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

[Quintillus]

We must be reading different sources or forums. I would say most of what I'm seeing about civ switching is consternation or concern. There is some excitement but I would not call it the majority opinion.

Similarly for Humankind - civ switching was certainly not the only complaint, but it is the one I see cited most often. My Steam review of Humankind, which was essentially "there are several interesting ideas, a few problems, but the civ switching really breaks the immersion" is by far my most-upvoted Steam review ever, with over 200 upvotes, so I'm confident that a lot of people agreed with my assessment of Humankind.

VII likely will wind up as the best-selling version, and it may make sense to launch with civ switching as required, but long term I think giving options in setup would be the smart decision. Let people play with it one game and without it the next. Civ IV allows turning off whole mechanics - most prominently, vassal states (the marquee feature of the Warlords expansion) and espionage, because some players enjoy them and others don't, and some like them only occasionally. Civ switching seems like another good candidate for that.

Of course my thoughts could change completely based on what we learn in the next week. Or my first playthrough next year.

 

[Mightymagyar]

Until there is an option to ignore the civ swap system, I will be passing on Civ 7. I want to play as the Pharaohs, not the Abbasids. And while I do think that the new ages mechanic has promise, (making eras more meaningful is a good idea imo) I don't like how it sounds like an artificial restriction designed to keep you from doing too much.

 

[bv98132454]

Civ Switching in Civ VII is a problem for a few reasons:
1. Roleplaying - for some people they love to roleplaying having modern Romans and other such situations. For them, this feature completely destroys that. For me, this isn't that important, but I understand why it is to some.
2. Historical Accuracy - was having ancient America historically accurate? Of course not, but I think many were more accepting of that fiction than Egypt to Mongols. This is a problem for me, but I could imagine ways they could implement it far better to make it more acceptable. However, I have little confidence they will do that.
3. Gameplay - A core gameplay challenge of every Civilization game is guiding your Civ through times where it is at a disadvantage and capitalizing on times where it is at a disadvantage. Instead of that, this feature seeks to have the player have a Civ that is always well-suited to the time/situation it finds itself. To be frank, this is extremely stupid and displays a complete lack of understanding of their game on the developers' part.

 

[Thormodr]

That's not how active members work, even if CFC were representative of the entire fanbase.

(and sorry, but we're not, for logistically reasons alone)



I mentioned in my first reply that the poll choices could do with work. To that end, I didn't vote, even though I like the mechanic.

I still haven't, and the options still need work.


See above


Anyone who doesn't like Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers needs to go back and resit their 90s Kids' Exam.

(I guess 90s Teens can sit in as well)

Yes, the poll options were less than ideal.

As for others (not you, Gorbles) trying to split fine hairs here, over 56% seem to think that it needs to be fixed. Another 24.5% don't like the idea but may put up with it. I'd say the 56% people who want it fixed would dislike it otherwise they wouldn't seem it necessary to fix it. The 24.5% dislike it but it is not a deal breaker for them so perhaps a mild dislike.

A little different from one bizarre and befuddling take that suggested I said over 80% hated the Civ switching which is of course complete nonsense. (Not you, Gorbles)

Anyway, I voted for hoping it be fixed. Let's hope so.

 

[lt22677]

Do you have a source? Not doubting, but I like confirmation when there are so many rumours around.

Thankfully, I don't have to make a decision on buying Civ VII today, and can wait for more news.

At this point, it doesn't increase the odds that I'll buy it. But I don't see it as the Worst Idea Ever, either, though certainly one of the most unconventional ones in series history.

Take away the actual civ identity switching, and just have it be "choose a set of ideas that will define your Civ in the next age", with the same sets of ideas available, and I suspect it would be a lot more popular. Which is kind of what Millennia has done - four times per game you choose one of approximately nine sets of ideas that define your civ for the next two ages. You're still called "Japan" if you started out as Japan, and your city names don't change, but you could pick Viking-inspired raiding bonuses, or Greece/Macedon-inspired military bonsuses, or Egypt-inspired building bonuses or various other ideas, all of which essentially amount to civ switching but while not "becoming" the Vikings/Macedonians/Egyptians/etc. You're just choosing to follow a similar route for that time period.

