Dude seriously, if they put James Joyce in the game, they have to include his infamous thirst letters to Nora Barnacle too. If this comment gets 10 likes firaxis has to do this.
Yeah when people say representation I guess they're thinking of female leaders or having people of color, but for most of us what we care about most is having our country or favorite historical figure present. I love playing as the Dutch even if I don't really worry about their gameplay bonuses when picking them.
I think the reflexive pushback on representation is the fear of it taking precedence over historical significance or, worse, removing representation for a greater portion of the playerbase than it adds. For example, imagine if the game had Ireland, but because of the developers’ limited time and resources, this decision came at the cost of excluding France. It would feel off, because France has had a much bigger historical impact, and more French players would be excluded than Irish players included.
On representation, I remember playing Civ 6 for the first time, scrolling through who to play, and I see Kupe - I was shocked! I'm down here in this small island nation at the bottom of the pacific, and there's someone in this huge game from my part of the world. Then upon playing, hearing Pokarekare Ana start playing (which is a particularly touching love song)? It's the first time I've ever felt 'represented' in a video game. I can't wait for thousands of other people to get that same feeling in Civ 7 when something from their home pops up in the game, it's a beautiful feeling
I'm trying to think if Germany was ever in this series? That could be fun to see, I'm not German in terms of culture but I am of German descent so it would be fun. I'm also of Cherokee and Choctaw descent too (supposedly). But Those cultures are sort of important to me. So it's just for fun if they were in games like this
@@JC_Enterprise Germany is in Civ 6 twice, led by Frederick Barbarossa and by Ludwig II, and Germany has been in every numbered Civilization title (idk about spin-offs)
I thought the exact thing with Kupe. I was just happy that he was in the game, but the way that he was depicted was also done very well. You could feel that the team really did try, and that's nice to see.
@@belovedwarrior3192 What? Literally since the first game in 1991 Germany has been one of the standard civs and Germany has appeared in every mainline Civ game since. It is not at all similar to Maori representation in the series. Have you not played Civ? Or ar you thinking about some other game series?
Trying to remember their traits? +1 happiness from food? 100% more food from pigs and cattle (I mean, you don't leave much to waste from them 😂). Bias is not to start next door to America but sorry, someone has to 😁
3:57 Really been wanting to play the Mississippians since they were announced, not related to that tribe in any way but it’s a part of my local history that I just enjoy seeing more of. Also thanks to the guides online so far I really like how some of their traits stack if you play Mississippians->Shawnee->America as all three have a lot of bonuses around building near to resources and amassing as much of them as possible.
@ I think they’re currently a preorder bonus but yeah, they had a spotlight livestream with some people from the Shawnee community about how they worked with them to come up with their artwork and unique traits
Regarding representation, I've also found the Civ games to be rather educational. It's these games that have taught me about, for example, the Malinese Empire in Africa, which is not traditionally taught where I live. I don't mind learning about new people and places.
This is why i love games like this, cos you get to learn stuff, and it definatly belongs in a game like this, but i think people might think representation is shoe horned into other games unecesarily. I think historical representation is a necessary part of game play for a game like this. Also it could be peoples kneejerk reactions to the word "representation"
Absolutely. Civ is pretty good for historical and geographical knowledge, plus knowing lots of quotes! I like knowing about people like Tamar and Mvemba that I'm unlikely to have come across otherwise.
YUP. As a straight white guy from the US and of Germanic descent, "representation" has never meant making sure my country or my people were in the game. That's the default. But. BUT. History has SO. MUCH. COOL. SHIT. Pushing representation for other people means I get to learn about badass stories and events and peoples that... weren't included in my formal education. Stuff I don't even know enough about to know what to search for on Wikipedia or at the library. And frankly, if all it "comes at the cost of" is getting yet another Bismark or Washington leader, I don't see the problem. I've read enough about Bismark for two lifetimes, and about Washington for seven.
@@storm___ I actually don't have a problem with having the option to switch civs, so long as you obviously have the option to stay on the historical path as well. More player freedom will never bother me. That's just my take, though. I'm very glad they mentioned that bots will always take the historical path, that's a big relief
@@paynesyler6428 Same here, pretty much just hoping that every leader also gets a civ that they have at least somewhat of a connection to, that way they can actually represent a civ. Machiavelli is just chilling there without an Italian civ.
Based on the values that Firaxis names switching civs works, but idea of keeping the same leader across multiple civilizations is entirely the wrong way around. It's a lot more thematic and realistic to have it be one civ with multiple leaders across ages. This still allows for the variation in gameplay, prominance, and representation but is more true to the "standing the test of time" rather than playing as some immortal dude who just ditches their nation for the next one whenever a new age rolls around. It sounds crazy to me that Firaxis thinks players think in terms of leaders as who they are playing. Might just be me and everyone I've played civ with, but I think in terms of civs. Switching civs is a lot more confusing than switching leaders. Particualarly because everything on the map and UI is themed around the civ and not the leader, think buildings, border colors, turn icons.
Not just you, when I talk to my friends I refer to my playthroughs by the culture/nation rather than the leader. I'll say things like "I'm doing a playthrough as Japan." or the like.
I don't really see this myself; A lot of Civilizations have always had multiple playable leaders, and when Alexander is rearing his ugly head I don't say "Ugh, Macedonia!" I say "Ugh, Alexander!" Which is the real root of things; Shaking your fist at specific people feels better than a vague "Well, Egypt is a pain in this game!" When you played the games and engaged in diplomacy you'd see the person first and foremost; Even now with the changes to the UI for that you're still seeing an actual person and not some abstract representation of Germany or something. Firaxis is totally right IMO to see it like that. And it really isn't the other way around, because the civilizations themselves were the root of several problems and feeling in the games; Late game civs didn't feel good to play because they were generic for 99% of the game and only because unique after it was mostly decided. Early game civs decided how the game was going to end and then felt generic after, etc.
@@Hifuutorian That's a problem with how they approach constructing civs, not the era of play itself. All civs would feel more interesting if they had a spread of things from their geographical/cultural history. If we're getting away from being tied to things, why not go the full way and have decisions about what to pursue being an option that shapes things. It seems like they are getting close to that but don't quite want to go there. Also it would be nice to now have exploration so age-locked. I don't think "Oh god it's alexander." I think "Oh, it's those guys. Better Rofflstomp em fast." That goes for the Zulus and India as well. Hate starting next to all three of them. Honestly though, given how often every enemy civ tries to forward settle me, my games devolve into total, inescapable war pretty quickly. There are just certain civs that the mere sight of causes me to go into mass military production and then exterminate mode. Then I have too many grievances though so I never end up with any peace or trade and it just makes sense to keep steamrolling the other civs. To me, that's the big flaw of civ6, once I conquer one civ because it wouldn't give me space to build, everyone else is mad at me for so long I just end up conquering them all. It's why the Maori are great, I can just load the map that starts one continent unsettled and sail until I find it then do my own thing and actually have a later game diplomacy option.
You couldn't be more wrong. It is historically inaccurate to privilege an abstract identity that is present in a culture over the course of thousands of years. Civ 7 identifies far more foundational truths about history: rupture and change. It also dispells the illusion of historical inevitably. You can dislike it for the game play aspect, but not for historical reasons.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 People can dislike what they dislike for any reason. That's the nature and privilege of being alive and having an opinion. When I was a child, it was wrong to think that most dinosaurs had feathers. When I went to grade school, my teachers taught us that the aboriginal people of North America lived peacefully with each other until Europeans arrived. History is viewed through the windows and the politics and perceptions of those looking back at often poorly-detailed, agenda-driven accounts of events ridden with the biases of those involved. And so-called "historical accuracy" changes quite frequently once you move a very short distance in the world as you will find that neighbouring groups often have a very different take on events. What little we know of pre-history from fossilized amber is vastly more reliable than the overwhelming majority of written human history for an accurate look into any single segment of the planet's history. Humans after all, are very fond of white-out and amendments to suit the sensibilities of the time. With regards to games being historically accurate, I can tell you that truly historically accurate games don't sell well. They don't actually work as games for starters because you know who is going to win and who is going to lose from the outset. That said, trying to call any of the Civilization games historically accurate is farcical at best. The encyclopedia in the game is at best a child's primer that can be easily beaten by a trip to the library, if that is what you are after.
There are a lot of exciting ideas and I am hopeful…but I admit I have some trepidation that in their quest for terrain balance and civilization/leader modularity, they might instead end up removing some of the core distinctiveness between different runs, and make everything just a bit blander. In the end, I think it’ll come done to how it all gets implemented, so here’s hoping they stick the landing
I get what you mean, but truth be told I think trying to rein in the huge impact terrain has is a good thing. Like sure some runs may be less "distinct" but a lot of times "distinct" means "spawning in the desert as Canada" or "spawned on a lake as an ocean civ".
My main wish for Civ, is for them to bring back real life advisors like in the early games. I still have early memories of being told "There is this thing called writting, we should research it". The fact a real lofe actor dressed in a toga was asking it made it much more memorable than any of the advisors/advice from the later games. The ages give great opperrunites for costume changes for your advisors.
I'm from the USA. National representation doesn't mean much to us since we are in everything. It makes it difficult to really empathize with that feeling. We get more enjoyment out of different civs because it adds additional gameplay elements.
@@Keygentlemen I will say, this game makes this even more accessible, as you could possibly play your heritage as an early age and end up as America in the modern age. Although in your case this might not work if Finland is also considered a modern civ.
@@CyberDrewan Finland would 100% be a modern civ, unless they specifically went for ancient/medieval Finns. Most of their "midgame" history was spent under occupation.
It would be cool to have us states represented. "Sojourner Truth leads Michigan in Civilization VII" "Stephen King leads Maine" "John Denver leads Colorado" "Cesar Chavez leads Arizona"
I can’t help but feel it would make more sense to switch leaders while maintaining the same civ. It fits much better the idea of representing a people at a certain point in history, with a person of that time. Leaning into the “immortal avatar of an ancient civ” aspect of leaders feels weird to me.
But the game is sectioned into Ages, and civilizations change in a “Ages” time scale, and leaders don’t. So keeping this in mind, I think if you’re gonna keep one thing the same, either leaders or civs, it makes more sense that leaders stay the same but civs change
In fact, I would say that’s how they came up with changing civs. I doubt they went, “hey, should we have civs or leaders change with age? Oh, let’s do civs. Then we can make ages.” I think it was more like “well, we want to model how civs change and evolve over time. How best do we do that? Well, we have ages change, and the civs change through the ages”
I had never thought about that but you convinced me there. That's even compatible with the age system, you could have Egypt with Cleopatra, then say Ibn Battuta, then with some modern leader. As if leaders were super-great-persons that define your age. That's Firaxis discourse about leaders but your idea fits it better in my opinion However let's not forget the devs probably considered that possibility and rejected it for a reason -hopefully that was a good one Because that civ switch system doesn't satisfy me fully either for historical reasons. A civ is not a lasagna of civs, but a melting pot. Giant antique empires broke down into SEVERAL empires. Why would only 1 civ get ALL the remnants of the past Roman Empire ? Also, having "Athenai" and "Rouen" (french city name) just side to side in my empire feels weird. At least the devs should make the spelling more homogeneous
@@sennarghal691I like the idea of a 'melting pot' approach to blending civil based on your neighbours, but I imagine they avoided something like that since it would remove control from the player to shape their own civilisation - if your civ in the next age was based on your choices and those of the ai / other players around you, you could be railroaded into a civ or direction you may not be seeking simply because the AI went a certain direction or chose a certain civ. Similarly how would you manage that sort of mechanic in a map where for whatever reason you don't actually have any neighbours / other civs in proximity to you? At the same time some of the things I mentioned above would likely be features not bugs for a melting pot I presume?
I think it would be cool to have civs like the Ottoman and Austrohungarian Empires in the modern age since that one only goes through the mid 20th century. There are a lot of civs that don't really exist anymore but were massively important for their time.
@@Regulusis yeah I'm gonna wait three or so years to get the platinum edition at a steep discount (less because I'm worried about quality but I can happily watch others play civ 7 while I pay much less)
"traditionally underrepresented" is a funny thing to say for a Civ game. Wouldn't the way to represent everyone globally be the easiest to execute in a game like this? ie: just have more civs in the game?
No, because you then run into the Humankind problem, where too many civs mean they're not unique or fun enough as they can't focus on quality over quantity.
@@JakeDMaier If you can mix and match, then it doesn't matter. I can guarantee you, there are plenty of different civ oppertunities across the globe. multiple native american and african tribes, multiple chinese and japanese dylnasties/families. multple global warlords. If the effects are the issue, then mixing/matching "solves" the issue.
(that being said, there are other solutions to the uniqueness problem too - i'm not a personal fan of mixing/matching necessarily if it's across ALL civs)
Budget, It probably costs a cerntain amount of money to build each Civ. Which is probably the real reason why the decoupling happened not each civ doesn't require a leader and each leader doesn't require a civ making both cheaper to make compared to previous Civ games. also combinitorics means they can make fewer civs for more variety in gameplay.
"And if the leader changes mid-game, that narrative inside the player's head is disrupted." I actually like the idea of disrupting that narrative. When explorers from Portugal and Italy arrived in China in the Middle Ages and wanted to establish trade agreements, they were shocked to learn that the Chinese already thought they had trade agreements in place: Agreements the Chinese had established with the Roman Empire. So, for Chinese rulers who thought that "Europeans," and in particular Italians, was the same as Romans, it disrupted the narrative in their heads when they learned that those ancient empires no longer existed and they now had entirely new kingdoms and leaders with new agendas to deal with. Having a whole new leader and empire rise up mid-game and causing me, as a player, to have to readjust my entire approach towards that player seems like it could be an exciting evolution in Civ gameplay. But maybe that's just me.
