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

[Arent11]

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.

Yeah, that needs to be written well. Otherwise you basically have 3 different games that are tied together by score. That *might* also work, but is a bit disappointing from the "stone age to stars" viewpoint.

 

[Arent11]

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

Err, I would immediately be curious what happened in between. *Especially* if it was wars and crises. I mean, that's what I'm playing civ for, for the wars and crises!

A jump in the narration of a story can be done if it's a boring part. Dark ages are not exactly boring.

 

[Trengilly]

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.

Some folks just like to wallow in despair.

 

[Trengilly]

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.

I just don't think anything anything will be 'taken' from you. If they do it right it should feel like you Complete your Age and then you Receive new stuff to add to what you already have.

But none of us know what its going to be like. We literally haven't seen anything other than knowing there is a change.

I remain optimistic that Ed and the team, and the literally decades of experience they have, know a thing or two about game design and will make something that feels fun to play.

 

[IgorS]

I just don't think anything anything will be 'taken' from you. If they do it right it should feel like you Complete your Age and then you Receive new stuff to add to what you already have.

But none of us know what its going to be like. We literally haven't seen anything other than knowing there is a change.

I remain optimistic that Ed and the team, and the literally decades of experience they have, know a thing or two about game design and will make something that feels fun to play.

It may feel fun to play, but will it feel like "Civilization"? The whole switching civs concept is not "Civilization" to me. It may be a good game, but not a good "Civilization" game, and this is why I am so uninterested in it, and the chances of me actually playing it are practically nonexistent. You remain optimistic, and I remain optimistic that the team will succeed in doing whatever it is they are doing. I just know for a fact I will not play this game because its main concept is missing. You're always saying, let's wait for more information and more details. But the problem is that among the things we already know there is something that is a complete deal breaker for me, so I don't really need any more information beyond what we have, there may be some good things there, but the deal breaker has already been revealed and announced.

 

[pokiehl]

just know for a fact I will not play this game because its main concept is missing. You're always saying, let's wait for more information and more details. But the problem is that among the things we already know there is something that is a complete deal breaker for me, so I don't really need any more information beyond what we have, there may be some good things there, but the deal breaker has already been revealed and announced.

I’m just curious. You’ve already decided you’re not going to like the game, which is of course your prerogative. But why stay in this same thread and repeat your points and dislikes about the game? No new information will change your mind.

Is it like venting to you or are you trying to convince others or what?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I’m just curious. You’ve already decided you’re not going to like the game, which is of course your prerogative. But why stay in this same thread and repeat your points and dislikes about the game? No new information will change your mind.

Is it like venting to you or are you trying to convince others or what?

I think for many people, especially those who have a lot of history with the franchise, it's about trying to process this change. I see it as a bit like the stages of grief, they're on the way to acceptance via various other emotions, often anger.

Kind of seems a shame to me that something so simple can be such a problem for so many people, especially when that something is nothing to do with actual gameplay.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I like the idea behind the crises mechanic, but the fact that the era switch involves a ton of rubber banding and essentially a soft restart is going to kill any sense of progress or achievement

Like I’ve got Constantinople on the ropes and then bippety bobbity boo era reset the Byzantines have morphed into Ming China and we are back at the starting line

 

[Zaarin]

I like the idea behind the crises mechanic, but the fact that the era switch involves a ton of rubber banding and essentially a soft restart is going to kill any sense of progress or achievement

Like I’ve got Constantinople on the ropes and then bippety bobbity boo era reset the Byzantines have morphed into Ming China and we are back at the starting line

While the Age system is certainly going to do away with being five tech ages ahead of the AI, we do know that doing well in one Age still gives you a head start in the next Age. If you're on the verge of conquering the Byzantines in the Exploration Age, you'll still be on the verge of conquering Russia in the Modern Age. (We know the AI prioritizes historic choices, and I doubt the Byzantines will have many opportunities to choose Qing unless led by Confucius even when played by a human...)

 

[pokiehl]

Snip

I think it’s natural for fans to want their voices heard, especially when we know the developers listen. In that regard I get why folks who are unhappy want to continue to chime in. I just think that it is extremely unlikely for this core feature of the game to change.

I think it’s also natural for people to be resistant to change and it’s challenging to keep an open mind. But I think the developers have earned the benefit of the doubt (as you said above), and ultimately the gameplay will speak for itself. I myself have a hard time grasping how a game is until I can physically play it, and I’ve had that experience actually change what I thought were immutable opinions I had.

 

[IgorS]

I’m just curious. You’ve already decided you’re not going to like the game, which is of course your prerogative. But why stay in this same thread and repeat your points and dislikes about the game? No new information will change your mind.

Is it like venting to you or are you trying to convince others or what?

The topic of this thread is "Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?"
My answer to this question is: Yes.
No, I don't want to convince anyone, but I do feel like others are trying to convince me, saying that we need to wait and see what the game will be like, and I am trying to explain that this is irrelevant to me.

Kind of seems a shame to me that something so simple can be such a problem for so many people, especially when that something is nothing to do with actual gameplay.

It is a problem. And there is nothing weird about it. Do you want to play every game that is good? Or do you want to play the games that are interesting to you? I think the second option makes more sense. Why would you play a game that is good, but is not what you are looking for? This is why I find it weird that you are trying to convince people to be optimistic about a game that has already been ruined for them. It is obvious the game will not be changed this way.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It is a problem. And there is nothing weird about it. Do you want to play every game that is good? Or do you want to play the games that are interesting to you? I think the second option makes more sense. Why would you play a game that is good, but is not what you are looking for? This is why I find it weird that you are trying to convince people to be optimistic about a game that has already been ruined for them. It is obvious the game will not be changed this way.

