Thread 2117562

>Everyone complains about the game
>Its actually really good

The complaint about civ switching is retarded, just play one of the other Civs, if you want to play the same game over and over, just keep playing the same game over and over. Civ VII in my opinion is light years better than both V and VI for a few reasons.
Civ switching is actually great way to keep you making interesting decisions and having interesting mechanics the entire game through and i like how you can sculpt your empire with your traditions picking early civs to set up late civs, and always having some sort of unique unit and ability every age, instead of having a late game unit that you have to play 200 turns and the games over before you even get to use it.
I think the game still suffers from snow balling, and the best map generations i've used have been modded in, but there's more chances to get back into the game with age resets. And the modded map script is legitimately great.
Either way all the criticisms of the game don't really compare to the benefits
especially I like generals and how they're used and unpacking and packing units, i like the removal of some micromanaging aspects that were fine in the early game but became tedious in the late game and i think their solutions are good.

I've played the game at launch and i've played it now after a few months of being out and already a lot of the initial criticisms have been covered.

I just can't like civ switching

But why though, It think its fun, and more thematic than having america in the bronze age, or Assyria in modern. Things evolve and It gives you a chance to double down on a strategy or to balance your empire depending on what you want to do.

>>2117570
meant for >>2117564

It just feels like it was ripped off of Humankind. You very closely described things you like about Humankind.

>>2117570
In my opinion it becomes less thematic since it removes your association with the nation you are playing, your campaign is no longer the story of the American people. For me it would only work if the evolutions were very strictly tied to your initial civ, that way the campaign could maintain the narrative aspect.

>>2117572
I've played both of quite a while, and I have to say Civ VII is so much better than humankind. it looks better, it scales better, civs are way more interesting and indepth than human kind, legacies work better, and i haven't encountered any of the ai bugs that ultimately forced me to stop playing humankind, I think with the patches since launch that The game has gotten way better. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because some concepts were in a bad game, doesn't make those concepts bad.

>>2117562 (OP)
>Civ VII in my opinion is light years better than both V and VI for a few reasons.
All these years later and Civ I, II, III, and IV is still the best.

>>2117576
Yeah but to me it was always annoying to see america running around in the bronze age. Its more thematic to me because you get to see that slow transition of might. If you want to just play white people then pick rome to normans to america. You can then rightfully say that Pax Americana are the true inheritors of Rome. the fact that some civs naturally lead to other civs also sort of shapes a general flow and i like that you can unlock outliers depending on certain conditions that might open up new strategies. I think the issue most autist have is not being able to play their one favorite civ at all times. Civilization evolves and i like how that's captured in Civ vii.

It also means that instead of being generic in most ages and only having one period where your unique unit and building kick in, you can pick and choose at any stage of the game what you want your unique unit to be so that you never feel like your civ isn't innovating or standing out and being a different civ than your opponents. In V and VI if you have a bunch of late game civs then you basically just fight generic civs for most if not the entire game and honestly that's way more boring.

>>2117578
I just realized that That's civ VI, I thought it was VII because it had less hours on it. I guess i like civ VII way more than VI

>>2117562 (OP)
That's your opinion and you're allowed to have a shit opinion. However given that both civ 6 and 5 have more players than 7, your opinion isn't shared by a lot of people

>>2117562 (OP)
baited everyone award

>>2117655
Just because something is more popular doesn't mean its better.

>>2117582
Buy an ad, faggot cunt

KWAB

>>2117747
>>2117687
just because idiots like you prefer to play the same rehashed game over and over doesn't mean civ 7 is bad. You guys just prefer the same formulaic slop.

>>2117562 (OP)
balance issues did not need civ switching to be fixed.
That's like saying the car was not good at turning so we replaced the car and roads with a railroad system.

>>2117562 (OP)
I think I will like it when I play it, I just don't think I'll like it so much that I need to buy it right now instead of waiting a while for it to be updated

My problem with civ switching is that there isn’t a correct path for every civ from bronze age to the atomic age. I don’t mind having other options, but I want the option to go through a civ’s full historical journey.

>>2117579
It looks so nice bros, maps like this, as long as the ui isn't shit are the best. I'm so tired of the franchise I like doing districts, Humankind, Civ 6, Civ 7, Millennia, and Ara all do these district, I think Endless legends does as well I'm all districted out bros.

>>2117562 (OP)
I'm not offended by civ switching I just hate that they don't have a logical progression unless the civs are India or China I also hate that because they do it for brownie points and not just to do it.

>>2118063
Just to add to this, i'm actually cool with brownie points like progressing up as a Native tribe and you become basically a native varient of America, that's cool flavorful changes.

But only letting two types of folks the Chinese and India have a logical progression is to on the nose for marketing that it bothers me.

>>2117570
Because things evolving doesn’t mean magically changing into another civilization. The series’ tagline is “can you build a civilization that stands the test of time?” It’s irrelevant what happened in our timeline, nobody that plays a game of Civ expects it to play out like history. This is something no one asked for and no one wanted.

In another month you will have moved on from this game just like everyone else. It’s a braindead watered down mobile game and no amount of DLC or shitty patches to bring in functionality that has existed in its predecessor for DECADES is going to change that.

>>2117578
>the Civ VII defender is a Humankind defender
Not surprised, if you like eating shit why wouldn’t you give mud a try?

>>2117562 (OP)
>Its actually really good
Image unrelated?

>>2117821
>just because gamers like to play good things over and over doesn't mean shit is bad
>you guys just prefer funslop, ugh, I hate funslop, it's so fun

The main thing that civ 7 actually does well compare to 6 is that the AI actually builds armies that make wars regularly fun to play. However the combat strength balanced is totally screwed where spamming cav is the only strategy.
It doesn't solve the main series problem of the rise and fall of empires however.
Crisis are a sneeze.
Events are basically do you want a cookie or cake sampler.