I like how Potato talks about how the devs try to address the community‘s concerns, while skipping over the part where the Napoleons will only be available as a reward for having a 2K account, and having Civ6 on there. If you‘re new to the franchise, better buy a 9 year old game if you want all the content… (Yes, I know that that‘s on 2K, and that the devs probably didn‘t get a say in it. It‘s still scummy)
*Requires an internet connection, and a 2K Account linked to the platform account used to play Sid Meier's Civilization VII and/or Sid Meier's Civilization VI. It says and/or. Civ vi is not required for Napoleon. Only 2K Account
25:30 It doesn‘t. „…for players that link the same 2K account to the platform account(s) used to play Sid Meier‘s Civilization VI and Sid Meier‘s Civilization VII“
I'm still not sure about this new mechanic. I mean, it sounds interesting, but I am a bit worried that in some cases you will only have a "negative" switch possible. For example, if Poland is ever added, it will be most likely an exploration era civ. And I doubt we will get another Poland for a modern age, so we will change into Russia or Soviet Union. And I am afraid it would be a case for the entirety of Easter Europe. And this is the opposite ob "build something you believe in".
@@benismann Exactly, I just mentioned Poland as an example, but you are absolutely right, both Americas are also screwed thanks to this new mechanic. It's like assuming that Incas would fall no matter what. I know this makes sense historically, but this is suppose to be a game, not a depressing history lesson.
@@janolbratowski1814 Yeah, that's pretty unfortunate. It'd be nice if they plan on adding enough civilizations for every civilization to transition into an accurate portrayal of that civ into the next age. So, ancient Greece to Byzantium to a more modern Greek state, like the First Hellenic Republic or the Kingdom of Greece, being an example. I think the option to mix and match different civs and leaders is fine, and should be kept, but an accurate portrayal with accurate civs would be nice. Unfortunately, likely not too probable, since it would require tremendous time to design so many civs. The other option is to just add a transcend option like Humankind, and be able to keep your civ throughout the ages, although this also may be awkward for them to implement.
Railroading people into 3 choices is not only less fun mechanically but is also begging for bad implications like this. I really don't know what they're thinking.
Yeah, I'll go one step further and say I don't play civ to switch civs mid-game. I find even the idea of it jarring and immersion breaking. Not to mention the idea is counter to Civ's own, "Build a civilization to stand the test of time."
I've been a Civ player all my life. Never thought Canada would be in it because we're not the first thing you think of ... but was so pumped when they were in 6
I will give the game a chance but with the base game + dlc pricing i can expect, and this civ switching mechanic really lowering my hype, i'll probably wait for a sale and not get it on launch like i did 4-6. I pick a civ to play that civ, being forced to swap civs is just not doing it on paper for me. If it was just swapping leaders sure, and the concept of ages is fine. Ill keep an open mind but this really shakes a lot of the appeal i get from civ.
4:12 Germany is ALWAYS militaristic. Sure They don't use mustache man, but still. Modern day Germany is not a militaristic civ, and so those representations feel the way you feel about boudicca. Technically yea but not really. I wish we'd get an economic or diplomatic Germany for once...
I remember when the rumors that Canada was in the gathering storm Dlc started surfacing and that feeling was amazing! Then the reveal and when the canada soundtrack was released, probably one of my top gaming moments of all time. I'd love for Irish people or people from other countries to get to experience that! (Congratulations Mexico!)
I agree that what they've done is fantastic from a gameplay perspective, but flavour wise it's a catastrophe. I don't think I'm alone on this when I say that I play Civ because I want to take a nation from the stone age to the space age. Now I still might be able to do that for some by picking civs that are continuations of eachother with each age, but that completely removes the gameplay benefits of the system, might make for unsatisfactory play and it wouldn't feel good to be locked on a set path. (For Japan it could be Yamatai, into Shogunate, into Meiji Restoration or modern Japan, maybe?) It would have been much better to have different sub-civs to pick from at each era and a leader that goes with it. Let's say you play France and reach the Renaissance era. You have the choice to go pick between, republic, enlightened monarchy or empire. With respectively Robespierre, Louis XVIII and Napoleon as leaders. But honestly, that would just be governments from Civ VI with cosmetics on top. And the representation argument falls completely flat for a lot of civs. Sure, you can now play as Switzerland, but have fun doing something else entirely for the whole game until you reach the last age. Same thing for a lot of underrepresented countries that will get to appear once in the first or second age and never to be seen for the rest of the game. What if you want to send rockets into space as Babylon but are locked into the first age? Tough luck. Sending metal bands to culturally take over the world as Botswana? No, best you can get is muskets in the second age. Also I don't like how there are only 3 ages. Going from antiquity to the Renaissance without the middle ages in between sounds really strange, especially since this period is pivotal for a lot of countries. 4 would have been much better. I don't mind mixing the modern and atomic eras together though. They're not that different feeling-wise anyway.
"I don't think I'm alone on this when I say that I play Civ because I want to take a nation from the stone age to the space age." That is literally the main tagline of the series. It's been the core of every game in the franchise until this one. You're FAR from alone and Potato trying to claim this design choice is "necessary" is flagrant copium.
I think you are too overjoyed for such straight commercial design. There are 26(+5 personas) leader and 31 civ at launch, then hinted DLC show more personas and 2 leader / 4 civ - so ratio leader to civ will be around 0.8. It's give us LESS diversity inside each country, not more. (If USA took 2 - then even less) Futhermore when u play civ7 - its 1 out of 10-11 civ in age, so it's only 10 non-crossed uniq expirience through the ages (but a lot more combination ofc) So they deepen each civ and incrase combinatorics (thats good fo me), but they reduce representation, not incrase it (and its a shame of such bullshiting dev diary)
I'm not sure if I've just simply aged out or if there is something missing here. I'm not at all psyched up for this game, like I was for Civ games before it.
For me Civ IV was the pinnacle of civ games. Best leaders, best features. Didn't even touch Civ V, Civ VI had some decent ideas but very lackluster pool of leaders and too cartoony character models. It honestly feels like representation is their only criteria for choosing leaders these days.. I'd rather have Stalin, Shaka and Mao instead of some village hotheads who stirred up a small demonstration.
Because it's not about the civs anymore. Simple as. Leaders used to be the face of a civ but now that they're decoupled and adding whoever there's far less "oomph" when one third of your potential game plan is announced (and railroading civs down three choices is not only needlessly restrictive but also has tons of potential for bad implications).
@@tt128556 I would personally rather have the potential to learn new aspects of history I wouldn't otherwise be privy to than have a pop culture-level understanding of the western world + then some regurgitated at me every couple years.
the one thing that I really dislike and will absolutely hate if it does happen is how they gutted the Information age and will likely reintroduce it as a paid DLC
For me, Civ has always been, "Build a Civilzation to stand the test of time". Keyword being civlization, not civilization(s). I like consistency, and Civ for me has always been played like a alternate history simulator. My one gripe (especially regarding Indigenous civs) is that we are not a people or our nations aren't tied to a single time period. We are people of "time immemorial," surviving thousands of years well established prior to antiquity. It's a bit problematic if there are (currently at time of post) no modern age Indigenous equivalents and to play into. Not to mention playing as one Nation to another gives a sense of genocide when in reality, many of these nations or tribes exist to this day. America or Mexico to play into from an Indigenous Civ is an agregious attempt and supports colonial erasure against Indigenous people. Why I loved the Mapuche, Cree, Aztecs, etc. in Civ 6 was that you can maintain your Civ throughout the entire game and create an alternative history. Why myself and many others couldn't get into Humankind was the Civ switching. Civ 7 took the most criticized element of Humankind and decided to implement it into the core game. For me, this might be the first Civ game where I wait for a massive sale and not buy on release. This is purely my thoughts and opinions here. You're more than welcome to enjoy the current game and mechanics, but these are my personal issues with the game.
It is very truly cool that they're using this mechanic to give some space for lesser known or overlooked Civs and cultures, but it feels weird to be like "sorry Indonesia, you're only good for early game domination strats, turn into America now." It would be so damn cool to have a Civs traits and unique features evolve with time. It would create so much fun alternate history and future scenarios. What would Canada be like in the Stone Age? How would Rome operate in a modern age on a global scale? instead everything is interchangeable.
@Boomerangofjustice the Indonesia example is only weird because they’re more relevant now than ever. Whereas in the past it wouldn’t even really make sense to think of Indonesia as a single unified civ, if it even makes sense today. If it was Picts turning into English turning into America would anyone be complaining?
This doesn’t work because “what would Canada be like in the Stone Age” is a question cast into an infinite unknown. This is why in prior civ games, civs did last an entire play through but they were really only that civ during the time they shined irl. As in Rome was only Rome in the antiquity age, after that they basically turned into a generic civ with no meaningful characteristics because Rome did not exist in the modern era. We do not and cannot ever know what Rome in modern era would be because fundamentally our idea of what Rome was, represented, and did is wholly tied to the context they did those things in. Outside of a few indigenous exceptions, this is not how cultures and people mature through the ages. Culture, technology, economics, diplomacy, etc advances and that transforms how both the people of a civ and the state act as well. Antiquity Rome transformed into the Byzantines (among other successor states) because that was the result of the geopolitical environment around them during that era. That’s why this civ switching to match age appropriate representation actually reflects how the majority of peoples evolved with time. There are some civs that have the benefit of surviving in different form across eras which gives the option of following a stack (India, China, etc) but even then you can see that it’s more natural for them to be represented as a stack than a single ageless monolith faction. Furthermore, as the dev diary clearly explains, the stack approach is not available to most civs who are the result of a vast array of factors and combinations of different peoples. It would be prohibitively restrictive to limit civ options to those that have viable stacks across the game’s eras. The main gripe people seem attached to is that this new system feels weird (Ben Franklin of ancient Egypt etc), which is fine, you can have that opinion. But it’s unfamiliar and new should not decide whether it’s genuinely good or a reasonable evolution of the game. It appears like this approach has been well thought out and carefully implemented to avoid obvious pitfalls that plagued similar games while propping up what makes these features historically plausible (as an alt history game strict realism shouldn’t be the goal), representative, and interesting to play (the 3 pillars).
Don’t get me wrong I get the feeling but like especially if you do well in an age you’ll have a lot of architecture city names and policies from that age for the whole rest of the game + your leader does stay the whole time
See this is what I mean in my other post by bad criticism - your civ is the thing you did from the first turn to the last, not the label and stats applied because you chose a name for a leader or a name for the "civilization". Also, having Canada from the stone age to the future doesn't make sense, it never made sense - and that was ok. You having a leader and changing civ titles over thousands of years is more interesting game play wise, and more based on reality than before - well, except the single leader of course. "I have to be the same name and stats for all the game or its bad" is quite a take - and I do "love" seeing people take nearly any reasoning to justify it. Oh well, people whined about the art of 6, or whatever with 5, or really, whining about stupid BS with lies about how they will so totally NOT get the game at or near launch is nearly as old as the series itself. People said it about 4 even though 4's fanboys wanted to pretend otherwise.
I'll be honest, I think Civ 7 is DoA. none of what i have heard has peaked any interest for me, and not for several other people i know. Yes, I am aware thats not evidence, but i just dont see the kind of hype for the game i saw when civ 6 was coming out. they are also taking massive risks that shake the identity of the game series to its core, which often is a massive mistake and rarely overwhelmingly positive for the game.
They are copying way too many things from Humankind, which died in several months. The game barely gets more daily players than Civ 4. And with how bad 7 is looking so far, I bet it will sadly join them.
re: your example about how cool it is to get your country after playing for years, getting Kupe made me play so much more civ and love it so much, and he's very interesting and unique (even if you hate him, he's very different)
I don't begrudge that some like it, but playing the same civ from barbarian to nukes mattered to me and going into the ham fisted civ changes seems like a departure that really kills my interest. I understand what they are trying to do. I know that requirement to make the age playable across time placed some limitations on what else could be done, but its a limitation that has clearly worked well in a franchise i have loved since discovering it in the late 90s. I predict the game meta is going to become something like "Start with the Aztecs, then Play as Japan, then swap to Germany for the production bump" or something just as cheesy. Rounding that off with "And it was all lead by Cleopatra!" doesn't help.
I'm always glad to see a developer wanting to experiment and grow, but we have seen the results of changing civs through ages in several other games over the past few years, and it was not good. I have owned and enjoyed every civ game made, right back to the very first one. I have played several new 4x gams that use his mechanic and disliked them all. I bought Humankind early for the early access, and I just checked to see I have 35 hours total spent on that game. I am hopeful that Civ 7 is great. I really want it to be. But it will not be a day one purchase. I will be checking out several games on your channel though to really see if I will like the gameplay.
I don't know, changing political leaders for cultural/science notable figures or make them interchangeable just sounds lame and bland to me and a weird focus too. Albert Einstein for example is already a notable science figure, making him a nation leader makes no sense to me. It would just dilute part of the essence of Civ imo but we'll see...
The best part about CiV 7 is you can wait a few years untill the game is bundled and sold together at a reasonable price. Say NO to being nickle and dimed for every bit of content.
I'm pretty sure they pointed out why it's a bad thematic idea when they said leader swapping didnt feel good in the article. I dont really get how they can make those arguments like it's confusing as to who youre playing as with leader swaps, and not apply the same arguments to civ swaps. Hopefully they come up with a way to keep things cohesive thematically better than humankind did.
in humankind you could go from being ANY civ to being any other civ without any cohesion. Here they're clearly said you're gonna keep your leader and legacies to keep some cohesion, and also the options you have to choose in a new age depend on several factors (you found X resource, your leader history follows X path, etc.) which is gonna make much more sense and keep it thematic, either via gameplay or real history.
I did a double take first time he said “Martin KING Luther Jr”, but then he kept repeating it😂. Follow up by saying that he’s such a well known figure. Such unintentional comedy gold.
