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

[Plains-Cow]

What am I even playing as in CIV VII? An empire or nation or tribe? No. A leader of an empire or nation that transcends time? No. Some type of god character that blesses rotating empires with my skills until divine programming makes me switch to another empire? Maybe.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

What am I even playing as in CIV VII? An empire or nation or tribe? No. A leader of an empire or nation that transcends time? No. Some type of god character that blesses rotating empires with my skills until divine programming makes me switch to another empire? Maybe.

But why is playing as an immortal leader of "an empire or nation that transcends time" any stranger or less abstract than playing as an immortal leader of an empire or nation that changes over time?

It's different but still just as abstract, isn't it?

 

[Plains-Cow]

But why is playing as an immortal leader of "an empire or nation that transcends time" any stranger or less abstract than playing as an immortal leader of an empire or nation that changes over time?

It's different but still just as abstract, isn't it?

Increasing levels of detachment.

 

[IgorS]

I don't mind the jump in time since every turn is a jump in time.

But not such a drastic jump in time. You don't jump from one age to another every turn.

 

[Siptah]

But not such a drastic jump in time. You don't jump from one age to another every turn.

The jump from Age 1 to Age 2 isn‘t larger time-wise than a normal turn. Rather, it is shorter than one of the first turns in civ VI.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I'm sure there is some truth to this. But I think that's a good thing.

I would rather Firaxis make their DLC money by releasing more leaders and civs than by layering on unnecessary extra game systems.

It will make life much easier for modders as well.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Increasing levels of detachment.

Well, it's possible, yes.

But this comes back to how it feels, in my opinion. Immersion is a complex and subjective thing, we can talk about it all we like, but it's extremely hard to judge whether you will feel fully engaged or a bit detached when you play the game.

I'm optimistic, but I know that it might not work for me either, I know that I might feel detached from my empire and feel that the Ages are too disconnected.

I'm optimistic, though, because I am hoping it solves the main cause of my detachment from Civ VI: I feel entirely detached from my empire during the end game. It is probably my favourite Civ game to date, but the end game is too long and too dull and too meaningless. As soon as I start to lose my immersion, I begin a new game.

 

[IgorS]

But why is playing as an immortal leader of "an empire or nation that transcends time" any stranger or less abstract than playing as an immortal leader of an empire or nation that changes over time?

It's different but still just as abstract, isn't it?

Because the leader is basically you. You play as the leader, and you lead a certain civilization. Having this civilization taken from you during the game and replaced with another kind of ruins the purpose of the game. I did not pick this civ to lose it midway during the game and build another one atop its ruins. Basically, no matter what you do, and how successful you are, you basically fail by default twice during the game. Civ VI had dark ages, which made a lot more sense, and was a much better mechanic, where you actually had to rescue your civilization from it.

The jump from Age 1 to Age 2 isn‘t larger time-wise than a normal turn. Rather, it is shorter than one of the first turns in civ VI.

Yes, but when you jump from one turn to another you don't have everything change drastically. The change is gradual. Here you are just being told: this is it, the ancient age is over, welcome to the age of exploration, and everything changes immediately.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ VI had dark ages

It did?

 

[Arent11]

I don't mind the jump in time since every turn is a jump in time.

I am curious to see how the crises will play out, though. Both in terms of the narrative and the gameplay. I'm not expecting my first empire to actually fall, so I wonder how they will frame it.

Yeah, that needs to be written well. Otherwise you basically have 3 different games that are tied together by score. That *might* also work, but is a bit disappointing from the "stone age to stars" viewpoint.

 

[Arent11]

That jump in time from 400 AD to 1600 AD or whatever timeframe we're talking about sounds pretty exciting actually.

Err, I would immediately be curious what happened in between. *Especially* if it was wars and crises. I mean, that's what I'm playing civ for, for the wars and crises!

A jump in the narration of a story can be done if it's a boring part. Dark ages are not exactly boring.

 

[Trengilly]

Everyone has their own concept of what a Civ game could and should be, and I think many people have the same concept as you. I'm just trying to offer some... hope? That perhaps, if you do play VII, it will not feel as different as you imagine.

Some folks just like to wallow in despair.

 

[Trengilly]

Having this civilization taken from you during the game and replaced with another kind of ruins the purpose of the game. I did not pick this civ to lose it midway during the game and build another one atop its ruins.

I just don't think anything anything will be 'taken' from you. If they do it right it should feel like you Complete your Age and then you Receive new stuff to add to what you already have.

But none of us know what its going to be like. We literally haven't seen anything other than knowing there is a change.

