I Played Civilization VII Early and… We Need to Have A Serious Talk…
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Thanks for taking a look at Civilization VII! If you'd like to play the game as well as support the channel, click here tinyurl.com/md...
►NEW P.O. BOX
P.O. Box 26040
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
🦖 JOIN & BECOME A MEMBER : bit.ly/2YSLgqH
👕 MERCH: teespring.com/...
💰 SUPPORT: streamlabs.com...
❤️Super Thanks & Super Chats
Use code 'RAPTORIA' at Checkout on the Epic Games Store & Support-A-Creator!
►LINKS
📷 Instagram: / raptorgamerig
🐦Twitter: / raptorgamer
💨 Steam: steamcommunity....
►DISCORD
🎤Discord: / discord
🎤TeamSpeak: bit.ly/2L2TFQx
►TWITCH
📺 / raptorraptoria
►VIDEO SCHEDULE
📅bit.ly/2vY50ev
►PC SPEC LIST
🖥️bit.ly/2ssDdlv
►GUIDELINES
Remember to keep comments respectful and to follow RUclips's Community Guidelines www.youtube.co...
Channel Guidelines
Be kind, considerate & respectful to all. Happy, helpful & respectful people
1. Be kind, civil & respectful to all & English only in chat & comments
2. No constant backseating, spamming, copy paste, or all caps
3. Read the title, description & review thumbnail for details
🦖 JOIN & BECOME A MEMBER : bit.ly/2YSLgqH
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for taking a look at Civilization VII! If you'd like to play the game as well as support the channel, click here tinyurl.com/mded9kzw
It's their master plan to encourage competition so they can make a better game themselves, or is it? 🤫
Cant wait to play as Musa the great leader of japan who becomes Sweden
@@mehdimalek6147 jokes aside, that's the thing I really don't like! It just ruins the immersion!
Bruh are you trying to become a meme, your everywhere mang
@@mehdimalek6147 I hope it will be more fleshed out for example, transition from Roman Empire to England to america, or Egypt to Arabian empire to Ottoman Empire, or only being forced into a change of regime because of a dark age
thats the mistake humankind made
@@gladiatorone9023 The reason it breaks your immersion is because you are thinking of Sweden as a place that's far away from Japan, rather than a set of bonuses baased on what the Swedes IRL were good at. The way to think about it is you're still Musa's realm you just got good at skiing because you had so many Snow Hill tiles in your realm or whatever makes you turn Swedish.
3 Ages? 4 Personalities? Looks like a set up for 5 years of DLC roll-outs.
@BiNumLi this is just the demo not everything was accessible to the playtesters
It was just a demo they didn't have access to everything while playtesting
@@mrmegalovania
In the announcement video that the civilization channel made themselves they discussed how they would only be three ages.
The Ages are like several Eras in one larger chapter, it's still going from ancient history to the modern era.
If you think about it history is continuous. There's no bulletin: "Hey Medieval Age is over. Italy has entered the Renaissance." I would like to see a game where there are fewer ages and more diverse development paths within the age. Nations can be radically different in development and culture and still be successful. China vs Russia vs America.
I put 500 hours into Civ 6, so it's by no means a bad game but I put 2,000+ into Civ 5, and it's the one I still reach for. Just an absolute peak experience still.
I played V more than VI because it was my first Civilization.
But honestly, VI is just better, more complete and complex in almost every way, really.
I feel like most people who prefer V just prefer it for its art direction, and not for the gameplay and the game as a whole. Personally, the visuals of VI seemed a bit strange to me at first but you get used to it quickly and it's actually very pretty
@@nawack2774 Oh I like the Civ 6 art, but I disliked how cities worked, didn't think the UI was as well designed, and I felt like I spent far too much time in the game where the AI was fundamentally broken and wasn't upgrading units.
I did spend 500 hours with 6, but I'm at 2.5k for 5, and half of that was after 6s release. For me 6 isn't bad, I just prefer 5.
Civ 6 had much more options in gameplay, like causus belli, districts, archeologists etc. But civ 5 felt much more like your were an ancient little tribe discovering the world and in time formed into a big civilisation, much more immersive. Civ 6 felt like it was designed to just be a competitive game. Like chess... And the cartoony look in civ 6 was a huge step down imo
@@hanzohattori6716 Problem with Civ 6 is late game. Basically even on higher difficulties if you once reach the upper hand on AI they will do literally nothing to stop you from winning the game. Civ 5 is much better in the late game - you basically are constantly harassed by AI even if their chance of winning is slim.
I started on civ 4 loved it. Took a while for me to play 5. Still liked 4 better at first. Then loved 5. 6 came out I didnt like it. Even did 280 hours. Then after 2 years I figured I would try again. I got hooked over 2k hours later. So I'm sure 7 will be similar
So they took THE WORST mechanics from Humankind? What a nightmare.
@@Lazytarian i haven't played humankind - what mechanics do you mean ?
@@yurisann Changing CIV's all the time.
So basically what humankind does
Was humankind any good ?
@@JohnDoe-tv4zf yup. I enjoy it more than Civ6 nowadays. But although similar, they are different in many ways that make it up to personal taste.
@@JohnDoe-tv4zf I don't like the diplomacy. Everything else is nice. Combat is way better.
@@xNOOBSxRxUSxI love the game but yea diplomacy and trade are severely lacking.
Seems so. That's what I didn't enjoy. Not sticking with a singlec civ. just break the immersion for me.
I love the cities and districts looking more like a sprawling city
I hate it.
@@Skeloperch Why? I don’t see any downsides to it
Actually I think it is the only good thing in that game
@@TheWagonroast Cities that cover up the entire map, it looks stupid as hell.
@@MeidoInHebun Civ 6 does that too as long as you don’t play 100% wide
Civ8: Hello I'm Queen Elisabeth but I identify as Shaka.
😆😅
I just wish that the leaders would evolve as you go through the ages. For me, it was a little weird to start out as Teddy Roosevelt in the Stone Age.
That's a feature I miss from... 3, I think? Getting to see Joan of Arc go from a knight to a cyber warrior was pretty cool.
The problem with America is that they originate in Europe.