Switching civs shouldn't retract from the experience, but making leaders disconnected very well might for me. Benjamin Franklin of Egypt just doesn't ring right in my head Edit: I guess it would be cool to play Marx of Russia or Germany, or Thomas Hobbs as England or Spain. I'm unsure if that will balance bad matchups
Crazy how rude Potato is being in these replies to any criticism of the game whilst being extremely uncritical of all the changes. Good for him that he's excited about the new game, but calling your fans stupid and low-IQ for being concerned that Civ is changing core parts of its identity makes him look like a shill and an asshole.
@@Colty03 He is not the only one. Other RUclipsrs as well try to play the "I know better than my fan base on what is good for them" and recycle the same old arguments on why this Civ will be the best but I am not buying it. Changes are not original, Eras forces people to play not what they enjoy and this game feels like its going to have paradox level of dlc's that will cost 30-40 euros
The people calling "DEI" explicitly or implicitly in their criticisms and whining are the far greater assholes. And that applies to at least half of the people here.
@@azhaius7446 Why does criticizing something make someone an asshole? I mean don't get me wrong, I'm largely on board with Civ 7 and I'm hyped for it. But people can and will criticize the game, it was expected from the devs themselves, the devs themselves literally admit to being overly self-critical. They themselves found some of the new mechanics of the game to be controversial.
Damn it… the changing ages sounds good… not putting builders in and just deleting them in modern age is it’s such a missed opportunity. You would still have the builder mini game in the beginning, and then skipping them when it becomes tiring…
Lets be honest most of the people who are going to play civ7 are from Europe or outer Europe (America,Canada,Australia,etc). The reason there are so few civs from europe is so they can sell it back to us as day one DLC, and because more people want to play those civs they are more likely to buy the DLC's. At the moment there is no German, Russian, Italian or Scandinavian civs.
I've played since civ 1. I am uncomfortable with eras and no builders. I'm not buying at launch for the first time in decades. Still enjoying civ6. I'll wait for feedback and updates.
I have also played from civ1. And I am really liking what they are doing to the civ. Do you remember what has been the worst part of each civ from now… The end game! It has been boring as ****… If they manage to make that better in civ7… Then that alone makes civ7 the best civ so far! Yeah… I did like all civs from civ1. I most likely played ci2 the most. (Did have more time to play in that era 😊) But after a while… the end game has proven to be the weak part of each. So far at least…
@@haukikannel That's more an AI issue and the problems with snowballing. The AI needs diversity of tactics way more than the game needs diversity of visuals.
@@haukikannel A better AI could solve it though, one that optimizes its play instead of spamming units it doesn't use just to slow down turn processing. It sucks that I can go make lunch while the turn is processing to cycle back to me due to all the needless unit spam, and other sub-optimal things. I mean it's hilarious sometimes, like when I was out exploring and I came across an island with one poorly placed city and 10+ settlers and it was still trying to spam out stuff rather than just getting itself to the point where it could embark. That's still a problem though. The AI is pretty bad from city founding location selection to production to tactics to deciding on what to research. I think the late game would be more interesting if the AI did more to get itself there efficiently based on where it spawned.
LIkewise mate. Been playing since the first version and this is the first one I won't be buying on launch. It hasn't got any better as they've revealed leaders. It smacks of the sort of diversity rubbish the corporates push on their employees worldwide in the western world. What a joke. This is Civ's Jaguar equivalent.
Necessary? It hasn't been necessary for any of the other Civ games, so I would call it a design choice. I really hope this is not the first step on the road to calling people bigots.
It’s necessary cause they can’t just make the other civ games but new. It’s just a cool little thing they’re adding to give people more choices and inclusivity. It’ll be nice! There’s no reason to worry about being called a bigot unless you’re being a bigot.
@@Crowbar Yeah… I am old civ1 veteran… and the end game has allways been bad in previous civ games… I hope that they manage to improve it this time. One of those reasons to make this nesessary.
I'm not happy with this dev diary and completely disagree with the direction of this game the civ swapping is a deal breaker and the ages system turns me off even more, but being built to be on par between PC and Switch scares me off completely
@@PotatoMcWhiskey how are you able to so easily thing one thing is awesome and cool because of how ridiculous is on one hand and on the other totally reject playing as one civilization throughout the whole game. in another comment you pointed out how ridiculous it would be to play as austria-hungary throughout all of history. neither of these takes are inherently unreasonable or wrong but they are definitely conflicting.
Speaking also of representation, I'm a Mexican and I always see us in games as Aztecs or Mayas, which is correct as most of our culture comes from there, but we also had important figures in more modern times, like Emiliano Zapata that was an important histocial figure in the Mexican revolution, he was never president or anything like that, but he offers more dept as a posible leader, I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of always being an Aztec
My problem is mostly how little civs there are. Why roughly 10 per era at the start? The idea would naturally mean there should be way more civs but its shockingly little
Yes, and gives way to weird transitions, like Romans to Normandy to France is straightforward, but if you want to play the japanese you must start as Khmer, then go to Majapahit, and then the Japanese. All of which are completely different and in no way affected each other.
I love how they try to gaslight us with " but it is the most civs in a game ever!" Like bro, if I can only choose from 10 at a time, that is how many civs are in your game.
@@kyzantia8884 thats another thing, why is it only pretty much China, India and France have a civ per era that ties into their actual history (or the same civ in china and india’s case)
3:28 While I get what you mean, I don't think this is properly possible to implement. You will always have many people that don't feel "represented" that way. Even big nations like Germany: Barbarossa was the leader of the Holy Roman Empire (, which wasn't even a proper nation but many loosely connected nations, ) and Ludwig II was King of Bavaria, not Germany. So Civ 6 does not have a "proper representation" for Germans and I don't think the changes to Civ 7 will make this even remotely better for any nation, since many of them aren't even leaders but scientist or religious figures that happened to be born in that nation, which many won't feel represented with. And if that is so important, Civs like Ottoman empire, aztecs, Inca, babylonia, persia and other ancient Civilizations would be a waste of space since they won't represent anybody today. I think having a cool Civ with rich history and an interesting leader is by far the most important thing (which is was Civ 6 did) and also the reason why more historically relevant Civs should be added instead of modern ones or small ones that would only make a few people "represented"
I think having a Civ that represents your playstyle is a much better form of representation. That's why I like Khmer and Japan and feel the most represented through them
@@Keiken0 I think the most simple response to this is why not both? I think there is a bar that every civ has to clear in terms of significance, but you shouldn’t have to pick the ‘most significant’ leader or country from there. This is why every civ game isn’t just Julius Caesar, Napoleon, George Washington, Frederick the Great and Rameses II over and over again. Once you clear that base bar, it makes a better game to include interesting leaders from different countries, cultures, and eras, so people can customize and play in ways that suit them. Otherwise, you’d just be playing with domination-oriented civs, because military success lionized leaders, and trying to customize your play style would be very difficult. Also, more generally, having more diversity doesn’t mean you won’t get those classic grandiose civs. There’s a reason the promotion of Civ 7 has led with Octavian, Ancient Egypt, and Napoleonic France rather than a more obscure leader/culture they might be adding at launch. If you look in the comments section, you’ll see plenty of people who truly appreciated having a leader from their country, and felt more connected to their game, and yet you were still able to get your classical experience. Diversity in leaders doesn’t mean you won’t get your historical titans, but it doe mean more people can relate to a Civ, and others can learn about cool rulers and cultures they otherwise wouldn’t have known about.
@@subzeroannahilation9538 100% agree with that (aside from the fact that Berlin should be a Civ. That would be a waste D: I'd rather have something like the Carolingian Empire, Habsburg Empire or, if the Holy Roman Empire doesn't count as a Civ, Bohemia)
You don't understand, the Shitdoobi kingdom in Africa is extremely important to represent. They built 1 palace and sold a few slaves. Pretty much all of history would chagne without them.
Ye they will add 100s of leaders over the lifespan of Civ 7 as dlc, that is what this change is mostly about they are hoping it will be financially lucrative.
You need a mod that make exploration era Rome, Modern age rome and future era Rome… Each with uniguw graphics, units etc. So possible… Just a lot of work!
Did you not read the video title? Obviously it is very necessary! I’m not actually convinced that it is necessary though, the Devs just want it to happen so this is what we’re getting.
What is missing from the three criteria is the overarching objective of increased monetisation. Disconnecting leaders and civs and personas massively increases what they can sell you as DLC. Focusing on representation like with the inclusion of Hawaii or Mississippi (while positive) allows them to sell an English or Japanese civ which will be in huge demand. All Potato’s points are correct… but I think there are multiple benefits to Firaxis with this approach (broaden appeal and exploit the base).
I agree… I’d put $500 in for a complete game without a thought. But we’ve seen great franchises destroyed through “hero” dlc before, and I’d worry that won’t be the proposition on the table. Personally I feel the decision to launch on Switch is the most concerning. The compromise is clearly evident in the scope of what has been shown so far, and is a crying shame that the game is being optimised around a mobile chip that was underpowered in 2016. The decisions are all about broadening reach and accessibility… they’ll need to tread lightly to not piss off their core and become another Creative Assembly.
@@csrjjsmp it’s not graphics, but processing power that’s the issue. The scaled down nature of the ages, and limits on Civs are directly related to them wanting to be on every platform.
Ngl, switching leaders mid-game makes way more sense to me than switching civs. Even if you suspend your disbelief, it still seems silly that one leader can exist for thousands of years, yet their civilization changed three times. It also makes some of these "out of pocket" leaders more reasonable, since it is plausible they became leaders in a different timeline and a leader changing mid-game could then change your diplomatic relations with other civs (almost like a soft reset) like it does in the real world.
I mean, the single Immortal leader make's more sense to me than a single, monolithic civilization that remained unchanging. The leaders at that point are basically the avatar's of God(the player). If the leaders change, then who is the Player playing as and why are they deciding everything that happens in the civ? And civilizations DO change throughout the ages. Like, the China we have today is different from the Qing Dynasty that came before it, which is different than the Song Dynasty, and all of these are considered "China". Similarly, Germany today is different from the Holy Roman Empire, which is different than whatever they were back in Roman days. They all lived in the same area, but you wouldn't call an Italian "Roman" just because they live in Rome.
I will say I’m very happy about how much each Civ gets. Off the bat it’s more than 6, of course we still have yet to see if it’s ACTUALLY unique, but I am encouraged.
At the end of the day, players still have their favorite Civ game. I’m curious about Firaxis’s willingness to experiment and how that’ll feel when playing 7.
I will die on the hill that the ages system switching cultures is dumb as hell and I would be shocked if anything could ever shake me on that front. I like the change to any cool folk be leaders though.
Wonder if they could implant a draft in multiplayer. Choose civ, veto civs, choose leaders veto leaders. First person to choose civ is last to choose leader.
I think the problem will be that not only your Civ is changing, but also the other Civs. I played HK and after every era-change I was at a complete loss. I understand that for these situations Firaxis focusses on eternal leaders to maintain cohesion for the player but it appears (game is not out, yet!) to be a forced, unorganical decision. I think it's interesting that people playing China or India can play the whole game as those specific civilizations and I think that must be because China and India potentially provide the biggest Civ player base. I don't understand Firaxis' decision to make civilizations temporary and leaders eternal. Would be so much more interesting and logical to see, for example, France led by Vercingetorix- Charlemagne- Louis XIV-Napoleon-Charles de Gaulle (I'm not French, btw) with each leader/era change having it's bonuses and malices. Sometimes France has got better times, sometemes less so - it would also prevent the, for CIV VII, obligatory and (IMO) forced end-of-the-era-crisises.
The problem is… There was ot France in ancient era… Just like there was not USA in ancient, and exploration era… Just in modern era. Maybe solution is to change both civs and leaders in civ8?
@@haukikannel there was no france yes but there were still people there , there's 2 major civilization in the current area of france that existed before the gauls we just have no info on them because they didn't write
I believe they tried to address this with personalities but it doesn’t seem like you can add or adjust your personality throughout the age change (correct me if I’m wrong). I think this system makes sense and for most, you’ll have to play it to have the full feel of it. Hopefully there is an alpha and beta that fans can try out before preordering/purchasing the game but I’m gonna be so happy when it finally releases.
Would be cool to even see some controversial historical figures as "what ifs" like Oswald Mosley who was a staunchly antiwar Fascist just to see how having that political doctrine but focused on isolationism would function. Don't always have to focus on great people, sometimes the shit people are fun!
4:36 My love for Civ VI came from the inclusion of Norway to the roster, because previously in Civ V I would basically have to play Sweden reskins. I wish it had been a more modern Norway, or that we got a variant that wasn't just Vikings because the Norway of Hardrada and the Norway of Dovre are two completely seperate entities and I would love to see something closer to Sweden's depiction as a modern nation, instead of just the viking civ. Like others have mentioned representation is something that is important, but I think they need to put more effort into not just having a wide range of different civs, but making them more then just caricatures of an entire culture. I think civ switching will help with that.
ngl since the very first gameplay reveal, the game has been more and more appealing to me (graphically and gameplaywise) I won't buy it on release (likely on a later sale), but devs have done decently in communicating and marketing the game
I like the idea of starting bias. It's the chicken or the egg phenomenon. The specific nation has those characteristics because the resources and environment were what they were. It makes sense.
Real talk: Why the (seemingly) sudden change of heart? In your Khmer campaign you were pretty glum about Civ 7. This is a totally different tune you're playing but I'm glad you've come around to being upbeat. I'm cautiously optimistic, I know new entries in the franchise may not always land on both feet, but everything they've shown so far seems to be shaping up to be a very competently and thoughtfully designed game that is going to shakeup the 30 year old Civ formula.
Bro got slipped cash under the table. I can't imagine "aggressively patronize and denigrate anybody who is skeptical about these massive changes to the previously accepted format from the past 20+ years" was part of the deal though.
