Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?

[TheGrayFox]

I think that immersive element is abandoned in favor of the design goals. I'm fine with it since so much of Civilization is just a thin patina of historicity on gameplay anyway, you know? But I get not liking the idea of Romagolia.

you're fine with it but over half the active members of the forum are not

The series is built on these immersive elements. Why abandon and throw them away now to ape Humankind, a game that completely failed, when there are much more elegent ways of addressing the game design issues the devs have presented ?

 

[lt22677]

Didn't that post you quoted say pretty much what you've just said? I just got the name wrong, it was the second expansion called "Fantastic Worlds" rather than the first one called "Test of Time". I hope you'll forgive me getting a name wrong after 27 years... And by "ability to play as" I meant it was an option as in a scenario, not a compulsion. And, yes, it was all dinosaur reskins, which is all I ever claimed, not that it involved weaving between historically-inspired civilizations and dinosaur-inspired civilizations.

But thanks for looking it up, it's reassuring that it wasn't all just a weird lucid dream I had lol.

What do you say? there was no option to play as dinosaurs, but it was a scenario like WWII, or the rise of Rome, have you ever played Civ 2?

Test of the Time was NOT an expansion of Civ 2, but more of a remake the only expansions of Civ 2 were:

- Fantastic Worlds
- Conflicts in Civilization

I repeat the question, have you ever played Civilization 2?

 

[ColtSeavers]

I think that immersive element is abandoned in favor of the design goals. I'm fine with it since so much of Civilization is just a thin patina of historicity on gameplay anyway, you know? But I get not liking the idea of Romangolia.

Sure that's fair, everyone has different priorities. Agree to disagree!

 

[Professor Phobo]

you're fine with it but over half the active members of the forum are not

The series is built on these immersive elements. Why abandon and throw them away now to ape Humankind, a game that completely failed, when there are much more elegent ways of addressing the game play issues the devs have presented?

It's just one of those things where any solution is going to be controversial, since it's a major change. And, to be blunt, the devoted grognard fan community for any longrunning franchise is going to be change adverse because everyone's old enough to have back pain and mortgages.

If Firaxis can pull off the execution I think people might come around to it. There are plenty of mechanics I don't love in Civilization games that, regardless of my nitpicks, I'm still looking outside after playing "one more turn" to find it's 4AM all of a sudden how did that happen oh god I have to go to work today.

Another game I quite love just introduced a major change to basic mechanics that, beforehand, was wildly derided and hated by the community, who thought it would kill the game. It turns out the mechanic shook up the meta in a good way, and isn't nearly as hard to deal with as people expected, but another feature introduced by the same patch has basically ruined half the strategy and people are Big Mad - even though it was just a continually requested feature people have wanted for ages.

Sometimes you just can't quite predict the future when it comes to complex game design stuff, and fans aren't always right, you know?

 

[lt22677]

Ok I see you don't understand I'll post some screenshots for you
1) Scenario
2) Option basic Game

 

[lobosan]

The Visigoths did not morph into Spain. That's such a gross simplification of history

The Visigothic kingdom was literally conquered by Muslims and and the monarchies of Iberia were founded by Frankish Crusaders first establishing the Hispanic March and then conquering parts of the north back from Muslims.

My point exactly - one continuous civ over time is oversimplified. The Visigoth started as some folks around the Black Sea and ended up as post-roman kings in what is now Spain. Spain is not one culture, etc. To me, the IRL overlap of culture, nation, civilization, etc. is very confusing - as long as it's fun to play

 

[TheGrayFox]

My point exactly - one continuous civ over time is oversimplified. The Visigoth started as some folks around the Black Sea and ended up as post-roman kings in what is now Spain. Spain is not one culture, etc. To me, the IRL overlap of culture, nation, civilization, etc. is very confusing - as long as it's fun to play

