Definitely agree. To me, the whole point of Civilization is taking your civilization from rural beginnings to space. Leaders come and go, but civilizations are much more resilient. I would have loved from them to have less civs, and more leaders, with some being nation-specific, but having some "non-partisan" leaders that anyone could elect as their new leader.
Yeah should function almost like governors. Every so often you get a new leader to rise through the ranks (perhaps existing governors/lords with high XP?) with new perks. They could rise from same civ/culture or they could be an outsider that takes over with an entirely new civ/culture which would make the civ switching make more sense.
It makes sense from a balance perspective and makes the game even more repayable. The issue with just keeping 1 civ the entire game is that their bonuses were too static so for 75% of the game the civ you play doesn't even matter because your bonuses aren't active. Civs like America felt especially horrible to play because of that
Because that's how they can push more DLCs. Now they can just release an endless stream of standalone leaders that will go with any civ. Which is fine by me.
@@jn4126 it really was, humankind died hard lol. less than 1k players these days, meanwhile civ 5 still averages 20k, civ 6 50k, and they are both vastly older.
How does Egypt naturally progress into Songhai, then into Buganda? That doesn't make any sense, the only connection between these civilizations are that they're on the continent of Africa, but they're completely different cultures. This would be like if China could transition to Korea, then to Japan, just because they're all East Asian civilizations, it doesn't really make sense.
China to Korea and Japan still makes sense, they still share a lot of culture. Heck, even their writing system is same. It's more like China progress into India, and then Persia, simply because they existed in the same continent.
@zarikvarik1177 It having more players doesn't make it better. Newer games tend to hold casual audiences better than older games. If you forced Civ 6 players to play civ 5 then I'd wager most would rank 5 higher than 6.
how's Egypt-> Songhai->Buganda NATURAL transition?? is this a joke? these cultures did not interact, had nothing in common except being on the same continent. THis is ridiculous
Exactly there's no connection between these civilizations, it's not like Rome to Italy or something like that where there is actually a common thread tying them together
I'm sorry, you think the mountain textures were bad but the leaders were okay? They look like someone tried to port a current gen game onto the Nintendo Switch
There's months of dev left, in Civ 6 there was a big difference between first looks and the game itself. (But criticizing it will indeed help them boost their work on it)
7:12 A kind of "weird checkerboard of urban and rural" is actually a really common thing in ancient civilizations. People would have farming plots and livestock grazing in what was essentially some of the biggest cities in the world at that time.
the main problem with the ages in older civ games is that ages don't matter anyways, since they're so short and you rush towards the modern age. at least here, there's a potential for them to be significant since everyone's age starts and ends at the same time.
Humankind lacked replayabity because the meta was the same after you play the game enough going for era score and choosing the same civilization each era instead of the leaders making you play differently with various victory types
Having leaders that are literally immortal but civilizations that change feels like it makes absolutely no sense, completely immersion-breaking and forces this game to represent less of history than it could. It feels like it should be exactly the other way around lol
@@paopao. What do you mean "civ 6 didn't even do that" - there are 5 games before that, you numbnut. Civilization has always been about bringing one civilization from start to finish.
Immersion like the Roman empire nuking the United States? Civilisations are not linear, they fall and give rise to others. If anything this is a step towards greater immersion
Playing one civ was the cornerstone of the whole civ game. The continuity through the ages and growth was the key of the game. Changing civs, changing unique traits and building over cities seems a totally new game :)
Ugh...not into morphing civs. Just let me stick to one civ only. What sense does if make if my neighboring civ turns from Ethiopia to Germany? Back to civ 3, I guess.
son did you know that you can keep being egypt till the end of the game right? you dont need to transition into a new civ if u dont feel like it... its a f-ing choice
@jimmywu41 Even IF that's optional for me, what sense does it make for the neighboring AI civ to change from Ethiopia to Germany? Also, if you don't switch civs, you don't get to play about 2/3 of what the game has to offer
@@jimmywu41 Bro, you're literally going through the comments section just boomer-raging at anyone who dislikes the highly contentious feature that is partially responsible for a different game's flop. Just play a mod if you like it, but don't blame a majority of people who don't.
