I would like to see little people moving around the city streets, like in Humankind. The cities in CIV 7 do look really gorgeous, but are also completely empty and devoid of people. I'd be happy with tiny silhouettes just moving around the cities and the roads
Looks great, but remember, Civ 7 is going to come with Denuvo. Personally that's an instant no buy for me. I'm not prepared to have a game that I'd likely sink 12+ hours a day running Denuvo that not only degrades gameplay performance, but performs so many unnecessary hard drive read/write operations to substantially accelerate the death of hard drives. People who want to continue (especially those who are going to sink a lot of hours in) please proceed with caution, maybe back up your hard disks regularly, buy a dedicated SSD just for games, etc. because when your hard drives fail it's a pain. Had they gone with any other DRM it would have been fine
Yeah they removed it in base Civ5 and everyone hated it. I don't know why they removed it again seeing as religion was quite fun in Civ6, but I guess they want to sell it to us again as DLC, like in Civ5. 🙄
Honestly, I hated the religion victory in Civ 6, all in meant in practice was having to defend from a never-ending swarm of Apostles from other countries.
Great recap, thanks for doing this video. I have played CIVs since CIV1, and I am actually amazed at the continued evolution of the game. While I am not 100% sold on the Civ switching, I am actually super exited to get to play this.
This is the first civ game I'm not interested in. I started off with Civ 1 on the SNES then graduated to Civ2 on the PlayStation 1. Finally I got my first PC in time for Civ3 and have been playing civ ever since. All this is to say I'm pretty much a Civ Fanatic. Off the bat, Denuvo is an instant no buy for me. My CPU struggles with it for some reason (probably its age) and I can't afford to buy a new PC at this time. Some of the new features shown in that dev video look cool but the second major issue I have with it is the civ switching mechanic. A civ game is taking a civ from the dawn of Civilization and seeing if you have what it takes to stand the test of time. To advance through each age with your chosen civ and come out on top is what I like about Civ games. Civs 5 and 6 have been downward trends for me but I still bought them and all their dlc. I won't be doing that with civ7 unless they scrap denuvo at a minimum. I hope they rethink the switching thing as well but I'm not going to hold my breath. I hope Ara is more Civ like then the direction Civ7 seems to be heading in.
if you think that in previous ones there were annoying dlc then just look at different editions of 7 and what is coming there - dlc skins for ui, dlc with new miracles, dlc with skins for leaders, dlc with new fog of war lol, even dlc with skins of units. it looks like 7 will be drowning in dlc from day one. it will be one of those games that after a year has a list of dlcs for 10x the price of the game.
i think i know why. they will sell skins for the ui (they are listed in the different editions of the game). so it will be like 'oh, you dont like the incredibly ugly ui in the base game? too bad, we worked so hard on it. but thats okay, you can buy a different look'
It's because Civ 7 is a console game that will be ported to PCs, not the other way around. I hate the UI too but they won't change it because they can't.
Thanks for covering this new version of Civ. I have played since the original. Somewhere around 20,000 hours for the 6 Civ games, another few thousand hours on things like Alpha, Call to Power and other clones. This is the first Civ game that I will probably not buy or play for a few years. Everything about it is anathema to what Civ is about. 'Can you stand the test of time' nope this game is not about picking a Civ and a leader and standing the test of time. Has the direction and game design at Firaxis slipped so low that they have to whole heartedly steal other game designs and move away from their own tried and true style? Seriously, each Civ game has added different things. But they might has well have made this RTS as the choices they are making move this franchise away from what made it great. I love history. This is a mockery of history. I love historical fiction, once again this is a mockery of historical fiction. I truly doubt I will buy this. But I will wait and see how bad it truly gets. The leader animations and cartoonish child like behavior of their interactions is more an adaptation of Adult Swim horrible cartoons than it is of history. Quite unseemly and absolutely revolting. Who did they hire to create this game and design it? Who thought immature, pouting historical leaders is a go to in an historical game? Unfortunately, someone at Firaxis sipped the coolaid and thought they were cool and making a new cool idea that they stole from another game. Sid should literally remove his name from what looks to be one of the largest pieces of feces I have ever seen coming down the development line. Thanks for sharing your news and reviews. Please at least attempt to be objective at all times. I absolutely love Civ games and most Sid games. But this not just at first glance, but after deep diving every youtube video about what this game is and is attempting to be. I am horrified at how unCivlike it is attempting to be. Time will tell, tho. Chris
The worst part is, this doesn't look fun to me. Part of Civ is building your country, civ, etc up and maximizing the use of your leader and civ's abilities and perks, etc. Hey how about we just force you to start over with another civ 1/3 of the way thru the game. Yep, that looks like fun. Oh how about we get lazy and just take out most of the eras and ages so the game plays fast for those new fans we want to win. Meanwhile driving away the fans like me that have supported the game since its first version. So very, very sad some corporate insider shill has grabbed the reigns at Firaxis and is making their mark on this game and franchise by literally removing the things we love and replacing them with stolen ideas from other games that just aren't as good as civ games. Why would a company that makes the best games, want to copy another company that doesn't? Just lack of creativity? Lack of insight? Lack of imagination? Just so sad.
You make a game, it’s successful. Let’s called the formula for that A. When you make a sequel to that game, you make A, +… You don’t fiddle with A. A is the reason your franchise was successful and why the last game was so loved. So often in all Western media now, we see people fiddling with A because… subvert expectations?!? They have fiddled quite badly with A here and included so many features I disliked in Humankind. The fans are going to wreck this.
I can't get over how gorgeous the map now looks! Only the leader design is not my taste, I personally loved the Civ 6 design :D I wonder if they did the same thing with the music, so that it evolve depending on the age (which was AMAZING in Civ 6)?
@@JumboPixel Thats awesome to know, since CIV 6 had one of my favourite game soundtracks. Here's hopin' they can keep the release date, but I'm happy enough that we console players don't have to wait so long this time ^^
I love almost every single change and I'm very excited to try it! I'm only sceptical of changing civs between ages... I totally get the three different ages but I'm just not 100% on board with changing civs yet simply because I didn't like it in Humankind...
I think it would be great if it really felt natural. But I have the feeling they decided on their favourite Civs and just afterwards thought about how to connect them. I know it is triple the work, but I think they should have thought about the most natural transitions (which will in most cases be the civs with geographical connection not some influence some culture had on some other far away). I mean the transitions will always be historically a bit weird. This really great guy talking about history a lot pointed out that even the 3 Indian civs are... well... not logical transitions. I kind of hope they make it interesting enough that some part always survives, so that it is a real fun and rewarding thing. But I am a bit scared of this... and I don't even know humankind. It is purely about me not wanting to change my identity.
I really don't want to be a hater but the more I see, the less hyped I get. This does not 'feel' like Civ to me. I will not be preordering, and I'm going to wait atleast a few weeks until after release to see some actual unscripted gameplay videos.
I didn't saw anything new in this version of the game. Everything comes from older civs (navigable rivers was already in C II), cities and towns stolen from MIllenia, dynamic civs stolen from Humankind.
So is Firaxis making this game or Amplitude? Or are the Firaxis game designers all ex-Amplitude employees? Because this looks exactly like Endless Legend and Humankind. Right down to the goody huts giving shallow "narrative choices", Commander units, leader upgrades, changing Civs, etc etc. Even the UI and artwork looks exactly like Endless Legend. I'm disappointed they seem to he trying to remove OUPT after implementing it in the last two Civs, but less units mean the consoles and Switch might actually have a chance of running the game smoothly, and they don't have to try to improve the AI. Everything about this game screams "simplified for console audiences/hardware", and that's extremely disappointing. And the relentless bootlicking from TH-camrs doesn't fill me with confidence either.
Reminds me more of Endless Legend actually with the goody huts giving you "narrative choices", and the Commander unit. Maybe those elements where in Humankind as well, but I never played it because Endless Legend wasn't that fun, and Humankind seemed like more of the same.
