To make the game more realistic---- You need an endless supply of boats dropping off "refugees" ..... and when the local population gets upset about an increase in rape and murder......... the Natives get labelled "racist" and arrested for thought crimes Thats whats REALLY going on in western civilizations right now (UK especially)
What I love the most in civilization is that you start to play at 6pm and after 20 minutes playing it's already 5 am, almost like interstellar when they reach near to the dark hole
That is certainly true for Civ 4. I just recently put coffee to drip and thought that I start a game while it is dripping. 310 turns later "I wonder if that coffee is ready".
Here combat looks like it will be set still, so if you engage a melee unit its engaged for that turn. I actually kind of like that change as making decisions in combat per tern will be more important
"Just one more turn" always takes me to 2am on a weekday when all I wanted was just a little Civ to relax before going to sleep (and I didn't relax cause I started next to f***ing Gengis Khan)
I can't thank my former computer teacher (Mr. Flanagan) in the 90s enough. Civ 1 was just a game that all students could play on the server. I thought I'll give it a try and those first 10 turns extended to 30 years of Civilization. Each installment holds something dear to me. Thank you for making continuing this franchise.
@@them3atstick753 Civ III was my favorite... you could raz or flip cities... so many unit options and the endlessness of gameplay you could control to see your civilization through the future ... not like newer ones since... where.. time limit, or "win" without being able to continue building what you wanted to see... just.. CivIII was awesome
And to add to my love of CivIII... that endless gameplay, allowed me to figure out how to build towards a certain goal while learning about why in acctual civilizations, certain technologies that seem contradictory, were acctually complementary if pushed to work in a certain way... I learned a lot... I had more fun... and could never be bored... never ended..... I always had one save that was endless play... and always had another that was pushing for a specific goal /win
Or why not both. Anyone who wants could retain one or both of them. Just as anyone who wants can still play an historically accurate civ through all three ages.
The problem is - not all civilization have leaders for every history age. Most of them havent. And the developers decide not to deeply work few of them, but, to "represent" dozens of almost-nobodycare cultures
This is huge news. Before we could only play with six civilizations, but now we can play with SEVEN civilizations. Absolutely game changing. Bravo sid.
Things I love: - There are now terrain height differences. - Water has depth. - Now buildings like the Granary are districts so you can have more control over the city building aspect of the game. - If we can move the camera around like the preview would be amazing, since taking pride in what you've built is an important part of the game for me. Things I hope I can skip: - Changing CIVs in the middle of the game is cute, but I love to build strategies to take any civilization I pick to success. I don't feel attracted to the idea of abandoning a civilization in favor of another because it suits better an era. For me, it is so, so, so important the civilization building aspect of the game, creating, crafting, growing, making your civilization beautiful and powerful. I love the updated design, terrain, and all of that, but please don't force me to change my civilization to another one in the middle of the game. I hope I can just use the same from start to finish. Amazing work nonetheless! I'm very excited for CIV VII
@@itsban I think you have a good balance of positive and negative feedback for this. A lot of people seem to be trashing it because of the Civ-swapping, but surely it has improvements as well? Anyway, thanks for trying to include both sides of the discussion :)
@@itsban so if you look really close at the screen where you have to “pick a new civ” they are labeled as a new country but there is the option “play as Egypt” in there which was the starting civ, I think they already thought about this complaint and never planned for your worries to be the reality. I would say give them a little more credit than “and we’re going to take the bonuses you chose to go away” when they said that you would be building on your legacy. Being able to continue as Egypt means you’ll get to keep the country bonuses you wanted but you have the CHOICE to pick a different civ if things circumstances have presented a different civ option as more beneficial.
@@drewchristner3750 beautiful! Yeah, since it is optional I have no concerns. They should’ve said that! Everyone would have been less confused/worried.
@@itsban I don’t think it will be as jarring as it seems. Human Kind already did it quite effectively and it seems like this is a better version of it.
"For the first time in Civ history, at the start of each new age you pick a new civilisation. To show you what we mean, here is some footage from the poorly received Civ-clone Humankind." Something is going badly wrong when you're getting inspired by your own derivative knock-offs.
@@Snuffsaid2007 The way to do this better would be tying technological development behind special issues that certain people are facing. Say, you would develop first what you need to cultivate your land around you and best utilise the refined products - but if you'd like to develop mining as a flood plains culture, you would need at least trade routes with a culture that has need of developing mining and to make it faster you could invite their community as a minority that could provide benefits and issues that come with multiculturalism. Even nomadic people or those who have already lost their nation could be represented. Say if a nation would fall, they could become great bankers and help you develop with currency et cetera.
"Working on" might be a bit of a stretch. Dude is 70 years old, and sits on the board. It's doubtful he's doing much with the day-to-day game development... and is far more likely just being used a set-piece for PR...
@@TitanMethos Not true at all. He isn't coding these days but he is very much involved in game design and architecture decisions. It's actually been that way since Civ II.
@TitanMethos I actually worked on this reveal and talked to some of the Fraxis guys. They all seem to love him and say he's in the office every day working. Dude just loves making games
@@4Deadserious I refer you to the words: "A set piece of PR." Because that because PR is just an important within a company... I've seen that mentality take hold in an office environment. Where one big socialite is the rally-man for the office, because he promoted a positive workplace... And that's all that guy will do. Sid Meier, is the perfect guy in his age to fill that role.
To me it sounds like he will be more likely than ever to have nuclear tech; Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi died in 1948, five months *after* the end of the Manhattan project. He was absolutely alive to see the power of the atom unleashed. The real Gandhi even said of nuclear weapons that "If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British." So if there ever was a time when Nuclear Gandhi could be real in Civ, it will be in Civ7
Do you and everyone who liked really know that little about history? Especially in the Civ demographic? lmao Ghandi is modern and would perfectly fit as a leader in the modern age when nukes are available.
@@Boombox69in It is so needed Imo. playing a landlocked civ that had a river that stretched to the ocean but couldn't be used for anything other then a source of fresh water needed the improvement. I also have gripes with some of the decisions but there were good ideas as well, it seems like there is a varying elevations for tiles like Endless Legend has.
@@aaronbrandon2321 alot of new ideas that is worthy, and than take away the essence of the series, which is to lead your chosen civilisation rise from stone age into future. could have just remain the same civilisation but let you choose new leaders (even 1 that is foreign, like persian kings rule over babylon), what a great decisio, LOL
@@jacobs3597 endless legends combat is the worst of the worst. 150 hours on endless legends and it makes the game go from a 8/10 to a 5/10. War is unplayeble
At 93 years old, I guess I can say goodbye to my dream to see JAMES EARL JONES as the narrator. Edit: RIP JEJ, father figure to us all! Either as Darth Vader or as Mufasa
Don't despair. There's enough of his voice on tape to form the basis of a very convincing AI voice, not that it would or should be possible to do so without his (or his estate's) legal permission. It wouldn't surprise me if a modder someday were to produce an AI-JEJ narrator.