So it seems Firaxis doesn't understand the fundamental difference between a culture and a civilization. Probably gonna wait a couple of years before picking up this one, if at all.
Civs should evolve organically based on the other Civs or states you encounter or do trade with. If you pick ancient egypt and you start let's say in an alliance with China. Over the years, if settlers from China come in and bring their own knowledge and culture, and mingle with your own, your own Civ should evolve into something more unique. I'd like a game with that kind of feature, where you pick a Civ, but it organically changes throughout the ages based on trade, conquest, etc. Not one Civ in history always stayed the same. They were all influenced by history.
That shouldn't be a cultural change. You should spread your own culture (cultural victory, cultural annexation?). YOUR culture can change, but when someone else's culture wipes it out it's not the same civ anymore, you lost. Egypt does not become Bugandan. That's a different kingdom. And what you are saying was always part of it. You could have civics and art and whatever to change the way your empire operates. It could be possible to have inventions of other countries influence the way you get new tech and stuff, but real culture was never really represented in Civ games besides wonders and works of art. If you wanted to do that it would need a much much much deeper political simulation where cultural tides would influence decision making and leaders of the country. But it's not a thing in civ. However Egypt becoming Buganda is very far from what you are saying, that would have only been possible through conquest.
The biggest thing they could have done but most likely didn't do, is finally have a real CPU AI that can logically think and make decisions based on what's actually going on and what victories are set.
UI tech tree need serious changes and colors ,it's look so grey no drawings and very smalls icons ,on like 1440p 4k you will not be able to read anything
Work in progress means nothing it just maybe change maybe not and it's not mention specific thing ,so if players don't tell them maybe they its fine .Same thing happen in frostpunk 2 ui looked white and not readable we spammed and they changed UI and colors and now it's phenomenal even work was done ..
Because Africa's the same place, doncha know. It's why Queen Victoria should be a natural leader for Russia because a landmass is all the same *_BLOODY_* place, isn't it Firaxis?!
they made weird choices too for the eras, there's much a massive gap between the antiquity era and the exploration era, there could've been a medieval era in between that to make it seem less jarring
@@Dell-ol6hb the antiquty era covers the medieval era. Eras are no longer just technology and visual chamges. They fundamentally reset the game and expand the map. Eras in this game are completely different from eras of the past games
There was an opportunity to select between multiple leaders FROM that civ when you choose your civ. Playing Augustus and India together ruins the authenticity of the civs
It’s funny to me that there are so many gameplay changes to so many elements of city building, especially when civ 6 at launch was soo similar to civ 5, but everyone is focused on one thing that’s the same from humankind 😂
Ages is a cool idea, but weirdly it would be cool to change leaders instead of civilizations. Like irl certain leaders can bring out the best and some others can have nerfs you have to play around
What they really needed to look at is Total War and Crusader Kings and see if something can be incorparated like battles or better RPGification. Similarly Total War needs to look at Crusader Kings and Mount Blade and Civilization. Crusader kings also needs to learn and expand from other games. That would be risky and expansive but they all play it safe.
dead on arrival. swapping civs mid-game? Forced "historical" connections of Egypt to sub-saharan civs lol? Crazy pricing? Fog of war customizable tiles sold as dlc? Thx I'm out
Yet another company not listening to what we want in civilization. It's simple. Civ 5 with more content, better diplomacy like Civ VI, immersive government shiet.
It would be really cool if you were allowed to change empires that are historically connected to each other along with the leaders, like how the Roman Empire transitioned into the Holy Roman Empire to the French Empire.
The Roman empire never continued or transitioned in the west. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire. The Byzantine were the true successors of Rome, considered themselves Roman, and they went for another thousand years after the west fell.
