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

[Voidwalkin]

Mobile? Casual? What?

I'm curious, for those who don't like the switching mechanic: are you hoping the game will fail?

No. If they fix my core gameplay concerns, get a better AI, I'm still gonna be able to enjoy it. Switching is actually secondary to AI to me. AI concerns aren't flashy or new but they're still my largest concern. Moddability is another. I want 7 to have great mods comparable to Fall From Heaven.

Switching is probably 3rd. I don't love it because I don't think these morphs are all that great. They seem pretty restrictive with the # of civs in the game. I wonder if Firaxis didn't create that problem so they could sell its solution... with most DLC merely adding civs. Fill the gaps with motivated buyers. If a create a civ feature isn't absent, I'm gonna wonder if greed influenced this change to the games detriment. It's so obvious to me create-a-civ would solve the gap concerns entirely, and it stuns me they've not implemented it.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes we need more information. However tomorrow's stream is: Civ Streams: The Antiquity Age so I'm remaining cautious and not expecting to see too much yet. I feel we already have a pretty good idea how the Antiquity Age works (except how it ends). The age transitions and later age rules are what most of us want to find out right now.

They said they would cover a transition to the next age.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

No. If they fix my core gameplay concerns, get a better AI, I'm still gonna be able to enjoy it. Switching is actually secondary to AI to me. AI concerns aren't flashy or new but they're still my largest concern. Moddability is another. I want 7 to have great mods comparable to Fall From Heaven.

Switching is probably 3rd. I don't love it because I don't think these morphs are all that great. They seem pretty restrictive with the # of civs in the game. I wonder if Firaxis didn't create that problem so they could sell its solution... with most DLC merely adding civs. Fill the gaps with motivated buyers. If a create a civ feature isn't absent, I'm gonna wonder if greed influenced this change to the games detriment. It's so obvious to me create-a-civ would solve the gap concerns entirely, and it stuns me they've not implemented it.

Call me naive, but I prefer not to be so cynical. I'm sure the potential for selling DLC was indeed discussed with FXS during development, but I doubt Ed and co had it as a motivation behind their design choices, they certainly don't come across this way. We'll never know for sure, of course, so I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Trengilly]

No. If they fix my core gameplay concerns, get a better AI, I'm still gonna be able to enjoy it. Switching is actually secondary to AI to me. AI concerns aren't flashy or new but they're still my largest concern. Moddability is another. I want 7 to have great mods comparable to Fall From Heaven.

Switching is probably 3rd. I don't love it because I don't think these morphs are all that great. They seem pretty restrictive with the # of civs in the game. I wonder if Firaxis didn't create that problem so they could sell its solution... with most DLC merely adding civs. Fill the gaps with motivated buyers. If a create a civ feature isn't absent, I'm gonna wonder if greed influenced this change to the games detriment. It's so obvious to me create-a-civ would solve the gap concerns entirely, and it stuns me they've not implemented it.

Civ 7 has a really interesting situation where the Three Ages (and associated Civ Switching) and other changes could lead to the BEST Gameplay (from a purely mechanical standpoint) Civ has ever had . . . while at the same time WORST immersion (loss of Civ identity, separating leader from their Civ, loss of simple focus).

A great game needs to be more than just great game systems. No matter how good the gameplay is, if people can't identify with the game or the game is too abstract if will fall flat.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Switching is probably 3rd. I don't love it because I don't think these morphs are all that great. They seem pretty restrictive with the # of civs in the game. I wonder if Firaxis didn't create that problem so they could sell its solution... with most DLC merely adding civs. Fill the gaps with motivated buyers. If a create a civ feature isn't absent, I'm gonna wonder if greed influenced this change to the games detriment. It's so obvious to me create-a-civ would solve the gap concerns entirely, and it stuns me they've not implemented it.

It will probably come out to be the greatest number of civs on release that they've ever had. It only feels restrictive because of the switching mechanic, which I can understand that, considering Humankind started out with 60 civs in their base game.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Call me naive, but I prefer not to be so cynical. I'm sure the potential for selling DLC was indeed discussed with FXS during development, but I doubt Ed and co had it as a motivation behind their design choices, they certainly don't come across this way. We'll never know for sure, of course, so I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I wouldn't call you naive. It's totally speculative. I might well be wrong that they'd intentionally create that issue.

I am reasonably confident that the gaps were discussed when they brainstormed their DLC release strategy, though. There's no historical link between Songhai and Egypt. Different sides of the vast African content. Do I think they'd see that gap as potentially lucrative, particularly in light of 6's DLC? Surely. I imagine it's spoken of openly. I'm not entirely confident they intentionally created the gaps. I am more confident that they intend to exploit it, though.

