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

[Zaarin]

I know I thought I'd love Civ 6 from the previews and then boom, I just can't get into it. Something about the pace.

Civ6 is probably my favorite Civ, but I can't argue that it has pacing issues. That's part of why I'm open minded about the age system; I'm open to anything that shakes up the late game slog.

 

[mackintosh]

It's the unexamined confidence that's getting people uptight. There's a distinction between "not to my taste" and "bad idea" and it'd make the discussion smoother if we could keep that clear.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I know that this new mechanic eliminates any enjoyment *I, personally* would get out of this game. That said, I do not for a moment presume the change itself is bad in and of itself.

 

[thecrazyscot]

It's the unexamined confidence that's getting people uptight. There's a distinction between "not to my taste" and "bad idea" and it'd make the discussion smoother if we could keep that clear.

Yes, absolutely. Rolling in here and having the absolute gall to claim "I know what makes civ civ and this poppycock isn't it" is definitely going to get defensive responses from people who have played civ for just as long as you and enjoy it for different reasons.

 

[Bergest]

I was actually looking forward to getting back into the series with the next Civ, but being able to play my chosen civ to the end is a make or break feature for me. So unless there is a satisfying change or an added "classic mode", I will not buy the game.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I know that this new mechanic eliminates any enjoyment *I, personally* would get out of this game. That said, I do not for a moment presume the change itself is bad in and of itself.

Sure, maybe it will. But it could also be one of those things were you resist trying a new food because it sounds gross, then you try it and it's delicious. They could have some other element of the game's later stages that address issues people have with "losing" their civilization, like some kind of elegant aesthetic hybridization or the narrator whispers "remember you used to be Egypt" in your ear the whole time.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It absolutely was on announcement. There were already calls for mods to remove 1upt months before the game even came out.

you guys are literally trying to rewrite a history many of us also expereicned. Was there a tiny minority rightfully concerned about how the AI would handle the implementation of 1unit per tile? Yes absolutely. Were there arguments about the implementation? absolutely.

Were those complaints and negativity anywhere near as loud as or as unpopular as you're trying to imply? No absolutely not. 1 unit per tile was generally exciting and well regarded change from fans of the series, even here and generated tons of interest from people who only didn't like Civ specifically because it lacked tactical combat. The real problem was that the people who were wary about the changes because AI, were absolutely right and vindicated at launch (which is when the negative criticism grew)

 

[DWilson]

Sure, maybe it will. But it could also be one of those things were you resist trying a new food because it sounds gross, then you try it and it's delicious. They could have some other element of the game's later stages that address issues people have with "losing" their civilization, like some kind of elegant aesthetic hybridization or the narration is done well.

Didn't you just say you don't like people interpreting for others?

 

[Professor Phobo]

you guys are literally trying to rewrite a history many of us also expereicned. Was there a tiny minority rightfully concerned about how the AI would handle the implementation of 1unit per tile? Yes absolutely. Were there arguments about the implementation? absolutely.

Were those complaints and negativity anywhere near as loud as or as unpopular as you're trying to imply? No absolutely not. 1 unit per tile was generally exciting and well regarded change from fans of the series, even here and generated tons of interest from people who only didn't like Civ specifically because it lacked tactical combat. The real problem was that the people who were wary about the changes because AI, were absolutely right and vindicated at launch (which is when the negative criticism grew)

Man what kind of utopian online forum were you on back then? I know people who are still on fainting couches because they got rid of the taxation slider! Changes are always controversial, especially in finicky strategy series.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Didn't you just say you don't like people interpreting for others?

My position is confident declarations that something is a bad idea and we should all be wailing or that it's a good idea and we should be cheering are premature.

You'd never know fried scorpions are delicious until you try 'em.

 

[Zaarin]

You'd never know fried scorpions are delicious until you try 'em.

I plan to remain benighted on that point my entire life.

 

[DWilson]

That just seems a way to give yourself the high ground. People are allowed to make determinations for their hobbies at a surface level based on their impressions. Insisting you have to try it first before you can make a decision it's a pretty bold stance when we're talking about something people are doing for leisure.

As an aside, I also hope you don't do that whenever people do find food distasteful, insisting they have to try it first. We live in a world where it's okay for people to find certain things disturbing. It doesn't mean everyone has to, but it also doesn't mean everyone has to try it first. For example, I have no intention of trying dog meat.

 

[Professor Phobo]

That just seems a way to give yourself the high ground. People are allowed to make determinations for their hobbies at a surface level based on their impressions. Insisting you have to try it first before you can make a decision it's a pretty bold stance when we're talking about something people are doing for leisure.

As an aside, I also hope you don't do that whenever people do find food distasteful, insisting they have to try it first. We live in a world where it's okay for people to find certain things disturbing. It doesn't mean everyone has to, but it also doesn't mean everyone has to try it first. For example, I have no intention of trying dog meat.

You know, a fair point, I did come off preachier than I intended. If you're instinct is you won't like it, don't buy it - especially a video game. No obligations to consume, etc.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Man what kind of utopian online forum were you on back then? I know people who are still on fainting couches because they got rid of the taxation slider! Changes are always controversial, especially in finicky strategy series.

again this is disingenious to the point of almost being silly

Are you seriously comparing that one random user who complained about the taxation slider being changed to the incredibly vocal backlash against civ swapping we're seeing on every single online community dedicated to the Civilization series? Let's not kid ourselves, no one said they're not buying the next civ game specifically because the taxation slider.

