What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Krikkit1]

Riiiight.. so it’s what? The change of a label? An icon? Like come on, break it down.

Yes
1. the label for the civ
2. the icon of the civ
3. the city list
4. the nonunique building and unit graphics

2-4 would have to be from existing civs… #1 could be player customized.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

As an example, if World of Warcraft was a completely different looking game, with different music, sound effects, quest text and a completely different art choice, but the gameplay layer were exactly the same, the people I met were the same, but I just couldn't get into it and couldn't get past the differences in this hypothetical WoW, you could characterize that as an entirely emotional decision, especially if you had the other experience to compare it to, however, you'd be conflating two very different experiences, even if both are "emotional".

To add to this analogy, it's not like taking WoW and just giving it a new coat of paint as civ switching and ages (a packaged combo designed around each other) have undoubtedly changed core gameplay of the series. So much so they had to change the decades old motto/tagline to justify

If anything this would be like releasing a sequel to WoW where you forced the players have to completely change their class or spec every 10 levels and then turning around and calling all the detractors upset at the change "emotional" to dismiss their criticism

 

[Maiq]

To add to this analogy, it's not like taking WoW and just giving it a new coat of paint as civ switching and ages (a packaged combo designed around each other) have undoubtedly changed core gameplay of the series. So much so they had to change the decades old motto/tagline to justify

If anything this would be like releasing a sequel to WoW where you forced the players have to completely change their class or spec every 10 levels and then turning around and calling all the detractor "emotional" to dismiss their criticism

To derail this analogy completely, who levels anymore? (in retail anyway)

 

[ombak]

To add to this analogy, it's not like taking WoW and just giving it a new coat of paint as civ switching and ages (a packaged combo designed around each other) have undoubtedly changed core gameplay of the series. So much so they had to change the decades old motto/tagline to justify

If anything this would be like releasing a sequel to WoW where you forced the players have to completely change their class or spec every 10 levels and then turning around and calling all the detractors upset at the change "emotional" to dismiss their criticism

I think this goes a lot farther than I would take the analogy. Mind you, I don't think it's invalid, just a different category than what I would consider the problem.

For one, I think the tagline argument is a bit post-hoc and largely irrelevant. Devs like change. A tagline change could be justified by just wanted to give a writer some work to do at some point in the project when they otherwise would have nothing to do just as easily as by wanting to reflect game changes.

I do think the changing classes analogy is more useful in expressing how the change feels to some, but one counterpoint would be that it's an exaggerated example because gameplay wise you could absolutely have changes as big as civ 7 does without forcing a class change. Again, it's all intertwined, so the way it feels matters, but gameplay wise achieving these big changes can be done as in civ - with the cosmetic layer forcibly changing (civ name bonuses etc) or as in wow - with the cosmetic layer or "class fantasy" remaining the same.

 

[Maiq]

I think this goes a lot farther than I would take the analogy. Mind you, I don't think it's invalid, just a different category than what I would consider the problem.

For one, I think the tagline argument is a bit post-hoc and largely irrelevant. Devs like change. A tagline change could be justified by just wanted to give a writer some work to do at some point in the project when they otherwise would have nothing to do just as easily as by wanting to reflect game changes.

I do think the changing classes analogy is more useful in expressing how the change feels to some, but one counterpoint would be that it's an exaggerated example because gameplay wise you could absolutely have changes as big as civ 7 does without forcing a class change. Again, it's all intertwined, so the way it feels matters, but gameplay wise achieving these big changes can be done as in civ - with the cosmetic layer forcibly changing (civ name bonuses etc) or as in wow - with the cosmetic layer or "class fantasy" remaining the same.

Yeah I was just being a bit silly. Plus leveling vs actual WoW endgame are 2 completely different animals so any analogy would have to come from there. Wait. What is that flying at us? Oh no it's the Augmentation Evoker!

 

[McSpank01]

Yes
1. the label for the civ
2. the icon of the civ
3. the city list
4. the nonunique building and unit graphics

2-4 would have to be from existing civs… #1 could be player customized.

In reality all you are talking about is a label for the title of the civ and the icon. You can change the name of your cities so that covers point 3.

On point 4, what is the difference between what happens in civ 6 and civ 7? Outside of unique buildings and units all graphics are essentially regionally generic based on the era. In all previous games your cities changed into some generic look and feel, there was no customised graphics for the most part.

So yeah, I don’t get it. You can’t play a game because you don’t like the label and an icon? That isn’t just totally irrational?

