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

[Zaarin]

Now I definitely know how you felt about the announcement of Australia. This must be my Australia.

I uninstalled Civ6 for a few months after Australia. I've still never enabled it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I uninstalled Civ6 for a few months after Australia. I've still never enabled it.

You know with the leader pool being a thing you could just disable John Curtin, and then still get Uluru to pop up as a Natural Wonder every now and then.
Or I guess just wait till Civ 7 because it's already in.

 

[Zaarin]

You know with the leader pool being a thing you could just John Curtin, and then still get Uluru to pop up as a Natural Wonder every now and then.

Yeah, I guess I have done that actually. Though I haven't gone with random players in a long time. I hand select my opponents these days.

 

[bv98132454]

Without significant changes to this feature, I will not be buying this game.

In addition, without significant changes to the allowed number of players and removal of the expanding map "feature" I will not be buying this game.

In short, this game has two dealbreakers for me that must be overcome before I consider buying it.

 

[queenpea]

We've already seen where Hatshepsut is the "historical" choice for both Egypt and Askum, and presumably Amina is also another "historical" choice for Aksum as well as Songhai. Considering some leaders like Amina might not get her own actual civ, the Hausa, these leaders will just presumably default to their "historical" choices.

Ah ok, I missed that re: Hatshepsut.

So, likely fewer leaders on start than I anticipated. Which may worsen the seemingly lack of choices on start (ancient era), which I’m worried about.

 

[Wyvern_Parade]

I was shocked like everyone else when this was announced. But after seeing Firaxis's version I have to say it looks much more promising than Humankind's. In fact, I didn't think the idea was inherently bad in HK, just poorly implemented.

I like that they are specifically attempting to address the issue of empires lacking in personality and continuity by offering 'historical' pathing options and creating leader skill trees. I think only combining 3 'civs' and having longer ages throughout the game is more reasonable too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ah ok, I missed that re: Hatshepsut.

So, likely fewer leaders on start than I anticipated. Which may worsen the seemingly lack of choices on start (ancient era), which I’m worried about.

Yeah, they are definitely going for less leaders, but more civilizations to choose from. You can already see that from the first two DLC which promises 2 leaders each but 4 civs.

 

[aieeegrunt]

A lot of whether or not a change is viewed as "good" or "bad" by a community is down to standard cognitive biases against change/novelty, groupthink, social context, or motivated reasoning, and not due to any actual experience with the change or assessment of its merits and demerits. This is universally true. Crowds can be wise and mad at the same time.

This is especially true during the preview period of a new game. It's just a dice roll whether the community hype or anti-hype ends up right or not. I know people like to think they are Rational Kings whose opinions are always manufactured by robots under Logic Mountain, but it's just vibes all the way down.

I can think of many examples of games that got an unfair reception because it departed from expectations. Which is fine! That's how disappointment works! What I'm trying to argue against is what I'll call the unexamined certainty that a change is actually bad, this far out.

I'm trying to be careful about the reverse, and not getting hyped for the game, because it could easily be a garbage factory, either due to launch woes or due to foundational design missteps. I'm not completely convinced myself!

No, it’s not. I know this is basically heresy to social science types but things like logic, reason and critical thinking still exist for some people.

Based on the information we have, this civ switching mechanic is a massive departure from the core identity of this franchise; building a civilization to stand the test of time. I didn’t reach that conclusion based on buzzwords like groupthink or whatever, but because that’s what the information said.

Now as more information comes out my take on this may change, but I hate it. If I wanted to play Humankind, I’d play that.

I will agree with you that managing expectations and hype is important, but for me personally the last 3 decades or so have done a superb job of that all on it’s own.

 

[marioflag]

This will be the first Civilization i won't buy. The civ switching mechanic is too much immersion breaking and expansions and dlc can only partially "fix" the mechanic because you need tens of civs and an historical option enabled to have yourself and AI pick the right successor civilization.
Honestly i feel like Firaxis is looking for a different demography for its players in civ7 there is no more correlation between gameplay and history and everything is gamified. To me civilization was always a game where you rewrite history but all civilizations were very well identified. In civ7 everything seems a mish mash of bonuses or maluses without identity and meaningless:
Leaders no more correlated with civilization, civ switching where suddenly you became a different civilization with a different architecture and history divided only in 3 eras.

