Agreed. What's the point of new systems and a fresh coat of paint without a competent AI? I look forward to JumboPixel investigating this subject in due course.
forget about it. the charm for me was thinking, "i have Genghis Khan at my border to the right, and australia is way up in the north fighting with the Aztecs." i loved holding grudges against specific leaders and striking back with a vengeance like 300 years later. now it's just "player 1 borders my left, player 2 in the north," etc.
I believe the leader stays. Though your point is well taken - it’s still important for the player to build a narrative, or simply recognise their foes overtime.
the leaders stay the same. I was worried about that too but it seems to be addressed! Plus you can switch on "historical switching" preventing players and the AI from going outside Civ-leader historical combos.
They'll still be named nations though. It is still much more in line with reality than previous iterations (after all, where is the Holy Roman Empire in the Modern Age?).....and whilst everyone is pointing to Humankind as Firaxis' inspiration, the system seems more like the Rhyse and Fall mod for Civilization IV to me.
@@Tpownage99 Yeah, but it won't be Gengis Khan without the mongol horde, will be a really weird dude wit ha foreign name controlling the brits and having tea. This is a lame design choice.
I’d guess that leaders will perfectly suit future dlc launches (as evident when looking at the different editions). The version I played had 4 choosable (and two more shown in screenshots) but I don’t think that’s a good indication. I’d guess there’ll be a large roster of leaders judging by what they said in their presentation.
Follow the money --- is how games are made now. if they can make money thru DLC through diverse ways, they will do it. This is one of those instances where you can have plenty of different leaders without having to put too much work into them (you wont have to build an entire civ around a leader, just make leaders and then add stats to them)
I don’t want to judge the “civilization switching” mechanic too quickly. After all, it really just depends on how it’s implemented in gameplay. What I don’t understand is that I feel it would have made so much more sense to switch your leader throughout the game, keeping the same civilization, rather than the inverse they have gone for. This keeps to their philosophy of new emerging gameplay for each age, but it also keeps immersion and historical contexts consistent. It feels much more plausible to, say, start as an ancient leader of a civilization and then work through more modern leaders as the game progresses with more relevant bonuses and advantages. Again, this could still be implemented well, but it seems like a near-missed opportunity in my view.
I actually think this makes more sense to be honest. The Celts were supplanted by the Romans who were supplanted by the Saxons who were supplanted by the Normans who culturally fused into the Englisc who evolved into the modern English. Those are distinct 'civilisations' that developed over time.
Spot on, that would have been much more elegant way to implement the mechanic. France has several historical figures, each of them effecting history in a unique way. Napoleon vs Joan of arc vs Charles de Gaul could all provide changes in national direction while not changing cultural identity. It really is jarring to start as the Aztecs and then your suddenly china and then Zimbabwe. Pray the team pulls this off, I really do love civ, and I’ve waited so long for the next iteration.
It's not a near-missed opportunity, it is a missed opportunity. I got the same feeling right now that I had before humankind launch, civ 7 probably won't flop just like how some games despite being bad are successful depending on the brand name alone. Civ has become a household name at this point and is too big to fail.
@@justanothercommenter5835 Great point. Every perspective I’ve seen so far on this take seems to have obvious pros and cons. I like your example a lot of it feeling really natural and seamless. I think it’s all going to come down to it’s execution. This could be a great idea if done right, but people are right to worry, it’s pretty risky.
@@MythicosQc74 That's cus there are tons of mechanics originated from Humankind being included on the franchise. They aren't immature, but based since Humankind didn't sold well, so why Firaxis is risking such design choices for the new game? I'm not that excited about the leader/civ splits, but Civ6 had a mixed reception when it first released, so I'll wait and see if they can make it good, different from Humankind.
I wanted to see a system where the Egyptian Empire, for example, would become the Republic of Egypt or something like that in the later ages (so the civ not changing but just modernising depending on the age), with the leader changing per age as it is pretty jarring having leaders from ancient times in later ages, but perhaps as an option as people would want nuclear Gandhi for example... The whole "mix and match" thing seems like a marketing gimmick so they can sell some leader DLCs down the line. So I'm not too impressed, also the UI is pretty bad.
Absolutely same for me. When i first heard about the mechanic, I was actually very excited. Imagine transitioning from England into the UK, for instance. I feel like that’s the final piece of the puzzle the Civ series was missing. But this? Absolutely horrible. I hope there’s a way to disable it.
@@gad8476 I think that a system like this is a great idea. But I think they aren't gonna have enough civs for it to make any sense. The Maya to the Aztec to the Mexicans or whatever would be awesome and make sense. Civilizations fall but the people survive and some of the culture survives, affecting the new country there. Some stuff, like becoming Roman, is a real thing that happened. But some of this is too far.
I'm not 100% on the different leaders not being connected to their historical Civilisation, That has been like Civs think since the first game. I also think switching to any Civ in the game is just them trying to be Humankind, Maybe if they just let you become the more modern version of your civ as the ages go by instead might be better. I'm worried the game is once again stripping away mechanics to 'streamline' the game for causal gamers again. The Leaders interactions seem a bit soulless and bland, the troops and cities do look nice. I'm a bit worried though they're chasing Humankind, they seem to be copying a lot of it's systems.
@RomanHistoryFan476AD it's 100% being stripped down for counsel playes. Look at the UI. He even said they plan on it, looking like this with the exception of scaling. Also, I hate the way the leaders look at each other rather than the player. Makes it feel less personal.
Well we always got paradox if firaxis go for casuals. If this flops and make room for a pdx civ game I am all for it, just imagine stellaris but historical, holy moly god tier shit. I just want to feel like a god, but recent civ games only game me feel like a goat. 😢
It will be easier to monetize because now they wont have to make entire civs for DLC...instead just multiple leaders with various stats. Much simpler for them
My overwhelming excitement turned into "meh, i guess we'll have to see" after this. Why make a game more like a similar game that obviously did not perform as well. If we wanted humankind, we'd be playing that.
many new and coming games have this problem i feel. Frostpunk 2 for example, i get the idea behind it, they did share the thoughts why its all white and simplified to present the scale at which we govern the city now. Even after considering these sentiments it feels lifeless and more like a placeholder rather than finished product. We can see this in company logos too, they used to have a character like google or firefox logos in the past. Now they all push simplicity and that clean modernized look despite the majority being against it
I feel you. I do like some of the changes. Combat, with the commanders and abilities and whatnot will likely feel as good as it has before, but with less tedium. Removing things like builder and trader units I am worried about. If it’s fun and streamlined I’ll adapt. But what I’m seeing feels so alien to the gameplay loop of 6 that I’ve grown so used to. But I used to swear by 5; 6 grew on me, and I’m hoping that 7 can manage the same.
This is the fear with breaking from historical ties. My incoming is that it is more structured & less chaotic than Humankind given there are fewer opportunities to change Civ, and perhaps fewer options to choose from (I’m unsure on that one).
Its so clear for me the most important priorities for CIV7 are: 1 - make it more accessible for console players (no more workers) 2 - make it more enticing to buy DLC (disconnecting leaders from civs) I am not very optimistic for this game.
BIGGEST thing that needs to be drastically improve is the A.I. How well does it play with all the nuances that are in the game. Hoping the A.I. is a huge leap forward for the 4X Strategy community. New Ideas for gameplay take time to appreciate, Civ 7 Team will develop the game nicely.
they prob want to make a mobile game to milk it, plus the starting price is $69.99 for a DLC based game lol plus the leaders not tied to thier historic civ is so dumb fr
@@jakeshumway9487 I don’t think you know how much ram & resources this game takes up especially when you get Deep into the game & have over 70 army personnel etv
*10 years later* “We know no one liked the odd choice to change civs in Civ 7, so in Civ 8 we changed that!” If only this would work like the sonic movie, I’m afraid we’re locked in to a flawed design choice for nearly a decade
@@meoff7602 How could it not be? I think that's what you meant, because otherwise I don't know what to say. It's using the primary feature from Humankind that made that game so immediately distinct. So yeah, obvious comparisons will be made - it's natural.