Your point was that civilization "morphing" makes sense historically and you specifically used the example of Visigoth morphing into Spain.... but as I pointed out, , the Visigoth's civilization/empire didn't simply morph into Spain but rather it was destroyed by Muslim invaders and who were then slowly replaced with Christian Frankish rulers who like the Visigoths would assimilate with the locals. Yes IRL nations and cultures assilimate, conquer one another, migrate, influence each other, etc, etc but that is a far cry from the incredibly simplistic notion of "civilization morphing" we see presented to us by the devs.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think some level of agree-to-disagree is necessary here because the alternate history vs. historical is kind of a weird subjective tug-of-war, and different people will set the tension between the two at different levels. Like I'm fine with Benjamin Franklin as a leader but Aretha Franklin would strike me as too attenuated from historical political/religious/economic/philosophical/military leadership for her to qualify as a leader - despite being culturally influential. And I wouldn't want an outright fictional civilization even if I'm fine with these kind of "greatest hits" theme park versions of real historical cultures being in the game.

Is that a fully rational perspective that I can defend with formal definition and objective measurement? No, it's just a vibe check.

 

[lt22677]

I understand that the implementation between an option and a scenario is different. But I also understand that it's irrelevant: the fact is that I could play a game of civilization as a dinosaur. Whether I didn't that by double clicking on one icon in one location or ticking a checkbox in a different location doesn't matter to me. I'm baffled as to why it matters to anyone 27 years later.

Perfect then you'll have a lot of fun if a Mod comes out in which the Egyptians transform into Vikings perhaps led by Dracula (because I doubt that Firaxis will get that far with the DLC), but I'll wait to get the game because after two disastrous releases (Civ 5 and Civ 6) and after Civ 7 takes the WORST part of another game (Humankind) I'm not willing to pick up the game without being sure it's playable

 

[pokiehl]

but I'll wait to get the game because after two disastrous releases (Civ 5 and Civ 6)

If you think Civ 5 and Civ 6 were "disastrous" then I have no clue why you're even paying attention to Civ 7. Seems like you're going to hate it no matter what. It's going to be closer to those 2 than any other games in the series.

 

[Professor Phobo]

If you think Civ 5 and Civ 6 were "disastrous" then I have no clue why you're even paying attention to Civ 7. Seems like you're going to hate it no matter what. It's going to be closer to those 2 than any other games in the series.

They launched rough. I didn't care for V until the second expansion, then it became my favorite.

 

[TheGrayFox]

If you think Civ 5 and Civ 6 were "disastrous" then I have no clue why you're even paying attention to Civ 7. Seems like you're going to hate it no matter what. It's going to be closer to those 2 than any other games in the series.

He said the releases/launch were disastrous.. which was objectively true. Were you around when they came out?

Civ 5 was broken and almost unplayable. 6 was barebones and its AI was almost as bad as 5s at release

 

[pokiehl]

They launched rough. I didn't care for V until the second expansion, then it became my favorite.

He said the launches were disastrous.. which was objectively true. Were you around when they came out?

Civ 5 was broken and almost unplayable. 6 was barebones and its AI was almost as bad as 5s at release

The statement is ambiguous as to whether he means the entire games or the launch. It's not like hyperbole is rare here.

I played both at launch. Maybe Civ 5 did (but it didn't feel that way to me; I still had plenty of fun with it), but Civ 6 had a perfectly fine start. It wasn't bare bones at all; the only core feature it was missing was World Congress. It was literally the most feature-rich launch of a Civ game ever. And this bit about the bad AI is basically complete revionism. The AI felt worse over time, not at the beginning, because post-Gathering Storm it felt like the AI couldn't make use of systems from NFP and Leader Pass.

 

[Gedemon]

Moderator Action: deleted some post, no personal attacks, it's fine to have different opinions, but keep it civil please

 

[lt22677]

If you think Civ 5 and Civ 6 were "disastrous" then I have no clue why you're even paying attention to Civ 7. Seems like you're going to hate it no matter what. It's going to be closer to those 2 than any other games in the series.