>>2117570
People who are into immersion Vs people who just play a min-max spreadsheet game for the mechanics.
If I'm starting a game as the Apache in civ 6, I want to stay Apache until I've got space-indians and Totem-Nukes. Because I am the Apache and the Apache are me. I don't want to switch to some other nation midway through because that would be like putting on a fucking dress and lipstick and pretending I'm a different gender now.

People who play it for the mechanics won't care less about that and I don't hate on them for that. Just a different breed of person I guess. But for people like me who want to insert their headcanon in those games, the civ switching is grating and nonsensical.
On a side note, I still don't understand why Firaxis took the WORST feature of Humankind, the one that basically murdered that game in the crib, and thought it would be a good idea to add it to their own game.

>>2117821
I'm not playing your dumb fucking retard game Sid. It's bad. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. The player numbers will continue to drop until it's overtaken by Civ 4 as well and even the sunk-cost fallacy retards who were dumb enough to buy it day 1 will stop defending civ7 eventually and accept reality.

>>2118252
not really. once you wipe their army they don't rebuild, just like 6.

>>2117562 (OP)
I will say it: I think civ as a franchise and and all their clones suck. they're just not fun after you realized ai is retarded and you can't always set up a game with your friends

maybe it's fun, but I haven't touched it. I'll pirate it i guess

>>2118063
You're forgetting Americans, French (and Vietnamese, Brits post-DLC).

Han -> Ming -> Qing
Han -> Dai Viet -> French culture
Roman -> Frankish -> American/British
Roman -> Frankish -> French
Mauryan -> Cholan -> Mughal

>>2117570
>more thematic than having america in the bronze age
they got fucking buganda in modern

>>2118408
And Humankind had Zulu as modern.

>>2117562 (OP)
Calling the civ switching the only problem is absurdly reductionist. Are you a shill or are you just doing this for free?

>>2118442
its not the only problem, but it seems to be the biggest pain point

>>2118410
No, Humankind had Zulu in Industrial, so at the same time as the height of European imperialism.
Or in other words, these Zulu were fighting Redcoats and Maxim guns, not tanks and nukes like Civ's Buganda.

The African cultures/states available in Modernity were Egyptians and Nigerians.

>>2117570
>than having america in the bronze age
Fixing things that aren't broken because "it ain't realistix!!" is how shit sequels are made.

>>2117562 (OP)
>>Its actually really good
What are you smoking, bub? I want some of that stuff too

>6 months after release
>still stuck below 50% positive
>already go on sale (and failed miserably to attract new players)
I see marketers of this turd are getting desperate

>>2117562 (OP)
>The complaint about civ switching is retarded,
Its literally one of those things that ruin the entire game...
>just play one of the other Civs
Seeing the player numbers for VII - they do.

>>2117570
Harriet Tubman of Assyria is far less thematic than Assyria surviving to the modern era. Really, the problem is post-colonial nations existing in the ancient era. That being said, civ switching is totally viable if done correctly, but Civ7 somehow did it worse than Humankind, from whom they stole the concept.

>>2119200
>Its literally one of those things that ruin the entire game...
It really doesn't.

To me the legitimate complaints are about UI, Difficulty, Map generation, but mouth breathers who have never even tried the game who complain about civ switching being the biggest issue are boors. Civ switching is only an issue to autist who only like playing one civ and one civ only.

>>2119466
It does to sane people.
People play Civ games to take their country of choice throught the ages, not to have it morph onto irrelevant nigger shithole nr 3910 at an arbitrary point.
Everything else bad about civ7 is of a lesser problem because the game is broken at its core.

any game that makes a nigger like tubman be on the same level as napoleon or caesar doesn't deserve any attention
hopefully everyone involved in making this absolute trash gets fired and never touches games again

>>2119466
>UI
Nigger opinion discarded.

>>2119478
Pretty much this.
Fuck this WEF slop that equates White titans of world history with some irrelevant nigger broad

>>2117570
>having america in the bronze age, or Assyria in modern
then having xi jinping of china in the modern era irl is unrealistic
it should be chancellor ngubu of east turkestan instead

>>2117562 (OP)
Liking Civ7 is like liking homeworld 3:
Some like it because they never played the previous entries,
Some like it because they have a low threshold of standards and are attracted to gimmicks,
Others like it just to troll.

>>2119593
anon, no one truly likes civ 7
people are just salty that they wasted a bunch of money for a humankind clone so they are coping

>>2119597
Or literal paid shills.

>>2119600
>>2119597

I can safely say that after reading the thread that 90% of civ fans are autistic retards who only play their one security blanket civ so that they can enjoy a baby tier power fantasy so they can compensate for their irl failings. No wonder they look at a game with so much hatred and vitriol, because they have so little going in their pathetic lives that they have to mindlessly hate anything that makes them even remotely uncomfortable. Civ fans are pathetic

>>2119638
>I can safely say that after reading the thread that 90% of civ fans are autistic retards who only play their one security blanket civ
So what you're saying is Sid completely missed the mark with Civ7. He made a game that 90% of players can agree failed in its core mechanics.

Now here's the kicker if you're one of the 10% who liked Civ7 and actively disagree with the sentiment then you must be mentally and socially retarded for not understand why the vast majority of people dislike the game.

>>2119638
You are right bro.
We are wrong and you are correct and that is why Civ7 is such a smashing success.

