I'm so tired of this argument. Was Civilization 5 Civ 1 5.0 because it didn't have ages and civ switching? Why do we only make this sort of strawman argument with this issue? It's very odd. There are numerous ways to change the game without messing with the traditional way civs were portrayed. How do I know this? Civs 1-6 all exist and were all successful.So then go play the game they like instead of advocating for 7 to become 5 2.0
This is just not true. If they made Civ a RTS, I would see that as anathema as well and I believe I wouldn't be alone in that sentiment. There are certain things you just don't change with a franchise. With civ switching and ages, it's clear that they crossed the line for a significant portion of the fanbase.Nothing in Civ is anathema.