I don't know, the animations feel like they were two generations ago. I really hoped they would have done something more game changing. This feels like much of the same which isn't bad but it is starting to feel like not much effort is being made here.
The district change is the most interesting thing they could have done with them. Having arbitrary X districts always felt weird, especially when the cities growth should be fueled by its needs
I want to play as Dwight Eisenhower. Not the Presidential part of his life, but rather the Supreme Allied Commander. Managing diplomacy between nations while conquering others sounds interesting.
Thank you for the tongue in cheek reference to the ripping off of all innovations made by Humankind. Civ used to be the innovator. Now it’s just the bully.
Improving on what your competition does is also innovation. If everyone followed your logic video games wouldn't exist because every game is just an improvement on something that came before.
Can't wait to buy this game on sale with all DLC in 5 years.
hell yeah
on sale
Why buy when you can get this game for free on EGS in 5 years
HELL YAH!
Yes sir
Keeping the leaders consistent over the eras, but changing the civs is the exact opposite of what would have made sense.
100% agree.
Definitely agree. To me, the whole point of Civilization is taking your civilization from rural beginnings to space. Leaders come and go, but civilizations are much more resilient. I would have loved from them to have less civs, and more leaders, with some being nation-specific, but having some "non-partisan" leaders that anyone could elect as their new leader.
*No Sean Bean voice over*
2K: "Sean Bean Voice DLC"
Worth it.
@@WatercraftGames Worth it yes
100% worth it.
He was killed off in Civ 6. Just Sean Bean things.
@@kayleemichelson4019 no he still alive in the last dlc... 😂
Idk why civ is still so tied on having eternal leaders but transient everything else. It should be leaders that change
Yeah should function almost like governors. Every so often you get a new leader to rise through the ranks (perhaps existing governors/lords with high XP?) with new perks. They could rise from same civ/culture or they could be an outsider that takes over with an entirely new civ/culture which would make the civ switching make more sense.
Maybe they don’t want to make 3D models for so many different leaders throughout history, or they want to stay with tradition
Nice idea for a $29.99 dlc
That would be awesome
@@captainpep3tradition? You mean the one they just destroyed by copying the lamest feature of humankind
Having to to change civs seems odd
It makes sense from a balance perspective and makes the game even more repayable. The issue with just keeping 1 civ the entire game is that their bonuses were too static so for 75% of the game the civ you play doesn't even matter because your bonuses aren't active. Civs like America felt especially horrible to play because of that
You don't have to but are able to when the Age changes.
Only few leaders actually had bonuses that remained relevant throughout the entire game.
Is it forced? On the flip side, putting you into scenarios where you go Rome-Norman-England or something along those lines is kind of interesting
Its only bad if its a forced change. If you can stay as the same civ from start to finish if you choose, its an acceptable change
It really goes full circle, huh. Humankind rips off Civilization, Civilization rips off Humankind
that's "inspiration"
dont forget civ rips off endless legend
both fail
@@zacharybecker8228civ was made before
Civ literally did the "You tried to look for alternatives. Where does that bring you? Back to me."
CIV7: Become Humankind
Again hope for a classic mod.
Exactly my thoughts as well. It's 95% humankind with civ 5 warfare.
So civ is a clone of itself?
YTers who played it mentioned it still feels like a civ game, so fingers crossed.
@@snippidippi the Humankind really did a number on CIV...even Humankind is still a disaster.
so feature Wishlist for Civ Product Managers:
- Allow cities to have unconnected rural districts
- Fix mountains to make them more like real mountains
Should have added elevated terrain just like in humankind, but oh well
@@MASB29 there is elevated terrain, maybe it's not pointed out in this video, but there definitely are cliffs in the official gamplay reveal
Keep some of the previous civ's architecture after invading.
@@AleksandarStefanovic ahh nice nice, then the mountain visual problem should be fixed right?