@@meoff7602 civ 7 also picked up mechanics from humankind such as: 1. Combining different units into an army 2. Influence 3. Districts required to be placed next to an existing district 4. Goals to reach in order to push to the next era change (though civ 7 seems to go about it differently) 5. The river movement 6. Lack of builders Civ 7 is clearly taking a page out of humakind's book. Not that it's a bad thing though, I actually enjoyed humankind
I am concerned about only having 3 ages. To go from 7 ages, based on my tech to a mere 3 based on the world... i dont know. I appreciate they are trying to address late gane expansion by making early gane buildings obsolete
It's called DLCs, its another reason why they made leaders selectable to make it easier to design for DLCs...they dont have to build an entire civ (which takes time)...they can now make hundreds of different leaders (some fake, some real) so you can add it into your game via dlc.
The ages are supposedly going to change things far more dramatically than CIv 5 and 6 eras do. New resources, new goodie huts, new tech tree, new civics, expanded map, etc.
It's nothing like Humankind. Humankind was a race to see if you could get the civ you wanted. Which, made strategy really hard to pull off if you didn't get what you wanted or had to rush into an age to get the civ you wanted. This more like customization. It's something you can plan out. It's not dependent on what the other players are doing.
Honestly.. Wouldn't it be better the opposite way? Where you switch through diffirent leaders every age, instead of diffirent nations, and that way choose diffirent paths and such? I'm not too enthousiastic about this so far. It seems way too ahistorical for a game that tries to portray history in some sense
@@blam320 The whole point of civ is to take history into your own hands , this game will see you with a flourishing civilization that has to be arbitrarily abandoned after so many turns
Yeah seperating leaders from Civs make no sense to me. I hope you can force the AI at least to only use historical parings. Honestly Humankind was widely disliked for a similar (?) system. Why civ thinks it needs to "innovate" here from all places is strange to me. Are certain civs tied to certain ages like in humankind (i.e. you cannot play as any civ from the start)? if so this might be an hard pass for me.
Seems that way…I’m keeping an open mind to trying the new approach. I have not played humankind so I’m probably looking at it with a different frame than you. Let’s hope it’s great!
Same, I want the option to recreate parts of history with this game. I thought that was supposed to be one of the selling points of the franchise. We’ll see how it goes, but as it stands more people are upset about this mechanic than in favor. If they were wise they’d listen to us, because they’re about to lose a lot of money lol
@Thirteen13551355 explain what you mean please? I have civ 4 (really enjoy it) and I don't ever remember being able to play as say Montezuma and pick the German civilization, the leaders were tied to the civ, some civilizations did have more than one leader to chose from but all of them were tied to the civ, like Abe Lincoln or George Washington but you had to play as America. Or Julius or Augustus but you still had to play as Rome.
I was a bit shocked at the reveal…A studio with more experience, more legacy, more money and THIS is what they decided to do? I don’t care how you want to spin it, they spent years basically making a better looking, refined version of Humankind copying Amplitude’s homework.
I can't say I'm really that shocked they copied Amplitude, again. Civ 6 also took a bunch of mechanics from Endless Legend, districts, eureka bonuses, envoys to city states, unique buildings/units from city states, different continents, etc.
Honestly? This seriously looks like Beyond Earth but a little more touched up and 'updated' and with bits of Humankind thrown in. Gonna say its a bit disappointing for now but it was just revealed so we shall see! I hope that core game features we've gotten used to in the other completed Civ titles aren't going to be locked behind paid DLCs in this one. Just my two cents, however. Very good video though! Informative and with just enough to chew on!
The great beauty of the Civilization franchise, for me at least, is that if you don't like the latest version you can always stick to the one you prefer and keep playing it until they release one you do like. Its not like there aren't also a ton of mods for Civ4-Civ6 in particular.
I could prolly go back to C2 and be fine with it for the rest of my life.. The beauty of the series is each entry feels like a remake or reimagining of the OG with different elements.. Ironically kinda like Xcom
@@baoeater_CSnerd we will see bro leaders not tied to their historic nation ... mansa musa leader of japan so dumb....and the UI looks so garbage ... they prob want a more functional mobile game hence the low poly looking UI , and the price is $69.99 for a DLC based game oh my
Really don't understand why they chose to copy the failed Civ clones instead of doing their own thing. The Civ changing as you go was what turned me off from Humankind. Really hate to see it here.
the real problem is that they didn't added anything new or groundbreaking. It's the same old civs with shuffled stuff around. I don't see the point of playing this. It's problaby because they simply don't have an idea where to go with this game but it will sell anyway and for them it's all that matters.
@@tutkarz To me civ has always been about taking a specific civ and leader through the ages to the endgame. It just seems strange to now be able to shuffle around leaders and evolve your civ. Again, maybe it will turn out great in the end, but it just doesn't seem like it will retain the civ-ness of the genre. Also taking away builders will take a while to get used to lol
Yeah, I don't like the idea that you could start off as Egypt and end up becoming Brazil. While I think the idea of having Babylonian tanks in the modern era is equally silly, I don't know why you can't choose to evolve into civilizations that are at least somewhat historically plausible. It ruins the whole immersion aspect, imo. What I am looking forward to though is being able to play out ages individually. I've never really cared about the modern era in these games, so being able to play a full campaign based on antiquity or the exploration age is pretty cool and i'm interested to see how this is implemented.
Have to say, its a no-brainer for me. I love historical Turn-based Strategy games-and have bought every mainline Civilization game since Civ1 in the early 1990s (yes, I am that old).....and also picked up Old World, Milennia and Humankind. I have loved them all, in spite of whatever flaws they've had at launch. I doubt this game will be any different for me.
Why can't they just make civ 5 but with: - Updated graphics - Navigatable rivers - Barbarians (antiquity), Rebel outposts (exploration), Agressive city states (modern era) - No bs weather events or crises (enough of that irl) - One civ to rule them all (leader switching is OK) - Balance between both districts/main city buildings so the map does not get cluttery - Merging of the same units making them stronger (act as 2+) instead of weird army generals. - Policies like in civ 5 for a more balanced feel to the game instead of limitless choices. (newness comes from your civ and your spawn, not more policy decisions) - No diplomacy points. Improve the already existing happiness system from civ 5. - Keep happiness but make it per city. Which it looks like they have with the option to send happiness to other cities, great! - Ability to build as tall as you want with the consequences that are similar to civ 5. - Option to make ancient ruins, and similar, purely RNG to make multiplayer simpler and faster. Did I forget anything?
Sometimes developers just get bored with doing something similar and would want to try something new. Take Tekken 8 for example, as it changed a lot of from the previous games.
@@vaporalight3670 This is bullshit though. Companies care about money and the devs work accordingly. The only reason they take this direction is because they think it will generate more money.
@@Julioti All companies are governed by money to some degree or entirely of it. Which begs the question. Does every new direction of a game are governed by companies wanting more profit or is it from the devs themselves wanting to spicen things up? Take Elden Ring for example, did Bandai Namco wanted their next souls game to be open world or is it miyazaki's decision to do it? Another example, Legends of Runeterra went in a different direction with how they monetize their cards by not allowing players to pay them and instead only acquiring them just by playing but unfortunately that decision came to bite them as they're suffering financially. Lastly, take Darkest Dungeon, was the decision to make it different from the previous game made by the company out of the need of profit or the devs wanting something different?
I've played going all the way back to 3 when I was 9 years old, and I think all the changes seem pretty positive here. Firixas isn't going to sit here and re-skin Civ 5 over and over. Civ isn't a story franchise and every entry necessarily represents a new set of lenses of how human history is interpretted and evolution of mechanics. If civ 5 is your jam, go play that, it's still there and no one is saying explicity or implicitly any aspect of it was bad. It's a different game developed in a different context by different people.