@@Keygentlemen look, you can believe whatever you want, but Potato is already uber-successful and easily makes six-figures between RUclips and Patreon. I don't think it has to do with money. Firstly, people are allowed to change their mind. Second, Potato's earliest coverage of 7 was pretty positive with caveats. Why his Khmer commentary was so glum is the real outlier here. Maybe something got lost in the editing process. If you wanna play the same game over and over again you have 30 years of Civs to choose from. There would be more to criticize Firaxis for for simply rehashing the same old formula again and again. than trying something new. Like I said, this looks like a thoughtful redesign that is trying to address the major issues of 4X design. Will it be perfect? Probably not, even Ed Beach has said so himself, it's going to take feedback, revisions and maybe expansions to tune the game; this has been the case since at least Civ IV. I see it as an opportunity to see the game grow in fun and interesting ways.
I hope that they at least make it so that the mix of your first and second civs will also creatively change the appearance of your people and art and architecture.
Oh my God it’s even worse than I thought. I thought it was going to be like humankind where you can at least choose not to change. Rip navigable rivers and other assorted map changes, hopefully you’ll still be in Civ 8.
@ yeah, of course I’ll still be a potential customer for future Civ games, assuming there’s no civ switching. Hell I’d still be a customer for 7 if there was at least an option to turn it off, but it’s baked into the gameplay so there’s not a snowball’s hope in hell of that happening.
@@noneed4sleep64 You don't even get to pick from the full roster of civs like Humankind. You get railroaded into 3 arbitrary picks that the devs decided were reasonable, such as Egypt turning into a west African civ because duh, they're both in Africa!
I might just be in the whiny minority but I play Civ to be able to take cultures like Egypt from stone to space age, if I can’t play as a single culture from start to finish, I’m just simply not playing the game…
Yep, right there with you. If you changed leaders every age that's something exciting I can actually get behind, but changing Civs just destroys any interest I have in the game. Felt the same way when they first announced it and I've honestly been looking for a reason to give in and get it anyway, but every video or update I see about it just puts me off even more.
I was super excited to know that Mexico was added as a playable civ (being mexican myself) However it feels super weird not to have any leader to represent our culture nor to have any civilization that represents us in the exploration age. Is as if they are proposing Isabela as the viable match for Mexico based on our common history but I think is really funny given they are our conquerors hahaha. This lack of continuity makes me feel that my country is not well represented and gives me a bittersweet taste
I've not got the best understanding of Mexican history sorry, but seems like there will surely be a central American civ for exploration age? The Aztec civ has been a staple for the whole series and Maya almost the same, though not sure which era they'll fit into. Have they confirmed there's no other exploration age options in that path? I agree it did feel a bit odd how much the gameplay loop in the exploration age livestream was encouraging the roleplay of colonisation though.
As much as I love the opening up the leader pool, what does that do to the “great people” pool? Like, having James Joyce as a leader would be cool, but it feels weird that he would theoretically be on a different level as another writer that would only be a “great person” I also think I agree that j don’t like personas. I’d rather have more leaders. We don’t need two napoleon. Do Napoleon and Jeanne D’arc and Charles De Gaulle. Like they expanded the leader pool to give more options, and then decided to use the limited resources they have to make leaders on repeat leaders?? Doesn’t make sense to me. Seems like a waste.
On the player representation point: I don’t think Civ players are ever upset about more representation in available civs to play with, I think it is only ridiculed when major civilizations are left out, and much less prominent leaders are chosen for those civs that are staples of the franchise/history.
I think they need to have at least a setting to choose a civ’s name and flag for the whole game. At least that will make it feel somewhat like previous civ games.
im ok with non political leaders being the leaders in the game, but its weird to have ben franklin over george washington for example. both should be in
DLCs… mods! Leaders are easier to mod that civs… so I expect a lot of them! New civs and old civs in ”wrong eras”… that is the hard part to mod and I don´t expect to see too many of those… Only most popular civs willl get one or two extra civs to different eras.
About leaders, ok you can get other people, but people that are leaders or dictators or presidents. I would be mad if they made Portugal in civ7 and the leader was Cristiano Ronaldo..... 😅
Think it makes more sense to keep the civ and change the ladder with age because they die. I would say you're at war with the Aztecs as the leader changes though civ games, or ages.
@@johnyshadow but… they’re not trying to simulate the real world. They’d e trying to simulate how different civilizations basically layer on top of each other, and how the remnants of older civilizations from a bygone age can be felt in subsequent ages. Changing civs does that. Changing leaders doesn’t
@@lim4091 Dude, this is not hard to understand. Leaders change more often than civilizational cultures, so it's stupid to keep your leader but not your civilization. It's that simple.
@ I understand that. But you’re making the assumption that they even give a shit that leaders change more often. Firaxis wanted to simulate how civilizations and cultures change over time. Changing the civ you play does that, changing the leader does not
It feels like they are taking inspiration from the best parts of Mellenium and Human Kind. I didn't love either of those games as an entire package, but both had some really unique takes that I'm happy to see the developers drawing inspiration from.
I wonder how they would go about showing this off before release day assuming they wanted to. I know it is a big deal and I hope they improve game stability. What would be cool is if they allowed a bunch of civ creators to livestream a full game.
right, I only play civ games in multiplayer and civ 6 felt absolutely garbage for that. civ 5 with dlc or lekmod is just a way better experience then 6 could ever offer. Singleplayer is boring imo because the ai is braindead and just starts with tons of resources on deity, its not necessarily difficult just tedious because u are playing at such a resource deficit the first era or 2
@@jaded-harper Not just that it's the AI feels brain dead but once you get over the treshold of AI bonuses on deity it feels like the AI just simply stops playing at all. OH and maybe AI can finally use flying units in Civ7 even on deity I got swamped on giant death robots and cultists before any sort of air planes. Civ5 and all the previous civs had a one huge , gigantic flaw in multiplayer which is that you CANNOT SEE WHAT INDEPENDENT UNITS ARE DOING ON THE MAP BETWEEN THE TURNS! this means not being able to keep an eye out on the barbarian or citystate movements and such which is frankly the pain in the arse but in civ6 you can which is already a gigantic improvement over any previous civ games.
More I see of Civ 7, the less interest I have. Finding out just how heavily monetised and DLC-heavy the game is was the final straw though. Civ 6 is basically a perfect game and I'm still enjoying it after 4000 hours, I see no reason to buy what looks like an inferior sequel out of some weird sense of brand loyalty.
I like the idea of ages and soft resets as something that might make the modern era in particular more fun to play, and not just the part of the game where someone already snowballed too hard to catch up. I have mixed feelings on the way they did Civ switching and leaders, and I think a lot of it comes from the fact I view my Civ and opponent Civs very differently. When dealing with an opponent Civ, like potato I think of myself dealing with the leader - Alexander is the one who shows up and insults me for not fighting for my people, not 'Macedonia'. But that's because I'm thinking of them like they're another player - and I'm not think of myself as my leader, I'm just me. My own leader kind of fades into the background, because they're not sending insults, offering trade deals, declaring war - I'm the one doing those things! So, sure - for an AI civ, it would feel weird for the leader to change partway through the game, but it would hardly make a difference for me as a player. On the flip side, swapping out the civ *does* feel weird for me as a player, because... well, changing the whole name and culture of your empire just because feels weird, and not like standing the test of time. Weirdly, I think a lot of it is literally just the name - if I got to keep the same name of my civilization it would feel weirdly better, even if picking new mechanics each era.
If the stated goal of the series has always been "build a civilization to stand the test of time" and then force the player into a losing situation where that civilization fails, and has to be rebuilt? I dispise scripted losses, and thats all the ages system sounds like to me. You are forced to make bad decisions that put you on the road to ruin, just so they can force a change.
Funny, because to me it is the opposite. Civilization games are usually very linear even though history decidedly isn't. Why is there such resistance to this sort of historical accuracy?
@PotatoMcWhiskey the stated way the age changes happen from the reveals so far, and my understanding, is the player is offered choices between bad options on how to handle the "crisis" that forces the age change. Ancient, for example, is the proliferation of nomadic peoples, and the barbarian states that accompany them, that forces the destruction of your civ and the formation of a new one. So...you are forced to fail.
@jyutzler because...if I wanted a historical sim I would go play one? There are plenty out there with various focuses, time periods, etc. Civs has never been the hard historical take, and that's what I like about it. America starting in the ancient era? Nowhere near historical, nor your leaders surviving millenia. It's what I like about the series, is the suspension of disbelief.
Love your insight on CIV. i still can't grasp all the S-tier strats you use in the mid to late game antics. You're a beast... But this is actually for fiaxis! Just put out early game access gaming has changed and people are willing to deal with the bugs. as much as I love the streamers views on Civ I'd rather be playing and watching and listening to their stream rather than watching and listening to their stream. P.s. who remembers the original drm on civilization 3-486 era?
Each to their own, i mostly play TSL games and cannot see them working with civ switching and other mechanics, it will be the first skip for me (no Britain in the game doesnt help)
I wonder if the new way to create starting locations is a way to reduce the tendency to reroll starts until you get something you like. If your starting location is more biased to you from the beginning you might be less tempted to "roll and roll for a good start"
If each civilization had a pool of their own leaders for each age to pull from that would be nice. I don't think you have to tie the year the person was in to the age you pick them for necessarily. That would help get around the issue of certain nations not existing.
Leaders as a randomized pool of great persons is a good idea, the problem then though is you cannot make art assets and animations for all those leaders. People like those bells and whistles.
@@TsunamiWombat Or just don't pool all of your resources into animating and voicing leaders. Civ 4 diplomacy was fine, because we're clearly never getting the level of civ 5 ever again.
![CIVILIZATION 7 FIRST LOOK GAMEPLAY! - Early Access Civ 7 Gameplay [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ph_YJOuvm80/mqdefault.jpg)
Dude seriously, if they put James Joyce in the game, they have to include his infamous thirst letters to Nora Barnacle too. If this comment gets 10 likes firaxis has to do this.
This comment has 79 likes now. That's the necessary 10, plus an additional 69.
Nice.
They now have to make an additional 11 characters in the exact same energy as this.
😂😂😂
This comment has 241 likes now. That’s the necessary 10, plus an additional 231.
Cool.
This comment has 528 likes now. That’s the necessary 10, plus an additional 518.
Sick.
Potato: "I care a little bit about representation, but really focus on gamplay!"
Also Potato: "I NEED MY IRELAND IN THE GAME"
Yeah when people say representation I guess they're thinking of female leaders or having people of color, but for most of us what we care about most is having our country or favorite historical figure present. I love playing as the Dutch even if I don't really worry about their gameplay bonuses when picking them.
I might be wrong but isn't Gual/ambriox supposed to be ancient Ireland
@@dannyxigbar7484Gaul (and the Gallic tribes) were located in France. Ireland had the Gaels and Hibernian tribes.
I think the reflexive pushback on representation is the fear of it taking precedence over historical significance or, worse, removing representation for a greater portion of the playerbase than it adds. For example, imagine if the game had Ireland, but because of the developers’ limited time and resources, this decision came at the cost of excluding France. It would feel off, because France has had a much bigger historical impact, and more French players would be excluded than Irish players included.
Honestly an average gamer bro take. Representation of other people is BS only my representation matters.
On representation, I remember playing Civ 6 for the first time, scrolling through who to play, and I see Kupe - I was shocked! I'm down here in this small island nation at the bottom of the pacific, and there's someone in this huge game from my part of the world. Then upon playing, hearing Pokarekare Ana start playing (which is a particularly touching love song)? It's the first time I've ever felt 'represented' in a video game.
I can't wait for thousands of other people to get that same feeling in Civ 7 when something from their home pops up in the game, it's a beautiful feeling
I'm trying to think if Germany was ever in this series? That could be fun to see, I'm not German in terms of culture but I am of German descent so it would be fun. I'm also of Cherokee and Choctaw descent too (supposedly). But Those cultures are sort of important to me. So it's just for fun if they were in games like this
@@belovedwarrior3192Germany was in Civ Rev, i’m pretty sure in Civ 5 too. Weird that they’re not in Civ 6
@@JC_Enterprise Germany is in Civ 6 twice, led by Frederick Barbarossa and by Ludwig II, and Germany has been in every numbered Civilization title (idk about spin-offs)
I thought the exact thing with Kupe. I was just happy that he was in the game, but the way that he was depicted was also done very well. You could feel that the team really did try, and that's nice to see.
@@belovedwarrior3192 What? Literally since the first game in 1991 Germany has been one of the standard civs and Germany has appeared in every mainline Civ game since. It is not at all similar to Maori representation in the series. Have you not played Civ? Or ar you thinking about some other game series?
4:08 ngl that's not even the half of it. When they confirmed Mexico was in Civ 7? it was just a burst of emotion, happiness, pride?. it felt great
I feel you. When Brazil was first announced in civ 5 it was a no brainer what would be my first match once I got the game.
Trying to remember their traits? +1 happiness from food? 100% more food from pigs and cattle (I mean, you don't leave much to waste from them 😂). Bias is not to start next door to America but sorry, someone has to 😁
And the music is epic
@@alexsnewhandle I really enjoy that Mexico rises in the ruins of the Spanish empire in the mechanics of the game
Gl rolling for Mexico
3:57 Really been wanting to play the Mississippians since they were announced, not related to that tribe in any way but it’s a part of my local history that I just enjoy seeing more of. Also thanks to the guides online so far I really like how some of their traits stack if you play Mississippians->Shawnee->America as all three have a lot of bonuses around building near to resources and amassing as much of them as possible.
@@ryanbusch2885 whoa the Shawnee are represented? That amazing. Close to where o grew up was Shawnee land
@ I think they’re currently a preorder bonus but yeah, they had a spotlight livestream with some people from the Shawnee community about how they worked with them to come up with their artwork and unique traits
Regarding representation, I've also found the Civ games to be rather educational. It's these games that have taught me about, for example, the Malinese Empire in Africa, which is not traditionally taught where I live. I don't mind learning about new people and places.
This is how I had an edge over other kids in school when I was a kid. I read the Civilopedia in Civ 1.
