Likes: - Navigable rivers - No builders Dislikes: - Changing civs per age - I was really hoping for improved ways to coordinate efforts with allies during war, the ability to claim territory that’s not yet yours, and more interesting things to trade with other civs. I’m open minded about influence but right now it feels like a massively underwhelming fix to one of the game’s biggest weaknesses - Disappointed about no news on AI improvements
Civilization players will never be happy with changes at the start of a new game. Yet 10 years later will say “this was the last good one“ it is almost a scientifically replicable cycle at this point.
the age change was probably one of the most hated mechanics in Humankind... Either they have figured out a much better way to handle it, or they are being really naive and it'll explode in their faces the same as it did for Humankind...
They just made a cocktail out of Humankind and Old World with a little Civ garnish. And your explanation of the game is better than Firaxes' presentation
I've played every Civ game ever released on the PC. I played Civ 1 on the Amiga back in the day, and I even played NetCiv multiplayer extensively. I've found every single iteration released to be an improvement over the previous, up until Civ 6. Civ 6 is the first game in the series where I actually eventually said "screw this I'm going back to the previous game." The two main reasons for that were: Districts. I never liked the way that played with adjacency bonuses and such. The whole mechanic was too different from previous games, and in a bad way. It was confusing, hard to plan ahead (impossible even without experience) and just an overall annoying and unfun mechanic. The second being how they removed road building and simply smacked it on as a passive caravan ability instead. Road building and the mobility it provided used to be a very strategic thing that you would have to choose to invest in. Connecting cities and locations by road with your workers felt very satisfying and core to the game. The way they seem to strive towards focus on leaders over civs is also a mystery to me. In Civ 6 it was even hard to identify which nation a leader was ruling without digging around in various menus because only the leader's name would be visible on tooltips and such without any mention of which nation you were looking at. Completely nonsensical. All I've ever wanted from a new Civ game is better and more meaningful diplomacy, where building relationships with other civs would feel more meaningful and rewarding and less likely to lead to random nonsensical backstabs where thousands of years of friendship would end over a turn for no good reason. This, and all the nonsensical and hypocritical demands the AI would constantly harass you about. The rest doesn't have to change, only expand and improve, because the core mechanic of Civilization has been excellent ever since the first game. Now it feels like they're running out of ideas and instead of making general improvements to the game, they're looking to make sweeping changes to core mechanics that nobody ever asked for. It's almost like trying to please lifetime long football/soccer fans by changing the ball into a square and telling them they may now also use their hands. Suddenly it's a completely different thing that nobody asked for. What I do NOT like about Civ 7: - Districts are still there. - Workers are now removed completely (WHAT WHY?!). - Leader focus and switching civs with your leader (BUT WHY?!). How does this even make sense? - Tech tree separated into ages with the limiting factors mentioned in this video. I was really, really hoping Civ 6 was just a fluke and that Sid Meier would get everything back on track again with Civ 7, but after 30 years of Civilization I guess I am done with this series. I'd literally pay anything for a good Civilization game, but I'm just not going to spend 70+ bucks on another bad sequel. I just can't support something I so strongly disagree with. Guess I'll just have to stick to Civ 5 from now on, sadly.
I'd just like to add one more thing: Civ 6 has received a lot of criticism for its disliked mechanics (some of which I mentioned in the previous post). Instead of somehow addressing those issues, they just completely ignore everything the fans have been saying and then just doubled down on it.
Also Civ 6 was the most successful civ to date. If you want to play the old games stuck in the past do that, we’ll have fun playing exciting new iterations
Civ 6 grew on me and the district bonuses have become a big part of my strategy. But I get why you don't like it and I agree with your feelings about Civ 7.
@@Deathsinger99 I'm sure it was, but people didn't see the disliked features until after they already purchased the game, so the sales numbers aren't directly indicative of the dissatisfaction.
i actually skipped civilization 6, its the first civ i not played and i watched a ton of vids and looked that its just not fun anymore. Also i have played stellaris and civilization now feels like a super casual game so not sure did that affect my decision to skip civilization games... now i was waiting for civ 7 but so far it looks like it might be even worse than civ 6 for me. Maybe i will look at whats that new game coming called ARA is all about.
To me it makes sense as one of the things I dislike is having my civs unique units and building being made irrelevant or not available until much later. Now all unique stuff will always be available during the age you are in.
Odd how they talked about "historical immersion" yet we will see Gandhi in charge of America and an England with Augustus in charge (if they include those countries in the base game 😂), I would like the changing civ thing if it was just your nation becoming modernised (such as England to the UK) instead of me being able to go from Mongolia to freaking Mexico... when it comes out I'm sure the AI will do some pretty immersion breaking stuff. On the graphics, I think it's fine but the colours are very bright and the fog of war, in my opinion, is vile (the UI too).