@@brokenhanz-o4mor if they wanna take the easier route they should just do what civ 3 did and make leaders switch outfits
I dont think this is solvable, nor is it important enough to try and fix
I agree but its not the way they look its the attributes locked in at the start. No nation is run by the same golden age leader for 4000 years. Esp in monarchies, one Monarch can be great and the son an idiot. France under Louis 14 was the capital of the world. But 80 years later Louis XVI was so incompetent it lost him his head and started a revolution. Then 50 years later you get Napoleon who almost conquered Europe. Then France begins 100 years of decline. Or England under Henry V and his son. Then Henry 8, Mary, Liz, and the Stuarts. Just decades apart but radically different leadership and results for Brittan.
5 is the best
For me 2-5 are awesome. But cant play them anymore, takes way to much time :(
VI was and still is peak for me
I am still playing 5 ^_^ but I think 4 has the best mechanic. The only complain about 5 I have is that gunpower units are not range units. WTH is that about?
4
I liked 4 when it came out, but then 5 is just better IMO. The introduction of hexes and it feels much more clean. However it took time for it to become great. It didn't release with religion even, for example. 6 is ok. But to me it's just a continuation of 5. It doesn't feel like a completely new game, like 5 did when it came out. And now 7 will again have this feeling of a new game. It is risky for sure. It might turn out not to be good. But I prefer this much better than have a reskinned Civ 6. After all - Civ 5 and Civ 6 all exist still. So we have a new game now.
Oddly enough, Alpha Centauri was my favorite until 4 came out, I've come to love 6 as well.
I loved mixing-n-matching abilities and units to create something unique.
@@compugasm did you ever try beyond earth?
@@stygggian No. The reviews weren't that good on steam. It got Mixed, so I never bought it.
@@compugasm it wasn't as good as the originally obviously, but with some mods, it was more than worth trying. I've been playing a lot of "Surviving Mars" and "Endless Space 2" lately.
@@stygggian I have both those games, but haven't played them yet.
4:00 Uh, have you played Civ before? That is now how builders/ workers work in the last 2 games. They work on and improve tiles, not city buildings.
So Civ 6 "borrowed" from Endless legend, and Civ 7 "borrows" from Humankind. Wow, Firaxis are really flattering Amplitude these days.
Thats how innovation works. You take what works from other games and refine it.
@@aquila4460 It's as if people don't understand this at all. I mean, do people crap on LoL for stealing from WoW? It's literally how the industry works.
@@aquila4460 wasn't the civ changing poor in humankind?
@@erikesswein4608it’s poor in every game. You lose a sense of permanence and immersion, it also makes telling who you’re dealing other than their color on the map very difficult. Your neighbor is suddenly completely different and acts differently and that can be jarring.
@@aquila4460 if you take and don't bring anything of your own to the table then it's just taking, not innovation. I fail to see what cool exciting stuff of their own Firaxis invented or innovated for Civ 7, except for taking more features from Amplitude games like terrain height (which yes was originally from Alpha Centauri).
Civilization II remains my all time favorite. I’m still not entirely used to districts, religion and lack of unit stacking. Civ7 looks like it may be significantly more interesting than any prior version and I have high hopes. The new city management/development looks especially promising.
I'm really glad they're actually trying out new things with the civ series.
@@tsunamie1015 agreeeeed. Felt like they needed to take a swing with this installment ya know
I started Civ II at age 12. 1996. Hours. Endless hours on that game.
Why is it considered "trying out new things" when it was already established and done by humankind?!
@@janman I'm 70, and started with Civ II, my favorite game of all time, until Banished, and more Satisfactory. HoF games. Thanks for remembering. I actually finished Civ II.
The Civilization changing every era has another aspect I don't see anyone talking about;
They said every era has unique Civ's for that era.
A standard game size is 8 civs, so 8 times the 3 eras... 24 unique civs minimum necessary for a small 8 player game.
I'm used to running singleplayer 20 civ games on large maps. That would mean they would need 60 civ's for that to be possible. Even at a reasonable 12 player game, thats still 36 civs.
36 unique civs that I could have had the option to start as from the beginning but now I only get 12.
Seems like a lot of unnecessary extra work, so I'm betting that the games will be smaller scale and the maps wont be much if any bigger than the biggest in Civ 6. Probably has to do with the sprawl caused by some buildings (granary) being whole districts now.
I prefer the idea others have suggested; evolving leaders
Sadly it's too late for them to change this system.
Great idea! Evolving leaders would be a much cleaner approach at a new era. I feel like Civ 7 is going to live or die based on whether or not they get the civ changing every era balanced correctly and it proves to add significant value to the game relative to the added complexity. Your relationships with other civs will change, so that a nuance they have to get right and if everyone is changing diplomacy could be a mess.
Also, one thing to remember from the live stream announcement of the game is that the map will get bigger as you advance eras. I don't know if that means everyone is crammed into a small map in the beginning which forces you to discover everyone or whether you could play through an era or more without discovering all civs like previous versions. If you are crammed into a small map in the beginning, then it pretty much forces you to explore/expand shortly after the map expands to get first dibs on stuff.
@@vincent06 In theeory you might be able to create ghost civs and lock them as the choices for the next era. So like one of the eight ancient civs is the Franks, exploration is the Ancien Regime, modern is France.
You can't play more than 5 CIV's in era 2 and 3 is 8 from what they said on the forums.
"Up to five players supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages. Up to eight players supported in the Modern Age."
LOL, that's all anyone wants to talk about.
So basically Civ is taking what Humankind and the Endless games did.
@@cleny217 that seems like a bit of a oversimplification
@@hee345 not really it looks almost the same as the last with a few changes taken form other games. which is probably ok except they charge max price for this game for years.
Like did the Civ 7 devs even bother to check the player count of Humankind on steam???? 🙄🤦♂
@@usernametaken5619 I thought the gave was quite good tbh. I play it about as much as i play civ.
@@usernametaken5619 Humankind did poorly for various reasons. the main issues with Humankind were shit AI, very unbalanced civs, no way to actually roleplay the historical paths of most iconic human civilizations. Also it was a pain in the ass to mod, clunky UI, bad diplomacy, etc. Bad DLCs, overall not great dev support on the game, etc.