>>2119647
Bollywood is more popular than gaming so clearly it's better

Popular =/= good
The average person is a retard


But by all means please keep getting your opinions from them

>>2119656
>more cope
Game is another game in a highly venerated series.
Its a game with absurd never before utilized mechanic that goes against the very core aspect of the game.
And it sold the poorest out of entire series.
No amount of mental gymnastics will change that, you faggot.

civ switching is just stealth tranny propaganda. if you can accept the maya turning into the chinese, you can accept a man turning into a woman. qed

>>2119638
You sound pretty mad that your dogshit game isn't liked by the audience it was sold to. Maybe in the future you will refrain from injecting your deconstructive leftist politics, but I am not optimistic

>>2117562 (OP)
>The complaint about civ switching is retarded, just play one of the other Civs, if you want to play the same game over and over, just keep playing the same game over and over.
This is not a solution. One cannot play Rome passed the ancient era. Right out the gate it is already beaten by every entry in the series, even the original released in 1991

>Civ switching is actually great way to keep you making interesting decisions and having interesting mechanics the entire game through
What decisions? The only decisions you make are which of the obnoxious legacy paths to follow, which often are counterintuitive (e.g. science runs are actually HARMED by increasing science in some eras as they can bring an end to ages before the path is completed)

>and i like how you can sculpt your empire with your traditions picking early civs to set up late civs, and always having some sort of unique unit and ability every age, instead of having a late game unit that you have to play 200 turns and the games over before you even get to use it.
To use your own words, "then just pick a civ that's better in the early game instead." This mechanic attempts to cover the problem of a civ needing to get to its prime location in the tech tree by making everyone equally boring, and restricting player expression. Your civ MUST collapse, it cannot stand the test of time. Lame

>But why though, It think its fun, and more thematic than having america in the bronze age
What? How? Some of the meme civs we know literally NOTHING about (e.g. Mississippians) and others were placed in areas they shouldn't be in order to avoid the inevitability of Eurocentrism in reality (e.g. fucking BUGANDA in the modern era lmfao). You can't have your cake and eat it too, do you want it to be historical or do you want it to be a game where you can make your own history? It fails at both. That's why everyone hates it.

>>2119466
I tried the game, I played it extensively. It is fucking dogshit, every time I try to go back and play it any mild enjoyment I have at the beginning of the game is marred by myriad failures, and one of the primary ones is the jarring civ-switching. It's an absolutely awful mechanic that only could have been successfully implemented if adopted in such a way that maintained continuity and player choice, and even THEN should only have been implemented as a secondary game mode because it flies in the face of the game's tradition which has been upheld for over 30 years in every single title till this one.

>>2117570
I don't understand how firaxis looked and humankind and decided to make a worse version of civ switching, at least you can stay as the civ in humankind if you really want to

>>2118383
>Frankish
there is no franks, only Normans
also
Rome>>>>>>Spanish>Mexico
Carthaginian>Spanish>Mexico
Rome>Norman>British
>USA
>French
Greek>Bulgarian>Russian
Persia>Mongolian>Russian
where to put >Prussian(???) tho?

>>2118760
>already go on sale
unless its below 20$(or 10$) for definite edition i not gonna touch that, especially with denovo

>>2117562 (OP)
>same game over and over,
>>2117821
>same rehashed game over and over
>>2119638
>only play their one security blanket civ
You repeat that bullshit as if it had any meaning..
I played loads of different civilizations and styles in previous CIV games - sometimes i go for conquest, sometimes i go for diplo, culture, science.
You arent just barking at the wrong tree, you aint even in the right forest.
I played Civ games since 2 and never, not even once have i thought to myself " you know what this game needs? A mandatory civilization switching and progress reset at an arbitrary point in the game". I dont care that some civs are less viable/powerful at early game, others at science or late game or something else - thats the part of the charm of this series.
I take that over some Soros approved slop where Britain morphs into Buganda or some other shithole.

>>2119453
>civ switching is totally viable if done correctly
only way it works if you go with something like
>britons morphing into med england and then into imperial britain
>rome from ancient rome to italian city state vibes to united mussolini italy
>germoids - german barbarians -> HRE -> prussia -> modern germany
Of course main problem is that then you have nothing to do with all the irrelevant brownoid nations they added because they often have no history AND its already a stretch to add them to the game as a whole civilization and that will never fly on modern woke market..

>>2118408
>buganda in modern
yeah? and?

>>2117562 (OP)
no england no buy

>>2119999
>there is no franks, only Normans
And what culture are Normans practicing?
They're called Normans because Americans are retarded (no, really, you can check that a lot of the game's design decisions boil down to being understandable to retards by following common imagination within the US).
There was no difference between the cultures of Normandy and the rest of northern France when they domineered the English.

>>2119696
It really is. It's something to do with how these freaks believe race is just physical appearance only. So they see no problem with Mongolians magically transforming into French people.

>>2120396
>There was no difference between the cultures of Normandy and the rest of northern France

>>2120396
>wrong about american, french, norman, and english people all at once
where the fuck are you from? germany?

>>2120338
Yup, exactly

>>2120338
>Your Civ Switches, but only too preset ones

Then its not civ switching, You're boring, your ideas are boring, that's not civ switching at all and doesn't allow the gameplay aspect of adaptability and choice on the fly, Why can't i have my people start out as ancient greeks evolve into mongolian horse raiders from the steppe, who then evolve into america. Maybe my tribe decided to look into philosphy decided that might is right and decided to mount up and conquer, and then with their conquered lands eventually built up a thriving economic and innovation based empire based on the spoils they conqured

>>2120416
CIvs are cultures not races. if you're so caught up on race just pick a white leader. But why can't my people pick up a bow and ride a horse and go to war if they're white. Why do they have to pigeon holed.

>>2120951
>But why can't my people pick up a bow and ride a horse and go to war if they're white
RETVRN TO STEPPE

>>2117570
If it was something like
>Tang -> Ming -> China
Then fine. In fact, civ 7 actually has almost this.
But instead it's mostly shit like
>Rome -> Mongolia -> Germany

Schizophrenic nonsense. It's CIVILIZATION, not LEADERS. I don't care about immortal emperor Benjamin Franklin. I care about having my country, culture, religion etc. stand the test of time.

>>2120951
They could of done even cooler stuff like made regional variants of the civilization, like Mongolia being Scythia.

>>2120967
i mean if the game was successful we probably would have had a large amount of civs to do whatever you want with, but at this rate we wont get that at all.

>>2120961
Then play your other 6 civ games that do exactly that. Why can't I have a Civ game that represents civilizations as what they are MUTABLE OVER TIME AND DEPENDANT ON PEOPLE AND PLACES.