@@Ericshadowblade the problem with that is a lot of the civs in civ died out at some point in history(Aztec/Ottoman/ Scythia) or they split from prior civs (england -> america/australia)
Two first trailers got me really hyped. Watching the 20min "gameplay" trailer after Gamescom really brought the hype down. Seeing that humanity is now cut down to 3 ages feel questionable? I feel like there's definitely more to it than 3 ages. Second, I don't know how to feel about diverging from playing a single ruler/nation across the entire game. This is something Humankind did and it was cool at first but then only turned into "oh I wasn't quick enough to get my preferred ruler/nation idk if I want to play anymore". Humankind was also one of those games that I wanted to like but never got attached to it and now seeing civ going towards the same path is worrisome. Guess I'll have to wait and see how civ 7 pans out...
I was put off by it at first, but seeing that your leader stays with you and you will still keep certain bonuses makes me hopeful. As long as the trasitions between civs are smooth and the gameplay loop is fun I think it'll be okay.
I don’t think it’s actually going to work like that. Pretty much takes what you have and gives you 3 different options to either keep it with their historical progression or change it to one that more suits your progression.
Me neither, I like the idea of changing civs but maybe limit it to culturally similar stuff, so no science rush in first era ,then full gold then full military. You should atleast be locked into a general idea. Visually I think it's worse. I did like havin g more devloped tiles to switch to an other production compared to locking it in, however this is more realistic and will add a bit more strategy...but overall from what I saw I prefer civ 6.
@@Mortac Civ 5 is by far the best they have ever delivered (even though 3 had a nice outpost resource gater sythem and 2 had the best Space ending ever)
Unfortunately I think Civ is a dead game now to a lot of us. They completely ignored all the criticism they got for Civ 6 and then just doubled down and added more sweeping changes nobody asked for. Instead of waiting for Civ 8 I believe Civ 5 is gonna be the end of the road for many (it is for me, as a 30+ year Civ fan).
@@Mortac And yet it was quite a bit more successful by several million purchases Stay in the past if you want, I’m gonna have a blast with the exciting new mechanics
@@JamesFrancis pit boss mode in 5 made that work, but it's nice they made it a better feature. I've also used the multiplayer robot way back in the day and it worked well.
I don't like the reinforcement function because it prevents interception of reinforcements or catching units alone. Transports need to come back purely because in the real world the US Merchant Marine has been neglected ever since Civ removed transports.
rivers being navigable is the thing I'm most excited for in this, it was so cool to see them send a boat down a river in the trailer I've been wondering why we couldn't do that for so long. the canals from 6 were the closest we got to being able to sail through land
If I'm being honest, I really liked a lot of the changes they made. I have a few questions about stacking and unstacking units. And I have two concerns. One being the civ swapping. And the other being just how much rubberbanding there is around the age flips.
I'm never getting back into civilization until they completely change their approach to AI. The hardest difficulty should be what the game is balanced to. It's easy to buff the player to make things easier, buffing the AIs resources to make it "harder" just leads to a game where you have to cheese the cheaty AI to win. No real skill.
Builders & great people went over my head in the last entry.. I’m hoping this next title will be the perfect one for me.. Perhaps more in the 2-4-5 vein
not a big fan of this leader choosing and playing different civs the Game is called Civilization and not leader managment please for the Love of God bring back the legendary Civ 5 model
I will buy it and play it - will most likely enjoy it for a while. Many people seem to complain about changing the culture or whatever so maybe they should just allow you to pick the same culture again so if you wanted to play one leader/one culture you can.
My impression is that they've lost confidence in their ability to make a game that generates its own narrative and are trying to shoehorn it back in. I've played every civ game thus far, so I imagine I'll give this one a try, but atm I'm a lot braced for disappointment than I am hyped for excitement.
The game looks really nice but it doesn't have anything new to offer besides unnecessary complexity. After a few hours playing people will think they bought Humankind 2 instead of Civ7. Everything except for the graphics looks like a step back. After the hype wears down people will come back running to Civ6.
Doesnt look great. It looks like civ6 got depressed and combined humankind and age of empires. Im not sure why people ever complain about civ 6 graphics, the player numbers speak for themselves!
I got burned in Civ IV. I bought all of the content, and a few months later they released the final version with the final DLC for the same price. It taught me a valuable lesson, but also I only buy Civ games when they announce they are working on the next.
All I can do is hope the devs see the mass amount of negative reactions to the civ changing mechanic for every new era and decide to do away with it or work on a civ classic mode that you can enable in a custom game Other than that navigable rivers are good, new combat is good, and the visual style is good
8:48 Shouldn't take most people all that long to get used to that change. Age of Wonders 4 does this exact system, as do a few other similar games that have come out in the last 5 years.
I am concerned about the ages, and how it seems like we will be restrained from progressing as we want to. It seems like we will be held back a bit, so I’m wondering if you should focus on financing to a solid foundation so when you go to the other ages, you can start focusing on other things it’s gonna be interesting!
I really like the art style, it's a return to the pre-Civ 6 trend of looking towards something more grounded but still sufficiently heightened. Civ 6's gaudy art was the main thing that turned me away.
