Quick notes: Settlement cap can be gone over, but happiness also needs to be taken into consideration with city management now You won’t have every single culture to switch to like in Humankind, there will be a historical option, and some that fit with your gameplay style Here's the full article I reference in the video: www.theguardian.com/games/article/2024/aug/20/civilization-7-history-firaxis-games-civilization-6 It's a quick read, but I agree with a lot of Ed's points about stagnation and I can see how he got to where we are with ages. However, I'm hoping for more flexibility in how we are handed some of the new mechanics like crises and culture swapping. Let me know what you think!
WTF????? YOU WENT FROM CIV 4 TO CIV 6?????????? SO YOU NEVER PLAYED CIV 5??????? SERIOUSLY?????? WTF?????????? CIV 6 SUCKS AND CIV 5 IS THE BEST CIV EVER!!!!!!!!! CIV 5 WAS THE MASTERPIECE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CIV 6 SUCKED!!!!!! AND CIV 7 IS DEFINITELY A DOWNGRADE COMPARED TO CIV 5!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@kieranrollinson8750 No, Civ 5 are never be the masterpiece, obviously Civ 3 or 4 as masterpiece...or perhaps both. Also, You're missing a point there bro. From multiple reference and comments that i've known so far, Civ 5 gameplay was awesome, include battle and other mechanics. The thing that community don't like are road maintenance and most importantly, GLOBAL HAPPINESS system. It was so frustating to most new players that play civ and it struggle due to global happiness, resulting some slow growth or decline on your civilization. Civ 6 also has awesome gameplay and mechanics, but from my opinion,...i rather play it anyway since happiness system are on per city (or known as amenities) If you are saying a downgrade of Civ 7, that might be true on some mechanics, but we only seeing portion of gameplay and mechanics....so we just have to wait until release.
Well to each its own i guess... for me Civ III with its expansions was&still is the best as far as i'm concerned but i simply seem to be enjoying titles that are improving&expanding on the original classics rather then the brand new 180* turn that newer entries seem to choose to bring to the table, as such my favorite games are: Civ III , Rome TW II , Massive Assault PM, Kohan AG, Age 2 DE
@@mirceazaharia2094 LOL!!!!! I HAVE NEVER PLAYED SID MEIERS ALPHA CENTAURI.....!!!!!!! IN, FACT I HAD NEVER HEARD OF IT BEFORE!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! :D :D
The big problem for me with Civ swapping is that it means TSL games are dead. I play most of my games on TSL (True Starting Location) maps and I really enjoy being able to spawn in a historical area and lead a Civ from there to win in my on alternate history. It doesn't make sense for me to spawn in Egypt as Egypt only to turn into the Mongolians and then the United States.
They should have 2 gamemodes, one which is the one they showed, and one that works like the old civ, where you play as one leader, but we can only pray
You can still do that. It’ll just be Egypt in Egypt and then in the next phase you’ll be in the same location but with upgraded units and buildings of your new civ.
That new "civilization" you are forced to change to is just a name! You are getting a different set of bonuses to cope with the new age. Maybe, there will be a mod that lets you keep your original civilization name. Would that solve the problem?
@brett_roseAgree and disagree. I don't think the game is complex enough to justify the state of the AI. If was a 90% good and the rest being exploitable. Was ok. But the A.I is more A than I in many different ways and in 1999 they didn't make a excuse to RTS to have bad A.I and i think it's silly to give excuses for then in 2024.
@@wandy3606agreed, I remember old rts and turn based strategy games with complex mechanics that still had good A.I. The only thing that I think a decent A.I. should have trouble with is something as abstract as diplomacy but even that has been done better with older games. I'm starting to think that AAA game development is going through the same cargo cult mentality that Hollywood movies are.
YES, I really feel this way about Stellaris I want old Stellaris but with good AI. Oh here's some new content to experience. Where's my better AI? We fix the issue of the AI not eating. What did you improve? No that's (the AI) 10 patch is down the line we can't do that right now.
@@soapgaming4903 I don't think I agree with that either. It should've been that the leaders you choose evolve over til to fit the eras. Although don't get me started on their weird slimmed down era system. Where are the dark ages of civilizations? Those ages where you think you might loss to the AI on deity. Oh, wait, they're gonna be sold back to us as DLC... Or not at all. This game from everything that I've seen so far looks like it's gonna blow, big time. Maybe I'm just old, and after playing every game they've made since my 486 PC played Civ ONE, I want what made civilization a turn masterpiece of turn based historical fantasy. Not a clone of a failed game, did they not read the steam reviews for Humankind? Or I guess companies, truly, don't care about fans anymore, it's all about how much they can risen from you...
@@GnosticAtheist my comment didn't just mention leader swapping. So why are you focusing on that? It is an annoyance. But not my mine grip. My other grips is the fact that I fucking hated humankind and this is literally humankind 2. And if you want a list, then here goes. They've taken away hotseat, already confirmed. Barbarians are gone. Builders gone. Religions gone. Era system is wack, where are the actual eras humanity went through. If anything, they never did enough. Where is future era? The whole thing reminds me of what happens when a room of cod players are asked questions on a game they'll never play in the first place...
They really shouldn’t have implemented the civ swapping mechanic. If anything, it could’ve just been a trait mechanic, where if your civ has certain prerequisites, you may adopt traits that lean towards another civ’s culture, without destroying your own identity in the process. For example, Egypt having surplus of horses could lead to adapting to some Mongol-like policies or traits. But you’d still be Egypt and not Mongolia. Plus this could perhaps play some factor in culture victory, where you could adopt some other civ’s culture in attempt to reel in tourists from them. They could make this a factor, and have it influence various other mechanics with respect to the other civs.
or if they REALLY wanted to, they could force civ swapping only if you dont meet some criteria at the era ending crisis, simulating a falling empire, but hey that would gave the player too much freedom, cant allow that.
Yes, there was already loyalty pressure in Civ 6, which applied to the cyties which were next to a larger cyties of other empiers/neighbors. I think if they were to expand this mechanic they could have introduced migration and a partial culture adoption from others which would lead to some abilities being taken, but not as effective as if you were playing the civ you had stolen the ability from. Like if you have stolen the ability from you're neighbor Mongolia, you get it on 50% weaker, than actual Mongolia. Cities, which have a lot of Immigrants would get a lot of Loyalty pressure as the penalty towards the abilitie steal
There was a mod for Civ4 called "Rhyse and Fall" that I think handled it nicely and I wish Firaxis would've gone that route. Basically, if you didn't watch your happiness, a city (or cities) would rebel and form a new civilization and it was even historically accurate, when possible. At which point you could play as that new civ or continually playing as your current.
@@snuffeldjuret According to literally every video i've watched about the game, and the devs... There are core routes you can take.. and only once I heard someone mention that you can go oddball routes "like Egypt into Mongolia" but that requires you actually doing steps to make your culture like theirs, and Egypt to Mongolia is still in the route shown so...
@@Cramblit I saw the exact same comment and it was a suggestion not an actual feature. You have no reading comprehension and I think you should shut up before you make a further joke out of yourself.
I'd rather stick with Civ5. I can play with the civ I want while having better leader animations. The whole point of Civ is to play my favorite civilization from stone age to today. Without that, no thanks, I don't play the game for it's systems, I play for the fantasy and immersion.
I disagree somewhat. I think the idea is that civilisations change so much, during their existence, that they can't be called the same entity from the bronze age to today. F.e. Egypt under the pharaohs was different than under the Mamelukes and Nasser. You don't just get to change willy-nilly with every change, there are requirements
@@snuffeldjuret by same "civ" I meant the same society, in the same geographical boundary. Civilisations changing over time, in every way possible, is a real thing and thus it is is okay if that's reflected in the game
I'm not that worried, civ has been committing sudoku with every new release, but this doesn't look well. Humankind reeks, and this is a humankind sequel.
Playing as Roosvelt From Stone age till modern age also makes no sense! And some Civs only had a bonus or certain units that made sense in a certain time period. I mean Roman Legions Out powerful till you reach medieval period and have knights!
A game about strong cultural identity just lost its identity. This feels like a cheap, lazy bastardization of some one else's work. One of the reasons beyond earth failed was a lack of identity. Having all of your choices in one part of the game painted over by a whole new culture is not going to be received well. The sad thing is the whole culture swapping thing would work well for any other game but civ.
Nah, beyond earth failed because it could only diliver it's promise once: Discovering an new world. They needed way more Flora and Fauna variaty from game to game.
I wouldn't call this cheap or lazy, but the civ swapping being a bastardization does feels a little accurate. I get their reasoning behind that feature - to fix the issue that civs were only balanced to certain stages of the game, and strong early-game civs become weak later and vice-versa - but that doesn't mean it's the correct solution. They could have just made it where each civ "upgrades" and the bonuses change in certain ways to balance each civ with each era. You lose a sense of connection to your civ if you're forced to swap it out for an entirely different one two different times in a game!
No, it didnt. If its that important to you, you just switch of the option and no civ can switch. For people like me who know just a tiny bit of history and how civilisation merge and split (Rome is a good example) this sounds good, as long as it is implemented in a fair way.
My feeling is far too many developers today were NEVER game players. They see everything as a spreadsheet. For anyone to think that your losing your chosen civ a third way thru the game is not an immersion destroyer is just proof you were never a player.. 😠
Probably a diversity hire suggested it and the spineless shits inside fireaxis went along with it to avoid being called a racist. 🤡😠 Wokery has now started to nuke strategy games after killing RPGs and action games
Alas, you might be correct. Back in the day, game devs were primarily players that made the game for themselves. Nowadays, those previous games have been taken, seeing they made money, and 9-5 employees were put to work on them, with no real relationships to said games, and possibly gaming in it's entirety in many cases.
@@easilytrackableinternethum3018combat was great, but they really could have learned and not swap civs across ages, it never made sense to me and it was also the thing I imagined would be the main difference between civ and humankind. But oh well...
CIV 7 LOL - No Builders, No Barbs and they have killed multiplayer - Humankind Millenia hybrid with a horrendous gray on gray UI - no danger Im buying this shit
Builders were a nuisance starting mid game and horrendous in the late game. Barbs were replaced with a better system. Multi-player isn't set in stone there hasn't been an introduction. The UI is shit though that I will agree with
The new city states mechanic is actually a lot better than the dumb barbarians, which spawn like 10 units without any hesitation and out of thin air and destroy you. Also, i really apriciate the fact that the city states have their own leaders, instead of existing without any. In real life barbarians were not as unorgonised as it is in civ 5 or 6
Agreed, my dude, that interface is just pure 🤮 I personally liked one of the earlier Civs where, iirc, it had a key overlay letting you know what key to press to get your unit to move that direction.
@@toughmunths Builders are annoying mid and late-game, but I think they should have removed them when it gets to the second era instead of completely removing them. Like it would be a decision to make to go for higher overall yields in exchange for wasted production. I think builders are fun as hell. And now we're left with how many actual civilian units besides great people? They're removing too much imo.
@mysticfellow9843 doing that would be a game flaw. There would be zero reason to have them in antiquity and not in the rest of them game. Besides they made it so workers aren't needed so it's not completely removing the effect of builders just the mini game of moving thel around. Builders are the biggest game flaw of civ6 in my opinion it made the mid and late game a real chore to play so I'm all in for it. We'll see what other civilian units will be revealed later
What couldn't they just reuse the mechanic of civ 3 I think where youre leaders, through you advanced in ages changed clothes to match the newest times. I loved to see Moctezuma or Shaka Zulu with pants and t-shirts. (even if it would be better now, to have them with clothes that match their time but also their culture).
In their defense, that is super resource intensive. They probably would have gone that way if you swapped leaders instead of cultures, but we haven’t received a firm denial that leaders DO change clothing, as far as I’m aware. I miss palace customization…
@@4Xtraordinaire I'm just gonna keep playing Civ 6. Luckily we have plenty of other Strategy games to look forward to like Anno 117 and don't forget: Ara: History Untold. This game by published by Microsoft is a real contender for the Throne IMHO and it releases in a month.
They wanted to replicate what happened in real history. Recreating how a once great civilization eventually falls and get replaced by another. Like how the Normans became England/Britain and eventually the UK.
the ages mechanic is designed to keep the end game interesting by knocking back the snowball effect, of becoming dominant in the mid game, in theory it keeps the games level of challenge more level throught more of the game, but it fails because instead of a long term multiple hrs of imersion, it becomes a series of seperate shorter different games. also there is a significant amount of simplification reducing the number of sub games contained within the game such as worker usage, with their removal, it isnt even a consideration any more
@@taal223 but we are playing game, not studying history, also the very option that egyptian can turn into mongolian shot down any "historical accuracy" also this will sure be a big hit on Japan, as they claim to be the only monarchy that survive 2000 years, right, the same royal family been ruler (be it in name or actually having power) of japan. not even the mongols get to rule them, LoL.
That is because idiots took over key positions. What clowns don't get is that we the players know that civilizations historically fell. The idea wasnt to play as celts, see us defeated by Romans and change into a Roman civ? But to try again and STAND THE TEST OF TIME. Why cannot these studio heads be insulted and put in their place for not actually understanding the franchise they are butchering?
@@TheBelrick That's Catch 22. Heroes of Might and Magic 6 & 7 were bad games and they failed financially, so the series is basically dead. Civ V & VI were bad games as well, but financially successful, so the series isn't exactly dead, but you can't expect a good product. I guess I'm just too old and I want to play a decent strategy game in an era of mobile games. :-(
@@poiuyt975 Civ V was a good game. The single tile unit stacking was awful for the series. Made a mockery of the scale of the game. But Civ V Vox Populi is still peak Civilization. As in, the best version of Civ ever released. I Got civ i on my amiga 500 in 1991 when my step father brought home a stack of copied disks. Good times. But yes, its hard to be an older gamer. Younger gamers standards have ruined everything. Our generation would not have tolerated early releases aka i cannot be mature enough to wait for a finished product so will be sold incomplete games by greedy devs.
