Branching Civs and evolving leaders made me think that the developers of Humankind and Crusader Kings 3 are lying in an alley somewhere, missing wallets and shoes.
@@woodysmith2681 eh CK is hardly the first or last franchise to do evolving leaders, you can say the same about Endless space, Stellaris, or Mount and Blade. The humankind devs are definitely nursing a good-sized bump on their heads and waking up in a back alley without their credit cards tho
@delcarsdungeon honestly why even though I mostly play old world(best 4x when it comes to strategy) I always come back to civ 5 for a game or 2. Love the personal feelings. I get so pissed when a friend denouces me it actually feels like a betrayel. Which is such a fun feeling to have in a strategy game. (CK3 also gives that feeling but I still have a hard time role playing in that game, work too hard at optimizing)
I wouldn't call that talking. When Hatshesput witnessed Augustus laughing (presumably at her) she just lifelessly stared into the void behind him. When she declared a war on him, she just moved to the front and breathed. All the more reasons to remove that and replace it with personal leader screens.
@coolbanana165 to be fair Augustus was a sickly man who aged poorly(physically, his mind stayed sharp) loosing teeth by the time he was in his sixties. But that was also not his public image and your not really going for historical accuracy in civ.
@coolbanana165 well that's because all his statues are based on when he was young. His statues were always idealized portrait of his face as a young man plus a physically imposing body(which he never had). We don't have any statues of him as an old man but we have descriptions. Not really disagreeing with you here. I agree it's a bad design for the game. Just trying to explain what the developers might be going for.
@@EAfirstlast he was kind of a coward, getting 'sick' constantly on campaigns and staying in his tent during key battles. A ruthless statesman though, had no issue ordering mass slaughter of political competition. In a way he was the opposite of ceasar who was ruthles and menacing on campaign but forgiving when it came to roman politics
1000% agree on the leader screen looking like a theater performance and sucking. Having a leader look you in the eyes, each with their own personality and mannerisms (and especially in V with their own background and ambience) is essential to connecting with them.
What I don't understand is that I feel it would have made so much more sense to switch your leader throughout the game, keeping the same civilization, rather than the inverse they have gone for. This keeps to their philosophy of new emerging gameplay for each age, but it also keeps immersion and historical contexts consistent. It feels much more plausible to, say, start as an ancient leader of a civilization and then work through more modern leaders as the game progresses with more relevant bonuses and advantages. I don't want to judge the "civilization switching" mechanic too quickly. After all, it really just depends on how it's implemented in gameplay. But it just seems like a near-missed opportunity in my view.
Honestly that's what I thought they were going for! I agree that they probably should've gone this way instead, but it might have been too technically challenging? In any case, the jury's still out on this mechanic until I get to play it, but I remain cautiously optimistic, if you will.
@@kitz3691 with the changing civ they only have to change the bonuses and gameplay mechanics and a few ui elements, if the leaders changed they would have to model 3 leaders for each civ with voice lines and animations which is much more taxing. Additionally, this would reduce the civ variety as each civ they added would then require 3 unique leaders to be made for them, rather than being able to add whatever civ they want and whatever leader they want, meaning that the scope of the cultures and people is much wider.
@@gumballking5479 This is a super great point. Obviously my original perspective has clear technical and practical flaws. Each route seems to have them. Either way, a sacrifice is being made. I do respect the approach of leaning into balancing each age on its own rather than the whole game. What they were talking about with some Civs only being fun and powerful in late/early games has definitely been true. Personally, I feel the historical consistency is a huge part of making your own stories and memorable experiences. Then again, if this paves the way for better gameplay, I may be open to it. It all depends on execution.
This was exactly what I thought it should have been as well! The civilization is the one you should keep growing, right? Then you just "recruit" other leaders from different ages to your civilization to boost what victory type you want. Or maybe you tag team with them and you switch leaders throughout the different ages but you still retain your civilization. It truly was a missed opportunity. They can even create avatars in different cultural settings like Teddy Roosevelt in a chinese inspired suit or something or just keep the flags behind them or whatever if it's too much work.
Civ 6 could hide its age due to its art style - some people didn't like it but the models did age well. The leader models in this game look like when they try to port a current gen game on to the Nintendo Switch
@@cactuslietuvaWhen leaders actually look like leaders instead of cartoonish caricatures. Just compare Civ 5's Augustus to this one and the difference is apparent
Civ 5's first meeting of each leader was peak leader animations. I never skipped them. I wanted Kamehameha to speak his amazing language at me, welcoming me to the amazing backdrop of the islands. They felt like a step back in Civ 6, so much so that I considered for a while to just go back to Civ 5. And now, it's a sliver of what it once was. You nailed it, it's not immersive. I don't feel like I'm the leader, I'm just there for the ride. Leader animations and screens is what makes it Civ for me. It sets it apart from all the other 4X games. Please, please please, Firaxis, don't fumble the bag.
I like Gitarja & Tamar in Civ6, but it does have some huge flops like Shaka compared to his civ5 counterpart. Also, like Civ5 Ramkhamhaeng and Alexander could be so sleazy with the lies and scheming - more of this is a good thing. If they just add a dramatic FPV announcement of the other leader, and then switch to that puppet pantomime theater view it could be pretty fun… so long as there's character.
Completely agree. Another thing worth mentioning is that it seems that Firaxis might also understand that they are throwing away their own tools to show off who we are meeting, so now they are compensating by making everyone overly animated. I haven't played Civ 5 (my preferred civ game) in years but I still remember what it was like to see Augustus Caesar, him sitting high on his throne as he looks down at you, head turned up with half closed eyes, not to look sleepy but because you aren't worth his energy, you are just another tribe for him to conquer in his mind, even speaking in a hushed tone of voice and using minimal movements, and all of these little things made him stand out and show his personality using so little, it was nothing short of genius. This imitation however, his name says 'Augustus Caesar', he looks like he is wearing Roman clothing, he has vaguely the right face (though he is definitely the weakest of the 4 options shown so far), but he is bouncing up and down all over the place, emphasizing his emotions as he voices his displeasure. Sorry, is this a person playing Caesar on a stage, or is this Caesar? That's why I think Firaxis knows they are making a mistake because now to make up for it they are making the characters move all around or stretch their arms out, because if you REALLY REALLY act as Caesar then that must REALLY REALLY make you Caesar, instead of... just being Caesar.
Yeah old world and humankind were both supposed to be civ replacements but it just didn't pan out. Guess it's harder to improve on the formula than people realized
I think it's a bit jarring to see something like George Washington of China kinda ruins the feel of a civ. If they want to add civ switching they should rename the civs to ethics, or ideology. That keeps the game thematically more together. Influence for diplo seem like a bad idea it's not a grand strategy game, the UI does look bad but the graphics look good.
Yeah. George Washington of China or Augustus of Zimbabwe just ring totally false in a way that takes me out of the game because it misunderstands the importance of culture on an individual and assumes that people are very fungible when certainly for major figures of history at least, they are not. I think this is a very ideological issue, ultimately. People who are all about materialist and economic history do not feel that individuality matters and you can just replace a major historical figure from Culture A into Culture B and who cares? They think the fun is seeing George Washington in a Chinese outfit because lol random XD! They think this because they find the "Great Man of History" accounting to be false, and that ultimately revolutionary France would have gotten some version of Napoleon no matter what. But this erases the pride, sentimentality and character that a historic figure tied to a specific culture has for people on an emotional level. And it strips historical figures of their individual importance. And I think for certain historical figures it's just incorrect, because I don't believe "some other Napoleon" would have filled Napoleon's place. Sure, ultimately Revolutionary France would've gotten a new leader, but it's most likely none of them would've been the military genius that Bonaparte was or be able to terrify all of Europe the way he did. Certain historical figures really *were* highly unique individuals with incredible talents that history revolved around, and no amount of materialist historical revisionism can erase that.
Some things look really good, but there are some big changes that I am worried about - not a massive fan of the empire evolution, or only having three eras. It seems like they've been heavily influenced by Humankind, and in the process has lost that unique civilization feeling. Hoping that they make some changes before release.
@@Golemoid Not true. The whole point of Humankind was having fluid civ mechanics and empire building. The execution backlash came only later. People were excited at the concept.
@@King1Z7They're saying the idea sounded good to a lot of people but the execution was poor, implying that maybe in Civ 7 the execution will be better.
What Im disappointed by is what their takeaway from humankind was. What I really liked in humankind was the extended early game where you could explore the map and familiarize with it before finally settling your first city. And also what I REALLY liked was the geography of humankind.
The Civilization changing every era has another aspect I don't see anyone talking about; They said every era has unique Civ's for that era. A standard game size is 8 civs, so 8 times the 3 eras... 24 unique civs minimum necessary for a small 8 player game. I'm used to running singleplayer 20 civ games on large maps. That would mean they would need 60 civ's for that to be possible. Even at a reasonable 12 player game, thats still 36 civs. 36 unique civs that I could have had the option to start as from the beginning. Seems like a lot of unnecessary extra work, so I'm betting that the games will be smaller scale and the maps wont be much if any bigger than the biggest in Civ 6. Probably has to do with the sprawl caused by some buildings (granary) being whole districts now. EDIT: According to the steam page; "Up to five players supported in the Antiquity & Exploration Ages. Up to eight players supported in the Modern Age." So it's even worse than I thought
@@sneakmaster113 I wasn't implying you could. I was saying that if they didn't lock 2/3 of the civs behind eras; I would have 36 to choose from but instead I get 12 (in the example I gave) I like the idea others have suggested about leaders evolving instead of civs
I guess "will your civilization stand the test of time" does not apply to CIV 7 anymore. Everything was looking good until the civ changing every era thing. Really can't get behind it, couldn't do it in Humankind and I doubt I'll be able to do it here.
I mean it’s still the same civilization, it just evolves over time like they do in real life. It’s gonna be interesting to see what China’s civ line is if it goes with the different dynasties of China over the ages since China has existed as a continuous nation more or less since it’s founding with the leadership being the only major change, although you could argue that the Mongol dynasty wasn’t properly “China” in the same way the Kingdom of Italy bares basically no resemblance to Rome beyond owning cities built/founded by Rome
Game UI/UX designers are coming from the same school that insists that every function of an app/webpage/smartphone should be behind some obscure hieroglyph instead of a box with a word indicating the function.
haha yeah this is so annoying, mostly because of mobile because nothing fits (not sure if they're trying to expand the game to be more accessible for tablet etc, but probably). At the very least it needs a description on mouseover.
Never has my excitement been built and killed so fast during a trailer. Never played Humankind so I had nothing to compare it to and was enthralled until about 20 seconds in. "Oh cool, so I go from Gaul to Kingdom of France to French Republic while picking from a group of leaders from that country during that era and they will have permanent unique bonuses that will stay with me through the game?" "No you stupid idiot, you go from Charles de Gaulle of the Aztecs to Charles de Gaulle of Venice to Charles de Gaulle of Brazil"
Yeah this is why I'm not afraid to judge the civ switching before playing it. Switching leaders and civics would've been a much better idea than switching the civ itself, it completely gamifies the historical aspect of the game
Yes. Just yes. "Reversing it" and having the leader change on the same culture/civ just makes so much more sense. (and wouldn't be such a blatant ripoff of Humankind too!) ...I guess the only issue with that better path is a need for more character models, as each Civ would need 5 to 9 leaders in order to cover for the 3 major ages while offering some choice. But with the civ franchise rolling in so much money, it really seems like it would be doable. ...And some leaders could definitely work for two different civs too! (Catherine de Medici would work for Italy/Rome as well as France, for instance)
I play civ to be Bismarck of Germany, or Trajan of Rome, etc. I am torn as to whether or not I will play civ 7 for this reason alone. I do like the army changes and the River changes, but there are little things that make the game unnecessarily more complicated as well.
I think that you'll still get that, assuming those leaders are in the game. It's just that Germany might start off as Gaul, and Rome might eventually become Italy or Greece. But you'd still be Bismarck and Trajan the entire game, and I imagine the civ options will still be culturally or historically connected to them. So, like, I wouldn't be going from Mali to America. I might be going from Mali to Songhai or Morocco to like, maybe Mali again or Mauritania or something.
@@mkgibertjr if that's what it's like, I'm OK with it. My concern was that you'd be mixing completely unrelated culture groups. Polynesians forming Ethiopia or something weird like that.
Honestly its not doing it for me. civ had it's own identity but now they copied human kind My least favorite part is the change of culture as you get through the ages I wish they didn't go the cheap humankind rout of slap in a totally different people's culture to yours I wish they instead for example Egypt's culture would be the ayyubid Egypt in the next era and later it would be modern Egypt Not this humankind totally different cultures unrelated to the one i chose originally format .
I think they showed that you need a reason to switch to a new culture. Like if you've been using a lot of horses you can become the Mongols, but if not you can't just make that switch. I think it honestly sounds okay, countries have historically changed cultures but we just think it's normal because that's the real life law. We will just have to wait and see. On a side note, of all the things they should have taken from humankind it was the mixed unit stack/individual combat system
@@Gingerninja7921 i kinda get that but its what turned a lot of people away from humankind. so im not sure why they have just robbed their notebook after seeing the disaster that that idea construed. If they really wanted a switch up i think they probably shouldve just swapped the leader around but even then it just feels a bit icky.
@@cooper6035 i can excuse humankind because you are not actually playing a civilization you are playing as THE HUMANKIND so i wouldn't mind if my people become different set of people down the line But here its a game called CIVILIZATION i want to keep the identity of the people i play with
@@Nlinzerit was different in that game since it was a choice you'd make at the beginning and stay that way. This one will allow you to swap civs midgame.
@shockhtoropi7143 that's true and I honestly prefer that system. If I want Abraham Lincoln to be leader of the roman empire I also want to go to Space as romans. I don't like Switching civs based on era. This game is defintly going to be a pass for me
@hardcorelace7565 that's true. But that's not the only reason I'm probably going to pass this game. The real deal breaker is the fact there are no workers/builders. I love micromanaging getting the best tile placement with workers. Just plenty of reasons this game is a skip and I'll keep playing Old World.
One thing nobody is talking about is happiness. One of the only downfalls of civ 5 was that happiness was too crippling- I am happy to bring back happiness for simplicity but I hope the mechanic is less extreme as a check/balance.
The only thing that really disappointed me was the ability to change your civilization up… I was also really hoping for the leader screens of civilization v to make a return, but with better graphics
@@Necromancergames I am hoping people give it a chance. Civs will probably have a "golden path" that the AI will show preference for. A Civ going from Egypt to Japan to America is likely not going to be very frequent outside of user controlled Civs, if it's even available. For example, the options for Hasheptsut shown in the video were all believable, and there was an option to remain as Egypt, likely through the entire playthrough. Cleopatra might have Rome, for example. You might see American leaders with Canada or England as options, and vice versa. And then major world empires might be available to multiple Civs, like Egypt, Rome, Persia, Mongolia, etc.
@@mkgibertjr Like I am willing to give it a chance and hope they do put in like more actual historical cultures in it ect. Like for Rome to become one of the many Italian states like the kingdom of two Scillies. And then modern you can go to become Italy. Like that is what many players who value historical accuracy could go with. Like I'd love to play something as the Slavs and then be able to go for like Poland or Russia or the other slavic states. That would be so cool and give that historical aspect I think they are trying to go down here. But the problem about what you said with the empires is that they never actually made everyone under them culturally similar. The mongol empire after Ghengis died splintered into the hordes and then fell apart more reverting to the old ways. So that's my problem with the oh I can become Mongolia cause it took my territory at one point. There are many more examples of this happening in history.
@@mkgibertjr The "golden path" for Egypt was Egypt → Songhai → Buganda, which are completely unrelated except for the fact they're all in Africa. They're not even in the same part of Africa. The other option for Hatshepsut was Mongolia. The concept is godawful (to me). I don't think there was an option to stay as Egypt, the graphic they showed was just difficult to understand. It looks like civs are Age-locked.
@venustior it's probably to help the gameplay, giving everyone cool buildings/units/whatever for each era, and it's probably trying to be more historical fiction, with reasonable paths rather than sticking to history. Egypt --> Mongolia is weird but Egypt could become a horse based empire with goals of expansion if given the proper tools (horses).
My thoughts exactly as I saw the introduction. Specially about the "mixup" of rulers. I mean I used to like the fact that you would have special bonuses depndent on the given rulers life. Whilst here you can have Ceasar with Hatshepsut's bonuses. Feels strange
@@theren9976 Yeah, and this is a humankind rip-off, lol. Even stole the branching civilization gimmick that made people quit Humankind. Happy for all willing to pay +€70-120 for this franchise U-turn with leader models from Civ 4 though.
Dude, every Civ release is a flop. They get good after many many months, even years. I plan on doing what i did with both 5 and 6. I'll follow the game for a bit, but won't buy it until next year. It's just the way this series is. So to answer you, this game is probably going to be very bad at release. It's going to have a negative review score on Steam. Dunno, this is just how I expect this franchise any more lol. I mean just look at the gray on gray boxes and the UI. That there alone should tell you that this game is going to release exactly like 5 and 6 did. It will be shit, then become good
@@Lyzander911mate they are making this game more complex. Evolution trees for each leader, evolution trees for each civilization, each district being totally customizable with whatever buildings you want, settlements first being towns then cities which you have to develop in a direction most suitable for the current state of your empire, wide civilization being much harder to maintain, and thats all the added complexities i can list of my head. I may not agree with some of their decisions, but also your criticisms are not applicable tbh
@@anthonybramante2921 I'll deffo give it a chance, but from the gameplay I have seen it simply looks like Humankind. And the reason why Civ always stayed on top was due to the fact Civ is Civ. Now Civ has become Humandkind 2
Civilizations didn't evolve into whole new civilizations, they evolved into new versions of themselves. It's really bizarre and kind of disrespectful to have mechanics that literally make cultures and leaders interchangable. "Will you build a civilization that will stand the test of... This age, at the end of which it will become something totally different and unrelated?"
If it's totally different and unrelated then you're probably only screwing yourself over. It depends entirely on how they implement it. I could see it being cool starting as Babylon, becoming the Persians, and ending with the Ottomans. Or starting as the Greeks, becoming the Roman Empire, and then Venice. Depends entirely on how you play it.
I really don't like this arcadey approach that Humankind took because of this. And now Civ is literally copying their homework, it seems. If anything, they should have taken your metaphor more literally to their work. Instead of donning the skin of a new game (Humankind), they should have adapted and improved their own game. Improve the formula. Like having different and adapting modifiers and leaders (or the leader evolves, like with older civ games, was it civ 2?) in each different age. Adding depth to the formula they have mastered, but seldom added much to.
@RigelOrionBeta those linkages happened historically because of the cultures, landscapes, communities, and circumstances encountered. I hope you can have your RNG rolled neighbors inspire some of your "civ" choices throughout the ages. If I'm Aztec and spawn near Greece, I should be able to borrow some Greek (Byzantine?) Traditions and pathing in the next age if I'm so inclined. I also think remaining one constant civ should be an allowable path through time, with era specific changes as appropriate.
@@mr.rainc0at614 wasn't it the point of civ games? Being able to play as US in 4000 B.C. Having your neighbour mongols starting a war against you with a nuclear weapon?
@@mr.rainc0at614just pick a leader from the same geographical area, modern and ancient Egypt aren't the same civilization but they do stablish continuity Same with HRE and Germany the many Chinese dynasties etc.
For the minimalist thing, its not that complexity is bad, its that unintuitive complexity is bad. Games are all about intuition. As long as it is intuitive any amount of complexity is perfectly fine.
Minamalism in strategy games is the worst word to ever hear. Strategy is never Minamalistic, it's grand, it's complicated. A good strategy game has complex, yet intuitive mechanics. If you dumb down mechanics the game becomes boring, just look at Humankind and Milanium
@@teaser6089 agreed, I understand that it's a really fine line to walk though, especially for games that thrive off the strategic aspect, but a necessary one as well if you want to create a fulfilling experience.
@@teaser6089 they just want to make the game more casual to appeal more to mainstream gamers and enlarge consumer base. Total war did it, it will end the same: former players won t come back for a dumbed down experience and new players won t compensate.
agree. i hate that i need to study a game before I have any idea what tf is going on or to dedicate days and even weeks before being able to play effectively.
@@etienne8110 Such a shame, really. I used to absolutely love Total War games. Back when immersion outweighed graphics, cinematics and game progress. I remember the fullfillment of manually fighting every battle, listening to my general's speech before it and barely managing to retain relevant army numbers battle by battle. Nowadays every game has some 20+% casualty replenishment modifier per turn and so it's a waste of time to manually fight battles. You're gonna have the exact same numbers if you autoresolve anyway. They have basically removed manually fought battles from singleplayer to accommodate noobs that want to conquer the world in a day's session. So cheap. Edit: In a lot of game franchises people complain like that but in reality do buy the games. I truly believe Total War has an entirely different player base across their 20/10/2 year games. Last one i played was Warhammer 2, overall liked the idea of a fantasy TW but i absolutely hated the aforementioned aspect and now i'm done with the franchise.
I have zero desire to play if i can't stay with the nation i choose at the beginning. The whole point of the game is to create a civilization that will last. I fail to see the point of the game if i can't do that
I hope the Irish, Chinese, Indians, certain groups of Africans, Australians, etc. that have historically 'loved' the British are in this game so that he can exploit them for resources and economic purposes to break the game! Then when they start demanding silly things like "civil rights" or "self-determination" he can simply send in the military to tell them to get back to work...
@@ChristianBerthiaume Send a fully armed batallion to remind them of your love. La da da da dah, la di da dee daaaah da da, da da da da daaaaah, da dah!
Very sad to see that the backgrounds while interacting with leaders from Civ 5 is now entirely gone. Having a backdrop that relates to their historical character was awesome and added so much depth and majesty, and now they're barely greenscreened in front of a little drape.
Talk about disappointing. The leaders should be bound to their civ. What's civ 8 gonna be like, mix and match units. What's the point in picking a civ anymore. This looks a lot like recent failures like humankind and Millenia.
ikr, it just doesn't work. Having the leader from egypt in the USA is just not it. It's gonna really take me out of the game tbh. This isn't even mentioning the meta that will inevitably come from it. You're essentially going to be forced to play a specific sequence of civs because any other sequence will make you lose.
@@pibble9207 Balance goes out the window with the first expansion to the leader and civ roster. You simply get too many combinations to make balance even really possible. There always end up being combinations that just blow away the balance curve and the best they can do is try to patch busted balance later after enough players complain.
@@512TheWolf512 wait, don't you approve of them doing whatever possible to make maps smaller so we can get shinnier graphics? There will come the day we will get a Civ where all civs are going to be city states with 4 units cap just so it can all get rendered photo-realistically and in 8K
@@512TheWolf512 I think it's positive that civ7 limits how much cities you can have. I love districts(one of the best feature implemented in civ for me) but there is downside for districts when you have a lot of cities and you CARE about those cities quality than districts become little bit too much work. In civ7 with less cities and no builders I feel like game play may feel smoother.
As with any new game release, I always try and hold a definitive Yes or No to the point after seeing full gameplay. Taking a content creators words or opinion and making a decision on that, has flaws. You may see the full gameplay and how it works, and at that point of knowing the information may turn out to like it.
I was excited for this game, but thanks to the changes made to the ages and leader mix, I'm no longer interested in this game. For the same reason, I didn't like Humankind.
It seems weird that you can just change civilization mid game, but play with the same Leader all through the game. Kinda feels like it should be the other way around, same civilization but different leaders. Then again, there are much about it that we don't know yet.
That would also create issues. Say you want to play as the USA. What leaders are you going to have in 4000 BC? They way it's now they can just implement (for example) Lincoln as a leader and have USA be a civ choice going forward from the exploration age.
@@tsunamie1015 A fair point, but in either way it creates issues. I don't know what the best way of implementation would be, i'm just not sold on how it is now.
I guess it's just personal preference, but it feels more "right" to me to have a historically wrongly placed leader at first, and then choose historically accurate ones for a civ in later ages, rather than switching civs at every new age.
@@kvisten335 Also one of the reasons they did it this way was because this way each civilization can always be at its best state when present. In Civ games there is some strategy to playing a late game or early game civ, but that also heavily restricts their design/balance, and it also means that some Civs spend most of the game without actually using their special unit or buildings. This way they could potentially be much more creative about civ bonuses and you will always have relevant special units and/or buildings. Tying special units/buildings to leaders instead of civs would also feel pretty weird.
Okay, love the expanding cities and navigable rivers, i have been wanting that for ages, but what's up with the Civ models and UI? It does not really effect anything, but it certainly looks like a few steps back have been taken
Probably going to do the animations and character models last so they’re still in early development. If the game launches with the leaders looking like that….
You said "It's like in Humankind" "it's like in Millennia" a lot and both those to me were kind of soulless, maybe I was just too used Civ stuff but being more like those games is kind of the wrong step, and it's so weird they took so much inspiration from those games.
See but you have to look at the context at which he is comparing them. He is saying the *mechanics* are like those games a lot, which, to be fair those games had a lot of good *mechanical* ideas. But you are right, the games didn't have the same... spirit? soul? vibes? that come with Civilization that keep you coming back for more. It's okay for Civ7 to take inspiration from these games mechanics. What's important is that we capture the soul of the franchise though. Which is why after powering through some of his feelings about certain mechanics which I didn't agree with. I really was enraptured by him talking about the characters not talking to you but to your avatar. If there is anything I took away from watching this long video... it's that I now understand why I come back to Civ more than the other 4x titles I've loved. The other civilization's leaders interact with *you*. Yeah sure, you represent a civ and even pick a leader to represent you. But the characters have always performed diplomacy with you. And... I didn't realize how much I want that until he voiced it. so yes, those games can come across as soulless a bit... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be using good mechanics from those games. Old World is another game that felt like it was missing something even though I enjoyed it a lot. But man I wish more 4x games would use the Orders system... for the first time ever in a 4x game building 300 military units wasn't *always* better than building 10 units that can get the job done.
Yup, those games sucked, and I didn't play them. The game should've been more like Old World if it's not gonna be like Civ 6. But nah, it took the worse route.
@@quel2324 I played Millenia's demo and it was definetly soulless. The civilizations being purely cosmetic with no innate bonuses and stuff attached to them was what gave it away.
I remeber my Chinese Crossbow, American National Park game and other like this. I think the multiple civilization aspect really removes the emotional connection to the game
It sours the sentimentality players feel for a game of Civilization and forces a historically materialist ideological frame on the player. Worse, they had the test case of Humankind not really setting the world on fire, so they SHOULD know that this doesn't work already, and yet they went for it anyway.
Tbh I care more about the leaders rather then the actual civilization I am playing as, so this change doesn't really affect me that much. But, I do agree that it is a shame we are losing the potential to create these "what if" scenarios and that we are forced to be confined by our history, especially considering that was what set the civilization series apart from other similar games.
@@batyrseitnepesov4418 Just curious, if 7 allowed for civs to change leaders throughout histories (elections, coups, royals, etc…) would you have welcomed such a change?
@@newtiger007 if you could prevent it then yeah I'd be fine (even happy) with it, but if it were to be implemented in the same way the civs change then nah I'd prefer changing civs over changing leaders.
No builders, victory condition decided at beginning of the game while spoon fed how to achieve, no barbarians, city limit, no citizen management, etc. Seems like a dumbed down version of Civ/Humankind hybrid. I will stick with Civ 5/6 for now.
@@humptusdumptus4123 imho it might be more difficult because it's feels like a boardgame where you just have to memorize all the effects and stats, whereas in installments as early as Civ 4 more gameplay evolved naturally out of the core mechanics now there's this card gives + x%, this crisis gives -6 gold for all units etc.
No unit promotion? No Builders? No Districts? No Citizen Management? No Barbarians? So what is left for the player to do? Just repeatedly click the next turn button?
Well, builders are a micromanagement hell, and were dropped in some versions earlier, and it was amazing. Barbarians are a dumb nechanic from 80s - 90s when anonymous "hordes" attack you.
@@mysteriousstranger9496 I've seen no official source stating Barbarians were removed, just a lot speculation from some people, the same amount of speculation in favour of Barbarians being reworked into aggressive city states. With all due respect, it doesn't take too much brainpower to realise playing with Barbarians off would be better. The RU-vidrs invited had little time to play the first era, they didn't receive the game in advance, they were just asked to pay attention to everything that's changed and give as much feedback as possible, Barbarians are nowhere near that high in the priority list, why should they?
The leaders look pretty awful (like Sims 4 characters) and I'm not a fan of civs being locked to ages and the evolving civs. Apart from that I'm impressed.
It's show vs tell. You meet Askia in front of that burning city and know immediately he's not to be messed with. Whereas here, you see that African woman with the text at the bottom and just think "Umm, sure lady. whatever." You are 100% correct about the leader screens. They are terrible here and a massive win in Civ5.
You Nailed it on the interaction of the Leaders you are facing. It should all be directed to YOU, not as they currently have it where YOU the player are observing the Avatars reactions.
@@Thetechgeek2100 “highest tier” Aka base content that should be in the game excluded from it and charged extra for. Can’t imagine Elden ring taking away half of the game and charging 40 extra dollars for it. Elden ring + dlc is 80$ on top of the fact they put 3000 times more effort into that than this copy and paste game. Why the hell would anyone pay for this
Who the hell wants a new Civ V when you could just play Civ V? And how the hell does this new game not look beautiful? Play the Civ game you liked most or be bold and try something new
@@TrillerVogel I don't care about the beauty personally, but I don't think I should spawn in as ancient Korea, then become Zimbabwe, and then become the UK. The series feels increasingly arcady and unserious since V
I like the art style, but hate the scale of the 3D models... Whhy can't they go back to tiny little houses that makes the city more in scale with the landscape...
@@hansw7878 it's fine to not like it, but it's not a "mistake" that needs fixing...it's a stylized artchoice that was deliberate. What modders would add in this is called a "modification", or "mod" in short. "Fixing" this artstyle is quite literally the same as replacing all Fallout 4 NPCs with anime girls because that's your preferred artstyle...and if that's what you think then good for you that this is EXACTLY what modding is all about. So don't act like the game's original design is yours to certify, just be glad that mods exist
@@larfee5191 : No one said it was. Just a testament to how long 2K and Firaxis have dropped the ball. Not many fans are happy with Humankind CIV Edition...
The entire fun of games like Civ to me is taking a civilisation and bringing it to victory by playing into its bonusses, and appreciating how those connect to real world history. Civ as a game is a celebration of human history to me. But being able to swap cultures just to minmax my resources or something not only completely disconnects me from the cultural fantasy I was going for, but also kills replayability, because there 100% will be best choices that will dominate. In my opinion Firaxis is killing the soul of Civilisation to compete with a game that was dead on arrival and I don't get why.
I'd bought Humankind a month ago to try it out and hold me over till CIV VII, and I'm pretty crushed to see that Firaxis just copied it for CIV VII. I'd loved the historical accuracy of CIV and being able to embody the identity of the specific culture. You don't have to switch cultures in Humankind (or CIV VII), but if you want to play well, it's advantageous to switch your cultures in Humankind. I'm so sad. And they also copied these other Humankind functions verbatim... 1. You create towns rather than cities 2. Scouts encounter random scenarios 3. Barbarians are now independent states 4. Influence is now a resource/currency 5. Cities, if promoted, build everything in a singular tile
Exactly. He also nailed it with the leaders. I never realized why Humankind never drew me in like civ. All of these things plus the leaders interacting with each other vs you is so less engaging
I don't know what that game is, but it ain't Civilization for sure. It will be a Hardpass for me, and I've been buying every game since Civilization 3.
I'm glad they're changing things up, if i want to play civ 1-6 then i'll go play those games and i would be really annoyed if the new one just felt like a DLC for one of those games.
Civ is not an action game, so the main of the game is not in its 3D graphics but rather in its UI, with the buttons, the menus, the icons being the main element of gameplay. The minimalist UI is a good choice in many action games, where the UI is not the focus, but it's quite the opposite in a strategy game, where all you do is read text and click stuff.
@@zer0her058They're releasing on switch at launch. That means a new iPhone or Galaxy or Pixel could easily run the game. Civ vi runs alright on mobile. And there's a lot of money to be made there.
@@Cursedpeopleakajuiceit is complicated, but it is so worth it. I have never learned as much about history, geography, culture and religion from any game as I have eu4, and I still remember my first proper time when I actually managed to play a whole game. I was terrible at geography so exploring the new world as Portugal and colonising was so exciting and I’ll never be able to recreate that feeling. I remember that I ended up colonising huge parts of the americas while hardly expanding in Europe, making my colonies having way more development and eventually declaring independence wars and absolutely destroying me in the end though.
Have you played Civ 3? Everyone had cavemen clothes or togas in first act, it was funny to see ancient leaders in modern suits too. That's how Civilization worked before modern era.
The fog of war is unbelievably ugly. And the PS2 leaders... where we will see Emperor Napoleon of Buganda and Augustus of Maya. Fantastic. Why not England to the UK, Rome to Italy for the civ transformations?
going by the steam founders version seems like fog of war tilesets are going to be skins, hope they dont lean into those skins micro transactions too much, like the founders edition implies/gives you profile customization, fog of war tilesets, scout skins and palace skins. which is a lot even without leaders/personas(which apparently exist) and civilizations. All in all 7 "opportunities" to farm us for money
Evolving leaders would make sense...if the paths actually make sense. The Sumerian civilization becoming the Aztec civilization? No, that doesn't make sense. The Gallic civilization becoming the French civilization? That makes sense.
It 100% makes sense if you happen to spawn next to to the precursor civ to that. Over history, Civs adapt and evolve based on some of the other peoples they come into contact with. If I play a real start location, than sure, some of the historical chains make sense. But, I love rolling new maps, start locations, and neighbors, and I'm hopeful that my neighbors can have an influence on my "Civ" choices over time.
@@matthewhoag9892 That's cool if thats what you like. If so, then humankind is for you. Civ has never done things this way, and for a lot of us, we enjoyed the historical aspects of playing as one culture. To OP's point, if the progression made sense then its fine. But when you can play george washington with China's culture, that kind of shit breaks a lot of people's immersion of historical figures as leaders in the game. That is why so many people have issues with this right now. A majority of the fanbase disagrees with you.
@@princeofgreece9054 so you'll keep playing 5 or 6 and so will many others and meanwhile I'll play the heck out of 7 if it's fun. America wasn't around at the dawn of civilization, so if you're looking for historical immersion, this is exactly that. Civilizations rose and fell over time. Every later era civ had its roots in an earlier era civ (and often times, many earlier era civs and peoples and customs). It's MORE historical immersion, not less. And if I'm rolling a random map, that immersion within the game is increased if MY civ changes based on the realities I'm facing in that game. It's an alternate history to be sure, but it's immersive and I love the potential. People hate change. But I thought 6 was phenomenal. And I am confident they'll stick the landing on this iteration too.
@@princeofgreece9054 Let's be honest here, playing Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 B.C. fighting barbarians and Ghandi doesn't exactly have much "historical aspect" to it either. Civ has always been about the gameplay with a historical backdrop, not a focus on historics in a 4x game.
This is one thing I’m worried about. If that is the case it makes me feel like I need to really know what I’m doing instead of just kind of evolving into a victory condition naturally
It feels like the game will have a lot of focus on the leaders and not the civs. But so far the leaders lack so much personality compared to civ 5 which I'll always love and so it'll always be behind. I want to play Civilization, not Sid Meier's Leaders Civ 5 actually taught me so much about language and cultures of those leaders.
Yeah, you definetly have a certain "personal feelings and relationships" which each leader and civs, for example "Thank you for being a friend, Sumeria".
@@cee_ves This will also be ruined by the mix and match leader and civ system. It will make the game feel really random, messy, confusing and without personality
@@RealShimSham Yep that s my biggest worry, I hated that in humankind, all the other countries felt like knockoffs, and it was genuinely confusing sometimes when I suddenly had new units from another country on my border.
these leaders all look like woke stick puppets to me liked even the representation in civ one better ! better get back the palas building back from civ one too ;P
When you say that the soul of Civilization is missing, I think I know what you mean, and you partially hit on it. The soul that is missing is YOU, the player. They have automated away and/or dumbed down so many game mechanics that you the player used to manage directly and make decisions over that rather than being a leader and an active participant in the world, you, the player, have merely become a third party observer of the world.