Yeah, I didn't like it at first, but I got used to it. I do think Civ 6 got a lot right, even though it took some getting used to and some omissions after Civ 5 never stopped bugging me (Why can't I demand my allies stop attacking a friendly city state? Blech)
So now it should called be "CivilisationS" emphasis on the "S" at the end because you play multiple civilisations in each playthrough. All in all the whole leader and ages thing sound like a copie and paste from "humankind". I am getting old man, i had hoped they go back on some stupid changes they made from 5->6 but it gets even more down the gutter. - Stil on with garbage district systhem - First they took manual roads away, now the entire worker, sereously - the army commander stuff seems unnecessary - The scince seperation chnage on top, why ? ... No buy from me then and back to the old ones. Top three in order Civ 5 - Civ 3 - Civ 2.
how are they going to deal with civilizations that will stay relatively "the same" for millennia? for example china ? or for china is it "china" -> mongolia -> yuan dynasty china.?
No matter how you switch leaders or civs, the ability you have got should never expire. That’s my bottom line. You start with Egypt, then you should be immune to flood in any ages. Even after you evolve to Mongolia, you should be flood-immune horse lord, instead of some dumbass who lost all encampments because of flooding. Can we imagine Roosevelt happily sets all cities away from rainforest and suddenly has to become Petro?
2 modern era civs aren’t going to be on part of any change like this. You do keep the benefits of the original Civ when you change eras. Think of it as Rome after being invaded by multiple enemies and fighting to exist c
TBH, I think that the different civ per age mechanic is probably for the best. I've always felt it odd how one civ would have a unique unit or building right at the start. But would then just be the same as any other civ in later ages. Or another might get theirs in the mid or late game.
Yes! This is actually something they explicitly talked about. They can now design civilizations to beera specific, and always be relevant in the era in which they are featured and played. So now you will no longer have insane early game empires that have their bonuses fall off and lose any value by the mid-late game, or late game civilizations that only get to really play the game 150 turns into it. I think people are sleeping on how much more interesting and fun This allows them to make a whole campaign, and for you as the player to make your individual time in each era, or campaign as a whole.
Huh, reading through the comments here it seems I'm more optimistic than most about this iteration. The new way cities work, the addition of towns, the removal of builders, the multiple buildings on urban tiles etc all sound like they could be really good changes. I really like the idea of the generals (or commanders or whatever they're called) - though I don't think I like the reinforcement mechanic. I suppose that mechanic did work well enough in Stellaris, but those are two very different types of game. The mix and match leader approach sounds like it could be cool. I know some people don't like the immersion-breaking aspect of it, but we've been fine in previous games playing as immortal Lincoln leading stone age America to build the pyramids, so I think we'll get through the ability to play a leader in a civ they didn't belong to. It makes a nice "What if..." type of scenario, I think. Plus, since they've got historically accurate civ/leader matches (not sure if I saw that in this video or from one of the others who got to play it), I presume they'll have a "Historically accurate leader/civ combos only" mode. I am a little wary of the idea of changing civ part way through. Maybe they'll restrict it to civs that did exist in the same general geographical area? Not sure. Too early to judge it, and it could end up really aiding replayability (since you'll end up with, say, legacy Egyptian aspects which may interact in a completely different way with becoming Mongolia or Venice or whatever), but in a fairly simple sense, it may be really jarring to have dealt with one set of civs and then suddenly be dealing with a different set, maybe losing track of which civ you'd previously dealt with. Though I suppose the leaders stay the same so that likely mitigates that issue. One of the things I'm most wary of, actually, is the diplomacy points. They could work well, but I think diplomacy has long been a weakness of Civ games. Civs 5 and 6 each got bits of it right, but I'm wary of it becoming transactional in a way that doesn't reflect the needs of the empires. Like... could there be a situation where I have horses and want iron, they have iron and want horses, but one of us doesn't have the diplomacy points to make that trade? In any case, I'm still intrigued by this and look forward to hearing more. I wish it all the best, because as much as I love the Civ games, none have been perfect so far. I hope they manage to improve on the formula with this one.
Genuinely doesn't really sound like much new or interesting in terms of actual concepts. More like Firaxis looked at other competing games in the genre that came out across the last couple of years and went "Yeah, let's just toss that in so other games can't say they offer something Civilization doesn't". And with the Civ series feeling more soulless and bland with each iteration since Civ 5 came out..... the whole "Doing things so we can say we have it too", is probably not the greatest approach. Civilization as a series needs Firaxis to be figuring out what makes Civilization meaningful as a game in its own right now that they can't just trade on the IP like they did with Civ 5 and Civ 6, deepen the series and bring back the heart that's been missing. Not ignoring all of that in favour of spending extensive development time toward throwing in "Us too"" systems.
I don't have a good feeling about all those shifting features. If I would care to play something like Humankind then I'll just play it. We all liked the way Civilization felt! Firaxis had one job, just to improve good things to even better and sort out what is bad, like art style of civ, however civ 5 was and remaining the best game in series for its confidence, playstyle and edgy colors. So! It might not be as bad as it looks. It's just a first look.