@@TheBelrick I understand why you love Vox Populi. I really enjoyed it as well, though personally I still prefer Civ IV. 1UPT is such a poor design choice that no mod can fix it. But keep in mind that Vox Populi, as good as it is, wasn't made by Firaxis. The players themselves had to fix the game. Civ V with both major expansions was playable and not all bad, but that's the highest kind of praise I can say about that game. Like I wrote previously, I had lost all faith in Firaxis and will never buy their game until it has been thoroughly fixed, preferably by modders.
The backlash is deserved, they decided to implement the worst humankind type mechanics that turned many people away. I think the only way civ7 doesn’t flop is if they push the release date back enough so they can rework the game mechanics and get rid of the humankind mechanics
@@rell0223 aint the whole civilization game is the same?. I would be glad for more scenarios, FIXED world builder, good mods and maybe better graphics and UI improvements and polish - thats all i need from a civ game.
I have to say that ruling one nation from Stone Age to the modern Ages was what attracted me since CIV on the amiga 500. I am absolutely not interested in swapping nationalities. Also having different technological levels was also a thing that fascinated me. So this 2 new changes basically destroy 50% of my immersion
For me that is just the opposite. I found it kind of stupid to start with USA in 4000 BC... And waiting the whole game before your unique units came online.
I thought people liked happiness? After how tedious civ 6 became I'd much rather we have more of a soft cap. Also there isn't a hard settlement cap, just a penalty like there has been for previous games. One of the point columns in the Antiquity age is literally to build 12 cities and towns.
Yeah like you said the fact they are going for: "But but but in History X, Y & Z happened so it's a good change" makes no sense, cause the original premise of Civ was: "Can you build a civilization that can stand the test of time?" Meaning alternate history roleplay. Civ is not a historically accurate representation of events of cultures, these old cultures are just flavour. Now with changing cultures once again there will be 0 immersion and with amenities replaced with a softcap on settlements mechanics won't be grounded either. Also not calling Barbarians Barbanians anymore cause "Nuanced Representation" for fuck sake, did the devs forget THEY WERE MAKING A GAME NOT A DOCUMENTARY. Please find me 1 single person living on this planet... No in the entire universe that could have a problem with calling Barbarians Barbarians...
@teaser6089 it's because they aren't just barbarians anymore. This is a combination of barbarian clans and city states. Barbarians will most likely only exist from the crisis mechanic as they showed red units in one of the showcases. Also there has never been real immersion of history in the first place. Civilizations will change during changes of era just like they have done in real life. Egypt still exists in some way but is not the same as ancient egypt. Same here, it's just that civilizations are more like play styles that are represented by a civilization name like Mongolia and Egypt and Rome. Your leader is going to be your main focus now with it's own tech tree.
@@teaser6089 Yeah, I get it, I really love my immersion when I am playing as world conquering Sweden with death robots, after having arrived on the moon in the 14th century and building the Pyramids in my ancient history... Maybe you should wait and see more before you get on the high horse and declare immersion is gone and mechanics will not be grounded. You haven't even seen any Real gameplay footage yet!
@@markos50100 Civ was never about city planer, role playing game, it was about alternate history where you lead nation/civ from a dawn of history into current times. If I want to play more acurate history title I will choose EU4, if I want to play city-builder I will go with Anno, RPG where you focus on your leader - there is CK3. Civ was never meant to be a blend of all this. Now we are getting even more of clunky mechanics that will probably not work properly, AI being too stupid as always which further waters down what Civ game was actually meant to be.
It’s always funny how different 5 and 6’s modding communities are when it comes to a general consensus. Vox Populi is always a mention on everyone’s modding lists, but Civ 6 is still so divided, despite being fairly old itself
Yeah. No one respectable wants to say it, but a big part of these issues are woke "philosophy." They're obviously making some of these changes due to what's a Marxist-Materialist view on history which is popular in academia, but not among players.
Bro they put a 125€ price tag for the edition that includes everything and a great game breaker for me that you not change to related country like Rome -> Castile -> Spain
I think civilizations should have primary and secondary traits, and instead of civ swapping you just pick a secondary trait to merge into your current civ without changing the culture or name of the civilization.
@@Narveloz You're missing the entire point of my comment. I know you have traits, that's clear when they discuss evolving into a new civilization. I am saying that you only take the traits and nothing else. Also I think you should be able to play anyone you want from the start and that gives you the primary trait of that civilization and the secondary trait is picked from another civilization and the same for the tertiary trait, or keep the default trait for your civilization throughout.
The obvious way to handle it would've been to swap leaders and time periods but pick from the same region as the default civ choice. EG, ptolemaic egypt can turn into the mamluk sultanate then post-colonial egypt. As a step forward, if they wanted to add choice for real instead of just defaults or memes, they could have the different leaders as the way to choose different traits when you swap. (Say Rome when reaching exploration lets you turn into venice, two sicilies, the papal states or the genoese, then for modern times you can choose between different historical versions of italy like republican, or kingdom, or well... you-know-who) That'd be a fun compromise and make it so you still have choice and swaps without changing identity. Instead we get egypt to songhai to buganda... just wtf.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 or maybe force swapping only if you fail to meet some criteria at the end era crisis, like a falling empire. If you manage to survive the crisis why you are forced to become someone else?
@@soapgaming4903 I mean I can barely read the UI with that color and font as it all blends together. And the tech tree is dumb. Every Era is a complete reset so any Civ that was behind you will magically catch up to you in the tech/civic race. etc. etc.
5 player cap if you start from antiquity?! Every multiplayer game usually starts at the very beginning, nobody wants to play straight on the modem era. That’s so lame.
Supposedly I read they were tired of people not ever playing the game to the end. I guess they never heard the "just one more turn" joke. Seriously though I probably played to the end on most of my games that I wasn't beaten.
What? I completely missed this 5 player cap, I liked playing civ 4 with 18 civs from the start, and civ 5 and 6 God knows with how many players, it filled the world, five is like Old World, and that game is doing it waaay better.
@@AquaCoalaNest yeah I think they said it in their most recent stream. So it’s 5 player cap in antiquity but up to 8 if you start in the exploration or modern era. How stupid is that.
@@MechaShadowV2 In what world is behaviour of people online a reason to balance an entire game towards it lol. You always had people who have patience to multiplayer a game that will last a literal 16 hours to complete with 12 players or so. And obviously you have people who don't like that or have the time or patience for that.
My favorite was civ 5 with the biggest map, slow game pace, and as many civs as possible (I think it was like 22 or something). 5-8 civ max just seems boring
The settlement cap sucks the most. I wanna be the dominant force on every continent and I want to completely occupy my starting continent when playing a 4000+ unlimited turn marathon game in singleplayer
They basically only had to change some mechanics from Civ Vi (districts, world congress, diplomacy etc) with more realistic graphics and some fresh ideas and release it. I am very spectical with changing Civs during the game.. the premise of the game was always if your civilisation can stand the test of time. Well, appearently not.
Changing Civ in middle of the game could actually be good if it's done right. For example, Rome can turns into German, England turns into America, Persia turns into Arab or vice versa. I guess they are afraid of political backlashes.
@@gemilangrahmandhika7509 Rome changing to german is funny as hell considering germany is literally the only area in western Europe Rome didn't conquer. Also it should be sassanid to persia, persia and arab is not even in the same area...
@@rency1803the Arabs were actually the death of persian culture and religion same in Egypt Northern africa and they tried there best in Spain with Al Andulus
It works well in humankind, its plainly just more gameplay to enjoy overall and I don't understand the fuss about the mechanic and calling it bad, on other hand I understand the argument of it not fitting in civ.
@@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126because youre forced to do it. the entire point of civ is to build an empire that stands the test of time. what if rome is your favorite civ and you want to play as rome? well fuck you, because we at firaxis will force you to swap into something else you dont want to play. suck it nerds. like what? im pretty sure i would rather stick my dick into an industrial cheese grater than buy civ 7 if this mechanic actually goes through
@@DubberRucksthats where youre wrong buddy. all civ players are just like you, literally nobody wants to switch mid way. it ruins the entire point of civ. if they put this into the game, civ7 will be a historical flop of epic proportions. it will be like concord.
One solution is to do things like starting as a Frankish tribe, progressing to the French kingdom then to Imperial France then to modern France. As for civilizations that never progressed and died you'd have to make something up for them and have them keep their leader from their last age. Or only have the truly great civilizations and leave out the ones that just existed briefly. Having the Mauri is silly anyway lol.
Maybe in 20 years bro. When Toxic feminism and anti-white sentiment has died down. But right now they have like 2 or 3 people working at the studios dictating that Civilization paints a different story than actually happened in real life. And don't you see how incredibly evil you are for calling the Mauri silly? :) All leaders should be women as well. If you say otherwise you should be jailed for your anti-women slurs. It's that game now you know. -feminist
for me the eras should last longer or at least there should be an option that's why i love Old World the idea of dynastic lineage and the ancient culture is truly chef kiss also borrowing ideas from crusader kings series events
Rhyes & Fall mods in Civ 4 was the best. Civilizations spawns according to their eras with revolt scenarios. Each Civ has their own historical goal. Oh and also, settling new city will automatically renames the city according to the tile location in world map.
Holy cow... I've been playing Civ since Civ 2, but forcing you to switch Civs (or "cultures") throughout a play through absolutely kills my excitement... I've been able to adjust to each change, new mechanic or removed feature in every single entry, but that's one thing I don't think I'll EVER enjoy. Even if I can somehow adapt to it, I'll always hate that idea. I want to begin & end with ONE Civilization. It would've made far more sense (and at least been somewhat accurate to history) if your leader changed over time... Not your entire culture! Going from Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great to Tsar Nicholas or something would be more historically accurate without ruining immersion. Even if a Civilization was conquered or invaded, you could keep playing as Egypt but suddenly have Cleopatra take over later down the line. I dunno... I'm just bummed out now 😅
Exactly what I was thinking. They tried to justifiy the system with history. But you can clearly see in history that the culture stayed mostly the same and simply evolved, not 100% morphed into different looking humans with a completely different language and culture. And it would be way more fun to have it our way too. I want to play as the ancient german(ics) who fought off rome, then Karl the Great, the german emperor and then Bißmarck, all interesting real famous german historic figures. Not Go from Egypt to Mongolia to Bunganda xD That doen't inspire me or teaches me about history in a fun way at all. At least as a german I can clearly see that Karl from one or multiple eras ago and the almost modern Otto are from the same or closely related cultures, both are still names used nowadays in germany.
I liked civilization when it had lawyers, corporations, giant death robots, satellites that could blast cities from space. Anything short of that, and don't bother.
I'd like it even more if they made a spinoff Sinocentric version of it that centres on some weird techno asia with China at the centre(I don't know I just threw this out cuz cyberpunk)
"and if you start falling behind other nations, it can be tempting to restart long before you see the endgame" - restarting each era sounds like participation medals for all kids in competition :)
I kinda understand it as a form of rubber banding... but it was WAY too extreme. They have to differenciate between making sure snowballing doesn't go too far and just having hard resets forcing an equal playing field. At this point its like playing 3 games in a row knowing the first 2 barely matter.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 I've played since Civ 1. Every next game was kind of revolutionary in spirit of Civilization series. For the first time I don't feel that Civ 7 is for me... maybe I am just too old :) P.S. I've never understanded people criticized other parts, like I played in pvp Civ 3 and Civ 4, and I was in top 15 or maybe even top 10 in the World in the ladder. I really loved Civ 5, and I was delighted by Civ 6... so probably I am too old :D
@@DawidStarzykiewicz You didn't get to old. Its them who got too lazy. Civ6 already copypasted a bunch from Endless Legend, a game by Amplitude. But at least it didn't feel like a total ripoff. But Civ7 just seems like it rips off Humankind (another 4x by Amplitude) without even understanding ehy it works and what issues people have with it. Like civ swapping, that's one of the things people criticize the most about that game. And as a fan of it, I actually kinda like it (even if I wish it was tweaked), but god damn could they not have picked up on what people were saying and tweaked it? It's not so hard... but if anything they made it WORSE! God damnit.
@@DawidStarzykiewicz i play since civ 2, hell i once had a world conquest game that lasted months in civ 3 and still remember it fondly. I tried so hard to like civ 6 but it just feels wrong and boring to me, and 7 looks even worse, but its not us getting older, its them having lost connection with the player base and what people enjoyed from the games. We still got 4 and 5 to enjoy, and ara history untold looks promising.
@@lokibau I am chess player, so I enjoy all the planning adjacency bonuses, districts placements and different way of playing different civs. In Civ 7 seems like i can shape any civ to anything I like, so you race to best bonuses... then no worries about failing, because of reset, and so on.
I just don't like civ swapping and I hope it is implemented as a game mode that can be disabled in the settings. Other than that, everything looks great. Well, maybe the user interface. It looks too bland, but that's just aesthetics.
Or if they could make it so there's a setting for only straight historical routes. Like Persia to ottomans to Iran. I'm not bothered by it myself since we keep the leaders and always have certain bonuses to rely/build upon, but I get why some are wary after Humankind.
As one commenter said on the reveal video; "Can you build a civilzation that will stand the test of time? Apparently not in Civ 7, I can only do it for one era 😂" I hate the idea of civ swapping
I hear you played civ 4 😊. Civ 4 is my favorite with Legends of revolution mod. The game was balanced. Barbarians evolve into a culture and a leader is randomly selected. They can capture cities and expand like a civilization. That is the best barbarian mechanic of all the civ games!!! I love Ruthless Al. The computer plays to win !!!
I don’t think the pessimism is unwarranted. We already had Humankind with the civ swapping. If this was something unexplored everyone would be more cautiously optimistic, but we now know it’s not a fun mechanic.
