(POLL) What do we think of the change to playing multiple civs per game?

What do we think of the change to playing multiple civs per game?

  • Strongly like

    Votes: 48 11.2%
  • Like

    Votes: 70 16.3%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 84 19.5%
  • Dislike

    Votes: 88 20.5%
  • Strongly dislike

    Votes: 140 32.6%

  • Total voters
    430
It will feel like a huge change detaching leaders from civilizations and adding min/max swap mechanics for civilizations. That is simple undeniable. We've already seen how different it felt with the failure of Humankind.

It's not that your civilization "may" change, you have no choice the entire game is being built around these mechanics and your Ancient Eygpt WILL change because artificial crisis and you WILL have to pick another one, either "historical" (like Songhai for some odd or Arab invaders) or something completely arbitrary and conditional (I am a mongol because I have horses!) The entire design philosphy/mantra this series is built on and sense of identity involved in taking a civilization and standing the test of time gets thrown in the garbage when my ancient Eygpt is forced to suddenly become an Arab Caliphate, which eventually morphs into Burundi for some odd reason.
I don't know how it will feel because I haven't played it yet, and I therefore haven't made up my mind. You're obviously upset about it - fine. I have some concerns but I prefer to keep an open mind, wait for further details, and see how it feels to experience it.
 
THIS. I don't care what some weirdos want from Civ - I want maps and units, not Animated Heads. WTH?!
It's almost like some people want different things...Nah, anyone who wants something different from you must be wrong.
 
On one hand I think you have to recognize that in a vacuum it would probably be a change people are open to... but Humankind has already gone all in on it and people hated it. Their poor implementation sours the impression here, even if Civ is able to do it much better. And it was quite cringe worthy that this is the new feature they chose to launch with.

I'm neutral though and I think whats really critical comes down to a question of modding. I mean they are going to have mods right? It wouldn't shock me but they couldn't possible cut mods out of the picture? With a good modding component to the game if it's not already a game option if you don't like the changing Civs one of the first big mods should be to lock things into a linear path. And with leaders being separate from civilizations, I feel like that's going to make it harder to mod in new leaders, but much easier to add new Civs. In a friendly mod environment I could see a setup where you pick Octavian and start as Rome but have a much more robust 'logical' progression through the next two ages via the modding community.
 
On one hand I think you have to recognize that in a vacuum it would probably be a change people are open to...
I suspect people would still be throwing fits because it's different (but I agree that Humankind soured people's impressions who might otherwise have been neutral).
 
THIS. I don't care what some weirdos want from Civ - I want maps and units, not Animated Heads. WTH?!
Same here. I don't need animated heads too. I turn off animations. But... if the game forces me to watch "me/my leader" animated on the stage/on the screen and it's ugly and I can't turn it off then I care. I posted about Octavian animation as one of design flaws in the game. There is an unreadable UI too I should mention. But I don't care about UI because I can read small gray letters on gray background and recognize small gray icons without problem. Yet still - that's a design flaw.
 
Yes, I meant Spain as an Exploration Age civ makes sense. I wouldn't be sold on playing a Modern Age Spain, Portugal or Netherlands.
Unless you are Dutch like me or Portuguese, or Spanish I guess? Because it would feel really, really bad for me. (though I should already be happy to even have us in the game at launch, we mostly only get in with the 1st expansion)
Neither of these countries/people are at the same level as the US, China, Japan, Germany or India of importance nowadays but especially Spain and the Netherlands aren't that far behind.
In Humankind the same thing happens; The Netherlands are in the Early Modern Era and Spain even an era before that and Portugal isn't even in the game, and 2 of the civilizations that were chosen for the modern era were New Zealand and Sweden.
Nothing against Sweden or New Zealand (nice for them to get represented in the game too) but Spain and the Netherlands have bigger economies (15th and 17th worldwide) or populations then those two nowaday's (23th and 52th).
Unfortunately we are at place 6 and 7 in Europe (after Germany 3th, UK 6th, France 7th, Italy 9th and Russia 11th) and are therefore mostly overlooked and aren't even officially invited for the g20 (top 20 economies in the world) and there spots were given to Agentina (24th) and South Africa (40th) to have more diversity and countries on other continents. (at least Spain gets a guest invite every year, but the Netherlands has to beg each year to even get an guest invite and sometimes if the host nation doesn't like us we won't get one).
And yes I know we (the Netherlands) are a little spot on the worldmap and only have 18 million people, but we are very OP and have a lot of influence for such a small nation, lol.