@@Kystier Yeah, but I think it could be possible for them to create a game mode where we stay in an specific era for an entire game. Something like a marathon-speed game for that age, but turned one run itself.
Civ 3 was the best for me. After that every game had worse gameplay. Technology trade was removed, all nations became almost the same with minimal difference, roads and workers are removed and now even your civilization is no longer fixed! I dont see a single feature that I'd really like to try in Civ 7, it seems like a downgrade on all points.
The leader never changes but the civ does? We are still talking civ.....i think this is bad...at least i don't want to play this way...also knowing the AI, it wont be capable to choose wisely
crazy how some people are so stuck and unwilling to accept change, I for one always found humankind interesting, so this should be interesting too, anyway, nice video showcasing the game.
Is it hard to understand that China will not evolve into Mongolia or Japan in its 5000 years of history, but just a new version of China? This shitty system has failed humankind and will definitely fail Civilization 7
Why change what people have liked? I've been an avid Civ fan for 30+ years. Now they're just throwing around sweeping changes nobody asked for. It's like telling hockey fans that hockey will now be played with a ball and only one skate. Suddenly you've changed it into something else that previous fans simply can no longer enjoy. Good luck then asking them to pay for it as well.
@@Mortac and yet 5 and 6 are the 2 and 1 most successful in the series to date, and 7 will likely be even more so. As someone who grew up on 4, and 5, and as an adult played 6 a ton, while nostalgia has a big hold on me, 6 is by far my favorite Civ and imo the best the series has ever done. Same as 5 when it came out which was similarly hated if you recall. So stick in the past while the majority of us continue forward into the future playing an exciting new evolution of our favorite franchise. Sounds boring and sad tbh but you do you
@@Mortac If you just want to buy the same civ game you can always get an alt and get civ again. It's not like they're taking away the current versions. Nobody asked for change sure, but if they had to wait everytime for someone to ask for something, they wouldn't get anywhere, nor would they be able to come up with something new. To be fair in your example I'd think it'd be more like that would happen in hockey 2, which people could choose to play or they could stick with current hockey. Some would then switch, others stay, others would play both, in any case previous fans simply can actually still enjoy the previous game, after all this is not an update, this is a different game.
Yeah, the peak was 4, and 5 was playable but 6 was bad. There are also too much cut from the game now. Less multiplayer, civs and so on because they want the DLC money.
hmm. every civilization game had a major engine overhaul. it kinda looks like VII didn't get that -- visually, anyway. also sounds a lot like humankind with the new gameplay style.
Was a big pleasure to meet you! Thanks for chatting at dinner, was lovely! 🚀 🥔
Likes:
- Navigable rivers
- No builders
Dislikes:
- Changing civs per age
- I was really hoping for improved ways to coordinate efforts with allies during war, the ability to claim territory that’s not yet yours, and more interesting things to trade with other civs. I’m open minded about influence but right now it feels like a massively underwhelming fix to one of the game’s biggest weaknesses
- Disappointed about no news on AI improvements
Civilization players will never be happy with changes at the start of a new game. Yet 10 years later will say “this was the last good one“ it is almost a scientifically replicable cycle at this point.
the age change was probably one of the most hated mechanics in Humankind... Either they have figured out a much better way to handle it, or they are being really naive and it'll explode in their faces the same as it did for Humankind...
Humankinds problem was it was essentiall a free for all for the next culture rather then a natural logic progression
On top of constantly changing every 30 turns and adding mechanics that weren't fun.
The age change is huge. Hope they can pull it off better than humankind did.
idk, I think humankind did it peaty good. but I think they did the civilization changing thing to combat Humankind
@BenjaminWarner-hs1tq definetly was to combat humankind. Humankind wasnt great but its been the closest civ has gotten to a market competitor
yeah, I think Im just gonna play modded Humankind instead and Civ 4 when i actually wanna play Civ
@@lanteanboylol this guy
They just made a cocktail out of Humankind and Old World with a little Civ garnish. And your explanation of the game is better than Firaxes' presentation
Woo Civ! It was great meeting you!
Pass for me, changing what Civ I play as is what put me off from buying Humankind, will be another person that sticks with the older games.
Still looks cartoony too
I've played every Civ game ever released on the PC. I played Civ 1 on the Amiga back in the day, and I even played NetCiv multiplayer extensively. I've found every single iteration released to be an improvement over the previous, up until Civ 6.
Civ 6 is the first game in the series where I actually eventually said "screw this I'm going back to the previous game." The two main reasons for that were:
Districts. I never liked the way that played with adjacency bonuses and such. The whole mechanic was too different from previous games, and in a bad way. It was confusing, hard to plan ahead (impossible even without experience) and just an overall annoying and unfun mechanic.
The second being how they removed road building and simply smacked it on as a passive caravan ability instead. Road building and the mobility it provided used to be a very strategic thing that you would have to choose to invest in. Connecting cities and locations by road with your workers felt very satisfying and core to the game.
