The idea is that it’s split into three ages and you change your aesthetics and bonuses between each one. So you might go Romans > Spanish > Mexicans in the three eras, for example. The intention is honestly a decent one, I think: make it so that games aren’t functionally over and therefore boring by the halfway point. It’s usually clear who has won long before they actually do win, and the fact that basically nobody ever played the late game meant that late game civs and mechanics were a bit of a waste of time. I don’t have VII though, so I can’t say anything about how it feels in practice
I don’t have VII though, so I can’t say anything about how it feels in practice
I kicked the wheels on release, and can confirm it’s a case of great idea + terrible execution. The game is a wash of them like nothing I’ve seen before or since.
Unfortunately, they went so all-in on the new era model that this “fix” is only going to dig them a deeper hole. They should have gone with a middle-ground option where you pick a base Civ that you stick with, and then get to pick from 2-3 “cultural route” options to upgrade across each era (much like Civ 5 ideologies) — but that ship has sailed.
I could potentially see something along the lines of giving each civ a “canon” path that sets its abilities and having the aesthetic stuff match your chosen civ the whole way through working. So if you pick the USA to start with then you get American visuals / music / names etc the whole way through, but you automatically get the English bonuses in the appropriate era for that
make it so that games aren’t functionally over and therefore boring by the halfway point
The way I ‘fix’ this is to crank the difficulty so I’m behind for as long as possible while still having a chance of winning in the late eras. I loose plenty of late games, but that’s what makes it an honest challenge.
I think a lot of people are used to playing with settings that allow them to comfortably win as long as they survive the early game.
I mean, would you say modern Italian culture is the same as Roman culture? Devoid of context, the idea that your civilization evolves over time isn’t a bad one from a fluff standpoint, and, as another user mentioned, it increases the likelihood of niche or late-game specific civs getting play, so I can see mechanical benefit too.
That being said, if anyone said the execution fell flat, I’ve no reason to doubt them.
I mean, actual civilization isn’t a monolithic culture lasting 5000 years.
The issue isn’t the premise. Humankind works with the exact same premise, and that’s a great 4X. I’d definitely argue it’s better than Civ 7. The issue was the execution.
OK someone keep me up to date… what happened? I think the last civilization I played was 5, and I dont recall that one being able to change civilizations midgame.
Edit: sorry last one I played was 6. And I don’t remember being forced fo change civs. Was it in a DLC or what?
Its for Civ 7. They were trying a new thing for that one, and it makes you change civilizations twice throughout the eras. It was a pretty unpopular choice, but honestly the UI was awful and the gameplay felt pretty half-assed as well.
This sounds like any sports video game where they advertise bringing out a new feature, that they silently removed from the previous version of the game.
It’s definitely not. Whatever the flaws in the end result, Firaxis do experiment substantially with their formula. Doing that is actually what caused the complaints this article is about
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Wat? 🤨
You change civs mid game in 7? That sounds dumb as fuck.
The idea is that it’s split into three ages and you change your aesthetics and bonuses between each one. So you might go Romans > Spanish > Mexicans in the three eras, for example. The intention is honestly a decent one, I think: make it so that games aren’t functionally over and therefore boring by the halfway point. It’s usually clear who has won long before they actually do win, and the fact that basically nobody ever played the late game meant that late game civs and mechanics were a bit of a waste of time. I don’t have VII though, so I can’t say anything about how it feels in practice
I kicked the wheels on release, and can confirm it’s a case of great idea + terrible execution. The game is a wash of them like nothing I’ve seen before or since.
Unfortunately, they went so all-in on the new era model that this “fix” is only going to dig them a deeper hole. They should have gone with a middle-ground option where you pick a base Civ that you stick with, and then get to pick from 2-3 “cultural route” options to upgrade across each era (much like Civ 5 ideologies) — but that ship has sailed.
I could potentially see something along the lines of giving each civ a “canon” path that sets its abilities and having the aesthetic stuff match your chosen civ the whole way through working. So if you pick the USA to start with then you get American visuals / music / names etc the whole way through, but you automatically get the English bonuses in the appropriate era for that
The way I ‘fix’ this is to crank the difficulty so I’m behind for as long as possible while still having a chance of winning in the late eras. I loose plenty of late games, but that’s what makes it an honest challenge.
I think a lot of people are used to playing with settings that allow them to comfortably win as long as they survive the early game.
I’m looking forward to buying this like I’ve bought all my Civilization games;
Several years after release, at 70% off, with most major bugs fixed and expansions released.
Same plan. Also, modding maturity is important. I think I’m running 30+ mods in Civ VI
So in the game called Civilization, player cannot play as civilization?
Oh Lord, what substance gamedev executives are drinking? Apparently a cool aid.
I mean, would you say modern Italian culture is the same as Roman culture? Devoid of context, the idea that your civilization evolves over time isn’t a bad one from a fluff standpoint, and, as another user mentioned, it increases the likelihood of niche or late-game specific civs getting play, so I can see mechanical benefit too.
That being said, if anyone said the execution fell flat, I’ve no reason to doubt them.
I mean, actual civilization isn’t a monolithic culture lasting 5000 years.
The issue isn’t the premise. Humankind works with the exact same premise, and that’s a great 4X. I’d definitely argue it’s better than Civ 7. The issue was the execution.
OK someone keep me up to date… what happened? I think the last civilization I played was 5, and I dont recall that one being able to change civilizations midgame.
Edit: sorry last one I played was 6. And I don’t remember being forced fo change civs. Was it in a DLC or what?
Its for Civ 7. They were trying a new thing for that one, and it makes you change civilizations twice throughout the eras. It was a pretty unpopular choice, but honestly the UI was awful and the gameplay felt pretty half-assed as well.
Oh my god, finally. This is how it should have been released in the first place.
I am still so salty about what they did with the civs and ages that even after that ‘feature‘ comes I probably won’t buy the Game
Yeah, I’ll only buy it on a deep discount, and after they change it to be actual Civ.
#1 reason I didn’t buy it, even beating out “it’s not on sale” for the top spot
so they changed it in a fundamental way and people hated it so much that they give you the option of changing it right back. nice one. sounds good
Still no reason to buy anything past Civ IV.
This sounds like any sports video game where they advertise bringing out a new feature, that they silently removed from the previous version of the game.
It’s definitely not. Whatever the flaws in the end result, Firaxis do experiment substantially with their formula. Doing that is actually what caused the complaints this article is about
So, having not played it, is C7 basically just the Civ series’s C&C4 moment?