It's easier for them to design DLCs around it, they no longer have to build whole civs , they can just make leaders with various stats...it's all about money and easy access to it
So, no builders? What does that mean for irrigation, mining, et cetera. Does the computer automatically decide where to plonk these tiles? Also, while builders stopped making roads in the last few games, how are they laid down now? I really liked deciding where all my farms and such went.
The reason why they are separating the leaders is because they’ve found that players will not play certain civilizations based on whether or not they like the leader instead of whether or not they like the mechanics. So you’ll have all these neglected civs that they worked really hard on. They don’t want people to choose civs according to preference, but utility: the abilities and bonuses.
I've been playing Civ since the beginning and have gotten used to the latest version being the most expensive out there, but 100 USD!!! Here in Canada that will likely be 130 CND. Certainly Civ VII is a huge undertaking, but, man, that is a lot of money. I like what I'm seeing of the game, but I might have to wait for a year or two when it goes on sale the first time.
Canadians don't have 100 usd? If that's the price that's awful and I won't buy it for sure, but if I really wanted I could collect that much until the release and I live in one of the poorest countries in Europe. Canadians are like 5-10 times richer on average.
"Civ VII is a huge undertaking" - It's an iteration of a well-established game that's a decade old, with nothing particularly surprising in it. Feels like what some game mods do to various games, not an inspirational game from an AAA studio for $$$
@@koja69the point is that it costs too much, and that the Canadian and American dollars are very different in market value. 10-25 years ago, it wasn't as drastic of a difference. Canadians aren't earning much more than they were 10-15 years ago, either, yet, inflation and cost of living is generally much higher. So for games to cost twice as much in number of dollars, while our Canadian dollar is worth a lot less, just makes it much less appealing, or even feasible.
@@tomdijk5549 No, 1991 Civilization is the OG game. This is Civilization 7, 2025, and it exists in a world where Millenia and Humankind and Old world already exist.
This is a game series that has a dedicated diehard loyal shee- fan base, that will ensure it's success no matter how bad. Civ is a household name man, it's no diff from call of duty or iphones.
@@blam320 and humankind borrows heavily from Civ and other games inspired by Civ. This is how the world works, in music/media/any form of ‘art’. Inspiration is like a heiritage tree, which can be traced back a long time.
I played the first Civ game on a Snes emulator around 2001 on my very first PC. While it was hard to understand everything, due to age and not fully grasping english then, I really enjoyed it. Then out came Civ 2, woah, those videos from advisors, wonders, I sunk many hours into that game. Then Civ3, yeah! Great advance, way better UI, graphics, gameplay, everything was a major improvement. Hundreds of hours wasted there. Civ 4 comes out. Yeah, nice nice, really enjoy it, but didn't clock as many hours as civ 3, but still loved the game. Civ 5 came out, I was like hmm... Alright, but still sunk thousands hours there, good game. Civ 6 came out looking like cartoons, workers became builders who had usage? Nah, never even bought that but still feel tempted to buy it on a major discount. Then here we go, civ7, hey they are moving away from that cartoonish crap, finally, then the UI is BLAND. Mechanics are dumbed down and simplified to the point that it appears to be a game you would play on an ipad to kill some time. Nah, not really interested. Guess I'm sticking to civ 4 and 5 still.
Didn’t think I had any dealbreakers when it came to a new civ game, but it seems like Firaxis discovered it for me. The changes to how civilizations work is just the absolute antithesis to what I enjoy about civilization games. Unfortunately I think I’m gonna have to sit civ 7 out.
I really like the look of it, especially the diplomacy side of it! Would you be able to go into a bit more detail about events in the game in another video (if others would find that interesting of course!)
Hmmm. Idk, it seems to be too similar to humankind. Not much of a fan of having to change civs every era either. I wonder how the modding scene will change?
I hope civ 7 is more moddable I haven’t looked into why but it seems like 5 and 6 didn’t have as many total conversions as 4 had with the gamebryo engine
I completely dislike the new system of civilizations, it's like the one in humankind which is not good. I would like to play as a certain Nation like in the rest of civilization games, not play as, for example, Augustus while being the Egyptian empire for some reason and then be forced to change nation and leader again. Simply wtf.
It's insane they would choose to copy the main reason Humankind failed. It's kind of a bold move but still a completely stupid move. It doesn't matter if we don't change leaders. It's the civ that matters. Like in Humankind, we never have a solid identity. This is frustrating.
This is such a non issue lmao. You can literally just keep your historical choice. You don't have to change anything. As for country swapping theres probably countries that evolve in a way that makes historical sense too. It'd be great if theyd add the Dutch republic in exploration into The Netherlands in modern age for example.
miss the civ 5 vids as well, i think im gonna rewatch some tonight. im so sad that i dont like civ 6. i hate when i dont have fun with a sequal to a game, or even worse a new season where the version of the game i liked isnt even available and i have to wait for the next (that i might dislike as well and so on).
No religious victory to my knowledge. Pantheon founding is the same as Civ 6. Religions & religious buildings are ultimately used to build things like money & culture.
First impression, I dislike the idea of disconnecting Civ Leaders from their historical Civilizations. Just offer more leader options from within the civilization. As for the rest of the civilization features, I'm not a fan of going full Humankind.
After watching this review and several others I’m leaning towards not bothering with this game or at least waiting awhile until I find out what real players think. Obviously a game reviewer like this isn’t going to be too critical because he wants people to buy the game and watch his future videos.
The second-to-last section might as well be called "remember this is 2K and they like money !" I'm pretty sure there will be 1000 $ worth of DLCs when this game is finished being worked on in 4 or 5 years
My early impression agrees with you. I think it’s a somewhat controversial call & there’ll be teething issues, but the system feels smooth & relatively consistent compared to HK.
Civ is the only game I’ve always pre-ordered day one. After the reveal, I decided I’m not going to pre-order for the first time ever. Civilization switching is the death of the game. Humankind was unplayable for me specifically due to that feature.
100% - to be honest, I went from "certain to preorder" to "uncertain about buying it at all".. only time (and gameplay videos) will tell. Until then, my focus is shiftet to ARA.
how similar are the first 50 turns, don't like the removal of builders, they were not the micro managing issue for me it was more units, which could have been solved with a 'sleep all' button.
I like the micro managing because it makes sense to wait for certain events to happen before you start certain actions...it is a strategy game after all
@@kristian6722 for that exact reason, it cost production and move turns to get your upgrades off and then YOU have to make a decision. That RTS feature in a turn base can be the difference in a competitive game. This game seems a bit dumbed down and too much like human kind
I don't understand why games nowadays are made with UI that looks like fucking excel sheets. I'm playing a game about civilization, war, culture, empires and I want to feel the grandeur when I'm looking at it, instead of feeling depression.
£120 is a lot to shell out without knowing what machine specs will be required - did the devs give any ideas on how powerful a PC will have to be to run it okay?
@@zer0her058I mean depending on the map type you chose in civ 6 it already was restricted based on the era since you needed the technology to sail ocean tiles. I am assuming it will work similar to that where in the exploration age you get the technology for better boats to explore the ocean
@@NathanWilson07yes but if you have the tech you could circumnavigate the world, this implies you can’t wrap around the map until later on not regardless of whether or not your tech has advanced far enough
This is an unpopular opinion but honestly I really like the direction they are going. Unlike most, I really liked how you got to make your own civilization in Humankind. I'm not so sure about leaders being seperate because it might diminish the amount of both but it might be able to create some really cool combinations. I hope they let you setup the game to choose if you want to have civs change over time or lock all players into picking historical leaders as it helps the fantasy, but giving the option to mix and match can create some interesting gameplay. I also like how minimal and straightforward the ui looks. I really hope since you can mix and match leaders they add multiple leaders from the same civ.
Cautiously optimistic, I like some of the changes like rivers, and how districts/builders work. The art is mixed, I like the realism of course but it does look rough around the edges, hopefully the polish will fix the terrain and lighting issues with the leaders.