Soooooo... They looked at humankind and said:
"That's not a bad idea!"
Tbf, it wasn't
“Not bad kid, now watch this”
And then did it bettee
Because that's how they can push more DLCs. Now they can just release an endless stream of standalone leaders that will go with any civ. Which is fine by me.
@@Deathsinger99 It's like breaking your back better. Humankind did it by missing a jump on a trampoline. Civ did it by jumping off a roof.
@@jn4126 it really was, humankind died hard lol.
less than 1k players these days, meanwhile civ 5 still averages 20k, civ 6 50k, and they are both vastly older.
Civ 5 just got its shelf life extended 5 more years minimum.
the best. and forever will be.
patrickgastaldon9647 the best civilization game is test of time
I still play this. The best civ game imo
Nah civ 6
All they need to do is remaster civ 5 graphics, (with same aesthetic) and fix all the multiplayer bugs and I'll buy tf out of that
VOTE;
Changing leaders > Changing Civs
Definitely sounds so much better, damn.
" The only thing we have to fear is... Warlord Ghandi"
President Roosavelt
President of ancient Egypt
Rosenfeld
Specifically Gandhi of Aztec descendants
How does Egypt naturally progress into Songhai, then into Buganda? That doesn't make any sense, the only connection between these civilizations are that they're on the continent of Africa, but they're completely different cultures. This would be like if China could transition to Korea, then to Japan, just because they're all East Asian civilizations, it doesn't really make sense.
China to Korea and Japan still makes sense, they still share a lot of culture. Heck, even their writing system is same.
It's more like China progress into India, and then Persia, simply because they existed in the same continent.
@@MrRazer94good luck saying that to a Japanese
@@MrRazer94 Absolutely false.
Bro you can build pyramids as chinese, you play as ghandi for thousands of years, you can build huge death robots. Its a game..
@@eldarion933bad game*
"My nukes will make the whole world blind." - Gandhi
Sounds about right
- Gandhi, the humanitarian.
the way IGN pronounces "divisive" is divisive
True
This is a repeat of the Rain and Duncan situation lmao
Their pronunciation of "medieval" as "med-deeval" was also very funny.
How should it be pronounced though? "Divisive" or "divisive?
@@haninditabudhi6574 if you pronounce it any way other than "div'eye'sive", you're wrong
so you change civilizations twice throughout a game but stick with the same leader, dressed in ancient garb. got it, makes total sense.
Civilization 7 kind of feels more like a sequel to Humankind than it does to Civ 6
Not diggin it. changing civs goes against what civ is.
Yeah, feels like they should have released this as a different game, instead of a direct successor to Civ 6.
No it doesnt, actually seems like a major improvement
@@ps-zs3wtare you on crack?
Times Change guys. This game would conquer strategy games for years unless new one and better appears
@@ps-zs3wtdepends what your vision of an “improvement” is. Goofy ahh to just switch from Asian to English in just a sneeze because “tImEs cHaNgE”.
Just use civ 5 as a basis and build from there - it's not hard. Everyone has their favourite civ game but I'm pretty sure most prefer 5 over 6
Yup. 5 was indeed gold.
Nahh 6>5
4 was best, 2 was pretty good too.
@zarikvarik1177 It having more players doesn't make it better. Newer games tend to hold casual audiences better than older games. If you forced Civ 6 players to play civ 5 then I'd wager most would rank 5 higher than 6.
I use to hate 6, then I sat down and actually learned it and I love it more than I did 5.
how's Egypt-> Songhai->Buganda NATURAL transition?? is this a joke? these cultures did not interact, had nothing in common except being on the same continent. THis is ridiculous
Point of this game is for gengis Kahn to fight Abraham Lincoln bro 🤣🤣🤣
Exactly there's no connection between these civilizations, it's not like Rome to Italy or something like that where there is actually a common thread tying them together
@@Dell-ol6hb It wouldve made way more sense for Egypt -> Mamluk -> Egypt (Modern)
@@Calebvelasquez117 That's an abstraction. This is just nonsense.
