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

[Trengilly]

Good points, the question I would ask ( and the answer is just pure greed..) That idea could have just as easly panned out with just one starting Civ with characteristics added as you move through the "ages" and you stay that one Civ
But no they had to add in Civ switching,. why? more civs needed more cash

130 Euro's rofl €100 to get the extra civ

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.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Very good.

I disagree though. What can I say, I'm just feeling belligerent today.

Your position on and influence over the map remains constant, from 4000 BC to whenever the game ends, just like any other Civ game.

Maybe we can replace the word "civilization" with "legacy"?

"Your people have vested absolute power in you. Can you build a legacy to stand the test of time?"

Doesn't sound so different to me.

Sorry to quote myself but I just started a game of Civ IV, and I'd totally forgotten that they use this line in the opening before every game: "to build a legacy that would stand the test of time". Perfectly applicable to what we'll be doing in VII.

 

[Trengilly]

To a certain extent, you were already making alt-history in Civ. I did have fun imagining an Ancient America.

Seems those are the old days.

Wonder if Civ 8 will retain this change. 6 wasn't a classic. Maybe they felt pressured to shake it up, catch some magic. Most times, when you do that, you don't get a hold of any. We will need to actually be playing to determine this, of course, but odds are against it.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Civ 6 wasn't a classic'.

Civ 6 is the most successful Civ game, BY FAR. In number of users, sales, and revenue. It literally dwarfs any previous Civ game. For the majority of the Civ playerbase, Civ 6 IS Civilization. Most players have never played any of the previous Civs. Its also the most successful 4x strategy game of ALL TIME.

It's not my favorite Civ either (I prefer Civ 5). But its silly to ignore the success of Civ 6.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Civ 6 wasn't a classic'.

Civ 6 is the most successful Civ game, BY FAR. In number of users, sales, and revenue. It literally dwarfs any previous Civ game. For the majority of the Civ playerbase, Civ 6 IS Civilization. Most players have never played any of the previous Civs. Its also the most successful 4x strategy game of ALL TIME.

It's not my favorite Civ either (I prefer Civ 5). But its silly to ignore the success of Civ 6.

The profit motivated people are Firaxis probably evaluate things that way, sure.

I expect to most developers, though, it's a labor of love, and that they're passionate about their work and care how its received. A great many players were pretty "meh" on 6. The perception it was really well done and well thought out was never there. After all is said and done, it remains this sorta hodgepodge amalgamation of power creep features, numerous civs with balance issues, and an AI that can barely utilize core gameplay systems. That's after what, 6 years?

 

[Zaarin]

A great many players were pretty "meh" on 6. The perception it was really well done and well thought out was never there.

I think you're projecting your own feelings on Civ6, which are perfectly valid, onto the general public. A great many more loved Civ6. For me personally, I'd say it's probably my favorite Civ game and a breath of fresh air after the insipidness of Civ5.

 

[Trengilly]

The profit motivated people are Firaxis probably evaluate things that way, sure.

I expect to most developers, though, it's a labor of love, and that they're passionate about their work and care how its received. A great many players were pretty "meh" on 6. The perception it was really well done and well thought out was never there. After all is said and done, it remains this sorta hodgepodge amalgamation of power creep features, numerous civs with balance issues, and an AI that can barely utilize core gameplay systems. That's after what, 6 years?

You are still projecting your own opinion about Civ 6 on the community as a whole . . . despite evidence to the contrary. I agree with all your complaints about Civ 6. But regardless of what we think . . . the majority of players love it and/or aren't even aware of previous versions of Civ. And having a larger than ever audience telling you they love your game is SUPER rewarding for devs.

You are also projecting your opinion of Civ 6 onto the Developers. The Civ 6 developers WERE passionate about Civ 6 . . . they spent many years of their lives working on it. They wouldn't have made Civ 6 in the first place if they weren't. They weren't a bunch of Firaxis slaves ordered to make the most economically successful game possible, toiling away for years at a project they didn't believe in just to make a buck.

I'm sure some of the developers eventually got tired of Civ 6 . . . and later DLC were mostly experiments for new systems and to make a buck. But even the evidence that some of those systems were tests for later incorporation into Civ 7 is compelling that they still love and have vision for the Civ series as a whole.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I think you're projecting your own feelings on Civ6, which are perfectly valid, onto the general public. A great many more loved Civ6. For me personally, I'd say it's probably my favorite Civ game and a breath of fresh air after the insipidness of Civ5.

I mean, that is possible.

It's not like I hated it. I probably have about 1200 hours in it.

