Civilization VII - Official Gameplay Showcase Discussion (8/20)

One more thing that bothers me. Ok, player can choose unhistorical choices for civilization progression, or try to do something that is more historic. That is player choice to play competitive or roleplay.

But what about AI civilizations? Will they always be a random nonsense? Those civs evolving unhistorically is what would bother me more, for any kind immersion.
From the showcase, it seems as though there is a certain preferred direction and you can unlock the more distant ones. I would guess that most of the time they will make largely historical evolutions (since that had the lowest friction), but occasionally will make a wild jump. I think that sounds like a nice balance.
 
Why they changed it I can't say . . .
"People just liked it better that way"

That could be a tagline for this game. Both for taking the graphic criticism (and praise) very seriously, and also for trying to go with the times. They should definitely get the song for their next trailer.
 
Three ages potentially fix my biggest gripes with civ: Bad scaling, slow end game and lackluster victories that must be beelined for from turn 1. Maybe this will replace civIV for me.
 
I also saw that, but does it mean that you cannot change anymore which tile a citizen is working?

From the stream, you basically get all the tiles you have unlocked. So you don't really unlock tiles from culture, when your city grows, you gain the next tile, and you get all the yields from the tile.
 
Nothing is a more fundamental change to a game than player movement rules.

I liked 1upt, btw
the entire thematic core of the series is far more fundamental than the number of military units you can have on a tile, for this particular series.
 
From the stream, you basically get all the tiles you have unlocked. So you don't really unlock tiles from culture, when your city grows, you gain the next tile, and you get all the yields from the tile.
How is that related to my question? ^^"
 
How is that related to my question? ^^"

Sorry, trying to listen to the stream and read through the threads. They mentioned on the stream, you don't have any real choices in which tiles you work. You grow to a new tile, you put a building or district or improvement or whatever, and you just get the yields and work it. So you never really have un-worked tiles or a choice in which tiles to work.

When you build towns or outposts, apparently you can specialize them for some yields. But I'm not entirely sure on that whole mechanism and how that relates to cities.
 
Another thing is getting rid of workers will give the game lots of dead turns.This is another thing you see in Amplitude games.
Civ VII production began before Humankind's launch, so I'm really curious as to how we ended up with a product that is shaping up to be rather similar. I know a lot of people felt Civ 6 was stale (though I don't fully agree), but the fact that their artistic direction in response to that criticism turned out so similar to a game with such mixed reviews is very interesting.
 
One more thing that bothers me. Ok, player can choose unhistorical choices for civilization progression, or try to do something that is more historic. That is player choice to play competitive or roleplay.

But what about AI civilizations? Will they always be a random nonsense? Those civs evolving unhistorically is what would bother me more, for any kind immersion.
My admittedly uninformed guess is that when you're in the Age of Antiquity, you'll meet Leaders from Antiquity-exclusive Civs. Then, when you go into the Age of Exploration, the Leaders you've met will stick around but evolve into new Age-exclusive Civs based on some sort of AI strategy or agenda, but when the map expands, you'll meet Age of Exploration-exclusive civs with their appropriate leaders specific to that age. And again with the shift into the Modern Age.

So, for an example, you're in Antiquity, and you meet Ashoka and Julius Caesar as Maurya and Rome, respectively. When you hit the Age of Exploration, Ashoka is now leading the Mughals, while Caesar is running the Ottomans, but with the expanded map you meet England as led by Elizabeth I and Siam as led by Borommatrailokkanat or what have you. Then, in the Modern Age, Ashoka is leading India, Caesar is leading Turkey, Elizabeth I is leading the UK, and Borommatrailokkanat is leading Thailand, but you meet Eva Perón leading Argentina and Bismarck leading Germany.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's just my guess, and what I think would be the coolest and most immersive way to do this.
 
This may be a great entry, but not as a Civ game. Just like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is a great entry, but a very bad Assassin's Creed game.

Maybe.

I’ve only been following Civ fans online since the Civ 5 came out and with every entry it’s a variation of:

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 4”

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 5”

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 6”
 
My admittedly uninformed guess is that when you're in the Age of Antiquity, you'll meet Leaders from Antiquity-exclusive Civs. Then, when you go into the Age of Exploration, the Leaders you've met will stick around but evolve into new Age-exclusive Civs based on some sort of AI strategy or agenda, but when the map expands, you'll meet Age of Exploration-exclusive civs with their appropriate leaders specific to that age. And again with the shift into the Modern Age.

