Are we trapped by design decisions into very limited gameplay, with an illusion of choice?

[Zaarin]

an immortal Ben Franklin

I think part of the disconnect is that not everyone sees "immortal leaders" as immortal leaders. I've always seen them as the face of my opponent, not something that exists literally in the game.

More robust naming system.

This is something FXS has always been bad at. I consider Rosetta an essential mod for Civ6; I look forward to its sequel in Civ7 because I don't expect FXS has gotten better at it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I’ve been observing the civ-switching debate across all threads, and I think I can finally put in words why exactly I (and maybe some other players) am conflicted by this new mechanic.

First of all, let’s get the whole “historical accuracy” debate out of the way - neither approach is accurate, and debating which is better - an immortal Ben Franklin leading three “logical” consecutive civs in Africa and Middle East, or America existing since 4000BCE - is just a contest of lunacy.

Second, I’ll preface that I’m on board with the basic premise of a civilization evolving over time and taking over new traits, including the essence of other historical entities. In fact, that’s what excited me the most about Humankind, even though the game as a whole ended up being meh. And yet, when faced with the same concept in Civ7, I can’t shake off the unappealing sense in my mind, and I think I’ve figured it out why for myself.

At the end of the day, it’s all about flavor and roleplaying potential - and the role play choices that players have when building their empire. The gripes of people against civ-switching boils down to “we no longer have the choice that we had before”, while defenders of civ-switching respond with “what are you talking about, look at all these choices!”. The truth is, the civ-switching is not a net gain on previous roleplay options - it’s a replacement, and it’s painfully apparent because of the brute-forced way FXS implemented the system. You WILL switch your civ, you WILL abandon your old ways of naming the cities, and you WILL be reeling from the crisis dropped at you at precisely 10 o’clock Antiquity time (I’m aware that we don’t know anything substantial about the crisis mechanics yet). It just all feels unnecessarily forced, and I see no reason why it had to be implemented this way.

This entire debacle could’ve been avoided easily, without significant overhaul of the mechanics, by implementing either of these features (ideally both):

1. Allow keeping the civ when transitioning to the new age. Balance and handicaps be damned - people have no issues with OCC, let people play OcivC if they want.

2. More robust naming system. Cities are a given, but also let players get creative with how they name their evolved civs as a whole. Shawnee all of a sudden dropping their naming conventions and calling themselves “America” may be a bridge too far for some, but something like “United Shawnee States” would be much more palatable.

Are these just minor tweaks that don’t affect your turn-by-turn play? Absolutely. But I’d argue that flavor matters more than some would claim, in a game where the player is positioned as a leader entity growing an empire from scratch. Otherwise, we’d all be happy playing with spreadsheets, because that’s what Civilization games could always be reduced to.

1. This thing could be modded in easily. Actually you could even mod in playing later civilizations from start (without any bonuses until their era). Whether this mode will be implemented by Firaxis officially, I don't know. Totally possible, but likely not on release.
2. Renaming cities is with us for the whole series and it's still possible to do it in Civ7. I don't know if it's possible to rename civilizations, but it could be fun (and, probably, also easy to mod).

 

[Sagax]

1. This thing could be modded in easily. Actually you could even mod in playing later civilizations from start (without any bonuses until their era). Whether this mode will be implemented by Firaxis officially, I don't know. Totally possible, but likely not on release.
2. Renaming cities is with us for the whole series and it's still possible to do it in Civ7. I don't know if it's possible to rename civilizations, but it could be fun (and, probably, also easy to mod).

Yeah, for my second point the emphasis was more on civ renaming.

These are indeed moddable solutions, though that leaves open an interesting question (or can of worms) of the line between acceptable official package and over-reliance on mods to fix your problems. And of course, poor console players.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I’ve been observing the civ-switching debate across all threads, and I think I can finally put in words why exactly I (and maybe some other players) am conflicted by this new mechanic.

First of all, let’s get the whole “historical accuracy” debate out of the way - neither approach is accurate, and debating which is better - an immortal Ben Franklin leading three “logical” consecutive civs in Africa and Middle East, or America existing since 4000BCE - is just a contest of lunacy.

Second, I’ll preface that I’m on board with the basic premise of a civilization evolving over time and taking over new traits, including the essence of other historical entities. In fact, that’s what excited me the most about Humankind, even though the game as a whole ended up being meh. And yet, when faced with the same concept in Civ7, I can’t shake off the unappealing sense in my mind, and I think I’ve figured it out why for myself.

At the end of the day, it’s all about flavor and roleplaying potential - and the role play choices that players have when building their empire. The gripes of people against civ-switching boils down to “we no longer have the choice that we had before”, while defenders of civ-switching respond with “what are you talking about, look at all these choices!”. The truth is, the civ-switching is not a net gain on previous roleplay options - it’s a replacement, and it’s painfully apparent because of the brute-forced way FXS implemented the system. You WILL switch your civ, you WILL abandon your old ways of naming the cities, and you WILL be reeling from the crisis dropped at you at precisely 10 o’clock Antiquity time (I’m aware that we don’t know anything substantial about the crisis mechanics yet). It just all feels unnecessarily forced, and I see no reason why it had to be implemented this way.

This entire debacle could’ve been avoided easily, without significant overhaul of the mechanics, by implementing either of these features (ideally both):

1. Allow keeping the civ when transitioning to the new age. Balance and handicaps be damned - people have no issues with OCC, let people play OcivC if they want.

2. More robust naming system. Cities are a given, but also let players get creative with how they name their evolved civs as a whole. Shawnee all of a sudden dropping their naming conventions and calling themselves “America” may be a bridge too far for some, but something like “United Shawnee States” would be much more palatable.