The way they seem to strive towards focus on leaders over civs is also a mystery to me. In Civ 6 it was even hard to identify which nation a leader was ruling without digging around in various menus because only the leader's name would be visible on tooltips and such without any mention of which nation you were looking at. Completely nonsensical.
All I've ever wanted from a new Civ game is better and more meaningful diplomacy, where building relationships with other civs would feel more meaningful and rewarding and less likely to lead to random nonsensical backstabs where thousands of years of friendship would end over a turn for no good reason. This, and all the nonsensical and hypocritical demands the AI would constantly harass you about.
The rest doesn't have to change, only expand and improve, because the core mechanic of Civilization has been excellent ever since the first game.
Now it feels like they're running out of ideas and instead of making general improvements to the game, they're looking to make sweeping changes to core mechanics that nobody ever asked for. It's almost like trying to please lifetime long football/soccer fans by changing the ball into a square and telling them they may now also use their hands. Suddenly it's a completely different thing that nobody asked for.
What I do NOT like about Civ 7:
- Districts are still there.
- Workers are now removed completely (WHAT WHY?!).
- Leader focus and switching civs with your leader (BUT WHY?!). How does this even make sense?
- Tech tree separated into ages with the limiting factors mentioned in this video.
I was really, really hoping Civ 6 was just a fluke and that Sid Meier would get everything back on track again with Civ 7, but after 30 years of Civilization I guess I am done with this series. I'd literally pay anything for a good Civilization game, but I'm just not going to spend 70+ bucks on another bad sequel. I just can't support something I so strongly disagree with. Guess I'll just have to stick to Civ 5 from now on, sadly.
I'd just like to add one more thing: Civ 6 has received a lot of criticism for its disliked mechanics (some of which I mentioned in the previous post). Instead of somehow addressing those issues, they just completely ignore everything the fans have been saying and then just doubled down on it.
Also Civ 6 was the most successful civ to date. If you want to play the old games stuck in the past do that, we’ll have fun playing exciting new iterations
Civ 6 grew on me and the district bonuses have become a big part of my strategy. But I get why you don't like it and I agree with your feelings about Civ 7.
@@Deathsinger99 I'm sure it was, but people didn't see the disliked features until after they already purchased the game, so the sales numbers aren't directly indicative of the dissatisfaction.
i actually skipped civilization 6, its the first civ i not played and i watched a ton of vids and looked that its just not fun anymore. Also i have played stellaris and civilization now feels like a super casual game so not sure did that affect my decision to skip civilization games... now i was waiting for civ 7 but so far it looks like it might be even worse than civ 6 for me. Maybe i will look at whats that new game coming called ARA is all about.
I'll wait until I see more, but I can't say I feel any desire to swap between different civs with each era.
Probably not needed but benefits make it more mandatory for win.
To me it makes sense as one of the things I dislike is having my civs unique units and building being made irrelevant or not available until much later. Now all unique stuff will always be available during the age you are in.
Odd how they talked about "historical immersion" yet we will see Gandhi in charge of America and an England with Augustus in charge (if they include those countries in the base game 😂), I would like the changing civ thing if it was just your nation becoming modernised (such as England to the UK) instead of me being able to go from Mongolia to freaking Mexico... when it comes out I'm sure the AI will do some pretty immersion breaking stuff. On the graphics, I think it's fine but the colours are very bright and the fog of war, in my opinion, is vile (the UI too).
Yeah it would be better if you progressed to the next state of that culture rather then what its got currently i dont think civ 7 is going to do well
@@Ericshadowblade the problem with that is a lot of the civs in civ died out at some point in history(Aztec/Ottoman/ Scythia) or they split from prior civs (england -> america/australia)
Doubt you can get Mexico from Mongolia.
Two first trailers got me really hyped. Watching the 20min "gameplay" trailer after Gamescom really brought the hype down.
Seeing that humanity is now cut down to 3 ages feel questionable? I feel like there's definitely more to it than 3 ages.
Second, I don't know how to feel about diverging from playing a single ruler/nation across the entire game. This is something Humankind did and it was cool at first but then only turned into "oh I wasn't quick enough to get my preferred ruler/nation idk if I want to play anymore". Humankind was also one of those games that I wanted to like but never got attached to it and now seeing civ going towards the same path is worrisome.
Guess I'll have to wait and see how civ 7 pans out...
I was put off by it at first, but seeing that your leader stays with you and you will still keep certain bonuses makes me hopeful. As long as the trasitions between civs are smooth and the gameplay loop is fun I think it'll be okay.
I don’t think it’s actually going to work like that. Pretty much takes what you have and gives you 3 different options to either keep it with their historical progression or change it to one that more suits your progression.
Look at you, getting flown around to play games. Congratulations! You've worked hard for it.
Doesn't look good enough for a $70 dollar price tag
Ngl not sure how I feel about a lot of this
I’m not really liking what I’m seeing.
I know perfectly well how I feel about this. They've lost the touch and the grip on what Civ fans want. I'm just gonna stick to Civ 5 unfortunately.
