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

[Olleus]

By contrast, that they are willing to take a risk like that is the single biggest source of confidence I have in the game. A caretaker crew could have added navigable rivers and some bits and bobs, called it a day, but it'd be Civ 6.5.

I am I tad unusual in how I rate games, though. I feel like most people have the logical hierarchy of: interesting success > uninteresting success > interesting failure > uninteresting failure. For me, I definitely want to see interesting successes first and interesting failures second. Taking a big swing for the seventh entry in the series shows there's a genuine design impulse, and I'm always happier to support a genuine design impulse - even if it ultimately fails - than some design by committee fan service project.

Someone wants to take an idea from another game that wasn't well received and iterate on it. That's interesting; they think they can succeed where Humankind failed. There's a creative ambition there I can respect.

Reminds me of what the author of Caves of Qud said: “Some people will say Caves of Qud is a bad game, to which I will say, yes but if you only make good things you're missing out on a lot of things that could be made.” Of course, as a game with a 95% positive feedback, it really isn't a bad game either.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Glad you like it. I hate it. And, I want the people involved with making the decisions to go this direction to not be involved going forward.

asking for hard working devs to be fired is a really terrible thing to be saying if you’re a fan of this franchise, regardless of if you love or hate these changes

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Nope. I'm not going to coddle grown adults. They understand the consequences of poor business decisions, as millions of other people deal with every single day.

respectfully, you’re a consumer. you choose to purchase or not to purchase this game. you aren’t entitled to have the devs cater to every minutia of preference everyone has, or else you’d be the dev, and they wouldn’t be, if you don’t like the game, play an old civ, a different franchise, make your own historical 4X. but don’t be out here calling for hard working devs in an already difficult and underpaying game industry to be fired. that’s horrific rhetoric.

 

[bv98132454]

asking for hard working devs to be fired is a really terrible thing to be saying if you’re a fan of this franchise, regardless of if you love or hate these changes

I don't care if they are fired, retired, reassigned, or otherwise. All I care is that they are not involved with the franchise going forward. Whether they worked hard on it is inconsequential. Creators work hard on bad product all the time, it doesn't make it good.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please get back to topic.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Most of us on this forum have gone through this phase. I've played every version of Civ from 1 through 6, and as a huge fan of Civ 5, I was crushed by Civ 6, the first Civ game I truly didn't enjoy. Many others had it happen with Civ 5, a game they couldn't stand compared to Civ 4, a game they loved. The main difference was most of us waited to play the latest version before deciding we didn't like it. Or at least, waited for the completed game to be released so they could peruse the reviews before deciding it wasn't for us.

My main point is that each game in the series has been a different game than the one before it. Hoping for a "one civ only" version of Civ 7 seems to me to like hoping for a no-1UPT version of Civ 5. The dev team has moved on and so has the series. If you're a long-term civ fan, it's unlikely that Civ 7 will be your favourite - you're most likely going to prefer one of Civ 3, 4, 5 or 6, just because there's 4 of them and only 1 of the latest game. But a few years from now this forum will likely have a large contingent of people who prefer Civ 7 - assuming the dev team has made a good game that appeals to lots of players, even if not to you.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Most of us on this forum have gone through this phase. I've played every version of Civ from 1 through 6, and as a huge fan of Civ 5, I was crushed by Civ 6, the first Civ game I truly didn't enjoy. Many others had it happen with Civ 5, a game they couldn't stand compared to Civ 4, a game they loved. The main difference was most of us waited to play the latest version before deciding we didn't like it. Or at least, waited for the completed game to be released so they could peruse the reviews before deciding it wasn't for us.