Wasn't Civ 5 a disastrous release? with Diplomacy that didn't work (it was redone), with the AI that when it came to carrying out a naval invasion you had the units that disembarked and re-embarked becoming moving targets and with game phases that were tedious to say the least, and I remember very well the very long list of complaints on the Forum, Idem Civ 6 forum (among other things, the Pass also had problems that have not been resolved).

However, you are right, I am in the camp of those who will WAIT a very long time before thinking about buying the game

 

[TheGrayFox]

The statement is ambiguous.

I played both at launch. Maybe Civ 5 did (but it didn't feel that way to me; I still had plenty of fun with it), but Civ 6 had a perfectly fine start. It wasn't bare bones at all; the only core feature it was missing was World Congress. It was literally the most feature-rich launch of a Civ game ever. And this bit about the bad AI is basically complete revionism. The AI felt worse over time, not at the beginning, because post-Gathering Storm it felt like the AI couldn't make use of systems from NFP and Leader Pass.

I played both on day 1. You could beat Civ 5 on diety with a single horseman.....

6's release was " fine" but again quite barebones when compared to Civ 5 with expansions at that point and its AI was atrocious at launch (and still is in many ways). Also remember there was a lot added by 6's expansion packs and DLCs (World Congress, district rebalancing, natural disasters, ai fixes, more civs and leaders, modeling electrical power, governors, loyalty, etc, etc, etc)

 

[mackintosh]

I have to agree about both 5 & 6. I didn't get seriously into them until after their respective expansions dropped. Both seemed purposefully neutered.

 

[ColtSeavers]

The statement is ambiguous as to whether he means the entire games or the launch. It's not like hyperbole is rare here.

I played both at launch. Maybe Civ 5 did (but it didn't feel that way to me; I still had plenty of fun with it), but Civ 6 had a perfectly fine start. It wasn't bare bones at all; the only core feature it was missing was World Congress. It was literally the most feature-rich launch of a Civ game ever. And this bit about the bad AI is basically complete revionism. The AI felt worse over time, not at the beginning, because post-Gathering Storm it felt like the AI couldn't make use of systems from NFP and Leader Pass.

Your memory serves your wrong here, Civ 6's AI was arguably the most horrific one in the franchise history when it launched, and to certain extend has never been brought up to the level of Civ 5.

 

[pokiehl]

I played both on day 1. You could beat Civ 5 on diety with a single horseman.....

6's release was " fine" but again quite barebones when compared to Civ 5 with expansions at that point and its AI was atrocious at launch (and still is in many ways). Also remember there was a lot added by 6's expansion packs and DLCs (World Congress, district rebalancing, natural disasters, ai fixes, more civs and leaders, modeling electrical power, governors, loyalty, etc, etc, etc)

This is basically "nuh-uh" to what I said. The AI was not "atrocious" at launch. It feels worse now than it did on launch. And yes, they added stuff to the game. That's kind of what DLC is...not sure what your point is. Doesn't change the fact that on release Civ 6 had more features and systems than any other Civ game on release.

Your memory serves your wrong here, Civ 6's AI was arguably the most horrific one in the franchise history when it launched, and to certain extend has never been brought up to the level of Civ 5.

Completely incorrect. Civ 5 AI still can't even move and shoot on the same turn. Also, the constant use of hyperbole ("The most horrific one in the franchise history") detracts from your points. Everything is disastrous, terrible, horrific...

 

[Zaarin]

Your memory serves your wrong here, Civ 6's AI was arguably the most horrific one in the franchise history when it launched, and to certain extend has never been brought up to the level of Civ 5.

Not everyone cares. My only complaint about Civ6's AI is that I preferred Civ5's personality system to Civ6's agendas, which is one of the very few things Civ5 did better. Otherwise, I have no issue with Civ6's AI; it doesn't matter to me that it's not playing optimally. (Oh, actually, at one point in the patch cycle they made the AI hate you for winning. I hated that, too. But it was patched out.)