@@Calebvelasquez117genghis khan and abraham lincoln cant fight together in this game because they are locked to different Eras.
It seems we will have another 10 years of CIV V.
Yup
Why? Civ VI is much better.
@@SEGAGoldenJuly psssshh
bait
CIV VI*
Civ V was the best and the most simple
civ VI was much better
@@joxplay2441 civ 7 is miles ahead of civ 6
Yeah but Civ 8 wipes the floor with Civ 7
@@James-yz2ew Nah Civ 9 was the best bro
CIV Revolution was the most simple.
Are we wrong for just wanting an updated civ 5? They should have looked at Vox Populi. Not Humankind.
Real
Is Vox Populi a 4X game ?
It's a mod for civ 5
It already exist. Download the mod and play civ 5 if thats what you want
go play vox populi then
I'm sorry, you think the mountain textures were bad but the leaders were okay? They look like someone tried to port a current gen game onto the Nintendo Switch
They literally looks like indie game characters
In comparison to Civ 6, these leaders are an upgrade aesthetic-wise.
There's months of dev left, in Civ 6 there was a big difference between first looks and the game itself. (But criticizing it will indeed help them boost their work on it)
Ikr Caesar looks like an over-dramatic drama student dweeb
so true
7:12 A kind of "weird checkerboard of urban and rural" is actually a really common thing in ancient civilizations.
People would have farming plots and livestock grazing in what was essentially some of the biggest cities in the world at that time.
True but it's not exactly aesthetically pleasing. Isn't much of a sacrifice to realism by changing to let rural areas be placed slightly further out.
why the leaders avatar seems like a massive downgrade compared to civ6 :|
Humankind
People complained about the caricatures so they opted for a boring less expressive option
@@ChallengerBanX And yet in this civ they still are
This is still an improvement for me over civ 6's art style tbh
It is still in development many things such as the UI and art stiles are not in their final form yet.
Time to go back to civ 5 again...
@@griyad7622 If you open your mouth any wider your jaw will snap.
@@griyad7622 yeah experience being in your mouth cringer
@@griyad7622 you'll get your trans civ revisionist history game soon enough.
YWNBAW
Mixed feelings
Sid Meier's Humankind 2
Pretty dismayed here. The changing of civs was the worst part of Humankind. Also, only 3 ages seems like a sham.
Hope and pray for a classic mode.
They literally say you can stick with the culture's natural progression, you don't have to mix it up if you don't want to.
@@vhvhhvcy1780 whats to stop the ai from doing weird stuff culture wise?
@@vhvhhvcy1780 They literally did not. They said that there were "natural" progressions into different Civs. You still need to change Civ.
the main problem with the ages in older civ games is that ages don't matter anyways, since they're so short and you rush towards the modern age. at least here, there's a potential for them to be significant since everyone's age starts and ends at the same time.
Hope there’s a classic mode.
100% not. That would be 1000 hours of additional programming.
😂😂😂😂 yeah exactly man this is the crap turd you're getting
@@perryschnabel maybe later down the line after release.
Just play Civ 5 or 6 if you don't want the changes.
14 years later and we are back to civ 5 graphics 😅
How?
This looks like Civ 5 and 6 combined… it’s colorful but the Civ leaders look much better than VI…
Civ5 had much better graphics than 6
Personally liked civ 6 more
civ 5 is still better
Despite graphics of 5 I liked 6 more due to its complexity. This is like Civ 5+Civ6 and Humankind
Since they just ripped off main reason of Humankind failure, its gonna meet same fate
Maybe they trying to do it better
Humankinds failure was not due to this
Humankind lacked replayabity because the meta was the same after you play the game enough going for era score and choosing the same civilization each era instead of the leaders making you play differently with various victory types
As someone who’s never played humankind, not sure how it’s played but I’m pretty excited for this game tbh
@@ps-zs3wt it was literally due to the swapping function
Civ 5 is still the best Civ game ever made!
if its with vox pop yes
No. Civ 3 is best
@@Irving_teran why
@@captainwheelbarrow649 you don't need to know why.
