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

[Siptah]

The whole mechanic contradicts the entire ethos of the franchise.

To build a civilization to stand the test of time.

After so many years and games, it became stale to always recreate San Marino‘s historical achievement, so it was time for change.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The whole mechanic contradicts the entire ethos of the franchise.

To build a civilization to stand the test of time.

You're a couple of months late for this discussion! I want to engage but equally, I've already talked and thought about this a lot.

What I would say is the "ethos of the franchise" is open to interpretation. After all, the tag line for the OG Civ is to "build an empire to stand the test of time"; the line at the end of the Civ IV intro is "to build a legacy that would stand the test of time". Empire, civilization, legacy, these are nebulous terms. Your interpretation is not uncommon, but nor is it an objective truth.

 

[Disgustipated]

The entire game design is centered around this. It isn't going anywhere.

I do suspect the next Civ game in the series won't have this feature, but that's a long way off.

 

[Zaarin]

I do suspect the next Civ game in the series won't have this feature

It's way too early to be taking bets on Civ8.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's like 1UPT. It's contentious upon adoption. A small part of the fan base will refuse to even consider it. Most of the rest will accept it for good or bad. It will factor into future iterations to one extent or another, even as a few holdouts vainly express hope that it will be discontinued.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It's like 1UPT. It's contentious upon adoption. A small part of the fan base will refuse to even consider it. Most of the rest will accept it for good or bad. It will factor into future iterations to one extent or another, even as a few holdouts vainly express hope that it will be discontinued.

If Civ 7 is successful. If it flops (for whatever reason(s), regardless of whether that's due to civ-switching or not), the reversal could be quick.

Note that I doubt it flops. I'm assuming there's been a lot of thought go into the transition / crisis mechanics that will make the actual civ-switching fun to play, at least for most players. But time will tell.

 

[Civciv5]

The entire game design is centered around this. It isn't going anywhere.

I do suspect the next Civ game in the series won't have this feature, but that's a long way off.

Unless the game flops so badly and is so badly received they have no other choice...

It seems unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

Maybe they will implement the feature so that the switch does not break immersion (i hope). Civ switching is the main reason Humankind has no place in my game library. I am a sucker for CIV games, been playing since CIV3 but this time i will wait and not preorder. Having said that, i am optimistic that eventually it will be a worthy addition to the franchise.

 

[Thormodr]

I must say, the idea of Khmer turning into Vietnam or vice versa sounds dreadful. Like stomach churningly bad.

 

[Zaarin]

I must say, the idea of Khmer turning into Vietnam or vice versa sounds dreadful. Like stomach churningly bad.

Well then good news, it turns into Majapahit.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I really can't fathom being that self-absorbed.

You seriously expect people to cheer for a sales success, if they think the game is going in the wrong direction? If he thinks that the game mechanisms are fundamentally flawed, why should he want them to be validated by sales figures?

 

[Zaarin]

You seriously expect people to cheer for a sales success, if they think the game is going in the wrong direction? If he thinks that the game mechanisms are fundamentally flawed, why should he want them to be validated by sales figures?

Wanting a game to fail because you personally dislike it is one of the most egocentric things I can think of. If I dislike a game, I'll go play something else, not wish ill upon the people who made it out of petty vindictiveness.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Wanting a game to fail because you personally dislike it is one of the most egocentric things I can think of. If I dislike a game, I'll go play something else, not wish ill upon the people who made it out of petty vindictiveness.

You get that wrong. Some people hope (including myself), that a shot across the bow will push the Devs to make some necessary corrections. For me, that's not just on Civ Switching, but the whole gamey approach this franchise took since Civ 6, like the Agendas or having Policy Cards instead of real Governements. If the sales figures are great, obviously nothing will change. Let's face it, a lot of players will probably buy Civ 7 not matter what, just because they love the previous games so much and the competition of turned based strategy games rather sucks (sorry Era, HK etc.). So in the hypothetical scenario, where Civ 7 really struggles sales wise, I think that really could help improve the game in the long run. At least, that's they way I see it. I don't want to hurt anyone or be vindictive, I just want the game to get back on track and prevent the game to turn into superficial version of the game I always liked playing so much.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The most noteworthy competitors of civ are really Paradox games. The strategy and RP itches are scratched similarly, if not equivalently, by both, and there's a lot of overlap in the player bases. Civ may not have a true competitor in 4x. If you widen the genre to strategy though, no, it's not the only game in town.