That's something that Civ VII could offer as an option as well - maybe you choose the ideas and bonuses of Songhai or Shawnee for the Exploration Age, but you have the option to keep your identity as Egypt. I could see that defusing a lot of the criticism around immersion while being mechanically the same.

I also find it interesting how before Humankind's release, there was a lot of excitement about the idea of civ switching, and after their implementation of it was generally poorly received, there's now so much angst about Civ trying the same idea. It makes sense in a way, if you saw the Hindenburg crash in New Jersey, you'd be more hesitant to fly on an airship in the future, but if Civ VII had been announced prior to Humankind's release, I suspect the reception would be at least somewhat different.

You're right about the problem that many are against Civ Switching and that in the end we saw how it worked in Humankind (basically BAD) and in Civilization 7 there is a fear that it will work the same way (with some adjustments that won't change the substance of the situation) and the news so far confirms the fears for the moment

 

[mackintosh]

This isn’t really the case. Go through and read Humankind forums and user reviews. The top complaints are that the game is busted due to poor balance of mechanics, AI issues, unfleshed out mechanics.

One of the reasons for that could be because those who had an issue with civ switching left the game long before taking umbrage with other mechanics. I had been apprehensive about civ switching in HK when I heard about it, decided to nevertheless give them the benefit of the doubt and then abandoned the game because of it soon after release. Yes, HK had multiple other flaws that may or may not have been patched since, but nothing would ever bring me back to playing it because of that initial roadblock.

Now, whether others have felt the same, I can only speculate. The game has suffered so much attrition in its player base it’s near impossible to ascertain what specifically (if anything) caused the exodus. However, seeing how it lost nearly 90% of its initial player base in just its first month, it looks to me like there was something fundamentally flawed with it.

 

[lt22677]

This strikes me as a poor solution. It completely obviates the need for any civs beyond the initial set, and would to me be even less immersive.

I think they made a bold choice and should ride the initial decision out. Every half-measure to try to please everyone that I’ve seen for this falls flat conceptually once you think it through.

Most of what I’m seeing online is excitement about the concept. We’ll see how the chips fall when the game comes out. My guess is the trend of “latest civ game is the best selling civ game” will continue.


This isn’t really the case. Go through and read Humankind forums and user reviews. The top complaints are that the game is busted due to poor balance of mechanics, AI issues, unfleshed out mechanics.

Take a look at the various forums that talk about Humankind and see what they think about Civ-Switching

 

[lt22677]

One of the reasons for that could be because those who had an issue with civ switching left the game long before taking umbrage with other mechanics. I had been apprehensive about civ switching in HK when I heard about it, decided to nevertheless give them the benefit of the doubt and then abandoned the game because of it soon after release. Yes, HK had multiple other flaws that may or may not have been patched since, but nothing would ever bring me back to playing it because of that initial roadblock.

Now, whether others have felt the same, I can only speculate. The game has suffered so much attrition in its player base it’s near impossible to ascertain what specifically (if anything) caused the exodus. However, seeing how it lost nearly 90% of its initial player base in just its first month, it looks to me like there was something fundamentally flawed with it.

The problem is that in HK you don't feel like you're leading a civilization, but like you're playing a series of unrelated scenarios

 

[Professor Phobo]

Does...does it matter if Humankind, a separate game, had a similar mechanic, implemented in a different way, that wasn't very good? Lots of strategy games have mechanics that were in other games, but they are balanced differently, or presented differently, etc, and they work in one game but not the other.

I remember back in the day someone on a (now defunct) forum was up in arms over Civ 5 because it was switching to hexes, he associated hexes with wargames, and thought this was a signal Civilization was going down the road of being all about combat and warfare. But it turned out hexes are just a good way to organize a map, and his negative reaction was a knee-jerk response.

I know it's a big swing and people get attached to their civilization, but the reaction/backlash feels a little knee-jerky at the moment. We don't even know what the age transition looks like! The whole thing could be done a lot better than Humankind. Or a lot worse!