But learning new things might challenge my preconceived notions and ideas about the world and how I relate to it
This is why i love games like this, cos you get to learn stuff, and it definatly belongs in a game like this, but i think people might think representation is shoe horned into other games unecesarily. I think historical representation is a necessary part of game play for a game like this. Also it could be peoples kneejerk reactions to the word "representation"
Absolutely. Civ is pretty good for historical and geographical knowledge, plus knowing lots of quotes! I like knowing about people like Tamar and Mvemba that I'm unlikely to have come across otherwise.
YUP. As a straight white guy from the US and of Germanic descent, "representation" has never meant making sure my country or my people were in the game. That's the default.
But. BUT. History has SO. MUCH. COOL. SHIT. Pushing representation for other people means I get to learn about badass stories and events and peoples that... weren't included in my formal education. Stuff I don't even know enough about to know what to search for on Wikipedia or at the library.
And frankly, if all it "comes at the cost of" is getting yet another Bismark or Washington leader, I don't see the problem. I've read enough about Bismark for two lifetimes, and about Washington for seven.
>Navigable rivers
>No Vikings/Norway
>come on, man
Oh you can guarantee there will be DLC for it.
Don't worry you can change from indians to vikings to the japanese to egyptians though. Makes sense
@@sumotode oh I have no doubt, but I also have no doubt I'll play them as a mod first haha. Sucks man, I almost exclusively play Norway, so it hurts
@@storm___ I actually don't have a problem with having the option to switch civs, so long as you obviously have the option to stay on the historical path as well. More player freedom will never bother me. That's just my take, though. I'm very glad they mentioned that bots will always take the historical path, that's a big relief
@@paynesyler6428 Same here, pretty much just hoping that every leader also gets a civ that they have at least somewhat of a connection to, that way they can actually represent a civ. Machiavelli is just chilling there without an Italian civ.
Based on the values that Firaxis names switching civs works, but idea of keeping the same leader across multiple civilizations is entirely the wrong way around. It's a lot more thematic and realistic to have it be one civ with multiple leaders across ages. This still allows for the variation in gameplay, prominance, and representation but is more true to the "standing the test of time" rather than playing as some immortal dude who just ditches their nation for the next one whenever a new age rolls around.
It sounds crazy to me that Firaxis thinks players think in terms of leaders as who they are playing. Might just be me and everyone I've played civ with, but I think in terms of civs. Switching civs is a lot more confusing than switching leaders. Particualarly because everything on the map and UI is themed around the civ and not the leader, think buildings, border colors, turn icons.
Not just you, when I talk to my friends I refer to my playthroughs by the culture/nation rather than the leader. I'll say things like "I'm doing a playthrough as Japan." or the like.
I don't really see this myself; A lot of Civilizations have always had multiple playable leaders, and when Alexander is rearing his ugly head I don't say "Ugh, Macedonia!" I say "Ugh, Alexander!" Which is the real root of things; Shaking your fist at specific people feels better than a vague "Well, Egypt is a pain in this game!" When you played the games and engaged in diplomacy you'd see the person first and foremost; Even now with the changes to the UI for that you're still seeing an actual person and not some abstract representation of Germany or something. Firaxis is totally right IMO to see it like that.
And it really isn't the other way around, because the civilizations themselves were the root of several problems and feeling in the games; Late game civs didn't feel good to play because they were generic for 99% of the game and only because unique after it was mostly decided. Early game civs decided how the game was going to end and then felt generic after, etc.
@@Hifuutorian That's a problem with how they approach constructing civs, not the era of play itself. All civs would feel more interesting if they had a spread of things from their geographical/cultural history. If we're getting away from being tied to things, why not go the full way and have decisions about what to pursue being an option that shapes things. It seems like they are getting close to that but don't quite want to go there. Also it would be nice to now have exploration so age-locked.
I don't think "Oh god it's alexander." I think "Oh, it's those guys. Better Rofflstomp em fast." That goes for the Zulus and India as well. Hate starting next to all three of them. Honestly though, given how often every enemy civ tries to forward settle me, my games devolve into total, inescapable war pretty quickly. There are just certain civs that the mere sight of causes me to go into mass military production and then exterminate mode. Then I have too many grievances though so I never end up with any peace or trade and it just makes sense to keep steamrolling the other civs. To me, that's the big flaw of civ6, once I conquer one civ because it wouldn't give me space to build, everyone else is mad at me for so long I just end up conquering them all. It's why the Maori are great, I can just load the map that starts one continent unsettled and sail until I find it then do my own thing and actually have a later game diplomacy option.
You couldn't be more wrong. It is historically inaccurate to privilege an abstract identity that is present in a culture over the course of thousands of years.
Civ 7 identifies far more foundational truths about history: rupture and change. It also dispells the illusion of historical inevitably.
You can dislike it for the game play aspect, but not for historical reasons.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 People can dislike what they dislike for any reason. That's the nature and privilege of being alive and having an opinion.
When I was a child, it was wrong to think that most dinosaurs had feathers. When I went to grade school, my teachers taught us that the aboriginal people of North America lived peacefully with each other until Europeans arrived. History is viewed through the windows and the politics and perceptions of those looking back at often poorly-detailed, agenda-driven accounts of events ridden with the biases of those involved. And so-called "historical accuracy" changes quite frequently once you move a very short distance in the world as you will find that neighbouring groups often have a very different take on events. What little we know of pre-history from fossilized amber is vastly more reliable than the overwhelming majority of written human history for an accurate look into any single segment of the planet's history. Humans after all, are very fond of white-out and amendments to suit the sensibilities of the time.
With regards to games being historically accurate, I can tell you that truly historically accurate games don't sell well. They don't actually work as games for starters because you know who is going to win and who is going to lose from the outset. That said, trying to call any of the Civilization games historically accurate is farcical at best. The encyclopedia in the game is at best a child's primer that can be easily beaten by a trip to the library, if that is what you are after.
11:25 Jokes on you, Nobel has secretly been the leader of Sweden in both Civ 5 and 6.
There are a lot of exciting ideas and I am hopeful…but I admit I have some trepidation that in their quest for terrain balance and civilization/leader modularity, they might instead end up removing some of the core distinctiveness between different runs, and make everything just a bit blander. In the end, I think it’ll come done to how it all gets implemented, so here’s hoping they stick the landing
I get what you mean, but truth be told I think trying to rein in the huge impact terrain has is a good thing. Like sure some runs may be less "distinct" but a lot of times "distinct" means "spawning in the desert as Canada" or "spawned on a lake as an ocean civ".
My main wish for Civ, is for them to bring back real life advisors like in the early games. I still have early memories of being told "There is this thing called writting, we should research it". The fact a real lofe actor dressed in a toga was asking it made it much more memorable than any of the advisors/advice from the later games.
The ages give great opperrunites for costume changes for your advisors.
Civ 6 kinda did that later on with the game mod/leader pack announcement videos. They were a bit cheesy but fun.
I would like more active/interesting advisors, but not 'real life' ones. Just feels like it'd be really discordant.
I'm from the USA. National representation doesn't mean much to us since we are in everything. It makes it difficult to really empathize with that feeling. We get more enjoyment out of different civs because it adds additional gameplay elements.
We also tend to get excited when our heritage ends up represented. I've been dying for a Finnish civ for years.
@@Keygentlemen I will say, this game makes this even more accessible, as you could possibly play your heritage as an early age and end up as America in the modern age.
Although in your case this might not work if Finland is also considered a modern civ.
@@CyberDrewan Finland would 100% be a modern civ, unless they specifically went for ancient/medieval Finns. Most of their "midgame" history was spent under occupation.
It would be cool to have us states represented. "Sojourner Truth leads Michigan in Civilization VII"
"Stephen King leads Maine"
"John Denver leads Colorado"
"Cesar Chavez leads Arizona"
@@PetoskeyStonez Mods my boy, mods.
I can’t help but feel it would make more sense to switch leaders while maintaining the same civ. It fits much better the idea of representing a people at a certain point in history, with a person of that time. Leaning into the “immortal avatar of an ancient civ” aspect of leaders feels weird to me.
Maybe civ 8 has changing civs and also changing leaders!
But the game is sectioned into Ages, and civilizations change in a “Ages” time scale, and leaders don’t. So keeping this in mind, I think if you’re gonna keep one thing the same, either leaders or civs, it makes more sense that leaders stay the same but civs change
In fact, I would say that’s how they came up with changing civs. I doubt they went, “hey, should we have civs or leaders change with age? Oh, let’s do civs. Then we can make ages.” I think it was more like “well, we want to model how civs change and evolve over time. How best do we do that? Well, we have ages change, and the civs change through the ages”
I had never thought about that but you convinced me there. That's even compatible with the age system, you could have Egypt with Cleopatra, then say Ibn Battuta, then with some modern leader. As if leaders were super-great-persons that define your age. That's Firaxis discourse about leaders but your idea fits it better in my opinion
However let's not forget the devs probably considered that possibility and rejected it for a reason -hopefully that was a good one
Because that civ switch system doesn't satisfy me fully either for historical reasons. A civ is not a lasagna of civs, but a melting pot. Giant antique empires broke down into SEVERAL empires. Why would only 1 civ get ALL the remnants of the past Roman Empire ? Also, having "Athenai" and "Rouen" (french city name) just side to side in my empire feels weird. At least the devs should make the spelling more homogeneous
@@sennarghal691I like the idea of a 'melting pot' approach to blending civil based on your neighbours, but I imagine they avoided something like that since it would remove control from the player to shape their own civilisation - if your civ in the next age was based on your choices and those of the ai / other players around you, you could be railroaded into a civ or direction you may not be seeking simply because the AI went a certain direction or chose a certain civ. Similarly how would you manage that sort of mechanic in a map where for whatever reason you don't actually have any neighbours / other civs in proximity to you? At the same time some of the things I mentioned above would likely be features not bugs for a melting pot I presume?
still waiting for Wales to not be conciderd a city state
But they are basically a city state in real life
Sorry mate I slipped sid some money to block it again
Wales led by Brenin Arthur lets go
@thespiffingbrit
He can’t keep getting away with this!
Wales is a principality of England, let's be honest.
I think it would be cool to have civs like the Ottoman and Austrohungarian Empires in the modern age since that one only goes through the mid 20th century. There are a lot of civs that don't really exist anymore but were massively important for their time.
Might be cool, but with the agressive monetization plans, thats a pass on release for me
@@Regulusis yeah I'm gonna wait three or so years to get the platinum edition at a steep discount (less because I'm worried about quality but I can happily watch others play civ 7 while I pay much less)
Well yea realistically Civ games aren't even complete on release. Nobody plays vanilla civ 5 or civ 6, you want the game mechanics they sold as DLC.
"traditionally underrepresented" is a funny thing to say for a Civ game. Wouldn't the way to represent everyone globally be the easiest to execute in a game like this? ie: just have more civs in the game?
No, because you then run into the Humankind problem, where too many civs mean they're not unique or fun enough as they can't focus on quality over quantity.
@@JakeDMaier If you can mix and match, then it doesn't matter. I can guarantee you, there are plenty of different civ oppertunities across the globe. multiple native american and african tribes, multiple chinese and japanese dylnasties/families. multple global warlords. If the effects are the issue, then mixing/matching "solves" the issue.
(that being said, there are other solutions to the uniqueness problem too - i'm not a personal fan of mixing/matching necessarily if it's across ALL civs)
Budget, It probably costs a cerntain amount of money to build each Civ. Which is probably the real reason why the decoupling happened not each civ doesn't require a leader and each leader doesn't require a civ making both cheaper to make compared to previous Civ games. also combinitorics means they can make fewer civs for more variety in gameplay.
@@JakeDMaier If you're creatively bankrupt or your base game is too paltry, sure.
"And if the leader changes mid-game, that narrative inside the player's head is disrupted."
I actually like the idea of disrupting that narrative. When explorers from Portugal and Italy arrived in China in the Middle Ages and wanted to establish trade agreements, they were shocked to learn that the Chinese already thought they had trade agreements in place: Agreements the Chinese had established with the Roman Empire. So, for Chinese rulers who thought that "Europeans," and in particular Italians, was the same as Romans, it disrupted the narrative in their heads when they learned that those ancient empires no longer existed and they now had entirely new kingdoms and leaders with new agendas to deal with.
Having a whole new leader and empire rise up mid-game and causing me, as a player, to have to readjust my entire approach towards that player seems like it could be an exciting evolution in Civ gameplay. But maybe that's just me.
I like how Potato talks about how the devs try to address the community‘s concerns, while skipping over the part where the Napoleons will only be available as a reward for having a 2K account, and having Civ6 on there. If you‘re new to the franchise, better buy a 9 year old game if you want all the content… (Yes, I know that that‘s on 2K, and that the devs probably didn‘t get a say in it. It‘s still scummy)
2K gotta do what 2K knows best. Sid Meier can only punch his bed and curse those devils.
*Requires an internet connection, and a 2K Account linked to the platform account used to play Sid Meier's Civilization VII and/or Sid Meier's Civilization VI.
It says and/or. Civ vi is not required for Napoleon. Only 2K Account
25:30 It doesn‘t. „…for players that link the same 2K account to the platform account(s) used to play Sid Meier‘s Civilization VI and Sid Meier‘s Civilization VII“
Ok so
No civ vi -> emperor
With civ vi -> emperor + revolutionary
I'm still not sure about this new mechanic. I mean, it sounds interesting, but I am a bit worried that in some cases you will only have a "negative" switch possible. For example, if Poland is ever added, it will be most likely an exploration era civ. And I doubt we will get another Poland for a modern age, so we will change into Russia or Soviet Union. And I am afraid it would be a case for the entirety of Easter Europe. And this is the opposite ob "build something you believe in".
Yea and guess what will happen in americas? You play as idk incas or north american tribes and oops, now you have to switch to US or spain or brazil.
@@benismann Exactly, I just mentioned Poland as an example, but you are absolutely right, both Americas are also screwed thanks to this new mechanic. It's like assuming that Incas would fall no matter what. I know this makes sense historically, but this is suppose to be a game, not a depressing history lesson.