If Humankind had balanced civs and enough civs so that there is never a historical hole between two civs, it would have pissed much less people. Like, for example, if you want to play the French, you have the Franks in medieval era, and the French in Industrial, but no French culture in the "exploration" era and you have to pick either Spain or Dutch if you want to stay close to home lol.
And worse than that, the civs were not balanced and what little historical path you could try to make was often not optimized for gameplay. The Franks in medieval era were about culture, but neither the Spanish of Dutch (the shitty options I cited) were culture civs and the better match was Edo Japan gameplay wise, and then the industrial French are about science, which pushes you to play Italians instead (who are good at culture).
And final nail in the coffin, the AI could not care less about historicity. You could play as historical as possible, the AI would still do crazy civ choices, and even fuck you up by picking your next historical civ before you do, locking you out of your historical path. The game still offered you the possibility of keeping your current civ to the next age, but it merely gave you more score points (which is not as shit as it seems since victory condition in Humankind is who has higher score) and gave you no special building or units for the next era. Boring...
If (it's a big if, we'll see when that game releases) Civ7 implemented actual Historical paths that are balanced, complete and logical, that the AI will by default choose, etc., then it's a matter of getting used to it but it will do a much better job at roleplaying your favorite civ and will avoid the pitfalls of Humankind.
I love Humankind for various reasons. I liked the way cities worked, liked the roleplaying possibilities despite what I described above (which can be sometimes super frustrating and I understand why it didn't work for most people), I very much prefer Humankind combat system too, and Humankind implemented terrain elevation in a way that is both visually beautiful and interesting gameplay wise. But I don't play it anymore because it's too fucking painful to mod it, and mods were important to correct some of its most painful issues which were civ related (so, Earth map with historical civs, more civs, etc.).
We will see how Civ7 deals with that. But given that the gameplay overview shows "Historical Path" icons when they selected Hatshepsut leader, above the Egypt civilization, I think they actually planned consistent historical gameplay. Time will tell.
My fave is the original, because I'm old, but I agree that V is probably the best. A lot of new mechanics were introduced in IV, but I feel that V really ironed the wrinkles out.
I didn't even mind the cartoony nature of VI, but it sort of reminded me of a nicely upgraded III, cos that was super cartoony.
4 had some really cool stuff like for instance you could go far more into detail with the immersive stuff such as %-shares of different cultures and religions in a city, cultural borders and so on...i loved clicking through all of the "data" while waiting on my friend to finish his turn :)
But yeah, i hated the "stacking units"-horror in civ 4 and the combat system in 5 makes way more fun as it has more strategic depth
@@Balkanlegija Yeah 4+BTS gets my vote. I'm old too and started with Civ 1 on my Mac LC in 1992! Ever since 4 I feel like its targeted to kids who grew up playing Super Mario. So much more emphasis on the cute little animations than on game play.
Everything after 3 seems cartoony..
Civ 1 is surprisingly playable still, I was playing it via emulation a couple of years back. Haven't played Civ 5 or 6 for several years, I've been back to the first three in recent years instead.
I am very disappointed with the route Civ has been taking. Eventually, it will just be a city builder where you conquer nearby territories. I like having one city in one plot with an empire spanning the continent. It also embraced a more cartoonish art style. Civ V was the peak,.
It’s become Civilization for girls.
Civilization IV was peak.. Civilization V was the beginning of the downfall.
@@Cramblit What are your complaints against V? I never had any negative reaction to it. But I despise everything that is Civilization VI.
@@WatchMaga The tile movement was aweful. While the unlimited stacking in IV wasn't great, at least you weren't constantly trying to play a mini game trying to get your units across the field.
The changes to Religion, and Culture spread also were a downgrade.
The AI was a downgrade.
The fun options you could do also a big downgrade.
Art direction also imo was a downgrade.
The flow of the game also was all screwed up in comparison to IV, and it just felt all over the place.
Politics and Diplomacy was a MASSIVE downgrade from IV, and still is.
I still play IV to this day, and I own both V and VI. Allies will actually help in IV (especially on higher difficulties). They'll even make a flanking move sometimes while rare, it happens. (I just had Germany who instead of just going straight at the nearest enemy city, actually moved up and around, to hit the enemy from behind, while they moved south to engage me).
The Tile system also great diminishes wars in this way. Allies can't help half the time because you have the board covered with your own units 24/7, and its just stupid.
The Diplomacy and Politics aren't so extreme.. Nations will actually be indifferent, or not care as much about things that shouldn't concern them, yet in V and VI EVERYTHING is world ending. Omg you took ONE extra city? Warmonger! I denounce you!!! It's just stupid af.
Literally EVERYTHING was a downgrade in V and VI
@@Cramblit you took all the words out of my mouth. Everything now is a money grab and less about incredibly fun and strategic gameplay.
Oh Humankind you’re so fine, you’re so fine you blow my mind… hey Human…wait…this ISN’T Humankind?
I won t blame them for taking good ideas elsewhere.
I ll blame them for implementing those poorly.
I really liked Civ Beyond Earth, If they just refined it instead of abandoning it. Adding colours of each factions to upgraded units, some flavor and all good
fr it brought me back to CIV genre, but no, they just tossed it aside T.T
I would hope they remake beyond esrth with new tweaks and units and diplomacy and many other things.
They just need to do a remaster of the best civ game ever made, as far as atmosphere and storytelling... ALPHA CENTAURI
I felt that Civ4 mod Alpha Centaur was better done, than Civ Bööth (if you unite spelling of words "Beyound Earth" it just become "bööth", which is faster to spell). I like hexes more, and lack of stack of doom, but otherwise Centaur mod (which is partially extended from what same named game was - not just attempt to try to copy old game to newer game engine) was better. Civ Bööth was clearly "remake" of Alpha Centaur.
Beyond Earth doesn't hold a candle to Alpha Centauri, they dropped the ball on that game, but they seem to be doing that a lot these days.
It's obviously just my own subjective opinion but I really dislike strategy games that require currency to do things like 'talking' (i.e. influence). "Sorry, no one in my vast empire can talk to you right now until the next game tick happens in a hundred or so years time." Making a game too much like a board game breaks any notion of immersion for me. Also, the morphing into other cultures is fine for some but not for others. Historically, countries didn't 'change' into another one - they just got invaded by the people next door who then decided what happened from there on in. For instance, the people in nowadays England didn't 'change' into the Anglo Saxons - they just got invaded by the Angles and the Saxons - that's a big difference.