 

[bv98132454]

No, it’s not. I know this is basically heresy to social science types but things like logic, reason and critical thinking still exist for some people.

Based on the information we have, this civ switching mechanic is a massive departure from the core identity of this franchise; building a civilization to stand the test of time. I didn’t reach that conclusion based on buzzwords like groupthink or whatever, but because that’s what the information said.

Now as more information comes out my take on this may change, but I hate it. If I wanted to play Humankind, I’d play that.

I will agree with you that managing expectations and hype is important, but for me personally the last 3 decades or so have done a superb job of that all on it’s own.

Agreed, I was really hoping to like what I saw. I'm open to a variety of different mechanics. However, if you would have asked me to list the top ten mechanics that I would not be open to prior to the reveal, civ swapping in the manner that they have chosen would have shown up on that list. It is a dealbreaker for me, and unless massive changes are made I will not buy this game, ever. That sucks since I've been playing these games for 20 years since I was just 10 years old.

I'm not a big forum person, but this feature alone was enough to get me to register for this forum so I can air my grievances with the direction they have taken this game.

 

[pokiehl]

Moderator Action: *SNIP* Quote removed as post was removed by staff. - lymond

Not trying to degrade anyone. I'm trying to better contextualize the sentiment, especially in reaction to the inaccurate assessment that >80% of people "hate" this idea based on a misinterpretation of the (flawed and biased) poll options in this thread.

I get having a reflexively negative opinion of the change (I did as well). It's naturally human to be wary of change, and many people are just naturally pessimistic and will assume the worst. In videogame communities in particular, there's a tendency for the negativity to be amplified, plus people tend to speak up when they're unhappy, not when they're neutral or positive. Just look at Steam reviews. There's a reason that Steam automatically filters out brigading reviews now: because it's incredibly common for "enthusiast gamers" to have their anger collectively aroused and then reflexively lash out. Olleus hit on this above. "Gamer rage" is a sad stereotype for a reason.

I think it would also help to put things in perspective that no one here has actually played the game. Those who have played the game have reacted positively to the changes. What turned my opinion around was sitting back, looking at the broader gameplay changes, and realizing that the civilization changing is part of the core framework. What I personally perceive is a bold but elegant way to evolve the gameplay and address longstanding concerns about mid- and late-game problems. Honestly, most of the changes in this game seem to be directly in response to what fans have been asking for.

The developers, like any other humans, are not perfect, but everything so far indicates to me that these changes were made thoughtfully and in furtherance of a better experience. The developers are fans too, and they have a longstanding core testing group of fans (largely derived from Civfanatics!), and as I said above, Civ content creators have experienced the game as well. I'm OK with giving Firaxis the benefit of the doubt and seeing what we get.

If it's something you literally just cannot get past, well I think that's kind of silly to decide without having actually played it, but more power to you. The great thing is you have 6 other core Civ games to experience and there are more 4x games on the market than ever before. I'm sure you'll find something to be happy with.

 

[reddishrecue]

I think civ switching kinda killed the civilization originality if you wanna call it. What happened in hk got transferred to civilization and is now like another strategy game. The way I see it, there's many different strategy games that often get plated in specified eras of time. Civilization covers most eras. There's prehistory which isn't covered but there are still other games like jurassic park for that... I don't expect it to be another copy of hk because of the river sailing but I do expect more stuff. I haven't seen them yet, I can't wait to see the new stuff in civ 7. It's kind of exciting.

 

[ColtSeavers]

From what I've seen, the majority here are either cautiously optimistic or intrigued enough by other mechanics to overlook. The part who hate it enough to consider it a dealbreaker are just really loud

Moderator Action: *SNIP* Quote removed as post was removed by staff. - lymond

Not trying to degrade anyone. I'm trying to better contextualize the sentiment, especially in reaction to the inaccurate assessment that >80% of people "hate" this idea based on a misinterpretation of the (flawed and biased) poll options in this thread.