@@janolbratowski1814 Yeah, that's pretty unfortunate. It'd be nice if they plan on adding enough civilizations for every civilization to transition into an accurate portrayal of that civ into the next age. So, ancient Greece to Byzantium to a more modern Greek state, like the First Hellenic Republic or the Kingdom of Greece, being an example. I think the option to mix and match different civs and leaders is fine, and should be kept, but an accurate portrayal with accurate civs would be nice. Unfortunately, likely not too probable, since it would require tremendous time to design so many civs. The other option is to just add a transcend option like Humankind, and be able to keep your civ throughout the ages, although this also may be awkward for them to implement.
Railroading people into 3 choices is not only less fun mechanically but is also begging for bad implications like this. I really don't know what they're thinking.
Yeah, I'll go one step further and say I don't play civ to switch civs mid-game. I find even the idea of it jarring and immersion breaking. Not to mention the idea is counter to Civ's own, "Build a civilization to stand the test of time."
I've been a Civ player all my life. Never thought Canada would be in it because we're not the first thing you think of ... but was so pumped when they were in 6
I will give the game a chance but with the base game + dlc pricing i can expect, and this civ switching mechanic really lowering my hype, i'll probably wait for a sale and not get it on launch like i did 4-6. I pick a civ to play that civ, being forced to swap civs is just not doing it on paper for me. If it was just swapping leaders sure, and the concept of ages is fine. Ill keep an open mind but this really shakes a lot of the appeal i get from civ.
4:12 Germany is ALWAYS militaristic.
Sure They don't use mustache man, but still.
Modern day Germany is not a militaristic civ, and so those representations feel the way you feel about boudicca.
Technically yea but not really.
I wish we'd get an economic or diplomatic Germany for once...
Yeah, like the great diplomat Carl von Clausewitz.
They very rarely do post WW2 leaders in Civ. Germany was warlike for pretty much all the time period before that.
I remember when the rumors that Canada was in the gathering storm Dlc started surfacing and that feeling was amazing! Then the reveal and when the canada soundtrack was released, probably one of my top gaming moments of all time. I'd love for Irish people or people from other countries to get to experience that! (Congratulations Mexico!)
I agree that what they've done is fantastic from a gameplay perspective, but flavour wise it's a catastrophe.
I don't think I'm alone on this when I say that I play Civ because I want to take a nation from the stone age to the space age.
Now I still might be able to do that for some by picking civs that are continuations of eachother with each age, but that completely removes the gameplay benefits of the system, might make for unsatisfactory play and it wouldn't feel good to be locked on a set path.
(For Japan it could be Yamatai, into Shogunate, into Meiji Restoration or modern Japan, maybe?)
It would have been much better to have different sub-civs to pick from at each era and a leader that goes with it.
Let's say you play France and reach the Renaissance era. You have the choice to go pick between, republic, enlightened monarchy or empire. With respectively Robespierre, Louis XVIII and Napoleon as leaders.
But honestly, that would just be governments from Civ VI with cosmetics on top.
And the representation argument falls completely flat for a lot of civs. Sure, you can now play as Switzerland, but have fun doing something else entirely for the whole game until you reach the last age.
Same thing for a lot of underrepresented countries that will get to appear once in the first or second age and never to be seen for the rest of the game.
What if you want to send rockets into space as Babylon but are locked into the first age? Tough luck.
Sending metal bands to culturally take over the world as Botswana? No, best you can get is muskets in the second age.
Also I don't like how there are only 3 ages. Going from antiquity to the Renaissance without the middle ages in between sounds really strange, especially since this period is pivotal for a lot of countries.
4 would have been much better. I don't mind mixing the modern and atomic eras together though. They're not that different feeling-wise anyway.
"I don't think I'm alone on this when I say that I play Civ because I want to take a nation from the stone age to the space age."
That is literally the main tagline of the series. It's been the core of every game in the franchise until this one. You're FAR from alone and Potato trying to claim this design choice is "necessary" is flagrant copium.
I think you are too overjoyed for such straight commercial design.
There are 26(+5 personas) leader and 31 civ at launch, then hinted DLC show more personas and 2 leader / 4 civ - so ratio leader to civ will be around 0.8. It's give us LESS diversity inside each country, not more. (If USA took 2 - then even less)
Futhermore when u play civ7 - its 1 out of 10-11 civ in age, so it's only 10 non-crossed uniq expirience through the ages (but a lot more combination ofc)
So they deepen each civ and incrase combinatorics (thats good fo me), but they reduce representation, not incrase it (and its a shame of such bullshiting dev diary)
I'm not sure if I've just simply aged out or if there is something missing here. I'm not at all psyched up for this game, like I was for Civ games before it.
For me Civ IV was the pinnacle of civ games. Best leaders, best features. Didn't even touch Civ V, Civ VI had some decent ideas but very lackluster pool of leaders and too cartoony character models. It honestly feels like representation is their only criteria for choosing leaders these days.. I'd rather have Stalin, Shaka and Mao instead of some village hotheads who stirred up a small demonstration.
Because it's not about the civs anymore. Simple as. Leaders used to be the face of a civ but now that they're decoupled and adding whoever there's far less "oomph" when one third of your potential game plan is announced (and railroading civs down three choices is not only needlessly restrictive but also has tons of potential for bad implications).
@@tt128556 I would personally rather have the potential to learn new aspects of history I wouldn't otherwise be privy to than have a pop culture-level understanding of the western world + then some regurgitated at me every couple years.
I'll say it, Civ 7 looks like shit.
@@Keygentlemen The internet it free, you can go learn about history at any time.
the one thing that I really dislike and will absolutely hate if it does happen is how they gutted the Information age and will likely reintroduce it as a paid DLC
For me, Civ has always been, "Build a Civilzation to stand the test of time". Keyword being civlization, not civilization(s). I like consistency, and Civ for me has always been played like a alternate history simulator. My one gripe (especially regarding Indigenous civs) is that we are not a people or our nations aren't tied to a single time period. We are people of "time immemorial," surviving thousands of years well established prior to antiquity. It's a bit problematic if there are (currently at time of post) no modern age Indigenous equivalents and to play into. Not to mention playing as one Nation to another gives a sense of genocide when in reality, many of these nations or tribes exist to this day. America or Mexico to play into from an Indigenous Civ is an agregious attempt and supports colonial erasure against Indigenous people. Why I loved the Mapuche, Cree, Aztecs, etc. in Civ 6 was that you can maintain your Civ throughout the entire game and create an alternative history.
Why myself and many others couldn't get into Humankind was the Civ switching. Civ 7 took the most criticized element of Humankind and decided to implement it into the core game. For me, this might be the first Civ game where I wait for a massive sale and not buy on release.
This is purely my thoughts and opinions here. You're more than welcome to enjoy the current game and mechanics, but these are my personal issues with the game.
It is very truly cool that they're using this mechanic to give some space for lesser known or overlooked Civs and cultures, but it feels weird to be like "sorry Indonesia, you're only good for early game domination strats, turn into America now."
It would be so damn cool to have a Civs traits and unique features evolve with time. It would create so much fun alternate history and future scenarios. What would Canada be like in the Stone Age? How would Rome operate in a modern age on a global scale? instead everything is interchangeable.
@Boomerangofjustice the Indonesia example is only weird because they’re more relevant now than ever. Whereas in the past it wouldn’t even really make sense to think of Indonesia as a single unified civ, if it even makes sense today.
If it was Picts turning into English turning into America would anyone be complaining?
This doesn’t work because “what would Canada be like in the Stone Age” is a question cast into an infinite unknown. This is why in prior civ games, civs did last an entire play through but they were really only that civ during the time they shined irl. As in Rome was only Rome in the antiquity age, after that they basically turned into a generic civ with no meaningful characteristics because Rome did not exist in the modern era. We do not and cannot ever know what Rome in modern era would be because fundamentally our idea of what Rome was, represented, and did is wholly tied to the context they did those things in.
Outside of a few indigenous exceptions, this is not how cultures and people mature through the ages. Culture, technology, economics, diplomacy, etc advances and that transforms how both the people of a civ and the state act as well. Antiquity Rome transformed into the Byzantines (among other successor states) because that was the result of the geopolitical environment around them during that era. That’s why this civ switching to match age appropriate representation actually reflects how the majority of peoples evolved with time.
There are some civs that have the benefit of surviving in different form across eras which gives the option of following a stack (India, China, etc) but even then you can see that it’s more natural for them to be represented as a stack than a single ageless monolith faction. Furthermore, as the dev diary clearly explains, the stack approach is not available to most civs who are the result of a vast array of factors and combinations of different peoples. It would be prohibitively restrictive to limit civ options to those that have viable stacks across the game’s eras.
The main gripe people seem attached to is that this new system feels weird (Ben Franklin of ancient Egypt etc), which is fine, you can have that opinion. But it’s unfamiliar and new should not decide whether it’s genuinely good or a reasonable evolution of the game. It appears like this approach has been well thought out and carefully implemented to avoid obvious pitfalls that plagued similar games while propping up what makes these features historically plausible (as an alt history game strict realism shouldn’t be the goal), representative, and interesting to play (the 3 pillars).
Don’t get me wrong I get the feeling but like especially if you do well in an age you’ll have a lot of architecture city names and policies from that age for the whole rest of the game + your leader does stay the whole time
See this is what I mean in my other post by bad criticism - your civ is the thing you did from the first turn to the last, not the label and stats applied because you chose a name for a leader or a name for the "civilization".
Also, having Canada from the stone age to the future doesn't make sense, it never made sense - and that was ok. You having a leader and changing civ titles over thousands of years is more interesting game play wise, and more based on reality than before - well, except the single leader of course.
"I have to be the same name and stats for all the game or its bad" is quite a take - and I do "love" seeing people take nearly any reasoning to justify it. Oh well, people whined about the art of 6, or whatever with 5, or really, whining about stupid BS with lies about how they will so totally NOT get the game at or near launch is nearly as old as the series itself. People said it about 4 even though 4's fanboys wanted to pretend otherwise.
I'll be honest, I think Civ 7 is DoA.
none of what i have heard has peaked any interest for me, and not for several other people i know.
Yes, I am aware thats not evidence, but i just dont see the kind of hype for the game i saw when civ 6 was coming out. they are also taking massive risks that shake the identity of the game series to its core, which often is a massive mistake and rarely overwhelmingly positive for the game.
100% agree. I'm not getting it because it simply isn't Civ anymore.
I think it'll review worse than some may expect for a Civ game.
Sincerely hope this game goes the route of BE and gets canned before its second xpac so we can skip to Civ 8 and return to standing the test of time.
They are copying way too many things from Humankind, which died in several months. The game barely gets more daily players than Civ 4. And with how bad 7 is looking so far, I bet it will sadly join them.
re: your example about how cool it is to get your country after playing for years, getting Kupe made me play so much more civ and love it so much, and he's very interesting and unique (even if you hate him, he's very different)
I don't begrudge that some like it, but playing the same civ from barbarian to nukes mattered to me and going into the ham fisted civ changes seems like a departure that really kills my interest. I understand what they are trying to do. I know that requirement to make the age playable across time placed some limitations on what else could be done, but its a limitation that has clearly worked well in a franchise i have loved since discovering it in the late 90s.
I predict the game meta is going to become something like "Start with the Aztecs, then Play as Japan, then swap to Germany for the production bump" or something just as cheesy. Rounding that off with "And it was all lead by Cleopatra!" doesn't help.
I completely agree. The Civ swap mechanic is a huge turn off for me.
Yeah im not getting civ 7. Sticking with civ 6 its worked well enough for hundreds of hours and this turns me off
I'm always glad to see a developer wanting to experiment and grow, but we have seen the results of changing civs through ages in several other games over the past few years, and it was not good. I have owned and enjoyed every civ game made, right back to the very first one. I have played several new 4x gams that use his mechanic and disliked them all. I bought Humankind early for the early access, and I just checked to see I have 35 hours total spent on that game.
I am hopeful that Civ 7 is great. I really want it to be. But it will not be a day one purchase. I will be checking out several games on your channel though to really see if I will like the gameplay.
Standing the Test of Time...right out the window.
I don't know, changing political leaders for cultural/science notable figures or make them interchangeable just sounds lame and bland to me and a weird focus too.
Albert Einstein for example is already a notable science figure, making him a nation leader makes no sense to me. It would just dilute part of the essence of Civ imo but we'll see...
Shakespeare leading england less gooo
The best part about CiV 7 is you can wait a few years untill the game is bundled and sold together at a reasonable price. Say NO to being nickle and dimed for every bit of content.
I'm pretty sure they pointed out why it's a bad thematic idea when they said leader swapping didnt feel good in the article. I dont really get how they can make those arguments like it's confusing as to who youre playing as with leader swaps, and not apply the same arguments to civ swaps. Hopefully they come up with a way to keep things cohesive thematically better than humankind did.
I don't really get that either, but I'm also not keen on the mechanic as is.
in humankind you could go from being ANY civ to being any other civ without any cohesion. Here they're clearly said you're gonna keep your leader and legacies to keep some cohesion, and also the options you have to choose in a new age depend on several factors (you found X resource, your leader history follows X path, etc.) which is gonna make much more sense and keep it thematic, either via gameplay or real history.
I did a double take first time he said “Martin KING Luther Jr”, but then he kept repeating it😂. Follow up by saying that he’s such a well known figure. Such unintentional comedy gold.
He says the Luther and King in the correct order, he mispronounces Martin and portmanteaus Martin and Luther together.
Just finished the last video at work. Went back to the channel and saw a new video posted. I love it here
Cool. Still not feeling it, even more so now that it's "necessary". Quite sad to be missing out a major civ installment but it is what it is
@@charlestaylor8344 lmao
Switching civs shouldn't retract from the experience, but making leaders disconnected very well might for me. Benjamin Franklin of Egypt just doesn't ring right in my head
Edit: I guess it would be cool to play Marx of Russia or Germany, or Thomas Hobbs as England or Spain. I'm unsure if that will balance bad matchups
Crazy how rude Potato is being in these replies to any criticism of the game whilst being extremely uncritical of all the changes. Good for him that he's excited about the new game, but calling your fans stupid and low-IQ for being concerned that Civ is changing core parts of its identity makes him look like a shill and an asshole.