Are these just minor tweaks that don’t affect your turn-by-turn play? Absolutely. But I’d argue that flavor matters more than some would claim, in a game where the player is positioned as a leader entity growing an empire from scratch. Otherwise, we’d all be happy playing with spreadsheets, because that’s what Civilization games could always be reduced to.

Whilst I don't share all of your concerns, I do think this is a sensible and measured critique, which I'm always happy to see.

The naming thing has been talked about a lot and I really do think it would help, but I'm kind of assuming they will miss this simple touch.

 

[Evolena]

Do they even, or is it a projection we've done from something familiar?

Well, that hasn't aged well VERY quick!

Unique Civilian Unit:
Ālim: Unique Great Person Unit. Can only be built in Cities with a Madīnat, and the specific Ālim received is random. Each Ālim can only be received once. Cost increases per Ālim built. (Check the game guide for possible Ālim units!

 

[chaosprophet]

Well, that hasn't aged well VERY quick!

Hahaha yeah I read your post after seeing the new game guide. Albeit was going to add, that a least the art stream we got recently had the guys call them great people. Albeit it could have been just a intern name or the like.

In any case, I do agree that while they share the name, and a similar idea (unique people in history and how you use then), it is still quite different to be a different mechanic.

So rather than compare the two, I would say the choice that was the old great person system is no more (which I'm glad, wasn't fond of the system). As usual with every new civ, some things go and some new things come by. Like how we got more choice with resources management now, but got less with no builders.

I think the more important question is rather if choices that are cut were meaningful and fun, and also if the total amount of choices in the game is such to make it interesting without making it too tiring or dragging things a lot.

 

[gdr_willter]

And even the competition for the worldwide great person is very Civ6 thing. Great person in Civ7 is surely not like Civ6, but it does not means that now we lost something traditional in the series.

 

[queenpea]

Well, that hasn't aged well VERY quick!

You're right! They even don't share the name...

 

[Krikkit1]

2. More robust naming system. Cities are a given, but also let players get creative with how they name their evolved civs as a whole. Shawnee all of a sudden dropping their naming conventions and calling themselves “America” may be a bridge too far for some, but something like “United Shawnee States” would be much more palatable.

Are these just minor tweaks that don’t affect your turn-by-turn play? Absolutely. But I’d argue that flavor matters more than some would claim, in a game where the player is positioned as a leader entity growing an empire from scratch. Otherwise, we’d all be happy playing with spreadsheets, because that’s what Civilization games could always be reduced to.

This is I think the solution... and they could use the Narrative Event system to make it work

.. pick a new civ
Trigger Narrative Event explaining how your culture is changing in a new Age (ie you are getting new Uniques)
ask if you want to
Reflect your new Uniques by Changing to the new Civ Name* & City List** & Emblem & Regional Graphics & Terrain Names (for Culture boost to your new Unique Civics)
OR
Reflect your old Tradition Policies by Keeping your old Civ Name* & City List** & Emblem & Regional Graphics & Terrain Names (for Happiness boost toward your next Celebration)

*The Civ Name can then be customized separately (but that way I can go from Aksum to Normans without my buildings/generic units changing if I just want a feel of Naval Invaders as opposed to European Naval Invaders)
**City's having a similar rename option when you promote them from a Town might also be nice (since they might be ones you founded in a previous age... or ones you conquered)

 

[JNR13]

This whole concern on behalf of the Shawnee as if they are some oblivious dummies who have no idea about the game despite having worked with Firaxis on their own inclusion for four years is reminding me a lot of those ivory tower academics who told Firaxis that there's no chance getting the Shawnee to cooperate and that including them would be offensive instead of just telling them to just ask, as Firaxis eventually did.

Civ has always been about exploring alternative paths of history by combining familiar elements. An American civ built on a Shawnee foundation would clearly be a different cultural and political entity than the IRL America which started as an English and then became more of a pan-European settler-colonial project, which would be represented in Civ VII by becoming America from Norman or Spanish origins. In the modern age, you're the culmination of a path including two legacy cultures of your own choosing, not a 100% pure representation of your modern age civ pick and that civ only.

If any Shawnee take offense with the civ swapping system and how it works for their tribe's civ, let them voice those concerns and have us listen to and respect them. Until then, it might be good for others to not speak for them and not assume too much.

 

[queenpea]

This whole concern on behalf of the Shawnee as if they are some oblivious dummies who have no idea about the game despite having worked with Firaxis on their own inclusion for four years is reminding me a lot of those ivory tower academics who told Firaxis that there's no chance getting the Shawnee to cooperate and that including them would be offensive instead of just telling them to just ask, as Firaxis eventually did.

Civ has always been about exploring alternative paths of history by combining familiar elements. An American civ built on a Shawnee foundation would clearly be a different cultural and political entity than the IRL America which started as an English and then became more of a pan-European settler-colonial project, which would be represented in Civ VII by becoming America from Norman or Spanish origins. In the modern age, you're the culmination of a path including two legacy cultures of your own choosing, not a 100% pure representation of your modern age civ pick and that civ only.

If any Shawnee take offense with the civ swapping system and how it works for their tribe's civ, let them voice those concerns and have us listen to and respect them. Until then, it might be good for others to not speak for them and not assume too much.

No one here is suggesting that members of Shawnee are dummies. As for myself, that is not at all what I have suggested.

I have assumed nothing and do not pretend to advocate for a group to which I don't belong. I do, however, think that the civ switch mechanic can be interpreted in a number of ways, some of which are more fraught with controversy than others.