I wouldn’t even say I’m pessimistic, I’m just going forward with tempered expectations. Like you said, Humankind also sang a similar tune. Really, Ed Beach talking about historical accuracy reminded me a lot of the Humankind devs in their initial dev diaries
@@4Xtraordinairebut who gives a shit about historical accuracy in a strategy game where you can build the pyramids as china? the point of civ is to not be historically accurate. we want to make our own civilizations, not watch a history documentary. and also the mechanic to swap civs is not optional. you have to do it
There's some argument between 4 and 5, I feel. Some people even really like 3, I know I did! And hell, let's not pretend that Civ 6 didn't have SOME good ideas. I know I'm in the minority, but I LIKE the city unstacking to a degree - it needed some fine-tuning that was never done, but I still thought it was a good idea. This Civ 7 though? Nah, this isn't it. I was very hopeful when high-profile Civ-style games started popping up, I thought it'd force Civ to evolve and innovate, to change and improve... Instead, they just copied mechanics wholesale form their weakest competitor, without considering how they'd fit the larger ecosystem of a Civilization game. They didn't learn from Millennia, they didn't learn from Zephon, they didn't learn from OLD WORLD, which brought by far the most to the table-!
@@Archris17 Civ 6 almost wasn't bad. If they had just given us more leaders and civs and not all of them locked away behind DLC. But nah in CIV 6 it's always the exact same game with the exact same leaders. Dual leaders or Civs don't fix anything at all. Neither as AI nor playing them myself. And really, I love Eleanor of Aquitaine. But not in Civilization lol.
They made too many decisions that violate common sense lines that shouldn't have been crossed. The Leader models look like they hired subpar artists, and the fluid Civ mechanic destroys identity and immersion in favor of this false ideal of freedom.
@@4Xtraordinaire That's probably because in Sid's unending wisdom they forgot to actually survey their playerbase, didn't do an analysis in their competitors and just sat in their own dark office deciding what they think is best for the product. Luckily we live in a capitalist society so if we all just decide not to buy the game maybe they will get the memo
@@4Xtraordinaire nah people are just being people, usually dumb as fuck, speak like they now it all, clowning before playing, like how they hype humankind before it came out. same exact shit
Civilization is dead, as far as I am concerned. It's creatively and philosophically dead: plagiarizing other series, abandoning core ideas, feel like being designed by committee, have a very odd mobile game look.
@@barnvandiebos9070I did play civ 6 because i’m not a fucking baby and i can play a game with bright colors. Like how can you care so much about a much better game being more vibrant
Stellaris did crisis -- and it was a fun test of how well you've built your empire. *also Frostpunk (a very special kind of city-builder) has crisis, and it's a great game.
@@joosakurvinen4381 That analogy makes no sense. Would you rather prefer for the game to pick bad staff to happen at random? This way, the player gets agency to influence what bad things happen (I presume from a semirandom selection). How on earth is that a bad thing? Bad things will happen. And you get to influence what. Preferably something that's not gonna cripple you.
@@nightraven2975 There is this idiotic conflation that because the kingdoms of Egypt had some black subjects ('Kushites' or 'Nubians'), then 'the Egyptians were black.' Egyptians made many, many statues and images of themselves; kings and pharaohs, priests, commoners, soldiers. Go look at some. They're not black. Are Zulu really 'white' because some whites live(d) there? No? Then Egyptians aren't black just because some blacks lived in Egypt.
Civilisation used to be immense. But something I noticed creeping into the game ideology and play mechanic was a bizarre 'cultural sensitivity' obsession. It's an irreverent game, not a history textbook. So you will see some cultures surpassing what would be their 'natural' technological and innovative qualities. My point being, Civ developers want the game to present cultures as being as 'historically sensitive' and authentic as possible, equality and progressive inclusion, but then they also will have Lady Six Sky of the Maya utterly dominate Rome when it come to military excellence or out industrialise the United Kingdom - which is just ahistorical. Also, there is bizarrely next to ZERO development regarding England in particular, we've had Queen Elizabeth from the off, a slight amendment but nothing else, no new rulers. What about King Alfred the Great or Richard the 'Lion Heart' of Aquitaine. Civ developers have had to utterly downplay and reduce the importance of European scientific, militaristic and cultural excellence in a bizarre effort to 'standardise' all cultures as being equal in all things and yet they also make lesser historical figures over powered in an effort to compete with their more illustrious counterparts. It is a game, so make it such. You don't need 'sensitive' historical depictions of cultures deemed 'oppressed'. It's a game.
That should be a mechanic not a game mode, if they want to stick to this stupid idea of one Civ turns to another that turn to another, at least give the ability to "transcend" the Civ you first pick, and make the Civs you pick be related not like the example they showed of Egypt to Shongai, the only thing those nations have in common is they are located in Africa and that's it. Shongai as a nation only came to be when the Mali empire fell, and by that time Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire
@@digiorno1142 that is another thing and something I think it's stupid, like the Mongols appear in the discovery age, but they stopped existing in the modern age. It makes no sense, keeping Civs locked behind ages and requirements, I can understand if the Mongols are only able to be played in the discovery age, but at least have them be able to continue to the modern age, instead of forcing us to swith from Mongolia to whatever Civ we have to choose
@@lompeluitenhow? Just add some traits that you gotta fulfill before you can change just like ck3 where you need certain things to evolve into another kingdom, empire etc.
Gotta check that out with Millennia. I've also been playing the Zephon demo and plenty of Old World. There's loads for Civ to learn from and they not only went with their weakest competition, but just seem to have copied elements wholesale without considering how to make them fit the Civ formula. I was hopeful that the new slew of civ-like games would force Firaxis to adapt and improve, but at least now if/when the Civilization franchise dies, we have others to go to.
I think at the turn of an era each civ should be faced with a national crisis that, depending on your actions, could result in your civilization taking on a new identity
This. If you manage to survive the crisis you should be able to keep your civ, force swapping only if you fail at some criteria. That would have made some sense. What were they thinking...
True. The district system was awful, and is the reason I remained with Civ v. Now it seems more tedious and awful systems are on the way, along with more disney-esque art
District System is still beter than civ swapping. it makes game a lot more about managing you're empire and how it functions. I get why some people don't like it, but it doesn't make the mechanic bad
After awful experiences with Civ V and VI I'll wait this one out. I'll check it out in a couple of years when the development process is finished, all the expansions and patches are out, and the game is on sale. I got burnt with Firaxis four times already (Civ 4: Col, Beyond Earth, Civ V, Civ VI), so they lost my trust entirely.
Civ is a game about having a empire stand the test of time. Civ 7 doesnt have that so for me its not civ. Also they have ugly art for the leaders and no one wants to identify as that for a game instead in the past we got to be the epic cultures and empires of the world.
English is not my first language, but i always assume "civilisation" is above "empires", now in civ7 you keep your empire while the "cultural content of a civilisation" within your nation magically swap. whoever think of this system must be genius, LOL
@@Thioacetone1 Huh? You get to keep you cities and progress, even traits of your previous civ carry over, they don't magically disappear. Your empire just evolves.
I've been seen a lot of content creators who's seems being paid for said only good things about CIV VII. And it's okay, they are trying to introduce the game to a new players (gen z and X) But what about the old fans? Maybe we are the most motivated to spend our money in the game, but only if they do a good job, not for this trash.
Everyone is find the switching civilization chnage weird but what I find even weirder is keeping the same leader. Augustus leading Brazil (if its added) dosent sit right with me
I agree on your second point. Just because "swapping civs" might be historically accurate doesn't mean it's fun or that we should be happy about it. Ultimately, it feels like instead of making a Civ game, they're more interested in a mish mash from other franchises.
Moreover, this mechanism forces them to "find" out a greater number of original civilizations ... And to choose peoples or entities that were not “civilizations” in the sense that people understand it. I don't know what it's like on the English-speaking web, but in the French-speaking fan communities everyone make fun of the "Norman" civilization we see in the trailers. Historically, there was no Norman civilization. The Normans were Scandinavians (Scandinavian civilization) who settled in France and adopted its religion and customs (to such an extent that the middle-age and modern Norman and French languages were and still are mutually intelligible). Normans then spread out (especially to Great Britain and Italy) while maintaining a distinct "scandinavian and french mixed" culture for some time. Representing a “Norman” civilization (during the Age of Exploration) and then proposing a “French” civilization in the following age (the Modern Age) makes no sense: France is usually considered to have existed BEFORE the western european Normans, the latter having openly adopted the culture and practices of this kingdom. It would be more logical to see a Norman civilization succeeding a French or Scandinavian civilization. And what would happen to England if they want to add an English civilization later on? Here too, England existed BEFORE the western european Normans even appeared. England has been influeced by normans indeed, but english culture and kingdom existed way BEFORE normans arrived. If we follow their logic, England/Great Britain would be a Modern Age civilization that would succeed the Normans? WTF? England was indeed ruled by a Norman elite for part of its history, but the country was populated overwhelmingly by Anglo-Saxons people who had a distinct identity and who represent what we think of when we think of England. From the moment the game has a Scandinavian civilization (vikings and so on) and a France-named civilization (France being the supposed descendant of the Franks), the presence of a Norman civilization makes absolutely no sense for a lot of people. Talking about different “civilizations” for countries like England or France is already borderline in itself, so what about the Normans ...
@@plateo_3234 It's idiotic, but this what happens when they don't listen to the fans and make decisions on what "they think" the direction of the game should be.
I think they've F'd up with this one. As they say, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. They should have continued to build upon their predecessors instead of making significant game changes, which will alienate many in the fan base.
Their usual design principle is to keep one third the same, one third slightly different and one third entirely new, but in civ 7 basically half the game is not only new to civ but from a completely different game (humankind) so it definitely looks like they went too far.
7:00 - i understand the crisis system more like a way to form your future path, like picking the stuff that affects your playstyle least. And even if you sometimes need to pick something that's against your playstyle, having played optimally is still an advantage, for example a -6 in combat strength doesn't really matter that much, if you've already steamrolled your neighbors in the last age and have an army which is like 3 times as big as theirs. I sometimes have that in civ6, where my main opponent is sometimes a full army tech in front of me, but their 1 freshly build modern unit simply can't fight an army of 10 well trained last era units on their own. 7:30 - Kupe is one of the best example for why civ changes make sense in the first place, because a third through the game most of his defining abilities literally become useless. Like you can only found your first city once, so that's something that gets rid of the most unique part of his kit instantly and then you profit mostly from sailing and ship building to discover islands others need more time for, but once other civs pick up those techs you pretty much turn into a civ which most defining ability is to get a littlebit more production out of woods or rainforests (which is so generic, that i even needed to look it up to know, what makes him unique past 50 turns to begin with) That said, i don't see, where this system would make it harder to add special start civs, but it probably gets even easier to add them, like i could definitely see the benefit of having the fun of a Kupe-like start, then a portugese economical boom in the mid game to fund my science victory as korea. I often didn't want to play early game civs, because it simply got too boring at some point. As for the plagiarism comment, it's hard to criticise civ for that, if most of humankinds system where present in civ as well. In my opinion this kind of inspirational work rather improves the competition, since now devs have a good reason to actually surpass other studios on their own ideas instead of developing something, that is just good enough. I'm sure, civ going with 3 eras is a direct answer to the like 7 or 8 eras we had in humankind, which was honestly way too short to even utilize it properly.
It's hilarious that Humankind has succeeded as a "Civ-killer" by convincing Civ devs to implement some of the most fun-sapping elements such as hard city caps and much less control over how you improve resources and cities
There should be changes of civs with progression. But NOT jumping between civs randomly. It should be like: ancient China, then you choose: communist China / capitalistic China (Taiwan). Or: you start with Slavs and only later you choose one of slavic countries.
I was playing Ara , and I didnt like it that much.The battles are boring , and with no tactics at all.The graphics is very much dark , and boring with no art style at all.The gameplay over all is different then Civ games , and in my opinio much worse and boring and to complicated.I think CIV7 will be the best civ game ever.Also Humankind is very good.
@@marekkos3513 So those battles in the the trailers of ARA where mostly show, you don't command your units or divisions ?, there is this game called Oriental Empires that took the Civilization like gameplay set in the three kingdoms settings it was great seasonal changes, deep diplomatic strategy and a basic but cinematic battles of divisions on the same map unlike Total War, I wonder if in a future entry cities could be set in map with a sub map of the region the city is located for better aesthetic and city management mechanics civ6 cities where too crowded.
@@4Xtraordinaire why are civ players so focused on graphics? i thought this phenomenon was more of a shooter/action game obsession. is it because civ is a more casual strategy game with wider audience?
I’m fine with Civ 6’s artstyle, but Ara has a genuinely uninteresting world map. I’ve looked at it recently, and it is way too… monotone? It feels like there is 0 contrast, and I had a similar issue with millennia
@@J.J.Jameson_of_Daily_BugleI don’t remember where but I remember hearing the leader pass was like, outsourced or something? Which is why most of the new leaders are reskins or reused
@@Skywarslord I wouldn't be surprised, they kinda look quickly put together with some reused animation from other leaders. Also their "balance" and idea are equally quickly made, me thinks. Dunno, the last leader packs felt more like fan made mods then official leader packs.
Note how in civ 6 each civ had simple music in the ancient era, that evolved over each age with a new version of the same music. That can't happen here. You're only going to get one version of each Civ's music.
Exactly. China is perhaps the best example of an ancient Civ that made it all the way to the present age and is still going strong despite all the ups and downs of millennia of history. But China isn't' the only one either. Egypt, Iran, India, Greece, Japan, etc., all survived as identifiable civilisations from the ancient to the modern era, maybe with changes that are expected over thousands of years of history, but still very much alive and unique.
I think the only way civ swapping can really work is if you require the civ swapping to be to historical evolutions of your original pick. For example, if you start as Babylon, have the option to switch to Arabia, Iran, or turkey. You start as the germanics, have the option to switch to England, Netherlands, or Germany. Start as Rome, you can switch to France, Spain or Italy. Or something like that. Not the songhai switches to England switches to China nonsense.
Even the suggested scenario is just bad. Babylon was never the same civilisation as Arabia or Iran or Turkey. Rome was literally fighting Germanic "barbarians" for centuries of its existence. The whole thing sounds like a bad idea. I could accept that for a long lived civlisation like China, you might go from one dynasty to another one than to Communist China in the modern era, with different characteristics. But a change of governments, value systems, religions, etc., was already possible in previous iterations of the game...
I bought HK a year after release - and I felt they did fix a lot of the problems. My main gripe with HK is that battles take way too long in the later ages (moving 20 units for 3 rounds every turn slows the game down to a crawl). Plus - I didn't like how the computer could just attack one of my cities with one or two units - stopping its production, then run around with said unit in a far area of the battle without ever attacking - which meant my mega city couldn't do anything until I left the fortifications to run around trying to find the lone horse somewhere behind a mountain.