So, for an example, you're in Antiquity, and you meet Ashoka and Julius Caesar as Maurya and Rome, respectively. When you hit the Age of Exploration, Ashoka is now leading the Mughals, while Caesar is running the Ottomans, but with the expanded map you meet England as led by Elizabeth I and Siam as led by Borommatrailokkanat or what have you. Then, in the Modern Age, Ashoka is leading India, Caesar is leading Turkey, Elizabeth I is leading the UK, and Borommatrailokkanat is leading Thailand, but you meet Eva Perón leading Argentina and Bismarck leading Germany.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's just my guess, and what I think would be the coolest and most immersive way to do this.


I transcribed the video for easier access, to have things better clarified, see https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...arding-ages-civ-switching-and-leaders.691345/ .
Leaders do NOT switch. Only civs switch. Each civ is unique to an era.
 
My admittedly uninformed guess is that when you're in the Age of Antiquity, you'll meet Leaders from Antiquity-exclusive Civs. Then, when you go into the Age of Exploration, the Leaders you've met will stick around but evolve into new Age-exclusive Civs based on some sort of AI strategy or agenda, but when the map expands, you'll meet Age of Exploration-exclusive civs with their appropriate leaders specific to that age. And again with the shift into the Modern Age.

So, for an example, you're in Antiquity, and you meet Ashoka and Julius Caesar as Maurya and Rome, respectively. When you hit the Age of Exploration, Ashoka is now leading the Mughals, while Caesar is running the Ottomans, but with the expanded map you meet England as led by Elizabeth I and Siam as led by Borommatrailokkanat or what have you. Then, in the Modern Age, Ashoka is leading India, Caesar is leading Turkey, Elizabeth I is leading the UK, and Borommatrailokkanat is leading Thailand, but you meet Eva Perón leading Argentina and Bismarck leading Germany.

Again, I could be wrong, but that's just my guess, and what I think would be the coolest and most immersive way to do this.
if this is the case, it means that the closer to you a civ is, the older of a leader they will have, which might be a little weird

chances are they just showed ancient leaders as your neighbors because it was easier to explain the concept in a trailer like that.

Maybe.

I’ve only been following Civ fans online since the Civ 5 came out and with every entry it’s a variation of:

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 4”

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 5”

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 6”
this is still a much larger change than any of the qualms that ppl have had before (1 stack units, art style, etc.)

I was one of the rare Civ 4 fans who loved Civ 5, and Civ 5 fans who loved Civ 6. This is just too mcuh of a change to the core formula for me to feel like it feels like a civ Game, or for me to genuinely like the new formula.
 
I also think that part of the charm with Civilization is that you see the same leaders throughout the whole game. So you're continuously interacting with them and developing a game-long relationship with them. Switching Civs mid-game seems like it's taking away one of the biggest parts of the series' charm in exchange for "realism". We'll see if that decision pays off, or if Civ 7 goes the way of Humankind as a result.

Don’t the leaders stay the same though?

I was going to mention the lack of builders, but I wasn't sure if there was enough evidence that Civ 7 will not feature them. If this is true, though, I'll be really happy about it because I've always felt the game could do with fewer units, and builders are unnecessary and among the easiest to remove from the game.

But I like the micromanaging!
 
I transcribed the video for easier access, to have things better clarified, see https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...arding-ages-civ-switching-and-leaders.691345/ .
Leaders do NOT switch. Only civs switch. Each civ is unique to an era.
My understanding is that the "new civ" is actually 3-parts entity.
1. The leader which stays the same but he/she is developed through the game. There were screens showing leader abilities in a form of a tree with selectable nodes (like unit promo tree).
2. Some "civ-core" which also is developed through ages (?) There are screens showing abilities of civs as sceintific, militaristic, etc.
3. Actual civ like Mongolia, Egypt, etc.
Also, those civs from p.3 are somehow dependant and probably will be historically linked.
 
From the streamers, builders are gone. Basically when your city grows, you get the choice of how to develop the next tile.
Huh. Should make roads and rails interesting then.
 
Maybe.

I’ve only been following Civ fans online since the Civ 5 came out and with every entry it’s a variation of:

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 4”

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 5”

“Why can’t this be more like Civ (x)?? Going the wrong direction, I’m out. I’ll just stick with Civ 6”
Well, I'm still stuck with Civ 4 as Firaxis decided to morph the franchise from a proper strategy game into a fancier empire management game with mobile-esque graphics and the depth of a puddle.
Based on the trailer I see they did not change course.
 