What I don't understand is that I feel it would have made so much more sense to switch your leader throughout the game, keeping the same civilization, rather than the inverse they have gone for. This keeps to their philosophy of new emerging gameplay for each age, but it also keeps immersion and historical contexts consistent. It feels much more plausible to, say, start as an ancient leader of a civilization and then work through more modern leaders as the game progresses with more relevant bonuses and advantages. I don't want to judge the "civilization switching" mechanic too quickly. After all, it really just depends on how it's implemented in gameplay. But it just seems like a near-missed opportunity in my view. EDIT: After some discussion and thought. This has some practical and technical flaws, but I do think it’s flexible. Obviously, many Civs are difficult to represent in certain ages (America in Antiquity and Aztec in Modern, for example) Others have pointed out this is a huge logistical ask - three unique leaders for each civ. That’s also true. However, I think at the very least we could remain with the same leader, but see their bonuses and advantages change and adapt for each Age. I would like to keep this thread below active just for discussion around these ideas. Obviously what we have is what we are getting, and I think it could be great if the execution is right. However, as fans of the series we are right to be worried, but there is nothing wrong with being cautiously optimistic.
@@ethanwms yah it’s kinda non sensical. My guess was that if you constantly changed leaders then you would need a greater amount of leaders in the game. Which would mean a greater amount of leaders fully animated, creating a bottleneck for content. More civilizations on the other hand would just mean slightly different assets which could be reused for civs that share culture groups. So it probably was purely production related.
I agree. My guess is that finding 3 leaders (or n for the number of ages) for each civilization was prohibitive, especially with the diverse set of civs they are incorporating.
I think the way they have it feels more realistic. The leader doesn't really represent an individual, but more like a sort of guiding spirit of the civilizations in question. Civilizations come and go over thousands of years, but you can still draw a line between ancient Athenian philosophers and the British Parliament, and I think that's what they're trying to represent here.
To be fair, some examples in history fit better with civ switches than just choosing a new leader, looking at for example the Roman empire -> Byzantine empire -> Ottoman empire. Or the Germanic tribes -> Holy roman empire -> modern Germany.
Imho changing national culture was the worst part of Humankind, kinda sad they brought it over. To me it destroyed all sense of identity in playing. If I play as Egypt I want to take it to the modern era, not become something else completely. Conversely, if I play Canada, I want to start in antiquity, not evolve from other cultures.
@@Vytral do what Civ 2 did, rebel cities break away into Cultures that spawn from yours, AKA Roman City Rebels into Italy, or Byzatium. and be given a option to play as them IF you want..
@@Vytral you could deside to stay in that very culture if you wanted to though (in Humankind). What bothers me here is that you most likely will not be able to do that
to be fair, humankind took many ideas from the Civ series, so it's only fair that civ takes some good ideas from them at some point. In my opinion, Humankind suffers hugely from the was land is divided in region, it makes the game either incredibly sclerotic or a genocide simulator in which you end up murdering entire civilizations just because you wanted three tiles of their land. and the balancing was also kind of whacked, but Civ are not always much better.
Indeed, but that's what made me feel disappointed. I was thinking that the game mechanics Humankind came up with is great, but was hoping CIV VII would be different. Basically I was looking forward to something now, not a humankind copy.
Imagine the charisma of the guy that convinced millions of people that abandoning the largest city in the world for yurts and fermented horse milk was progress.
The Greeks in Central Asia were replaced entirely by nomads so not that unrealistic. Certainly more realistic than teddy roosevelt leading America from the stone agw
@@Bobelponge123right but you realise that you stay the same leader for the whole game right? So actually if Teddy is in the game, he will be alive for 6000 years The difference is that in this game Teddy will be the leader of 3 random civilizations completely unconnected to the USA and the only way you will be able to lead the USA as a USA leader would be to start a custome game starting in the modern era and only play 1/3 of the game Why is a leader being inmortal but civilizations dying every era realistic to you? You do realise that real life works exactly the opposite way, right? There are civilizations around today that have lasted for thousands of years but 0 people who have lasted that long. Civ was always unrealistic but this system makes 7 the least realistic of the entire series Which is funny because the intention of this stupid mechanic was to increase realism bit all it does is lower realism and remove a fundamental aspect of the series' identity
"A civilization that stands the test of time" has been their tagline for decades and now theres a mainline entry where it is impossible to do this It makes me wonder if anyone on the dev team has ever played a civ game 😂
@@Madeen1982Anachronism is the backbone of Civilization. Seeing a modern Civ having a different origin story in the past and being able to bring them home to the present with the same values or a radically different outlook, guiding an extinct empire through through their known demise into glory in current times and getting to witness leaders and societies that never met coexisting and interacting IS the draw of the game. It's easy to think thay just got thisbou of Humankind, but I think they are just falling prey to the representation fallacy of our current times. This is antithetical to the spirit of Civ. I see how awesome this new system can be and how many great strategic interactions it can bring, but this should DEFINETELY be a Mode, not the standard system. I fear I won't like Civ VII wich would be a catastrophe for me.
Also i don't understan how would i recognize who my rival / neighbouring civs are if they change country midway. Like i'll remember that i'm fighting mongolia then suddenly everyone switches to the nordics and now i'm confused whether this swede swordsman coming my way was my enemy or friend.
unless they hybridize. i mean, you can always stay the same civ too (i think i heard them say that), the only issue then would be progressing the civs' cultures beyond their "designated" era. 11:31 timestamp
I never liked all the religion and climate change mechanics for the previous civ for a long time, they eventually grew on me. I think this will do. Each civ needs to be different imo.
I think it would be better if each civ had a pool of leaders who each have unique buffs and are unique to an age, and at the beginning of each age you choose to swap out your leader to better suit new demands. Basically just a simplification of the government system
I agree I think firaxis should of not did civilization change but leader change like crusader kings example like a leader of the error like Washington for America than reach industrial age you become lincoln but stay as America
@Infernal_Elf agreed plus makes more sense play as egypt than turn around and play a European power makes no sense I like humankind but the changing of civilization regions made no sense like playing as Zhou china Than go half way across the world to play aztecs made nos sense to me its like fusing cultures asian culture mixed with mesoamerican wish it's was leaders that suited the era if I really want to play as rome now I have to have the mindset of choosing a different civ in a later era
@ehtlamzone2525 that's true but just not a big fan of culture and civilization change don't get me wrong I like humankind just not the civilization change
@@liquidmodernitytasteslikeu2855On a side note how’d you achieve your skills as an oracle? I’d love to be able to know everything about a game based on a 20 minute showcase
Yeahhh, they went too close to Humankind with that. Its faction change mechanic was always its weakest part. Completely destroyed faction identity. Ah well, another game that's a skip for me. :/
Where are the barbarian hordes when the developers are playing? For me it would have been "Egypt settles by the sand and water. A category 5 hurricane destroys the small settlement and the Egyptian people are no more.
Have we ever taken the time to think that maybe the reason why it seems like they copied humankind is cause the idea of having you change civilizations in a game about living throughout world history, something that happens in actual history, is just the logical step to take for your game series that's always been about simulating your own historical journey as an empire?