>>2120991
>Then play your other 6 civ games that do exactly that
We are :^)

Civ 8 will come faster because of the inevitable poor dlc sales, and we will have a proper civ game again.

>>2120992
And you still won't play it. You'll make another excuse to hate on it.

>>2120951
>Then its not civ switching,
Good.
Thats a logical progression that actually happened throught the ages.
And thats assuming my civ has to change at all.
>ur boring
No im pretty sure your game is just trash and sales and number of people playing it atm proves that.
>>2119696
>>2120416
Its just marxism.
One of the basic tennents of marxism is that there is nothing solid, everything can change etc and thus men turning into women and Britain turning into irrelevant nigger shithole nr 281 makes perfect sense because they believe there are no inherent differences between anything.

>

>>2120338
This right here is exactly right. To add onto this, the only way I can think it would ever realistically work would be like with some Paradox game where they have a fuckton of separate naming conventions used for possible offshoots of each culture, and to allow you to branch off into each.

>Why can't i have my people start out as ancient greeks evolve into mongolian horse raiders from the steppe, who then evolve into america.
Because that is fucking stupid. Why would they evolve into random other countries from history? Why wouldn't they remain the Greeks?

>Maybe my tribe decided to look into philosphy decided that might is right and decided to mount up and conquer, and then with their conquered lands eventually built up a thriving economic and innovation based empire based on the spoils they conqured
Yes...and they would still be Greek. How did they morph into the Mongols and then America? What you are describing is virtually every single game of Civ ever. Why does any of what you're describing necessitate changing into a new peoples, especially when its name is understood by all players to be a sometimes radically different ethnicity? It's wildly discordant. How can you not understand this simple fact?

>>2120991
>Then play your other 6 civ games that do exactly that. Why can't I have a Civ game that represents civilizations as what they are MUTABLE OVER TIME AND DEPENDANT ON PEOPLE AND PLACES.
Civilizations changing has absolutely nothing to do with transitioning from the Franks to fucking Mexico you moron. These civilizations have history behind them, if you are going to introduce mechanics to morph from one to the other it is necessary to represent the ethnic identities of those that lended their history. If you refuse to acknowledge that different cultures are necessarily separate then the only message you are spreading is that Mongolia is different from America in name only. That is not true. They are not just names, and they are not just ideals. They are peoples. You want to have your cake? You have to fucking bake it asshole.

>>2117579
no way are people saying civ iii is good, that game sucked hard

>>2121467
I went back and played it again recently. It holds up well. The only issue is the shit combat, and corruption needed a bit of work along with unit balance here and there. I am fond for it since it was my second in the series, so I give it a bit of a pass, but it's got a lot of good ideas.

>>2121459
>>2121457
Civ is alt history retard. Go watch a documentary if you want historical accuracy.

You don't play on earth so why would civs evolve the same way.

>>2121476
>Civ is alt history retard
Then why are you so insistent on having Mongolians becoming Americans? These civilizations have specific names because they are from our world, with specific peoples that led to their being in the game in the first place. If you are that insistent on playing alternate history then why the fuck are you using these names in the first place? You want to have the identity of the Mongolians and the Americans, but you want to avoid the inevitable discord that comes from one morphing to the other. It is asinine in the extreme, how do you not understand this? Are you one of the 5,000 people still playing this piece of shit?

>>2121480
Because "nomadic steppe herders turned into formidable fighting force" is a mouthful compared to "Mongols"

Also chuds like to larp as their heroes.

>>2121467
most people simp harder for their first civ. Agreed though, it was just an okay entry.

>>2121489
Mongols are more than "nomadic steppe herders turned into formidable fighting force," they are a people. You can get away with boiling them down to just that in a game normally because you don't have to approach the obvious dichotomy presented if they were to morph into fucking America, a country with radically different ethnic identity. That's why in all previous games each civilization's pops were represented as a singular ethnicity, with the interplay between other cultures being on a strict 1:1 basis. What you are thinking of will NEVER work, countries are more than just themes they are people, and unless they are far beyond dead i.e. Carthaginians then there will always be dissatisfaction in the people you are trying to sell this game playing it.

>>2121493
You're way overthinking this. Its a game, meant to be fun.


You have to jump through so many hoops to justify your bigotry and impotent rage at a video game.

>>2121503
I am sorry this is the way you found out people aren't little interchangeable tokens but have actual identities, this must be rough for you. Thankfully there's a game for you and the 7000 other retards that still think that makes sense.

>>2121507
No i think you're conflating a video game made of pixels with identity politics. and shoving it where it doesn't belong like the good little SJW that you are.

Other civ games you play as a generic civ 90% of the time and only get your civ bonuses at specific times, where as in 7 you get to have some fun with bonuses and units at every stage of the game.

your completely deluded by thinking civ is some sort of world history simulator that has to follow a deterministic path.

I honestly feel bad for you.

>>2121525
>No i think you're conflating a video game made of pixels with identity politics. and shoving it where it doesn't belong like the good little SJW that you are.
Very nice pivot! If this were 2021 there might still be someone buying it. Unfortunately it is 2025 and nobody cares to listen to your propaganda anymore. You can learn the easy way or the hard way, but you're going to learn. Or not! Not my money you're wasting.

>>2121527
Propaganda for saying a game is fun because you get more special units.

Your the one who is trying to inject race realism into a video game. FUCK OFF

DEATH TO ALL SJW, RIGHT OR LEFT WING FUCK POLITIC FUCKS

>>2121529
Someone needs a nap

>>2121476
>Civ is alt history retard.
Then why the fuck do we even have nations from our own history?
Fucking Americans wouldnt even be called that if it wasnt for Amerigo Vespucci for example.
Where is the POD then?
What the fuck does alt hist have to do with mechanics being absolute toss and going against the entire spirit of the game?