 

[Skojardu]

In reality all you are talking about is a label for the title of the civ and the icon. You can change the name of your cities so that covers point 3.

On point 4, what is the difference between what happens in civ 6 and civ 7? Outside of unique buildings and units all graphics are essentially regionally generic based on the era. In all previous games your cities changed into some generic look and feel, there was no customised graphics for the most part.

So yeah, I don’t get it. You can’t play a game because you don’t like the label and an icon? That isn’t just totally irrational?

McSpank, you said it, that the age system forcing switching is what is bad. So the age system is married to the switching. In many minds, they're two cheeks on the same butt.

There has also been musing that the game's long development time has given it an outmoded philosophy. Beyond Civ Switching, gamers may sense the game's spirit doesn't match their expectations. Hence, the "ick". It is a response to multiple stimuli, not limited to Civ Switching, but Civ Switching is the most apparent of those complaints (and the focus of this thread).

Composites (Civ4)

Back to the list of technologies in Civ4 "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."– Aristotle Composites enables construction of Modern Armor (with Computers). It lets you build the SS Casing project. The term "composite" refers to any object that is made up of more than one material...

civilization.fandom.com

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

In reality all you are talking about is a label for the title of the civ and the icon. You can change the name of your cities so that covers point 3.

On point 4, what is the difference between what happens in civ 6 and civ 7? Outside of unique buildings and units all graphics are essentially regionally generic based on the era. In all previous games your cities changed into some generic look and feel, there was no customised graphics for the most part.

So yeah, I don’t get it. You can’t play a game because you don’t like the label and an icon? That isn’t just totally irrational?

No it's not irrational because most people don't play games like Civ for just cold hard numbers, Immersion in the world created during a Civ campaign, alt-history, and light role playing and attachment to the civs/leaders being played and played against have was always been major draws of the series. This idea that labels and icons don't matter and we're just irrational for not liking civ swapping as a concept is silly because we know this series would never have been what it is today if they replaced all the leaders with famous aliens and made all the Civilizations extraterrestially themed instead.

Themeing, immersion, etc matter for this series, maybe not to you but surely you see how calling us irrational and trying to tell us that we're wrong about our dislike of swapping and that we all secretly love it mechanically and are just too emotional to realize it is even sillier right?

 

[WillK96]

In reality all you are talking about is a label for the title of the civ and the icon. You can change the name of your cities so that covers point 3.

On point 4, what is the difference between what happens in civ 6 and civ 7? Outside of unique buildings and units all graphics are essentially regionally generic based on the era. In all previous games your cities changed into some generic look and feel, there was no customised graphics for the most part.

So yeah, I don’t get it. You can’t play a game because you don’t like the label and an icon? That isn’t just totally irrational?

You also don't keep your Civ ability into the next age... which is a pretty big part of the Civ.

 

[Leucarum]

Honestly I think it'a a bigger problem if the issue with Civ Switching is emotional as much as it is rational. There's no fixing an emotional response in the same way you fix a mechanical issue.

It's a bit of both though I think, and the emotional part is less connected to the age system than the mechanical part.

 

[Krikkit1]

In reality all you are talking about is a label for the title of the civ and the icon. You can change the name of your cities so that covers point 3.

On point 4, what is the difference between what happens in civ 6 and civ 7? Outside of unique buildings and units all graphics are essentially regionally generic based on the era. In all previous games your cities changed into some generic look and feel, there was no customised graphics for the most part.

So yeah, I don’t get it. You can’t play a game because you don’t like the label and an icon? That isn’t just totally irrational?

Playing a game is irrational.
Playing a game is emotional.
Playing a game is subjective.

The purpose of Civ 1, Civ2, Civ3, Civ4, Civ5, Civ6, and Civ 7 is that they let you interact with different labels and icons to create different emotions.

The value of particular icons and labels in creating specific emotions will vary from player to player.

Some players may have trouble using Civ7 to play Doom without the proper icons and labels available…so they don’t.

For some players who want to imagine a Roman empire that nukes the Mongols….Civ7 isn’t much better than their own imagination…so why pay 70$ when there are also UI issues*, AI issues and mechanics issues.

*UI issues are just labels and icons..so why fix them if labels and icons are unimportant

By giving players better control over the icons and labels, you increase the irrational value of the game for some players …which is the only type of value the game has.

Playing the game is irrational…so Firaxis should make it the best irrational experience they can.

 

[Crashdummy]

Look, classic mode basically already exists in the game if you want it to. If you just want to play as Rome, pick Augustus, pick Rome.

