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

[Zaarin]

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).

You keep everything you had before, though; your cities, units, wonders, etc. don't disappear; you're not starting on a blank map every age. If you did well, you even keep some of your old abilities as legacies. You're building iteratively, not a blank canvas every Age.

 

[Plains-Cow]

You keep everything you had before, though; your cities, units, wonders, etc. don't disappear; you're not starting on a blank map every age. If you did well, you even keep some of your old abilities as legacies. You're building iteratively, not a blank canvas every Age.

I mean, sure, but Istanbul isn't really Constantinople, you know?

 

[Zaarin]

I mean, sure, but Istanbul isn't really Constantinople, you know?

I mean...both etymologically and literally it is. (Great Ella Fitzgerald and Bing Crosby song, though. But that's nobody's business but the Turks'.)

 

[Krikkit1]

I mean, sure, but Istanbul isn't really Constantinople, you know?

Which is why you need to have the option to keep your name (as well as having easily available evidence of an empire’s previous civ…yours or another’s)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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.

I do understand where you're coming from. For all of the debate we've had over the last two weeks, I really think this is the crux of the matter for most people.

I just think that how it feels when you play is important. Conceptually, it sounds disjointed: 3 chapters, each with a new civilization. But you are still playing the same map, from the same location, with much of the same infrastructure that you've built, and against the same leaders. It may feel more holistic and continuous than you think. It may feel like Civ, even if it doesn't sound like it, to you.

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.

 

[Arent11]

I mean, sure, but Istanbul isn't really Constantinople, you know?

I think an actual conquest & razing cities/enslaving/wiping out a civ would work. Let's say you *lose* the game & are conquered by an AI and then you can continue playing with the conquering civ but take score penalties

But right now it seems like civ switching will be "Oh, you just successfully repelled the barbarians, congratulations! But we now make a jump of several hundred years & suddenly your Roman empire has been defeated or is Korean for no reason."

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think an actual conquest & razing cities/enslaving/wiping out a civ would work. Let's say you *lose* the game & are conquered by an AI and then you can continue playing with the conquering civ but take score penalties

But right now it seems like civ switching will be "Oh, you just successfully repelled the barbarians, congratulations! But we now make a jump of several hundred years & suddenly your Roman empire has been defeated or is Korean for no reason."

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.

 

[Zoeff]

I think an actual conquest & razing cities/enslaving/wiping out a civ would work. Let's say you *lose* the game & are conquered by an AI and then you can continue playing with the conquering civ but take score penalties

But right now it seems like civ switching will be "Oh, you just successfully repelled the barbarians, congratulations! But we now make a jump of several hundred years & suddenly your Roman empire has been defeated or is Korean for no reason."

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

 

[Krikkit1]

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

That’s basically the whole second Age.

I think any jump is to renormalize the calendar since the number of turns in an age is variable depending on gameplay.

 

[Siptah]

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

You mean the Age of Exploration?

 

[ColtSeavers]

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

How so? I'd acctually miss the Medieval Age!

 

[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?