Imagine every civ has a historic commanders with starting initial promotion for example Alexander with 3 starting promotions in logistics or yi sun sin naval commander with extra range for ranged ships in exploration age Or khalid ibn al-walid with combat puff and one starting promotion in logistics and so on
I've played Civilization for decades but the latest one sounds like warmed over Humankind, a game I consider OK but not as good as Civ VI and from what I've seen on Civ VII, I won't be buying it since I already have Humankind. I'll just keep playing Civ VI, thanks.
Yeah, from what I have seen in regards to Civ Vii you can basically recreate the same game with 2-3 mods in Humankind. Innovation went out of the window...
I think a victory point system per age would be fun. Every age one or more Victory points get distributed to whatever civ has done something great. One point for eliminating an enemy, one for reaching a tech as the first civ, one for founding a league of nations or whatever. Bonus points for changing the type of age victory (so a science civ needs to score on diplomacy next age for example)
This dev livestream made me so excited about the game. I love the changes being made to the game with the city districts and unit commanders. I love the way they are implementing the era change and civ change where you will have a few options depending on your first culture or certain decisions rather than just let any civ transfer into any other civ. I think this game is going to be amazing.
@@sokool657 you are welcome to that opinion but I have the opposite opinion. What I saw in the antiquity deep dive looked amazing. Have fun hating though.
Unfortunately, it very much seems like you can't, _(you could pick another civ, but you can't stay Rome)_ which IMO is a huge mistake. Civs are being explicitly locked as "antiquity" "exploration" or "modern" civs and it's unclear at this point in development if _any_ civs can be selectable in multiple eras. How on earth is China supposed to fit into such a system?
@@darthvaderreviews6926 different Chinese empires for different Chinese eras. Same with Japan. The Roman Empire for existence isn’t relevant in the new ages. Unless tonics convince me that Roman Legions are roaming around in the modern world.
The more I see of this game the less excited I am about it. The city limit just upsets me, I understand it is a soft cap but it still feels like the game telling me what I can't do. The cultural transitions I am still not sold on. Just doesn't feel like civ to me.
Yea, as a player that loves playing on huge maps in civ 6 and literally taking over the entirety of the world with my military, things like that just let me know I'll be skipping this game entirely. They're making so many mistakes with this game it's really sad.
I'm also very skeptical about culture transitions, but I don't think the city cap is inherently a huge issue. It doesn't really impact things like map control or resource exploitation, to my understanding you can still construct Towns with settlers, which have some of those City functions, and keep them at that stage so they don't contribute to the cap. So, you can still expand your borders where you want them to go, it's just that if you're _very_ successful with being able to found a lot of cities quickly, you might run up against the city limit forcing you to either take its debuffs or slow your snowball. I also think it resolves a bit of an issue Civ's had where you always want to maximise city density within your borders for the best economy. This way, there's a better gap between playing wide and playing tall, because wide players will need to intersperse with outposts and reserve full fledged cities for the best spots, while tall players can go for max density and back to back skyscrapers. _(on another note, I think the further expansion on multi tile cities also makes a city cap make more sense)_ What matters IMO is that the soft cap is sufficiently negotiable/ignorable that it doesn't lock out playstyle diversity. Eg. if meaningfully getting around the cap absolutely requires reaching the Modern Era, locking a military victory behind the lategame even more than it currently is, that would be terrible. It needs to hit a good balance of having wiggle room, but still doing its job of being an anti-snowball mechanic.
@darthvaderreviews6926 I don't know. They already said that maps are smaller than they were previously, so I'm pretty sure playing on a "huge" map that accurately represents the earth is not possible. That is already a massive turn-off for someone like me, I play on huge earth maps exclusively, and to add on to that, there is a soft cap limit to how many cities you have with debuffs if you have too many. I'm playing a game of civ 6 right now on an "Earth Huge" map and have 55 cities and I'll have far more than that as I never raze cities or empires I take from other civs. It seems that with just these two changes alone, city caps and smaller maps, they're basically telling me I won't enjoy this game. That's not even counting all the other changes and things I don't like about Civ 7.
@@izanagiorochi6324 I think it's a bit paranoid to assume the mention of maps being overall smaller means they won't have options. Earth is an iconic map layout and Firaxis will have definitely collected plenty of data telling them Earth & Earth Huge are popular. While game companies do stupid things sometimes, deleting Earth as a map layout would be beyond the pale and almost certainly won't happen. It'd be a Day 1 custom map if it did. I will say that running 50+ cities at once will probably not be in the cards. IMO Towns and the mass expansion of cities taking up a dozen tiles makes up for the lower total city count, though
I think people will quickly move past their trepidation regarding changing Civ identities once they discover the best Metas _require_ that they change or be left behind. So instead of just changing the Goverment you essentially have the option of changing the *name and aesthetic* of your empire along with your new set of abilities. The underlying concept remains unchanged from Civ 6 it just offers more options. Options I suspect, will quickly see people abandoning their attachment to playing linearly as just one CIv, as it becomes obvious the best metas will be the result of mixing and matching. Once players realize that the change from CIV 6 Government transition is 90% cosmetic I think they will quickly come to appreciate the uniqueness it brings to each game, making each one more memroable. I predict age transitions wil go from being the most feared, to the most beloved feature of this installment.
Good recap, I value my time and would not watch the devs 2.5 hour stream. But wow, is it just me or is the new UI is pretty bland? especially the tech one and turn one on the bottom right.
@@edubrooke2753 I hope that's the case. And not that it's intentionally bland to cater for the limitations of the consoles as part of the multi-platform release strategy.
IIRC everyone at the initial playtest that influencers got to play also told Firaxis they hated the UI's blandness, and were told it was going to change. Though, I'm having flashbacks to Payday 3, which had a similar story but barely adjusted the UI before launch, so here's hoping history doesn't repeat...?
For people who are saying this is a step backward and isn't Civ, I want to remidn people, that ALOT of this has already been in past civ games. Armies stacking, while slightly different, was a thing with Civ 1-4, with Generals affecting that stack. Towns vs Cities was a thing, except in Civ 1-3 they were called Outposts, but essentially worked pretty much the same way. People getting all worked up saying its a departure from Civ games, yet most of it is actually a call back to previous Civ Games.
But this is a very good point. You can't make statements about an entire series of games without knowing how all of them played. I went back and played them all recently having started with civ5. I found that i wanted these features, they worked well in those older games and now they can be expanded upon in civ7.
I'm old enough to have grown up watching my uncle play civ 1, play it myself and remembering that looking into a big picture book my uncle printed out which had all the tech and info about the game. It was insane to see his games with submarines and tanks and im over here getting stoked about unlocking catapults. I skipped 2 and fully ran 3 into the ground, played so much but couldn't finish a game as my child hood PC didn't have the juice. I didn't like 4 my uncle got it and I wasn't a fan of the square design, and the visuals were strong for my uncles PC so it ran on the lowest setting, visually just meh. So 5 came out when I was in high-school and loved it, the dlc is good but the river addition for civ 7 makes me so happy. I thought 6 fixed a nice unique problem with city's not on the coastline but still could contribute to navel production. Civ 5 scratches the itch still to this day and im old now lol. I can't believe I'm here to see 7 it's wild aging.
That UI needs a facelift ASAP. And whats going on with the minimap? They need to go back to the Civ 5 style minimap not the civ 6 one. Otherwise everything looks fine, except Denuvo.
OMG This game is really silly. They included historical leaders but they decoupled them from their historical nation. So you meet Cleopatra and you assume that you met Egyptians but no. She could be as well Cleopatra the leader of Germany or of Aztecs. Then you find some resource. But you don't build a mine and connect it via road to your cities. No, you need to move (grow) the city toward it first. Like a plant grows its roots. But you settlements are instantly connected to the capital city even if localized on the other side of the map. And why two separate units for building town and cities are needed? Settlers to build a settlement and founders to found a city. And why one scout needs 3 dogs. Do they pull him or does he eat them eventually? Or is he actually a professional dog walker? Or this one. It did make sense when in previous civ games military fought barbarians and took their resources but now some soldiers just left resources and gold unprotected and unguarded for anyone, for some scout to take. And if the camp is destroyed and valuable resources are destroyed it will make your people happy. But why and who are those soldier anyway?