I think the thing was, for myself and a substantial number of players(most I spoke to, primarily IRL), you became overskilled very quickly. That wasn't really the case in prior versions. I kept playing primarily because I could create stories with it, but the core gameplay wasn't as immersive or demanding of focus absent that internal RP.

 

[IgorS]

I think the timeline regarding Humankind does matter. If they did copy Humankind, this would be genuine grounds to criticise them as lazy.

Fair enough. This is basically why I used the word "lazy". If they did not copy from Humankind, and developed this idea by themselves, then they are not lazy. But I still think they did copy from Humankind.

As to whether it breaks the main concept of the game - this is quite interesting. I disagree (they haven't broken my concept of the game) but it seems to be a common complaint. Subjective again though, isn't it? We all have a slightly different concept of what makes a Civ game, and this looks like one, to me, from what I've seen so far. If it doesn't look like one to you, and you've loved the series before, I can completely understand why it is difficult to accept. Although I think how it feels when you play it is more important than how it sounds from a short gameplay reveal and a few interviews.

I know I'm getting very boring (sorry) but there shouldn't yet be a divide between those "who like the new game and those who don't", because we've seen so little and played none. More time needed. I'm optimistic, but I couldn't claim to like the game yet - I've no idea!

Anyway, I'll stop now; this isn't solely directed at you, I just get triggered by language that I consider to be unfair or unreasonable. I think we can discuss what we like or dislike without such language.

I think you are missing my point when you assume that I judge the game too soon. I know for a fact I personally am not interested in Civ VII. I don't rule out the game will be good, but the civ switching for me is a major deal breaker. For me, and for many other big fans of the series (and I've been playing all of them since Civ I, and loved all of them, despite their shortcomings), the whole concept of Civilization is having one civilization from start to finish, and it will always be led by leaders connected to it (so no Ashoka of the Americans). When the game forces me to stop and switch civs, it is no longer a game called "Civilization". When a game gives me a civ without an appropriate leader, and vice versa, it is no longer a game called "Civilization". And no, I don't want Civ 6.5, I do want a new experience, but within the concept of the game. I am now seroiusly looking at ARA as my next "Civilization" game, and not Civ VII.

 

[pokiehl]

But I still think they did copy from Humankind.

Confirmed false, for what it’s worth: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...civilization-switching-from-humankind.691603/

They already had the idea planned and prototyped before Humankind was announced in 2019.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Civ 6 wasn't a classic'.

Civ 6 is the most successful Civ game, BY FAR. In number of users, sales, and revenue. It literally dwarfs any previous Civ game. For the majority of the Civ playerbase, Civ 6 IS Civilization. Most players have never played any of the previous Civs. Its also the most successful 4x strategy game of ALL TIME.

It's not my favorite Civ either (I prefer Civ 5). But its silly to ignore the success of Civ 6.

It doesn't make sense to compare the absolute figures here. Obviously the total user base was much smaller in 2010, so comparing Civ 5's and Civ 6' sales (8 Mio vs. 11 Mio sales) is comparing apples and oranges. Civ 4 and previous games were released in a totally different era, before Steam sales were even a thing, so their sales figures can not be compared with a game which was released 10+ years later.
And what do you mean by: "Most players have never played any of the previous Civs."? As stated above, Civ 5 has about 70% of Civ 6 total sales figures, therefore I'm pretty sure most Civ 6 players have played Civ 5 also! And I'm therefore also not convinced, that "For the majority of the Civ playerbase, Civ 6 IS Civilization"! Civ 6 is newer game, therefore it has more sales, that's it. If Civ 5 had been released 6 years after Civ 6, it would have been the other way around.

 

[pokiehl]

Civ 6 has surely sold over 11,000,000 units by now. That figure comes from early 2021, which is well before all DLC stopped for the game and before it began getting massive all-DLC-bundled discounts like Civ 5 had.

 

[mrwho]

None of the above: I don't like the sound of it but I'll be buying and wait until I've played with it before having solid opinion

 

[ColtSeavers]

Civ 6 has surely sold over 11,000,000 units by now. That figure comes from early 2021, which is well before all DLC stopped for the game and before it began getting massive all-DLC-bundled discounts like Civ 5 had.

On the other hand Civ 6 received a NFP, unlike any of its predecessors, which probably also boosted some sales. Anyway, my point is, you just can't compare sales from different time periods, and 6 year is massive in the video game industry. NBA 2K17 (released 2016) sold 8,5 Mio, NBA 2K11 (released 2010) sold 5,5 Mio. You can go down the entire list of NBA 2k releases, and you will find, that the respective sales usually increase every year. Same applies for the Civ Series. Most veterans stick with the series and each new title adds then some new players on top of that. Civ 5 has sold apparently more than twice as much than Civ 4 (though I'm not sure how sales tracking worked before Steam), and nobody would argue, that Civ 5 therefore "dwarfs Civ 4" or its predecessors.