I don't understand backlash on HK. Like all civ players say that they dislike the game because apparently it is not civ like. I think HK can do whatever they want. It is their own game anyways. The civ swapping in HK has it's own place in the game meta. But the same cannot be said about civ 7, because it is a civ game and it doesn't follow the rules of the civ games and feels weird
@@dianashupletsov7812 For me - I thought of Civ just as a name. For me - the game was about playing a civ "though history", not playing a "civ" through history. In fact - I thought most the civ's were generally too close together in gameplay and often struggled with balance on various maps. Civ VI's mid DLC additions did help them stand apart from each other a lot more (I only played until the New Frontier pass finished) and I enjoyed that.
As someone who loves the changing cultures of HK I'm not convinced by CIV7 system. Yes, in HK you can get really wacky scenarios and the eras succession can feel really anticlimatic, but I don't think locking out civ options and assigning default "historical options" will be a solution.
@@ruas4721i know, but the game seems structured to give just a couple of default option players will have always aviable, and it has just been comfirmed that the AI will always pick this predeterminated cultures. So, long story short, limited options for the player for the later cultures and prevedible AI changes.
Im gonna hold off on Civ 7 untill after release to see how it looks. I think too much of it is change for change sake, and it just doesnt look fun sadly.
its a tipical american approach, they just have decided in preproduction that 30% of the game must be new mechanics, 30% change to existing mechanics and 30% should be the same with no further thought, they dindt bother to assest what worked well and improve on that and what didnt worked well and scrap that. No, just change for the sake of change, they already did that with 6 and partially worked (for them, i hated also 6), but i think this time will be a real flop.
Civ VII looks over complicated just to be different. I’d just wait for a few years until the complete game with expansions comes out then see how it plays.
Civ swapping is a bad idea because it ruins the sentimentality at the core of Civ. This is a philosophical issue: people attach significance to particularity, but the "Humankind-like" swapping is saying people aren't particular, they are fungible and replaceable, and this is poison to the sentimentality of particularity that forms emotional connection.
I think that indeed the biggest criticism is the civ swapping... Especially with Egypt into Songhai as shown in the showcase... But i hope it's still in development and it's more connected, like instead of Egypt to Mongolia, it's Egypt to Arabia and all that
maybe id give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it's a placeholder decision, but im not sure. i feel like egypt into venice or other mediteranean culture makes much more sense than egypt into a subsaharan african one.
What does Arabia have to do with ancient Egypt apart from sharing a similar geographical location? Those cultures, people and empires are completely different. They want to be more historically accurate yet they disregard all history and you change Civ just because they occupied the same area. Pretty disrespect and ahistorical if you ask me.
@@pablodiazgarcia5940 the cultures and empires, sure, but the people are still around albeit changed. the egyptian people never vanished. they may have adopted arab religion, language and culture, but the modern egptians are descended from the ancient ones. this point would be valid was if the situation was native americans becoming the united states, where the people would genuinely be unrelated.
@@pablodiazgarcia5940 You're kidding right? The Arabs conquered Egypt and established Islam there. Modern Egyptians are a mix between anicent Egyptians and Arabs. They speak Arabic in Egypt for Christ's sake.
These septum-pierced DEI-driven closet-dwelling children that have infested video game development never knew it. I played Civ I, from 1990, for hundreds of hours. There are lots of us; probably millions. If they cared at all, they could have asked. But they don't.
All civilizations are based on identity that changes and transforms as ages goes. Why player cannot name and rename his civilization as his campaign evolves, instead of choosing presets.
I'm surprised nobody talks about going from upgrading undividual units to upgrading commanders instead. For me, it's one of the biggest problems I have with Civ7, since I feel deep connection to the units that were by my side all along, and went through fire and water with me. Every single unit that was on the frontline in my games gets a special name on the first promotion, and when I see this unit fighting in the modern era, I recall the days they fought with sticks back in the ancient era, and feel genuine proud and respect for them. I feel that I can count on them, but when the situation isn't in their favour, I do everything I can to save them. But now I can't feel this way, since I probably won't recall my units without an ability to name them, and I won't feel the same respect for the commanders (no matter how glorious or victorious they are) as I feel for the units - the ones who are risking their lifes in my name, facing our enemies and trusting me so much that they obey my every single order, even suicidal ones, while commanders are blankly sitting in the backlines and giving them nothing more than a few bonuses.
It's a common tendency in 4x history game to care less and less about creating a history and more and more about min-maxing and "competitive online multiplayer". My best times on Civ-like games, both online or local, where in semi-RP multiplayer games.
The justification for Civ changing with the eras is baffling to me. "London used to be controlled by the romans and then the Anglo-Saxons" Yeah mate, no wonder how that happened? Not like the Western Roman Empire collapsed and some time later an external tribe conquered London... Civilizations don't just change from one era to the other. The Roman Civilization is a great example. You can trace Rome from the 700s BC to 1453 AD and through all of that time they were a city-state, a kingdom, a republic, an empire, two empires, a medieval empire... Were the people of Constantinople in the 1400s the same as the ones living in Rome in 150 AD? No, but they were ROMANS. Make civilizations change from era to era but keep the same name. You can make new civilizations pop up in the map when the eras change or when barbarians or city-states conquer some of your cities. But don't make me change from Egypt to Abbasid because the year tells me is about time to do so. We've been Egyptians for 6000 years but now a lot of bad things are happening because is the year 476AD, guess we'll become a new civilization that has nothing to do with what we were before, welcome the Abbasids
the most ironic thing is that if real life was a civ game, the question would be if your civ can stand the test of time. if you play rome and have to switch to italy, you know what happened? you couldnt stand the test of time. GG. game over. you lost.
I start the game with civ A and develop my empire based on A’s advantages. All of sudden, I’m force to another civ B, which makes all of my previous efforts wasted? That just makes no sense… I’m playing Egypt along floodplain and building lots of wonders, all of sudden I’m Mongolia and have to produce my first horseman?
You dont suddenly play Mongolia. You get a historical option and unlock other civs with the way you lead your nation. If you play egypt and spam hundreds of horsemen you unlock Mongolia (just an example). Thats already confirmed.
I really like Civ swapping but that definitely goes against the feel of a Civ game. I feel they should have just made Civ swapping an optional rule or game mode.
Humankind does not force you to swap your civ when advancing. It actually even gives you more victory points for retaining your civ while advancing. Swapping just gives the game a lot of flavour and strategic depth, I don't see why this would be an unpopular choice.
I disagree with the idea that the civs are more unique. Comparing to say, civ V, none of these options are as distinct as the difference between Polynesia and Venice. Small differences in adjacency bonuses aren't what I call good differentiation.
That's probably what I would probably like to see in my own "ideal" Civ7, not just different features of different civilisations, but also different gameplay styles for each one. Probably, Age of Empires IV nailed it the best. However, such a game feature would be very hard not even to make, but to balance
I wish they did it the other way around and focused on the Civs rather than the leaders. It’d be cool if they had multiple leaders throughout the ages per Civ (even if they have the same bonuses) rather than multiple Civs with the same leader
Verticality in the terrain (including bonuses/penalties for fighting in higher/lower elevation was already a thing in 2014 4X game Endless Legend from the same devs as Humankind and Endless Legend arguably had more interesting mechanics to take inspiration from than Mankind ever did.
Quick notes:
Settlement cap can be gone over, but happiness also needs to be taken into consideration with city management now
You won’t have every single culture to switch to like in Humankind, there will be a historical option, and some that fit with your gameplay style
Here's the full article I reference in the video: www.theguardian.com/games/article/2024/aug/20/civilization-7-history-firaxis-games-civilization-6
It's a quick read, but I agree with a lot of Ed's points about stagnation and I can see how he got to where we are with ages. However, I'm hoping for more flexibility in how we are handed some of the new mechanics like crises and culture swapping. Let me know what you think!
WTF????? YOU WENT FROM CIV 4 TO CIV 6?????????? SO YOU NEVER PLAYED CIV 5??????? SERIOUSLY?????? WTF?????????? CIV 6 SUCKS AND CIV 5 IS THE BEST CIV EVER!!!!!!!!! CIV 5 WAS THE MASTERPIECE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CIV 6 SUCKED!!!!!! AND CIV 7 IS DEFINITELY A DOWNGRADE COMPARED TO CIV 5!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@kieranrollinson8750 No, Civ 5 are never be the masterpiece, obviously Civ 3 or 4 as masterpiece...or perhaps both.
Also, You're missing a point there bro. From multiple reference and comments that i've known so far, Civ 5 gameplay was awesome, include battle and other mechanics. The thing that community don't like are road maintenance and most importantly, GLOBAL HAPPINESS system. It was so frustating to most new players that play civ and it struggle due to global happiness, resulting some slow growth or decline on your civilization. Civ 6 also has awesome gameplay and mechanics, but from my opinion,...i rather play it anyway since happiness system are on per city (or known as amenities)
If you are saying a downgrade of Civ 7, that might be true on some mechanics, but we only seeing portion of gameplay and mechanics....so we just have to wait until release.
Well to each its own i guess... for me Civ III with its expansions was&still is the best as far as i'm concerned but i simply seem to be enjoying titles that are improving&expanding on the original classics rather then the brand new 180* turn that newer entries seem to choose to bring to the table, as such my favorite games are:
Civ III , Rome TW II , Massive Assault PM, Kohan AG, Age 2 DE
@@kieranrollinson8750
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was arguably the masterpiece. Although Civ 5 is also very good.
@@mirceazaharia2094 LOL!!!!! I HAVE NEVER PLAYED SID MEIERS ALPHA CENTAURI.....!!!!!!! IN, FACT I HAD NEVER HEARD OF IT BEFORE!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! :D :D
The big problem for me with Civ swapping is that it means TSL games are dead. I play most of my games on TSL (True Starting Location) maps and I really enjoy being able to spawn in a historical area and lead a Civ from there to win in my on alternate history. It doesn't make sense for me to spawn in Egypt as Egypt only to turn into the Mongolians and then the United States.
Over half of my games were TSL as for me its more an RP game than anything.
They should have 2 gamemodes, one which is the one they showed, and one that works like the old civ, where you play as one leader, but we can only pray
You can still do that. It’ll just be Egypt in Egypt and then in the next phase you’ll be in the same location but with upgraded units and buildings of your new civ.
if you want to be accurate like that then you would start in africa every time. Or if you wanted to america youd start as england and change.
That new "civilization" you are forced to change to is just a name! You are getting a different set of bonuses to cope with the new age. Maybe, there will be a mod that lets you keep your original civilization name.
Would that solve the problem?
Players: "We want a smarter AI"
Firaxis: "Let's look elsewhere"
You don't need a smarter AI if you dumb the game down lmao
@brett_roseAgree and disagree. I don't think the game is complex enough to justify the state of the AI. If was a 90% good and the rest being exploitable. Was ok. But the A.I is more A than I in many different ways and in 1999 they didn't make a excuse to RTS to have bad A.I and i think it's silly to give excuses for then in 2024.
Let's not get blown up in discussions 🤡
@@wandy3606agreed, I remember old rts and turn based strategy games with complex mechanics that still had good A.I. The only thing that I think a decent A.I. should have trouble with is something as abstract as diplomacy but even that has been done better with older games. I'm starting to think that AAA game development is going through the same cargo cult mentality that Hollywood movies are.
YES, I really feel this way about Stellaris I want old Stellaris but with good AI. Oh here's some new content to experience. Where's my better AI? We fix the issue of the AI not eating. What did you improve? No that's (the AI) 10 patch is down the line we can't do that right now.
I want civ 7, not humankind 2. Dont make the civilization swap.
I came here to say this! Fuck humankind, it was a terrible game!
It should be leader swapping if they want to swap something. Not the entire damn civilization
@@soapgaming4903 I don't think I agree with that either. It should've been that the leaders you choose evolve over til to fit the eras. Although don't get me started on their weird slimmed down era system. Where are the dark ages of civilizations? Those ages where you think you might loss to the AI on deity. Oh, wait, they're gonna be sold back to us as DLC... Or not at all. This game from everything that I've seen so far looks like it's gonna blow, big time. Maybe I'm just old, and after playing every game they've made since my 486 PC played Civ ONE, I want what made civilization a turn masterpiece of turn based historical fantasy. Not a clone of a failed game, did they not read the steam reviews for Humankind? Or I guess companies, truly, don't care about fans anymore, it's all about how much they can risen from you...
Then just turn of swapping. Its going to be button in the settings. I dont understand what people are on about.
@@GnosticAtheist my comment didn't just mention leader swapping. So why are you focusing on that? It is an annoyance. But not my mine grip. My other grips is the fact that I fucking hated humankind and this is literally humankind 2. And if you want a list, then here goes. They've taken away hotseat, already confirmed. Barbarians are gone. Builders gone. Religions gone. Era system is wack, where are the actual eras humanity went through. If anything, they never did enough. Where is future era? The whole thing reminds me of what happens when a room of cod players are asked questions on a game they'll never play in the first place...
They really shouldn’t have implemented the civ swapping mechanic. If anything, it could’ve just been a trait mechanic, where if your civ has certain prerequisites, you may adopt traits that lean towards another civ’s culture, without destroying your own identity in the process.
For example, Egypt having surplus of horses could lead to adapting to some Mongol-like policies or traits. But you’d still be Egypt and not Mongolia.
Plus this could perhaps play some factor in culture victory, where you could adopt some other civ’s culture in attempt to reel in tourists from them. They could make this a factor, and have it influence various other mechanics with respect to the other civs.
yeah
or if they REALLY wanted to, they could force civ swapping only if you dont meet some criteria at the era ending crisis, simulating a falling empire, but hey that would gave the player too much freedom, cant allow that.