This is a console game the limitations on civs and map and the ui everything is made to work better on console than PC. I have no idea why no one realized they shouldn't go down this road but I do know this doesn't feel like a Sid Miers game which is sad because i loved VI from the moment it was announced and 5 the moment I saw the intro I got a PC to play it
As soon as 2K saw the profits from Civ6 on consoles the future was cast, consoles and mobile dives first and foremost and PC's get distant second thoughts.
I'm even more disappointed in this game after this Livestream they attempted to keep using history to justify something that doesn't make any historic sense they have a half baked cic swap that doesn't change enough to make it worth the additional confusion and too much to make it feel like I'm the same civ i want to be the entire game. And they never directly addressed concerns with this mechanic or the leader swapping funny they chose the Roman leader for Rome
Okay, now I am a bit interested in Civ 7 😄 😸 me and my cat too! Originally the Civ Switching, for it I gave it a nickname "Civilization 7: Swap Force" as a reference to "Skylanders: Swap Force" and oh boooooy was I wrong 😂 😹 you cannot swap civs willy-nilly (at least not yet) and instead it's like Humankind, switching in specific time éras!! As for if I buy it or not, That DENUVO copyright protection DRM is too much to bear, that and the steep price of 70€ to 130€ in my land (Slovakia) which is between 25% to 50% of monthly income if you work in Engineering like I do.
Man, I'm so excited to play this game! Still have reservations on decoupling leaders from Civs. That feels really weird to me. But I'm officially open to the Civ transitions. February can't come fast enough
The game sounds great, but I think it would be better to instead of doing a civ switch each era for it to be a leader switch within the same civ based on your progress of the paths you most work toward
It seems to be a mix. You can stack units into commanders, like the armies in humankind. Except when they unpack there’s no separate combat rounds like there are in humankind and combat acts like civ 6
The game is in development so things might change. But I wonder how they will handle unit upgrades especially in the exploration era. The first warrior they trained in antiquity -1700 BCE looked like a -500 BCE era Roman republic Hastati. It was a little weird that the first warrior type didn't look a little more "primitive" in the year -1700. It's not such a big deal. But for exploration era if it encompass everything from medieval to early modern era or right around there needs unit upgrades. Armoured knights is fine in the beginning of the era but will look misplaced next to Galleons and 1500's technology. There need to be some feel of progression from knights to pike&shot, and even maybe line infantry unless the 1700's and onwards will be part of the modern era.
I don’t like they are adding more text to be read and to confuse about what player decision will impact or get rewarded. I rather prefer the game to have the minimum of text needed to be read and be very clear and direct about what action will give what reward or penalty other than having a bunch of text that really does not add that much of story telling. It can fun on the first time but it will be painful after sometimes.
did anyone feel that Augustus looked slightly better? maybe i just get used to him, but I felt the lighting was smoother, the hair somehow lower... less like a wig. I don't hate him any longer.
Makes me a lot more excited about CIV 7 - not sure what the hell is going on with the mini-map, it looks terrible.... I love the ability to see how the borders of my civ have grown
lmao do you know how many games are bombing right now due to the same policies and tactics? Look dude I get it we all loved civilization, we’ve played them since we were kids. However holding the gaming industry to high standards every year so they don’t pump out garbage is what we need to do and we are waaaaaaaay past what they are trying to give us and we should expect more.
Yep this game will definitely succeed, its not copying Humankind at all, you are blind if you say that, its merely taking inspiration from both Humankind and Old World while making it work inside Civ's shell and its aesthetics. Just perfect.
Not copying humankind at all ? lol look like you never played it… every time I m trying to list what has been taken from H, I don’t know from where to begin…
I'm cautiously optimistic for this game... but I am still very concerned about the inclusion of DENUVO and that piece of software is casting a large portion of doubt to why I may not purchase this newest iteration and I have all of the CIV games on physical media, I prefer to be able to play my games offline especially CIV games. 🤔
I'll say it again. I am very excited for this iteration of Civilization. The only thing I have a small problem with is that you can't change leaders that match the new Age. I feel like for roleplay sake (from a historical standpoint) having a leader borne out of the antiquity age and seeing them look the same in future ages will clash ascetically, in my humble opinion. Although this is not a big enough issue for me to not be happy with the game haha.
There is a lot to love here. I am particularly excited about how new cities are handled with towns. It seems like it will help to cut down on the city spam that even tall players are required to engage in. I also really like the age transition mechanic. It really gives a feel that each age really is its own self-contained game. This is cool because sometimes you might just want to do a "Scramble for the New World" kind of game and start in the Exploration Age to get right into the fun.
And another thing... the leader animations looks mediocre. I wish we can just see them presented as still images, bc their over-the-top dramatic animations get really stale really quick.
Thank you for you recap, but i couldn't watch past half way. This game isn't for me, they took out pretty much everything i like about CIV. The more i see of this game, the least interested in it i become. Hard pass.
But navigable rivers are then basically just an ocean tiles in a different look? you cannot build, you have to embark. .. pity. The Romans were already perfectly capable building provisional bridges over big rivers like the Rhine. It would have been nice to have a tile which is both for land units and ships. Also: what I did not get about rivers in general. The turn stops when you go there? what if I walk along a shore? I hope they just make it impossible to *cross* in the same turn.
@@TheSjuris I don't have a problem with that. But as rivers were between tiles, crossing was very well defined. Going along a river was therefore also well defined (and did not stop the turn of course). It is less obvious here, what happens if you walk along the same river. With the information we have, it seems that will be one tile per turn (without roads) no matter which unit you use. And i just said, I hope that is not the case as it makes little sense in reality.
This seems like boring work. Not fun at all. Why get rid of the workers? A key game element. I will play other city builders. I was a modder for Civilization 3 and Civilization 4 as Ankhenaton. The Mediterranean Mod for 3 and the Total Realism mod for Civilization 4. I played with enjoyment Civilization 1 to Beyond Earth. Civilization 6 was a boring cartoon with the districts and Civ 7 seems to be more of the same with the worst parts of Humankind thrown in. They just made it more complicated and way less fun than it ever was. I will play more of Civilization 3 to Beyond Earth with mods. I will be skipping this as I skipped and uninstalled Civilization 6 on all of my computers. I am sorry I bought it.
Gameplay wise I'm more interested after that live stream buuut I still can't with the artwork and graphics... It looks so dull so boring :(( those black tiles for undiscovered terrain are so ugly
Its so sad to see policy cards return... it always boils down to picking the same cards once you unlock them, and its such a chore to remind yourself to keep changing them. Wish they went back to a more balanced indepth (edit: version) of the civ5 social policy tree
I disagree. The social policy system has the same issue where the same trees (rationalism and tradition in Civ 5) would almost always be more beneficial. With the cards you atleast have more flexibilty such as the settler card in the beginning. I do agree somewhat with the overal balance of the cards. Too often, the same cards would be slotted in.
@@iiiiisharpiiiii2041 im saying i would like a more balanced and indepth version of that system. like versions we see in LEKmod for example. i agree the base policy trees are tilted to tradition. but also i think the 'flexibility' with the cards is even more rigid than the trees, because you only upgrade your cards. for example even in base civ5 there is a meaningful choice sometimes between going tradition and liberty (granted in only like 10% of games) but because there is only a single settler card you always use it. it would be more interesting if you unlocked 2-3 settler cards, one being the +50% prod one and one that says every settled city gets +2 housing or something and you cant have them both at the same time (wide vs tall). i just would like the culture system to invite meaningful longterm choices again, instead of doing the same beeline over and over again.
Really? The policy cards had flaws for sure, but it's still much better than the civ5 social policy tree. I cannot stand the social policy tree, nor is it "balanced" like you think. Also, in civ6 you definitely don't always pick the same policy cards.