I remain optimistic that Ed and the team, and the literally decades of experience they have, know a thing or two about game design and will make something that feels fun to play.

 

[IgorS]

I just don't think anything anything will be 'taken' from you. If they do it right it should feel like you Complete your Age and then you Receive new stuff to add to what you already have.

But none of us know what its going to be like. We literally haven't seen anything other than knowing there is a change.

I remain optimistic that Ed and the team, and the literally decades of experience they have, know a thing or two about game design and will make something that feels fun to play.

It may feel fun to play, but will it feel like "Civilization"? The whole switching civs concept is not "Civilization" to me. It may be a good game, but not a good "Civilization" game, and this is why I am so uninterested in it, and the chances of me actually playing it are practically nonexistent. You remain optimistic, and I remain optimistic that the team will succeed in doing whatever it is they are doing. I just know for a fact I will not play this game because its main concept is missing. You're always saying, let's wait for more information and more details. But the problem is that among the things we already know there is something that is a complete deal breaker for me, so I don't really need any more information beyond what we have, there may be some good things there, but the deal breaker has already been revealed and announced.

 

[pokiehl]

just know for a fact I will not play this game because its main concept is missing. You're always saying, let's wait for more information and more details. But the problem is that among the things we already know there is something that is a complete deal breaker for me, so I don't really need any more information beyond what we have, there may be some good things there, but the deal breaker has already been revealed and announced.

I’m just curious. You’ve already decided you’re not going to like the game, which is of course your prerogative. But why stay in this same thread and repeat your points and dislikes about the game? No new information will change your mind.

Is it like venting to you or are you trying to convince others or what?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I’m just curious. You’ve already decided you’re not going to like the game, which is of course your prerogative. But why stay in this same thread and repeat your points and dislikes about the game? No new information will change your mind.

Is it like venting to you or are you trying to convince others or what?

I think for many people, especially those who have a lot of history with the franchise, it's about trying to process this change. I see it as a bit like the stages of grief, they're on the way to acceptance via various other emotions, often anger.

Kind of seems a shame to me that something so simple can be such a problem for so many people, especially when that something is nothing to do with actual gameplay.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I like the idea behind the crises mechanic, but the fact that the era switch involves a ton of rubber banding and essentially a soft restart is going to kill any sense of progress or achievement

Like I’ve got Constantinople on the ropes and then bippety bobbity boo era reset the Byzantines have morphed into Ming China and we are back at the starting line

 

[Zaarin]

I like the idea behind the crises mechanic, but the fact that the era switch involves a ton of rubber banding and essentially a soft restart is going to kill any sense of progress or achievement

Like I’ve got Constantinople on the ropes and then bippety bobbity boo era reset the Byzantines have morphed into Ming China and we are back at the starting line

While the Age system is certainly going to do away with being five tech ages ahead of the AI, we do know that doing well in one Age still gives you a head start in the next Age. If you're on the verge of conquering the Byzantines in the Exploration Age, you'll still be on the verge of conquering Russia in the Modern Age. (We know the AI prioritizes historic choices, and I doubt the Byzantines will have many opportunities to choose Qing unless led by Confucius even when played by a human...)

 

[pokiehl]

Snip

I think it’s natural for fans to want their voices heard, especially when we know the developers listen. In that regard I get why folks who are unhappy want to continue to chime in. I just think that it is extremely unlikely for this core feature of the game to change.

I think it’s also natural for people to be resistant to change and it’s challenging to keep an open mind. But I think the developers have earned the benefit of the doubt (as you said above), and ultimately the gameplay will speak for itself. I myself have a hard time grasping how a game is until I can physically play it, and I’ve had that experience actually change what I thought were immutable opinions I had.

 

[IgorS]

I’m just curious. You’ve already decided you’re not going to like the game, which is of course your prerogative. But why stay in this same thread and repeat your points and dislikes about the game? No new information will change your mind.

Is it like venting to you or are you trying to convince others or what?

The topic of this thread is "Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?"
My answer to this question is: Yes.
No, I don't want to convince anyone, but I do feel like others are trying to convince me, saying that we need to wait and see what the game will be like, and I am trying to explain that this is irrelevant to me.

Kind of seems a shame to me that something so simple can be such a problem for so many people, especially when that something is nothing to do with actual gameplay.

It is a problem. And there is nothing weird about it. Do you want to play every game that is good? Or do you want to play the games that are interesting to you? I think the second option makes more sense. Why would you play a game that is good, but is not what you are looking for? This is why I find it weird that you are trying to convince people to be optimistic about a game that has already been ruined for them. It is obvious the game will not be changed this way.