Is it possible we get a Classic Mode for Civ VII?

[Hawke9]

I think it's a bit unfair to call civ 7 a "bad game" already. Do I like the civ changing mechanic? No not at all, I unfortunately think that even though it might be implemented in a better way than humankind, I'd always rather have a single civ the whole game. But leaving that to the side for a moment, in the previews and all the sneak peeks we have gotten so far, I have seen so many changes that I have been begging for and dreaming to be introduced in a civ game, improving the game in so many innovative ways. Take navigable rivers, commanders, towns in addition to cities, not to even begin on the looks of the game, civ 7 is in my opinion by far the most beautiful game I have ever seen. Just look at those cities!

My point is, even though I extremely dislike the civ switching mechanic, it's very clear to me that the development team behing civ is immensely talented and definitely deserves praise. They clearly have a vision for civ 7, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. For me the good greatly outweighs the bad, but we can only fully judge when the game is out after all.

Here's to hoping for a "classic mode" mod!

 

[SuperFly47]

I think it's a bit unfair to call civ 7 a "bad game" already. Do I like the civ changing mechanic? No not at all, I unfortunately think that even though it might be implemented in a better way than humankind, I'd always rather have a single civ the whole game. But leaving that to the side for a moment, in the previews and all the sneak peeks we have gotten so far, I have seen so many changes that I have been begging for and dreaming to be introduced in a civ game, improving the game in so many innovative ways. Take navigable rivers, commanders, towns in addition to cities, not to even begin on the looks of the game, civ 7 is in my opinion by far the most beautiful game I have ever seen. Just look at those cities!

My point is, even though I extremely dislike the civ switching mechanic, it's very clear to me that the development team behing civ is immensely talented and definitely deserves praise. They clearly have a vision for civ 7, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. For me the good greatly outweighs the bad, but we can only fully judge when the game is out after all.

Even if civ switching isn't done well upon release, there could be patches and especially expansions that could improve it.

 

[Krikkit1]

Eh if a construction crew makes a bad house, I don't really want them making anymore.

Well you are free not to buy this “house” if you think it is bad, and avoid their products in the future

 

[Mightymagyar]

Well you are free not to buy this “house” if you think it is bad, and avoid their products in the future

It is a safety hazard man

 

[Krikkit1]

It is a safety hazard man

It is not a safety hazard. (At least the civ switching Game isn’t, the Denuvo arguments are in the other thread)

If you don’t like it and neither does anyone else, and everyone finds it so bad that they avoid all these developers work in the future…yeah they would have to stop making games.

However, just because you like hot dogs doesn’t mean others won’t enjoy burgers. (and it doesn’t mean burgers shouldn’t be eaten by others)

Hopefully you can smush their burger into a hot dog shape or put on the hot dog toppings you like. But if not people still play Civ1-6 (in different amounts and 1 might take a bit of digging to get to work). So, if you can’t find a way to enjoy the burgers…sorry , that stinks. Hopefully you can find other things to enjoy after this is out.

 

[acluewithout]

The more I look at it, the more I think the ‘Civ mechanic’ is the way forward.

There are some look & feel issues that might need some work. I think the two biggest are:

One. Describing the mechanic as changing ‘culture’ instead of ‘civilisation’.

Two. An option to keep your Civilization’s current name. Like, part of Civ’s appeal is playing ancient Civs like ‘Rome’ or ‘Egypt’ through to the modern day. But, honestly, I just think that is about keep continuity of the ‘name’ and your ancient buildings / wonders, not really any need to have a whole extra game mode of chance any mechanics.

On flip side, having the Civ-Texas-Switch means:

One. No more ‘Ancient Era’ Australia, Brazil, Canada, or United States. OMG, I hate those guys turning up in the early game of Civ 6. So, then you exclude them, but now they don’t appear in the modern era end game and that sucks. Civ switching nearly fixes both problems (and if you want to play the IS from Ancient to Modern, you still can by choosing a US-themed leader).

Two. You can more immersively play out the evolution of certain societies - I’m really looking forward to playing some early society -> England -> UK etc. OMG, totes hope we get Vicky and Lizzy again in Civ 7.

Three. Options to have multiple copies of the same ‘Civ’ in the game and it feeling ‘good’. FXS seems to generally imagines ‘Civs’ as continuous populations and cities. But that’s not really how it works - in real life, ‘Civs’ don’t always really evolve instead new people join the society or replace it, or populations move, or they declare independence etc. The result is things like, the Roman Empire simultaneously collapsed or didn’t even end depending on your point of view and later multiple people claimed to be the inheritor of Rome’s legacy or borrowed aspects of it legacy. I just don’t think Civ 7, or any Civ game, can really capture that - but allowing multiple copies of an ages’ Civs will probably let the game capture that feel a bit, eg you might have Julius C-Section’s ‘Rome’ and Neapolitan Bony-M’s ‘Rome’ both going head to head to be the ‘real’ Rome.