But above all of that it just feels wrong if your civ is in the exploration age only and suddenly you have to choose an unrelated civilization in the Modern age.

At least in Humankind I could still keep playing as the Dutch, but only from the Early Modern era on if I wanted too. But without any new buildings, units and bonusses in later eras, like new other civs would get.
But that was better than to turn into another civilization all together. Also finding the best fitting path through the ages that would bring me to the Dutch felt weird.
While for the French or Chinese there was always a logical civ to take that was related to them in every era somehow, but not to strange as it is a French company that made the game.
I did feel disconnected with the game after a few games, with always the same avatar you made of yourself dressed in clothing of the civ of the era you played (which sometimes looked realy weird) in that era and all leaders spoke English.
And after a while you also knew which civ was the best to pick in each era and it was hard to not pick that same civ in each playthrough because you knew it was just the best or you didn't want the AI to pick it.
I tried hard to like the game because it was in the same genre as my beloved civilization games, but I just didn't and after a while I uninstalled the game because it was collecting digital dust on my hard drive.
Later I even tried Millenia but that was so bad I uninstalled that after a few days.
So for me it came as a shock to see that each civ is relegated to 1 age only in civ 7.

And even though I play the Netherlands more then other civs I also love to play the 'what if' story as every other civ and leader and even persona in game from the ancient times to the future and get them through all the ages and have them withstand the test of time in every civ game I played since civ II.
But I always put my home country in the mix of AI civs I play against just for fun and I am still amused to hear William of Orange (civ V) or Wilhelmina (civ VI) speak in Dutch towards me.
And even after all this above, Civ 7 still looks and feels like a civ game to me from what I have seen and as a civfanatic since 2002 of course I will buy and play it even if I don't like the changing of civs each age.
Hopefully the modders will help me and many others like me out.
 
Same here. I don't need animated heads too. I turn off animations. But... if the game forces me to watch "me/my leader" animated on the stage/on the screen and it's ugly and I can't turn it off then I care. I posted about Octavian animation as one of design flaws in the game. There is an unreadable UI too I should mention. But I don't care about UI because I can read small gray letters on gray background and recognize small gray icons without problem. Yet still - that's a design flaw.
That's one nice thing about the iPad. No animated leaders. At least for Civ VI. 😋
 
Unless you are Dutch like me or Portuguese, or Spanish I guess? Because it would feel really, really bad for me. (though I should already be happy to even have us in the game at launch, we mostly only get in with the 1st expansion)
Sorry, for the confusion. What I meant was I wouldn't want to play as the Spanish, Portuguese, or Dutch if they only appeared in the Modern Age, which would mean that all of their uniques would come after they reached their peak during their overseas colonial empires.
 
Sorry, for the confusion. What I meant was I wouldn't want to play as the Spanish, Portuguese, or Dutch if they only appeared in the Modern Age, which would mean that all of their uniques would come after they reached their peak during their overseas colonial empires.
I understand what you mean by reaching our peak but think about things that came after our Golden Age:

Along with the Zuiderzee Works, the Delta Works have been declared one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The Port of Rotterdam after been the worlds biggest for a while is still the biggest in Europe. In the Peace Palace in the Hague we host the International Court of Justice.
Artists like Vincent van Gogh, Piet Mondrian, M.C. Escher and Willem de Kooning. Architects (and Designer) Gerrit Rietveld, HP Berlage and Piere Cuypers. Civil Engineer Cornelis Lely.
Astronomer Jan Oort after who the Oort Cloud in our solar system was named. Furthermore we have 22 Nobel Prize winners in all sciences. Also lots of actors, directors and musicians who had international succes.
Companies like Philips that invented the Cassette and CD or ASML the largest supplier for the semiconductor industry and the sole supplier in the world of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines that are required to manufacture the most advanced chips. Amsterdam Schiphol Airport is the world's third busiest airport by international passenger traffic in 2023.
The Netherlands has the 17th-largest economy in the world, and ranks 11th in GDP (nominal) per capita. The Dutch rank second worldwide in value of agricultural exports, behind only the United States
Also we are the fourth-most competitive economy in the world, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report.
:sleep::coffee:
There is much more but like I said before even today we are a bit OP for our size.
 