Me neither, I like the idea of changing civs but maybe limit it to culturally similar stuff, so no science rush in first era ,then full gold then full military. You should atleast be locked into a general idea. Visually I think it's worse. I did like havin g more devloped tiles to switch to an other production compared to locking it in, however this is more realistic and will add a bit more strategy...but overall from what I saw I prefer civ 6.
@@Mortac Civ 5 is by far the best they have ever delivered (even though 3 had a nice outpost resource gater sythem and 2 had the best Space ending ever)
$70? ARE YOU F'N KIDDING ME???
oh DANG, I was considering getting it but I think imma just stick to the other civ games
@@AlexiosTheSixth I just wait for a sale.
Isn’t that the how much were you expecting?
Civ 6 was $53.99 in Nov 2016. Inflation adjusted that is $70.76.
thanks for the heads up about the different civs in different ages. absolutely loathe that mechanic, I'll be waiting for civ8!
Unfortunately I think Civ is a dead game now to a lot of us. They completely ignored all the criticism they got for Civ 6 and then just doubled down and added more sweeping changes nobody asked for. Instead of waiting for Civ 8 I believe Civ 5 is gonna be the end of the road for many (it is for me, as a 30+ year Civ fan).
@@Mortac Sad but true, 5 was the last big hurrah the had
@@Mortac And yet it was quite a bit more successful by several million purchases
Stay in the past if you want, I’m gonna have a blast with the exciting new mechanics
AS FOR STARWARS THEY DESTROYED CIV TOO!
Back to Civ 3 and Colonisation Amiga ver ;).
In my opinion == BOYCOTT THE CRAP!
looks like i'll continue sticking with civ 5
How is it still the best after all this time? I was so hopeful civ 6 would become better over time.
@@oaw117 probably because that's the last time Sid had any sense of what people wanted.
@@oaw117 I've been playing only Civ 6 since the rise and fall expansion. It adds nice tweaks to the formula.
@@oaw117I prefer Civ 6, especially with the expansions. And the play by cloud mode is great. But I can see why many dislike it.
@@JamesFrancis pit boss mode in 5 made that work, but it's nice they made it a better feature.
I've also used the multiplayer robot way back in the day and it worked well.
I don't like the reinforcement function because it prevents interception of reinforcements or catching units alone. Transports need to come back purely because in the real world the US Merchant Marine has been neglected ever since Civ removed transports.
I am just hoping that we will be able to stack civilization bonus instead of simply switching to another civilization.
rivers being navigable is the thing I'm most excited for in this, it was so cool to see them send a boat down a river in the trailer I've been wondering why we couldn't do that for so long. the canals from 6 were the closest we got to being able to sail through land
You did a fantastic explanation! But civ7 dosent get me exiting, right now it looks like i will just skip it
They took quite the inspiration from Amplitude games: nations from Humankind, bonus for reaching X in techbranch from Endless Legend =)
If I'm being honest, I really liked a lot of the changes they made. I have a few questions about stacking and unstacking units. And I have two concerns. One being the civ swapping. And the other being just how much rubberbanding there is around the age flips.
I'm never getting back into civilization until they completely change their approach to AI.
The hardest difficulty should be what the game is balanced to. It's easy to buff the player to make things easier, buffing the AIs resources to make it "harder" just leads to a game where you have to cheese the cheaty AI to win. No real skill.
Builders & great people went over my head in the last entry.. I’m hoping this next title will be the perfect one for me.. Perhaps more in the 2-4-5 vein
not a big fan of this leader choosing and playing different civs
the Game is called Civilization and not leader managment
please for the Love of God bring back the legendary Civ 5 model
I will buy it and play it - will most likely enjoy it for a while. Many people seem to complain about changing the culture or whatever so maybe they should just allow you to pick the same culture again so if you wanted to play one leader/one culture you can.
Excited for the new installment in one of my favourite Games of all time ... fingers crossed its fun and addictive
My impression is that they've lost confidence in their ability to make a game that generates its own narrative and are trying to shoehorn it back in. I've played every civ game thus far, so I imagine I'll give this one a try, but atm I'm a lot braced for disappointment than I am hyped for excitement.
9:35 grannery
That's a like for the disclosure!
The game looks really nice but it doesn't have anything new to offer besides unnecessary complexity. After a few hours playing people will think they bought Humankind 2 instead of Civ7. Everything except for the graphics looks like a step back. After the hype wears down people will come back running to Civ6.
Thanks for saving me money. I hated the idea of a new civilization in humankind so I’ll pass on this one
Doesnt look great. It looks like civ6 got depressed and combined humankind and age of empires. Im not sure why people ever complain about civ 6 graphics, the player numbers speak for themselves!
I got burned in Civ IV. I bought all of the content, and a few months later they released the final version with the final DLC for the same price. It taught me a valuable lesson, but also I only buy Civ games when they announce they are working on the next.