Humankind was created based on many ideas that had been around thanks to civilization. Look at the districts! So, it's just fair that they could copy a new idea from Humankind and make a few changes to it.
the backdrops were my biggest dissappointment about Civ 6, and now it's somehow gotten even worse than those greenscreen black background chambers they shoved the characters into. Civ used to be about immersing yourself into a fun alternative timeline with set leaders and civilisations, and now I guess we can't even get "set civilisations" anymore, immersion isn't even in the back seat or luggage, it was left at home. :(
I cannot personally accept the fact that I cannot keep the Civilization for the entirety of the game. If I play the Roman Empire I want to play the Roman Empire for the entirety of the game. If people wants to change Civilization that is great but I want the same freedom of choice as well and keep the Civilization I love and keep playing with it. I say this in the most respectful way but if this won't change I don't know I will play this Civ and would be the first time ever after playing all of them.
The problem will be not just this. AI civs will do the same. So after a few turns when you as Roman Empire and Attila the Hun in a great war... you just checked the progress of war and realized, you just not at war with the Huns, you are war with Poland Kingdom and Huns allies the Gepids is nowhere. Some Soviet union is on their side. Few turns later USA joined the war, who was the egyptians or the summerians? And thats point you quit the game and uninstall. I did it with HK.
I personally couldn't accept the fact I had to manually build districts and operate workers manually in Civ 6, so I didn't play any of that game. You can wait a decade like I did for a new civ game with non-shit mechanics
Funny because until years after civ 5 came out i didn't even know you could set workers to to improvement automatically... it's weird how some people find trivial things so annoying... maybe you need to grow up a little @@jay4997
@@FOXHOUND1871 it blows in humankind. going from china to freaking france or something ridiculous. firaxis is literally out of ideas if they are literally cloning a failed clone of their own franchise that nobody plays or likes
I’m leaving this comment because I really love this franchise and don’t want to lose it. I want to play my civ throughout the entire journey; I want to represent my country from the very start all the way to infinity and beyond. I never played mankind because it made no sense swapping identity all of a sudden. I don’t want to be a Egypt-Mongolian-British country.
Exactly! It makes absolutely no sense! Maybe if there was a way to make it where like African civs can only turn into other African civs and so forth that would at least make some sense but like you said, Egypt->Mongols->Britain is completely asinine
They said several times in the video that you can still do that. And there were plenty of options of the civ evolving into a more modern version of that same civ. Japan can be more than just samurai now. Norway more than just vikings. And Rome more than just hoplites lmao.
@@winterxiii My problem is exactly with the "you can still do that" approach. Each civ provides different bonuses, and it always feels awful when I have to choose between being immersive in my choices and choosing the best strategic option. What I mean is, if I start as Egypt and in the next era Mongols are completely overpowered, I will just feel bad by both choosing an extension of Egypt because it's weaker and choosing Mongols because it's not Egypt-related. I should not be given this kind of choice in the first place.
Interesting that they've completely lifted the whole era progression system from Humankind; i.e. selecting a different civ at the start of each era to represent your empire. I was kinda hoping Civ 7 would have innovation rather than copy-pasting a rival studio's gameplay mechanics
@@RAZGR1Z Seems like a work in progress to me, if this is what they're going for however, I can see this making the gameplay flow better with the screen popping up during gameplay rather than just being something you need to load up separately. Could be a good thing.
Yeah theyre removing the series' identity to compete with other games wjthout realising that people play Civ due to the aspects that are unique to Civ. There is basically no reason to play 7, I'll just play 6 or one of the dozen games that is pretending to be civ. They at keast understand what their games are supposed to be about whereas civ7 appears to be designed by people who have never played civ
Yes, I was hoping for that too :/ I don't like the art style, too big units and buildings. Cartoon instead of realism, I can tell I'm gonna have the mod the shizzles out of it.
@@boblionialmao bro y’all are always moaning and whining I swear to god. People were saying the same exact thing when Civ 6 came out You should try stop being miserable all the time, life is good ❤
@Aimone dont box me in with those idiots, I was massively part of the civ 4, 5 and 6 hype trains (I'm even one of the only people on the planet who lived Beyond Earth on release) and while I was doubting some of the changes, I was never this hard against any of them. This is the first time in 20 years a civ game has changed a game mechanic that completely breaks the entire concept of the series, so I dont know why you're comparing this to 6 when these arent even in the same league 🙄 Big difference is civ6 didnt change any of the series core identity, it just fiddled with a lot of little aspects and people hated districts for some reason The era mechanic of 7 changes the game from 1 cohesive civ flow into 3 individual games at the end of each all of your people have to magically change their entire culture It heavily damages the game for both gameplay and narrative and it does it in a way that literally goes against exactly what the series is *named* after. I agree a lot of the stuff theyre changing looks fantastic, but the era and civ swapping changes the game fundamentally to the point where it isnt a civ game any more 🤷♂️
if what they presented is a permanent thing like humankind... then yes, I look forward to CIV VIII reveal as well. Going to be the FIRST time ever that I will skip buying a Civilization game since I started waaay back in CIV II😂
Firaxis Devs: “Civs change into something historically related” *showcases Egypt becoming Mongolia* “We are teaching history” *requirement for Egyptian people to become Mongolian = 3 horses* Kid in 7th grade History to his teacher “I’m Mongolian cause I saw three horses on my way to school today”
Yeah should be possible to turn off for a full game. or have u only turn into to civs that took over the area later. Egypt could become Rome and Abbasid dynasty but not Songhai or the bloody Mongols.
Mongolia attempted to invade the Mamlūks of Egypt in 1260. So while not culturally or geographically related, the civs are at least tied together historically in some context. To me Mongolia conquering and taking over Egypt is kind of an alternative timeline civ-esq possibility that you could explore and play out in this game. That's at least how I am viewing this gameplay mechanic. Its a big change for sure, but will no doubt be interesting to try out reimaging the historical evolution of different empires in civ 7.
I just want Civ 5 remastered at this point. The reason I played Civilization games over the years is to de-stress and relax, Civ 6 introduced so much extra to manage that it became not enjoyably to me. Civ 7 looks like it goes even further into micromanaging to the point its nearly an RTS game.
I think it would have been more interesting to try to connect each Civ to each era than adopt the Humankind approach. It’s fun, but I think the impact of choosing one culture in Civ is a crucial part of why fans love Civ.
@rotomfan63 dont be so dramatic, im sure there will be tons of options to adjust and tweak how you play. I 100% guarantee youll be able to just play one leader your entire game.
I think if they went with something in between that would have been more realistic. Variations or smaller changes such as adapting specific aspects of new civs so that it's more of an incremental build on past ones rather than huge dramatic culture changes. Maybe it is like that sort of but we'll have to see how it plays out.
Ah yes, because a single mechanic that is similar to the mechanic of another game means it's exactly like that game. Nevermind everything else that is exactly like previous civ games
Civilization 7 should have been designed so that civilizations remain fixed while leaders are chosen according to the era, rather than having fixed leaders and choosing civilizations based on the era.
@@xenxx1192 I am sure with enough history knowledge you can pick 3 leaders in history for each civilisation. For the Americas you can have a Native American leader for the Antiquity Era then Christopher Columbus or Ben Franklin for Exploration era followed by Teddy for the Modern era. True the antiquity leader is not easy or necessarily well known outside of Africa, Asia and Europe but it would have more strongly lent itself to the theme of developing civilisations. You can then have a "realistic leaders" setting that you can turn on which limits your leader choices in each era to a small handful based on your civ or turn it off and just create your own made up history.