@@blam320 I know, but it was there for most of the reveal, I just wanted to know specifically which elements of that screen they might have spoken about, maybe they don't plan on changing that element and instead only want to change backgrounds or something (just an example idk)
I think it’s a question worth asking. Other games do that often too, slapping “gameplay not final” or whatever on the screen and people using it to write of criticism. For an example the recent Pokemon games.
Dude great video I got into Civ 5 and 6 for the first time Last year - went back and played Civ 2, 3 and 4 to really appreciate the franchise. I love this video and the new game looks fun! Can’t wait to buy it 😊
F me! Those prices man… I expect not less that a flop, knowing that in a couple of months after the launch they will be releasing DLC with only faction's content just to keep that money rolling
Same here. For me the next logical step would have been to implement a real spherical globe, rather than the tired old cylinder world :( -- I know all the naysayers argue that it is impossible. But ofcourse it isn't. You just need some pentagons mixed in there between the hexagons. Or you could do away with the grid completely and go to real navigation on a globe. These would have been interesting improvements IMO... This they came up with instead.... I am honestly baffled!
I see why lots of folks are upset but I and my friends are really excited for the changes. Glad they’re changing up the formula. The old Civ games always exist and I prefer something fresh with each entry. Looking forward to the game a lot more now
Easier to make them I guess. Since they will be pushing microstransactions so hard. I mean you can even buy different fog of war tile textures. Great example of revenue stream requirements directly impacting the game.
There was an opportunity here to continue what they were starting to do in 6 with having multiple leaders from a civilization to choose from, like Trajan or Ceasar for Rome. But Augustus as ancient India? The authenticity of these civilizations is gone
The most important question: Has the AI been improved significantly?
Exactly, I don't even need a drastically different game -- just tweaked with a significantly better AI would have been great.
Nahhh they get magic bonuses as usual
We don't talk about the AI here.
Agreed. What's the point of new systems and a fresh coat of paint without a competent AI? I look forward to JumboPixel investigating this subject in due course.
I'm not even asking for brilliant strategy, just basic competence. Building units, stationing fighter planes, etc.
forget about it. the charm for me was thinking, "i have Genghis Khan at my border to the right, and australia is way up in the north fighting with the Aztecs." i loved holding grudges against specific leaders and striking back with a vengeance like 300 years later.
now it's just "player 1 borders my left, player 2 in the north," etc.
If the leader doesn't change you will still have "Genghis Khan to your right" etc.
I believe the leader stays. Though your point is well taken - it’s still important for the player to build a narrative, or simply recognise their foes overtime.
the leaders stay the same. I was worried about that too but it seems to be addressed! Plus you can switch on "historical switching" preventing players and the AI from going outside Civ-leader historical combos.
They'll still be named nations though. It is still much more in line with reality than previous iterations (after all, where is the Holy Roman Empire in the Modern Age?).....and whilst everyone is pointing to Humankind as Firaxis' inspiration, the system seems more like the Rhyse and Fall mod for Civilization IV to me.
@@Tpownage99 Yeah, but it won't be Gengis Khan without the mongol horde, will be a really weird dude wit ha foreign name controlling the brits and having tea.
This is a lame design choice.
I bet they ship a lot less leaders and civs "because you can mix and match them and look how many choices..."
With a bunch of DLC à la Paradox
I’d guess that leaders will perfectly suit future dlc launches (as evident when looking at the different editions).
The version I played had 4 choosable (and two more shown in screenshots) but I don’t think that’s a good indication.
I’d guess there’ll be a large roster of leaders judging by what they said in their presentation.
@@JumboPixelis this Humankind sequel?
Follow the money --- is how games are made now. if they can make money thru DLC through diverse ways, they will do it. This is one of those instances where you can have plenty of different leaders without having to put too much work into them (you wont have to build an entire civ around a leader, just make leaders and then add stats to them)
@@JumboPixel you forgot to add 'paid' adjective before dlc
I don’t want to judge the “civilization switching” mechanic too quickly. After all, it really just depends on how it’s implemented in gameplay.
What I don’t understand is that I feel it would have made so much more sense to switch your leader throughout the game, keeping the same civilization, rather than the inverse they have gone for. This keeps to their philosophy of new emerging gameplay for each age, but it also keeps immersion and historical contexts consistent. It feels much more plausible to, say, start as an ancient leader of a civilization and then work through more modern leaders as the game progresses with more relevant bonuses and advantages.
Again, this could still be implemented well, but it seems like a near-missed opportunity in my view.
This exactly
I actually think this makes more sense to be honest. The Celts were supplanted by the Romans who were supplanted by the Saxons who were supplanted by the Normans who culturally fused into the Englisc who evolved into the modern English. Those are distinct 'civilisations' that developed over time.
Spot on, that would have been much more elegant way to implement the mechanic. France has several historical figures, each of them effecting history in a unique way. Napoleon vs Joan of arc vs Charles de Gaul could all provide changes in national direction while not changing cultural identity. It really is jarring to start as the Aztecs and then your suddenly china and then Zimbabwe. Pray the team pulls this off, I really do love civ, and I’ve waited so long for the next iteration.
It's not a near-missed opportunity, it is a missed opportunity. I got the same feeling right now that I had before humankind launch, civ 7 probably won't flop just like how some games despite being bad are successful depending on the brand name alone. Civ has become a household name at this point and is too big to fail.
@@justanothercommenter5835 Great point. Every perspective I’ve seen so far on this take seems to have obvious pros and cons. I like your example a lot of it feeling really natural and seamless. I think it’s all going to come down to it’s execution. This could be a great idea if done right, but people are right to worry, it’s pretty risky.
had to check i was watching civ 7 not humankind 2
The thing i hated the most about humankind. they add too civ.. like wtf.
It's been just a few hours, and I'm SOOOOOO sick and tired of the "Oh no Humankind 2! 😭" immature comments, here and on CivFanatics.
@@MythicosQc74 Thank you.
@@MythicosQc74 same... people cannot have an open mind
@@MythicosQc74 That's cus there are tons of mechanics originated from Humankind being included on the franchise. They aren't immature, but based since Humankind didn't sold well, so why Firaxis is risking such design choices for the new game? I'm not that excited about the leader/civ splits, but Civ6 had a mixed reception when it first released, so I'll wait and see if they can make it good, different from Humankind.
I wanted to see a system where the Egyptian Empire, for example, would become the Republic of Egypt or something like that in the later ages (so the civ not changing but just modernising depending on the age), with the leader changing per age as it is pretty jarring having leaders from ancient times in later ages, but perhaps as an option as people would want nuclear Gandhi for example... The whole "mix and match" thing seems like a marketing gimmick so they can sell some leader DLCs down the line. So I'm not too impressed, also the UI is pretty bad.
I can imagine the AI doing stupid things and thus seeing Napoleon in charge of Buganda. 😂
Thank God for no more builders, though. And the graphics, I think, are pretty decent but the colours are quite overbearing to look at.
Absolutely same for me. When i first heard about the mechanic, I was actually very excited. Imagine transitioning from England into the UK, for instance. I feel like that’s the final piece of the puzzle the Civ series was missing. But this? Absolutely horrible. I hope there’s a way to disable it.
@@gad8476 I think that a system like this is a great idea. But I think they aren't gonna have enough civs for it to make any sense. The Maya to the Aztec to the Mexicans or whatever would be awesome and make sense. Civilizations fall but the people survive and some of the culture survives, affecting the new country there.
Some stuff, like becoming Roman, is a real thing that happened. But some of this is too far.
The fog of war is... bad.
I'm not 100% on the different leaders not being connected to their historical Civilisation, That has been like Civs think since the first game.
I also think switching to any Civ in the game is just them trying to be Humankind, Maybe if they just let you become the more modern version of your civ as the ages go by instead might be better.
I'm worried the game is once again stripping away mechanics to 'streamline' the game for causal gamers again.
The Leaders interactions seem a bit soulless and bland, the troops and cities do look nice.
