Yeah it was being able to wildly change your civ in Humankind that I found jarring, from the dev Q&A it did sound like they were going for a much more logical progression, like Phoenicians into Carthaginians for example, rather than Rome into the USA
***Sid Meier's Civilization VII***
- Thread starter Tombstone
- Start date
Yeah if they do it right (as they did with Japan in the Q&A) its got lots of potential for some interesting (and the potential for dozens and dozens of..) "mini"-civs..like Imperial Russia changing into Communist Russia , Joseon into Korea or Rome into Byzantines etc
Yeah it seems thats the way they are doing it, seems to be there is a choice of which you change to (or decide not to change at all) but that the choices at least make sense, as opposed to Humankinds one minute I am Egypt and the next minute I am Australia kind of thing
I concur.
Its a difficult one when it comes to the USA, if you are attempting to provide a male and a female , with leadership qualities, for each Civ for example, its very easy to do so with England, Scotland, Russia, France, China and so on but its a real struggle to come up with names of females in American history that could be attributed leadership aspects. As you point out, its not the first time that Civ has had people who werent actually leaders and tbh I simply do not have any problem with Harriet Tubman (I'd preferred Martin Luther King myself) and certainly not enough of a problem with it to decide not to buy Civ 7 (its already a day one purchase for me
)What are the other decisions at Firaxis that you have an issue with? It surprises me, as someone who has also played every Civ game since Civ 1, and amassed over 1000 hours played in almost every Civ game since the first one, buying Civ 7 is simply an absolute given for me. Upon that track record of the past 30+ years and the amount of time I played each one, I havent seen anything or heard anything that puts me off buying Civ 7, so I'm intrigued to know what the decisions are that Firaxis have made which has turned you (who has also played and enjoyed all the previous Civs) off buying Civ 7? Perhaps its something major that I have missed the news of
I have never bought a collectors edition of something in 40 plus years of gaming and tbh I never will, cant see the point of them. Perhaps to a collector they are of interest, or to a streamer who wants to have statues on display behind them on the camera but to me, not interested. I'm interested only in the games not the toys that go with them
I was curious and somewhat hesitant about the era changes etc but having watched some dev streams I'm actually pretty excited for them now and to see how it affects our massive map, marathon length multiplayer games (which can stretch on for several months) , definitely not anything in them which would stop me buying the next title in a series that I've enjoyed for over 3 decades
Hope it turns out well for you, I'll be on it on Day one and am sure I'll post my initial thoughts
One of the peeps that I regularly game with was much the same before Civ 6 came out, said he didnt like the looks of it, wasnt going to play it etc (even though he has 100s of hours in civ 4 and civ 5 in our multiplayer sessions) but when it came out he picked it up, joined us in our multiplayer games and ended up over 900 hours in it.
Which just goes to show that once you're in the game, playing a huge multiplayer match with your friends, that just one more turn bug bites no matter what changes have occurred. Absolutely love the Civ games for huge multimonth multiplayer matches. Reminds us all of the huge boardgames that we used to play decades ago, stuff like Squad Leader, Advanced Third Reich and Axis and Allies. Civ is the master at it