Civ 6 KINDA made a fair compromise for a couple of Civs. Like Greece, you can choose either Athens famous leader, or Spartas. I...WANT to say France did the same. Hey, Im all for oeader variety. Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy, Ill take ALL the US Presidents for the America civ.
@TheJamsplat Christopher Columbus as an American leader? He was Italian by birth, worked for the Spanish and it's best known for "discovering" the south and central america...
if they do it anything like humankind u can pick to change to a different civ that existed throughout that era of the game but if u want you can pick the same civ and get continued improvements to them
There are some good examples from real history: The American civilization has not existed for that long but it can be said to be one descendant from the British/English civilization, which in itself is mainly a descendant from the Germanic civilization. IRL it is a bit more complicated of course. You could say England happened when the Norman civ conquered the Anglo-Saxon civ. America happened when the English civ settled in a new far-away region. Maybe the triggers for these events should be more varied than fixed era changes - but maybe that's an acceptable (possibly necessary) simplification. And of course in history in some cases the original civ survived (England) and sometimes it disappeared (Anglo-Saxon). Hopefully they will allow us to choose to continue as the original civ (although it didn't sound like it here).
@@michalcynarski7321yep and thanks to civ swapping you can likely turn into one of those more accurate civs for rome. Like allow you to turn into renaissance rome for age of exploration, etc. No one is forcing you to turn into china buddy, choose to be historically accurate if you so want (they mention this in the video if you actually cared to watch). As for the skin color comment, nobody else was talking about race here buddy, just you. If you want to make sure all of your civs are white…you can still do that i guess, kinda weird to think like that though tbh
@rocketGimbal sorry I think you misunderstood what I was saying, it's the context of absurdity, unlike your racism little exposition there. Kind of like the context of that assassin creed game in Japan. Also what if I want to beat up the British empire or fight Russia in the frozen waste? Guess not there Aztec and Japan now.
Let's not just look at the negative points You can sail on rivers There are natural disasters Cities expand I think it will be a good game I thought the price was a bit bad, in my country's currency it was equivalent to 349 . And most people here earn a salary of 1,500
Hybryda Civki, Humankind, ale rownież widze po niektorych rozwiązaniach że i Millenni. Widać, ze firaxis boi sie poeksperymentować z mechanikami (6ka na początku wyglądała jak dodatek do 5ki a nie nowa część, kilka nowych mechanik i tyle), inspiruje sie mniejszymi twórcami i ich rozwiazaniami. Podaje je w nieco prostszej formie, żeby gra trafila do szerszego grona graczy. Niema w tym nic zlego, inaczej albo by nie bylo nowej czesci, albo byla by to znowu kopia poprzedniej części z jedna nowa mechanika na start tak jak pomiedzy 5ka a 6ka. Widac natomiast od razu ,ze gra ma sporo wiekszy budżet niz konkurencja. Jakby jakieś duże studio chciało zrobić kolejny klon civki ,to firaxis miałby spory problem coś mi sie zdaje.
I just dont know. Being one civilization is one of the big reasons I fell in love with civilization. I get that they want to try something new but its an idea i didnt like in humankind. That continuity is important to me and i feel like i would have been more ok with changing leaders. I care less about my leader then the core of my civilizations identity. I get this wont change now but i wish they had focused more on refining the districts which was already a huge change. I hope it works out but I fear civ is straying to far from what i loved for me. Not that what i think matters. Being the roman empire uo to the space age was great... Im not angry, just disappointed since i loved a lot of what i saw but this one thing kinda ruins the whole concept for me personally.
I think there is an option to stay as the same civ as well ( I guess) We will need more info on how they wanna make this competitive and fun rather than try to innovate for the sake of innovation !!
@@Sivzram yeah it was possible to stay as the same civ in humankind (though usually not a good idea). I'm hoping they also have that feature in civ 7 for people who want to remain the same. but unfortunate if you want to be a civ from a later era the whole time
I really hope a classic mode is available in this.. I really like playing as a single Civ and advance them through history. I don’t need Civ to be like humankind.
Once a child I saw my father played civ V, now I’m playing civ VI. Then I discovered a civ II cd when I was moving stuff from my home. *Then I realised how old this game really is*
@@googoofeesmithersmits4536 And yet the AI is still somehow better than VI. Every iteration of Civilization had a worse AI. I regret preordering VI. the the first 10 games, I had an AI get conquered by barbarians on turn 3 and another on turn 16. Part of what makes strategy games great is the challenging well-programed AI brings to the experience. We're in the "Age of Artificial Intelligence" now, so no excuse to not train AI to play the game and be the opponents.
I don’t play Civilization for its historical immersion, changing civs like humankind just doesn’t appeal to me. That’s humankind’s thing civs is to see how far you can take that Civilization. I fear this takes out the character of Civ that I and many people have grown to love.
Kind of contradicts the games tag line too.... build a Civilization to stand the test of time, apparently in this new CIV VII you can't and will be forced to switch to another CIV at the cusp of a new era. 🤨
I feel like changing leaders is also bad, as many of us personalize rival civs. "Shaka has been a thorn in my side the whole game" will no longer make sense. Taking revenge on a civ and a leader won't feel as satisfying because that rival will eventually be replaced with someone you don't have a connection with. The personal storyline of each playthrough might be severely impacted by these changes.
This is EXACTLY why I couldn't connect with Humankind. I couldn't remember who I was holding grudges with because everybody kept changing all the time it wasn't a fun experience. They should have borrowed elevation changes from Humankind and left behind civilization changes which sucked.
They did mention that settlements can eventually turn into cities. So maybe you can send out settlers and gobble up land, but you have to wait until the next era for them to graduate to cities.
I think instead of choosing different civs per era, they should’ve taken a page from civilization revolution and give all civs specific era bonuses instead.
but thats how all civs have been for the most part, civ 6 was well balanced but it was still pretty easy to tell when a civs high point was in terms of bonuses.
@@stonedmason614 that’s fine though. I’m fine with each civ having an age where they are at their highest. Makes strategic decisions matter more and adds depth. Now it’s just generic
@@stonedmason614 no. if civs still have perks that lean towards eras you will just start with one civ every time since they have the best starting perks then swap to the best for the next age and so on. so picking a civ and having to strategize between long play or trying to blitz the map depending when the civ is the strongest doesn't matter. reducing strategic depth and reducing the character of the civs.
I think we should not be forced to switch civilizations upon entering a new era. If I want to play as i.e. Egypt, I want to play them from start to finish. Adding different versions of the same civ (one for each era) with different bonuses would have been a lot more elegant imho (and I actually mean added, not replacing the system they are going for). Well, let's hope that modding is going to be easy. This game will probably only reveal its full potential once the mods and DLCs start coming in, just like it happened for CIV 6. Edit: Also, I want to mention something. If this game was made with, let's say, a maximum of 12 players in mind, then that would mean that there would have to be 12 civs for each era, or 36 civs in total at the very least. Just thought it would be worth mentioning since I haven't seen anyone talk about that.