I just cannot understand the need to "identify" with a Civilization you play. My country was never in any Civilizations - rightfully so, it's not significant enough. I play Civ with different factions to experience different gameplay styles and mechanical advantages, as it's a puzzle to be unlocked. Sure, I can appreciate that some people identify with an avatar of Laurier or whoever, but to me this just seems weird and a bit problematic. Think about it - if you identify with Ghenghis Khan or Julius Caesar, these are people who conducted massive genocide. Earlier civs had Stalin and Mao.
 
I just cannot understand the need to "identify" with a Civilization you play. My country was never in any Civilizations - rightfully so, it's not significant enough. I play Civ with different factions to experience different gameplay styles and mechanical advantages, as it's a puzzle to be unlocked. Sure, I can appreciate that some people identify with an avatar of Laurier or whoever, but to me this just seems weird and a bit problematic. Think about it - if you identify with Ghenghis Khan or Julius Caesar, these are people who conducted massive genocide. Earlier civs had Stalin and Mao.
Different strokes and all that. I'm with you - I feel no connection whatsoever to the different versions of England that I have been presented with - but a lot of people enjoy the roleplaying/alternate history side for their nations. Hopefully this doesn't get entirely lost with civ switching.
 
I just cannot understand the need to "identify" with a Civilization you play. My country was never in any Civilizations - rightfully so, it's not significant enough. I play Civ with different factions to experience different gameplay styles and mechanical advantages, as it's a puzzle to be unlocked. Sure, I can appreciate that some people identify with an avatar of Laurier or whoever, but to me this just seems weird and a bit problematic. Think about it - if you identify with Ghenghis Khan or Julius Caesar, these are people who conducted massive genocide. Earlier civs had Stalin and Mao.

This is game based on an abstraction of entirety of human history and with tagline of creating a civilization to stand the test of time. Of course its theming and a sense of identity or immersion in its civilizations, leaders, etc is important to many people who play the series. Yes, it's a good game because it's mechanics but very few are playing simply for spreadsheets, min/maxing, puzzles, and filling buckets.

War and genocide are parts of human history and even abstracted in the game itself. What do you think is being abstracted during your world conquest or when you raze cities? Playing as leaders like Genghis Khan or Julius Ceasar doesn't mean I'm a genocidal maniac in real life but yeah i'm going to be conquer everything I can get my hands on when i'm playing as them. (because that's what they did and thats what their units, abilities, and buildings encourage)
 
I just cannot understand the need to "identify" with a Civilization you play. My country was never in any Civilizations - rightfully so, it's not significant enough. I play Civ with different factions to experience different gameplay styles and mechanical advantages, as it's a puzzle to be unlocked. Sure, I can appreciate that some people identify with an avatar of Laurier or whoever, but to me this just seems weird and a bit problematic. Think about it - if you identify with Ghenghis Khan or Julius Caesar, these are people who conducted massive genocide. Earlier civs had Stalin and Mao.

Actually, I want a custom civ & only use the Romans/Greek/Alexander/Caesar as flavor.

But yes, one of the harsh messages of 3d Shooters, Age of Empires or Civ has always been that historically violence and wars work and peaceful people are obliterated.

The problem is that some people don't realize that you need armies to fight back against Ghenghis Khan or Mao. Instead, they call to abolish armies and then wonder why the result of pacifism is wars and genocides.
 
This is game based on an abstraction of entirety of human history and with tagline of creating a civilization to stand the test of time. Of course its theming and a sense of identity or immersion in its civilizations, leaders, etc is important to many people who play the series. Yes, it's a good game because it's mechanics but very few are playing simply for spreadsheets, min/maxing, puzzles, and filling buckets.