Yes, there was already loyalty pressure in Civ 6, which applied to the cyties which were next to a larger cyties of other empiers/neighbors. I think if they were to expand this mechanic they could have introduced migration and a partial culture adoption from others which would lead to some abilities being taken, but not as effective as if you were playing the civ you had stolen the ability from. Like if you have stolen the ability from you're neighbor Mongolia, you get it on 50% weaker, than actual Mongolia. Cities, which have a lot of Immigrants would get a lot of Loyalty pressure as the penalty towards the abilitie steal
Or maybe being forced to ally one faction or another and then adopting some of their culture. Complete civ swapping just sounds terrible
There was a mod for Civ4 called "Rhyse and Fall" that I think handled it nicely and I wish Firaxis would've gone that route. Basically, if you didn't watch your happiness, a city (or cities) would rebel and form a new civilization and it was even historically accurate, when possible. At which point you could play as that new civ or continually playing as your current.
I would rather have smart AI who don't cheat instead of having swapping between England and Mongolia.
the battlecry of strategy gamers across all titles
You can't swamp between England and Mongolia
@@Cramblit according to whom?
@@snuffeldjuret According to literally every video i've watched about the game, and the devs...
There are core routes you can take.. and only once I heard someone mention that you can go oddball routes "like Egypt into Mongolia" but that requires you actually doing steps to make your culture like theirs, and Egypt to Mongolia is still in the route shown so...
@@Cramblit I saw the exact same comment and it was a suggestion not an actual feature. You have no reading comprehension and I think you should shut up before you make a further joke out of yourself.
I'd rather stick with Civ5. I can play with the civ I want while having better leader animations. The whole point of Civ is to play my favorite civilization from stone age to today. Without that, no thanks, I don't play the game for it's systems, I play for the fantasy and immersion.
I disagree somewhat. I think the idea is that civilisations change so much, during their existence, that they can't be called the same entity from the bronze age to today. F.e. Egypt under the pharaohs was different than under the Mamelukes and Nasser.
You don't just get to change willy-nilly with every change, there are requirements
@@Kolokommouna yes civilizations change and we do it by gradually picking different civics in civ 5.
You forgot to mention that Egypt got invaded and its culture replaced by Arabic one, if it was a game of civilization then Egypt lost the game
@@Kolokommouna it is not the same civ though if it changes too much like if it got conquered.
@@snuffeldjuret by same "civ" I meant the same society, in the same geographical boundary. Civilisations changing over time, in every way possible, is a real thing and thus it is is okay if that's reflected in the game
Huh. Turns out the real Civilization killer was Civilization.
Nah it was still Humankind, by Civ 7 copying its shit mechanics.
I'm not that worried, civ has been committing sudoku with every new release, but this doesn't look well.
Humankind reeks, and this is a humankind sequel.
Like all empires fall from within
If by "Civilization" you mean Ed Beach and the goofy team, totally yes.
I’m very cautiously optimistic. Mainly in the hope they revert the civ switching, even if it causes a delay.
Civ swapping is an absolute deal breaker for me. It so violates the very core of CIv that it is no longer a game i want to play.
Me too. I hope there's at least an option toggle for it so you can play it like NORMAL civ. 😂
If it allows you to continue with the civ you have then it could be fine.
@@nathanhingson7048 You know it has Denuvo DRM. I mean if you want to fuck up your PC
@@DubberRucksdon't buy the game if it's a deal breaker. i wont
Playing as Roosvelt From Stone age till modern age also makes no sense! And some Civs only had a bonus or certain units that made sense in a certain time period.
I mean Roman Legions Out powerful till you reach medieval period and have knights!
A game about strong cultural identity just lost its identity. This feels like a cheap, lazy bastardization of some one else's work. One of the reasons beyond earth failed was a lack of identity. Having all of your choices in one part of the game painted over by a whole new culture is not going to be received well. The sad thing is the whole culture swapping thing would work well for any other game but civ.
They could just make a game mode with the swapping
Nah, beyond earth failed because it could only diliver it's promise once: Discovering an new world. They needed way more Flora and Fauna variaty from game to game.
I wouldn't call this cheap or lazy, but the civ swapping being a bastardization does feels a little accurate. I get their reasoning behind that feature - to fix the issue that civs were only balanced to certain stages of the game, and strong early-game civs become weak later and vice-versa - but that doesn't mean it's the correct solution.
They could have just made it where each civ "upgrades" and the bonuses change in certain ways to balance each civ with each era.
You lose a sense of connection to your civ if you're forced to swap it out for an entirely different one two different times in a game!
No, it didnt. If its that important to you, you just switch of the option and no civ can switch. For people like me who know just a tiny bit of history and how civilisation merge and split (Rome is a good example) this sounds good, as long as it is implemented in a fair way.
@@GnosticAtheist oh stuff it.
My feeling is far too many developers today were NEVER game players. They see everything as a spreadsheet. For anyone to think that your losing your chosen civ a third way thru the game is not an immersion destroyer is just proof you were never a player.. 😠
Probably a diversity hire suggested it and the spineless shits inside fireaxis went along with it to avoid being called a racist. 🤡😠
Wokery has now started to nuke strategy games after killing RPGs and action games
I don't understand the hate. There is always some dispention of disbelief. Starting USA in 4000 BC is also BULSHIT.
Or they played Humankind, enjoyed its mechanics as many of us did, and wanted to do something similar for Civ.
Alas, you might be correct. Back in the day, game devs were primarily players that made the game for themselves. Nowadays, those previous games have been taken, seeing they made money, and 9-5 employees were put to work on them, with no real relationships to said games, and possibly gaming in it's entirety in many cases.
@@easilytrackableinternethum3018combat was great, but they really could have learned and not swap civs across ages, it never made sense to me and it was also the thing I imagined would be the main difference between civ and humankind. But oh well...
CIV 7 LOL - No Builders, No Barbs and they have killed multiplayer - Humankind Millenia hybrid with a horrendous gray on gray UI - no danger Im buying this shit
Builders were a nuisance starting mid game and horrendous in the late game. Barbs were replaced with a better system. Multi-player isn't set in stone there hasn't been an introduction. The UI is shit though that I will agree with
The new city states mechanic is actually a lot better than the dumb barbarians, which spawn like 10 units without any hesitation and out of thin air and destroy you. Also, i really apriciate the fact that the city states have their own leaders, instead of existing without any. In real life barbarians were not as unorgonised as it is in civ 5 or 6
Agreed, my dude, that interface is just pure 🤮
I personally liked one of the earlier Civs where, iirc, it had a key overlay letting you know what key to press to get your unit to move that direction.
@@toughmunths Builders are annoying mid and late-game, but I think they should have removed them when it gets to the second era instead of completely removing them. Like it would be a decision to make to go for higher overall yields in exchange for wasted production. I think builders are fun as hell. And now we're left with how many actual civilian units besides great people? They're removing too much imo.
@mysticfellow9843 doing that would be a game flaw. There would be zero reason to have them in antiquity and not in the rest of them game. Besides they made it so workers aren't needed so it's not completely removing the effect of builders just the mini game of moving thel around. Builders are the biggest game flaw of civ6 in my opinion it made the mid and late game a real chore to play so I'm all in for it. We'll see what other civilian units will be revealed later
What couldn't they just reuse the mechanic of civ 3 I think where youre leaders, through you advanced in ages changed clothes to match the newest times. I loved to see Moctezuma or Shaka Zulu with pants and t-shirts. (even if it would be better now, to have them with clothes that match their time but also their culture).
In their defense, that is super resource intensive. They probably would have gone that way if you swapped leaders instead of cultures, but we haven’t received a firm denial that leaders DO change clothing, as far as I’m aware.
I miss palace customization…
@@4Xtraordinaire I'm just gonna keep playing Civ 6.
Luckily we have plenty of other Strategy games to look forward to like Anno 117 and don't forget: Ara: History Untold.
This game by published by Microsoft is a real contender for the Throne IMHO and it releases in a month.
They wanted to replicate what happened in real history. Recreating how a once great civilization eventually falls and get replaced by another. Like how the Normans became England/Britain and eventually the UK.
the ages mechanic is designed to keep the end game interesting by knocking back the snowball effect, of becoming dominant in the mid game, in theory it keeps the games level of challenge more level throught more of the game, but it fails because instead of a long term multiple hrs of imersion, it becomes a series of seperate shorter different games. also there is a significant amount of simplification reducing the number of sub games contained within the game such as worker usage, with their removal, it isnt even a consideration any more
@@taal223 but we are playing game, not studying history, also the very option that egyptian can turn into mongolian shot down any "historical accuracy"
also this will sure be a big hit on Japan, as they claim to be the only monarchy that survive 2000 years, right, the same royal family been ruler (be it in name or actually having power) of japan. not even the mongols get to rule them, LoL.
"Build a Civilization to stand the test of time"
So that was a fucking lie
That is because idiots took over key positions. What clowns don't get is that we the players know that civilizations historically fell. The idea wasnt to play as celts, see us defeated by Romans and change into a Roman civ? But to try again and STAND THE TEST OF TIME.
Why cannot these studio heads be insulted and put in their place for not actually understanding the franchise they are butchering?
Civ6 was a terrible game that was financially successful due to lowered player standards. Civ 7 being even worse is to be expected
@@TheBelrick That's Catch 22. Heroes of Might and Magic 6 & 7 were bad games and they failed financially, so the series is basically dead. Civ V & VI were bad games as well, but financially successful, so the series isn't exactly dead, but you can't expect a good product.
I guess I'm just too old and I want to play a decent strategy game in an era of mobile games. :-(
@@poiuyt975 Civ V was a good game. The single tile unit stacking was awful for the series. Made a mockery of the scale of the game.
But Civ V Vox Populi is still peak Civilization. As in, the best version of Civ ever released.
I Got civ i on my amiga 500 in 1991 when my step father brought home a stack of copied disks. Good times.
But yes, its hard to be an older gamer. Younger gamers standards have ruined everything.
Our generation would not have tolerated early releases aka i cannot be mature enough to wait for a finished product so will be sold incomplete games by greedy devs.
@@TheBelrick I understand why you love Vox Populi. I really enjoyed it as well, though personally I still prefer Civ IV. 1UPT is such a poor design choice that no mod can fix it.
But keep in mind that Vox Populi, as good as it is, wasn't made by Firaxis. The players themselves had to fix the game. Civ V with both major expansions was playable and not all bad, but that's the highest kind of praise I can say about that game.
Like I wrote previously, I had lost all faith in Firaxis and will never buy their game until it has been thoroughly fixed, preferably by modders.
The backlash is deserved, they decided to implement the worst humankind type mechanics that turned many people away. I think the only way civ7 doesn’t flop is if they push the release date back enough so they can rework the game mechanics and get rid of the humankind mechanics
Trash the game and start over I say.
I'll wait for sure, civ 6 has made a lot of good changes plus I'm sure they'll be adding/changing a lot
@@PapaRoboto yeah without the humankind stuff its basically just civ 6.
@@rell0223 aint the whole civilization game is the same?. I would be glad for more scenarios, FIXED world builder, good mods and maybe better graphics and UI improvements and polish - thats all i need from a civ game.
@@F.B.I yes, please bring back world builder @firaxis
I have to say that ruling one nation from Stone Age to the modern Ages was what attracted me since CIV on the amiga 500. I am absolutely not interested in swapping nationalities. Also having different technological levels was also a thing that fascinated me. So this 2 new changes basically destroy 50% of my immersion
For me that is just the opposite. I found it kind of stupid to start with USA in 4000 BC... And waiting the whole game before your unique units came online.
@@lompeluitenmaybe the Can make it optional
Agreed...woke crap.
@@lompeluitenNow you have to wait 2 era to play with the Nation you want to play ... sounds not better for me ...
@@Calventiuslol what has this to do with woke?
Good: Updated graphics, navigable rivers, improved commanders, city sprawl
Bad: global happiness, settlement cap, crisis
Ugly: civilization swapping
I thought people liked happiness? After how tedious civ 6 became I'd much rather we have more of a soft cap. Also there isn't a hard settlement cap, just a penalty like there has been for previous games. One of the point columns in the Antiquity age is literally to build 12 cities and towns.
Is global happiness confirmed? Where? Gonna need a source on that.
Not just civilization swapping, but also mixing civs and leaders. You could be an Ethiopian ruling Rome……
Settlement cap??? Really? Not again ugh
Civ swapping- the devil is in the details. I don’t think it can be judged until we see how it is implemented.
Cautiously optimistic, but it would be hilarious if Humankind actually did end up being the Civ killer in this very ironic fashion
Yeah like you said the fact they are going for: "But but but in History X, Y & Z happened so it's a good change" makes no sense, cause the original premise of Civ was:
"Can you build a civilization that can stand the test of time?" Meaning alternate history roleplay.
Civ is not a historically accurate representation of events of cultures, these old cultures are just flavour.
Now with changing cultures once again there will be 0 immersion and with amenities replaced with a softcap on settlements mechanics won't be grounded either.
Also not calling Barbarians Barbanians anymore cause "Nuanced Representation" for fuck sake, did the devs forget THEY WERE MAKING A GAME NOT A DOCUMENTARY.
Please find me 1 single person living on this planet... No in the entire universe that could have a problem with calling Barbarians Barbarians...
@teaser6089 it's because they aren't just barbarians anymore. This is a combination of barbarian clans and city states. Barbarians will most likely only exist from the crisis mechanic as they showed red units in one of the showcases.
Also there has never been real immersion of history in the first place. Civilizations will change during changes of era just like they have done in real life. Egypt still exists in some way but is not the same as ancient egypt. Same here, it's just that civilizations are more like play styles that are represented by a civilization name like Mongolia and Egypt and Rome. Your leader is going to be your main focus now with it's own tech tree.
@@teaser6089 Yeah, I get it, I really love my immersion when I am playing as world conquering Sweden with death robots, after having arrived on the moon in the 14th century and building the Pyramids in my ancient history... Maybe you should wait and see more before you get on the high horse and declare immersion is gone and mechanics will not be grounded. You haven't even seen any Real gameplay footage yet!
@@markos50100 Civ was never about city planer, role playing game, it was about alternate history where you lead nation/civ from a dawn of history into current times. If I want to play more acurate history title I will choose EU4, if I want to play city-builder I will go with Anno, RPG where you focus on your leader - there is CK3. Civ was never meant to be a blend of all this. Now we are getting even more of clunky mechanics that will probably not work properly, AI being too stupid as always which further waters down what Civ game was actually meant to be.
