As I understand it, you get a Pantheon in Antiquity, Religion in Exploration. I'd also prefer Religion in Antiquity since most of the major religions were founded in Antiquity, and Civ7's Antiquity also covers the Early Medieval period.
I'm disapointed
- Thread starter Bobolove
- Start date
Civ 6 has nothing immersion breaking, it keeps the formula plus has some innovations which blend well, like districts. Well except for some modes, but note, those are optional modes. Btw, I do feel that for example Secret societies mode is still less problematic than this civ switch, so I mean if they'd have added some "realistic fantasy" (as some flavor, not main feature) that wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me.
As someone who has been playing Civilization for more than 25 years, I'm disappointed too. I was expecting VII to be the best Civ game ever and, judging by those first reviews on YT, it won't be the case.
They had many years to think about Civ 7. Instead of strengthening the soul of the series, bringing to VII the best aspects/elements of each of the previous Civ games, they apparently preferred to take inspiration in a game of another franchise that has less daily players than Civ 3. VII looks uninspired to me. They could have just improved and fixed what was wrong in VI and everybody would be happy. I just don't get it.
They had many years to think about Civ 7. Instead of strengthening the soul of the series, bringing to VII the best aspects/elements of each of the previous Civ games, they apparently preferred to take inspiration in a game of another franchise that has less daily players than Civ 3. VII looks uninspired to me. They could have just improved and fixed what was wrong in VI and everybody would be happy. I just don't get it.
Last edited:
DeutschDachs
Emperor
I can see it now... Wojtek leads Poland in Sid Meier's Civilization VIIIf a bear leads any civ in Civ7, I'm out.
Makes more sense than Ben Franklin leading the Maurya to me anyway lol
...Okay, I could get behind that.
TreVor_ish
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 486
Where buy it now!
I don’t know if it natural progression or not, but it was a big leap going from squres to hexes and 2d to 3d. I would like to imagine that next stepnis removing bounderings of hexes and haveing some sort of free form turn based gameplay. I think that would get everybody excited for civ again.
But can he go to space?
Timoleon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 12
Except when Ambiorix was speaking French. And Pyramids costing half a Maryannu. But, as far as I can remember, no other Civ game broke immersion in that fashion too. I was referring to the fact that, in my point of view, the series has been de-evolving for decades now. We get from the point of having to manage EVERYTHING (taxes, building roads, caravans, cities to trade, improvements, special citizens, colonies, resources needed to construct something, Rules editor, menu options in 4, etc) to the point of being an observing bot and everything is being collected as a coin (tourism, Faith). And to what point? So I could burn heretics at the stake, trying to save my own religion which was selected from a very short list by the way. Ok, districts and goverment cards are nice to have, but that's about it. The very core of your gameplay is the same like it was 30 years ago. I so wanted them to get rid of the early Wonder-race which is super immersion breaking. For example, Wonders should cost a ton of shields/hammers/whatever, set you back half your hard-earned treasury (which in a balanced game gold should be hard to come by, unlike 6), require specilized resourse (like copper for Colossus), provide super unique benefits for your civ FOR EVER, earn the awe and envy of your enemies. It shouldn't be how many you can build, it should be *if* you can build one. So I fail to see the innovations you mention. And what if I wanted to play a huge map with 20 civs and max 2 cities? Mess with the files, that was my option.
Anyway, my 2 cents. Maybe I'll try 7 too, when it will be 4.99$, 6 years later and stuffed with a 100+mods, If Worldbuilder won't be a stinking bugfest this time around.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Any ruler with any civ is just to give more options to players who like to play "what if". it is completely optional. You can stick to a historical leader with their historical civ if you want more historical immersion. As for civ-switching, it is not really changing civs, it is more like choosing era bonuses. You keep the same leader, same cities etc... So it is still the same civ. I like to think of it more like changing culture each era. Also, the game gives you civ choices based on history and your game choices. So you can select a new "civ" based on history to maintain a sense of historical immersion. It is not like Humankind where you are just picking some random "civ" that has no historical connection to your previous civ.
He spoke Gaulish, but the actor definitely had a distracting French accent.
If a bear leads any civ in Civ7, I'm out.
We may have figured out why they are doing the 2-leader diplo screens now though, for the leader romance options.
This is something that actually bugs me. I understand why they do it but like when first showcasing Civ VI they take moderate to extreme zoom in view to highlight the details they put in, but that's not a playable perspective. I had to go digging through videos to get one brief glimpse of what the game actually looks like from the perspective you'll actually be playing in - and here it looks more like regular Civ.
TheGrayFox
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 479
No it doesn't because the entire tagline and guiding design philopshy for Civ series has been about taking a civilization (notice the singular) through time and building an empire that stretches across all time. Nobody is expecting a completely historically accurate and realistic depiction of all of human history from a Civilization game. I don't know why this strawman constantly gets brought up whenever someone points out the problem of civilization swapping breaking their immersion in the game.
The problem here is entirely with how people identify with the civs they play and play against and how the devs are trying to use a flimsy argument about "historical authencity" to justify the introduction of an incredibly gamey mechanic that undermines their original design philosphy.
Because everyone has a different breaking point for their suspension of disbelief.
For some, as they've accepted immortal leaders or modern Civilizations in antiquity in the past, they can accept civ switching today. For you it's not the case, but that doesn't make it a strawman, it's a fact for them.
TheGrayFox
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 479
but leaders are still immortal.... and modern civilizations in antiquity and ancient civilizations in modern times is literally what civilization series is built on. The tagline of the series is literally " lead a civilization and build an empire that spans the test of time"
Last edited:
Too bad they never took that phrase seriously and decided to always start in 4000 BC in each game, when most of the interesting stuff in human history already happened before that.
TheGrayFox
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2024
- Messages
- 479
Attachments
I bring it up for when people say civ swapping make no sense, because to me both make as much no sense in different waya so it doesn't really matter. As Gedemon say it's up to personal preferences.
The point for civ swapping is not only about historical though, it is also has gameplay advantages (which might be gamey but civ is not about completely historically accurate and realistic depiction of human history anyway), which are part of the choice. How much which part played in the balance we can't know.
About civ being about one civ standing the test of time, I agree the change is weird and understand it might be seen as crossing the limit of what make a Civilization game. I personally don't mind.
Similar threads
