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.