This is not Humankind! It plays like Civ; listen to the people who actually played the game
I will NEVER pay $70 for any base game.
Ok dyne313
I am sure you will. I bet 700 dollars
@@polvoazul I will pirate the game before I spend $70.
@@dyne313 In 15 years $70 wont be much. My comment was more like a joke on inflation. but a bad joke i admit
@@polvoazul I accept you may be correct based on that explanation.
I'd like to remind everyone in this occasion that Civ 5's mod Vox Populi is still an absolute banger
It’s always funny how different 5 and 6’s modding communities are when it comes to a general consensus. Vox Populi is always a mention on everyone’s modding lists, but Civ 6 is still so divided, despite being fairly old itself
@@4Xtraordinaire BBG Mod is pretty good for Multiplayer but nobody can fix the problem with constant disconnecting.
Oh my God, they literally went the Oneyplays joke way and said "calling them barbarians is problematic." 🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
😂 barbarians are there to get clapped imo at least when I play the game anyway.
Yeah. No one respectable wants to say it, but a big part of these issues are woke "philosophy." They're obviously making some of these changes due to what's a Marxist-Materialist view on history which is popular in academia, but not among players.
🤦♂️
This is the materialist view on history, so yeah
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe If materialism is so bad please become a Buddhist priest in Tibet and stop commenting on a platform built on materialism
They took Humankind and copied their homework XD plus they learned Paradox monetisation model
They just ended up copying homework from that one kid that fucked up his homework
@@teaser6089 yep
Stop beeing to emotional.Because Humankind did something bad , it doesnt mean Civ7 will do the same.Just take it easy , and calm down
@@marekkos3513
Yeah. Like socialism. Just because it doesn't work it doesn't mean it won't work if WE try it.
Right?... Right?
Bro they put a 125€ price tag for the edition that includes everything and a great game breaker for me that you not change to related country like Rome -> Castile -> Spain
I think civilizations should have primary and secondary traits, and instead of civ swapping you just pick a secondary trait to merge into your current civ without changing the culture or name of the civilization.
do you watch the trailer? you can pick traits to bring along,
@@Narveloz Isnt that for the leader?
@@Narveloz You're missing the entire point of my comment. I know you have traits, that's clear when they discuss evolving into a new civilization. I am saying that you only take the traits and nothing else. Also I think you should be able to play anyone you want from the start and that gives you the primary trait of that civilization and the secondary trait is picked from another civilization and the same for the tertiary trait, or keep the default trait for your civilization throughout.
The obvious way to handle it would've been to swap leaders and time periods but pick from the same region as the default civ choice. EG, ptolemaic egypt can turn into the mamluk sultanate then post-colonial egypt.
As a step forward, if they wanted to add choice for real instead of just defaults or memes, they could have the different leaders as the way to choose different traits when you swap. (Say Rome when reaching exploration lets you turn into venice, two sicilies, the papal states or the genoese, then for modern times you can choose between different historical versions of italy like republican, or kingdom, or well... you-know-who) That'd be a fun compromise and make it so you still have choice and swaps without changing identity. Instead we get egypt to songhai to buganda... just wtf.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 or maybe force swapping only if you fail to meet some criteria at the end era crisis, like a falling empire. If you manage to survive the crisis why you are forced to become someone else?
The price is so insane that in my country,Brazil,it is almost HALF of the minimum wage here.
Can you please explain this more in depth?
Wage for what period of time?
But yeah here in Canada the price is also pretty high
@@itmightgetdarki think it’s pretty obvious what he means
@@ChosenSquirrel a month
@@FrancescodePazzi94 oof
Backlash???
I literally went from: I can't wait to preorder to: Civ 7 is dead to me!
Over one issue?
@@soapgaming4903 No... you don't understand.
@@penknight8532 Everything expect civ switching looked good to me. I guess we just have different viewpoints
@@soapgaming4903 I mean I can barely read the UI with that color and font as it all blends together. And the tech tree is dumb. Every Era is a complete reset so any Civ that was behind you will magically catch up to you in the tech/civic race. etc. etc.
Same.
5 player cap if you start from antiquity?! Every multiplayer game usually starts at the very beginning, nobody wants to play straight on the modem era. That’s so lame.
Supposedly I read they were tired of people not ever playing the game to the end. I guess they never heard the "just one more turn" joke. Seriously though I probably played to the end on most of my games that I wasn't beaten.
What? I completely missed this 5 player cap, I liked playing civ 4 with 18 civs from the start, and civ 5 and 6 God knows with how many players, it filled the world, five is like Old World, and that game is doing it waaay better.
@@AquaCoalaNest yeah I think they said it in their most recent stream. So it’s 5 player cap in antiquity but up to 8 if you start in the exploration or modern era. How stupid is that.
@@MechaShadowV2 In what world is behaviour of people online a reason to balance an entire game towards it lol. You always had people who have patience to multiplayer a game that will last a literal 16 hours to complete with 12 players or so. And obviously you have people who don't like that or have the time or patience for that.
My favorite was civ 5 with the biggest map, slow game pace, and as many civs as possible (I think it was like 22 or something). 5-8 civ max just seems boring
The settlement cap sucks the most. I wanna be the dominant force on every continent and I want to completely occupy my starting continent when playing a 4000+ unlimited turn marathon game in singleplayer
Why would you want that? That dream died with the AI in Civ 6 being an absolute joke.
They basically only had to change some mechanics from Civ Vi (districts, world congress, diplomacy etc) with more realistic graphics and some fresh ideas and release it. I am very spectical with changing Civs during the game.. the premise of the game was always if your civilisation can stand the test of time. Well, appearently not.
Changing Civ in middle of the game could actually be good if it's done right. For example, Rome can turns into German, England turns into America, Persia turns into Arab or vice versa.
I guess they are afraid of political backlashes.
Nono.. must have the cartoon leader models. The realistic models from civ 5 were so void of personality.
@@gemilangrahmandhika7509 Rome changing to german is funny as hell considering germany is literally the only area in western Europe Rome didn't conquer. Also it should be sassanid to persia, persia and arab is not even in the same area...
@@rency1803the Arabs were actually the death of persian culture and religion same in Egypt Northern africa and they tried there best in Spain with Al Andulus
@@kristiangudal8236the civ 5 models were leagues better than the cartoon disney slop civ 6 was
Civ swapping is the dumbest idea in 4X games :(
Ikr like at least make it optional at game start. I don't play a Civ game to change mid-way. But that's just how I play. Others might like the pivot.
It works well in humankind, its plainly just more gameplay to enjoy overall and I don't understand the fuss about the mechanic and calling it bad, on other hand I understand the argument of it not fitting in civ.
@@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126because youre forced to do it. the entire point of civ is to build an empire that stands the test of time. what if rome is your favorite civ and you want to play as rome? well fuck you, because we at firaxis will force you to swap into something else you dont want to play. suck it nerds. like what? im pretty sure i would rather stick my dick into an industrial cheese grater than buy civ 7 if this mechanic actually goes through
@@DubberRucksthats where youre wrong buddy. all civ players are just like you, literally nobody wants to switch mid way. it ruins the entire point of civ. if they put this into the game, civ7 will be a historical flop of epic proportions. it will be like concord.
@@Finnishnat-conservativedot7126 Does it? Most people seem to dislike that mechanic in Humankind
Two things kill it for me.
1. No hotseat. Absolute dealbreaker.
2. Civ swapping. Both reality and immersion breaking. Absolute dealbreaker.
One solution is to do things like starting as a Frankish tribe, progressing to the French kingdom then to Imperial France then to modern France.
As for civilizations that never progressed and died you'd have to make something up for them and have them keep their leader from their last age. Or only have the truly great civilizations and leave out the ones that just existed briefly.
Having the Mauri is silly anyway lol.
Maybe in 20 years bro. When Toxic feminism and anti-white sentiment has died down. But right now they have like 2 or 3 people working at the studios dictating that Civilization paints a different story than actually happened in real life. And don't you see how incredibly evil you are for calling the Mauri silly? :)
All leaders should be women as well. If you say otherwise you should be jailed for your anti-women slurs. It's that game now you know.
-feminist
to be fair, the acolyte sucked
To be fair, the sequel trilogy sucked
To be fair, the sequel trilogy sucked
Did you need to give this comment a sequel to try to make a point?
To be fair, Disney Star Wars sucks.
@@Historiehomme
Honestly it worked, it shows why the sequels sucked
What CIVs 5+6 have been missing imo is actually proper historic scenarios, not just "start in 4000 BC on this particular map".
like region focused campaigns with accurate geography?
for me the eras should last longer or at least there should be an option that's why i love Old World the idea of dynastic lineage and the ancient culture is truly chef kiss also borrowing ideas from crusader kings series events
Ummm...there was even a own ACW scenario?
Rhyes & Fall mods in Civ 4 was the best. Civilizations spawns according to their eras with revolt scenarios. Each Civ has their own historical goal.
Oh and also, settling new city will automatically renames the city according to the tile location in world map.
Civ 4 Rhye and fall mod enough said
Holy cow... I've been playing Civ since Civ 2, but forcing you to switch Civs (or "cultures") throughout a play through absolutely kills my excitement...
I've been able to adjust to each change, new mechanic or removed feature in every single entry, but that's one thing I don't think I'll EVER enjoy.
Even if I can somehow adapt to it, I'll always hate that idea. I want to begin & end with ONE Civilization. It would've made far more sense (and at least been somewhat accurate to history) if your leader changed over time... Not your entire culture!
Going from Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great to Tsar Nicholas or something would be more historically accurate without ruining immersion. Even if a Civilization was conquered or invaded, you could keep playing as Egypt but suddenly have Cleopatra take over later down the line.
I dunno... I'm just bummed out now 😅
Exactly what I was thinking.
They tried to justifiy the system with history.
But you can clearly see in history that the culture stayed mostly the same and simply evolved, not 100% morphed into different looking humans with a completely different language and culture.
And it would be way more fun to have it our way too.
I want to play as the ancient german(ics) who fought off rome, then Karl the Great, the german emperor and then Bißmarck, all interesting real famous german historic figures. Not Go from Egypt to Mongolia to Bunganda xD That doen't inspire me or teaches me about history in a fun way at all.
At least as a german I can clearly see that Karl from one or multiple eras ago and the almost modern Otto are from the same or closely related cultures, both are still names used nowadays in germany.
I liked civilization when it had lawyers, corporations, giant death robots, satellites that could blast cities from space. Anything short of that, and don't bother.
slaver is banned for some reason, it was always fun to steal population from player that think wall isnt important.
Ahh, a rare Civ CtP connoisseur. Don't forget wonder movies.
Yeah seeing units out of place in time was such a fun timeline to ponder when playing. 😂
I'd like it even more if they made a spinoff Sinocentric version of it that centres on some weird techno asia with China at the centre(I don't know I just threw this out cuz cyberpunk)
CTP CHADS STAY WINNING
"and if you start falling behind other nations, it can be tempting to restart long before you see the endgame" - restarting each era sounds like participation medals for all kids in competition :)
I kinda understand it as a form of rubber banding... but it was WAY too extreme. They have to differenciate between making sure snowballing doesn't go too far and just having hard resets forcing an equal playing field. At this point its like playing 3 games in a row knowing the first 2 barely matter.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 I've played since Civ 1. Every next game was kind of revolutionary in spirit of Civilization series. For the first time I don't feel that Civ 7 is for me... maybe I am just too old :)
P.S. I've never understanded people criticized other parts, like I played in pvp Civ 3 and Civ 4, and I was in top 15 or maybe even top 10 in the World in the ladder. I really loved Civ 5, and I was delighted by Civ 6... so probably I am too old :D
@@DawidStarzykiewicz You didn't get to old. Its them who got too lazy. Civ6 already copypasted a bunch from Endless Legend, a game by Amplitude. But at least it didn't feel like a total ripoff. But Civ7 just seems like it rips off Humankind (another 4x by Amplitude) without even understanding ehy it works and what issues people have with it. Like civ swapping, that's one of the things people criticize the most about that game. And as a fan of it, I actually kinda like it (even if I wish it was tweaked), but god damn could they not have picked up on what people were saying and tweaked it? It's not so hard... but if anything they made it WORSE! God damnit.
@@DawidStarzykiewicz i play since civ 2, hell i once had a world conquest game that lasted months in civ 3 and still remember it fondly. I tried so hard to like civ 6 but it just feels wrong and boring to me, and 7 looks even worse, but its not us getting older, its them having lost connection with the player base and what people enjoyed from the games. We still got 4 and 5 to enjoy, and ara history untold looks promising.
@@lokibau I am chess player, so I enjoy all the planning adjacency bonuses, districts placements and different way of playing different civs. In Civ 7 seems like i can shape any civ to anything I like, so you race to best bonuses... then no worries about failing, because of reset, and so on.
I just don't like civ swapping and I hope it is implemented as a game mode that can be disabled in the settings. Other than that, everything looks great. Well, maybe the user interface. It looks too bland, but that's just aesthetics.
Its hopeless Humankind won in the end
Or if they could make it so there's a setting for only straight historical routes. Like Persia to ottomans to Iran. I'm not bothered by it myself since we keep the leaders and always have certain bonuses to rely/build upon, but I get why some are wary after Humankind.
As one commenter said on the reveal video; "Can you build a civilzation that will stand the test of time? Apparently not in Civ 7, I can only do it for one era 😂" I hate the idea of civ swapping
@@inzyniertv9305 Well, there is still Ara - AFAIK they don't have civ swapping
It's not a game mode, it is the game, and the civs you choose come with bonuses to the new eras.
I hear you played civ 4 😊. Civ 4 is my favorite with Legends of revolution mod. The game was balanced. Barbarians evolve into a culture and a leader is randomly selected. They can capture cities and expand like a civilization. That is the best barbarian mechanic of all the civ games!!! I love Ruthless Al. The computer plays to win !!!
I don’t think the pessimism is unwarranted. We already had Humankind with the civ swapping. If this was something unexplored everyone would be more cautiously optimistic, but we now know it’s not a fun mechanic.