I get having a reflexively negative opinion of the change (I did as well). It's naturally human to be wary of change, and many people are just naturally pessimistic and will assume the worst. In videogame communities in particular, there's a tendency for the negativity to be amplified, plus people tend to speak up when they're unhappy, not when they're neutral or positive. Just look at Steam reviews. There's a reason that Steam automatically filters out brigading reviews now: because it's incredibly common for "enthusiast gamers" to have their anger collectively aroused and then reflexively lash out. Olleus hit on this above.

I think it would also help to put things in perspective that no one here has actually played the game. Those who have played the game have reacted positively to the changes. What turned my opinion around was sitting back, looking at the broader gameplay changes, and realizing that the civilization changing is part of the core framework. What I personally perceive is a bold but elegant way to evolve the gameplay and address longstanding concerns about mid- and late-game problems. Honestly, most of the changes in this game seem to be directly in response to what fans have been asking for.

The developers, like any other humans, are not perfect, but everything so far indicates to me that these changes were made thoughtfully and in furtherance of a better experience. The developers are fans too, and they have a longstanding core testing group of fans (largely derived from Civfanatics!), and as I said above, Civ content creators have experienced the game as well. I'm OK with giving Firaxis the benefit of the doubt and seeing what we get.

If it's something you literally just cannot get past, well I think that's kind of silly to decide without having actually played it, but more power to you. The great thing is you have 6 other core Civ games to experience and there are more 4x games on the market than ever before. I'm sure you'll find something to be happy with.

Sounds fine with me, at the end of the day, until Feb 11 we are all obviously just speculating here. Agree to disagree about our expectations, but that's what this forum is for after all.
Moderator Action: *SNIP* -lymond

 

[TheGrayFox]

This will be the first Civilization i won't buy. The civ switching mechanic is too much immersion breaking and expansions and dlc can only partially "fix" the mechanic because you need tens of civs and an historical option enabled to have yourself and AI pick the right successor civilization.
Honestly i feel like Firaxis is looking for a different demography for its players in civ7 there is no more correlation between gameplay and history and everything is gamified. To me civilization was always a game where you rewrite history but all civilizations were very well identified. In civ7 everything seems a mish mash of bonuses or maluses without identity and meaningless:
Leaders no more correlated with civilization, civ switching where suddenly you became a different civilization with a different architecture and history divided only in 3 eras.

Remember when the series did things like model chattel slavery and emancipation through its mechanics?

 

[SySnootles]

No, but lack of hotseat will stop me from buying.

 

[ColtSeavers]

True. But they are very careful about how they select those few hundred people and spend a huge amount of effort sampling fairly across different demographic categories. And even then do a lot of work adjusting the results for known biases. This poll, to continue your analogy, is closer to the equivalent of standing outside a shooting range in rural Texas and asking the first 100 people you see who they're going to vote for.


It's worth noting another bias at play here. People who are against a thing, and trying to get the game developers to change track, are typically going to be more vocal about it then those who are fine with it. It's more natural to start a thread called "A plea to developers: please reconsider" than "A plea to developers: I kind of like where things are going, carry on".

All valid points, but by this reasoning you can always disqualify opposing opinions to new ideas as a "loud minority" as one Youtuber put it. My impression is though, that advocates and opponents are both very vocal about this feature, also within this thread. At least I can not see any real indication, why people who dislike this are a minority, this seems more like speculation and not supported by any data after all.

 

[bv98132454]

All valid points, but by this reasoning you can always disqualify opposing opinions to new ideas as a "loud minority" as one Youtuber put it. My impression is though, that advocates and opponents are both very vocal about this feature, also within this thread. At least I can not see any real indication, why people who dislike this are a minority, this seems more like speculation and not supported by any data after all.

If you were watching the reveal live you saw the chat just erupt in L's and negative comments when the feature was announced.

 

[tedhebert]

Wow I'm surprised about that almost even distribution of the votes on this one

Very interesting indeed

 

[Quintillus]

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.

 

[pokiehl]

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.

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.

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

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.