I'm a bit worried though they're chasing Humankind, they seem to be copying a lot of it's systems.
@RomanHistoryFan476AD it's 100% being stripped down for counsel playes. Look at the UI. He even said they plan on it, looking like this with the exception of scaling. Also, I hate the way the leaders look at each other rather than the player. Makes it feel less personal.
Well we always got paradox if firaxis go for casuals. If this flops and make room for a pdx civ game I am all for it, just imagine stellaris but historical, holy moly god tier shit. I just want to feel like a god, but recent civ games only game me feel like a goat. 😢
They look at the initial success of humankind and thought players wanted the culture switching mechanics lol
It will be easier to monetize because now they wont have to make entire civs for DLC...instead just multiple leaders with various stats. Much simpler for them
@@ngkhaijie Paradox civ game is called Crusader Kings.
Love Civ. Been playing for decades. But this looks a bit to much as Humakind.
You are right. It doesn’t look like a Civilization game! I am very disappointed………
This basically is humankind
@@zer0her058 They literally copied the scout graphic and Humankinds Gameplay.
I can't believe this sheet.
I mean if it's good, why not. Almost every game in existence copied something from another game.
It does look like they got,inspired by Humankind :) Competition is good!
My overwhelming excitement turned into "meh, i guess we'll have to see" after this. Why make a game more like a similar game that obviously did not perform as well. If we wanted humankind, we'd be playing that.
feature that already exist in another game is mediocre doesnt mean it will be mediocre too in this game
I really hope that they improve the UI.
many new and coming games have this problem i feel. Frostpunk 2 for example, i get the idea behind it, they did share the thoughts why its all white and simplified to present the scale at which we govern the city now. Even after considering these sentiments it feels lifeless and more like a placeholder rather than finished product. We can see this in company logos too, they used to have a character like google or firefox logos in the past. Now they all push simplicity and that clean modernized look despite the majority being against it
Most likely they will.
I feel the UI of Civ 6 was waaaay more clearer and looked a lot more crisp. This is just very messy.
Hopefully it's placeholder. The leaders kind of "floating" in place screams "we'll finalise this closer to launch"
Compare Civ 6's UI from the first look video compared to what we are used to, I think it'll change a fair bit from now till release
Ngl im turned off by it. But I’ll have to see more gameplay. Ima stick to 5 and 6 until all dlcs are out haha
the usual civ experience
Correct i feel the same way, my main issue with 6 was the graphics but at least u could mod that .
I feel you. I do like some of the changes. Combat, with the commanders and abilities and whatnot will likely feel as good as it has before, but with less tedium. Removing things like builder and trader units I am worried about. If it’s fun and streamlined I’ll adapt. But what I’m seeing feels so alien to the gameplay loop of 6 that I’ve grown so used to. But I used to swear by 5; 6 grew on me, and I’m hoping that 7 can manage the same.
How do the leaders look worse than Civ 6?
The whole game looks worse lol. Its like a Humankind ripoff.
@@JohnSmith-rr3jtfacts. What a shame
@@ch1efhugo134calm down mate the game's still in development. You've never even played it
Maybe because it's still in development? Leader models and UI are probably the last thing in the list of priorities for developing the game
prototype....
Cant wait to play as Musa the great leader of Japan who next in the moderne age become Sweden
This decision must be changed , I don’t won’t to play Bismarck the leader of France
This is the fear with breaking from historical ties. My incoming is that it is more structured & less chaotic than Humankind given there are fewer opportunities to change Civ, and perhaps fewer options to choose from (I’m unsure on that one).
@@francothebrazilian2764 finally napolean can live out his dream in being the leader of prussia
@@JumboPixel yeah maybe like Germania < Holy Roman Empire < Prussia< German Empire
@@JumboPixel we should have an option to stay with one CIV at least.
Ah yes, the feature that everyone hated in humankind, let's add to civ 7, nothing could go wrong
Its so clear for me the most important priorities for CIV7 are:
1 - make it more accessible for console players (no more workers)
2 - make it more enticing to buy DLC (disconnecting leaders from civs)
I am not very optimistic for this game.
Don't blame console players the past games were just fine on console with these changes
Agreed. But maybe my marriage will be safer this go around?
This game absolutely reeks of bottom up console design
@@justinbellamy6047 just one. more. marriage.
@@AncientHunter stop blaming consoles for design choices other complex strategy games and civ 6 all work great on console
Oh well .... back to CIV V.
Maybe one day we'll get a successor 😔
i'd play that as well if the ui click sound wasn't irritating.
Same here. This new civ are so childish and not realistic. 😢
Real... modded V is still unbeaten, VI didnt even come close. maybe a few more years
i just want civ V 2.0, with some new gameplay features and fixes, but the same core
what's the point to choose a Civilization if it can NOT stand to the test of time ?
BIGGEST thing that needs to be drastically improve is the A.I. How well does it play with all the nuances that are in the game. Hoping the A.I. is a huge leap forward for the 4X Strategy community. New Ideas for gameplay take time to appreciate, Civ 7 Team will develop the game nicely.
They did not even mention the AI so I guess it will be the same exact bshit.
The AI hasn't been touched in a decade and likely won't get more than "touch-ups" as needed between titles. Just like always.
Kind of expected the leaders to not look like they belong to a ps2 game, honestly the game in a whole seems a bit underwhelming
they prob want to make a mobile game to milk it, plus the starting price is $69.99 for a DLC based game lol plus the leaders not tied to thier historic civ is so dumb fr
@@jakeshumway9487 I don’t think you know how much ram & resources this game takes up especially when you get Deep into the game & have over 70 army personnel etv
Have you played civilization like ever? Civ 6 literally has the best looking leaders. They've always been ugly af
i dont like the mix and match leader stuff..it makes it feel cheaper somehow they better not use it as an excuse to add less leaders
The game comes out for console in other words this is another casual civ game like civ 6 . DO NOT BUY
@@barnvandiebos9070 I feel like all civ games I've played (playing since civ 4) are for casuals.
Point of equal civ chances each age bought me. Always hated being Monezuma's neighbour.
@@PatrykCholewaYTexactly. Civ games aren't supposed to be complicated 4x games. If you want that leave and go play Paradox
*10 years later*
“We know no one liked the odd choice to change civs in Civ 7, so in Civ 8 we changed that!”
If only this would work like the sonic movie, I’m afraid we’re locked in to a flawed design choice for nearly a decade
This is giving off Humankind vibes. Not a positive.
How could it be?
@@meoff7602 How could it not be? I think that's what you meant, because otherwise I don't know what to say. It's using the primary feature from Humankind that made that game so immediately distinct. So yeah, obvious comparisons will be made - it's natural.
@@matthewcarroll2533 No it's not. It's the same in you change up civs as you go, but it ends there. The way they go about it is completely different.
@@meoff7602 civ 7 also picked up mechanics from humankind such as:
1. Combining different units into an army
2. Influence
3. Districts required to be placed next to an existing district
4. Goals to reach in order to push to the next era change (though civ 7 seems to go about it differently)
5. The river movement
6. Lack of builders
Civ 7 is clearly taking a page out of humakind's book. Not that it's a bad thing though, I actually enjoyed humankind
Why the leaders looks like sims ?
They have looked like sims since 4 lol
@@CameronAB122that's is blatantly not true though is it, I can't say for 6 but civ 4 and 5 both had art styled civ
@@oscarsmusiclab7201no
You hit it right on the head! I couldn’t figure what it was about these leader models but you said it perfectly!
Rome’s leader looks like a child with anger problems. I cannot accept that.
It looks visually beautiful, and navigable rivers are a great inclusion... shame about the rest of the game
💯💯
Why did they basically make Humankind ?
So far thats what it looks liek but more expensive at 70 USD
I am concerned about only having 3 ages. To go from 7 ages, based on my tech to a mere 3 based on the world... i dont know.