All I can do is hope the devs see the mass amount of negative reactions to the civ changing mechanic for every new era and decide to do away with it or work on a civ classic mode that you can enable in a custom game
Other than that navigable rivers are good, new combat is good, and the visual style is good
8:48 Shouldn't take most people all that long to get used to that change.
Age of Wonders 4 does this exact system, as do a few other similar games that have come out in the last 5 years.
I am concerned about the ages, and how it seems like we will be restrained from progressing as we want to. It seems like we will be held back a bit, so I’m wondering if you should focus on financing to a solid foundation so when you go to the other ages, you can start focusing on other things it’s gonna be interesting!
If I wanna play Humankind I will play Humankind
Civilization is the game I would choose if I was stranded on a desert island with only ONE game to play...bar none.
They trying to imitate fast & Furious with the amount of content they churn out?
I think they can pull it off but the rest of the game looks solid just need to see how ages work
I really like the art style, it's a return to the pre-Civ 6 trend of looking towards something more grounded but still sufficiently heightened. Civ 6's gaudy art was the main thing that turned me away.
Yeah, I didn't like it at first, but I got used to it. I do think Civ 6 got a lot right, even though it took some getting used to and some omissions after Civ 5 never stopped bugging me (Why can't I demand my allies stop attacking a friendly city state? Blech)
I believe if Sid Myers saw this, he would burn down the whole studio. Deeply saddening that they gutted Civ to this point.
So now it should called be "CivilisationS" emphasis on the "S" at the end because you play multiple civilisations in each playthrough. All in all the whole leader and ages thing sound like a copie and paste from "humankind". I am getting old man, i had hoped they go back on some stupid changes they made from 5->6 but it gets even more down the gutter.
- Stil on with garbage district systhem
- First they took manual roads away, now the entire worker, sereously
- the army commander stuff seems unnecessary
- The scince seperation chnage on top, why ?
... No buy from me then and back to the old ones. Top three in order Civ 5 - Civ 3 - Civ 2.
how are they going to deal with civilizations that will stay relatively "the same" for millennia? for example china ?
or for china is it "china" -> mongolia -> yuan dynasty china.?
Can I play with a same civilization the whole game or do they force me to change the civilization?
It’ll force you to pick a new civ
@@Skeety08 ok. thanks for the information.
Have a good day !
@@Seer_Of_The_Woodlands no prob 👍
No matter how you switch leaders or civs, the ability you have got should never expire. That’s my bottom line.
You start with Egypt, then you should be immune to flood in any ages. Even after you evolve to Mongolia, you should be flood-immune horse lord, instead of some dumbass who lost all encampments because of flooding.
Can we imagine Roosevelt happily sets all cities away from rainforest and suddenly has to become Petro?
2 modern era civs aren’t going to be on part of any change like this. You do keep the benefits of the original Civ when you change eras. Think of it as Rome after being invaded by multiple enemies and fighting to exist c
TBH, I think that the different civ per age mechanic is probably for the best. I've always felt it odd how one civ would have a unique unit or building right at the start. But would then just be the same as any other civ in later ages. Or another might get theirs in the mid or late game.
Yes! This is actually something they explicitly talked about. They can now design civilizations to beera specific, and always be relevant in the era in which they are featured and played.
So now you will no longer have insane early game empires that have their bonuses fall off and lose any value by the mid-late game, or late game civilizations that only get to really play the game 150 turns into it.
I think people are sleeping on how much more interesting and fun This allows them to make a whole campaign, and for you as the player to make your individual time in each era, or campaign as a whole.
Huh, reading through the comments here it seems I'm more optimistic than most about this iteration. The new way cities work, the addition of towns, the removal of builders, the multiple buildings on urban tiles etc all sound like they could be really good changes. I really like the idea of the generals (or commanders or whatever they're called) - though I don't think I like the reinforcement mechanic. I suppose that mechanic did work well enough in Stellaris, but those are two very different types of game.
The mix and match leader approach sounds like it could be cool. I know some people don't like the immersion-breaking aspect of it, but we've been fine in previous games playing as immortal Lincoln leading stone age America to build the pyramids, so I think we'll get through the ability to play a leader in a civ they didn't belong to. It makes a nice "What if..." type of scenario, I think. Plus, since they've got historically accurate civ/leader matches (not sure if I saw that in this video or from one of the others who got to play it), I presume they'll have a "Historically accurate leader/civ combos only" mode.
I am a little wary of the idea of changing civ part way through. Maybe they'll restrict it to civs that did exist in the same general geographical area? Not sure. Too early to judge it, and it could end up really aiding replayability (since you'll end up with, say, legacy Egyptian aspects which may interact in a completely different way with becoming Mongolia or Venice or whatever), but in a fairly simple sense, it may be really jarring to have dealt with one set of civs and then suddenly be dealing with a different set, maybe losing track of which civ you'd previously dealt with. Though I suppose the leaders stay the same so that likely mitigates that issue.
One of the things I'm most wary of, actually, is the diplomacy points. They could work well, but I think diplomacy has long been a weakness of Civ games. Civs 5 and 6 each got bits of it right, but I'm wary of it becoming transactional in a way that doesn't reflect the needs of the empires. Like... could there be a situation where I have horses and want iron, they have iron and want horses, but one of us doesn't have the diplomacy points to make that trade?