>>2121525
>civ games you play as a generic civ 90% of the time
No not really. You play as some defined country that is stronger in some areas, with its naming theme, leaders, unit look etc.
You dont just one day morph Rome into Zulus because lel those things are interchangable amrite fellow redditors?

>>2121724
So don't morph your romans into zulus, morph them into americans, russians, germans, maybe one day even italians.
but you're not forced to do it. its not random.
But the option is there for people who want to do that for gameplay reasons and not because political ideology but you election tourist wouldn't be able to separate your personal politics from a fucking video game so you keep harping on about race and culture. as if the simplistic reductions that previous civs make about civilizations and races are in any way indicative of real world peoples and identities and not just basic caricatures

Ridiculous.

>>2121738
Why the fuck do i need to morph them at all you fucking clown?
I chose Rome, i want to play as Rome.
The fucking lengths you have to go to defend this retarded, asked for by nobody feature that literally killed the game...
Nice attempts at painting people who dont want to eat your WEF funded slop as muh election tourists but it still wont help you, you reddit spacing nigger faggot.

>>2117562 (OP)
Civ switching and Tubman as the leader of Rome are just a hard no for me, sorry.

>>2117821
Sorry to hear that your opinions are extremely unpopular, anon.

>>2117579
Civ went to shit when traits were removed for bonuses, traits are much cooler than a leader bonus.

>>2121742
Then play your other games, but don't shit on a game because it was made to be an exact rehash of the other 6 games in the series.

The hate this game receives is ridiculous. Manchildren who are disappointed they couldn't buy the same rehashed slop they played before and are made that the developer dared to be different for once in a 7 game series.

And its all over politics. gay as fuck

>>2121776
>Then play your other games
I do.
>don't shit on a game
I will shit on anything i dont like and there is nothing you can do about it, faggot.
>The hate this game receives is ridiculous
Its justified and its good.
Kys redditor faggot and take your shitty game with you.

>>2121776
>Then play your other games
That's the problem. We already are because the game isn't what any of us wanted.
>disappointed they couldn't buy the same rehashed slop they played before and are made that the developer dared to be different
I expected a sequel, not a worse version of a different game I never wanted to play. Your innovation means nothing if it's something no one wants. And stop acting like a proper sequel to a successful series is a bad thing. It was a beloved series for decades for good reasons. I'll praise their bad choices as much as I'll praise the equally great and forward thinking always online "feature" that ruined Sim City.

>>2121776
>Manchildren who are disappointed they couldn't buy the same rehashed slop they played before and are made that the developer dared to be different for once in a 7 game series.
I know I'm jumping in but I'm going to ask you to think through what you've wrote logically:

You make a product and it sells
You repackage the same product at a later date and it sells again.
You successfully do this again four more times.
At this point, you know your target market, not only are they loyal to you as brand but you have a clear vision of what they want - 'rehashed slop' in your terms.

So along comes a potential competitor advertising his nu-slop, it's basically ur-slop with an twist. It flops and practically nobody likes it, not just the general public but also your loyal fans, yours fans may hate it on principal of being competition but the wider market complains about its 'new an innovative' feature (some are politically reactional, others complain for mechanical reasons). You look at nu-slop, as any rightful producer does, and consider what lessons you could learn. You see their 'innovative' feature and think to yourself "we could make this work", you add it to your product.

Your fans, who have only ever asked for re-hashed slop dislike it, they focus their dislike on your new feature.
General consumers who complained about nu-slops feature dislike it and focus their dislike on your new feature.
At this point, the reason why your product isn't selling so well should be clear, and the responsibility for this failure falls on your head for adding a feature the market clearly had no interest in.

Trying to defend this is like trying to claim the world is flat, sure, there's a handful of people out there who are onboard but to everyone else it's a joke.

>>2121801
>using logic against a tranny
You monster.

>>2121801
Sure, don't buy the game, vote with your wallet, But shitting on it, and telling people who do like it that they're shills is mental ill behaviour

Don't like it, Don't buy it. But attacking people who do like. ridiculous.

>>2121816
No, we will shit on your awful game as much as we like.
Get fucked, stay fucked cunt.

>>2121816
>shitting on it, and telling people who do like it that they're shills is mental ill behaviour
Shitting on it is a form of (harsh) criticism, and 4chan is very critical, coming here and complaining about that is mentally ill behavior.
And you have to consider the prevalence of shilling in the video-game industry. Civ is no exception, so when an anon starts praising a game the vast majority disprove of the accusation is not without merit.

>But attacking people who do like. ridiculous.
And attacking people who don't like. ridiculous.

>>2121816
this is 100% bait, I refuse to believe this is a real person

>>2121816
"Don't shit on games you don't like. That's mentally ill behavior."
- Some stupid cunt that has spent an entire thread calling all games he doesn't like regurgitated slop for manchildren

>>2121816
You are fully committed to this act so I'm going to treat you like you're a real person: Games are not your friends. If people don't like a game they are going to say so, and you are going to have to deal with it. It's the case with literally every game in the series. Someone above said that Civ III fucking sucks and I like it, do you think I shit my pants like you and decided to whine for days about it? No. Grow up you fucking dork.

>>2117578
What is your favorite part about humankind? For me i really like how they did coastal civilizations I love building an empire of large cities with huge populations from the bounty of the seas and strong gold trade along the coastal waters.

>>2121990

For me it was a love hate relationship with the battle system, i liked how battlefields and sub combat phases worked, but i didn't like how an ongoing battle could completely fuck a city over just because 1 tile of the battle space overlapped a single district of a city. Civ switching is also one thing i like, like you said going all in on costal upgrades, or focusing in on a single resource, or covering weaknesses, or even just a desperate push into a militant civ to try to fight my way back into a game i might be behind on.

But ultimately I felt that humankind had way too many bugs, and its voice acting just had this weird distant echo and always kinda unsettled me enough that I eventually moved on. But I had some fun games

>>2121938
The difference is that I don't go into VI and complain about people have bad wrong fun. The mentally ill sought a fight when they went somwhere for a thing they hate.