Believe me. 3 is best.
It makes more sense if you don't think about it.
You never played civ 4 then
Hard NOPE because of being forced to switch civilizations.
Absolutely ridiculous
Having leaders that are literally immortal but civilizations that change feels like it makes absolutely no sense, completely immersion-breaking and forces this game to represent less of history than it could. It feels like it should be exactly the other way around lol
represent history? civ 6 didn't even do that. it's a game dude.
@@paopao. What do you mean "civ 6 didn't even do that" - there are 5 games before that, you numbnut. Civilization has always been about bringing one civilization from start to finish.
@paopao. ...
Bro what? Like this cannot be a serious thing you are saying.
It’s always had eternal leaders. it doesn’t break immersion than it always has
Immersion like the Roman empire nuking the United States? Civilisations are not linear, they fall and give rise to others. If anything this is a step towards greater immersion
Im glad its less cartoony and resembles more CIV5 in overall art style.
3 days after release, already terribly aged graphics ^^
It’s looks like a switch game
Why wouldn't they change your leaders clothes for different ages. That just seems dumb.
Right? Like Civ3!
So they can sell them to you later
no sean bean 😢
He died again
Instead of Ned Stark as narrator. We have Brienne now as narrator.
Well, they can't use the same actor twice. They're never done that.
@@esnoob2282
Moneh!...cant buy happiness
So they take the worst mechanic from Humankind and put in Civ7 :XD
grow up kid and then go outside and touch grass
@@jimmywu41😂😂😂😂😂 hey you staying internet troll and enjoy getting ripped off and bragging about it like always
@@jimmywu41 situational irony will never not be funny
Civ 7 = Humankind part 2 .
Playing one civ was the cornerstone of the whole civ game. The continuity through the ages and growth was the key of the game. Changing civs, changing unique traits and building over cities seems a totally new game :)
Civ Revolution is still my favorite. Can win or lose a Campaign in 10 hours. So satisfying
Ugh...not into morphing civs. Just let me stick to one civ only. What sense does if make if my neighboring civ turns from Ethiopia to Germany?
Back to civ 3, I guess.
son did you know that you can keep being egypt till the end of the game right? you dont need to transition into a new civ if u dont feel like it... its a f-ing choice
Civ 3? lol
@jimmywu41
Even IF that's optional for me, what sense does it make for the neighboring AI civ to change from Ethiopia to Germany?
Also, if you don't switch civs, you don't get to play about 2/3 of what the game has to offer
@@jimmywu41 Bro, you're literally going through the comments section just boomer-raging at anyone who dislikes the highly contentious feature that is partially responsible for a different game's flop. Just play a mod if you like it, but don't blame a majority of people who don't.
They cant change from 1 random civ to another. They sorta have to have a connection. For example, HRE to Germany.
Bro did you just breeze over the fact that stacking armies is a THING again?? It's been so long
You don't stack armies to fight, you stack them to move. You still need to unstack before you fight.
Stack to move only, and unstacking armies was the best change they ever made.
corps and armys were in civ 6???
Can't wait to play as a german Gengis Khan, so much history!
So it seems Firaxis doesn't understand the fundamental difference between a culture and a civilization. Probably gonna wait a couple of years before picking up this one, if at all.
Ok guys now it seems finally the right time to buy CIV 6.
Didn't take long to realize this isn't a review to trust
Changing civs is the single dumbest decision any civ dev could've made. Mind boggling dumb.
Just remember guys, this guy's name is Leanna.