They stated you can continue to play your civ true to history if you want, which I have a feeling means you can stay as the same Civ throughout the game, or at least until it doesn't exist anymore, it just maybe called something else
@@TheAserghuiAnd? Humankind borrowed a lot from civ, it makes sense they’d borrow aspects from each other since they’re trying to emulate the same thing
@@aexetan2769this sets it up for an even greater marathon though, no? Has the potential to make the marathons even more immersive, which is a great thing imo, the immersion is my favorite part. Each age seems to be fleshed out like a game in its own, this would allow your precious marathons to be three times longer without getting stale.
I dont like it either. I want my civ to build and grow throughout the ages - overcome the hard times and flourish in the good times... I don't want my civ to switch to a completely different one. It's not even the same game at that point
My grandma always told me: i dont care what they teach you in school, cleopatra was mongolian...and then north american...and then japanese...and then nobody knows becuase this is a mess...
Yep my grandma told me how the old civ games were much better for immersion and learning. Like how the assyrians had tanks and nukes and had a space race against ancient egypt and rome.
@@rocketGimbal I think they're trying to fix that problem that's existed since Civ 1 (Stone Age United States!), however without experiencing the gameplay I'm worried they might have overcorrected. Egypt turning into Mongolia makes no sense. It would have made more sense to start as the Celts, in a new age you can choose to become the Gauls, Britons, or stay as Celtic. The age after that the Gauls become the French, Swiss, or Dutch, the Britons could become English, Scottish or the United Kingdom, and the Celts could become Ireland, etc. In each age you get a new leader from whatever civ you're leading. It would be harder to implement that system for certain civs, but no system will be perfect. Either way it would solve the problem while improving historial immersion if it's implemented correctly.
@@ducttape82 this is what I eventually hope it could come down to. If not, it would be better to change leaders than to change civilizations between ages.
@@leo1fun I’m fine if there’s an option that locks you and opponents into a historically accurate progression and a game mode where you can switch wildly between civs. I just want to make sure that historically accurate progression is there. Then I’m really looking forward to the game.
It’s supposed to be a new game. Gamers are a weird bunch. They want something new and game changing (pun intended), but still feel completely familiar to past iterations. People hate on sports games for just rehashing the same mechanics as the last year but with a new coat of paint. Then Firaxis does something very different for their new iteration and gamers are here angry that it “doesn’t feel like the last iterations”. Well then play those iterations.
I wouldn’t mind a game mode like this, but the base game mode should always be about ONE CIV “standing the test of time”… I think introducing different leaders for each era or simply having new eras unlock more abilities of the civ would have been a better direction.
I agree, but even then it should be an option that the player unlocks. If I want to play as an Iroquois chief and see how far he can go as such, without morphing into Teddy R., et al., that's my prerogative.
@@aa9945 There's a big difference from going from Gaul to France or Prussia to Germany than this retarded idea of Egypt to Songhai as they have in the video. One is historical, a continuation of your civ and makes sense. The other is stupid.
@@aa9945if they went based strictly on historical ties it would be one thing but sounds like you can go from Egyptian to Mongolian which has no historical context
Did I understand you correct, you take feature with eras from Humankind? "... istead of playing as one single civilization across every age, you'll evolve your empire into a new civilization for each new age." Just like in Humankind
Or Millennia. Or Ara. It's nice for the Civ dev to realize that they've been left behind, even if they refuse to publicly acknowledge that and pretend they invented the wheel.
@@Alblaka ya, if it a hit, you call it a strategic evolution of game play, if its not, its call betraying your fanbase, depend on how many remain in civ franchise because they dont like changing your civ like changing cloth during rainy days.
@@Alblaka You make it sound like that somehow makes those games superior, it does not, it just made them different. Personally I hated it, I hated how disjointed it felt to go from, say Carthage, to the Vikings, civilizations that had no, historic, geographic or cultural link ever, it was horrible and I was hoping not to see that in Civ. I wanted them to continue improving on their own formula, not copy an experiment from another competitor.
did you hear the news? every single FPS game in the world is a rip-off of Halo! Ghost of Tsushima is a ripoff of the AC games, which are ripoffs of the Elder Scrolls games! etc etc
I doubt it, pretty much every 2k game has unlocks tied to the 2k account including civ 6. People havent really complained about it before, why would they review bomb based on this? The review bomb is going to happen because they removed all the aspects of the game that makes it a Civ game, not because you're missing out on 1 leader without linking an account 😂
Land Cliffs, finally. tactical advantages, and the "scale cliff walls" unit upgrade isn't just for amphibious purposes anymore, I've been waiting for this since Cvi 5. rivers are in the middle of tiles, instead of on the edges, and looks like navigatable rivers.
I Just Hope they fix their AI for Higher difficulties. I am already tired of fighting uphill Battles from civ 6 and These cliffs Look Like a Nightmare. Maneuvering your Army through choke Points is awfull enough, without cheating AI getting even more buffs.
Yes these are the best changes. I've been hoping for river units since civ2. Maybe there will be PT Boats? Its a shame about the changing civs thing midgame as that is not the fantasy for me when I play. I want to take the Romans to the Stars.
My initial hesitations about change are completely overshadowed by all the good faith your games have built up in me through the years - so bring on the new age!
I think what should have been done with the ages is that maybe instead of changing Egypt into Mongolia because you have horses, say, just give them a perk that makes it a cavalry-focused civ. That way Egypt can turn into whatever playstyle you want, and instead of feeling like you're ruining historical accuracy for the sake of the gameplay, you're creating an alternate history according to your playstyle
I agree. I think it would be better if you keep the same Civ, but get a new ideology each era. For example, in the modern era Egypt could be capitalist, socialist, or fascist. Or more. So you'd be the Liberal Republic, Peoples Republic, or Nationalist Empire of Egypt. In the middle ages, maybe you'd have exploration, isolationism, warlordism, religious, etc. So then you might have a Merchant Republic, Dynasty, or Holy Monarchy of Egypt.
Or take advantage of there being multiple leaders throughout all the ages. No one person can cover hundreds of years. So when it's time to change Era, you should get a list of irl leaders from that civilization in that time to choose from. Since many civilization aren't even around anymore there would still be overlap at some points. Like, if you start native American you're eventually gonna have British/French/Spanish rulers at some point. Which will themselves give way to American/Canadian/Mexican rulers. Even a bit of Russian if your civilization was Alaskan.
@@ethans.1905 If you think about it, Civilization has always been a bit about, "what if...?". So, what if an ancient civilization hadn't been destroyed or defeated? What if the Jewish people hadn't been forced to move from place to place, being enslaved and then found freedom, what might have happened if they had fully dominated instead? The same for many ancient civilizations that had fallen for various reasons, how things played out would have been very different.
I reckon it sounds awesome. Reminds me a bit of the boardgame Smallworld. It'll be interesting to watch how your "Civ" evolves. I'm interested to see how it'll work in practice though.
Please don't do this. Humankind was a fun idea but not a fun game long term. I sunk thousands of happy hours into Civ 5 & 6 and I have close to no desire to play Civ 7 after seeing this showcase. Please rethink this approach before launch.
Love Civ. After 8,754 hours of gameplay I completed most (some!) of the options on Civ 5. My boyfriend asked me 'What was the point of that?' and I told him it was kinda like life. He had to agree. The journey is the point, not the destination.