>>2122173
>Go to a general strategy board to call everyone that doesn't like VII retarded manchildren that are wrong
>"Teehee I didn't go into an explicit I-VI thread but made my own thread to call all of them out completely different."
You really are a low-IQ retard. But you don't need me to tell you that since you already claimed to be mentally ill by your own standards.

>>2122173
You have no place to call anyone mentally ill when you're acting like the biggest autist in the thread, kiddo

>>2119638
the only autistic ones are you soulless minmaxer drones

>>2117562 (OP)
Tranny game

>>2122173
This thread is discussing VII and literally starts by asserting it is not bad but good. It is provoking a fight. The purpose of this thread is to argue about VII and by crying about it, you concede your defeat. Which I accept.

>new update coming
>more pivoting on the "losing stuff on the age transition"
kek, the people who like the fact you lose stuff and have to reset keep being cucked by Firaxis. "Sorry honey, you aren't profitable enough!"

>>2122919
It's a rather sad day when the company OP is shilling for thinks he's wrong and are actively enacting changes to fuck him over, albeit for entirely monetary reasons.

>>2122891
Why isn't Kyouko hugging Ayano?

>>2123337
Because OP is such a dumb, annoying and autistic fag that he ruins the mood.

How would anon's fix civ switching? I think the entire idea is counter to the appeal of Civ and guiding a civ through the ages. But if I had to implement, I'd try something like below. Civ's have a default path (at least one unlocked civ) based on history and geography, and can unlock other related civ's based on conditions like selected leader or accomplishments, becoming more difficult the more removed an unlockable Civ is from the starting one (e.g. Franks are easier than England to unlock for Rome). I think this could balance the appeal of Civ-switching while at least providing a little historical grounding and continuity.

>Rome
>DEFAULT UNLOCK:
>Byzantines
>Papal States
>Florence
>SPECIAL UNLOCK:
>Franks (Pick Napoleon as leader OR Train and promote three mercenaries)
>HRE (Pick Frederick as leader OR Puppet and integrate three city-states)
>Castille (Pick El Cid OR Found a religion and train three inquisitors)
>England (Pick Henry VIII OR Find a city on a new continent and build three triremes)

>>2124114
That's a pretty good setup. I think all people ever want is some sort of logical consistency with the real world. I'd just say HRE would do better with Charlemagne as a tangible leader.
The only other thing I saw that was fucking brilliant was making it so that getting a neutral or golden era lets you continue playing your civ while some sort of dark era would force you to switch to one of the successors in order to keep up.

>>2121816
hmm, honestly this is a bit silly.

am I supposed to write the Civilization series off because just because I don't like it, I won't buy it, and I shouldn't even talk about why I don't like it?

I'll just treat it like Star Wars now, where so many things have become so bad for me that it's just specifically "not intended to have me as its target audience" and I can just move on?

>>2124114
this seems like what AoE3 did when aging up to Imperial. let's be honest, that wasn't that bad at all.

>>2124114
If I had to fix city switching, I'd do something similar; use civilisations that were actually influenced to some degree as the possible successors.

Though honestly I'd rather abandon civ-switching and change it to leader/Dynasty switching, with different leaders giving different age bonuses when taken for specific periods..

>>2124114
Here is how you would fix it, but Firaxis is far past being able to implement this so it’s too late:

>Game is made up of several different eras, possibly ~6 (Ancient, Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern)
>Progression through these ages are individual to civs, just as it is handled in previous entries in the series when progressing down the tech tree. Thus there is no jarring change as in current matches.
>Civilizations are tied to specific eras. That is, just as in previous entries, each civ has units and abilities generally confined to only a specific era in the game.
>Just as in each previous game, every civ can be played straight from the ancient era
>Crucially however, once matches begin players can only switch to certain civs in certain eras by achieving certain Eureka-like objectives
>Doing this grants stacking bonuses outlined in civ select that can uniquely be gained only by switching to it in its historical position. Perhaps an exceedingly powerful unit even compared to UU’s, or a unique super bonus.
>Counter to this are Legacy civ stats
>Each civ has a small Social Tree of bonuses that is progressed through by points given each time the player decides to hold the same civ through the next era. These bonuses and abilities scale much higher the longer the played holds the Civ.
>This incentivizes HEAVY customization. You can place conflictingly powerful units, buildings, or abilities on either side to encourage customization. Maybe Japan has a hero unit Musashi that can only be played by switching to Japan in the Medieval Era by either using Nobunaga as Leader or building 3 Markets. Maybe it has a Legendary building Computer Factory that can only be built if you have held Japan for 6 straight eras.

What is important here is that the players retain control the entire way. Every single turn the player is considering his momentary bonuses from action to action while also considering unfolding possibilities.

>>2124114
You're on to something but the example is flawed. Sounds like it'd end up with four civs birthing a dozen each. I'd limit the scale of switching a bit. But what you're saying makes sense within the straitjacket of restrictions put on you by the decisions Firaxis made.
>OP is bullied into leaving
>Actual constructive discussion about Civ7 happens proving him wrong yet again
Who knew?

>>2124114
I'd just make is so that any civ has a natural progression but that you could mix and match.

When a new civ is released its released as the 3 part eras. that way one civ autist can keep their one civ. but still have the opportunity to have the interesting gameplay decisions throughout.

My way to fix the system. Flip it! Have the civilizations be fixed and the leaders subject to change. At the end of each era you have a choice:

You can continue with your current leader - Praise be to the immortal god emperor - Their bonuses are tweaked for the new era.

The old regime falls:
Your can select a new leader
- Selection options are based on your existing leader + any prerequisites you met (top 3 options)
- Your can select a 'rebellion ruler' - which gives you access to (1) of the other players leaders (that they would have access to) - the closer your borders/diplomatic ties - the higher the probability it will be them.

