Firstly, I don't have the game yet and I don't have it because there's just not enough interesting leaders or civilizations for me to want to pay to play. But I've been keeping up with the reviews and videos about what's happening with the game because probably I will get it one day. Most of the negative feedback is on UI and most people who have a favorable opinion of the game want to think that that is the only issue. I don't believe that is the case. I think there's 2 sides. The negative side is that they might have UI as a main or one of the biggest problems amongst many other problems. The positive side that they admit that UI is an issue and thinks that once that's fixed it's all good. I think the positive side (which includes the developers) is ignoring many of us who thinks there are other issues.
I think the game has strayed too far from history. I really think it needs to get back to genuine leaders in history (not great people types), and actually have a sense that you're leading a genuine political/military leader through history. I don't mind leaders being able to lead any civ. But if there are rules around how a civ or leaders can unlock certain civs, why not make it a rule that Augustus can only lead Rome or Greece in antiquity and not Khmer. After all, Catherine the Great doesn't unlock Siam in modern age, so why does Augustus unlock Khmer in antiquity. Second, I'm also fine with changing civs but why not make it more natural progressions or gameplay progressions that make sense. Things like wine resources for France is silly. France is not the only civ that drank wine in history. It feels forced. Spain to Mexico, okay. How about use opportunities like religion to able to progress to another civ. For example, if Buddhism is spread in your civ, something like Siam becomes unlocked. It should be genuine historical reasons that unlock civs rather than forced ones.
Finally, civ changes should happen because something in history makes it happen, not because you get to a certain turn number. Especially the fact that at that turn all wars and wonder building stops. That's silly and heavy handed. Why not let the history and turns continue (not stop at a pre-determined point), you can still have crises, if you want to change civs. Changing civs should be something you'd want to do. It should be a major upgrade. For example, I agree that America should be a modern age civ. But becoming America should have something to do with government and policy changes that give that civ a major boost and something you'd want to do despite going through a major crises. Something like, yes we can go through this bad phase because we'll come out better. That is what the American Revolution was about. Also, civs shouldn't have to change, if you want to be China throughout the game, you can but you might not get the benefits of upgrading to a more modern civilization. That is the path you should be allowed to take. Take history, the nation of Germany formed from many states, but the unification of Germany didn't have to happen nor does it need to happen at a certain date. Why can't the Roman civ just have dynastic style changes like China with Han > Ming > Qing. Isn't that was civ is about. The what-if? The problem right now is, it's not what-if, it's what-will-be. You're allowed to choose in a box at a certain time rather than developing a real history that makes sense. I played past civs like a roleplay. I was never great player but I enjoyed building a somewhat historical empire where I could write my own history and tell a story. I don't think I was the only one and it's neglected a lot of players like me who liked that ability to create that free history with historical characters and civs.
I don't know, maybe someone who gets paid for thinking up this stuff should expand on this. I know this stuff probably won't happen in Civ VII as the game mechanics are set but Civ VIII?