The extent to which switching impacts RP is a question. I don't think we can look at the fan reaction to past changes like 1UPT and conclude much. Those were changes to the strategy side of the coin. Switching is changing the RP side, and it's a change of magnitude never before seen.

Is it possible that avg hours in 7 are low consequently? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think it'll be like 1UPT, which was always analyzed by mechanic effects. Those are pretty rational arguments. Changes to the RP side get more irrational, as emotions, attachments, loyalties and rivalries effect emotion and produce opinions very distant from the dispassionate. Not all players will have their RP effected. Many will.

 

[IgorS]

It's like 1UPT. It's contentious upon adoption. A small part of the fan base will refuse to even consider it. Most of the rest will accept it for good or bad. It will factor into future iterations to one extent or another, even as a few holdouts vainly express hope that it will be discontinued.

It is nothing like 1UPT. 1UPT was a (relatively) minor change, it did not change the core of the game. Civ switching is a fundamental change to the game series, something that takes it in a completely different direction. Civ VII to the Civ franchise is like Odyssey to the Assassin's Creed franchise. I am playing this game now, after keeping away for many years, and I must say that it is indeed not Assassin's Creed, just a game that for some reason bears the franchise's name. It is fun in general, but I can't say I would pick it up if it wasn't an AC game, and I have actually almost skipped it completely. The feelings I have towards Civ VII are similar. Maybe I will pick it up years after it comes out because of my love for the series, but I really doubt it, because while AC is a franchise that is based on a story, Civ is not, and you don't have to really play every game to understand what is going on, so you can skip games without missing anything.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It is nothing like 1UPT. 1UPT was a (relatively) minor change, it did not change the core of the game. Civ switching is a fundamental change to the game series, something that takes it in a completely different direction.

You're underestimating how huge the 1UPT change was viewed by the Civ community, how heated the arguments about it were, and how much it fundamentally changed the nature of the game, in the opinion of many players. You're also overestimating (in my opinion), how big a deal civ-switching is. I don't see how it's any more significant than "unpacking the city" from Civ 6. I get that you - and others - view it as a fundamental change. I've played every version of Civ from 1 through 6 and, to me, its just another, natural evolution in the series, no more significant than lots of past changes. Your civ bonuses and unique units change each era, how's that a big deal? There are crisis turns leading into the transitions; that's an evolution of the "dark ages" mechanics from Civ 6. You still guide your people from antiquity to the space age, there are just some new twists along the way.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm actually more concerned about possible dumbing down of the game rather than civ switching. But to be fair, we've seen no evidence of that yet. But I do think there's a strong possibility of huge maps not being a thing anymore, and that bothers me.

 

[Sephi]

Before civ5 was released most of the community actually liked 1Upt or was neutral. Here is the old thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/units-per-hex.354950/. 80% wanted a change to the stacks of doom from civ4 at the time. Quite a difference to this poll.

In the end it might not matter. The average civ player played civ6 for 30 hours (steam database). In civ7 they can choose a few civs they like and play a single age game with each of them, leave a positive review on steam and then move on. Without ever doing any awkward civ switching like Spain to France.

 

[King Flevance]

I think the key difference between something like 1UPT vs Civ switching is that in every version of Civ, if I want to play Greece I start a game as Greece. My strategy is already plotted at the beginning. I know I will get Hoplites and all the other special bonuses that come with Greece. These are constants in the game and I can plan accordingly as I explore the map. I have constant knowledge of what I will have access to and can use that knowledge to strategize as I explore the map and discover the terrain.

In Civ 7, I do not know what Civ I will get in round 2 or 3. My first games even more so. Eventually, I will learn paths through it but only through trial. The map and how it relates to my Civ is alien to me. At the start of a game, I don't know what I need to be planning ahead for. Now if you like adaptive strategy (like me) this sounds fun. However, a fair amount of players do not play civ for adaptive strategies. It is downright impressive what some players can formulate and pre-plan for, not to mention execute. This big ball of "unknowables" will certainly be a put off to them and it won't weigh in the same as switching to 1UPT since 1 UPT can still be precalculated.

 

[Evolena]

In the gameplay reveal showcase, Sid Meyer says "build an Empire that stands the test of time". Granted, empire is not the same as civilization, but the motto is not totally abandoned either.

[Edit] how haven't I seen that it was not the end of the discussion but only of the page?