is in of course, how you can have a game about civilisation and not be able to play historically, full of woke DEI choices.
Every one of these Q&A's and previews follow the same route, soft interview questions and literally not one preview that has heavily criticised this stupid design decision but when you look through the comments section over and over again you see the same complaints.
The only reason these so called reviewers channels are given keys early are their blatant bias and refusal to criticise.
Every one of these so called 'preview and early hands on' has followed exactly the same narrative
Absolutely disgraceful
Complaining about "woke" and/or "DEI" = opinion disregarded
@@Fluxquark They just wants a safe space... The world is getting too triggering for their sensibilities.
@@Fluxquark Only to silly little purple haired plastic people that don't shave yet and have grown up in a brainwashed millennial bubble
I hope they remove Denuvo, fix ugly ui, fix leader models and animations and sdd mod support.