I wouldn’t even say I’m pessimistic, I’m just going forward with tempered expectations. Like you said, Humankind also sang a similar tune. Really, Ed Beach talking about historical accuracy reminded me a lot of the Humankind devs in their initial dev diaries
@@4Xtraordinairebut who gives a shit about historical accuracy in a strategy game where you can build the pyramids as china? the point of civ is to not be historically accurate. we want to make our own civilizations, not watch a history documentary. and also the mechanic to swap civs is not optional. you have to do it
I'll die on this hill: Civ 5 was peak Civilization.
There's some argument between 4 and 5, I feel. Some people even really like 3, I know I did! And hell, let's not pretend that Civ 6 didn't have SOME good ideas. I know I'm in the minority, but I LIKE the city unstacking to a degree - it needed some fine-tuning that was never done, but I still thought it was a good idea.
This Civ 7 though? Nah, this isn't it. I was very hopeful when high-profile Civ-style games started popping up, I thought it'd force Civ to evolve and innovate, to change and improve... Instead, they just copied mechanics wholesale form their weakest competitor, without considering how they'd fit the larger ecosystem of a Civilization game. They didn't learn from Millennia, they didn't learn from Zephon, they didn't learn from OLD WORLD, which brought by far the most to the table-!
Got room on that hill? I’ll join you there.
@@Archris17 Civ 6 almost wasn't bad. If they had just given us more leaders and civs and not all of them locked away behind DLC. But nah in CIV 6 it's always the exact same game with the exact same leaders. Dual leaders or Civs don't fix anything at all. Neither as AI nor playing them myself. And really, I love Eleanor of Aquitaine. But not in Civilization lol.
It's funny how a decade-old game is still capturing my attention with no sign of slowing down. VP breathes an incredible amount of life into Civ V
I'm standing on that hill with you.
They made too many decisions that violate common sense lines that shouldn't have been crossed. The Leader models look like they hired subpar artists, and the fluid Civ mechanic destroys identity and immersion in favor of this false ideal of freedom.
Makes me think a diversity hire suggested these rat dropping level ideas and spineless firaxis went with it
I’ve heard they scaled down the quality for the sake of a switch release or smth
I just think the civ change thing is not civ
Humankind 2
I don’t think they were prepared for such a negative response
@@4Xtraordinaire That's probably because in Sid's unending wisdom they forgot to actually survey their playerbase, didn't do an analysis in their competitors and just sat in their own dark office deciding what they think is best for the product.
Luckily we live in a capitalist society so if we all just decide not to buy the game maybe they will get the memo
@@4Xtraordinaire nah people are just being people, usually dumb as fuck, speak like they now it all, clowning before playing, like how they hype humankind before it came out. same exact shit
you think, not everyone is you. btw you can keep the same civ, watch the gameplay trailer again.
R.I.P. Civilization. I hoped for a comeback after CIV 6. Looks like Civ ended with CIV 5.
Dude, Civ VI was a good game. Civ VII can also still be a good game in spite of this civ-switching mechanic that I'm also sceptical of.
@@Master-MirrorI didn’t play civ 6 because it looked ugly. Like how can you play such an ugly childish game
Civilization is dead, as far as I am concerned. It's creatively and philosophically dead: plagiarizing other series, abandoning core ideas, feel like being designed by committee, have a very odd mobile game look.
@@barnvandiebos9070 The same reason why i can read ugly childish comments like yours.
@@barnvandiebos9070I did play civ 6 because i’m not a fucking baby and i can play a game with bright colors. Like how can you care so much about a much better game being more vibrant
I view the crisis as a "pick your poison" ordeal, not a getting punished even for playing well.
To me that still sounds weird. Kinda like "hey you got sick, which illness would you prefer this time?" Like uhm what, how do I get to pick?
@@joosakurvinen4381 true, makes no sense
Stellaris did crisis -- and it was a fun test of how well you've built your empire.
*also Frostpunk (a very special kind of city-builder) has crisis, and it's a great game.
That's an excellent point. I never thought of that.
@@joosakurvinen4381 That analogy makes no sense.
Would you rather prefer for the game to pick bad staff to happen at random? This way, the player gets agency to influence what bad things happen (I presume from a semirandom selection).
How on earth is that a bad thing? Bad things will happen. And you get to influence what. Preferably something that's not gonna cripple you.
Once again the Egyptians were not black.
Really? 😲 In all it's existence of more then 10k years there were no blacks or even black leadership in Egypt?
Weren't they mixed?
@@nightraven2975 Nope. The only black people in ancient Egypt were Nubian slaves.
@@nightraven2975 There is this idiotic conflation that because the kingdoms of Egypt had some black subjects ('Kushites' or 'Nubians'), then 'the Egyptians were black.' Egyptians made many, many statues and images of themselves; kings and pharaohs, priests, commoners, soldiers. Go look at some. They're not black.
Are Zulu really 'white' because some whites live(d) there? No? Then Egyptians aren't black just because some blacks lived in Egypt.
Civilisation used to be immense.
But something I noticed creeping into the game ideology and play mechanic was a bizarre 'cultural sensitivity' obsession.
It's an irreverent game, not a history textbook.
So you will see some cultures surpassing what would be their 'natural' technological and innovative qualities.
My point being, Civ developers want the game to present cultures as being as 'historically sensitive' and authentic as possible, equality and progressive inclusion, but then they also will have Lady Six Sky of the Maya utterly dominate Rome when it come to military excellence or out industrialise the United Kingdom - which is just ahistorical.
Also, there is bizarrely next to ZERO development regarding England in particular, we've had Queen Elizabeth from the off, a slight amendment but nothing else, no new rulers. What about King Alfred the Great or Richard the 'Lion Heart' of Aquitaine. Civ developers have had to utterly downplay and reduce the importance of European scientific, militaristic and cultural excellence in a bizarre effort to 'standardise' all cultures as being equal in all things and yet they also make lesser historical figures over powered in an effort to compete with their more illustrious counterparts.
It is a game, so make it such. You don't need 'sensitive' historical depictions of cultures deemed 'oppressed'. It's a game.
Their pet ideology is more important to them.
I wonder if they’ll make a separate game mode where you can play the same civ for the game
That should be a mechanic not a game mode, if they want to stick to this stupid idea of one Civ turns to another that turn to another, at least give the ability to "transcend" the Civ you first pick, and make the Civs you pick be related not like the example they showed of Egypt to Shongai, the only thing those nations have in common is they are located in Africa and that's it. Shongai as a nation only came to be when the Mali empire fell, and by that time Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire
Don’t think that’s gonna happen because each civ has age specific modifiers. For example the Mongols are centered around the discovery age.
@@digiorno1142 that is another thing and something I think it's stupid, like the Mongols appear in the discovery age, but they stopped existing in the modern age. It makes no sense, keeping Civs locked behind ages and requirements, I can understand if the Mongols are only able to be played in the discovery age, but at least have them be able to continue to the modern age, instead of forcing us to swith from Mongolia to whatever Civ we have to choose
@@MSTavares I completely agree.
you know what you can. watch gameplay trailer again...
I still miss building your own palace in civ 1 or 2.
also 3 got that feature. I miss that time too.
I feel like, if the Civ swapping were to happen organically over time based on earlier choices, it would feel better than just changing in 1 turn.
While I hear you, i think implementing it, would be... extremely hard.
It being an optional thing you could take would be interesting.
But not it being the only game in town.
@@lompeluitenhow? Just add some traits that you gotta fulfill before you can change just like ck3 where you need certain things to evolve into another kingdom, empire etc.
This makes me way more interested in how Ara: History Untold pans out.
same here
Gotta check that out with Millennia. I've also been playing the Zephon demo and plenty of Old World. There's loads for Civ to learn from and they not only went with their weakest competition, but just seem to have copied elements wholesale without considering how to make them fit the Civ formula. I was hopeful that the new slew of civ-like games would force Firaxis to adapt and improve, but at least now if/when the Civilization franchise dies, we have others to go to.
I read a comment elsewhere saying the civ swapping would be nice as a game mode and not as the standard play, and I agree.
So once again I get to ignore the new civ game and keep playing civ 5
Civ 5 was peak anyways
civ 5 has the best eras
Seems I won't be moving on from Civ-5, any time soon. Thanks for the warning.
I think at the turn of an era each civ should be faced with a national crisis that, depending on your actions, could result in your civilization taking on a new identity
I.E. collapsing lol. The devs seemed to have forgotten that what caused Roman Britain to transform into Celtic Britain was plenty of dead bodies.
This. If you manage to survive the crisis you should be able to keep your civ, force swapping only if you fail at some criteria. That would have made some sense. What were they thinking...
@@lokibauI swear man wtf were they thinking fr
I dislike District System that much that i even couldn't force myself to enjoy CIV 6 and now CIV 7 has even more bad systems, i will still play CIV 5
True. The district system was awful, and is the reason I remained with Civ v. Now it seems more tedious and awful systems are on the way, along with more disney-esque art
Same, 3000+ hours of Civ 5, 103 hours of Civ 6. Gonna probably buy Civ 7 in 2026 at 50% off
District System is still beter than civ swapping. it makes game a lot more about managing you're empire and how it functions. I get why some people don't like it, but it doesn't make the mechanic bad
@@dianashupletsov7812 I haven't tried Civ Swapping but i can say i dislike them both the same
No Local Multiplayer is a deal braker
I was quite impressed but I don't think 3 ages is enough. They need a Medieval and Industrial era added.
5 Ages would be great.
After awful experiences with Civ V and VI I'll wait this one out. I'll check it out in a couple of years when the development process is finished, all the expansions and patches are out, and the game is on sale.
I got burnt with Firaxis four times already (Civ 4: Col, Beyond Earth, Civ V, Civ VI), so they lost my trust entirely.
Civ is a game about having a empire stand the test of time. Civ 7 doesnt have that so for me its not civ. Also they have ugly art for the leaders and no one wants to identify as that for a game instead in the past we got to be the epic cultures and empires of the world.
How is civ 7 not having an empire stand the test of time?
@@wildbard4112you don't even keep your starting empire. it's just not the same as Rome in the atomic era
@@wildbard4112 you cant play as one civ they become "outdated" and forced to change multiple times during the game
English is not my first language, but i always assume "civilisation" is above "empires", now in civ7 you keep your empire while the "cultural content of a civilisation" within your nation magically swap.
whoever think of this system must be genius, LOL
@@Thioacetone1 Huh? You get to keep you cities and progress, even traits of your previous civ carry over, they don't magically disappear. Your empire just evolves.
I've been seen a lot of content creators who's seems being paid for said only good things about CIV VII.
And it's okay, they are trying to introduce the game to a new players (gen z and X)
But what about the old fans? Maybe we are the most motivated to spend our money in the game, but only if they do a good job, not for this trash.
Everyone is find the switching civilization chnage weird but what I find even weirder is keeping the same leader. Augustus leading Brazil (if its added) dosent sit right with me
I think if they had to it would make more sense to change leaders.
"Even if you play the game optimally, you still get punished it seems"
Looks like Egypt got the Netflix treatment
Stupid comment coming from pure ignorance
I agree on your second point. Just because "swapping civs" might be historically accurate doesn't mean it's fun or that we should be happy about it. Ultimately, it feels like instead of making a Civ game, they're more interested in a mish mash from other franchises.
How dare they remove ones ability to play the aztecs with tanks, highrises and nukes!
Moreover, this mechanism forces them to "find" out a greater number of original civilizations ... And to choose peoples or entities that were not “civilizations” in the sense that people understand it.
I don't know what it's like on the English-speaking web, but in the French-speaking fan communities everyone make fun of the "Norman" civilization we see in the trailers. Historically, there was no Norman civilization. The Normans were Scandinavians (Scandinavian civilization) who settled in France and adopted its religion and customs (to such an extent that the middle-age and modern Norman and French languages were and still are mutually intelligible). Normans then spread out (especially to Great Britain and Italy) while maintaining a distinct "scandinavian and french mixed" culture for some time.
Representing a “Norman” civilization (during the Age of Exploration) and then proposing a “French” civilization in the following age (the Modern Age) makes no sense: France is usually considered to have existed BEFORE the western european Normans, the latter having openly adopted the culture and practices of this kingdom. It would be more logical to see a Norman civilization succeeding a French or Scandinavian civilization.
And what would happen to England if they want to add an English civilization later on? Here too, England existed BEFORE the western european Normans even appeared. England has been influeced by normans indeed, but english culture and kingdom existed way BEFORE normans arrived. If we follow their logic, England/Great Britain would be a Modern Age civilization that would succeed the Normans? WTF? England was indeed ruled by a Norman elite for part of its history, but the country was populated overwhelmingly by Anglo-Saxons people who had a distinct identity and who represent what we think of when we think of England.
From the moment the game has a Scandinavian civilization (vikings and so on) and a France-named civilization (France being the supposed descendant of the Franks), the presence of a Norman civilization makes absolutely no sense for a lot of people. Talking about different “civilizations” for countries like England or France is already borderline in itself, so what about the Normans ...
@@erpherp4047 Now you're speaking my language. I want Aztec tanks.
@@plateo_3234 It's idiotic, but this what happens when they don't listen to the fans and make decisions on what "they think" the direction of the game should be.
If this was civ 1 there would be no civ 2
I think they've F'd up with this one.
As they say, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
They should have continued to build upon their predecessors instead of making significant game changes, which will alienate many in the fan base.
Their usual design principle is to keep one third the same, one third slightly different and one third entirely new, but in civ 7 basically half the game is not only new to civ but from a completely different game (humankind) so it definitely looks like they went too far.
7:00 - i understand the crisis system more like a way to form your future path, like picking the stuff that affects your playstyle least. And even if you sometimes need to pick something that's against your playstyle, having played optimally is still an advantage, for example a -6 in combat strength doesn't really matter that much, if you've already steamrolled your neighbors in the last age and have an army which is like 3 times as big as theirs. I sometimes have that in civ6, where my main opponent is sometimes a full army tech in front of me, but their 1 freshly build modern unit simply can't fight an army of 10 well trained last era units on their own.