War and genocide are parts of human history and even abstracted in the game itself. What do you think is being abstracted during your world conquest or when you raze cities? Playing as leaders like Genghis Khan or Julius Ceasar doesn't mean I'm a genocidal maniac in real life but yeah i'm going to be conquer everything I can get my hands on when i'm playing as them. (because that's what they did and thats what their units, abilities, and buildings encourage)

Of course I am aware. It's a question of whether we look at it as an abstract, strategic game - or if we somehow roleplay and identify with these leaders. I did not say those leaders should not be in the game, I said that identifying with them feels strange.
 
Of course I am aware. It's a question of whether we look at it as an abstract, strategic game - or if we somehow roleplay and identify with these leaders. I did not say those leaders should not be in the game, I said that identifying with them feels strange.

I never said or implied you said that those leaders should not be in the game... i was just addressing your post

I think both things can be true. Civilization is an abstract strategy game about history and you play as a historic leader of a specific nation/civilization/people. I really think you're making the sense of "identity" many feel towards the civ/leaders they play sound more insidious then it really is.
 
I'd prefer if civs changed just inside their historical 'space'. Like, for example, ancient Egypt 'evolving' into Fatimid Egypt or Mamluk Egypt and then Modern Egypt or Syria. And imo we should be able to keep playing as ancient civs to the modern (and future) eras...
 
I understand what you mean by reaching our peak but think about things that came after our Golden Age:

Along with the Zuiderzee Works, the Delta Works have been declared one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The Port of Rotterdam after been the worlds biggest for a while is still the biggest in Europe. In the Peace Palace in the Hague we host the International Court of Justice.
Artists like Vincent van Gogh, Piet Mondrian, M.C. Escher and Willem de Kooning. Architects (and Designer) Gerrit Rietveld, HP Berlage and Piere Cuypers. Civil Engineer Cornelis Lely.
Astronomer Jan Oort after who the Oort Cloud in our solar system was named. Furthermore we have 22 Nobel Prize winners in all sciences. Also lots of actors, directors and musicians who had international succes.
Companies like Philips that invented the Cassette and CD or ASML the largest supplier for the semiconductor industry and the sole supplier in the world of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines that are required to manufacture the most advanced chips. Amsterdam Schiphol Airport is the world's third busiest airport by international passenger traffic in 2023.
The Netherlands has the 17th-largest economy in the world, and ranks 11th in GDP (nominal) per capita. The Dutch rank second worldwide in value of agricultural exports, behind only the United States
Also we are the fourth-most competitive economy in the world, according to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report.
:sleep::coffee:
There is much more but like I said before even today we are a bit OP for our size.
I understand what you mean. Unfortunately, that will be the consequence of mandatory civ switching once you hit the Modern Age, unlike Humankind where you could continue to play as them.
I just cannot understand the need to "identify" with a Civilization you play. My country was never in any Civilizations - rightfully so, it's not significant enough. I play Civ with different factions to experience different gameplay styles and mechanical advantages, as it's a puzzle to be unlocked. Sure, I can appreciate that some people identify with an avatar of Laurier or whoever, but to me this just seems weird and a bit problematic. Think about it - if you identify with Ghenghis Khan or Julius Caesar, these are people who conducted massive genocide. Earlier civs had Stalin and Mao.
I look at it more as roleplaying, than identifying. If I identify as something that's who I am in real life. Roleplaying at least allows to me to assume the civilization throughout the playthrough. Even then I've never thought about roleplaying as the individual leaders, but the civ itself.
 
I'd prefer if civs changed just inside their historical 'space'. Like, for example, ancient Egypt 'evolving' into Fatimid Egypt or Mamluk Egypt and then Modern Egypt or Syria. And imo we should be able to keep playing as ancient civs to the modern (and future) eras...
This simply isn't feasible for the vast majority of civs.
 
This simply isn't feasible for the vast majority of civs.
There's always a plausible civ branching to fill out those missing, like they did in AoE4. Imo it's just better than random requirements like "lots of horses: Mongols"
 
There's always a plausible civ branching to fill out those missing, like they did in AoE4. Imo it's just better than random requirements like "lots of horses: Mongols"
No one forces you to choose Mongols, though. So if you play as Egypt to Mongols, it's because you made the choice to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom