I remain cautiously optimistic. It looks much better done than Humankind, in my opinion, so it's a shame so many people have already made their decision based on that.
I'm actually very excited for this game. I feel like things are going to be very dynamic and the trouble I always have with maintaining interest in the end game will be abated.
Hey! I've been playing Civilization since CIv 3 and I'm really looking forward to this next iteration! I've been watching a lot of different videos in preparation and so far I truly believe you make the best videos of the subject. Concise and well explained. Well done brother!
Fantastic. This looks excellent to me. I've been playing since Civ 3, and I play more civilization than any game ever in my life, and Civ 7 so far looks like exactly what I want.
I was skeptical at first but I'm really interested in this new system now. It seems like a mix of CIV6's government and eras systems but with some historical (or alt-historical) grounding. Resources and areas being locked off by eras is really interesting too. It comes off as more impactful and equalizing compared to passively grinding techs/civics.
Im so glad they added this system of ages. I aways hated in previous civs when i was too advanced for the current age the world was in (like being in the industrial age while the rest of the civs were on medieval age for example), i love how in civ 7 this is going to be more balanced
Wow, great video. I was so burnt by WolfheartFPS click bait trash videos he released before BG3 launched that I almost didn't click on this video and I have avoided the others you had put out when they popped up on my feed. Unlike his stuff though, this is very professional and well put together, nicely cutting together information that has come out in various other official videos. Nice job boss.
This kinda just feels a bit too close to Humankind. Rome into France makes sense. Egypt (sedentary agriculture with monolithic architecture) into Mongolia (nomadic pastoralists who live in yurts) is just weird. Egypt into Byzantium or the Caliphate makes way more sense.
I still don't get the premise behind starting with Egypt, for example, and being able to advanced to Mongolia after acquiring access to horses. I get that Mongolians relied heavily on horses (so did other civilizations but okay). Seems like a lazy way to "unlock" a new civ that is otherwise completely disconnected from your starting civ.
That’s a poor decision if it is structured in the base game. I don’t understand why they would make this decision and be proud it’s a base feature. Nobody asked for this.
@@QuieT69 I think it’s a fantastic feature, and the only reason I didn’t ask was because I hadn’t considered the possibility. It adds a level of discovery to every new game
@@QuieT69 while people didn’t ask for this exact feature, they did ask for 1) more customization 2) better balancing of civs 3) more unique features throughout the game, especially late game I think this hits on each of those
I always dislike when they try to forcibly evolve your civilization when in almost every case of a civilization evolving, it was usually only because of another bigger country falling apart and thus new nations start to establish themselves in the remnants of it or a people seek out and conquer a Homeland for themselves. So for me, it doesn't really make sense for them to just change everything on a whim when usually it takes a great deal for such change to occur
@@TheSjuris good question. Crisis is not planned - like in civ VII, and you can't prepare for it like in this game. You also can't choose what negative bonuses you like for the crisis. There is everything wrong in this implementation.
@@TheSjuris even today it's often hard to predict crisis. But most of human history it was impossible to tell, because most of human history people just need food and they had no clue if there will be rain or not. The largest population the bigger hit for lack of food. But civ VII is not emulating antyhing it's just garbage script that tells you oh, time for crisis! I despise this
The game seems almost infinitely complex now. On the positive side, if you like complex games, they seem like interesting and fun ideas and will take a while to master the game. On the negative side, I'm imaging a whole barrage of exploits that will make certain combinations of legacies and new civilizations incredibly powerful (looking forward to Ra's videos especially). With this flexibility it's hard to imagine the automated civilizations being able to keep up. Overall looking forward to wasting enormous amounts of time on this game.
It allows you to reassemble your settlements to fit in the new situation. You can prevent it for several cities, and the number will be increased if you have enough legacies.
@@jamsteroffthewheel4731 in civ VI you had golden and dark ages, which was dynamic because it depended on your actions. In Civ VII you have no choice but to have predetermined crisis that you can't avoid even if you play well. It's bad design.