@@annaairahala9462 i agree. I think i mostly wish there were more longterm impactful decisions again. hopefully the leader and legacy bonuses can fill that gap
anyone got the transition "play as" option. JumboPixel said you can choose. So I can play as Romans and... then click "play as Greece" and move on to be the Normans? say what? What difference would it make at this point anyways? I hope none.
You change civilisation when the age transitions, there are three ages total, so twice per game. You can't start as Romans and transition to Greece because they're both antiquity age civs, but both inherently have the ability to transition into the Normans when the age transitions. All civs have some future civs they can inherently become, certain Leaders unlock civ choices, _(eg. picking Napoleon guarentees you can become France in the Modern Era)_ and other civ transitions might be locked behind requirements. _(eg. certain civs can become Mongolia when moving into the Exploration Age, but only if they found enough Horses)_
@@darthvaderreviews6926 thanks. my concern was mostly with this "play as Greece" checkbox. We played Roman. Then we get the Transition screen to Normans and on that transition screen a checkbox which say "Play as Greece". How does that make sense? Unless it is not clickable but just informative from where we could have come. as you said: as Greece we could have transitioned to Normans, too. But it really almost sounds as if the screen wants to tell me "Play the Normans as Greece" or something. So as if the previous choice matters. So maybe a choice I have when I start in the Exploration age directly ?
@@m_hut Ah, I see the confusion. The checkboxes are the different requirements you could meet to have the option to switch to that civ. So yes, in that instance it's just informative of what you could've done. Both Rome and Greece can inherently choose Normans as their Exploration civ switch
Glad there is no religious victory. That always seemed incredibly niave, no religion will ever everyone to believe it or even a majority. In fact i think the game should have religious fracture and split once they get a certain size just like they do in real life.
Civ change is kind of a weird thing to civ like China or India; there are only dynasty changes, no civilization changes, but make lots of sense for civ like Rome, because it literally was destroyed but somehow many civs have extended its legency, like most of Europe countries nowadays, even US, but I wish history accurate is here, like rome to byzantine or ancien franch or German, and move to Ottoman Empire, even Italy. But to be honest, this is only a good idea for such an immortal empire like Rome, but most civilizations have just become ruins.
The dynasty change is actually very similar to culture change. For example, Qin dynasty (221 B.C.) is very different from Tang dynasty (618 A.D.) or Ming dynasty (1368 A.D.), they are totally different in every aspect, but in Civ 6, they are all called “China”. Which, in my opinion, is very weird. It’s like saying that “Roman culture originated from Greece, so they are the same civilization.”
@@昊-g5h But most Chinese don't think we have changed civilization at all; even though there are many wars between Hu Ren (Barbarians) and Han Ren (Chinese), and they are kind of blended. Also, the culture is mixed.
@@昊-g5h They have to simplify some of these cultures, or else it would be very hard to connect the civs to modernity (which many people will be interested in). I understand them having to use the name of "China" for all of the various dynasties in that region because it would be hard for players who weren't history buffs to figure out who they're supposed to be. For example, how would you be able to start as any of the known First Nation tribes across the Americas in the Ancient Period? We don't even know what cultures existed then. You can't just say "Start as the Aztecs and follow them through history" as the culture didn't really exist as we know of them before 1200 AD. Similarly, what would you do about the Levant region? That area went through so many wars and changes of cultures that it would be nearly impossible to pin down who should be there at a given era change. They need to cut corners somewhere, or else they'd need to have thousands of different civ options.
The community needs to be more appreciative and less hypocritical about ahistorical possibilities in this sandbox game. What if Rome built the pyramids? What if the Aztecs had an ancient era war with the Sumerians and took one of their cities? What if… The entire premise of the game includes doing things that never happened and “asking” the game what should the consequences of those actions be given a set of reasonable rules that abstract how these things kind of work irl? So ancient Japan adopting a Norman-like culture in the exploration age because the controller/player made decisions that unlocked that option is no less reasonable than Rome building the Great Wall of China to defend itself against aggressive Aztecs and Greeks.
Would love to see cultures be present in multiple ages. You could get the dutch as the colonising and mercantile exploration age civ, and science and tech focussed modern age civ or something like that. Italians could work as well like that.
I would like to see little people moving around the city streets, like in Humankind. The cities in CIV 7 do look really gorgeous, but are also completely empty and devoid of people. I'd be happy with tiny silhouettes just moving around the cities and the roads
Me too… The little animals that would dodge your mouse cursor were a nice touch.
Nah, screw this, I don't want my gpu to set itself on fire
@@lucjanl1262 Those of us who have way over-specced computers for slow-paced games would love to have that option, at least!
dude my pc will explode then :D
@@lucjanl1262 This seems like something that wouldn't be hard to toggle on/off in the graphics settings
Looks great, but remember, Civ 7 is going to come with Denuvo. Personally that's an instant no buy for me. I'm not prepared to have a game that I'd likely sink 12+ hours a day running Denuvo that not only degrades gameplay performance, but performs so many unnecessary hard drive read/write operations to substantially accelerate the death of hard drives. People who want to continue (especially those who are going to sink a lot of hours in) please proceed with caution, maybe back up your hard disks regularly, buy a dedicated SSD just for games, etc. because when your hard drives fail it's a pain. Had they gone with any other DRM it would have been fine
Removing the religion victory condition is a very unfortunate decision. I loved being able to do that in the previous games
I think this should be added in a future update or dlc if you are greedy.
Yeah they removed it in base Civ5 and everyone hated it. I don't know why they removed it again seeing as religion was quite fun in Civ6, but I guess they want to sell it to us again as DLC, like in Civ5. 🙄
They have to chose what features they put in base game and what features to put in DLC:s that we will have many!
Honestly, I hated the religion victory in Civ 6, all in meant in practice was having to defend from a never-ending swarm of Apostles from other countries.
@@marlonsaimon573are you greedy for expecting to be paid for your work?
Great recap, thanks for doing this video. I have played CIVs since CIV1, and I am actually amazed at the continued evolution of the game. While I am not 100% sold on the Civ switching, I am actually super exited to get to play this.
With the culture changes one thing i saw is that Julius ceaser had his portrait over the Abbasid and a hidden one which could be the Byzantines
Or seljuk/ottoman if they're feeling extra spicy
Ara History Untold releases in 11 days, hope it lives up to the hype
ARA looks great. Def gonna live up to the hype.
@@axiomsofdominion yes and i already pre-ordered it.
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479ditto .. and counting the days like they do when launching a rocket in Florida…
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 well thats not smart.
@@temeria1986 why?
This is the first civ game I'm not interested in. I started off with Civ 1 on the SNES then graduated to Civ2 on the PlayStation 1. Finally I got my first PC in time for Civ3 and have been playing civ ever since. All this is to say I'm pretty much a Civ Fanatic.
Off the bat, Denuvo is an instant no buy for me. My CPU struggles with it for some reason (probably its age) and I can't afford to buy a new PC at this time. Some of the new features shown in that dev video look cool but the second major issue I have with it is the civ switching mechanic. A civ game is taking a civ from the dawn of Civilization and seeing if you have what it takes to stand the test of time. To advance through each age with your chosen civ and come out on top is what I like about Civ games. Civs 5 and 6 have been downward trends for me but I still bought them and all their dlc. I won't be doing that with civ7 unless they scrap denuvo at a minimum. I hope they rethink the switching thing as well but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I hope Ara is more Civ like then the direction Civ7 seems to be heading in.
if you think that in previous ones there were annoying dlc then just look at different editions of 7 and what is coming there - dlc skins for ui, dlc with new miracles, dlc with skins for leaders, dlc with new fog of war lol, even dlc with skins of units. it looks like 7 will be drowning in dlc from day one. it will be one of those games that after a year has a list of dlcs for 10x the price of the game.