I'll miss taking Babylon to space as much as the next guy, but a Civ game with a proper ebb and flow is something I've wanted for a long time.

 

[Siptah]

The problem is that in HK you don't feel like you're leading a civilization, but like you're playing a series of unrelated scenarios

If you experienced HK as unrelated scenarios, then every minute you think about how civ Vii handles switches is a wasted minute of your life imho. This is the version with hardly related scenarios, not HK, which is much more continuous, no resetting in between, nor synchronized age/eras.

 

[lt22677]

If you experienced HK as unrelated scenarios, then every minute you think about how civ Vii handles switches is a wasted minute of your life imho. This is the version with hardly related scenarios, not HK, which is much more continuous, no resetting in between, nor synchronized age/eras.

This was my experience in HK and I most likely think that Civilization 7 will go down the same path (which is why I'm in the wait-and-see camp)

 

[lt22677]

Your 49 posts all lamenting civilization switching is you being wait-and-see? I'm terrified of what would happen if they announced a mechanic you were certain you didn't like...

[EDIT: In case there was any confusion, this isn't an attack, it's a tongue in cheek observation of how passionate we all get about this series]

I'm not OBLIGED to praise the game and since this MECHANICS exists in HK and I don't like it (AS LIKE OTHER PEOPLE) do you think we should keep quiet without expressing our thoughts? after all, I'm not disputing that you and others defend this mechanism without insulting people (like telling people they have the memory of goldfish)

 

[Cywil]

Your 49 posts all lamenting civilization switching is you being wait-and-see? I'm terrified of what would happen if they announced a mechanic you were certain you didn't like...

[EDIT: In case there was any confusion, this isn't an attack, it's a tongue in cheek observation of how passionate we all get about this series]

I'm not OBLIGED to praise the game and since this MECHANICS exists in HK and I don't like it (AS LIKE OTHER PEOPLE) do you think we should keep quiet without expressing our thoughts? after all, I'm not disputing that you and others defend this mechanism without insulting people (like telling people they have the memory of goldfish)

Let's chill, OK?

 

[lt22677]

Why the complete non sequitur?

I didn't say you should keep quiet anywhere? You can, obviously, express whatever opinions you want. But when someone only expresses opinions against something, that doesn't sound like they're in the wait-and-see camp. Again, you don't have to be in that camp. But there is a mismatch between the camp you said you were in, and the words you've typed in the last two days.

What would be the inconsistency? I have said what I think of the mechanics then it may be that Firaxis makes it well and that it works, but given the past experiences of Civ at launch (Civ 5 and Civ 6) and how it went with other games (HK) I WILL EVALUATE with time if I will spend money on it or if I give up and don't buy the game and you are talking about a CIVILZATION fanatic (the Screens I posted some time before were of CIV 2 which still runs on my computer)

 

[Professor Phobo]

I 100% agree with the people who aren't going to buy in on launch day. I can't remember the last Firaxis title I thought had a smooth launch.

I, however, am almost certainly going to pre-order the maximum premium ultra-deluxe super you're a special boy edition, because, and I mean this sincerely, I am a sucker.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Why the complete non sequitur?

I didn't say you should keep quiet anywhere? You can, obviously, express whatever opinions you want. But when someone only expresses opinions against something, that doesn't sound like they're in the wait-and-see camp. Again, you don't have to be in that camp. But there is a mismatch between the camp you said you were in, and the words you've typed in the last two days.

It is quiet simple: Nobody can say for sure, how these features will work out eventually, neither the proponents nor the opponents. Nevertheless people are expressing their own opinions about what they have seen so far, isn't that the purpose of this Forum after all? Both sides seem to argue very passionately about that by the way, without having the full set of facts available either way! I don't see here a contradiction at all.