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
We're so excited to finally share #Civ7 with you! What did you enjoy most from the Gameplay Showcase?
never pre order any game
Are you going to take down all the previous Civ Games on Steam now because we don't like your newest adaptation?
navigable rivers cooked
Watching youtube chat crap all over the humankind civ switching mechanic
La música de fondo me encanta
My favourite part is when Sid Meier says "It's Civilization time" and civilizated everyone
Bravo Sid!
My favorite part is when the game is called Civilization but you are forced to play as multiple Civs.
To make the game more realistic----
You need an endless supply of boats dropping off "refugees" ..... and when the local population gets upset about an increase in rape and murder......... the Natives get labelled "racist" and arrested for thought crimes
Thats whats REALLY going on in western civilizations right now (UK especially)
This comment has been checked by real civheads and is 100% civilicertified.
is Sid the British?
What I love the most in civilization is that you start to play at 6pm and after 20 minutes playing it's already 5 am, almost like interstellar when they reach near to the dark hole
@@kosalino only game where me and my friends sit down for 4 hours for a 'quick sesh'
That is certainly true for Civ 4. I just recently put coffee to drip and thought that I start a game while it is dripping. 310 turns later "I wonder if that coffee is ready".
The other day I legitimately played from midnight to 5pm... it helps that I have no life😅.
8,000 hours of gameplay later
😂
IVE NEVER BEEN MORE EXCITED FOR A RIVER
@@seanbrady2232 LETS GOOOOOO
YES, been wanting real rivers since 2002
Inland Ship of the Line, LETS FUCKING GO!
BIG RIVER!!!
@@Agent_Chieftain aircraft carriers running thru danube yeah!
DEVS: "i think players will love how combat looks"
Players: *Settings, Quick combat*
Blasphemy
Ain't nobody got time for that
Imagine playing with quick combat
ahahahahaha fuck me these hand me rolling after 3400 hrs of playing it gets annoying
Here combat looks like it will be set still, so if you engage a melee unit its engaged for that turn. I actually kind of like that change as making decisions in combat per tern will be more important
Ned Stark and Brenne of Tarth has narrated a Civilization game
Civ8 Matt Smith?
@@villain5365 i'd love that, his voice is amazing
Hodor next
@@villain5365 Charles Dance could be a fun one too.
@@KodyCQYepi would love Charles Dance as Narrator for Civ VIII
Cant wait to play as Musa the great leader of japan who becomes Sweden
"we wanted to focus on immersion" 😂
Stolen comment
@@Banazir-uz9zt That's still if you want to, you can change to a completely different civ based on your needs as they said.
@@Banazir-uz9zt from Egypt to Mongolia, its in the video, cultural ties, sure...
Let that sink in...
@@Banazir-uz9zt Iam African so chill, let's hope they go that way even if it's wired having Japan becoming China.
"Take one more turn" it's always one more turn and suddenly it's hours later
Correction it’s just one more turn! Oh another turn and it’s 2-3 days later lol I’ve had this happen a few times
“One more turn” is meant strictly for nuking. You didn’t research those projects for no reason, damnit!
"Just one more turn" always takes me to 2am on a weekday when all I wanted was just a little Civ to relax before going to sleep (and I didn't relax cause I started next to f***ing Gengis Khan)
@@thadsulhey could’ve been worse, could’ve been Gandhi and you woulda have to stay up till 7
not with this shit.
I can't thank my former computer teacher (Mr. Flanagan) in the 90s enough. Civ 1 was just a game that all students could play on the server. I thought I'll give it a try and those first 10 turns extended to 30 years of Civilization. Each installment holds something dear to me. Thank you for making continuing this franchise.
@@them3atstick753 Civ III was my favorite... you could raz or flip cities... so many unit options and the endlessness of gameplay you could control to see your civilization through the future ... not like newer ones since... where.. time limit, or "win" without being able to continue building what you wanted to see... just.. CivIII was awesome
And to add to my love of CivIII... that endless gameplay, allowed me to figure out how to build towards a certain goal while learning about why in acctual civilizations, certain technologies that seem contradictory, were acctually complementary if pushed to work in a certain way... I learned a lot... I had more fun... and could never be bored... never ended..... I always had one save that was endless play... and always had another that was pushing for a specific goal /win
Forget about Civ 7. ARA History Untold is way way better than any Civ.
@@tongobong1 lol A civ clone, not saying its bad, but Civ did it first pretty much
And that's not even out yet, so how is it better?
I feel like it'd make more sense for immersion to have leaders change every age instead of your civ changing every age
Or why not both. Anyone who wants could retain one or both of them. Just as anyone who wants can still play an historically accurate civ through all three ages.
The problem is - not all civilization have leaders for every history age. Most of them havent. And the developers decide not to deeply work few of them, but, to "represent" dozens of almost-nobodycare cultures
Gotta wait for that mod then!
It's very clear they are just copying Humankind with this. Humankind did 1 leader multi civ so Civ VII is too
They’ll have that feature in the 2nd DLC that will cost 40$ 😂
When the narrator rhetorically asked who should best narrates Civ 7, I was hoping the answer would be Philomena Cunk
Honestly yes. Someone who only vaguely understands what history is would actually be the most on-brand choice.
"Wot is Civs?"
"You've invented Masonry. I don't think you'll like Mason though, he's a proper twat. Don't say I didn't warn you."
mod incoming
Definitely agree
This is huge news. Before we could only play with six civilizations, but now we can play with SEVEN civilizations. Absolutely game changing. Bravo sid.
he did it again
Only 5 in multi though.
Fair point, but they did innovate the gameplay and graphics massively. We should give them some probs for that :)
big step up
Humankind rip off, and no new idas
Things I love:
- There are now terrain height differences.
- Water has depth.
- Now buildings like the Granary are districts so you can have more control over the city building aspect of the game.
- If we can move the camera around like the preview would be amazing, since taking pride in what you've built is an important part of the game for me.
Things I hope I can skip:
- Changing CIVs in the middle of the game is cute, but I love to build strategies to take any civilization I pick to success. I don't feel attracted to the idea of abandoning a civilization in favor of another because it suits better an era.
For me, it is so, so, so important the civilization building aspect of the game, creating, crafting, growing, making your civilization beautiful and powerful. I love the updated design, terrain, and all of that, but please don't force me to change my civilization to another one in the middle of the game. I hope I can just use the same from start to finish.
Amazing work nonetheless! I'm very excited for CIV VII
@@itsban I think you have a good balance of positive and negative feedback for this. A lot of people seem to be trashing it because of the Civ-swapping, but surely it has improvements as well? Anyway, thanks for trying to include both sides of the discussion :)
Yeah, I hope it will be a mode only. So much for "stand the test of time" if it will be mandatory.
@@itsban so if you look really close at the screen where you have to “pick a new civ” they are labeled as a new country but there is the option “play as Egypt” in there which was the starting civ, I think they already thought about this complaint and never planned for your worries to be the reality. I would say give them a little more credit than “and we’re going to take the bonuses you chose to go away” when they said that you would be building on your legacy. Being able to continue as Egypt means you’ll get to keep the country bonuses you wanted but you have the CHOICE to pick a different civ if things circumstances have presented a different civ option as more beneficial.
@@drewchristner3750 beautiful! Yeah, since it is optional I have no concerns. They should’ve said that! Everyone would have been less confused/worried.