Lack of release of core code to modders in 6 has made me a little jaded about Firaxis, for full disclosure.

 

[Thormodr]

Call me naive, but I prefer not to be so cynical. I'm sure the potential for selling DLC was indeed discussed with FXS during development, but I doubt Ed and co had it as a motivation behind their design choices, they certainly don't come across this way. We'll never know for sure, of course, so I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think it's cynical. Firaxis has known the feedback for years that people want many more Civs. Perhaps this Civ switching is their way to have an excuse for a deluge of DLC to fill that demand. They know a fair amount of fans (me included) won't be happy with very ahistorical transitions such as Egypt into Songhai. So, perhaps they did actually create a problem in order to offer a solution.

Seems smart on their part.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. I don't disagree that switching gives them a ton of scope to sell DLC, as does decoupling civs from leaders.

I'm confident that they've had long conversations about the best way to maximise this potential, about which civs and leaders to include at launch and which ones to push back for DLC. Some gaps may indeed be intentional. This isn't really any different to VI, with Genghis missing from launch, the idea of alternate leaders, and so on.

It would be cynical, imo, to believe that the inclusion of switching was motivated by a monetization strategy. I prefer to think - and have no reason to believe otherwise - that they included switching because they felt it was the best choice for the game they wanted to make. Maximising its monetization potential came later.

 

[Civciv5]

Mobile? Casual? What?

I'm curious, for those who don't like the switching mechanic: are you hoping the game will fail?

I am in fact hoping the game does so badly at release the devs have no choice but to either scrap the civ switching mechanic entirely or at least make it optional, maybe in like a game mode.

 

[Zaarin]

I am in fact hoping the game does so badly at release the devs have no choice but to either scrap the civ switching mechanic entirely or at least make it optional, maybe in like a game mode.

I really can't fathom being that self-absorbed.

 

[Civciv5]

I really can't fathom being that self-absorbed.

The whole mechanic contradicts the entire ethos of the franchise.

To build a civilization to stand the test of time.

Instead now we have: "Build a civilization to magically transform into another civilization that may or may not be historically related to them or make sense in general, and then do so again at another point in time for some arbitrary reason."

 

[Siptah]

The whole mechanic contradicts the entire ethos of the franchise.

To build a civilization to stand the test of time.

After so many years and games, it became stale to always recreate San Marino‘s historical achievement, so it was time for change.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The whole mechanic contradicts the entire ethos of the franchise.

To build a civilization to stand the test of time.

You're a couple of months late for this discussion! I want to engage but equally, I've already talked and thought about this a lot.

What I would say is the "ethos of the franchise" is open to interpretation. After all, the tag line for the OG Civ is to "build an empire to stand the test of time"; the line at the end of the Civ IV intro is "to build a legacy that would stand the test of time". Empire, civilization, legacy, these are nebulous terms. Your interpretation is not uncommon, but nor is it an objective truth.

 

[Disgustipated]

The entire game design is centered around this. It isn't going anywhere.

I do suspect the next Civ game in the series won't have this feature, but that's a long way off.

 

[Zaarin]

I do suspect the next Civ game in the series won't have this feature

It's way too early to be taking bets on Civ8.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's like 1UPT. It's contentious upon adoption. A small part of the fan base will refuse to even consider it. Most of the rest will accept it for good or bad. It will factor into future iterations to one extent or another, even as a few holdouts vainly express hope that it will be discontinued.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It's like 1UPT. It's contentious upon adoption. A small part of the fan base will refuse to even consider it. Most of the rest will accept it for good or bad. It will factor into future iterations to one extent or another, even as a few holdouts vainly express hope that it will be discontinued.

If Civ 7 is successful. If it flops (for whatever reason(s), regardless of whether that's due to civ-switching or not), the reversal could be quick.

Note that I doubt it flops. I'm assuming there's been a lot of thought go into the transition / crisis mechanics that will make the actual civ-switching fun to play, at least for most players. But time will tell.

 

[Civciv5]

The entire game design is centered around this. It isn't going anywhere.

I do suspect the next Civ game in the series won't have this feature, but that's a long way off.

Unless the game flops so badly and is so badly received they have no other choice...

It seems unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

Maybe they will implement the feature so that the switch does not break immersion (i hope). Civ switching is the main reason Humankind has no place in my game library. I am a sucker for CIV games, been playing since CIV3 but this time i will wait and not preorder. Having said that, i am optimistic that eventually it will be a worthy addition to the franchise.

 

[Thormodr]

I must say, the idea of Khmer turning into Vietnam or vice versa sounds dreadful. Like stomach churningly bad.