Agreed.
@@Colty03 He is not the only one. Other RUclipsrs as well try to play the "I know better than my fan base on what is good for them" and recycle the same old arguments on why this Civ will be the best but I am not buying it. Changes are not original, Eras forces people to play not what they enjoy and this game feels like its going to have paradox level of dlc's that will cost 30-40 euros
The people calling "DEI" explicitly or implicitly in their criticisms and whining are the far greater assholes.
And that applies to at least half of the people here.
I was quite surprised at how much of an ahole he is being in the replies, its almost as if he has been paid to be super positive about the game
@@azhaius7446 Why does criticizing something make someone an asshole? I mean don't get me wrong, I'm largely on board with Civ 7 and I'm hyped for it. But people can and will criticize the game, it was expected from the devs themselves, the devs themselves literally admit to being overly self-critical. They themselves found some of the new mechanics of the game to be controversial.
Damn it… the changing ages sounds good… not putting builders in and just deleting them in modern age is it’s such a missed opportunity. You would still have the builder mini game in the beginning, and then skipping them when it becomes tiring…
Lets be honest most of the people who are going to play civ7 are from Europe or outer Europe (America,Canada,Australia,etc). The reason there are so few civs from europe is so they can sell it back to us as day one DLC, and because more people want to play those civs they are more likely to buy the DLC's. At the moment there is no German, Russian, Italian or Scandinavian civs.
I've played since civ 1. I am uncomfortable with eras and no builders. I'm not buying at launch for the first time in decades. Still enjoying civ6. I'll wait for feedback and updates.
I have also played from civ1. And I am really liking what they are doing to the civ.
Do you remember what has been the worst part of each civ from now… The end game! It has been boring as ****… If they manage to make that better in civ7… Then that alone makes civ7 the best civ so far!
Yeah… I did like all civs from civ1. I most likely played ci2 the most. (Did have more time to play in that era 😊) But after a while… the end game has proven to be the weak part of each. So far at least…
@@haukikannel That's more an AI issue and the problems with snowballing. The AI needs diversity of tactics way more than the game needs diversity of visuals.
@
And that is a thing that this AI or the AI for Civilization 8, 9 or 19 does not solve…
@@haukikannel A better AI could solve it though, one that optimizes its play instead of spamming units it doesn't use just to slow down turn processing. It sucks that I can go make lunch while the turn is processing to cycle back to me due to all the needless unit spam, and other sub-optimal things. I mean it's hilarious sometimes, like when I was out exploring and I came across an island with one poorly placed city and 10+ settlers and it was still trying to spam out stuff rather than just getting itself to the point where it could embark. That's still a problem though. The AI is pretty bad from city founding location selection to production to tactics to deciding on what to research. I think the late game would be more interesting if the AI did more to get itself there efficiently based on where it spawned.
LIkewise mate. Been playing since the first version and this is the first one I won't be buying on launch. It hasn't got any better as they've revealed leaders. It smacks of the sort of diversity rubbish the corporates push on their employees worldwide in the western world. What a joke. This is Civ's Jaguar equivalent.
Man, now I want to play as Ireland with Phil Lynott as the leader.
Necessary? It hasn't been necessary for any of the other Civ games, so I would call it a design choice. I really hope this is not the first step on the road to calling people bigots.
It’s necessary cause they can’t just make the other civ games but new. It’s just a cool little thing they’re adding to give people more choices and inclusivity. It’ll be nice! There’s no reason to worry about being called a bigot unless you’re being a bigot.
It always ends that way check the forums lmao
@@xiaoliu7071 Then stay out of the forums.
Actually it was necessary for other civ games, because those have fundamental issues which the devs are trying to solve here.
@@Crowbar
Yeah… I am old civ1 veteran… and the end game has allways been bad in previous civ games… I hope that they manage to improve it this time. One of those reasons to make this nesessary.
I'm not happy with this dev diary and completely disagree with the direction of this game the civ swapping is a deal breaker and the ages system turns me off even more, but being built to be on par between PC and Switch scares me off completely
I don't think having scientists as Leaders is good, we already have great people. Imagine going to war as snoop dogg
That sounds amazing
@@PotatoMcWhiskey No, it's just stupid.
@@PotatoMcWhiskey how are you able to so easily thing one thing is awesome and cool because of how ridiculous is on one hand and on the other totally reject playing as one civilization throughout the whole game. in another comment you pointed out how ridiculous it would be to play as austria-hungary throughout all of history. neither of these takes are inherently unreasonable or wrong but they are definitely conflicting.
Speaking also of representation, I'm a Mexican and I always see us in games as Aztecs or Mayas, which is correct as most of our culture comes from there, but we also had important figures in more modern times, like Emiliano Zapata that was an important histocial figure in the Mexican revolution, he was never president or anything like that, but he offers more dept as a posible leader, I don't know, maybe I'm just tired of always being an Aztec
My problem is mostly how little civs there are. Why roughly 10 per era at the start? The idea would naturally mean there should be way more civs but its shockingly little
Yes, and gives way to weird transitions, like Romans to Normandy to France is straightforward, but if you want to play the japanese you must start as Khmer, then go to Majapahit, and then the Japanese. All of which are completely different and in no way affected each other.
I love how they try to gaslight us with " but it is the most civs in a game ever!" Like bro, if I can only choose from 10 at a time, that is how many civs are in your game.
@@kyzantia8884 thats another thing, why is it only pretty much China, India and France have a civ per era that ties into their actual history (or the same civ in china and india’s case)
indonesia is unironically my favorite civ to play
3:28 While I get what you mean, I don't think this is properly possible to implement. You will always have many people that don't feel "represented" that way. Even big nations like Germany: Barbarossa was the leader of the Holy Roman Empire (, which wasn't even a proper nation but many loosely connected nations, ) and Ludwig II was King of Bavaria, not Germany. So Civ 6 does not have a "proper representation" for Germans and I don't think the changes to Civ 7 will make this even remotely better for any nation, since many of them aren't even leaders but scientist or religious figures that happened to be born in that nation, which many won't feel represented with.
And if that is so important, Civs like Ottoman empire, aztecs, Inca, babylonia, persia and other ancient Civilizations would be a waste of space since they won't represent anybody today.
I think having a cool Civ with rich history and an interesting leader is by far the most important thing (which is was Civ 6 did) and also the reason why more historically relevant Civs should be added instead of modern ones or small ones that would only make a few people "represented"
I think having a Civ that represents your playstyle is a much better form of representation. That's why I like Khmer and Japan and feel the most represented through them
@@Keiken0 if you don’t think anyone today feels represented by the ottomans or Persians you might be literally living under a rock
@@csrjjsmp I'd say turkish people might feel more represented by the Berlin Civ than the Ottomans xD
@@Keiken0 I think the most simple response to this is why not both? I think there is a bar that every civ has to clear in terms of significance, but you shouldn’t have to pick the ‘most significant’ leader or country from there. This is why every civ game isn’t just Julius Caesar, Napoleon, George Washington, Frederick the Great and Rameses II over and over again. Once you clear that base bar, it makes a better game to include interesting leaders from different countries, cultures, and eras, so people can customize and play in ways that suit them. Otherwise, you’d just be playing with domination-oriented civs, because military success lionized leaders, and trying to customize your play style would be very difficult.
Also, more generally, having more diversity doesn’t mean you won’t get those classic grandiose civs. There’s a reason the promotion of Civ 7 has led with Octavian, Ancient Egypt, and Napoleonic France rather than a more obscure leader/culture they might be adding at launch. If you look in the comments section, you’ll see plenty of people who truly appreciated having a leader from their country, and felt more connected to their game, and yet you were still able to get your classical experience. Diversity in leaders doesn’t mean you won’t get your historical titans, but it doe mean more people can relate to a Civ, and others can learn about cool rulers and cultures they otherwise wouldn’t have known about.
@@subzeroannahilation9538 100% agree with that (aside from the fact that Berlin should be a Civ. That would be a waste D: I'd rather have something like the Carolingian Empire, Habsburg Empire or, if the Holy Roman Empire doesn't count as a Civ, Bohemia)
I don't care about underrepresented civs. I want the big ones of Europe
You don't understand, the Shitdoobi kingdom in Africa is extremely important to represent. They built 1 palace and sold a few slaves. Pretty much all of history would chagne without them.
Ye they will add 100s of leaders over the lifespan of Civ 7 as dlc, that is what this change is mostly about they are hoping it will be financially lucrative.
@@JohnDoe-xd9tw your too optimistic. You will open randomized loot boxes for a chance to get the leaders you want
Do you always have to switch? What if you just want to play a game where Rome never fell?
You need a mod that make exploration era Rome, Modern age rome and future era Rome…
Each with uniguw graphics, units etc. So possible… Just a lot of work!
Did you not read the video title? Obviously it is very necessary!
I’m not actually convinced that it is necessary though, the Devs just want it to happen so this is what we’re getting.
What is missing from the three criteria is the overarching objective of increased monetisation.
Disconnecting leaders and civs and personas massively increases what they can sell you as DLC. Focusing on representation like with the inclusion of Hawaii or Mississippi (while positive) allows them to sell an English or Japanese civ which will be in huge demand.
All Potato’s points are correct… but I think there are multiple benefits to Firaxis with this approach (broaden appeal and exploit the base).
@@tommyshads I am happy to throw my money at them for the next half decade if they deliver another great experience
I agree… I’d put $500 in for a complete game without a thought. But we’ve seen great franchises destroyed through “hero” dlc before, and I’d worry that won’t be the proposition on the table.
Personally I feel the decision to launch on Switch is the most concerning. The compromise is clearly evident in the scope of what has been shown so far, and is a crying shame that the game is being optimised around a mobile chip that was underpowered in 2016.
The decisions are all about broadening reach and accessibility… they’ll need to tread lightly to not piss off their core and become another Creative Assembly.
@@tommyshads civ doesn’t require 100 fps or photorealistic graphics it’s one of the game series that can do this the best
@@csrjjsmp it’s not graphics, but processing power that’s the issue. The scaled down nature of the ages, and limits on Civs are directly related to them wanting to be on every platform.
@ that’s obviously not the issue since Minecraft runs on switch
Ngl, switching leaders mid-game makes way more sense to me than switching civs.
Even if you suspend your disbelief, it still seems silly that one leader can exist for thousands of years, yet their civilization changed three times.
It also makes some of these "out of pocket" leaders more reasonable, since it is plausible they became leaders in a different timeline and a leader changing mid-game could then change your diplomatic relations with other civs (almost like a soft reset) like it does in the real world.
They just want blacks to lead Germany etc., woke bs.
Yes that is basically how stellaris works already except there they have justification for why the same dude can lead your civ for thousands of years
I mean, the single Immortal leader make's more sense to me than a single, monolithic civilization that remained unchanging. The leaders at that point are basically the avatar's of God(the player). If the leaders change, then who is the Player playing as and why are they deciding everything that happens in the civ? And civilizations DO change throughout the ages. Like, the China we have today is different from the Qing Dynasty that came before it, which is different than the Song Dynasty, and all of these are considered "China". Similarly, Germany today is different from the Holy Roman Empire, which is different than whatever they were back in Roman days. They all lived in the same area, but you wouldn't call an Italian "Roman" just because they live in Rome.
Old World does that and it isn't that good.
I will say I’m very happy about how much each Civ gets. Off the bat it’s more than 6, of course we still have yet to see if it’s ACTUALLY unique, but I am encouraged.
"Me and Bikinibodhi" threw me for a loop lol. Wasn't expecting to hear his name on your video :D
At the end of the day, players still have their favorite Civ game. I’m curious about Firaxis’s willingness to experiment and how that’ll feel when playing 7.
I will die on the hill that the ages system switching cultures is dumb as hell and I would be shocked if anything could ever shake me on that front. I like the change to any cool folk be leaders though.
Wonder if they could implant a draft in multiplayer. Choose civ, veto civs, choose leaders veto leaders. First person to choose civ is last to choose leader.
I think the problem will be that not only your Civ is changing, but also the other Civs. I played HK and after every era-change I was at a complete loss.
I understand that for these situations Firaxis focusses on eternal leaders to maintain cohesion for the player but it appears (game is not out, yet!) to be a forced, unorganical decision.
I think it's interesting that people playing China or India can play the whole game as those specific civilizations and I think that must be because China and India potentially provide the biggest Civ player base.
I don't understand Firaxis' decision to make civilizations temporary and leaders eternal. Would be so much more interesting and logical to see, for example, France led by Vercingetorix- Charlemagne- Louis XIV-Napoleon-Charles de Gaulle (I'm not French, btw) with each leader/era change having it's bonuses and malices. Sometimes France has got better times, sometemes less so - it would also prevent the, for CIV VII, obligatory and (IMO) forced end-of-the-era-crisises.
The problem is… There was ot France in ancient era… Just like there was not USA in ancient, and exploration era… Just in modern era.
Maybe solution is to change both civs and leaders in civ8?
@@haukikannel there was no france yes but there were still people there , there's 2 major civilization in the current area of france that existed before the gauls we just have no info on them because they didn't write
@slipoma well what about former colonies? Going from idk cree to US feels just wrong.
The mixing and matching makes no sense tbh
I believe they tried to address this with personalities but it doesn’t seem like you can add or adjust your personality throughout the age change (correct me if I’m wrong). I think this system makes sense and for most, you’ll have to play it to have the full feel of it. Hopefully there is an alpha and beta that fans can try out before preordering/purchasing the game but I’m gonna be so happy when it finally releases.
Would be cool to even see some controversial historical figures as "what ifs" like Oswald Mosley who was a staunchly antiwar Fascist just to see how having that political doctrine but focused on isolationism would function. Don't always have to focus on great people, sometimes the shit people are fun!