@@itsban I don’t think it will be as jarring as it seems. Human Kind already did it quite effectively and it seems like this is a better version of it.
"Can your Civilization stand the test of time??"
Firaxis: Nah, it needs to change to Mongolia since u got 3 horses :P
Accurate Mongolia representation???
Throat singing Egyptians
"For the first time in Civ history, at the start of each new age you pick a new civilisation. To show you what we mean, here is some footage from the poorly received Civ-clone Humankind."
Something is going badly wrong when you're getting inspired by your own derivative knock-offs.
@@Snuffsaid2007 The way to do this better would be tying technological development behind special issues that certain people are facing. Say, you would develop first what you need to cultivate your land around you and best utilise the refined products - but if you'd like to develop mining as a flood plains culture, you would need at least trade routes with a culture that has need of developing mining and to make it faster you could invite their community as a minority that could provide benefits and issues that come with multiculturalism.
Even nomadic people or those who have already lost their nation could be represented. Say if a nation would fall, they could become great bankers and help you develop with currency et cetera.
It's a historical precedent. It's common knowledge that England magically warped and became Vietnam in 1300 AD.
I didn't realize the big man himself was still actually working on the franchise. That's incredibly cool!
"Working on" might be a bit of a stretch. Dude is 70 years old, and sits on the board. It's doubtful he's doing much with the day-to-day game development... and is far more likely just being used a set-piece for PR...
No hej did not work on it
@@TitanMethos Not true at all. He isn't coding these days but he is very much involved in game design and architecture decisions. It's actually been that way since Civ II.
@TitanMethos I actually worked on this reveal and talked to some of the Fraxis guys. They all seem to love him and say he's in the office every day working. Dude just loves making games
@@4Deadserious I refer you to the words: "A set piece of PR." Because that because PR is just an important within a company...
I've seen that mentality take hold in an office environment. Where one big socialite is the rally-man for the office, because he promoted a positive workplace... And that's all that guy will do.
Sid Meier, is the perfect guy in his age to fill that role.
Im just now realizing I've never seen Sid Meier's face.
Sid Meier's
Face
If you bought a civilization game chances are you HAVE. Just didn’t know it was HIM.
@@leonidsosnovsky815im dead 😭
He popped up as an animated assistant in an earlier edition of the game (not sure which one), so I actually recognized him right off lol.
@@morrislary4576 civ 3, the science advisor.
what I’m hearing is Ghandi will no longer have the tech to nuke.
We are saved!
😂
😂😂
😂😂😂
To me it sounds like he will be more likely than ever to have nuclear tech; Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi died in 1948, five months *after* the end of the Manhattan project. He was absolutely alive to see the power of the atom unleashed.
The real Gandhi even said of nuclear weapons that "If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."
So if there ever was a time when Nuclear Gandhi could be real in Civ, it will be in Civ7
Do you and everyone who liked really know that little about history? Especially in the Civ demographic? lmao Ghandi is modern and would perfectly fit as a leader in the modern age when nukes are available.
"Stay Civilised" as the live chat is a mess of Ls and Ws
kids, that's all it is
@yoannme1181 honestly
What does it mean? This L and W? Im old.
STAY WOKE
@@Maciej.SolczynskiLoss and Win
Navigable river was a big meme for a long time. Guess it came true
and it was in no way worth it. an old cherry on top of SHIT sundae with music sprinkles and a dash of graphical pistachio dust
@@Boombox69in It is so needed Imo. playing a landlocked civ that had a river that stretched to the ocean but couldn't be used for anything other then a source of fresh water needed the improvement. I also have gripes with some of the decisions but there were good ideas as well, it seems like there is a varying elevations for tiles like Endless Legend has.
@@aaronbrandon2321 alot of new ideas that is worthy, and than take away the essence of the series, which is to lead your chosen civilisation rise from stone age into future.
could have just remain the same civilisation but let you choose new leaders (even 1 that is foreign, like persian kings rule over babylon), what a great decisio, LOL
@@aaronbrandon2321 I saw the stacked armies and I was like "NO NOT ENDLESS LGENDS COMBAT" LMAO thankfully it doesn't seem that way whoooo
@@jacobs3597 endless legends combat is the worst of the worst.
150 hours on endless legends and it makes the game go from a 8/10 to a 5/10. War is unplayeble
Build a civilization that will stand the test of time by switching to other civilizations at specific times.
Disney guide to self destruction. Did you see the employees? Testosterone is illegal at Frixas😂😂
@@RaysNewLife lmao 🤣
@@RaysNewLifeyou are incredibly pathetic and will never be relevant.
SAME REAL FANS are worried about this game, they lying.
There was some other turn based strategy game that tried this and it didn't play very well.
At 93 years old, I guess I can say goodbye to my dream to see JAMES EARL JONES as the narrator.
Edit: RIP JEJ, father figure to us all! Either as Darth Vader or as Mufasa
@@ChuteNoris she is a good choice, but I would love to have Attenborough or Jones before her
Don't despair. There's enough of his voice on tape to form the basis of a very convincing AI voice, not that it would or should be possible to do so without his (or his estate's) legal permission. It wouldn't surprise me if a modder someday were to produce an AI-JEJ narrator.
@@MattBellzminion This will definitely happen. The age of AI changes everything.
@@OGSuperDirty well they did AI for his voice in the kenobi show lol
@@OGSuperDirty Changes everything except the dogshit AI the devs put in these games
What I don't understand is that I feel it would have made so much more sense to switch your leader throughout the game, keeping the same civilization, rather than the inverse they have gone for. This keeps to their philosophy of new emerging gameplay for each age, but it also keeps immersion and historical contexts consistent. It feels much more plausible to, say, start as an ancient leader of a civilization and then work through more modern leaders as the game progresses with more relevant bonuses and advantages.
I don't want to judge the "civilization switching" mechanic too quickly. After all, it really just depends on how it's implemented in gameplay.
But it just seems like a near-missed opportunity in my view.
EDIT: After some discussion and thought. This has some practical and technical flaws, but I do think it’s flexible. Obviously, many Civs are difficult to represent in certain ages (America in Antiquity and Aztec in Modern, for example)
Others have pointed out this is a huge logistical ask - three unique leaders for each civ. That’s also true. However, I think at the very least we could remain with the same leader, but see their bonuses and advantages change and adapt for each Age.
I would like to keep this thread below active just for discussion around these ideas. Obviously what we have is what we are getting, and I think it could be great if the execution is right. However, as fans of the series we are right to be worried, but there is nothing wrong with being cautiously optimistic.
@@ethanwms yah it’s kinda non sensical. My guess was that if you constantly changed leaders then you would need a greater amount of leaders in the game. Which would mean a greater amount of leaders fully animated, creating a bottleneck for content. More civilizations on the other hand would just mean slightly different assets which could be reused for civs that share culture groups.
So it probably was purely production related.
I agree the switching leaders thing seems like a great idea
I agree. My guess is that finding 3 leaders (or n for the number of ages) for each civilization was prohibitive, especially with the diverse set of civs they are incorporating.