@chrisbloke9310 the angles and Saxons did not invade, they were hired to be there as protection, the vikings were the invaders.
"countries didn't 'change' into another one" - actually, they do. They became different from what they were from many reasons - it can be war and conquering, it can be rebellions and uprising, it can be trade with others... there is many things what morphing nations to others. Anglos or Saxons do not rule over England, they are not even independent nations, but part of Germany (although Anglos were long time part of Denmark). But reality is, that nations not really been nations... not in sense as today nations are seen. They did not have clear borders, nor border controls, etc. Nations used just to be some level of sphere of influence of some monarch or other faction. And it wasn't and still isn't always clear where those borders goes. For example, Russia and Japan are still technically at war against each others (been since WWII) since they do not have agreement where the border goes.
Quite many nation conquered England, including Anglos, Saxons, "Vikings", "French" (Bretonnia), etc etc. But England is not ruled from those nations, instead it controls some other nations, like Scotland, Wales, etc. If you look China, and their history, rarely anyone from outside conquered them (and when Mongols did, they adopted Chinese culture and ways of politics), however, nation been often collapsing and recreating itself, every time with new name. Kind of. Well, in Chinese language name of China is actually just "Central State" or "Middle Kingdom", since they see other nations surrounds them. And if you look history of middle East... well, different "Arab" empires and "Persian" empires often rules there, then they vanish, and new ones are created...
--
But think what I personally do not really like in Civ games, is that I have to pretend to play as historical nations from our world... Why not create names what are different from our world, but have technology, etc as it is in game... (and that's been main reason why Civ5 was last Civ so far what I played. Civ4 had great mods like Fall From Heaven, but Civ5 had not... However, Civ1&2 inspired me to study real history.)
While that is true, the "invaders" often settled and mixed with local culture to create a new one. So it definitely morphed. North America is one of the rare example where the invasion was more drastic than anything else in history - as European settlers basicaly almost wiped out the previous cultures and peoples. But it was not the case in most historical cases.
That is because - if we take England - it's a two way stream. Just as Anglo-Saxons influenced and changed the local Celtic culture, so did the Celtic culture influenced the Anglo Saxons who settled there. And also Vikings who settled there. A lot of Vikings who came to Scotland and established settlements, actualy build Christian churches. They Christianized. You also see this in early middle ages - All this people who migrated from Eastern and Northern Europe south, mostly Germanic people - they became Christian and accepted Latin as lingua franca and accepted a lot of Roman architecture and culture. So in a sense - Roman Empire in the west "morphed" into Frankish Empire and then HRE.
@@chrisbloke9310 Morphing also happens in some cases. Rome starts in Italy, splits into two. After many centuries Eastern Rome has mostly Greek and Anatolian population, Orthodox as religion, with Eastern style heavy cavalry made of turks and scythians in their ranks. Yeah they called themselves Romans but is this Roman same as BC Rome?
Nomadic Turks conquer anatolia, one empire collapses, another tribe unites them again, then those Turks become Ottomans with Islam as religion, with Iranian as court language and Balkan gunpowder troops as main force. Are those the still the same nomadic Turks?
Surely they share a lineage but they morphed into a new civilization through time.
@@chrisdonish Not true, my friend. The Saxon invasion pre-dated the Vikings by about 300 years.
I don't get the changing civs, why wouldn't you change leaders? Kills immersion of empire building.
It would become tedious to keep track of all the AI CIVs + Bonus changes as your empire grows on top of the actual civ changes. I think as a vanilla, design, it keeps the game fresh and streamlined, mod support has always been king so let the modders add it in as optional.
@@HelLo-kq6uz it makes sense... most civilizations are branched off from older civilizations, most of which died out. America came from the English who emerged from Anglo Saxons which emerged from Rome. Anglo Saxons and Romans aren't really around as civilizations anymore.
I wouldn't mind seeing a mode that restricts the transitional civilizations to the historically recommended ones though.
@@saberswordsmen1 Strongly agree with this. Have game settings for "historically linked" options only, and for "all options unlocked" (for when you want to toss the textbooks and enable shenanigans) along with the apparent hybrid model that's been shown off in this. Give people flexibility in how they play a game.
@@saberswordsmen1 In reality, Rome ceased being an empire and turned itself into a world-wide (universal) religion that is still practiced to this day.
@@SnowWhite-z7c the Catholic church has essentially no connection with the Roman government. May as well argue Israel never fell because it still had their state religion practiced worldwide.
I love that they reducted the cartoonish style and made it look more realistic and more based on history.
@@cassius303 i like the cartoonish style. It gave civ 6 personality.
Ah yes the Egyptians progenitors of the Mongols, very historically accurate.
@@RavagersPrey they're talking about the art style.
And anyways, how historically accurate was it for civilizations to survive from ancient era until today as they were? 😅
Civ has pretty much always been a virtual board game. It isn't really meant to be realistic in terms of its actual gameplay.
@@saberswordsmen1 It has to have some basis in history. Might as well choose fantasy characters and civs now.
@@RavagersPrey civ already is like this though. It's super common to be the Vikings and end up in desert while getting Van Gogh who creates the great work "the Great Wave of Kanagawa" 😅. None of these are related, just a hodgepodge of history themed stuff crammed together. It isn't really much more of a stretch to have the civilizations that develop be unrelated, too. They do seem to at least be based on things you find or do in game, which is kind of a nod to how geography tends to shape civilizations and that could lead to some cool alternate history based on that. What if the historically landlocked Swiss instead came about in an island chain, how would they have developed differently? That kind of thing.
That said, if they have the icon for "historically related" already, I find it pretty likely there will be a game option to restrict it to those.
I can't believe I lived to see Civilization VII come to life...
Holy moly
I don't know if it counts, but Civilization Revolution was my fave. It was the one on Xbox 360. I just really enjoyed it. After that, I'd say Civ 5.
You are correct. This is the best ever civ. Alpha Centuri spaceship was awesome.