In any case, I'm still intrigued by this and look forward to hearing more. I wish it all the best, because as much as I love the Civ games, none have been perfect so far. I hope they manage to improve on the formula with this one.
took inspiration from HUmankind.
Crisis on infinite civilization...
hope they do game more playable after 1800 has been boring after IV.didnt even bouth 5 and 6 anymore.
Genuinely doesn't really sound like much new or interesting in terms of actual concepts.
More like Firaxis looked at other competing games in the genre that came out across the last couple of years and went "Yeah, let's just toss that in so other games can't say they offer something Civilization doesn't".
And with the Civ series feeling more soulless and bland with each iteration since Civ 5 came out..... the whole "Doing things so we can say we have it too", is probably not the greatest approach.
Civilization as a series needs Firaxis to be figuring out what makes Civilization meaningful as a game in its own right now that they can't just trade on the IP like they did with Civ 5 and Civ 6, deepen the series and bring back the heart that's been missing. Not ignoring all of that in favour of spending extensive development time toward throwing in "Us too"" systems.
I don't have a good feeling about all those shifting features. If I would care to play something like Humankind then I'll just play it. We all liked the way Civilization felt! Firaxis had one job, just to improve good things to even better and sort out what is bad, like art style of civ, however civ 5 was and remaining the best game in series for its confidence, playstyle and edgy colors. So! It might not be as bad as it looks. It's just a first look.
I hope it would be possible to just stay in one age and play the game.
I would like it, but I think it isn't the direction they are going for.
@@janusricardarvis around min 7 it says that there is a limit at wich the age change is going to happen regardless
@@Kystier Yeah, but I think it could be possible for them to create a game mode where we stay in an specific era for an entire game. Something like a marathon-speed game for that age, but turned one run itself.
I am halfway through your video now, and humankind did all of these mechanics before. So is civ 7 trying to imitate that game?
Civ 3 was the best for me. After that every game had worse gameplay. Technology trade was removed, all nations became almost the same with minimal difference, roads and workers are removed and now even your civilization is no longer fixed! I dont see a single feature that I'd really like to try in Civ 7, it seems like a downgrade on all points.
Lots of good info here, my take on it, is Civ 6 is the last mohican. This.. varient.. is worthless and not civ.
The leader never changes but the civ does? We are still talking civ.....i think this is bad...at least i don't want to play this way...also knowing the AI, it wont be capable to choose wisely
crazy how some people are so stuck and unwilling to accept change, I for one always found humankind interesting, so this should be interesting too, anyway, nice video showcasing the game.
Is it hard to understand that China will not evolve into Mongolia or Japan in its 5000 years of history, but just a new version of China? This shitty system has failed humankind and will definitely fail Civilization 7
Why change what people have liked? I've been an avid Civ fan for 30+ years. Now they're just throwing around sweeping changes nobody asked for.
It's like telling hockey fans that hockey will now be played with a ball and only one skate. Suddenly you've changed it into something else that previous fans simply can no longer enjoy. Good luck then asking them to pay for it as well.
@@Mortac and yet 5 and 6 are the 2 and 1 most successful in the series to date, and 7 will likely be even more so.
As someone who grew up on 4, and 5, and as an adult played 6 a ton, while nostalgia has a big hold on me, 6 is by far my favorite Civ and imo the best the series has ever done. Same as 5 when it came out which was similarly hated if you recall.
So stick in the past while the majority of us continue forward into the future playing an exciting new evolution of our favorite franchise. Sounds boring and sad tbh but you do you
@@Mortac If you just want to buy the same civ game you can always get an alt and get civ again. It's not like they're taking away the current versions. Nobody asked for change sure, but if they had to wait everytime for someone to ask for something, they wouldn't get anywhere, nor would they be able to come up with something new.
To be fair in your example I'd think it'd be more like that would happen in hockey 2, which people could choose to play or they could stick with current hockey. Some would then switch, others stay, others would play both, in any case previous fans simply can actually still enjoy the previous game, after all this is not an update, this is a different game.
I'm fine with change. I loved the changes in the Civ 6 expansions. But Civ 7 looks like it should be a new series.
Everything since Civ IV have been major decline so I have zero faith. At least it does not has the Clash of Clans art style of Civ VI
Yeah, the peak was 4, and 5 was playable but 6 was bad. There are also too much cut from the game now. Less multiplayer, civs and so on because they want the DLC money.
Seems like it’s gonna suck
Damn, I was hoping they would have focused on incorporating the Civ 6 expansion changes. Civ 7 just sounds like a Humankind clone.
They made me change civilization during the game.... i dont buy nor play...no thank you. Another stupid choise disconnected from players feeelings.
hmm. every civilization game had a major engine overhaul. it kinda looks like VII didn't get that -- visually, anyway. also sounds a lot like humankind with the new gameplay style.