My main point is that each game in the series has been a different game than the one before it. Hoping for a "one civ only" version of Civ 7 seems to me to like hoping for a no-1UPT version of Civ 5. The dev team has moved on and so has the series. If you're a long-term civ fan, it's unlikely that Civ 7 will be your favourite - you're most likely going to prefer one of Civ 3, 4, 5 or 6, just because there's 4 of them and only 1 of the latest game. But a few years from now this forum will likely have a large contingent of people who prefer Civ 7 - assuming the dev team has made a good game that appeals to lots of players, even if not to you.

civ is also too multifaceted for us to really one-and-done just based off one feature. i’m not the biggest fan of civ-switching, but the chola announcement made me preorder. some of us just look for different things in different editions of the game.

but maybe im not the average civ player. i preferred 6 to 4 and 4 to 5

 

[bv98132454]

Most of us on this forum have gone through this phase. I've played every version of Civ from 1 through 6, and as a huge fan of Civ 5, I was crushed by Civ 6, the first Civ game I truly didn't enjoy. Many others had it happen with Civ 5, a game they couldn't stand compared to Civ 4, a game they loved. The main difference was most of us waited to play the latest version before deciding we didn't like it. Or at least, waited for the completed game to be released so they could peruse the reviews before deciding it wasn't for us.

My main point is that each game in the series has been a different game than the one before it. Hoping for a "one civ only" version of Civ 7 seems to me to like hoping for a no-1UPT version of Civ 5. The dev team has moved on and so has the series. If you're a long-term civ fan, it's unlikely that Civ 7 will be your favourite - you're most likely going to prefer one of Civ 3, 4, 5 or 6, just because there's 4 of them and only 1 of the latest game. But a few years from now this forum will likely have a large contingent of people who prefer Civ 7 - assuming the dev team has made a good game that appeals to lots of players, even if not to you.

I didn't like Civ 6 either, but I view it as a Civilization game nevertheless. I view the changes they are making to this one quite differently. In my view, they are akin to a restaurant chain known for selling chicken sandwiches turning into a burger joint. Are they still a restaurant? Yes. Are they still selling sandwiches? Yes. But, what they are selling is something fundamentally different from before.

 

[Mightymagyar]

I didn't like Civ 6 either, but I view it as a Civilization game nevertheless. I view the changes they are making to this one quite differently. In my view, they are akin to a restaurant chain known for selling chicken sandwiches turning into a burger joint. Are they still a restaurant? Yes. Are they still selling sandwiches? Yes. But, what they are selling is something fundamentally different from before.

And then they avoid any questions asking if they have any chicken in the back

 

[Haig]

Personally I am fine with the switching, and I am very hyped for pretty much everything I have read of the game.

Still, I think fxs could silence the complainers with a simple(I assume) insert of an option where you can pick a civ from any age at the start, and play it thru the game.

If you would pick America, you would need to wait for last age to use unique units, but thats how it always has been.

Civ VII features seem so cool that it would be a fun game even like this, I bet.

 

[Thormodr]

Personally I am fine with the switching, and I am very hyped for pretty much everything I have read of the game.

Still, I think fxs could silence the complainers with a simple(I assume) insert of an option where you can pick a civ from any age at the start, and play it thru the game.

If you would pick America, you would need to wait for last age to use unique units, but thats how it always has been.

Civ VII features seem so cool that it would be a fun game even like this, I bet.

Yes, that would be nice.

 

[Krikkit1]

I can see two approaches that might work

1. Gameplay approaches, Allow a civ in any era…. that means for some of its unique abilities, they probably won’t be active for earlier eras (American special Abilities may not be balanced for Age 1)
If applied to all it would mean a significant boost to ancient age civs v others

2. Naming approaches
Allow a player to choose to keep their Old civ Name and City List, or to start with a given civ name and city list from a future era. Hence you are still known as Rome / America the whole game, but in the Second Age you have bonuses to your horse archers and conquest…because the gameplay civ you chose was Mongols

This could be extended to the AI with a setting (AIs keep previous civ name/city list)… so my America could take newly founded Thebes from the Egyptians (although the Americans do this with Keshiks and the Egyptians have madrassa in their cities)


#2 would probably be easier to code and wouldn’t affect balance

#1 is what you want, but it would be harder to code and be unbalanced unless everyone started with civs from the same era

 

[Giskler]

If you see a mode like this, it will be at least a year after launch and there will need to be sluggish sales to spur them to do this.