Revolution was great. Best of the spinoffs, but I wouldn't count it. Too different to compare, imo
Legendary game, I still play it every once in a while
Call to Power 2 was the best for me, although it's outdated now. But it had certain elements that no other game ever touched, e.g. a good post-modern age that actually mattered and slavery
@@musicXisxxlove I just played yesterday bro. They need to make a 2 . All other civs make my head hurt.. too complicated
Just gotta wait 10 years maybe they'll make civ 8 good
Civ 4 and 5 were my favourites...
I loved 4, played it forever and it stopped working so i bought a used copy of 5, and hated it at first but learned to love it more than 4
😊😊
Something I really liked from Civ 3 was that the clothing of the leaders changed throughout the ages. With these ages, I hope that besides changing to a new civ, you also have the option to keep your civ, and your leader will change clothes.
I've played every Civilization since the beginning. Civ 4 was my favorite, but honestly I have loved them all.
Played since 3. While there's always a few features I miss from previous entries, I pretty much always end up liking the newest in the end. Very happy to see rivers as connections come back, I never understood why they took that out. Taking it to them next level with actually being navigable is even better.
CIV II will always have a special place in my heart. I Like 5, the gameplay of 6 is fine but I do not like the animation and look. I'm a bit of a realist and it's too cartoony like WOW animation. Also history is like 99% male leaders, although I appreciate the female leaders it's too much, I'd like to have it more realistic and be able to play the with all the actual famous leaders, not have the female ones shoehorned in there when in reality they did not have a significant role in running the nation.
spot on
Civ 4 and 3 were the best for me, complex and rewarding, with depth. Civ 5 and 6 are cartoonish and watered down. I hope Civ 7 is a mix of both, middle of the road.
Civ 5 was not cartoonish. Either you're misremembering it, or never played the game.
Best civ game was 5. 5 was also my first civ game. What caught me was moving your troops through the fog of war specifically the clouds.
When I saw the flat board game style of civ 6 that ruined it for me. Civ 7 feels like my civ 6 tbh. I still prefer the clouds in civ 5 but 7 looks good so far.
It's really sad to judge a game only by its visuals because VI is clearly better and more complete than V.
@@nawack2774 well vi has better visual and grafics, no arguing, still v is the better game.
@@lokibau I literally say the opposite personally
The graphics of V may be nicer but VI is clearly a better and more complete game imo, I would have a hard time playing V again
Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri
The chad answer
For me, Civ 2 was the peak. Maybe it's just that it hit different because I was a child. But I think at the core, it was VERY simple. It was just a numbers game. I'll always remember that an Archer had a Strength of 3. A Legion had a strength of 4. It was just that simple, through the whole game. Then, later versions tried to make the game deeper and more complex - but you can get lost along the way. It's hard to wrap my head around all the mechanics... and during the inevitable boredom of waiting for AI turns to pass, when I play Civ 6 these days I can't help wishing it was a non-turn based 4x game where everything happens at once. It just doesn't quite have the old school "board game" feel anymore. Still incredible overall - and I'll absolutely be excited to try out Civ 7, as I have every other game in the series. But nothing will replace the old memories of playing Civilization II for the first time.
"I'll always remember that an Archer had a Strength of 3."
And if you fortified it behind City Walls on a city built atop a mountain, it could defeat an attacking battleship. Not quite sure how that works out, but still, it was cool!
In civ. 2, liked how you could divide an unhappy civilization into two if you sacked the capitol.
12:37 civ5 by light years wide, especially with vox populi mod and others.
I would agree if you’ve never played the early games. SMAC is not strictly a civilizatikn game but it is part of the library. It’s by far the best Civ game.
IV and V were the peak for me. VI almost ruined Civ for me, but I'll always give the new ones a chance.
yeah i still play civ 4 regularly...when they hamstrung the ability to conquer the world I had no interest anymore lol
@@markc9438 having consequences for my actions oh the horror
because it's repetitive I have enjoyed the latest 2 because I have not played the previous much and they are identical this newest one looks the same exact game but a different map and factions
Civ VI did a lot of very good things, tho. Most people just disliked the artstyle and then pretend like it was the gameplay that annoyed them lol
@trashl0rd I had no issue with the art style. The game play was terrible. The AI was horrible. The tech and building pace was off. In late game the largest leading Civilization could field half a dozen units at best - it was pathetic. The leaders and units were not interesting at all. Cultural or tech victories made conquest hardly even an option.
The Civilization Leaders look like Concord characters.
0:15 I don't think they celebrated the Colosseum with fireworks...
I thought the same until I saw the longer version at 15:43 and I think they're flaming arrows because there's no explosion. And if that's really the case, we're in good hands because the devs truly know and love the subject matter!
@@TrashyMan wow if your very concern about historical accuracy that much why "play" the "game"
@@arzentvm wow, you out a lot of effort in your comments, dont you?
🤓👆
The best Civilization thus far I would say is 4 or 5
probably you are right.For me Humankind is also so good
personally, i don't like the idea of being able to change Civilizations mid-game. it seems like a super cheesy mechanic to me, and I didn't play Humankind for that reason. i get that societies rise and fall over time, but it is an organic process, not a simple swap.
Really hoping for a better dynamic trade system where the price of goods will fluctuate with trade routes to other nations with said resources.
In Civ5 international trade was only introduced in the DLC ;)
I loved the balance of using your gold to keep up workers to upgrade the regions aside from the city management itself in civ 5. Shame workers are gone completely now. It was a great system that could be automated, could be managed, could be micro-managed to focus on certain resources without making it overwhelming to the average/new player
This is no longer Civilization. Congratulations, Firaxis.
Best Civilization has always been the following civilization game, not speaking from a fanbase but actually appreciating the improvements and new features, always outdoing themselves.
Anyone who has a favorite tends to let nostalgia dictate their choice. It's human behavior to love more something that gave you that first "good feeling". Nostalgia is also the main reason you can't trust people's honest opinion. We are not robots who can make an impartial judgment.
22:39 Just so everyone is aware, when switching civs between ages they do tell you which one is the historical choice. So it seems to be up to the player whether they want to be historically accurate or not :)
The London example does not make much sense. It changed cultures when the Roman Empire fell or was conquered. Not because it was time to pick another culture that can be completely unrelated to the previous one.