Play through antiquity, build all your UU and UB. Then get to exploration. Pick Norman’s, don’t build any of their buildings, don’t build their units. Don’t use any of their traditions but use Roman ones. Rename any cities how you like. Do the same thing in Modern.

There you go, that is going to be the Classic experience in Civ 7. You find that fun, go for it.

No it doesnt. First, what if i want to play America? Or China? (not Han, Qing, whatever, CHINA)

And then, the buildings change graphically, the options to build change (doesnt matter if you change the, they change), the civics tree change, etc

I understand you are not bothered by civ switching, but saying is irelevant only shows that you dont understand the problem, nor you care to understand it

And BTW, Age transitions are NOT the reason why the game stops, takes you away from gameplay and forces you into a new game start menu. You can have age transitions without that interruption of gameplay. That interruption is forced because of CIV SWITCHING

 

[Crashdummy]

As an example, if World of Warcraft was a completely different looking game, with different music, sound effects, quest text and a completely different art choice, but the gameplay layer were exactly the same, the people I met were the same, but I just couldn't get into it and couldn't get past the differences in this hypothetical WoW, you could characterize that as an entirely emotional decision, especially if you had the other experience to compare it to, however, you'd be conflating two very different experiences, even if both are "emotional".

I'm with you on some criticisms being just complaints without substance, but even though I also pointed out that civ switching can be entirely cosmetic, it is closely tied to gameplay choices. Would they have chosen to implement this version of eras without it? Maybe. They certainly could. But how different would it feel? It would be a very different reality, one which might lower the resistance of a lot of players to these mechcanics. Then maybe they could polish those mechanics and move towards civ switching in a more "integrated" way in the future, where you choose new civ bonuses, have a narrative about becoming a horse people like Mongols, or an early industrial power in the modern era, and maybe we'd be in an alternate universe where we arrived at the exact same gameplay and yet everyone who is complaining on these forums might instead be praising the game. We'll never know.

I hope they overcome the criticisms in the long-term and stay on this track gameplay wise, with improvements to transitions and polish in the later eras. But I can't dismiss all criticism of the civ switching as merely emotional when everything is so intertwined and they took so big a swing.

A better example would be if WoW suddenly would tell you to change your race from Orc to Tauren, for no reason. And people like him telling you its just a cosmetic change

 

[Vandlys]

Seriously?

A grammer critique?

A 15 year old game has better player retention than the newest one. That is ridiculous.

Spin that all you want, it’s a massive fail.

No, it wasn't criticism on grammar, it was on the difference in time. Yes. Your claim that it is ridiculous -might- be valid, but you are still comparing two wholly different things. Again, I'm not saying I disagree with your thoughts per se, or whether it's a massive fail or not, I'm saying that V had time to mature, and that 'time' alone is not a sufficient argument in my opinion. In 15 years, people might be stating the same thing about VII saying it really came into its own after a while, and that the newly released IX is absolutely horrible because of 'feature X' that they just implemented.

 

[kotpeter]

A better example would be if WoW suddenly would tell you to change your race from Orc to Tauren, for no reason. And people like him telling you its just a cosmetic change

What's funny is that it really is Civilization's (franchise's) fault that people perceive civilizations as agents for history-inspired role playing, and refuse to embrace a different, arguably more truthful implementation, where civilizations fall and rise anew, under new banners and with new cultures, ready to stand the test of their time.

Now the devs deal with the backlash for taking this simplified role-playing gimmick away.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What's funny is that it really is Civilization's (franchise's) fault that people perceive civilizations as agents for history-inspired role playing, and refuse to embrace a different, arguably more truthful implementation, where civilizations fall and rise anew, under new banners and with new cultures, ready to stand the test of their time.

Now the devs deal with the backlash for taking this simplified role-playing gimmick away.

Yeah, but there's a different side of the story. Only some share of old-time players complain about civilization change. New players who come and will keep coming to the game have no problems with civ switching as far as I can see on Reddit for example.

 

[McSpank01]

No it doesnt. First, what if i want to play America? Or China? (not Han, Qing, whatever, CHINA)

And then, the buildings change graphically, the options to build change (doesnt matter if you change the, they change), the civics tree change, etc

I understand you are not bothered by civ switching, but saying is irelevant only shows that you dont understand the problem, nor you care to understand it

And BTW, Age transitions are NOT the reason why the game stops, takes you away from gameplay and forces you into a new game start menu. You can have age transitions without that interruption of gameplay. That interruption is forced because of CIV SWITCHING

Ok, so what is China? It’s just a word. The China from Civ 6 was just a catchall word which is really referring to a specific dynasty from Chinese history. Your whole concept of this ‘China’ you are playing as is completely artificial and made up. It doesn’t exist. You are getting upset that you can’t play as a faction that literally doesn’t exist in real life. Do you understand the irrationality of that?