I never said it was weird. I said it was a shame; clearly there are many people who are angry or disappointed because it's not the game they wanted, I consider that a shame.

All I'm doing is discussing a game that I'm interested in on a forum dedicated to that game. I'm offering my viewpoint, from the perspective of someone who is optimistic, as a counter to the viewpoints of those who are not optimistic, and because I find some of those views interesting and the discussion interesting. Why is that weird?

 

[IgorS]

I never said it was weird. I said it was a shame; clearly there are many people who are angry or disappointed because it's not the game they wanted, I consider that a shame.

Well, it is a shame on the devs' part, not the disappointed fans' part. You cannot blame us for feeling disappointed by a deal breaking feature, it was not us who designed the game.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, it is a shame on the devs' part, not the disappointed fans' part. You cannot blame us for feeling disappointed by a deal breaking feature, it was not us who designed the game.

I don't think "shame" implies blame in either direction. A lot of us are excited that the devs are making some bold decisions; it's unfortunate that inevitably leaves some people behind.

 

[Daniel Boone]

@Zaarin Congrats on becoming a mod!

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't think "shame" implies blame in either direction. A lot of us are excited that the devs are making some bold decisions; it's unfortunate that inevitably leaves some people behind.

Precisely. I'm genuinely at loss to see how anything I've said can be interpreted as blaming fans for being upset.

I have really tried to choose my words carefully and be reasonable; I do understand that this change is too much for some people, and I don't blame anyone for this.

I don't agree with the concern but I accept that many people share it. I try to offer my perspective because that's how a discussion works, and whilst it may not convince anyone, it might help to clarify the thoughts of someone who is still processing this change. A thread like this needs some balance, and I know that my feelings towards switching have changed as a result of the discussions on this board. I doubt I am alone.

We don't yet know whether Civ VII will be good, but
ultimately, we're all here posting on this forum because we care about the Civ franchise, one way or another. I think it's a shame that a group of people who care about Civ are no longer interested in Civ VII because of this change, especially when it isn't anything to do with the gameplay itself. I really don't mean anything more than that.

Since we all care, I'm also quite certain that a large number of the disappointed fans will keep half an eye on Civ VII as we receive more news, and as the game progresses through its lifecycle with DLC and expansion packs. There will likely come a point where it is cheap enough to convince many of these fans to give it a go.

When that happens, I sincerely hope that it feels better than they expected.

 

[Nikolai II]

I don't think "shame" implies blame in either direction. A lot of us are excited that the devs are making some bold decisions; it's unfortunate that inevitably leaves some people behind.

I really like them being bold. Civ is an old franchise. It benefits from some shakeup, as long as the game resulting is still feeling "Civ". I have confidence Civ7 will.

 

[Zaarin]

I really like them being bold. Civ is an old franchise. It benefits from some shakeup, as long as the game resulting is still feeling "Civ". I have confidence Civ7 will.

I agree. I was expecting a much safer approach, and, now that I'm past the initial shock (because it is a bold new direction), I'm very excited to see what the team has been cooking. Plus I could just stare at the environment art all day.

 

[aieeegrunt]

While the Age system is certainly going to do away with being five tech ages ahead of the AI, we do know that doing well in one Age still gives you a head start in the next Age. If you're on the verge of conquering the Byzantines in the Exploration Age, you'll still be on the verge of conquering Russia in the Modern Age. (We know the AI prioritizes historic choices, and I doubt the Byzantines will have many opportunities to choose Qing unless led by Confucius even when played by a human...)

It’s going to be hilarious on the front lines when my Jannisaries transmogrify into Redcoats because three island cities unlocked Britain for my Ottomans, and the Byzantines become Cossacks Because Third Rome or something

Watching the majority of my infrastructure become obsolete because the Devs said so, my cities downgrade into settlements because the Devs said so, and whatever else will be fun and immersive too.

What I wanted for Civ7 was the best mods for 6 and bringing back some of the superior mechanics from 3 and 4, and after reading the Mechanics thread I was like Holy Crap my wish came tru-…

*MONKEY PAW CURLS*

…and Civ Switching from Humankind

Well played Universe, you win this one.

I really like them being bold. Civ is an old franchise. It benefits from some shakeup, as long as the game resulting is still feeling "Civ". I have confidence Civ7 will.

Civ is buiding an empire to stand the tet of time

So no apparently

 

[Trengilly]

I agree. I was expecting a much safer approach, and, now that I'm past the initial shock (because it is a bold new direction), I'm very excited to see what the team has been cooking. Plus I could just stare at the environment art all day.

Exactly! I haven't played Civ in over 4 years because I got tired of how stale it had gotten (and didn't really like Civ 6). Firaxis had lost me . . . and lost DLC sales.

My initial reaction upon hearing about Civ 7 was 'huh I wonder what they will mess up with this game?' . . . . but the more I looked at all the changes, the more excited I got.

Literally every change appears to be motivated by the goal of improving gameplay. And I'm all about gameplay. I do understand that it may detract from 'narrative' but I think the improved gameplay will be more than worth it, and suspect that it will actually result in a new more engaging narrative when all is said and done.

It is unfortunate that Civ 7 won't appeal to everyone . . . but that was true for every version of Civ. Its impossible to make a game that everyone will enjoy. Every cycle is going to have a different set of fans.