Lol
Civs should evolve organically based on the other Civs or states you encounter or do trade with. If you pick ancient egypt and you start let's say in an alliance with China. Over the years, if settlers from China come in and bring their own knowledge and culture, and mingle with your own, your own Civ should evolve into something more unique. I'd like a game with that kind of feature, where you pick a Civ, but it organically changes throughout the ages based on trade, conquest, etc. Not one Civ in history always stayed the same. They were all influenced by history.
That's humankind brother
@@gtas321 That's literally not humankind. That's a game that doesn't exist at all.
That shouldn't be a cultural change. You should spread your own culture (cultural victory, cultural annexation?). YOUR culture can change, but when someone else's culture wipes it out it's not the same civ anymore, you lost. Egypt does not become Bugandan. That's a different kingdom. And what you are saying was always part of it. You could have civics and art and whatever to change the way your empire operates. It could be possible to have inventions of other countries influence the way you get new tech and stuff, but real culture was never really represented in Civ games besides wonders and works of art. If you wanted to do that it would need a much much much deeper political simulation where cultural tides would influence decision making and leaders of the country. But it's not a thing in civ. However Egypt becoming Buganda is very far from what you are saying, that would have only been possible through conquest.
In terms of the ages, why not have things like the stone age, the industrial revolution etc?
Jesus those avatar graphics 💀
Nintendo switch side effects I bet
Praise Jesus
The biggest thing they could have done but most likely didn't do, is finally have a real CPU AI that can logically think and make decisions based on what's actually going on and what victories are set.
UI tech tree need serious changes and colors ,it's look so grey no drawings and very smalls icons ,on like 1440p 4k you will not be able to read anything
just a place holder, the version of the game we are seeing is the bare bones but the little improvements will come in the next few months
The devs have confirmed that the ui shown in the gameplay is not final
The game is in alpha, all of the UI is placeholder and hasn't been finalized
Work in progress means nothing it just maybe change maybe not and it's not mention specific thing ,so if players don't tell them maybe they its fine .Same thing happen in frostpunk 2 ui looked white and not readable we spammed and they changed UI and colors and now it's phenomenal even work was done ..
bring the fog again
"just pirate the game" - IGN
why bro settle city on that title 😭
Was looking for the Civ 7 gameplay but you seem to have leaked Humankind 2.....
It would be cool if you could create your own civilization,
And clothes change through era.
It would also be cool if they changed their developer to sega. Maybe even their game name to Humankind if you will
You could in IV
So excited for this game. Time to dump another 600 hours into Civ
rookie numbers.
That's pretty much the tutorial
600? rookie
@@Nacjotyp Go Touch Grass If you says this is Rookie numbers
@@toolazyforname4234 Stay mad.
9:01 WAIT. Why is a west African ruler a natural leader for an EAST AFRICAN civ????
Because Africa's the same place, doncha know. It's why Queen Victoria should be a natural leader for Russia because a landmass is all the same *_BLOODY_* place, isn't it Firaxis?!
Only 3 eras???
DLC
They have huge differences and unique features per era. Its fine and pretty cool imo. Eras are no longer just a label
they made weird choices too for the eras, there's much a massive gap between the antiquity era and the exploration era, there could've been a medieval era in between that to make it seem less jarring
@@Dell-ol6hb the antiquty era covers the medieval era. Eras are no longer just technology and visual chamges. They fundamentally reset the game and expand the map. Eras in this game are completely different from eras of the past games
Civs 5 graphics were the best honestly.
When Civ VIII
There was an opportunity to select between multiple leaders FROM that civ when you choose your civ. Playing Augustus and India together ruins the authenticity of the civs
Every era should have its own leaders it would just make sense
More like Humankind 2.0
Humanization VII
It’s funny to me that there are so many gameplay changes to so many elements of city building, especially when civ 6 at launch was soo similar to civ 5, but everyone is focused on one thing that’s the same from humankind 😂
Ages is a cool idea, but weirdly it would be cool to change leaders instead of civilizations. Like irl certain leaders can bring out the best and some others can have nerfs you have to play around
Not super thrilled about the civilizations changing over the years
Makes it a hard pass for me
I'll be sticking with civ IV until civ VIII. Or longer
What they really needed to look at is Total War and Crusader Kings and see if something can be incorparated like battles or better RPGification.