Please please please change that UI. It looks absolutely horrendous.
i think i know why. they will sell skins for the ui (they are listed in the different editions of the game). so it will be like 'oh, you dont like the incredibly ugly ui in the base game? too bad, we worked so hard on it. but thats okay, you can buy a different look'
@@radek4634 it's because UI is usually one of the last things changed during a development cycle
It's because Civ 7 is a console game that will be ported to PCs, not the other way around. I hate the UI too but they won't change it because they can't.
@@usernametaken5619 games like Stellaris have different UIs for PC and Console. So they could change it
whats wrong with the UI?
I wish they’d focus less on graphics. I’d like to be able to play against 24 AI civs without each turn wait taking 10 minutes near the end of the game
Thanks for covering this new version of Civ. I have played since the original. Somewhere around 20,000 hours for the 6 Civ games, another few thousand hours on things like Alpha, Call to Power and other clones. This is the first Civ game that I will probably not buy or play for a few years. Everything about it is anathema to what Civ is about. 'Can you stand the test of time' nope this game is not about picking a Civ and a leader and standing the test of time.
Has the direction and game design at Firaxis slipped so low that they have to whole heartedly steal other game designs and move away from their own tried and true style? Seriously, each Civ game has added different things.
But they might has well have made this RTS as the choices they are making move this franchise away from what made it great. I love history. This is a mockery of history. I love historical fiction, once again this is a mockery of historical fiction.
I truly doubt I will buy this. But I will wait and see how bad it truly gets. The leader animations and cartoonish child like behavior of their interactions is more an adaptation of Adult Swim horrible cartoons than it is of history. Quite unseemly and absolutely revolting.
Who did they hire to create this game and design it? Who thought immature, pouting historical leaders is a go to in an historical game?
Unfortunately, someone at Firaxis sipped the coolaid and thought they were cool and making a new cool idea that they stole from another game. Sid should literally remove his name from what looks to be one of the largest pieces of feces I have ever seen coming down the development line.
Thanks for sharing your news and reviews. Please at least attempt to be objective at all times.
I absolutely love Civ games and most Sid games. But this not just at first glance, but after deep diving every youtube video about what this game is and is attempting to be. I am horrified at how unCivlike it is attempting to be. Time will tell, tho.
Chris
The worst part is, this doesn't look fun to me. Part of Civ is building your country, civ, etc up and maximizing the use of your leader and civ's abilities and perks, etc. Hey how about we just force you to start over with another civ 1/3 of the way thru the game. Yep, that looks like fun. Oh how about we get lazy and just take out most of the eras and ages so the game plays fast for those new fans we want to win. Meanwhile driving away the fans like me that have supported the game since its first version. So very, very sad some corporate insider shill has grabbed the reigns at Firaxis and is making their mark on this game and franchise by literally removing the things we love and replacing them with stolen ideas from other games that just aren't as good as civ games. Why would a company that makes the best games, want to copy another company that doesn't? Just lack of creativity? Lack of insight? Lack of imagination?
Just so sad.
You make a game, it’s successful. Let’s called the formula for that A. When you make a sequel to that game, you make A, +…
You don’t fiddle with A.
A is the reason your franchise was successful and why the last game was so loved. So often in all Western media now, we see people fiddling with A because… subvert expectations?!?
They have fiddled quite badly with A here and included so many features I disliked in Humankind. The fans are going to wreck this.
I can't get over how gorgeous the map now looks! Only the leader design is not my taste, I personally loved the Civ 6 design :D I wonder if they did the same thing with the music, so that it evolve depending on the age (which was AMAZING in Civ 6)?
Absolutely. The music in the Antiquity Age is tribal/ classic/ melodic. It’ll ramp up, change & suit the civs in future ages too.
@@JumboPixel Thats awesome to know, since CIV 6 had one of my favourite game soundtracks. Here's hopin' they can keep the release date, but I'm happy enough that we console players don't have to wait so long this time ^^
I love almost every single change and I'm very excited to try it! I'm only sceptical of changing civs between ages... I totally get the three different ages but I'm just not 100% on board with changing civs yet simply because I didn't like it in Humankind...
I think it would be great if it really felt natural. But I have the feeling they decided on their favourite Civs and just afterwards thought about how to connect them. I know it is triple the work, but I think they should have thought about the most natural transitions (which will in most cases be the civs with geographical connection not some influence some culture had on some other far away). I mean the transitions will always be historically a bit weird. This really great guy talking about history a lot pointed out that even the 3 Indian civs are... well... not logical transitions. I kind of hope they make it interesting enough that some part always survives, so that it is a real fun and rewarding thing. But I am a bit scared of this... and I don't even know humankind. It is purely about me not wanting to change my identity.
I really don't want to be a hater but the more I see, the less hyped I get. This does not 'feel' like Civ to me.
I will not be preordering, and I'm going to wait atleast a few weeks until after release to see some actual unscripted gameplay videos.
I'm seeing some ideas I saw in Old World here.
I didn't saw anything new in this version of the game. Everything comes from older civs (navigable rivers was already in C II), cities and towns stolen from MIllenia, dynamic civs stolen from Humankind.
No amount of shill hype will get me to like switching civs
Dynamic appearing civs is as old as civ 4 days. Rhyes and fall is nice. Hopefully they'll create a scenario or.mod. for xiv 7
So is Firaxis making this game or Amplitude? Or are the Firaxis game designers all ex-Amplitude employees?
Because this looks exactly like Endless Legend and Humankind. Right down to the goody huts giving shallow "narrative choices", Commander units, leader upgrades, changing Civs, etc etc. Even the UI and artwork looks exactly like Endless Legend.
I'm disappointed they seem to he trying to remove OUPT after implementing it in the last two Civs, but less units mean the consoles and Switch might actually have a chance of running the game smoothly, and they don't have to try to improve the AI.
Everything about this game screams "simplified for console audiences/hardware", and that's extremely disappointing. And the relentless bootlicking from TH-camrs doesn't fill me with confidence either.
Humankind hired some designers from Firaxis not the other way around.
This games gonna bomb
@@rawedawg0079 highly doubt it’s going to bomb.
It seems to be a mixture of old civ amd humankind
Alot of human kind with poor looking UI in some cases.
Reminds me more of Endless Legend actually with the goody huts giving you "narrative choices", and the Commander unit.
Maybe those elements where in Humankind as well, but I never played it because Endless Legend wasn't that fun, and Humankind seemed like more of the same.
Interesting because it feels like Civ is being led by Humankind
Civ:be also has that goody hood system. The clay mine and town expansion also feels like paradox's millennia
Excellent analysis and commentary, kudos! Really encourages me to play the game as soon as it is released.
Imagine every civ has a historic commanders with starting initial promotion for example Alexander with 3 starting promotions in logistics or yi sun sin naval commander with extra range for ranged ships in exploration age
Or khalid ibn al-walid with combat puff and one starting promotion in logistics and so on
So besides Humankind we as well have Ara History Untold very soon and Civilization 7 on the way.
I've played Civilization for decades but the latest one sounds like warmed over Humankind, a game I consider OK but not as good as Civ VI and from what I've seen on Civ VII, I won't be buying it since I already have Humankind. I'll just keep playing Civ VI, thanks.
Yeah, from what I have seen in regards to Civ Vii you can basically recreate the same game with 2-3 mods in Humankind. Innovation went out of the window...
@@PeshoCantDraw I like variety in games. And making them all the same is the opposite of that.
Thank you for the short video update! Much appreciated:)
I think a victory point system per age would be fun. Every age one or more Victory points get distributed to whatever civ has done something great. One point for eliminating an enemy, one for reaching a tech as the first civ, one for founding a league of nations or whatever. Bonus points for changing the type of age victory (so a science civ needs to score on diplomacy next age for example)
This dev livestream made me so excited about the game. I love the changes being made to the game with the city districts and unit commanders. I love the way they are implementing the era change and civ change where you will have a few options depending on your first culture or certain decisions rather than just let any civ transfer into any other civ. I think this game is going to be amazing.
The game is going to be absolute ass.