There a heap of things about Civ 7 that feel like they might be a backwards step. All ‘wait and see’ stuff, but the moment things that look like they might be a bit rubbish includes - no real improving land or placing pop in tiles, city size tied to pop, government and policy cards getting dumbed down, too many choices tied to your leader or Civ (meaning less space for government, ideology to be meaningful), maybe losing ‘faith’ as the third currency after ‘gold’ and ‘hammers’ , to name a few.

But seriously. Changing your Civ as FXS are implementing it really does sound like a good idea. Yup, they need to get the ‘look & feel’ right, but the more and more I think about it, it seem like a super smart choice. I honestly think it’ll make Civ 7 feel more not less ‘Civ’.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well you are free not to buy this “house” if you think it is bad, and avoid their products in the future

i would say it’s more akin to a house with a different architecture style by the same architects that some don’t like, and others, like me, have come to accept for various reasons despite the fact it’s not what we’d do if we were in their place.

 

[AriochIV]

"This feature is terrible! But if you change the name, it's fine."

 

[Mightymagyar]

It is not a safety hazard. (At least the civ switching Game isn’t, the Denuvo arguments are in the other thread)

If you don’t like it and neither does anyone else, and everyone finds it so bad that they avoid all these developers work in the future…yeah they would have to stop making games.

However, just because you like hot dogs doesn’t mean others won’t enjoy burgers. (and it doesn’t mean burgers shouldn’t be eaten by others)

Hopefully you can smush their burger into a hot dog shape or put on the hot dog toppings you like. But if not people still play Civ1-6 (in different amounts and 1 might take a bit of digging to get to work). So, if you can’t find a way to enjoy the burgers…sorry , that stinks. Hopefully you can find other things to enjoy after this is out.

It absolutely is a safety hazard, think about how many could hurt themselves rushing to hit the "refund" button on steam

 

[Krikkit1]

Actually, they should have a True classic mode…. no uniques for civs, no effects for leaders. (I remember thinking that was ruining the game making things that only some civs could use back going from 2-3)

 

[Kjimmet]

"This feature is terrible! But if you change the name, it's fine."

As stupid as that sounds, it works sometimes. When WoW was being made they added a mechanic that decreases exp once you've played a while. People hated that. So Blizzard changed the wording and suddenly, people loved it. Now the game says you have 2x exp until it decreases to normal. The feature was terrible but they changed the name so it became fine.

 

[BuchiTaton]

As stupid as that sounds, it works sometimes. When WoW was being made they added a mechanic that decreases exp once you've played a while. People hated that. So Blizzard changed the wording and suddenly, people loved it. Now the game says you have 2x exp until it decreases to normal. The feature was terrible but they changed the name so it became fine.

They already did. Changed Egypt>Songhai from be an "historical option" to a "regional option" and suddenly it is OK, I wonder if people realize that Tebas is closer to Rome than to Gao.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

They already did. Changed Egypt>Songhai from be an "historical option" to a "regional option" and suddenly it is OK, I wonder if people realize that Tebas is closer to Rome than to Gao.

regional option is still pretty bad. unless region just means the entire continent of africa

why don’t i just turn them into the zulu while im at it

 

[AriochIV]

As stupid as that sounds, it works sometimes. When WoW was being made they added a mechanic that decreases exp once you've played a while. People hated that. So Blizzard changed the wording and suddenly, people loved it. Now the game says you have 2x exp until it decreases to normal. The feature was terrible but they changed the name so it became fine.

They did a lot more than just change the optics. The original penalty was very severe and scaling, where after a certain length of play you would get almost no XP, and you'd be essentially forced to stop playing. They abandoned that after the complaints.

...but we digress. The important thing is how it plays, not what it's called. The vast majority of players are not obsessive-compulsive academics who fixate on nomenclature.

...even though I suspect many of us are.

 

[Krikkit1]

They already did. Changed Egypt>Songhai from be an "historical option" to a "regional option" and suddenly it is OK, I wonder if people realize that Tebas is closer to Rome than to Gao.

There its not the regional option for Egypt as much as a regional option for Songhai. Egypt and Aksum being the closest by land to Songhai.

Base game is probably going to be sparse on SubSaharanAfrica (and probably everywhere besides Eurasia). Which means those regional links will be sort of long until DLC provides some better options

 

[Professor Phobo]

Yeah, "look, this is the closest one we've got" is a catch-all, not a declaration of fidelity, I think. As we get more civs the pathways should look smoother.