I appreciate they are trying to address late gane expansion by making early gane buildings obsolete
100% they made in order to sell DLC's with new ages
I think there are still eras. 3 ages, each split into eras. I could be wrong, though.
It's called DLCs, its another reason why they made leaders selectable to make it easier to design for DLCs...they dont have to build an entire civ (which takes time)...they can now make hundreds of different leaders (some fake, some real) so you can add it into your game via dlc.
The ages are supposedly going to change things far more dramatically than CIv 5 and 6 eras do. New resources, new goodie huts, new tech tree, new civics, expanded map, etc.
Probably because those are locked behind paid DLC
I love how they ripped off Humankind to the point where they even removed the worker. Wow.
AH YES! Let's copy the main mechanic of the biggest AAA strategy flop of the past 20 years. Bold move Cotton!
It's nothing like Humankind. Humankind was a race to see if you could get the civ you wanted. Which, made strategy really hard to pull off if you didn't get what you wanted or had to rush into an age to get the civ you wanted.
This more like customization. It's something you can plan out. It's not dependent on what the other players are doing.
Honestly.. Wouldn't it be better the opposite way? Where you switch through diffirent leaders every age, instead of diffirent nations, and that way choose diffirent paths and such? I'm not too enthousiastic about this so far. It seems way too ahistorical for a game that tries to portray history in some sense
Because Ancient Egypt ceased to exist in terms of leaders and culture for several thousand years, for example. To date it has not come back.
@@blam320 The whole point of civ is to take history into your own hands , this game will see you with a flourishing civilization that has to be arbitrarily abandoned after so many turns
@@ciarankelman I've played Civ games before, I know how they work.
@@blam320 I'm referring to civ vii , I don't want to abandon my civ every age
@@ciarankelman And from what I gather, you don't need to. Like Humankind you're not forced to abandon your civ when a new age rolls around.
Yeah seperating leaders from Civs make no sense to me. I hope you can force the AI at least to only use historical parings. Honestly Humankind was widely disliked for a similar (?) system. Why civ thinks it needs to "innovate" here from all places is strange to me.
Are certain civs tied to certain ages like in humankind (i.e. you cannot play as any civ from the start)? if so this might be an hard pass for me.
Seems that way…I’m keeping an open mind to trying the new approach. I have not played humankind so I’m probably looking at it with a different frame than you. Let’s hope it’s great!
Same, I want the option to recreate parts of history with this game. I thought that was supposed to be one of the selling points of the franchise. We’ll see how it goes, but as it stands more people are upset about this mechanic than in favor. If they were wise they’d listen to us, because they’re about to lose a lot of money lol
you can force historical pairings. That was confirmed in the options page before starting a game.
This is possible in Civ4 as well...
@Thirteen13551355 explain what you mean please?
I have civ 4 (really enjoy it) and I don't ever remember being able to play as say Montezuma and pick the German civilization, the leaders were tied to the civ, some civilizations did have more than one leader to chose from but all of them were tied to the civ, like Abe Lincoln or George Washington but you had to play as America. Or Julius or Augustus but you still had to play as Rome.
Looks like I will be playing Civ V until the heat death of the universe
Or try take a look at Ara History Untold, which I think have a lot of Civ 5 vibe.
I was a bit shocked at the reveal…A studio with more experience, more legacy, more money and THIS is what they decided to do? I don’t care how you want to spin it, they spent years basically making a better looking, refined version of Humankind copying Amplitude’s homework.
I can't say I'm really that shocked they copied Amplitude, again.
Civ 6 also took a bunch of mechanics from Endless Legend, districts, eureka bonuses, envoys to city states, unique buildings/units from city states, different continents, etc.
Honestly? This seriously looks like Beyond Earth but a little more touched up and 'updated' and with bits of Humankind thrown in. Gonna say its a bit disappointing for now but it was just revealed so we shall see! I hope that core game features we've gotten used to in the other completed Civ titles aren't going to be locked behind paid DLCs in this one. Just my two cents, however. Very good video though! Informative and with just enough to chew on!
I do want to see all the warfare stuff, maybe also a deep dive on the new tile improvement system that makes the cities look so organic and sprawling
you did an amazing job of breaking down tons of detail in under 30 minutes. Bravo!
The leaders look so boring.
Really terribile, the aniamtions are stupid as hell.
The great beauty of the Civilization franchise, for me at least, is that if you don't like the latest version you can always stick to the one you prefer and keep playing it until they release one you do like. Its not like there aren't also a ton of mods for Civ4-Civ6 in particular.
I could prolly go back to C2 and be fine with it for the rest of my life.. The beauty of the series is each entry feels like a remake or reimagining of the OG with different elements.. Ironically kinda like Xcom
They had 9 years to cook and they decided to essentially copy Humankind. This is so disappointing.
That was my first impression as well.
They just going to simplest ways. Looks like its awfull.
There are many more changes than that, but yes, that will be an impression many will have until they actually play it.
@@monkeytime9851Exactly
Sadly yes
This is the best summary of the early gameplay preview I've seen. Concise and informative. Well done!
we wanted a CIV VII not a weird looking Humankind 2. The leaders and UI looks terrible
100%
Yeah why would anyone play this when Humankind is right there
The leader models, UI, and entire game are unfinished. It's still under development calm down
@@baoeater_CSnerd we will see bro leaders not tied to their historic nation ... mansa musa leader of japan so dumb....and the UI looks so garbage ... they prob want a more functional mobile game hence the low poly looking UI , and the price is $69.99 for a DLC based game oh my
Honestly I would like a better Humankind. It had good points, but some serious fatal flaws.
I wanted Civ 5 with districts, not Humankind again.
Really don't understand why they chose to copy the failed Civ clones instead of doing their own thing. The Civ changing as you go was what turned me off from Humankind. Really hate to see it here.
it really depends on how its going to work. If u can start as egypt > mamluks > Republic of Egypt it would be cool.
20:21 God, that date seems a loooong way away at the moment, given everything that's happening irl.
I'm not sure about all the changes. I am not saying they are bad, just really different to previous games in the series.
the real problem is that they didn't added anything new or groundbreaking. It's the same old civs with shuffled stuff around. I don't see the point of playing this. It's problaby because they simply don't have an idea where to go with this game but it will sell anyway and for them it's all that matters.
@@tutkarz To me civ has always been about taking a specific civ and leader through the ages to the endgame. It just seems strange to now be able to shuffle around leaders and evolve your civ. Again, maybe it will turn out great in the end, but it just doesn't seem like it will retain the civ-ness of the genre.
Also taking away builders will take a while to get used to lol
So builders are no longer in the game ??
that's good thing in my opinion
correct
Yes. Really doesn't even look like a Civ game anymore.
@@exelenttee My thoughts too.
@@kristian6722 it's only good if you consider civ 6's builders were ass, but civ 5 building systems were great. i think of it as a big negative
Yeah, I don't like the idea that you could start off as Egypt and end up becoming Brazil. While I think the idea of having Babylonian tanks in the modern era is equally silly, I don't know why you can't choose to evolve into civilizations that are at least somewhat historically plausible. It ruins the whole immersion aspect, imo. What I am looking forward to though is being able to play out ages individually. I've never really cared about the modern era in these games, so being able to play a full campaign based on antiquity or the exploration age is pretty cool and i'm interested to see how this is implemented.
The mentioned in the presents that the cuv you switch to has to have accuracy to be available.
Have to say, its a no-brainer for me. I love historical Turn-based Strategy games-and have bought every mainline Civilization game since Civ1 in the early 1990s (yes, I am that old).....and also picked up Old World, Milennia and Humankind. I have loved them all, in spite of whatever flaws they've had at launch. I doubt this game will be any different for me.
Very similar to Humankind now
In civ4 you can play the leader without playing the civ, you just have to make the custom game and select that setting. Thx for the content.
I love the fact they flew you out specially to play test. Yasssss!