If I can't have Roman Legionaries with rifles it isn't Civ.
I hope you do all of the dev diaries! I enjoy hearing your thoughts on what they are saying
13:29 Did this man seriously call for Jedward as a leader? (He's right though)
4:36 My love for Civ VI came from the inclusion of Norway to the roster, because previously in Civ V I would basically have to play Sweden reskins. I wish it had been a more modern Norway, or that we got a variant that wasn't just Vikings because the Norway of Hardrada and the Norway of Dovre are two completely seperate entities and I would love to see something closer to Sweden's depiction as a modern nation, instead of just the viking civ. Like others have mentioned representation is something that is important, but I think they need to put more effort into not just having a wide range of different civs, but making them more then just caricatures of an entire culture. I think civ switching will help with that.
I cannot believe it! Humankind 2!
The sky truly is falling
@@lim4091 the sun is truly leaking
Didn’t know i needed a Jedward civ leader this bad
ngl since the very first gameplay reveal, the game has been more and more appealing to me (graphically and gameplaywise)
I won't buy it on release (likely on a later sale), but devs have done decently in communicating and marketing the game
I like the idea of starting bias. It's the chicken or the egg phenomenon. The specific nation has those characteristics because the resources and environment were what they were. It makes sense.
Real talk: Why the (seemingly) sudden change of heart? In your Khmer campaign you were pretty glum about Civ 7. This is a totally different tune you're playing but I'm glad you've come around to being upbeat.
I'm cautiously optimistic, I know new entries in the franchise may not always land on both feet, but everything they've shown so far seems to be shaping up to be a very competently and thoughtfully designed game that is going to shakeup the 30 year old Civ formula.
$$$
Bro got slipped cash under the table. I can't imagine "aggressively patronize and denigrate anybody who is skeptical about these massive changes to the previously accepted format from the past 20+ years" was part of the deal though.
@@Keygentlemen look, you can believe whatever you want, but Potato is already uber-successful and easily makes six-figures between RUclips and Patreon. I don't think it has to do with money.
Firstly, people are allowed to change their mind. Second, Potato's earliest coverage of 7 was pretty positive with caveats. Why his Khmer commentary was so glum is the real outlier here. Maybe something got lost in the editing process.
If you wanna play the same game over and over again you have 30 years of Civs to choose from. There would be more to criticize Firaxis for for simply rehashing the same old formula again and again. than trying something new.
Like I said, this looks like a thoughtful redesign that is trying to address the major issues of 4X design. Will it be perfect? Probably not, even Ed Beach has said so himself, it's going to take feedback, revisions and maybe expansions to tune the game; this has been the case since at least Civ IV. I see it as an opportunity to see the game grow in fun and interesting ways.
I hope that they at least make it so that the mix of your first and second civs will also creatively change the appearance of your people and art and architecture.
Rory Gallagher and Thin Lizzy, confirmed Irish Civ great musicians
I thought of Rory When Potato started talking about Irish musicians
Also Billy Connelly - Ben Franklin was also a humorist.
Oh my God it’s even worse than I thought. I thought it was going to be like humankind where you can at least choose not to change. Rip navigable rivers and other assorted map changes, hopefully you’ll still be in Civ 8.
That one feature is so important that you'd write of the game without watching gameplay, but you'll still be a potential customer for civ 8?
@ yeah, of course I’ll still be a potential customer for future Civ games, assuming there’s no civ switching. Hell I’d still be a customer for 7 if there was at least an option to turn it off, but it’s baked into the gameplay so there’s not a snowball’s hope in hell of that happening.
@@noneed4sleep64 You don't even get to pick from the full roster of civs like Humankind. You get railroaded into 3 arbitrary picks that the devs decided were reasonable, such as Egypt turning into a west African civ because duh, they're both in Africa!
I might just be in the whiny minority but I play Civ to be able to take cultures like Egypt from stone to space age, if I can’t play as a single culture from start to finish, I’m just simply not playing the game…
This is a Firaxis shill channel...
You're in the majority of people who have actually played Civ.
Doing that is the very definition of what a Civ game is.
Yep, right there with you. If you changed leaders every age that's something exciting I can actually get behind, but changing Civs just destroys any interest I have in the game.
Felt the same way when they first announced it and I've honestly been looking for a reason to give in and get it anyway, but every video or update I see about it just puts me off even more.
I was super excited to know that Mexico was added as a playable civ (being mexican myself) However it feels super weird not to have any leader to represent our culture nor to have any civilization that represents us in the exploration age. Is as if they are proposing Isabela as the viable match for Mexico based on our common history but I think is really funny given they are our conquerors hahaha. This lack of continuity makes me feel that my country is not well represented and gives me a bittersweet taste
Shows you how shallow their DIE push is.
@@NietzscheanMan Why would ANYONE look at a Civ game and think that ANY of the choices are for DEI?
@@blam320 *DIE. Because they literally tell you.
@@NietzscheanMan you are brainwashed
I've not got the best understanding of Mexican history sorry, but seems like there will surely be a central American civ for exploration age? The Aztec civ has been a staple for the whole series and Maya almost the same, though not sure which era they'll fit into. Have they confirmed there's no other exploration age options in that path?
I agree it did feel a bit odd how much the gameplay loop in the exploration age livestream was encouraging the roleplay of colonisation though.
As much as I love the opening up the leader pool, what does that do to the “great people” pool? Like, having James Joyce as a leader would be cool, but it feels weird that he would theoretically be on a different level as another writer that would only be a “great person”
I also think I agree that j don’t like personas. I’d rather have more leaders. We don’t need two napoleon. Do Napoleon and Jeanne D’arc and Charles De Gaulle. Like they expanded the leader pool to give more options, and then decided to use the limited resources they have to make leaders on repeat leaders?? Doesn’t make sense to me. Seems like a waste.
Just felt a bit like it is cheaper to make two personas of the same character.
On the player representation point: I don’t think Civ players are ever upset about more representation in available civs to play with, I think it is only ridiculed when major civilizations are left out, and much less prominent leaders are chosen for those civs that are staples of the franchise/history.
The more I hear from the devs the more I am worried about this game
Yeah not getting it
I just want to be able to choose to keep playing Greece from Antiquity to Modern. Is that soo Hard?
You will buy new product. You will like new product.
Just stick with Civ 6. Its already a complete Civ experience than this new game where its all about switching eras and having random leaders
I think they need to have at least a setting to choose a civ’s name and flag for the whole game. At least that will make it feel somewhat like previous civ games.
im ok with non political leaders being the leaders in the game, but its weird to have ben franklin over george washington for example. both should be in
DLCs… mods!
Leaders are easier to mod that civs… so I expect a lot of them!
New civs and old civs in ”wrong eras”… that is the hard part to mod and I don´t expect to see too many of those… Only most popular civs willl get one or two extra civs to different eras.
I'd play as Ireland with their leader...Jedward. Maybe with personas for their X Factor days and then for their later career
About leaders, ok you can get other people, but people that are leaders or dictators or presidents.
I would be mad if they made Portugal in civ7 and the leader was Cristiano Ronaldo..... 😅
Yeah, obviously it should be Bernardo Silva amirite
@csrjjsmp 😅
putting CR7 in Civ7? It's a once in a lifetime opportunity, even if it could become a bit Messi.
Ngl they could put the cranberries in as an irish artist specific to the modern age of Ireland. Thatd be dope.
Think it makes more sense to keep the civ and change the ladder with age because they die. I would say you're at war with the Aztecs as the leader changes though civ games, or ages.
But leaders don’t live over a whole age…
@@lim4091 Well they´re not immortal either. Them living through ALL the ages feels even weirder...
@@johnyshadow but… they’re not trying to simulate the real world. They’d e trying to simulate how different civilizations basically layer on top of each other, and how the remnants of older civilizations from a bygone age can be felt in subsequent ages.
Changing civs does that. Changing leaders doesn’t
@@lim4091 Dude, this is not hard to understand. Leaders change more often than civilizational cultures, so it's stupid to keep your leader but not your civilization. It's that simple.
@ I understand that. But you’re making the assumption that they even give a shit that leaders change more often. Firaxis wanted to simulate how civilizations and cultures change over time. Changing the civ you play does that, changing the leader does not
It feels like they are taking inspiration from the best parts of Mellenium and Human Kind. I didn't love either of those games as an entire package, but both had some really unique takes that I'm happy to see the developers drawing inspiration from.
My biggest worry, which still hasn’t been alleviated is how well the game will play for multiplayer.
I hope they pull it off to where it works well.
I wonder how they would go about showing this off before release day assuming they wanted to. I know it is a big deal and I hope they improve game stability. What would be cool is if they allowed a bunch of civ creators to livestream a full game.
only 30% of steam players have ever played civ 6 multiplayer. it basically doesnt matter.
right, I only play civ games in multiplayer and civ 6 felt absolutely garbage for that. civ 5 with dlc or lekmod is just a way better experience then 6 could ever offer. Singleplayer is boring imo because the ai is braindead and just starts with tons of resources on deity, its not necessarily difficult just tedious because u are playing at such a resource deficit the first era or 2
@@jaded-harper Not just that it's the AI feels brain dead but once you get over the treshold of AI bonuses on deity it feels like the AI just simply stops playing at all. OH and maybe AI can finally use flying units in Civ7 even on deity I got swamped on giant death robots and cultists before any sort of air planes. Civ5 and all the previous civs had a one huge , gigantic flaw in multiplayer which is that you CANNOT SEE WHAT INDEPENDENT UNITS ARE DOING ON THE MAP BETWEEN THE TURNS! this means not being able to keep an eye out on the barbarian or citystate movements and such which is frankly the pain in the arse but in civ6 you can which is already a gigantic improvement over any previous civ games.
Wilfrid Laurier being added gave me goosebumps at the time, also helped that he kicks ass :)
More I see of Civ 7, the less interest I have. Finding out just how heavily monetised and DLC-heavy the game is was the final straw though. Civ 6 is basically a perfect game and I'm still enjoying it after 4000 hours, I see no reason to buy what looks like an inferior sequel out of some weird sense of brand loyalty.
I like the idea of ages and soft resets as something that might make the modern era in particular more fun to play, and not just the part of the game where someone already snowballed too hard to catch up. I have mixed feelings on the way they did Civ switching and leaders, and I think a lot of it comes from the fact I view my Civ and opponent Civs very differently.
When dealing with an opponent Civ, like potato I think of myself dealing with the leader - Alexander is the one who shows up and insults me for not fighting for my people, not 'Macedonia'. But that's because I'm thinking of them like they're another player - and I'm not think of myself as my leader, I'm just me. My own leader kind of fades into the background, because they're not sending insults, offering trade deals, declaring war - I'm the one doing those things!
So, sure - for an AI civ, it would feel weird for the leader to change partway through the game, but it would hardly make a difference for me as a player. On the flip side, swapping out the civ *does* feel weird for me as a player, because... well, changing the whole name and culture of your empire just because feels weird, and not like standing the test of time. Weirdly, I think a lot of it is literally just the name - if I got to keep the same name of my civilization it would feel weirdly better, even if picking new mechanics each era.
If the stated goal of the series has always been "build a civilization to stand the test of time" and then force the player into a losing situation where that civilization fails, and has to be rebuilt? I dispise scripted losses, and thats all the ages system sounds like to me. You are forced to make bad decisions that put you on the road to ruin, just so they can force a change.
What?
??????? you're not "losing", the civs just get built on top of one another, like in history. more like an evolution than anything.
Funny, because to me it is the opposite. Civilization games are usually very linear even though history decidedly isn't. Why is there such resistance to this sort of historical accuracy?
@PotatoMcWhiskey the stated way the age changes happen from the reveals so far, and my understanding, is the player is offered choices between bad options on how to handle the "crisis" that forces the age change. Ancient, for example, is the proliferation of nomadic peoples, and the barbarian states that accompany them, that forces the destruction of your civ and the formation of a new one.
So...you are forced to fail.
@jyutzler because...if I wanted a historical sim I would go play one? There are plenty out there with various focuses, time periods, etc. Civs has never been the hard historical take, and that's what I like about it.
America starting in the ancient era? Nowhere near historical, nor your leaders surviving millenia. It's what I like about the series, is the suspension of disbelief.
Love your insight on CIV. i still can't grasp all the S-tier strats you use in the mid to late game antics. You're a beast... But this is actually for fiaxis! Just put out early game access gaming has changed and people are willing to deal with the bugs. as much as I love the streamers views on Civ I'd rather be playing and watching and listening to their stream rather than watching and listening to their stream.
P.s. who remembers the original drm on civilization 3-486 era?
Each to their own, i mostly play TSL games and cannot see them working with civ switching and other mechanics, it will be the first skip for me (no Britain in the game doesnt help)
I wonder if the new way to create starting locations is a way to reduce the tendency to reroll starts until you get something you like. If your starting location is more biased to you from the beginning you might be less tempted to "roll and roll for a good start"
I heard the game is only going to go to around 1960 (in tech) on release. Is that a complete game?
No. They are intentionally making a partial game so they can cash-out on DLC. Which is why they are already trying to sell DLC for the game.
Anything past then has never been that fleshed out in a civ game anyway. I certainly won’t miss it
And the world's greatest shill appears when we need him most!
If each civilization had a pool of their own leaders for each age to pull from that would be nice. I don't think you have to tie the year the person was in to the age you pick them for necessarily. That would help get around the issue of certain nations not existing.
Leaders as a randomized pool of great persons is a good idea, the problem then though is you cannot make art assets and animations for all those leaders. People like those bells and whistles.
@@TsunamiWombat you can if it’s designed from the start. Custom characters exist just fine in other games like the sims or mmorpgs
@@TsunamiWombat Or just don't pool all of your resources into animating and voicing leaders. Civ 4 diplomacy was fine, because we're clearly never getting the level of civ 5 ever again.