I wasn't suggesting removing what they have. This battle I consider already lost. I was suggesting separate scenario/mode mimicking old way of playing. Something similar they've done reacting to rage on civ6 release by creating a graphic overhaul mod changing they way game looks to move it closer to civ5 look. I think back then it was more of a flex to show engine capabilities rather than admitting defeat. Could go similar way this time if it's doable.
In my case I suspect the nearest opportunity to win me back is with complete edition at 50 bucks in few years, because this is the only way to solve another main issue, which is 2k greed. So, I hereby leave them plenty of room to fix current problems.
Yes, this is what I meant.
Yes, this is what I meant.
Essentially, you can make extremely decisive choices at the pre-game stage. And those choices will determine what sort of game you're playing more than the map generation.
"I'm gonna pick attributes x, y, z to play this OP combo and roflstomp whatever the map can throw at me." This is not about playing the map, it is about enforcing a plan (and all plans are not equal).
To me, this is reminiscent of Total War : Warhammer, a game that I would like to like (the flavour !) but that is plagued with very high power differential between factions (amongst other crippling factors like the AI).
This is somewhat acceptable in a fantasy world where all races are not meant to be equal but, in Civ, there is just the human race... I can get behind refined variations in gameplay between civilizations but not this sort of overspecialization, neither power differential.
I also mentionned "picking a lane" at game start because I believe you can "pick a lane" (culture, science, military) you want to specialize in and mostly ignore other aspects of the game (I may be wrong in that, feel free to correct me).
I understand this was already / somewhat the case in some previous iterations of Civ but don't consider it a selling point. I believe a strategy game should require a well-rounded performance from the player.
Fwiw, I don't think this is how it plays in VII at all. Someone who is better at the game can correct me, but I think a balanced approach is generally good, you need culture and science and military. And it is absolutely possible to pivot from one to another as you go through Ages, it is nothing like sticking to a lane.
This doesn't exactly fit with the social culture around civ games, in which players typically identify their AI opponents very much with their leaders and very little with their civilisations. Leader switching would have been a harder sell and much more confusing. Some people are certainly put-off by the cutting of ties between leaders and civs, but I think in a year or two, much less by the end of the game's active development, very few people will bat an eye at it.
Alot of assumptions in this post - I have found that I always identify with the civ that I am playing in a game called Civilization and I suspect most people do. Otherwise, this game wouldnt be getting roasted at the moment. I do agree that it is confusing or immersion-breaking to have reset as implemented, but if you need to have that mechanic in the game, it would be much more palatable to switch leaders - not civilizations.
I’ve been afflicted by this too. I had a volcano erupting for the length of an age. I’m pretty sure that should send you into an ice age but instead you experience the glories of the UX for repairing tiles, always paranoid you missed something.
Consider how leaders act as metonyms for their civilisations in past games, as well as how in recollections of game stories people typically phrase events along the lines of "Gandhi declared war on me..." Not to mention leaders being depicted in visual media like fan art for the game and so on. Civs in and of themselves do not have "personality." Leaders, helpfully, do.
I have little doubt that had Civ V released in 2025 in its 2010 state, it would have been received very poorly. But, we don't live in the 2010 or 2016 gaming environment. Today's environment contains far more cynicism and is shaped by a decade of anti-consumer behavior by publishers and developers. I don't think a 2025 negative review is equivalent to a 2010 or 2016 negative review, but it doesn't particularly matter. What matters is the contemporaneous reception of the game at its release. The first major publisher to recognize that the environment has changed and adjust to it will be the one that dominates the next decade. I've yet to see signs that any major publisher is ready to make that adjustment.
