• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

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

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


  • Total voters
    391
Why can't I? because they're locked behind ages system and I don't want to play single age games when this is a series known for its campaign of the entirtity of human history

Again it's a gameplay change. Going "well you could just play one age". No i don't want to, this is part of the problem
I'd argue that the fact that you don't want to is a part of the problem too. This is your choice. The developers have given you a way to play with the civilisation of your choice, and you're saying "I don't want to, because of a different thing". This is not me saying that your preference isn't valid - of course it is. I'm saying it's a different argument. Do you therefore concede that you can play with any Civilisation that you want to? Whether or not you're going to, whether or not you want to. Can you, yes or no?
That point is completely seperate from what is actually being complained about and quite disingenious
shrugs

I was trying to make sense of a FIFA analogy. I wasn't being disingenuous at all.
Civ swapping as a designed mechanic in this game is objectively changing the way the game will be played . The end
In your opinion.
The actual point many of you seem to be missing is that the stream was OVERWHELMING negative towards the change. It actual doesn't matter how many Ls were posted, that's just pedantic
Okay, so assuming for the moment that this is accurate, what are you attempting to show with this? That people on streams react emotively when faced with a change (back when they knew very little about the game itself)? What is this evidence of? Does this evidence still hold up?
 
There are plenty negative reviews in other places , from steam, youtube, reddit etc.
From this one thread ,

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

a fifth of civ "fanatics" are stating they wont buy the new Civ, with it's highly controversial new method feature or **** game play

Perhaps the happy campers should focus of the things they believe will be good in the new game and there will be plenty of threads on it , instead of a childish pile in and trying to make chump change on word play and semantic's

So many people are mad at the people who don’t like this change. The biggest change in all of civ history, and a lot of people don’t like it?! What a shock
Enjoy your night
 

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

a fifth of civ "fanatics" are stating they wont buy the new Civ, with it's highly controversial new method feature or **** game play
I've seen more people coming back to downgrade their vote because of the announced number of civ, than coming back to improve it because they've come to peace with the idea (and it's not because these don't exist)

It's the nature of comments to be filled with people expriming mainly their discontent. On media with more discussions as here, the participation is more balanced (or more on the positive, too)
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
So many people are mad at the people who don’t like this change.
I'm not mad at anyone, and in fact have had to repeatedly say I'm fine with people not liking VII, or any aspect of it.

This thread is about whether or not civ-switching will prevent you from playing. I'll admit, after 52 pages, it tends to go around and around a bit, but this isn't the thread for "happy campers" to focus on the things we "believe will be good". This is the thread about civ-switching, and I think a lot of the discussion that comes out of it comes from people feeling what we've seen so far is being misrepresented at times. This gives the wrong impression to casual readers.

Criticism is good. Misinformation, less so. There's no need to exaggerate the size of any given demographic to make it seem more important, either. Firaxis will be aware of the people who aren't happy with this. It'll be a part of their calculus for the game's reception (buyers lost vs. buyers gained).

Personally, I'm happy so long as the discussion is constructive. Doesn't often matter what discussion :D
 
The biggest change in all of civ history

No, it's not. Not even close. Not as an objective statement. If it feels that way to you, that's valid. But part of the reason there's been so many contrary posts on this thread is this overblown hyperbole by those who don't like the pending changes, who instead of saying "I don't like it", feel the need to make wild claims like this.

I understand that you're not happy with the changes and I can empathize with why that would be. But this insistence on coupling that with arguing a completely different point is what is generating push back.
 
I didn’t see that and you literally never see comments like that on their videos or livestreams. Your focus on that phrase is interesting.

It’s always excited engagement or gameplay questions. People don’t even comment on Denuvo.

You shouldn't judge a Fandom based solely on pre-release marketing videos and livestreams like "dev diaries" of developers. They specifically position someone to moderate and cherry pick the chat and questions. A common tactic is also to hide the chat except to reference a question or comment. This is just internet marketing, like an interactive commercial.

They will most likely not address the negative comments about civ switching unless Civ 7 is a financial burden. Then they will shrug and call it an "oversight" or some other wording for "understandable mistake". Then they will try to mitigate the features many voices shouted at them ahead of time. Then they will either win people over with the changes or they won't.

However, if the game is financially successful, these comments will just be ignored forever.

This has happened many times over in the video game market and is pretty standard by this point. We won't know just how big this part of the community is until March or April probably as no online community is a valid representation. They are certainly watching their pre-order numbers though. As long as the numbers are not abysmal (Doubtful for a staple franchise) their best move is to show confidence and build hype.
 
I keep seeing the argument that it is “impossible” to replace civ switching with letting you keep the same civ for the whole game because it’s somehow “impossible” to come up with era traits/bonuses for civs like America and thus we have no choice and must switch civs

This is complete and utter nonsense. I know for a fact that it’s nonsense because they did exactly that in Civiization Revolutions 2

Here’s America

America begins the game with a random Great Person

Ancient Era: earn 2% interest on your treasury
Classical Era: rush buy units at 1/2 price
Medieval Era: +1 food from Plains
Modern Era: 3x production from factories

It’s that simple
 
Yea, go see Civ7 website and the civ designs. It's not that simple.
I think you managed to completely misunderstand the post. The point isn’t whether or not the Civ VII civ designs are simple or complicated. They are indeed complicated. The point that is being made is that evolution of a linear civilization would be possible without the civ switching mechanic.
 