 

[lt22677]

I take "wait and see" in this context to mean not having a strong opinion, but rather "waiting" to "see" more before forming an opinion. I don't think I'm extrapolating too much in saying you already have an opinion about civ switching? And a very strong one? On the other hand, it seems that "wait and see" to you means that you'll wait until the game is released before deciding to buy it; but not waiting to form strong opinions about it or specific mechanics within it. In other words, everyone who's neither pre-ordered the game nor sworn a solemn oath to never buy it is in the "wait-and-see" camp?

That's certainly an interpretation of "wait and see", even if not the one I'm most used to. Anyway, the fact that there are different usages of it is why the joke of #377 - explicitly caveated to make it 100% clear it's at everyone's expense - works. Although, with a caveat and now an explanation, I think the joke is now even deader. But it might have helped had you had a willingness to at least attempt to see the joke, rather than immediately launch an all out offensive...

Wait and See is not a strong opinion?, so let's put it this way I didn't buy the game so Firasix lost a sale *Snip*

Moderator Action: Please do not troll other users. Post has been edited. ~ LK

 

[Mahi]

I think I'm too dumb to understand exactly the purpose of the mechanic. For a civ leader to change I would expect something drastically to happen in game, like a major cultural change.. or something. As I understand it, you change leader when reaching a certain age without any 'good' explanation to why this happens. It just happens... Could someone explain the purpose and the gameplay benefit to me like I'm 5? I would say there were other ways to implement new/other traits to a civ rather than changing it completely.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think I'm too dumb to understand exactly the purpose of the mechanic. For a civ leader to change I would expect something drastically to happen in game, like a major cultural change.. or something. As I understand it, you change leader when reaching a certain age without any 'good' explanation to why this happens. It just happens... Could someone explain the purpose and the gameplay benefit to me like I'm 5? I would say there were other ways to implement new/other traits to a civ rather than changing it completely.

You don't change leader - the leader you selected stays the whole game. Instead, you'll get a new base Civilization when the era changes, with legacy benefits from your achievements in the previous era.

So for example, you pick Egypt for the Antiquity era. It's fully designed with the antiquity era in mind and all it's unique buildings, units, etc, are for that era. At the end of the Antiquity era, you'll hit a crisis event, when the crisis is over, there's some sort of nominal time gap, and you'll pick a new civilization that emerges from the changes that hit Egypt following the crisis and the cut-to-black. Say you pick Songhai for the Age of Exploration because it's also a river civilization and you spent all your time doing river stuff. Songhai is an Age of Exploration Civilization, so all it's stuff is designed for that age - it'll still have focuses like combat, or trade, or having really nice mountain resorts where people can find themselves, but it's unique buildings/units/etc are all designed around the Age of Exploration. At the end of the age of exploration you'll hit a crisis, there's a nominal time jump, and you'll pick a third civilization for the Modern Age, one that evolved out of the changes wrought to Songhai during the crisis and still having the legacies of it's founding culture, Ancient Egypt. Say you picked America because you want to go for the space race and America gets +10% bonus from Moon tile yields or whatever. All of America's stuff is designed around the modern age.

The third age is when you'll actually go for the game ending victory condition. Presumably there's also a crisis that means you have two competing gameplay imperatives, survive the crisis and pull off your chosen victory.

 

[Siptah]

I think I'm too dumb to understand exactly the purpose of the mechanic. For a civ leader to change I would expect something drastically to happen in game, like a major cultural change.. or something. As I understand it, you change leader when reaching a certain age without any 'good' explanation to why this happens. It just happens... Could someone explain the purpose and the gameplay benefit to me like I'm 5? I would say there were other ways to implement new/other traits to a civ rather than changing it completely.

You don't change leaders at all. At the end of each Age (of which there are three), there is a crisis. There will be penalties, attacks, etc. You then "wake up" again afterwards with your cities in ruins, your units dead, your population reduced, and many of your precious buildings useless for the new challenges. To compensate, you get a new civ with abilities, civics, units and buildings fit for the era. And you also revert to some of the skills and achievements that were previously achieved in your land: some are static (= from your old civ), some are dynamic (you can choose based on what the old civ did/how much it excelled in that). I'm sure FXS will include a narrative or little movie for the transition.