For the civilization series to grow it needs a robust editor. And that has always been a haphazard addition rather than the third party bug filled program that allows the update the Civilizations, leaders, and maps to be more realistic if that is what the player wants.
Yeah it felt like a forced defense and that's not what we're seeing either. Anyone can become the UK regardless of historical accuracy. From an African civilization to a South American civilization
Nothing was more perfectly balanced than Ramses starting next to marble in Civ V and then just building every wonder in the game.
Civ IV was the peak, easily.
Agreed. Corporations, the first religions, pre 1 unit per tile combat, and Fall from Heaven 2 and Rhyse and Fall.
Rhyse and fall had awesome scenarios.
Agreed; Civ IV was the best balance of complexity, AI logic, variety, and just basic fun. (I've been playing since the original incarnation.) V and VI both have issues with compelling players to go either "tall" (V) or "wide" (VI) without modding the heck out of them. Moreover, military movement restrictions with hexes limited to one unit prevented me from ever enjoying the newer versions nearly as much as II or IV.
Civ II was and still is one of my favorites. I wish they would bring back the wonder videos! But my love of the game may be more nostalgic. Civ 5 was the one that introduced hex tiles instead of square. So 5 was a big leap. Honestly, I have played 6 the most though. Hundreds of hours on multiple platforms. Thanks for making this video! So lucky to have been chosen for a first hands on!
Not a fan of them copying a game that failed for good reasons.
I really enjoyed III, especially with the scenarios for it - Age of Imperialism, The Cold War, and the Rood and the Dragon.
One of the big problems are that the player count is now also so low.
"Up to five players supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages. Up to eight players supported in the Modern Age."
Alpha Centauri, an offshoot of Civ II, is still my favorite in the franchise. I think Civ could use some more story-based gameplay with more mature themes. Discussion of the horror of battling mind worms and citizen's dealing with extreme how authoritarianism limited there freedoms added a lot to the world building of Alpha Centauri. I'd rather include discussions of the realities of the exploring, expansion and conquering that defines these games. Give me stories about how my explorers were mauled by wild bears or poisoned by the local wildlife, or about how the animals I was trying to use to cross the mountain pass weren't suited for that environment and died off; those are the interesting stories that come from humans trying to expand into the unknown.
Maybe this time civ will feature story-driven gameplay. Campaigns on rails, for instance.
This as a game, please.
Finished.
CIV II with the "test of time" expansion. The four map fantasy game with units that could only move to certain planes ie maps like the hawkmen (sky, earth) merfolk (sea, earth) goblins (underdark, earth) was amazing! So much play, I basically didn't switch to civ III until after conquest was released even though I had civ III at launch.
Civ 6 with the gathering storms expansion makes it so much more in every way the heros legends give great game play
This seems like a game similar to a civ game and not a civ game. Standing the test of time is gone
Edit: At last, make a proper massive earth map
Has the AI vastly improved? How does it compare to civ6 with all the expansions? Civ6 on release was a step backwards from civ5+expansions
Speaking just visuals-wise, I can say this game is a *serious* step up from Civ 6. To me 5 had the nicest, pleasing yet "clean" visuals and gameplay in general, 6 was... just so bad in too many ways in my opinion, starting off with the visuals. For some reason, it all felt so difficult for me to easily distinguish the units and terrain (the oceanwas especially underwhelming and strangely extremely deep rich dark blue, and felt so stagnant), everything seemed kind of... artificially "blocky" instead of naturally blending as civ 5 does. The lighting and color saturation was so much, combined with the graphics design choice of cartoonish polygons each trying to outcompete the other for visual attention. But with this Civ 7, it looks like they took some inspiration from 6 but tilted it towards more realism tones which tend to be much easier on the eyes and just more pleasing.
I'm still not a fan of the more micromanagement gameplay in civ 6 and how it essentially makes cities take up more of the map (makes the world feel smaller) and I'm guessing they incorporated some of that gameplay here -- but maybe they've done it at least more tastefully this time.
I actually prefer 6's graphics to 5's. It seems more light-hearted and less serious, and I don't know why that is a problem for so many people. I like the color and vibrancy of 6, I don't want a darker, more serious game honestly
@@Calabresa022 Completely valid opinion. To be clear I'm not necessarily advocating for a particularly darker or serious tone, I just thought Civ 6 was a little bit _too_ vibrant and sensory overload for me. But that's why I'm pleased with what I'm seeing of 7 at least in this video -- feels like they continued with a lot of 6's visual design except maybe they slightly adjusted the tone and make things generally seem a little more natural.
I agree with your assessment about districts making the world feel small.
Even on the largest of maps I feel like I run out of room when I get the districts going and it doesn't really feel right. It makes my civ feel cramped and it just doesn't feel true to scale.
I shouldn't have to dedicate an entire tile to a single district. I think having a growth district tile would be better where it has to border the city, would basically be an extension to the city, but have some sort of drawback for wanting to use it like it's harder to defend and if captured by an enemy civ it makes it easier to capture the main city... but you get faster pop growth or better amenities... idk something like that would make more sense.
@@Andrewy27 Yeah, it feels weird to dedicate a whole tile to a district, and graphically it looks a bit much, basically as big as the core city tile. And exactly how you describe the "growth tile" kind of stemming from the city border, that's pretty much how I imagined it should be. I'd at least make it graphically look more huddled towards the city (to make it look like it's growing/extending from the city because that's how it would realistically happen anyway) instead of sort of occupying the whole tile.
It does look like in 7, they at least make it look a *little* bit more like that.. the little house models seem to develop closer along the tile borders between the tile and the city. I'm glad at least it looks more natural that way, than in 6.
Still the concept of a district eating up a whole tile just really throws off the sense of scale and the world just feels so much smaller for it. I can't imagine it being a very common problem in reality for an empire to decide it needs a whole other city just because its current one's entire zone of control can only contain a few districts...
Dude, ypu have to play Civ 5. The only thing that I thought could have had more pizzazz in Civ 5 was the diplomacy. It was stale and systematic. They improved that in 6 and extended/improved the new political system. This looks like a combination of 5 & 6. I am glad that they returned to more realistic looking characters. I think that was the most disappointing aspect of 6 for most.
civ 6 had worse combat mechanics, they ruined the world congress which made late game boring, diplomacy was even worse than 5.