@@sokool657 you are welcome to that opinion but I have the opposite opinion. What I saw in the antiquity deep dive looked amazing. Have fun hating though.
@@sokool657facts lol these must be bots
Why doesn't the river cut through the city centre at the beginning there? Even Civ 6 did that...
I'll assume it's just not fully implemented yet.
When Rome evolves into the Normans, f that! What if I want to stay Rome?
They should have allowed that. It would be funny watching you send your legions to fight a tank.
Unfortunately, it very much seems like you can't, _(you could pick another civ, but you can't stay Rome)_ which IMO is a huge mistake. Civs are being explicitly locked as "antiquity" "exploration" or "modern" civs and it's unclear at this point in development if _any_ civs can be selectable in multiple eras. How on earth is China supposed to fit into such a system?
@@darthvaderreviews6926 different Chinese empires for different Chinese eras. Same with Japan. The Roman Empire for existence isn’t relevant in the new ages. Unless tonics convince me that Roman Legions are roaming around in the modern world.
Thank your for the summary!
The more I see of this game the less excited I am about it. The city limit just upsets me, I understand it is a soft cap but it still feels like the game telling me what I can't do.
The cultural transitions I am still not sold on. Just doesn't feel like civ to me.
Yes, it’s awful. The game will be very bad.
Yea, as a player that loves playing on huge maps in civ 6 and literally taking over the entirety of the world with my military, things like that just let me know I'll be skipping this game entirely. They're making so many mistakes with this game it's really sad.
I'm also very skeptical about culture transitions, but I don't think the city cap is inherently a huge issue.
It doesn't really impact things like map control or resource exploitation, to my understanding you can still construct Towns with settlers, which have some of those City functions, and keep them at that stage so they don't contribute to the cap. So, you can still expand your borders where you want them to go, it's just that if you're _very_ successful with being able to found a lot of cities quickly, you might run up against the city limit forcing you to either take its debuffs or slow your snowball.
I also think it resolves a bit of an issue Civ's had where you always want to maximise city density within your borders for the best economy. This way, there's a better gap between playing wide and playing tall, because wide players will need to intersperse with outposts and reserve full fledged cities for the best spots, while tall players can go for max density and back to back skyscrapers. _(on another note, I think the further expansion on multi tile cities also makes a city cap make more sense)_
What matters IMO is that the soft cap is sufficiently negotiable/ignorable that it doesn't lock out playstyle diversity. Eg. if meaningfully getting around the cap absolutely requires reaching the Modern Era, locking a military victory behind the lategame even more than it currently is, that would be terrible. It needs to hit a good balance of having wiggle room, but still doing its job of being an anti-snowball mechanic.
@darthvaderreviews6926 I don't know. They already said that maps are smaller than they were previously, so I'm pretty sure playing on a "huge" map that accurately represents the earth is not possible. That is already a massive turn-off for someone like me, I play on huge earth maps exclusively, and to add on to that, there is a soft cap limit to how many cities you have with debuffs if you have too many. I'm playing a game of civ 6 right now on an "Earth Huge" map and have 55 cities and I'll have far more than that as I never raze cities or empires I take from other civs. It seems that with just these two changes alone, city caps and smaller maps, they're basically telling me I won't enjoy this game. That's not even counting all the other changes and things I don't like about Civ 7.
@@izanagiorochi6324 I think it's a bit paranoid to assume the mention of maps being overall smaller means they won't have options. Earth is an iconic map layout and Firaxis will have definitely collected plenty of data telling them Earth & Earth Huge are popular.
While game companies do stupid things sometimes, deleting Earth as a map layout would be beyond the pale and almost certainly won't happen. It'd be a Day 1 custom map if it did.
I will say that running 50+ cities at once will probably not be in the cards. IMO Towns and the mass expansion of cities taking up a dozen tiles makes up for the lower total city count, though
I think people will quickly move past their trepidation regarding changing Civ identities once they discover the best Metas _require_ that they change or be left behind.
So instead of just changing the Goverment you essentially have the option of changing the *name and aesthetic* of your empire along with your new set of abilities. The underlying concept remains unchanged from Civ 6 it just offers more options.
Options I suspect, will quickly see people abandoning their attachment to playing linearly as just one CIv, as it becomes obvious the best metas will be the result of mixing and matching.
Once players realize that the change from CIV 6 Government transition is 90% cosmetic I think they will quickly come to appreciate the uniqueness it brings to each game, making each one more memroable.
I predict age transitions wil go from being the most feared, to the most beloved feature of this installment.
Good recap, I value my time and would not watch the devs 2.5 hour stream.
But wow, is it just me or is the new UI is pretty bland? especially the tech one and turn one on the bottom right.
I agree, but let’s assume that’s part of this being an alpha version. It looks like there’s still quite some placeholder symbols throughout the game.
@@edubrooke2753 I hope that's the case. And not that it's intentionally bland to cater for the limitations of the consoles as part of the multi-platform release strategy.
IIRC everyone at the initial playtest that influencers got to play also told Firaxis they hated the UI's blandness, and were told it was going to change.
Though, I'm having flashbacks to Payday 3, which had a similar story but barely adjusted the UI before launch, so here's hoping history doesn't repeat...?
Not interested in playing as a ugly immortal leader instead of a civ...
For people who are saying this is a step backward and isn't Civ, I want to remidn people, that ALOT of this has already been in past civ games.
Armies stacking, while slightly different, was a thing with Civ 1-4, with Generals affecting that stack.
Towns vs Cities was a thing, except in Civ 1-3 they were called Outposts, but essentially worked pretty much the same way.
People getting all worked up saying its a departure from Civ games, yet most of it is actually a call back to previous Civ Games.
Very good points - though it’s important to also note that for a lot of people it still *feels* like a departure. Civ 4 released nearly 20 years ago!
Most people only played Civ 6 or 5, so they don’t know what previous games look like.
Civ 7 actually reminds me more of Civ 4.
But this is a very good point. You can't make statements about an entire series of games without knowing how all of them played. I went back and played them all recently having started with civ5. I found that i wanted these features, they worked well in those older games and now they can be expanded upon in civ7.
Way to show you dont understand ..
I'm old enough to have grown up watching my uncle play civ 1, play it myself and remembering that looking into a big picture book my uncle printed out which had all the tech and info about the game. It was insane to see his games with submarines and tanks and im over here getting stoked about unlocking catapults. I skipped 2 and fully ran 3 into the ground, played so much but couldn't finish a game as my child hood PC didn't have the juice. I didn't like 4 my uncle got it and I wasn't a fan of the square design, and the visuals were strong for my uncles PC so it ran on the lowest setting, visually just meh. So 5 came out when I was in high-school and loved it, the dlc is good but the river addition for civ 7 makes me so happy. I thought 6 fixed a nice unique problem with city's not on the coastline but still could contribute to navel production. Civ 5 scratches the itch still to this day and im old now lol. I can't believe I'm here to see 7 it's wild aging.
That UI needs a facelift ASAP. And whats going on with the minimap? They need to go back to the Civ 5 style minimap not the civ 6 one. Otherwise everything looks fine, except Denuvo.
hum no. i like civ 6 map. stop it.
Ayyo din know my man Dafoe low key cameo-ing.
OMG This game is really silly. They included historical leaders but they decoupled them from their historical nation. So you meet Cleopatra and you assume that you met Egyptians but no. She could be as well Cleopatra the leader of Germany or of Aztecs. Then you find some resource. But you don't build a mine and connect it via road to your cities. No, you need to move (grow) the city toward it first. Like a plant grows its roots. But you settlements are instantly connected to the capital city even if localized on the other side of the map. And why two separate units for building town and cities are needed? Settlers to build a settlement and founders to found a city. And why one scout needs 3 dogs. Do they pull him or does he eat them eventually? Or is he actually a professional dog walker? Or this one. It did make sense when in previous civ games military fought barbarians and took their resources but now some soldiers just left resources and gold unprotected and unguarded for anyone, for some scout to take. And if the camp is destroyed and valuable resources are destroyed it will make your people happy. But why and who are those soldier anyway?