all i'll say is that as much as I like Civ VI, it transitioned civ into a min maxing, tetris puzzle game of districts that i feel distracts from interactions between other civs. I switch between civ III, IV, V, and VI because sometimes one game doesnt give me the feeling of the other. I end up playing more peaceful in civ VI just because I feel like trying to manage a war on top of all the micromanaging of workers, produciton queues, and unit movements just got way more overwhelming than other civ games. I personally think that while this may be a departure from civ VI, i think its needed as we as a player base have gotten too accustomed to civ vi after the nearly decade of playing it. The same fears were stated when civ V came out and the same was said for civ VI.
the unlimited choices part reminded me of a clip of a kitty who was happy to be served food, then the person started serving food, and kept going and going until it go all over the floor and the cat went from being happy to being straight up frightened
It makes no sense to mix leaders and civs. Since now they only have 3 Ages, they can design one leader per age per civ. Each leader can have 2 skills, but the players need to pick 1 skill out 2 in the first Age, 2 out of 4 and 3 out of 6 in the 2nd and 3rd Age (like policy cards or dedications). Then for the same civ, in different Ages, different players may have different combinations of skills.
Humankind plays pretty different from what we saw until now. In HK your cities are mostly made up by tens of each district type, who can be upgraded by city buildings. HK also uses a region system, which is completely different from civ
Well, they want to release it for PS4. Ancient (in 2024) console from 2013 which had hardware similar to a gaming PC from 2012, so you are not really that far with that 2010...
I really don't like the new fog of war. I get that it captures a board game feel, but the older Civ V fog of war was mysterious, pleasing to look at, not distracting, and didn't feel cold and harsh.
Would have loved to see a blended culture approach where when you conquer or ally with a city you absorb some elements of that culture. The more you conquer or partner, cultural osmosis happens
That could be really good way to balance wide vs tall gameplay. Civs with cities in more geographically diverse locations or with conquered cultures get extra civ abilities or unique buildings/units/improvements?
If I want to play a civ I want to play that civ for the whole game. Also its gonna be just demoralizing for a lot civs to transition into those who colonized them in real history. Part of appeal of playing say Aztec or Egypt is you go against history by surviving to modern day. Can't do that...
Great point! Even though there's a way to keep playing as say Egypt, their bonuses still belong to Antiquity era, so abandoning the Egyptian identity is the "correct" way. Such bullshit. What were they thinking?
I am loving that they are willing to experiment, but civ switching so you can get cleopatra of Brazil just feels like it takes too much away from one of the central parts of the game’s identity and its legitimacy of being historically respectful. Even if there has always been a little silly in the series. Keep leaders matched to their civ but being able to give them ideologies, and tech, and maybe “what if” made up units and policies on what that culture might have done if they naturally progressed expanded on their most notable or last points in history would be just as interesting but respectful.
This man understands Civilisation REALLY well. The familiarity and "playing as the nation" is something I personally realised some time ago, and hearing the rest of the stuff they have to say really makes sense to me
Right?! And all that ambience we used to have with Civ 5, with leaders full of majesty, personality and realism. I really felt I was dealing Napoleon, Caesar, Washington, etc themselves!
It would be cool if each civ had their respective “great/unique” leader pop up during their era. And when they do you’ll see a cut scene when you interacted with that civ again diplomatically. Almost like the level boss introducing themselves to you.
When I saw your clip, I thought, oh nice the UI looks like the civ V one, I like it. Im happy the "ugly" part does not affect me :) Im also very picky in regards to UIs in games, but I just seem to have another idea of how a UI should be :D Really nice clip thx
I appreciate that they want to open up more possibilities and freedom in the gameplay area with freely chosing leaders and cultures as well as being able to change certain things during the dawn of a new era. But for me personally I would have preferred a more historically accurate approach...
Imo a historical culture tree could have been really nice. Then the path you choose will be your win condition, rather than essentially just playing "culture rush" depending on your start. At least that is kind of what I expect to happen in terms of meta gameplay.
Well the woke people making these games don't care much for history. They want diversity...like African Vikings, Asian Zulu Warriors, and European Arabs.
A historically accurate approach would heavily limit the way a player could change their civilization over the course of the game, which is the whole reason why they are going with this system in the first place. It also allows for civilizations to be in their best state whenever present, instead of having potential modern day bonuses that are irrelevant for 75% of the game.
@@tsunamie1015 I think having cultures slowly evolve is historically accurate. And it is fine if they allow crises to change culture more rapidly. But the changing civ stuff is horsesh*t
@@ordinaryrat Tbf, the civ series has never been primarily about historical accuracy. It has always been a 4x game with a historical backdrop, not a historical game in a 4x format. There is nothing historical about Teddy Roosevelt fighting Barbarians and Ghandi in 4000 B.C.
As a big-studio game dev myself I can confidentially say that it will remain mostly the same in the few months before release. It's possible they're scrambling to rework some of the UI, but it's mostly going to be minor tweaks and bugfixes. Changing all the animations, the 9 year old leaders, gameplay related things like the interaction currencies etc. it's just not going to happen. Personally, I'd rather have them delay the release until summer next year to ensure a successful launch.
CIv 6 is so focused on the leaders, thats why we love it. especially in todays day and age. its the same reason the civ 6 theme Sogno di volare feels soo good is because of this idea that when we get togather we can do something great. this game feels shallow in that way. it feels bland.
I also think it’s gonna be less replayable , civ 6 was amazing because a lot of ciz played so different. This makes me feel like it’s always gonna feel the same and will most likely get stale after 50 hours