I keep seeing the argument that it is “impossible” to replace civ switching with letting you keep the same civ for the whole game because it’s somehow “impossible” to come up with era traits/bonuses for civs like America and thus we have no choice and must switch civs

This is complete and utter nonsense. I know for a fact that it’s nonsense because they did exactly that in Civiization Revolutions 2

Here’s America

America begins the game with a random Great Person

Ancient Era: earn 2% interest on your treasury
Classical Era: rush buy units at 1/2 price
Medieval Era: +1 food from Plains
Modern Era: 3x production from factories

It’s that simple
I think that isn't simple at all.

For one, it forces every civ to now have 3x as much design depth as they would with just era-specific bonuses, effectively tripling the design/balancing workload.

For two, it still likely will result in a lot of civs feeling kind of samey/impotent in "offline" eras that don't highlight the era they would want to be designed for.

We haven't seen any indication the game will be designed like this, so until we see evidence of it I'm discarding what is essentially a many worlds theory as not being worth all the vague implausibility it opens up.
 
You shouldn't judge a Fandom based solely on pre-release marketing videos and livestreams like "dev diaries" of developers. They specifically position someone to moderate and cherry pick the chat and questions. A common tactic is also to hide the chat except to reference a question or comment. This is just internet marketing, like an interactive commercial.

They will most likely not address the negative comments about civ switching unless Civ 7 is a financial burden. Then they will shrug and call it an "oversight" or some other wording for "understandable mistake". Then they will try to mitigate the features many voices shouted at them ahead of time. Then they will either win people over with the changes or they won't.

However, if the game is financially successful, these comments will just be ignored forever.

This has happened many times over in the video game market and is pretty standard by this point. We won't know just how big this part of the community is until March or April probably as no online community is a valid representation. They are certainly watching their pre-order numbers though. As long as the numbers are not abysmal (Doubtful for a staple franchise) their best move is to show confidence and build hype.
Perfectly summarized, sales is the only thing that really matters, and I don't even blame FXS for this. They certainly feel the pressure by 2k, too. So when people pre-order, they do validate (among other things) the Civ Switching Idea, which is perfectly fine, if you do like it. However if you don't, you think twice before throwing your money at something, you don't really believe in.
 
I think that isn't simple at all.

For one, it forces every civ to now have 3x as much design depth as they would with just era-specific bonuses, effectively tripling the design/balancing workload.

For two, it still likely will result in a lot of civs feeling kind of samey/impotent in "offline" eras that don't highlight the era they would want to be designed for.

We haven't seen any indication the game will be designed like this, so until we see evidence of it I'm discarding what is essentially a many worlds theory as not being worth all the vague implausibility it opens up.

I’m actually going to really miss the “offline” periods where the player has to adapt and workaround any temporary weaknesses.
 
I’m actually going to really miss the “offline” periods where the player has to adapt and workaround any temporary weaknesses.
I never enjoyed it, just felt like using the same generic toolbox too many times over.

Also, I'm not voting in this thread. I think the answers are all biased in a way to presume that we won't get plausible historical civ paths, which I think is a premature judgment to make that could easily be wrong.
 
I never enjoyed it, just felt like using the same generic toolbox too many times over.

Also, I'm not voting in this thread. I think the answers are all biased in a way to presume that we won't get plausible historical civ paths, which I think is a premature judgment to make that could easily be wrong.

I think we have a lot of information already about the historical paths we are receiving at launch and people are free to speculate and share how they are feeling. There is a lot of speculation all across this forum, including in some threads that you’ve authored.
 
I think you managed to completely misunderstand the post. The point isn’t whether or not the Civ VII civ designs are simple or complicated. They are indeed complicated. The point that is being made is that evolution of a linear civilization would be possible without the civ switching mechanic.
No I'm not. We have tons of unique features in each civ design on Civ 7, and all those are possible because they focused on the targeted age.

What unique unit for the Antiquity America? What unique buildings for the Exploration Egypt? What unique civic for the Modern Rome? I once told about it, I don't want to see the Cart knight or the Pharaoh emperor.
 
I think we have a lot of information already about the historical paths we are receiving at launch and people are free to speculate and share how they are feeling. There is a lot of speculation all across this forum, including in some threads that you’ve authored.
Truth. But as I said I just don't agree with the framing of the poll here. I'm not sure if I like the civ switching feature yet, but I also wouldn't say I don't like it yet, nor that I think it needs to be "fixed."

The fact that two answers are that it needs "fixing" are still quite presumptuous to me.
 
Truth. But as I said I just don't agree with the framing of the poll here. I'm not sure if I like the civ switching feature yet, but I also wouldn't say I don't like it yet, nor that I think it needs to be "fixed."

The fact that two answers are that it needs "fixing" are still quite presumptuous to me.

Got it re: fixing. That’s fair. We don’t know if it’s broken.

No I'm not. We have tons of unique features in each civ design on Civ 7, and all those are possible because they focused on the targeted age.

What unique unit for the Antiquity America? What unique buildings for the Exploration Egypt? What unique civic for the Modern Rome? I once told about it, I don't want to see the Cart knight or the Pharaoh emperor.

I mean we are already getting improbable units with VII. That said, Civ VI didn’t have unique units and buildings for each age. That was fine for me, but if it doesn’t work for you, then I get that too.

I am not disagreeing that the civ designs in VII are complicated. They certainly are complicated.
 
I mean we are already getting improbable units with VII. That said, Civ VI didn’t have unique units and buildings for each age. That was fine for me, but if it doesn’t work for you, then I get that too.
Applying the ancient unique features to make useless of all rest game, and waiting the modern uniqu feature until it become complete useless, both were not good for me at the previous titles.

Please don't say that the Civ5 Babylon was not OP, or Civ4~6 American modern UUs were very useful.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see "Medieval Ancient Egypt" and "Modern Ancient Egypt"...in five or six years, when we have a much fuller roster; I don't think anyone really wants fantasy civs in the base game.
 
Top Bottom