I Hope They Go All In With This Give it There All
Ara is likely to be what most of us HOPED this would be. The more that's revealed, the more Civ 7 looks like a slightly tweaked humankind.
This is a console game the limitations on civs and map and the ui everything is made to work better on console than PC. I have no idea why no one realized they shouldn't go down this road but I do know this doesn't feel like a Sid Miers game which is sad because i loved VI from the moment it was announced and 5 the moment I saw the intro I got a PC to play it
As soon as 2K saw the profits from Civ6 on consoles the future was cast, consoles and mobile dives first and foremost and PC's get distant second thoughts.
That is true sadly, I still hope the devs manage to pull a really good game
I'm even more disappointed in this game after this Livestream they attempted to keep using history to justify something that doesn't make any historic sense they have a half baked cic swap that doesn't change enough to make it worth the additional confusion and too much to make it feel like I'm the same civ i want to be the entire game.
And they never directly addressed concerns with this mechanic or the leader swapping funny they chose the Roman leader for Rome
Great presentation and I can't wait to play, I hope all players give it a chance.
Glad they gave up on the cartoony aesthetic they had with Civ VI.
Why's Christopher Moltisanti dressed up as an Indian the thumbnail?
CHRISTOPHA
Okay, now I am a bit interested in Civ 7 😄 😸 me and my cat too! Originally the Civ Switching, for it I gave it a nickname "Civilization 7: Swap Force" as a reference to "Skylanders: Swap Force" and oh boooooy was I wrong 😂 😹 you cannot swap civs willy-nilly (at least not yet) and instead it's like Humankind, switching in specific time éras!!
As for if I buy it or not, That DENUVO copyright protection DRM is too much to bear, that and the steep price of 70€ to 130€ in my land (Slovakia) which is between 25% to 50% of monthly income if you work in Engineering like I do.
Man. For some reason the icons they used look faded to me. Especially the ones that are on the menu.
Man, I'm so excited to play this game! Still have reservations on decoupling leaders from Civs. That feels really weird to me. But I'm officially open to the Civ transitions. February can't come fast enough
It was in civ4 allready… and it is an option. You can use ”more suitable” leader that you target in your game through!
It looks great. The mechanic changes sound good. The eras thing sounds weird to me still. But I’ll give it a try.
The game sounds great, but I think it would be better to instead of doing a civ switch each era for it to be a leader switch within the same civ based on your progress of the paths you most work toward
He can't keep getting away with it.
So the combat is also humankind-style or did they stick with civ 6 formula? And how about wonders?
It seems to be a mix. You can stack units into commanders, like the armies in humankind. Except when they unpack there’s no separate combat rounds like there are in humankind and combat acts like civ 6
Thanks for this video :)
The game is in development so things might change. But I wonder how they will handle unit upgrades especially in the exploration era. The first warrior they trained in antiquity -1700 BCE looked like a -500 BCE era Roman republic Hastati. It was a little weird that the first warrior type didn't look a little more "primitive" in the year -1700. It's not such a big deal. But for exploration era if it encompass everything from medieval to early modern era or right around there needs unit upgrades. Armoured knights is fine in the beginning of the era but will look misplaced next to Galleons and 1500's technology. There need to be some feel of progression from knights to pike&shot, and even maybe line infantry unless the 1700's and onwards will be part of the modern era.
I don’t like they are adding more text to be read and to confuse about what player decision will impact or get rewarded. I rather prefer the game to have the minimum of text needed to be read and be very clear and direct about what action will give what reward or penalty other than having a bunch of text that really does not add that much of story telling. It can fun on the first time but it will be painful after sometimes.
still not convinced - seems they've run out of ideas and are just borrowing - and the whole idea of ERAs and switching Civs - a very hard pass
All the menus and UI look terrible but the graphics and art style are much better than civ 6
We don`t know yet, what the UI will be in the ready game…
@@haukionkannel pysyy samana
@@Pseudoplasmagore
Mahdollisesti… toivottavasti ei, mutta eiköhän joku modaa sen
Looks interesting, i hope they can nail down the systems without dumbing it down.
I wanna play civ 7 tsl europe so bad!
U can’t take settlers anymore
did anyone feel that Augustus looked slightly better? maybe i just get used to him, but I felt the lighting was smoother, the hair somehow lower... less like a wig. I don't hate him any longer.
Honestly there is barely any history left to Civ now - this basically a strategy game with a thin overlay of history
Not sure what you mean. In which way is this now less history than the first Civ? I always felt it was a pretty thin layer.
i will buy both ara and civ 7
City center fit very bad upon the small river, they should make district fitting with the esagon
Makes me a lot more excited about CIV 7 - not sure what the hell is going on with the mini-map, it looks terrible.... I love the ability to see how the borders of my civ have grown
lmao do you know how many games are bombing right now due to the same policies and tactics? Look dude I get it we all loved civilization, we’ve played them since we were kids. However holding the gaming industry to high standards every year so they don’t pump out garbage is what we need to do and we are waaaaaaaay past what they are trying to give us and we should expect more.
Yep this game will definitely succeed, its not copying Humankind at all, you are blind if you say that, its merely taking inspiration from both Humankind and Old World while making it work inside Civ's shell and its aesthetics. Just perfect.
Not copying humankind at all ? lol look like you never played it… every time I m trying to list what has been taken from H, I don’t know from where to begin…
The first civ I’ll never buy
I'm cautiously optimistic for this game... but I am still very concerned about the inclusion of DENUVO and that piece of software is casting a large portion of doubt to why I may not purchase this newest iteration and I have all of the CIV games on physical media, I prefer to be able to play my games offline especially CIV games. 🤔
Lets gooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
you were as fast as the bots!
@@JumboPixel what?
Chur bro, I don't have time to sit through 2 hours of footage so this helps heaps.
I'll say it again. I am very excited for this iteration of Civilization. The only thing I have a small problem with is that you can't change leaders that match the new Age. I feel like for roleplay sake (from a historical standpoint) having a leader borne out of the antiquity age and seeing them look the same in future ages will clash ascetically, in my humble opinion. Although this is not a big enough issue for me to not be happy with the game haha.
I just don't think I'm going to like this. It seems so far away from the things i like about civ
are there no religions???
Has anyone asked the Devs / do we know if there's a limit to how many Army Commanders someone can have?
Civilization: Reloaded. Interesting. Kappa.
Thanks for the Video, i didnt want to watch the 3h long livestream
There is a lot to love here.
I am particularly excited about how new cities are handled with towns. It seems like it will help to cut down on the city spam that even tall players are required to engage in.
I also really like the age transition mechanic. It really gives a feel that each age really is its own self-contained game. This is cool because sometimes you might just want to do a "Scramble for the New World" kind of game and start in the Exploration Age to get right into the fun.
Pls Jumbopixel - pls tell, will there be a map-editor ??
And another thing... the leader animations looks mediocre. I wish we can just see them presented as still images, bc their over-the-top dramatic animations get really stale really quick.
The more I see about this game the less I'm excited for it.
Thank you for you recap, but i couldn't watch past half way. This game isn't for me, they took out pretty much everything i like about CIV. The more i see of this game, the least interested in it i become. Hard pass.
But navigable rivers are then basically just an ocean tiles in a different look? you cannot build, you have to embark. .. pity. The Romans were already perfectly capable building provisional bridges over big rivers like the Rhine. It would have been nice to have a tile which is both for land units and ships. Also: what I did not get about rivers in general. The turn stops when you go there? what if I walk along a shore? I hope they just make it impossible to *cross* in the same turn.
Crossing a river in previous versions of Civ also ended turns.
@@TheSjuris I don't have a problem with that. But as rivers were between tiles, crossing was very well defined. Going along a river was therefore also well defined (and did not stop the turn of course). It is less obvious here, what happens if you walk along the same river. With the information we have, it seems that will be one tile per turn (without roads) no matter which unit you use. And i just said, I hope that is not the case as it makes little sense in reality.
at 7:14, is that a gold resource at the top right?