Why can't they just make civ 5 but with:
- Updated graphics
- Navigatable rivers
- Barbarians (antiquity), Rebel outposts (exploration), Agressive city states (modern era)
- No bs weather events or crises (enough of that irl)
- One civ to rule them all (leader switching is OK)
- Balance between both districts/main city buildings so the map does not get cluttery
- Merging of the same units making them stronger (act as 2+) instead of weird army generals.
- Policies like in civ 5 for a more balanced feel to the game instead of limitless choices. (newness comes from your civ and your spawn, not more policy decisions)
- No diplomacy points. Improve the already existing happiness system from civ 5.
- Keep happiness but make it per city. Which it looks like they have with the option to send happiness to other cities, great!
- Ability to build as tall as you want with the consequences that are similar to civ 5.
- Option to make ancient ruins, and similar, purely RNG to make multiplayer simpler and faster.
Did I forget anything?
Sometimes developers just get bored with doing something similar and would want to try something new. Take Tekken 8 for example, as it changed a lot of from the previous games.
@@vaporalight3670 This is bullshit though. Companies care about money and the devs work accordingly. The only reason they take this direction is because they think it will generate more money.
@@Julioti All companies are governed by money to some degree or entirely of it. Which begs the question. Does every new direction of a game are governed by companies wanting more profit or is it from the devs themselves wanting to spicen things up? Take Elden Ring for example, did Bandai Namco wanted their next souls game to be open world or is it miyazaki's decision to do it? Another example, Legends of Runeterra went in a different direction with how they monetize their cards by not allowing players to pay them and instead only acquiring them just by playing but unfortunately that decision came to bite them as they're suffering financially. Lastly, take Darkest Dungeon, was the decision to make it different from the previous game made by the company out of the need of profit or the devs wanting something different?
I've played going all the way back to 3 when I was 9 years old, and I think all the changes seem pretty positive here. Firixas isn't going to sit here and re-skin Civ 5 over and over. Civ isn't a story franchise and every entry necessarily represents a new set of lenses of how human history is interpretted and evolution of mechanics. If civ 5 is your jam, go play that, it's still there and no one is saying explicity or implicitly any aspect of it was bad. It's a different game developed in a different context by different people.
I just want a working multiplayer for Civ 5 and Civ 4
Into Switch???? The console can run it?
That separation of leaders from their civs is BS imo. Idk... I see benefits, but I don't like it.
It's easier for them to design DLCs around it, they no longer have to build whole civs , they can just make leaders with various stats...it's all about money and easy access to it
I think it may end up watering things down and make everything generic with only tiny differences between civs.
So, no builders? What does that mean for irrigation, mining, et cetera. Does the computer automatically decide where to plonk these tiles? Also, while builders stopped making roads in the last few games, how are they laid down now?
I really liked deciding where all my farms and such went.
The invisible hand of the free market !
Diversity Max design.
Just rework Civ V at this point (fix bugs, update netcode for multi, make the engine more approachable to modding).
This...
So diverse it becomes blandly generic.
Kind of impossible to NOT have a diverse cast when taking a look at ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.
I'll check it out when the gold edition is 75% off in 2030, play it for 100 hours and think "Civ V is better". Probably.
21:38
A “collectors edition” of the game that DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ACTUAL GAME
The reason why they are separating the leaders is because they’ve found that players will not play certain civilizations based on whether or not they like the leader instead of whether or not they like the mechanics. So you’ll have all these neglected civs that they worked really hard on. They don’t want people to choose civs according to preference, but utility: the abilities and bonuses.
I've been playing Civ since the beginning and have gotten used to the latest version being the most expensive out there, but 100 USD!!! Here in Canada that will likely be 130 CND. Certainly Civ VII is a huge undertaking, but, man, that is a lot of money. I like what I'm seeing of the game, but I might have to wait for a year or two when it goes on sale the first time.
Canadians don't have 100 usd? If that's the price that's awful and I won't buy it for sure, but if I really wanted I could collect that much until the release and I live in one of the poorest countries in Europe.
Canadians are like 5-10 times richer on average.
@@koja69 thats like not the point at all though the game shouldn't be that expensive
@@ramsayferguson528 what isn't the point?
"Civ VII is a huge undertaking" - It's an iteration of a well-established game that's a decade old, with nothing particularly surprising in it. Feels like what some game mods do to various games, not an inspirational game from an AAA studio for $$$
@@koja69the point is that it costs too much, and that the Canadian and American dollars are very different in market value. 10-25 years ago, it wasn't as drastic of a difference. Canadians aren't earning much more than they were 10-15 years ago, either, yet, inflation and cost of living is generally much higher. So for games to cost twice as much in number of dollars, while our Canadian dollar is worth a lot less, just makes it much less appealing, or even feasible.
how is this different from Millenia or Humankind?
its the other way around.. this is the OG game of its kind (from 1991)
@@tomdijk5549 Except Civ 7 borrows heavily from concepts introduced by competing title Humankind.
@@tomdijk5549 No, 1991 Civilization is the OG game. This is Civilization 7, 2025, and it exists in a world where Millenia and Humankind and Old world already exist.
This is a game series that has a dedicated diehard loyal shee- fan base, that will ensure it's success no matter how bad. Civ is a household name man, it's no diff from call of duty or iphones.
@@blam320 and humankind borrows heavily from Civ and other games inspired by Civ. This is how the world works, in music/media/any form of ‘art’.
Inspiration is like a heiritage tree, which can be traced back a long time.
Hope they bring vampires back :)
I never understood how vampires was relevant til CIV.
I played the first Civ game on a Snes emulator around 2001 on my very first PC. While it was hard to understand everything, due to age and not fully grasping english then, I really enjoyed it. Then out came Civ 2, woah, those videos from advisors, wonders, I sunk many hours into that game. Then Civ3, yeah! Great advance, way better UI, graphics, gameplay, everything was a major improvement. Hundreds of hours wasted there. Civ 4 comes out. Yeah, nice nice, really enjoy it, but didn't clock as many hours as civ 3, but still loved the game. Civ 5 came out, I was like hmm... Alright, but still sunk thousands hours there, good game. Civ 6 came out looking like cartoons, workers became builders who had usage? Nah, never even bought that but still feel tempted to buy it on a major discount. Then here we go, civ7, hey they are moving away from that cartoonish crap, finally, then the UI is BLAND. Mechanics are dumbed down and simplified to the point that it appears to be a game you would play on an ipad to kill some time. Nah, not really interested. Guess I'm sticking to civ 4 and 5 still.
Are there any combat differences from 6? Or is it still straight bonus for terrain and a couple other things
Didn’t think I had any dealbreakers when it came to a new civ game, but it seems like Firaxis discovered it for me. The changes to how civilizations work is just the absolute antithesis to what I enjoy about civilization games. Unfortunately I think I’m gonna have to sit civ 7 out.
I really like the look of it, especially the diplomacy side of it! Would you be able to go into a bit more detail about events in the game in another video (if others would find that interesting of course!)
Hmmm. Idk, it seems to be too similar to humankind. Not much of a fan of having to change civs every era either. I wonder how the modding scene will change?
I hope civ 7 is more moddable I haven’t looked into why but it seems like 5 and 6 didn’t have as many total conversions as 4 had with the gamebryo engine
Modding will be more limited.
I completely dislike the new system of civilizations, it's like the one in humankind which is not good. I would like to play as a certain Nation like in the rest of civilization games, not play as, for example, Augustus while being the Egyptian empire for some reason and then be forced to change nation and leader again. Simply wtf.
Conversely, I don't like playing or seeing, for example, George Washington in the ancient era.
you dont change leaders
@@vilegrogsure about that?
It's insane they would choose to copy the main reason Humankind failed. It's kind of a bold move but still a completely stupid move. It doesn't matter if we don't change leaders. It's the civ that matters. Like in Humankind, we never have a solid identity. This is frustrating.
This is such a non issue lmao. You can literally just keep your historical choice. You don't have to change anything. As for country swapping theres probably countries that evolve in a way that makes historical sense too. It'd be great if theyd add the Dutch republic in exploration into The Netherlands in modern age for example.