Similarly Total War needs to look at Crusader Kings and Mount Blade and Civilization. Crusader kings also needs to learn and expand from other games.
That would be risky and expansive but they all play it safe.
Civ 6 low key one of the best games of all time
My man!
Wow, I really don't like the transitioning of civilizations. I do believe there's still time to improve this.
Are there just 4 civs for 10-12 players?
Zazzau for Aksum? Neither have anything in common except being in Africa, different ages, different religions, different cultures.
Looks like Humankind got the last laugh
Come on Firaxis. Where's my XCom 3 at?
just bought civ 6 90% off. guess i'll wait 5 years after civ 7 comes out
best advert for Ara I've ever seen. Also, quite an interesting expansion to humankind.
dead on arrival. swapping civs mid-game? Forced "historical" connections of Egypt to sub-saharan civs lol? Crazy pricing? Fog of war customizable tiles sold as dlc? Thx I'm out
The founders edition is 188$ with tax in Canada 😢
Civilization literally left what they built on and took on Humankind's ideas.. Like we just got a Civ 8..
Yet another company not listening to what we want in civilization. It's simple. Civ 5 with more content, better diplomacy like Civ VI, immersive government shiet.
Who's "we"?
this man is actually speaking fax that nobody ever said
and noone speaking about improving AI or late not-interesting game
@@13lucky999 we have civ 5 mods, trying something new is exciting
Price tag will be $100 for base game and other $100 for separate DLCs
It would be really cool if you were allowed to change empires that are historically connected to each other along with the leaders, like how the Roman Empire transitioned into the Holy Roman Empire to the French Empire.
This !
It was rome into french empire, then into holy roman empire. Frankia conquered the germanics.
The Roman empire never continued or transitioned in the west. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire. The Byzantine were the true successors of Rome, considered themselves Roman, and they went for another thousand years after the west fell.
I don't know, the animations feel like they were two generations ago. I really hoped they would have done something more game changing. This feels like much of the same which isn't bad but it is starting to feel like not much effort is being made here.
It looks like Humankind.
no it does not
1:28 - Different tank models! Yes please! (They're looking amazing btw)
Why don't the leaders clothes change with the era? Sure they did in Civ 3 or 4?
Even in Civ 1 leader's (and ministers') look was changing through ages, so definitely it should change in Civ 7.
@@Abazzaar It's been a few decades since 1, but I'm pretty sure they didn't. You're hallucinating.
Cant wait to play civilization to have to change my civilization every era 😪
You pick France, but they force you to play as Uganda at the end of the era 🤣🤣🤣
@@mrpopo8298 Pretty accurate
Can’t wait to have to change my civ so it doesn’t stand the test of time
Hm. Guess ill still be playing civ 5 VP
>districts
closed
But one thing will still be the same: The AI won't have a clue what to do with naval warfare.
Not sure about changing empires part way through.... it's put me off....
The district change is the most interesting thing they could have done with them. Having arbitrary X districts always felt weird, especially when the cities growth should be fueled by its needs
7:53 I'm pretty sure that's not how you say "divisive"
Ironic
I want to play as Dwight Eisenhower. Not the Presidential part of his life, but rather the Supreme Allied Commander. Managing diplomacy between nations while conquering others sounds interesting.
Thank you for the tongue in cheek reference to the ripping off of all innovations made by Humankind.
Civ used to be the innovator. Now it’s just the bully.
Improving on what your competition does is also innovation. If everyone followed your logic video games wouldn't exist because every game is just an improvement on something that came before.
@@lordlubu3029I just hope they have a classic mode.
civ 6 also took heavily from endless legend