Then you say the buildings change? The buildings changed in previous versions too? So what? Were you bothered by generic Asian buildings turning into generic Victorian buildings before? How is Han Chinese buildings turning into Ming Chinese somehow completely immersion breaking compared to the generic Asian version you had previously?

You can literally ignore the civ specific civic tree if you want to, and you get to keep traditions from your old civ. So explain how this is so game breaking for you that you cannot tolerate it?

And you are just wrong about why the game stops. The game stops to reset the board and move you into a new age, the civ switching is just a small part of that, you could remove civ switching and the transition would still be jarring. The issue with stopping the flow is because of ages.

 

[Haig]

McSpank01:
There are mechanical and gameplay problems in civ switching for me too, besides the roleplaying and immersion.

One is that there are less surprises to what your neighbor civs are as they are always from the selection of current age. No more spawning between Zulu and Netherlands, now its always the ancient civ.

Second problem is that I think it is confusing to get again another set of new bonuses to remember each age, as the civs now have even more unique components than before.. Also this game throws special bonuses from all directions, from leader perks adding up to mementos etc. Sometimes less is more.

Third problem is that civs are there for only a third of the play. Like Carthage has a cool ability with towns but you lose it, unlike in Civ 6 and 5 where Phoenician/Carthagian ability is useful whole game. Also some civs you need to wait for ages to play, like Russia.
In Civ 6 and 5 you get to use Russias abilities immediately but for unique unit you need to wait for industriaö era, but it's a nice little present to look for (cossacks are pretty powerful).

Fourth problem is that in my opinion game is less interesting without power peaks, now its too balanced to make anything feel special.

Of course everybody doesn't agree but this is how I see things.

 

[Crashdummy]

Ok, so what is China? It’s just a word. The China from Civ 6 was just a catchall word which is really referring to a specific dynasty from Chinese history. Your whole concept of this ‘China’ you are playing as is completely artificial and made up. It doesn’t exist. You are getting upset that you can’t play as a faction that literally doesn’t exist in real life. Do you understand the irrationality of that?

Then you say the buildings change? The buildings changed in previous versions too? So what? Were you bothered by generic Asian buildings turning into generic Victorian buildings before? How is Han Chinese buildings turning into Ming Chinese somehow completely immersion breaking compared to the generic Asian version you had previously?

You can’t play literally ignore the civ specific civic tree if you want to, and you get to keep traditions from your old civ. So explain how this is so game breaking for you that you cannot tolerate it?

And you are just wrong about why the game stops. The game stops to reset the board and move you into a new age, the civ switching is just a small part of that, you could remove civ switching and the transition would still be jarring. The issue with stopping the flow is because of ages.

China doesnt exists in real life? China is the result of all the dinasties, its not just one, and thats what i played. Its very rational. And even if it didnt exist, it would be irrelevant, in the WoW example, Orcs dont exist, yet if i make one, i dont want the game to change it into a Tauren, even if the change is just a skin and one ability (Changing Civs in Civ 7 is a bigger change than changing races in WoW)

Buildings didnt change in previous versions, you had upgrades, which is different, and werent based on a decision forced to do at a set time that forces you to change into another Civ

Your solution is to ignore the whole civics tree? Just like your "solution" is to ignore everything in the game that doesnt fit your narrative. And then you claim the change is just aesthetic? That is irrational, you just claim we can ignore everything that changes so you can back your flawed claim that is just emotional.

I am not wrong about why the game stops. The "reset" can be made without any interruptions, at the end of the turn you get the new age message and the game upgrades your units, changes the diplomatic relations, etc, without sending you anywhere and without interrupting the flow of the game. The reason why you are sent to a new selection screen is to pick the new Civ, it has nothing to do with ages

 

[Haig]

Imagine going to a football("soccer") game to see your favorite team Arsenal play.

When second half starts, you watch as instead of Arsenal, it's the italian team Lazio Fc walking out of stands!

Also they have totally change their tactics, are diving and waving their hands in front of the referee.

You watch in shock but a guy next to you just shrugs and says, "What's the big deall. They just changed their players and logo and name and playstyle. It is still a football team with eleven players. Stop being so emotional! Go Lazio!"