Already changing civs, and now changing capitals? You truly have no solid identity. Nothing stands the test of time in this game
You think every world civilization stuck with the same capital at the same location, for their entire history?
@@johnproctor5314 No.
@@eenayeah so then what are you complaining about lmao
As someone who is very skeptical about civ changes, changing capitals is just a common sense feature.
This seems like boring work. Not fun at all. Why get rid of the workers? A key game element. I will play other city builders. I was a modder for Civilization 3 and Civilization 4 as Ankhenaton. The Mediterranean Mod for 3 and the Total Realism mod for Civilization 4. I played with enjoyment Civilization 1 to Beyond Earth. Civilization 6 was a boring cartoon with the districts and Civ 7 seems to be more of the same with the worst parts of Humankind thrown in. They just made it more complicated and way less fun than it ever was. I will play more of Civilization 3 to Beyond Earth with mods. I will be skipping this as I skipped and uninstalled Civilization 6 on all of my computers. I am sorry I bought it.
YEEEAAAHHHHH CIV 7!!!!!!!!!!
Im giving this one a skip for now. This who changing civs and locking things down such as the map based on the age just isnt it for me
Gameplay wise I'm more interested after that live stream buuut I still can't with the artwork and graphics... It looks so dull so boring :(( those black tiles for undiscovered terrain are so ugly
Why buy civ 7 and put up with dlc scumming when there is already Humankind out there?
Can I support city states with units to facilitate a proxy war??
Its so sad to see policy cards return... it always boils down to picking the same cards once you unlock them, and its such a chore to remind yourself to keep changing them. Wish they went back to a more balanced indepth (edit: version) of the civ5 social policy tree
I disagree. The social policy system has the same issue where the same trees (rationalism and tradition in Civ 5) would almost always be more beneficial. With the cards you atleast have more flexibilty such as the settler card in the beginning. I do agree somewhat with the overal balance of the cards. Too often, the same cards would be slotted in.
my guy said the social policy tree is balanced and in-depth, 99% of the time most people pick tradition and rationalism
@@iiiiisharpiiiii2041 im saying i would like a more balanced and indepth version of that system. like versions we see in LEKmod for example. i agree the base policy trees are tilted to tradition.
but also i think the 'flexibility' with the cards is even more rigid than the trees, because you only upgrade your cards. for example even in base civ5 there is a meaningful choice sometimes between going tradition and liberty (granted in only like 10% of games) but because there is only a single settler card you always use it. it would be more interesting if you unlocked 2-3 settler cards, one being the +50% prod one and one that says every settled city gets +2 housing or something and you cant have them both at the same time (wide vs tall).
i just would like the culture system to invite meaningful longterm choices again, instead of doing the same beeline over and over again.
Really? The policy cards had flaws for sure, but it's still much better than the civ5 social policy tree. I cannot stand the social policy tree, nor is it "balanced" like you think. Also, in civ6 you definitely don't always pick the same policy cards.
@@annaairahala9462 i agree. I think i mostly wish there were more longterm impactful decisions again. hopefully the leader and legacy bonuses can fill that gap
This bouta be so ass
More forward thinking AI game developers will end CIV.
anyone got the transition "play as" option. JumboPixel said you can choose. So I can play as Romans and... then click "play as Greece" and move on to be the Normans? say what? What difference would it make at this point anyways? I hope none.
You change civilisation when the age transitions, there are three ages total, so twice per game. You can't start as Romans and transition to Greece because they're both antiquity age civs, but both inherently have the ability to transition into the Normans when the age transitions.
All civs have some future civs they can inherently become, certain Leaders unlock civ choices, _(eg. picking Napoleon guarentees you can become France in the Modern Era)_ and other civ transitions might be locked behind requirements. _(eg. certain civs can become Mongolia when moving into the Exploration Age, but only if they found enough Horses)_
@@darthvaderreviews6926 thanks. my concern was mostly with this "play as Greece" checkbox. We played Roman. Then we get the Transition screen to Normans and on that transition screen a checkbox which say "Play as Greece". How does that make sense? Unless it is not clickable but just informative from where we could have come. as you said: as Greece we could have transitioned to Normans, too. But it really almost sounds as if the screen wants to tell me "Play the Normans as Greece" or something. So as if the previous choice matters. So maybe a choice I have when I start in the Exploration age directly ?
@@m_hut Ah, I see the confusion. The checkboxes are the different requirements you could meet to have the option to switch to that civ. So yes, in that instance it's just informative of what you could've done. Both Rome and Greece can inherently choose Normans as their Exploration civ switch
@@darthvaderreviews6926 thanks. like this it makes sense. So probably the Mongols have a "have three horses" checkbox (or whatever it was)
Denuvo and possible microtransactions on a full price game = never buying, playing or watching anyone play this garbo
Glad there is no religious victory. That always seemed incredibly niave, no religion will ever everyone to believe it or even a majority. In fact i think the game should have religious fracture and split once they get a certain size just like they do in real life.
Civ change is kind of a weird thing to civ like China or India; there are only dynasty changes, no civilization changes, but make lots of sense for civ like Rome, because it literally was destroyed but somehow many civs have extended its legency, like most of Europe countries nowadays, even US, but I wish history accurate is here, like rome to byzantine or ancien franch or German, and move to Ottoman Empire, even Italy. But to be honest, this is only a good idea for such an immortal empire like Rome, but most civilizations have just become ruins.
Theyve confirmed that theres an india civ for each age so its most likely those continuous irl civs have something similar. I think japan too
The dynasty change is actually very similar to culture change.
For example, Qin dynasty (221 B.C.) is very different from Tang dynasty (618 A.D.) or Ming dynasty (1368 A.D.), they are totally different in every aspect, but in Civ 6, they are all called “China”. Which, in my opinion, is very weird.
It’s like saying that “Roman culture originated from Greece, so they are the same civilization.”
@@昊-g5h But most Chinese don't think we have changed civilization at all; even though there are many wars between Hu Ren (Barbarians) and Han Ren (Chinese), and they are kind of blended. Also, the culture is mixed.
@@昊-g5h They have to simplify some of these cultures, or else it would be very hard to connect the civs to modernity (which many people will be interested in). I understand them having to use the name of "China" for all of the various dynasties in that region because it would be hard for players who weren't history buffs to figure out who they're supposed to be.
For example, how would you be able to start as any of the known First Nation tribes across the Americas in the Ancient Period? We don't even know what cultures existed then. You can't just say "Start as the Aztecs and follow them through history" as the culture didn't really exist as we know of them before 1200 AD.
Similarly, what would you do about the Levant region? That area went through so many wars and changes of cultures that it would be nearly impossible to pin down who should be there at a given era change.
They need to cut corners somewhere, or else they'd need to have thousands of different civ options.
The community needs to be more appreciative and less hypocritical about ahistorical possibilities in this sandbox game. What if Rome built the pyramids? What if the Aztecs had an ancient era war with the Sumerians and took one of their cities? What if…
The entire premise of the game includes doing things that never happened and “asking” the game what should the consequences of those actions be given a set of reasonable rules that abstract how these things kind of work irl? So ancient Japan adopting a Norman-like culture in the exploration age because the controller/player made decisions that unlocked that option is no less reasonable than Rome building the Great Wall of China to defend itself against aggressive Aztecs and Greeks.
Davis Matthew Martinez Eric Martin Angela
Donuvo, don't buy. Breaking Linux support for multiplayer no one uses and never works anyway is dumb.
Miller John Johnson Jennifer Young Linda
Would love to see cultures be present in multiple ages. You could get the dutch as the colonising and mercantile exploration age civ, and science and tech focussed modern age civ or something like that. Italians could work as well like that.
Even if it's not present in the base game, I'm sure that with mods, we can add that in.
Thats cool they are adding such up to dste features. Civ is such a futuristically un updated game.
Jones Ronald Williams George Davis Margaret