Starting with Caesar then moving on to Charlemagne (or sticking with Caesar) then having Khan take over as the 'rebel from the East' feels much more natural than having your entire populace convert.

You could even go crazy have God Emperor Napoleon turn revolutionary before reclaiming his throne!

>>2125005
This is a good idea. Great, even. I could see it working great as a way of switching up gameplay and even get some memery going. It also avoids a lot of the aspects of Civ 7 that I didn't like such as railroading you into complete flips and disassociating you from the civilization you play by having anyone be able to rule over anything.

May not be a perfect system or something for everyone but I think this would've gone over better with more people than the one they actually used in Civ7.

>>2125005
This is kino and exactly what they should have done. Too bad it's way too late to make such a big systems change unless it's a new expansion

>>2125105
Don't think even an expansion could fix it because you'd have to remove the entire old system and replace it with that other version anon was talking about. You'd need to reboot the entire game pretty much.

Sort-of related. It would be fun if they updated the leader portraits to go along with these changes like how they did in Civ3 but with more variety. Also: they should just bring that back in general because it was really neat.

>>2125412
Why did they get rid of this kino

You know how you fix the civ switching? You give people the option to stick with the current civ and maybe they just have different bonuses depending on the age

>>2125414
Customizable palaces, too. Civ VII could be saved by that and FMV advisors.

>>2125105
I don't think civ7 is going to get a big expansion, I don't think it sold enough for 2K to not gut firaxis

>>2125431
>FMV advisors
civ2 was peak

>>2124114
Do it the way rhye's did it. Frankia becomes france or a muslim variant or the french/frankish protectorate
Dai viet becomes south(or other) viet if it loses too badly in a war
Roma becomes italia after 3 cities and them rome and then italia if it loses too much land
England becomes britain after conquering another country fully
These triggers could come with minor bonuses and name/name list changes. Most of the effects would be meaningless, but you'd get continuity from it. If france becomes viking somehow (makes a ton of boats and uses them for coastal raiding) they become norman and gain viking cluster bonuses, maybe longboats or something. Something similar to the culture groups in the crusades scenario from 3

>>2125414
No idea. At least they made Catherine hot so I was at least willing to put up with it but they obviously fucked up those parts too.

>>2125431
The palaces were so fucking kino. Same with the FMVs. They were just great. The military advisor in particular was always my fav. I rewatch these from time to time, they're just so much fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlTIk80uBPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFQDeYXq_iw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHOhIdTpw0

>>2125005
This only really works with european civs and china. How are you going to do staples like zulu or america?

>>2125521
Imagine the FMVs in Civ VII. A pegleg hijabi screams that you did a cultural appropriation by trading techs, a fat octoroon warns that too much military spending may lead to imperialism, your science advisor quits to study indigenous ways of knowing. All women (male).

>>2117747
>has less than half the players of a game from 15 years ago
>there are people still defending 7
what a sad existence. I sure hope the pay is worth wasting your life posting on 4chan to defend a flop of this magnitude

>>2125734
I think his Napoleon example works and could apply to the others. Sure you'd probably have something faggy come out of it but it'd be workable.
>Zulus evolving to a more peaceful African civilization represented by someone like Kofi Anan, or Shaka Zulu becoming more of a revolutionary leader.
>America staying with its founding fathers for the original bonuses, or evolving to something more interventionist through FDR or Washington going dark mode and embracing the monarchy.
I don't think it needs to be a complete change in civilizations just something to justify leaders changing up a little. Realistically with the Civilization 7 team you'd get some really lame ones added there. You're not going to have interesting crossroads for America like Jefferson Davis having a chance of replacing Lincoln or Gerald Smith having a chance of replacing FDR or the things a lot of the nerds here want to see. You'll have Tubman replacing racist Washington, obviously. But even within that context it's better than the shit they gave us.

>>2125760
You know the marketing budget dried up years ago and that the dumbass does it for free. So it's even sadder.

>>2118063
This. To me the cultural progression should make more sense and should be restricted to historical parallels. But for that, we would need one more Era and more civs.

>>2120396
They're called Normans because they were like two generations removed from invading vikings who settled there you dense fuck

What momentos are you guys rockin?

>>2126244
What it should be is different 'builds' and you never actually change your nation. Like for example
>Start as Gallic France
>can choose three Medieval versions of France: the Franks, the Burgundians, or the Normans
>can choose three modern versions of France: Royalist France, Napoleonic France, Republican France
>you are always France, but each has different playstyles and buffs; like one is militaristic but defensive, another is cultural, and another focuses on massed infantry

>>2127671
The problem with this is that the devs are just the right amount of liberal racists that they don't belive something similar could be done with african nations and hence it can't be implemented since it would make africans look bad and we can't have that in modern america. Nevermind that african history rich as fuck and not fitting the euro-asian development mould is not a fucking flaw or something to be ashamed of. That the lib devs think this is a sign of their inherent racism in coddling africans like special needs retards.

>>2127671
You cant do that to nig countries so it would never happen and just like in real life they have to sustain themselves on stealing from Whites.

the game is so good firaxis is now hiring a new game director for civ 7

>>2129699
>OP is such a dumb retarded faggot that even Firaxis knows it and is changing course
The saddest part is that developments like this prove that he's sadly not a shill but, in fact, genuinely retarded to the point where even the studio thinks he's a dumb fag that should shut the fuck up.

>>2125754
I want to fucking die.

https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/firaxis/jobs/6652811003
Is it a good sign when they are hiring a new Head of Product 6 months their brand new game's lifespan

>>2129960
Who We Are:
MAKE LIFE EPIC

Founded in 1996, Firaxis Games is a world-renowned game development studio with an unwavering mission to “build games that stand the test of time”. The name Firaxis, a fusion of “fiery” and “axis,” communicates the company’s dynamic development process that results in the creation of ground breaking titles with unparalleled gameplay delivered to gamers around the world. Under the creative direction of industry legend Sid Meier, Firaxis has released dozens of hit games on multiple platforms and is recognized as an industry leader in game development.