So, there's LOTS to unpack. Humankind comparisons everywhere. Here are my first impressions of what we've seen so far by category. For context, loved Civ4, played Civ5 very minimally, and was a staunch defended of Civ6 around these parts.

Art Style
I have to say the art style is gorgeous. I was okay with the cartoon-y art style of Civ6, but what's different in Civ7 is that there's a sense of direction. I can see that they're going for a museum/diorama style, which I'm okay with, as opposed to Civ6's style in which everything feels exaggerated. I also really like that we get to see more detailed cultural styles for each civilization.

Changing Civs in Each Age and Independent Leaders
I did not expect them to take this route. A lot of people are making Humankind comparisons because of this new feature. I have played Humankind myself (and was a former beta tester of the game). The changing of civs in that game sounded interesting on paper. But I have to admit that how they executed that mechanic wasn't great. I understand from a player perspective that some found the mechanic too abstract that it left them disconnected from what they're playing with. From what I see, Civ7 tries to make a better version of this by locking the path of how you choose the next civilization based on cultural/geographic proximity, what resources you extracted, how you interacted with other civs, etc., together with having a leader independent from the civ you're playing so the player would feel grounded. It does allow some form of "customization" for the player, while restricting them within paths that make sense, either historically or gameplay-wise.

However, despite these "improvements" to the mechanic, I fear players would still feel alienated by what they're playing as. I'm not going to say the words "break immersion", because having America exist in 4000BC in previous games is already immersion-breaking in itself. Furthermore, as @Thenewwwguy pointed out (which I did not consider in my very first thoughts), the implications of this restrictive version of the Humankind succession mechanic for pre-colonial and indigenous societies is... 😬 Ironically, Humankind was better in that aspect, in my opinion.

Then again, we haven't seen this mechanic closely in action, so we don't know how they'll execute it gameplay-wise.

Other
  • I really like the idea that separate settlements might form independent from your civilization. That's what I wanted/expected from Civ6 with their loyalty mechanic. What they'll turn into, though, we have to see.
  • The happiness mechanic seems to be back, which I think is rather welcome; and so it may seem is the palace mechanic?
  • We don't know what the victory conditions will be yet, nor how they'll be tied to the new civ-changing system.
  • Adding new mechanics per era sounds quite jarring. Again, it all has to do with execution... which we don't have any info about yet.
  • I don't like how they labelled the eras. Would have been better if the first two are the "Bronze Age" and the "Iron Age". Or something that makes sense than having the medieval era be the age of "exploration". There was cross-continental trade between societies and civs during the medieval era, but that isn't the same thing as exploration. Most people during that era never left their homelands.
  • I have no problems with cultural, scientific, or philosophical personalities as leaders. The Philippines, in real life, has a novelist as its national hero. Who's to say Lao Tzu can't lead China?

Final Thoughts

The Humankind influence is there, but it's a rather odd route to take for the new iteration of Civ. I'd at least expect Civ to stay true to its identity as a game in which you basically play as an immortal god-emperor leading a 6,000-year-old nation with a capital called "Washington". While changing civs does make for a somewhat accurate simulation of how civilizations in real life move throughout history, it doesn't give players that experience of said omnipotence. Yes, you have the option to keep your civ even through to the end of the game (I think?), but it's not really the same. If this was released before Humankind was released, people might be hailing this as maverick, revolutionary at best, and jarring at worst. But at this moment, I can see why people are disappointed with Civ7's new central mechanic. At the same time now, because of the existence of games similar to Civ's genre (like ARA, Humankind, and Old World), players have other choices to go to if they don't feel they want to play Civ7. I am cautiously optimistic that Civ7 could do what Humankind couldn't. Personally, right now, I need some rumination before I can consider even buying.

EDIT: Added stuff about different game mechanics per era and the era names.
 
Last edited:
I'll give them credit for one thing. They could have simply done Civ VI with a few minor mechanics changes and a big graphics update and people would have bought it. They did not go that route. They are being bold and making major changes. For that thread about the Civilization through the ages series where everyone was trying to make guesses based on what the old videos showed: the point of that series was the devs saying they want to make major changes. Every Civ game is supposed to be a big shift. They were telling us to be prepared for more big changes.
 
Top Bottom