So, if you hate how they're doing civ swapping (like me), do not buy this game. Punish them for these decisions and hope they see the light.

While I'm initially not enthusiastic about changing civs with every age, I'll reserve judgement until we get to see more gameplay. These kind of knee-jerk hyperbolic reactions are a bit over the top. It reminds me of the "Civ6 has cartoony graphics so the franchise is dead" and "Civ5 is moving to 1 unit per tile so the franchise is dead" debacles.

 

[RandV]

I would say the thread topic question is a pretty firm no. The three age mechanic is likely built into the foundational system of Civ VII, it's not going to be so easy to untangle to create a "classic" mode. And for all the work put into it why would the devs want to do so much extra work to undo it? And what they have provided is the ability to lock in and play only a specific age.

Now the interesting question and what I think should be the real concern is how much leeway are modders going to have, because if its a lot this is an example of something modding could do. For example with the above option they could take the locked in antiquity option and expand the list of civs, techs, and units to have a 'full' game in what is technically for Civ VII the antiquity era.

 

[bv98132454]

While I'm initially not enthusiastic about changing civs with every age, I'll reserve judgement until we get to see more gameplay. These kind of knee-jerk hyperbolic reactions are a bit over the top. It reminds me of the "Civ6 has cartoony graphics so the franchise is dead" and "Civ5 is moving to 1 unit per tile so the franchise is dead" debacles.

Just simply pointing out what would need to happen for such a mode to occur. You may not like that, but I don't particularly care.

 

[Mightymagyar]

While I'm initially not enthusiastic about changing civs with every age, I'll reserve judgement until we get to see more gameplay. These kind of knee-jerk hyperbolic reactions are a bit over the top. It reminds me of the "Civ6 has cartoony graphics so the franchise is dead" and "Civ5 is moving to 1 unit per tile so the franchise is dead" debacles.

I love this world people created where people's complaints about graphics are in the same ball park as changing stuff that has to do with the name of the damn game

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please keep your discussion civil.

 

[Gedemon]

what they are selling is something fundamentally different from before.

What we're saying is that this is subjective, and many of us experimented that before, square to hexes was a fundamental changes for some, I don't get why, but it was their feeling, 1UPT was another fundamental change, you may not get why, but I understood that feeling. For me leaders playing as humans was fundamental too.

Now I understand why you think the civ switching is a fundamental change, but I disagree on the claim it's "more fundamental" than the previous changes, and I disagree even more on the claim it changes the game into something that is not "Civilization: Build an Empire to stand the test of Time" anymore, because I bet there will be mods for a more classical experience released less than 1 week after release.

There are still none to switch back to squares from hexes BTW.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Personally I am fine with the switching, and I am very hyped for pretty much everything I have read of the game.

Still, I think fxs could silence the complainers with a simple(I assume) insert of an option where you can pick a civ from any age at the start, and play it thru the game.

If you would pick America, you would need to wait for last age to use unique units, but thats how it always has been.

Civ VII features seem so cool that it would be a fun game even like this, I bet.

i see it as something that we’ll likely see first as a mod, and then later as a game mode in an expansion (like the civ 6 game modes, which were cool, but perhaps a little undercooked)

edit: if any modders are here thinking about doing this mod when the game is eventually out hit me up. i can’t program whatsoever but i’d love to help with research, ability ideas, balancing, etc.

 

[Mightymagyar]

respectfully, you’re a consumer. you choose to purchase or not to purchase this game. you aren’t entitled to have the devs cater to every minutia of preference everyone has, or else you’d be the dev, and they wouldn’t be, if you don’t like the game, play an old civ, a different franchise, make your own historical 4X. but don’t be out here calling for hard working devs in an already difficult and underpaying game industry to be fired. that’s horrific rhetoric.

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