VISION
Make Life Epic…for our Players, our Community and all Firaxians.

CORE VALUES

Be Accountable

Own Outcomes, Be Honest And Treat Feedback As A Gift.

Embrace Enthusiasm

Allow Space For Failure, Share Your Excitement And Let Passion Drive Outcomes.

People First

Treat People With Respect, Create A Culture Of Belonging And Act With Empathy.

Work Smart

Solve For Efficiency, Focus On Collaboration And Prioritize Improvement.

Gameplay Focused

Deliver Quality Game Experiences, Take Pride In Your Work And Put Players At The Center Of Every Decision.

>>2117562 (OP)
How's AI? BC I think civ 6 is an alright game except that around the industrial revolution your AI opponents simply refuse to engage in conflict and they'll turtle forever

>>2117687
Steam wins wholeheartedly right now because you can hide games from your library (remove the distracting trash you shouldn't have bought/got for free) and you can block games (MAJOR win for Steam) I won't use the other clients until they follow suit (they won't)

>>2121007
I bought every civ game since 2 except for 7. I'll buy 8 unless they keep civ switching, buildings taking up tiles, the ages mechanic, and the removal of workers/builders and barbarians. Reverse those changes and I'm down for just about anything.

>>2119638
>one security blanket civ
Everyone tries different civilizations you disingenuous Redditard. That's the point of the series.

>>2125734
>How are you going to do staples like... America?
Are you retarded?

>>2121816
You supporting Civ VII is standing between me and a good new Civ game. If you retards would just let it crash to 0 players, Firaxis would immediately begin working on Civ VIII.

>>2124114
Change the mechanic to only happen once. There's Ancient and Modern civs.

>Ancient
Zhou Empire
Sumerians
Rome
Celts
Native Americans
Vikings
Pharaonic Egypt
Greeks
Holy Roman Empire
Heian Japan

>Modern
China
Arabs
Italy
England
America
Sweden
Modern Egypt
Byzantines
French Empire
Meiji Japan

And so on. Culture is accumulated to, first, advance your Ancient civ into a Modern civ, and once you've evolved, culture starts working towards earning a cultural victory. You can spend the entire game as an Ancient civ if you don't accumulate enough culture, and you can miss out on your unique units/improvements/buildings/abilities if you evolve too early.

Then there could be an alternate game mode where you mix and match your civ and their evolution. So you could evolve Rome into America (like in real life) or you could evolve the Greeks into the Arabs, and so on.

>>2133607
They’ve been in every game since the first. How do they not qualify as a series staple? Do you even know what a staple is in this context?

>>2118066
Native Americans didn't "become" America though did they? Their land got colonised and they were sent to reservations and eventually gobbled up with only tokenistic appeals to their former existence.

>>2125521
I miss FMVs. There's something soulful about having some theater actor in a costume talking to you.

>>2118276
Based RRRrrrrrr!!! chad

>all the VII hate has me revisiting VI
>start a game as Eleanor (England) with the intention of waging holy war with Knights Templar
>find the wonder that gives +15% production to wonders
>well, fine, I guess I'll play a peaceful culture game
>pick the pantheon for 15% production to wonders
>try to build Oracle in my capital
>stolen with 1 turn left
>alright, I'll just build Temple of Poseidon
>stolen with 1 turn left
>a-alright, I'll build Great Lighthouse, I'm a naval civilization af-
>stolen with 1 turn left
>Apadana?
>stolen with 1 turn left
>MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS?
>stolen with 1 turn left

>>2133602
>actually finishing games
>actually finishing that many games
I kneel

>>2124114
I think what you are saying is basically already how it works, you only get 1-2 choices by default from your civ/leader and you unlock into the more alien civs by doing special objectives (3 horses to unlock Mongols for example).

Personally, I think most people in here are looking at the problem wrong. The idea of switching civ is tied into the age progression mechanic which itself is tied to a catastrophe mechanic. I like the idea of forcing a global catastrophe on the planet for players to react to, and the ones the devs chose (plague, revolt, invasion) are pretty good choices. And so, that after these massive events new identities form in exisiting cultures is pretty cool and a nice way to re-iterate on the game imo (it is a massive change though, and I get it's too big for some people. But that's what civ 4 is for, right?).

The problem I think most people actually have with it is the idea of real HISTORICAL cultures being totally interchangeable. Like, yeah I could start as Greece, known for science and culture, then want to swap into a warlike culture after the first collapse for example and have an age of conquest and glory. But I don't wanna be MONGOLIA. I want to be mongolia-LIKE. If they called it 'horse lord' culture or something else instead it wouldn't be so jarring for me. I guess the problem is then you only have ancient civs in name, and every later culture doesn't get referred to by name. But whatever - for me, I just pretend that I am my original civ and it's just an archetype of a culture that I'm choosing.

The real problem with the game for me is the leaders/civs are wildly imbalanced. From super easy, like Confucius and Pachachuti, to completely unusable like basically everyone else.

I don't think dlcs will save the game this time around. Might as well give it the beyond earth treatment and jump to 8

>>2134729
>and the ones the devs chose (plague, revolt, invasion) are pretty good choices
you mean pretty bad
it should be flood, mudflood, zombie apocalypse

VII’s terrible art design made me realize how sovl VI really looked

>>2135588
Flood would be pretty cool actually now that you mention it. I guess the problem would be that if you try to keep it at all realistic coastal players would get giga-fucked while inland players just laugh.

Also, the catastrophies are pretty cool in principal, but in practise they feel so tame. They need to dial that shit up a notch so civs can actually potentially collapse.

>>2134729
all they had to do was make some combination of civ 5 policies/civ 6 policy cards where you can change your civ to a more warlike or science focus for example
not completely set in stone like in civ 5 but also not way too easy to constantly swap around like in civ 6
this way you could have a different feel for your civilization depending on what you want to work towards for that age and the age end goals would be based on the focus you chose