7:30 - Kupe is one of the best example for why civ changes make sense in the first place, because a third through the game most of his defining abilities literally become useless. Like you can only found your first city once, so that's something that gets rid of the most unique part of his kit instantly and then you profit mostly from sailing and ship building to discover islands others need more time for, but once other civs pick up those techs you pretty much turn into a civ which most defining ability is to get a littlebit more production out of woods or rainforests (which is so generic, that i even needed to look it up to know, what makes him unique past 50 turns to begin with)
That said, i don't see, where this system would make it harder to add special start civs, but it probably gets even easier to add them, like i could definitely see the benefit of having the fun of a Kupe-like start, then a portugese economical boom in the mid game to fund my science victory as korea. I often didn't want to play early game civs, because it simply got too boring at some point.
As for the plagiarism comment, it's hard to criticise civ for that, if most of humankinds system where present in civ as well. In my opinion this kind of inspirational work rather improves the competition, since now devs have a good reason to actually surpass other studios on their own ideas instead of developing something, that is just good enough. I'm sure, civ going with 3 eras is a direct answer to the like 7 or 8 eras we had in humankind, which was honestly way too short to even utilize it properly.
It's hilarious that Humankind has succeeded as a "Civ-killer" by convincing Civ devs to implement some of the most fun-sapping elements such as hard city caps and much less control over how you improve resources and cities
There should be changes of civs with progression. But NOT jumping between civs randomly. It should be like: ancient China, then you choose: communist China / capitalistic China (Taiwan). Or: you start with Slavs and only later you choose one of slavic countries.
Ara: History Untold will release in a month + 2 days and it's truly one of the better Civ contenders.
I’m still not sold on some of the graphics
I was playing Ara , and I didnt like it that much.The battles are boring , and with no tactics at all.The graphics is very much dark , and boring with no art style at all.The gameplay over all is different then Civ games , and in my opinio much worse and boring and to complicated.I think CIV7 will be the best civ game ever.Also Humankind is very good.
@@marekkos3513 So those battles in the the trailers of ARA where mostly show, you don't command your units or divisions ?, there is this game called Oriental Empires that took the Civilization like gameplay set in the three kingdoms settings it was great seasonal changes, deep diplomatic strategy and a basic but cinematic battles of divisions on the same map unlike Total War, I wonder if in a future entry cities could be set in map with a sub map of the region the city is located for better aesthetic and city management mechanics civ6 cities where too crowded.
@@4Xtraordinaire why are civ players so focused on graphics? i thought this phenomenon was more of a shooter/action game obsession. is it because civ is a more casual strategy game with wider audience?
I’m fine with Civ 6’s artstyle, but Ara has a genuinely uninteresting world map. I’ve looked at it recently, and it is way too… monotone? It feels like there is 0 contrast, and I had a similar issue with millennia
I felt the leader animation quality in Civ7 dropped significantly from Civ6
Civ 6 also had some dreadful animation, especially in latest leader pass. They look legit unfinished.
Funnily enough, it's how I view civ 6 leaders compared to civ 5 leaders.
@@J.J.Jameson_of_Daily_BugleI don’t remember where but I remember hearing the leader pass was like, outsourced or something? Which is why most of the new leaders are reskins or reused
@@Skywarslord I wouldn't be surprised, they kinda look quickly put together with some reused animation from other leaders. Also their "balance" and idea are equally quickly made, me thinks.
Dunno, the last leader packs felt more like fan made mods then official leader packs.
Note how in civ 6 each civ had simple music in the ancient era, that evolved over each age with a new version of the same music. That can't happen here. You're only going to get one version of each Civ's music.
Looks like I’ll just keep playing Civ 5
My first reaction was what about China
How are they going to fit in for this
Han -> Tang -> Ming
Or something like that.
China and Persia (Iran)
@@ragnar8786 so china -> china -> china? lol
Or India, or Japan, or Greece. Persia.
Exactly. China is perhaps the best example of an ancient Civ that made it all the way to the present age and is still going strong despite all the ups and downs of millennia of history. But China isn't' the only one either. Egypt, Iran, India, Greece, Japan, etc., all survived as identifiable civilisations from the ancient to the modern era, maybe with changes that are expected over thousands of years of history, but still very much alive and unique.
Civ 3 was the Apex for me! After Civ 3, they started scrambling everything, instead of adding on top of what already was working.
civ 4 improved civ 3 mechanics imo and its the best civ by far. civ 3 is ok too imo but "outdated" to civ 4.
I think the only way civ swapping can really work is if you require the civ swapping to be to historical evolutions of your original pick. For example, if you start as Babylon, have the option to switch to Arabia, Iran, or turkey. You start as the germanics, have the option to switch to England, Netherlands, or Germany. Start as Rome, you can switch to France, Spain or Italy.
Or something like that. Not the songhai switches to England switches to China nonsense.
No if I start as Babylon I dont wanna be Arab or someone else who conquered and killed it. I am doing a sandboxed what if and this kills it.
Even the suggested scenario is just bad. Babylon was never the same civilisation as Arabia or Iran or Turkey. Rome was literally fighting Germanic "barbarians" for centuries of its existence. The whole thing sounds like a bad idea. I could accept that for a long lived civlisation like China, you might go from one dynasty to another one than to Communist China in the modern era, with different characteristics. But a change of governments, value systems, religions, etc., was already possible in previous iterations of the game...
I don't want to replay history, I want to create my own.
I'm actually disappointed
I bought HK a year after release - and I felt they did fix a lot of the problems.
My main gripe with HK is that battles take way too long in the later ages (moving 20 units for 3 rounds every turn slows the game down to a crawl). Plus - I didn't like how the computer could just attack one of my cities with one or two units - stopping its production, then run around with said unit in a far area of the battle without ever attacking - which meant my mega city couldn't do anything until I left the fortifications to run around trying to find the lone horse somewhere behind a mountain.
I don't understand backlash on HK. Like all civ players say that they dislike the game because apparently it is not civ like. I think HK can do whatever they want. It is their own game anyways. The civ swapping in HK has it's own place in the game meta. But the same cannot be said about civ 7, because it is a civ game and it doesn't follow the rules of the civ games and feels weird
@@dianashupletsov7812 For me - I thought of Civ just as a name. For me - the game was about playing a civ "though history", not playing a "civ" through history. In fact - I thought most the civ's were generally too close together in gameplay and often struggled with balance on various maps. Civ VI's mid DLC additions did help them stand apart from each other a lot more (I only played until the New Frontier pass finished) and I enjoyed that.
As someone who loves the changing cultures of HK I'm not convinced by CIV7 system.
Yes, in HK you can get really wacky scenarios and the eras succession can feel really anticlimatic, but I don't think locking out civ options and assigning default "historical options" will be a solution.
You can unlock other options with the way you lead your faction.
@@ruas4721i know, but the game seems structured to give just a couple of default option players will have always aviable, and it has just been comfirmed that the AI will always pick this predeterminated cultures.
So, long story short, limited options for the player for the later cultures and prevedible AI changes.
0:52 Don’t forget to mention how bad a company can mess up a franchise.
Im gonna hold off on Civ 7 untill after release to see how it looks. I think too much of it is change for change sake, and it just doesnt look fun sadly.
its a tipical american approach, they just have decided in preproduction that 30% of the game must be new mechanics, 30% change to existing mechanics and 30% should be the same with no further thought, they dindt bother to assest what worked well and improve on that and what didnt worked well and scrap that. No, just change for the sake of change, they already did that with 6 and partially worked (for them, i hated also 6), but i think this time will be a real flop.
Civ VII looks over complicated just to be different. I’d just wait for a few years until the complete game with expansions comes out then see how it plays.
Civ swapping is a bad idea because it ruins the sentimentality at the core of Civ. This is a philosophical issue: people attach significance to particularity, but the "Humankind-like" swapping is saying people aren't particular, they are fungible and replaceable, and this is poison to the sentimentality of particularity that forms emotional connection.
I think that indeed the biggest criticism is the civ swapping... Especially with Egypt into Songhai as shown in the showcase... But i hope it's still in development and it's more connected, like instead of Egypt to Mongolia, it's Egypt to Arabia and all that
maybe id give them the benefit of the doubt and say that it's a placeholder decision, but im not sure. i feel like egypt into venice or other mediteranean culture makes much more sense than egypt into a subsaharan african one.
What does Arabia have to do with ancient Egypt apart from sharing a similar geographical location? Those cultures, people and empires are completely different. They want to be more historically accurate yet they disregard all history and you change Civ just because they occupied the same area.
Pretty disrespect and ahistorical if you ask me.
@@pablodiazgarcia5940 the cultures and empires, sure, but the people are still around albeit changed. the egyptian people never vanished. they may have adopted arab religion, language and culture, but the modern egptians are descended from the ancient ones. this point would be valid was if the situation was native americans becoming the united states, where the people would genuinely be unrelated.
@@pablodiazgarcia5940 nothing in civ is historically accurate. Plus, Arabia in civ6 has its capital in Cairo... Which, get this, is in Egypt
@@pablodiazgarcia5940 You're kidding right? The Arabs conquered Egypt and established Islam there. Modern Egyptians are a mix between anicent Egyptians and Arabs. They speak Arabic in Egypt for Christ's sake.
ARA Untold Histories will get my money. Civ 7 won't.
Ugh.... This whole game is just giving me red flags. They have forgotten the entire spirit of Civilization
These septum-pierced DEI-driven closet-dwelling children that have infested video game development never knew it. I played Civ I, from 1990, for hundreds of hours. There are lots of us; probably millions. If they cared at all, they could have asked. But they don't.
All civilizations are based on identity that changes and transforms as ages goes. Why player cannot name and rename his civilization as his campaign evolves, instead of choosing presets.
I'm surprised nobody talks about going from upgrading undividual units to upgrading commanders instead. For me, it's one of the biggest problems I have with Civ7, since I feel deep connection to the units that were by my side all along, and went through fire and water with me. Every single unit that was on the frontline in my games gets a special name on the first promotion, and when I see this unit fighting in the modern era, I recall the days they fought with sticks back in the ancient era, and feel genuine proud and respect for them. I feel that I can count on them, but when the situation isn't in their favour, I do everything I can to save them.
But now I can't feel this way, since I probably won't recall my units without an ability to name them, and I won't feel the same respect for the commanders (no matter how glorious or victorious they are) as I feel for the units - the ones who are risking their lifes in my name, facing our enemies and trusting me so much that they obey my every single order, even suicidal ones, while commanders are blankly sitting in the backlines and giving them nothing more than a few bonuses.
It's a common tendency in 4x history game to care less and less about creating a history and more and more about min-maxing and "competitive online multiplayer".
My best times on Civ-like games, both online or local, where in semi-RP multiplayer games.
The justification for Civ changing with the eras is baffling to me. "London used to be controlled by the romans and then the Anglo-Saxons" Yeah mate, no wonder how that happened? Not like the Western Roman Empire collapsed and some time later an external tribe conquered London... Civilizations don't just change from one era to the other.
The Roman Civilization is a great example. You can trace Rome from the 700s BC to 1453 AD and through all of that time they were a city-state, a kingdom, a republic, an empire, two empires, a medieval empire... Were the people of Constantinople in the 1400s the same as the ones living in Rome in 150 AD? No, but they were ROMANS.
Make civilizations change from era to era but keep the same name. You can make new civilizations pop up in the map when the eras change or when barbarians or city-states conquer some of your cities.
But don't make me change from Egypt to Abbasid because the year tells me is about time to do so. We've been Egyptians for 6000 years but now a lot of bad things are happening because is the year 476AD, guess we'll become a new civilization that has nothing to do with what we were before, welcome the Abbasids
the most ironic thing is that if real life was a civ game, the question would be if your civ can stand the test of time. if you play rome and have to switch to italy, you know what happened? you couldnt stand the test of time. GG. game over. you lost.
I feel like instead of changing civs u should change leaders. Each civ having 3 leaders from significant moment in their history
I start the game with civ A and develop my empire based on A’s advantages. All of sudden, I’m force to another civ B, which makes all of my previous efforts wasted? That just makes no sense…
I’m playing Egypt along floodplain and building lots of wonders, all of sudden I’m Mongolia and have to produce my first horseman?
No. Your understanding of the features and process is wrong.
Are you a paid shill?@@BlackNomad1
@@BlackNomad1 then please venture the correct one
@@BlackNomad1you literally have the same information as us
You dont suddenly play Mongolia. You get a historical option and unlock other civs with the way you lead your nation. If you play egypt and spam hundreds of horsemen you unlock Mongolia (just an example). Thats already confirmed.
I really like Civ swapping but that definitely goes against the feel of a Civ game. I feel they should have just made Civ swapping an optional rule or game mode.
Humankind does not force you to swap your civ when advancing. It actually even gives you more victory points for retaining your civ while advancing. Swapping just gives the game a lot of flavour and strategic depth, I don't see why this would be an unpopular choice.
Civ 5 still rules. Not interested in Humankind 2.0 at all. I'll wait five years and get it with all DLCs for 5 bucks.
If you and I live that long.
@@penknight8532 Right? I'm really hoping Ara is going to pick up the Civ flag and carry it forward at this point.
I disagree with the idea that the civs are more unique. Comparing to say, civ V, none of these options are as distinct as the difference between Polynesia and Venice. Small differences in adjacency bonuses aren't what I call good differentiation.
That's probably what I would probably like to see in my own "ideal" Civ7, not just different features of different civilisations, but also different gameplay styles for each one. Probably, Age of Empires IV nailed it the best. However, such a game feature would be very hard not even to make, but to balance
The last good civ was civ 4 imo
I wish they did it the other way around and focused on the Civs rather than the leaders. It’d be cool if they had multiple leaders throughout the ages per Civ (even if they have the same bonuses) rather than multiple Civs with the same leader
Verticality in the terrain (including bonuses/penalties for fighting in higher/lower elevation was already a thing in 2014 4X game Endless Legend from the same devs as Humankind and Endless Legend arguably had more interesting mechanics to take inspiration from than Mankind ever did.
I only pray for the community to keep launching mods in civ VI
Sukricat save us all. Also merrick.
Sukitrakt our lord and savior please