I was just rewatching your civ 5 gameplay when this uploaded. Miss your content!
miss the civ 5 vids as well, i think im gonna rewatch some tonight.
im so sad that i dont like civ 6.
i hate when i dont have fun with a sequal to a game, or even worse a new season where the version of the game i liked isnt even available and i have to wait for the next (that i might dislike as well and so on).
Sure appearing To be tilted towards female leaders. I am interested in a newer version, but I think i'm going to wait until I see videos on youtube
@@user-bg7pq7ky7n Yeah, same here. Until then: ARA.
How does religion work is there a religous victory type?
guess there will come a DLC for 30 dollar with 15 extra dollar for an extra leader and don't forget to buy the season pass on top of that
@@alle1043 this lol , same thing with espionage
@@alle1043imagine buying dlc for civilizations that you can only use for a third of a game… this game is extremely disappointing
No religious victory to my knowledge. Pantheon founding is the same as Civ 6.
Religions & religious buildings are ultimately used to build things like money & culture.
First impression, I dislike the idea of disconnecting Civ Leaders from their historical Civilizations. Just offer more leader options from within the civilization. As for the rest of the civilization features, I'm not a fan of going full Humankind.
This is it....this is how the Sid Meier's Civilization died...
RIP Simcity RIP Civilisation
Let see. Hopefully this Civ 7 will not end like Command & Conquer 4..
After watching this review and several others I’m leaning towards not bothering with this game or at least waiting awhile until I find out what real players think. Obviously a game reviewer like this isn’t going to be too critical because he wants people to buy the game and watch his future videos.
leaders separeted from the Civs?
so, you can play with Augustus of America?
The second-to-last section might as well be called "remember this is 2K and they like money !"
I'm pretty sure there will be 1000 $ worth of DLCs when this game is finished being worked on in 4 or 5 years
I'm hopeful that by tying your new civ choices to your history, they'll have fixed the issues that Humankind had with changing civs.
My early impression agrees with you. I think it’s a somewhat controversial call & there’ll be teething issues, but the system feels smooth & relatively consistent compared to HK.
I am so happy they implemented things from Humankind (my fav 4x) and Old World! Graphics and Aesthetics look phenomenal! I am so excited for this!
Civ is the only game I’ve always pre-ordered day one. After the reveal, I decided I’m not going to pre-order for the first time ever.
Civilization switching is the death of the game. Humankind was unplayable for me specifically due to that feature.
Sounds kinda accurate civ-VII the fall of civilisation.
UI and character model is shit too
@@Cashinn_Outt1754 I’ll take your spot 😏
@@backstabber3537 the UI isn’t done!!!
Go watch the other videos from other RUclipsrs where they say this .
100% - to be honest, I went from "certain to preorder" to "uncertain about buying it at all".. only time (and gameplay videos) will tell. Until then, my focus is shiftet to ARA.
how similar are the first 50 turns, don't like the removal of builders, they were not the micro managing issue for me it was more units, which could have been solved with a 'sleep all' button.
i like it, why should i build a unit and move it around just to improve a tile instead of clicking couple buttons in a city to improve something?
I like the micro managing because it makes sense to wait for certain events to happen before you start certain actions...it is a strategy game after all
@@kristian6722 for that exact reason, it cost production and move turns to get your upgrades off and then YOU have to make a decision. That RTS feature in a turn base can be the difference in a competitive game. This game seems a bit dumbed down and too much like human kind
@@infosuge you probably still have to make a decision whether to build an improvement on a tile in your city or a building or a unit.
Looks like I will keep playing Civ V…
I don't understand why games nowadays are made with UI that looks like fucking excel sheets. I'm playing a game about civilization, war, culture, empires and I want to feel the grandeur when I'm looking at it, instead of feeling depression.
We asked for Civ 7, but they gave us Humankind 2, lol.
I'll stick with Civ 5.
Civ 6 was good. All we needed was better graphics and better AI
Can you customize where the walls of the city are placed that would be tactical
Not to my knowledge
£120 is a lot to shell out without knowing what machine specs will be required - did the devs give any ideas on how powerful a PC will have to be to run it okay?
WAY too high price, for what was shown.
Civ 7 is a complete disappointment. It could be civ 6.5, but not 7.0
Looks like devs put more effort in the fog of war rather than in city & units menus... a rather interesting choice...
R.I.P CIV
The map is restricted in size in the first age. Did you see how that works and expands in the exploration age?
Wait what?!? The map is restricted in the early game?
@@zer0her058they literally sai that the map expands with every new age.... Lets see how that works...
@@zer0her058I mean depending on the map type you chose in civ 6 it already was restricted based on the era since you needed the technology to sail ocean tiles. I am assuming it will work similar to that where in the exploration age you get the technology for better boats to explore the ocean
@@NathanWilson07yes but if you have the tech you could circumnavigate the world, this implies you can’t wrap around the map until later on not regardless of whether or not your tech has advanced far enough
This is an unpopular opinion but honestly I really like the direction they are going. Unlike most, I really liked how you got to make your own civilization in Humankind. I'm not so sure about leaders being seperate because it might diminish the amount of both but it might be able to create some really cool combinations. I hope they let you setup the game to choose if you want to have civs change over time or lock all players into picking historical leaders as it helps the fantasy, but giving the option to mix and match can create some interesting gameplay. I also like how minimal and straightforward the ui looks. I really hope since you can mix and match leaders they add multiple leaders from the same civ.
Cautiously optimistic, I like some of the changes like rivers, and how districts/builders work. The art is mixed, I like the realism of course but it does look rough around the edges, hopefully the polish will fix the terrain and lighting issues with the leaders.
Did they mention if the leader graphics were a work in progress? is there any way to keep one civ per leader in the future?
They literally had a “work in progress” disclaimer on-screen at many segments, how did you not notice that?
@@blam320 I know, but it was there for most of the reveal, I just wanted to know specifically which elements of that screen they might have spoken about, maybe they don't plan on changing that element and instead only want to change backgrounds or something (just an example idk)
I think it’s a question worth asking. Other games do that often too, slapping “gameplay not final” or whatever on the screen and people using it to write of criticism. For an example the recent Pokemon games.
Considering we are pretty close to the release date, i’d say this is it graphics wise lol.
I love the landscape and how the towns/cities really look like towns/cities
In short, Civilization VII is Firaxis' Humankind, all changes are directly ripped off from there
In my mind, comparing it to Old World. Old World players know what I'm talking about.
Dude great video I got into Civ 5 and 6 for the first time Last year - went back and played Civ 2, 3 and 4 to really appreciate the franchise. I love this video and the new game looks fun! Can’t wait to buy it 😊
F me! Those prices man… I expect not less that a flop, knowing that in a couple of months after the launch they will be releasing DLC with only faction's content just to keep that money rolling
People like familiar stuff. I played this game from Civ 1 and this is not civilization any more..
Same here. For me the next logical step would have been to implement a real spherical globe, rather than the tired old cylinder world :( -- I know all the naysayers argue that it is impossible. But ofcourse it isn't. You just need some pentagons mixed in there between the hexagons. Or you could do away with the grid completely and go to real navigation on a globe. These would have been interesting improvements IMO... This they came up with instead.... I am honestly baffled!
I see why lots of folks are upset but I and my friends are really excited for the changes. Glad they’re changing up the formula. The old Civ games always exist and I prefer something fresh with each entry. Looking forward to the game a lot more now
.... why do the leaders look worse than civ 6? is that just because they're posed differently? is this just me?
No, they look underwhelming.
i think they're placeholder assets
Easier to make them I guess. Since they will be pushing microstransactions so hard. I mean you can even buy different fog of war tile textures. Great example of revenue stream requirements directly impacting the game.
There was an opportunity here to continue what they were starting to do in 6 with having multiple leaders from a civilization to choose from, like Trajan or Ceasar for Rome. But Augustus as ancient India? The authenticity of these civilizations is gone