@@GrantTodd-eh7ub The issue with Civ 6 I had is that it's very, very easy to snowball. Even on Diety, you just take out your closest AI neighbor, you don't even have to kill him, just take his capital and possibly one more city they usually have (they start with two settlers), and you WILL SNOWBALL after that no matter what.
It's very hard for Ai to keep up with you after this, then it's just "click for next 200 turns till you win". I rarely had games where AI will keep up with me in tech and we are both in let's say information era, usually I am making space ship parts they still think printing press is impressive.
Hatshepsut was 15th century bc, not 14th century. 15th century is 1500-1401 bc. The Armana letters are about a century after her and dated to the early 14th century bc. Obviously, the game makers didn’t do proper research.
Best Civ saga game was SMAC followed by 1990s Colonisation (between civ 1 and civ 2).
Cmon, the idea of switching civs midgame sounds like a dumb gameplay mechanic. Be the first civ influencer to come out and say it already 😊.
I love how realistic the units look again... they haven't looked so realistic since Civ 3. I'm buying it.
Wonder if Civ7 can fix my TikTok brain, sit down and play a 7 hour CIV campaign😂
13:00 Civ 4 had stack armies. Civ 5 got rid of them. That is usually the deal breaker for players saying one is better than the other.
I thought it was common knowledge Civ IV is the best one
Everyone wants to think their version is the best one. That's not a choice, that's nostalgia talking. It's like that memory of your first kiss, where you feel your first girlfriend was more special than any other gfs that follows.
Nostalgia skews people judgment and reasoning.
Lots of people regard Civ IV as the best of the classic gameplay style.
Considering that "the best" is not an objectively measurable metric, I think that is a personal point of view. I have played all Civ games since the very first one, and I have enjoyed all. IV was great in many aspects, but it also had several issues... like road spaghetti... insane worker micro management, which made late game very tedious (and laggy, specially on Mac, it was a very bad port)... stacks of doom, which made the game unbalanced... Having that said... I have played an ungodly amount of hours of the original Civ, Civ IV, Alpha Centauri, Beyond Earth and Civ VI. Looking at VII, I think I might skip this one though.
Glory to Raptoria!
My favorite one is
(Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution)
I've beat that game so many times and is one of the game i can pickup and start a new file and have fun for a few hours or day till i beat it.
I have Civ 6 i like it but ain't my favorite.
@Lord_Frieza I NEVER see anyone talk about Civ Rev! I just played two games earlier today after having not played it in like ten years. Beat both by 2006 on Diety (culture, then science) Honestly a great game. Definitely stripped down and a bit goofy and easy by comparison to the main line games, but a seriously solid blast of a time!
@@jorsh1908 I couldn't say it any better. that's the reason why i like it so much.
Now I want to play it again lol.
About transitioning from 1 age to another and the leaders kicking the bucket, they could add a legacy system to it so what you earn with your previous leader become a passive buff, but to not be stuck with things there could be an option to archeology in your capital which would let you rewrite your previous leader's legacy and give you a different buff to your present gameplay
First! Game seems cool but will need a lot more time to fully test it out. Will play with the goof troop and see what happens!
You can now navigate rivers, no more builders, things take place in chapters, map looks cool!
I did like no more builders and you can stay in one age. I've wanted to just play an entire game with ancient era units forever.
No builders! How will we fix anything!!!!!
@@SnowWhite-z7c 😆 I dunno. I guess from the city screen.
The best one is the IV. The fourth one with all its DLC is for certainty the best of the whole franchise. The fifth one is not that good. The sixth made a good lifting, but, on trade, diplomacy, spying, etc left out many of the best of the fourth's DLC.
I really enjoy your video. I wished CIV VII would at least take some of the best stuffs we saw in Humankind. They did, on their own Sid Meier's sauce. I believe it'd be more realistic, on the combat and changing era.
I didn't see tough the regions, that i found really cool in Humankind, matching cities, and practical. Also, on combat, the topographycal positions that leant us tactitals quindda rare in 4X.
Thank you very much for the video 🙏
builders are poorly represented in previous civs games, it's good that they get rid of them for better construction mechanics.
My first Civ game was 1, which I played as a teenager and have very fond memories of. After that, I went on to play different genres of video games, so it's been 30 years and now I'm back to Civ 6 only recently. I don't have a favourite Civ obviously, but have been hooked on 6 for weeks now. I would say the way I play Civ is quite different from other people, so I'm actually liking quite a few changes they are making in Civ 7.
With the original Civ games, I liked 1, but liked CivNet even better. I didn't care for Civ II, didn't really get into 3, but enjoyed 4. Civ 5 felt too slow, and I liked Civ 6, but all the changes started to it feel like a different game.
I miss Civ4 style mechanics with being able to build a bunch in each city. The latest games feel smaller and smaller in scale
Im also pretty sure you could incite civil war in civ 2 if another civ is too big, I'd love to see a similar mechanic return. It makes it more interesting if you're about to hit some major step towards victory, and then some undetected foreign spy instigates a civil war that splits you into multiple factions that you have to contend with and defeat, and likewise give you the ability to do the same thing to q much more powerful rival civ that you can't directly go to war with.
Civ V. Great game mechanics. Modding was supported. But what you said @ 13:15 about IV, V, and VI is spot on.
Didn't have time to play newer Civs, I still can't stop playing the first one.
Loved 2, 4, and 5, plenty of time in each one, 2 was great as a kid to just spend time in and explore, 4 was great because it had so much character and style, 5 was great for the fleshed out mechanics and the developed unit style and improved combat (getting rid of 4's massive army stacks)
I hate having to switch civs because I hit a new Era. Nothing says standing the test of time like your whole country being subsumed by some other culture.
Civ Rev is still my favorite civ game that was made for the console. With civ 5 being my first real civ game on pc
I'm so disappointed..
@@daklestvarno I'm so excited :).
Love civ period. Each has aspects that make them unique. Alpha centauri beyond earth are excellent as well.
Id be happy to see them go back to old civ games and just give massive graphics upgrades make civ 5 look like this civ
Minor gripe, the game is so dark.
The bar at the top is black, the menus are black, all the backgrounds are black, the fog of war is black, the background of all buttons is black/dark version of the button's colour, the minimap background is black, the end turn panel is dark brown, why is everything so dark lol.