​

 

[Zoeff]

On the other hand Civ 6 received a NFP, unlike any of its predecessors, which probably also boosted some sales. Anyway, my point is, you just can't compare sales from different time periods, and 6 year is massive in the video game industry. NBA 2K17 (released 2016) sold 8,5 Mio, NBA 2K11 (released 2010) sold 5,5 Mio. You can go down the entire list of NBA 2k releases, and you will find, that the respective sales usually increase every year. Same applies for the Civ Series. Most veterans stick with the series and each new title adds then some new players on top of that. Civ 5 has sold apparently more than twice as much than Civ 4 (though I'm not sure how sales tracking worked before Steam), and nobody would argue, that Civ 5 therefore "dwarfs Civ 4" or its predecessors.

​

Huh? So hang on here, you're arguing that Civ 5 having a bigger playerbase doesn't make it bigger than Civ 4? How do you exactly define one being a classic over another?

In your previous psot you mention that most Civ 6 players surely have played Civ 5 but you're forgetting that a lot of Civ 6 players have been introducde to the franchise via consoles.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Huh? So hang on here, you're arguing that Civ 5 having a bigger playerbase doesn't make it bigger than Civ 4? How do you exactly define one being a classic over another?

In your previous psot you mention that most Civ 6 players surely have played Civ 5 but you're forgetting that a lot of Civ 6 players have been introducde to the franchise via consoles.

I didn't say Civ 5 isn't "bigger" than Civ 4, i just stated, that this comparison doesn't make much sense. I mean, what kind of information do you want to get out of these figures? That the way Civ 6 is set up should be new the basis for its successor, because it has the most sales? Even Ed Beach didnt't think so, that's why he came up with all these new mechanics for Civ 7 after all.

 

[Zoeff]

I didn't say Civ 5 isn't "bigger" than Civ 4, i just stated, that this comparison doesn't make much sense. I mean, what kind of information do you want to get out of these figures? That the way Civ 6 is set up should be new the basis for its successor, because it has the most sales? Even Ed Beach didnt't think so, that's why he came up with all these new mechanics for Civ 7 after all.

Civ 7 definitely looks to be an evolution of Civ 6 from everything we've seen so far

 

[ColtSeavers]

Civ 7 definitely looks to be an evolution of Civ 6 from everything we've seen so far

For me it looks more like an evolution of Humankind, but I don't think it makes sense to discuss this one all over again...

 

[Plains-Cow]

I just don't like forced civ changes from a player perspective. It feels like a punishment for succeeding.

"Oh, you set up your civ really well and are ready to move to the next era? Time to reward you by force swapping to an entirely different one!"

IDK how well this analogy works for everyone here, but it feels like this to me:
You're playing pokemon and you defeat trainers on the routes, level up a bunch, and then finally take on the gym leader. However, after beating them, you're "rewarded" by having your old pokemon taken away and made to choose new pokemon with the same levels but slightly different stats and a totally different appearance/type combos from your old pokemon that are now gone forever. You are forced to do this after every gym battle.

To keep going with the pokemon analogy, the CIV VII devs make it sound like they're going for the vibe of "Oh, you're not getting new pokemon, but they're just evolving!" even though a whole lot more seems to be changing than what would be, say, a Wartortle to a Blastoise. It's more like force swapping your Wartortle with a Charmeleon, Graveler, or Croconaw.

It just kinda ruins the vibe for me.

 

[Trengilly]

I just don't like forced civ changes from a player perspective. It feels like a punishment for succeeding.

"Oh, you set up your civ really well and are ready to move to the next era? Time to reward you by force swapping to an entirely different one!"

or . . . You've done great and due to your how well you've played you have unlocked a bunch of exciting Civ options. What reward would you like to take for Act 2 to kickstart your empire to dominance!

Its a glass half-empty vs half-full thing

I'm firmly in the wait and see camp. How well the Civ swap thing works will depend on how well Firaxis implements it.

But I'm hopeful overall because I like the idea of three Acts and nearly all their other reported changes.

 

[Plains-Cow]

or . . . You've done great and due to your how well you've played you have unlocked a bunch of exciting Civ options. What reward would you like to take for Act 2 to kickstart your empire to dominance!

Its a glass half-empty vs half-full thing

I don't have an empire. I'm just a temporary facilitator of constantly rotating empires as they walk across the stage. It's asking me to appreciate a glass' contents but then swapping it to a different glass with different contents (representing civ flavors) with slightly different levels of fullness even (representing the new civ abilities to perform compared to the old).