 

[Professor Phobo]

again this is also disingenious and almost silly argument

Are you seriously comparing that one random user who complained about the taxation slider being changed to the incredibly vocal backlash against civ swapping we're seeing on every single online community dedicated to the Civilization series? Let's not kid ourselves, no one said they're not buying the next civ game specifically because the taxation slider.

I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. The mere existence of controversy over a decision is not evidence supporting the conclusion that the decision is a mistake. Like you're free to think it's a bad idea, but declaring it the death of the franchise and Ed Beach the Civ-Killer is not supported just because a fan forum is having a negative response. You know that "First time?" meme from Ballad of Buster Scruggs?

 

[TheGrayFox]

I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. The mere existence of controversy over a decision is not evidence supporting the conclusion that the decision is a mistake. Like you're free to think it's a bad idea, but declaring it the death of the franchise and Ed Beach the Civ-Killer is not supported just because a fan forum is having a negative response. You know that "First time?" meme from Ballad of Buster Scruggs?

I'm not missing the forest from the trees. you're just making bad points

It IS peak disingenious to try to compare the "backlash" (all of the one users you could probably cite in reality) against taxation sliders and the backlash we are seeing against civ swapping. I'm sorry

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As an aside, I also hope you don't do that whenever people do find food distasteful, insisting they have to try it first. We live in a world where it's okay for people to find certain things disturbing. It doesn't mean everyone has to, but it also doesn't mean everyone has to try it first. For example, I have no intention of trying dog meat.

As someone who accidently tried horse jerky, without knowing what type of jerky it was, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I'm not missing the forest from the trees. you're just making bad points

It IS peak disingenious to try to compare the "backlash" (all of the one users you could probably cite in reality) against taxation sliders and the backlash we are seeing against civ swapping. I'm sorry

Okay, seriously, what fan communities are you a part of? There is always a reactionary impulse against change, the bigger the change, the stronger the reaction. This is ubiquitous. You're basically trying to say "I'm right because people agree with me!" ignoring the context in which the backlash occurs, which is amongst a. the devoted minority fandom who have detailed, calcified, and extremely idiosyncratic opinions and b. based on incomplete preview information.

We both recognize that the inverse would not be true - if everyone loved the civ switching, or ends up loving it, you're not going to change your mind. So it's just not for you and that's enough! You don't need to make this second-level argument supporting your case based on an appeal to the crowd.

 

[Steveo110]

Feeling pretty ambivalent to it currently, want to see more regarding the era transition mechanism before I make up my mind fully, however still more than likely buying CIV 7.

I can certainly understand those who may think it will break immersion, and even those who consider it a deal breaker. I think one of the options should be to continue with your original Civ, but with some form of malus (think the outdated Byzantine empire) for follow on eras.

It would then be an extra challenge to take an ancient civ all the way through the game unchanged.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'm not missing the forest from the trees. you're just making bad points

It IS peak disingenious to try to compare the "backlash" (all of the one users you could probably cite in reality) against taxation sliders and the backlash we are seeing against civ swapping. I'm sorry

Frankly, I don't think so. I feel like you're the one with the tainted-glasses looking back with some soft nostalgia. I don't know the switch from III to IV, but I vaguely remember the switch from IV to V and definitely remember from V to VI. Edit: for a more recent example, I remember the second-hand backlash that Eleanor and leaders leading different civs brought to the game, with the most inane takes on it and some of the most over-the-top hyperboles on what it would entails for the future of the franchise.

And, frankly again, the whining and tantrums I see here for this "feature that'll kill the franchise" is broadly the same amount of whining and tantrums we had for any element that changed through any other change. Plus ça change, as French people say.

Now, I'm not saying that, since any tantrum threw in the past ended up becoming a beloved feature, that people throwing tantrums over the civ-switch is proof that it'll become a beloved feature. But from my point of view of having played Civilization for roughly 20 years, it definitely has the same feel, as far as I can remember.

 

[thecrazyscot]

you guys are literally trying to rewrite a history many of us also expereicned. Was there a tiny minority rightfully concerned about how the AI would handle the implementation of 1unit per tile? Yes absolutely. Were there arguments about the implementation? absolutely.

Were those complaints and negativity anywhere near as loud as or as unpopular as you're trying to imply? No absolutely not. 1 unit per tile was generally exciting and well regarded change from fans of the series, even here and generated tons of interest from people who only didn't like Civ specifically because it lacked tactical combat. The real problem was that the people who were wary about the changes because AI, were absolutely right and vindicated at launch (which is when the negative criticism grew)

Dude, I'm not going to buy your attempt to re-frame civ firestorms to fit your narrative that this is the "big one", this is where Firaxis has really jumped the shark. The threads are there. People talking about modding in stacking limits months before the game came out. People talking about how it's not realistic. People encouraging others not to buy the game to send 2K/Firaxis a message. Polls to gauge the community's reaction. It's all there. This isn't any different. Feel free to continue making stuff up, but all it does is undermine your position.