Yeah, UI is just bad.
i personally love the dark grey color - it is very elegant and makes sense with the dense and colorful map. there are things to polish definitely but i would say it is more about fonts and specific elements. they will surely do it though. also they should give us an option to be able to scale UI
Started with original civ in the 90's, missed 3 and 4 due to growing up and life. came back with 5 and loved it, hated the off Earth one (forget name) and have been playing civ 6 since release. looking forward to seeing how 7 plays and how that feels.
I've played every Civ game and 4 5 and 6 are my favorites, though it took a while for me to like Civ 6. I use Mods on Steam with Civ 6 and it makes it more enjoyable for me, Civ 5 had some of the best military options of the series in my opinion and Civ 4 was just a great all-around game. I recently got into Humankind and I've been enjoying it, I'm hopeful Civ 7 will bring something new and fun to the genre.
The only way I would want to see you control a new civ, is if when you get to the point in the game where you send people to a new planet, you actually start a new civ on the new planet, but it has some kind of direct line of contact with your original civ on Earth.
So the problem with ALL Civ game (still hasn't been fixed) is how quickly everyone turns on you even IF you weren't the one who initiated the hostile activities. Add to that, that you'll never be in their good graces again once they've turned on you and you have the same predictable outcome no matter how many play-throughs you do. It's annoying and unrealistic to say the least.
absolutely. I want to see way smarter AI.
It's an added layer of difficulty. The goal is to win, it's not a simulator of reality.
This is not true in Civ 5. Ive had some crazy experiences.
Is it just me or was the CIV7 trailer underwhelming.
Yeah, I lost excitement for civ when 5 came around. It seems to get more and more basic with each iteration, becoming more of an arcadey empire builder than an actual strategy game. We went from a built in custom scenario editor to a glorified empire building mobile game. About the only good thing about VII is the art work and even then I believe there's room for improvement
It was alright - but for me, my all-time favorite was the trailer for Civilization 5. "Build courage when courage seems to fail, Regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, Create hope when hope becomes forlorn."
Don't forget they need to hold back on content for the inevitable expansions, so it will be somewhat bareboned.
Dude civ is becoming more dynamic, similar to hearts of iron.. This by itself is incredible for me
Bring back Civil Wars!
Am I the only one that is noticing the main characters move like SIMS? xD
CIV 5 was best, this looks like a copy of Humankind
there are 2 real valable critic, it's the UI and it's the fact that seeing two leaders doing theater before you feels so impersonal.
After that, it's the eternal civ n+1 discussion.
I played civ sincer the 4.
Civ 5 was bad because one unit per tiles, because of the happiness system, etc ...
Civ 6 was bad , because cartonish, district system, movement system, worker with charge ...
Civ 7 is bad, because it's not civ 6.5
Civilization is like street fighter, each Civilization is not a Civ n number2, it's a new game which keep the overall formula.
I played all, and always was the same, but i think that the best are in even numbers, civ 2, 4 and 6
Sid Meier's Civilization? More like Mid Meier's Degradation
CIV 5 IS BACK BABYYY
Im so glad they killed off the horrendous fortnite Civ 6 aesthetic, was afraid it was gonna be the new norm so much
Let’s hope Sid can do a better job of the era system that just didn’t work in Humankind. Yes civilisation evolve, Romans become Italian, Persians become Iraq etc etc but babylonians do not become American Indians or Brazilians. There is a reason hardly anyone played Humankind.
Buddy im pretty sure that the persians became iran, not iraq lmao. Babylon and or assyria became iraq.
This 100%
CIV 3 was the best and I think I've sunk more time into it more than any other game outside EU4. I loved building the sprawling empires with dozens of cites and the massive stack wars, the new games are build of couple of cities and wait till age 2 before anything substantive happens
Don't wanna be negative but this is too similar to humankind, not sure if I'll like it as much as 6
I’m fine with majority of the changes like the builder change. But the Civ change per age I don’t like too much, I would rather leader changes that change bonuses, level ups, etc.
Would like it if leader changes work like policy changes in civ 6. Like how you got a free policy change every time a civic was completed, I would like it if was every time a new era, specifically ancient-classical-medieval-etc.
And you could force change leader like with policies currently for coin/influence points.
And they could always keep the ages (antiquity, exploration, modern) just keep eras (ancient, classical, etc) they just be like subclasses of the ages ig
Be nice if something like I just mentioned would be added as like sort of “classic” game mode where Civs don’t change, but the civs changing per age was the default form of the game or something even.
The ultimate Sid Meier’s Civilization would be if they make it to where the scientific victory doesn’t just end there. You can actually leave earth and colonize to Alpha Centauri! This would be a dream come true being that I spent so many hours doing one more turn 🤣
I would actually pay for that option!
I would pay for that option now if you made it a DLC for the version we have now and how it is!
Kinda hope they change some things, especially the fact that once the age changes everyone is brought up to speed while nobody is allowed to pass that point until them. If I’m crushing it with research I shouldn’t be forced to wait and then be even with everyone again. Thats the biggest let down I’ve heard so far. There should also be an option to continue as your chosen Civ or switch culture for extra buffs
Best Civilization games are 3 and 4 by miles. They should just update the 4 really, adding the religion of the 5/6, preventing the unlimited stacking problem and that's it. This at least seems to have better and less cartoonish graphics than the last two episodes
lol, just goes to show that there is something for everyone. 3 is absolutely my least liked of the six released so far. Not that I didn't play a lot of 3, so I'm not saying it was bad, just the least liked of all 6. Though I'd guess that Civ 1 is probably higher due to some serious nostalgia lenses, lol.
@@carlosimotti3933
How is the AI in Civ 4?
@@arda213 Absolute hot garbage, as in every Civ.
@@arda213 way better than in 5 & 6, especially 5 where basically they wait to be overtaken. The last 2 games make no sense outside multiplayer mode. Plus it was hard to beat the AI at building wonders. And you didn't have a plethora of civilizations that counted nothing in history, made overpowered compared to the real great ones just for making you play them
@@BlackSmokeDMax 3 was a leap forward from 2 mate. And if you like mods (I don't really bother as I have no time), it was probably the most and best modded game of all time