I think the way they have it feels more realistic. The leader doesn't really represent an individual, but more like a sort of guiding spirit of the civilizations in question. Civilizations come and go over thousands of years, but you can still draw a line between ancient Athenian philosophers and the British Parliament, and I think that's what they're trying to represent here.
To be fair, some examples in history fit better with civ switches than just choosing a new leader, looking at for example the Roman empire -> Byzantine empire -> Ottoman empire. Or the Germanic tribes -> Holy roman empire -> modern Germany.
”Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?” Aparently not in civ 7, I can only do it for one era 😂
Yeah they should really rename them nations or empires and leave civilization as the term for the combination of those that you lead.
Imho changing national culture was the worst part of Humankind, kinda sad they brought it over. To me it destroyed all sense of identity in playing. If I play as Egypt I want to take it to the modern era, not become something else completely. Conversely, if I play Canada, I want to start in antiquity, not evolve from other cultures.
@@Vytral do what Civ 2 did, rebel cities break away into Cultures that spawn from yours, AKA Roman City Rebels into Italy, or Byzatium. and be given a option to play as them IF you want..
@@Vytral you could deside to stay in that very culture if you wanted to though (in Humankind). What bothers me here is that you most likely will not be able to do that
@Vytral you can! Civ 1 through 6 still exist
I'm still waiting for a new Sid Meier's Pirates.
Sameee
1:43:00 Ah, yes. The historical immersion of having Greece randomly morph into New Zealand.
i wish the full stream was still up
@@user-jm7ef2gp8g and have them both lead by a leader from a completely different unrelated civilization for some reason?
Just wait till they get to the information Era and have to deal with all the Cultural Appropriation Drama from doing so
Welcome to Sid Meier’s Humankind 2!
Did you actually play the game? No? Then quit whining
@@Solaxe what ?
@@Solaxe keep blindly defending the game. We saw what it was gonna be stop crying.
Yes, but I'm sure that Firaxis will make these features work correctly. Humankind is still unplayable.
to be fair, humankind took many ideas from the Civ series, so it's only fair that civ takes some good ideas from them at some point.
In my opinion, Humankind suffers hugely from the was land is divided in region, it makes the game either incredibly sclerotic or a genocide simulator in which you end up murdering entire civilizations just because you wanted three tiles of their land.
and the balancing was also kind of whacked, but Civ are not always much better.
Changing civs every age, building bonuses across the course of the game? Wow, Humankind 2 really looks good.
@@GoodEggGuy KEEP CRYING LOL
@@mar3869 Tears of joy, Mar. Tears of joy. If the devs at Amplitude could kindly go back to making Endless Legend 2 now... that would be swell.
@@GoodEggGuy whatever unique feature their next game has will be the headline of civ viii
I was thinking the same thing.
Indeed, but that's what made me feel disappointed. I was thinking that the game mechanics Humankind came up with is great, but was hoping CIV VII would be different. Basically I was looking forward to something now, not a humankind copy.
No pre-order. Learned that lesson with cities skylines 2
I sure as hell won't pre-order especially at $70 outrageous after how bad Civ 6 was
This is definitely the most dramatic shift in gameplay Civ has ever done between installments. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
It probably plays out as buying the game mechanics you love as a DLC? 😂
A levelheaded take, thank goodness. I'm excited to see what's next.
Civ 4 to 5 was a bigger shift. I still miss multiple units on a tile
they literally copied one of Humankind ideas that really puts me off ...
Everything will be on fire... lol
Constructing great wonders such as the Pyramids and the Colosseum and then embracing a nomadic lifestyle because some guy found 3 horses.
Imagine the charisma of the guy that convinced millions of people that abandoning the largest city in the world for yurts and fermented horse milk was progress.
The Greeks in Central Asia were replaced entirely by nomads so not that unrealistic. Certainly more realistic than teddy roosevelt leading America from the stone agw
@@Bobelponge123right but you realise that you stay the same leader for the whole game right? So actually if Teddy is in the game, he will be alive for 6000 years
The difference is that in this game Teddy will be the leader of 3 random civilizations completely unconnected to the USA and the only way you will be able to lead the USA as a USA leader would be to start a custome game starting in the modern era and only play 1/3 of the game
Why is a leader being inmortal but civilizations dying every era realistic to you? You do realise that real life works exactly the opposite way, right? There are civilizations around today that have lasted for thousands of years but 0 people who have lasted that long.
Civ was always unrealistic but this system makes 7 the least realistic of the entire series
Which is funny because the intention of this stupid mechanic was to increase realism bit all it does is lower realism and remove a fundamental aspect of the series' identity
At one point the forum of Rome became a grazing field for cows. Every great civilisation falls.
" i am fond of pigs, dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, pigs treat us as equals"
Dogs can't look up, Big Al said so.
best quote
I am Fond of pigs - George Orwell
“MONAY…”
@@hexualdeviant for the last time, the gun is not loaded!
Things to improve:
-make civ change optional, not obligatory
-less cartoonish graphics, more realistic design, like civ 5
YES! I hated the graphic style change for Civ 6 looked horrible and Civ 7 looks like they used the exact same engine.
I'm not sure about switching civs each age... it kind of defeat the purpose of taking a civ and watching it grows.
"A civilization that stands the test of time" has been their tagline for decades and now theres a mainline entry where it is impossible to do this
It makes me wonder if anyone on the dev team has ever played a civ game 😂
@@Madeen1982Anachronism is the backbone of Civilization. Seeing a modern Civ having a different origin story in the past and being able to bring them home to the present with the same values or a radically different outlook, guiding an extinct empire through through their known demise into glory in current times and getting to witness leaders and societies that never met coexisting and interacting IS the draw of the game. It's easy to think thay just got thisbou of Humankind, but I think they are just falling prey to the representation fallacy of our current times. This is antithetical to the spirit of Civ. I see how awesome this new system can be and how many great strategic interactions it can bring, but this should DEFINETELY be a Mode, not the standard system. I fear I won't like Civ VII wich would be a catastrophe for me.
Also i don't understan how would i recognize who my rival / neighbouring civs are if they change country midway. Like i'll remember that i'm fighting mongolia then suddenly everyone switches to the nordics and now i'm confused whether this swede swordsman coming my way was my enemy or friend.
unless they hybridize. i mean, you can always stay the same civ too (i think i heard them say that), the only issue then would be progressing the civs' cultures beyond their "designated" era. 11:31 timestamp
I never liked all the religion and climate change mechanics for the previous civ for a long time, they eventually grew on me. I think this will do. Each civ needs to be different imo.
Switching from one Civilization to another would make me feel like my previous civilization failed and was taken over by the new Civilization.
Such is the life of most civilzations
It’s more like your pokemon evolving it seems
@@soapgaming4903 incorrect
It's not a takeover, it's evolution.
Probably more reflective of the arc of history than Washington leading the States since 5000 BC or whatever
I think it would be better if each civ had a pool of leaders who each have unique buffs and are unique to an age, and at the beginning of each age you choose to swap out your leader to better suit new demands. Basically just a simplification of the government system
Good idea Some of the Long running civilizations have several world famous leaders
I agree I think firaxis should of not did civilization change but leader change like crusader kings example like a leader of the error like Washington for America than reach industrial age you become lincoln but stay as America
@Infernal_Elf agreed plus makes more sense play as egypt than turn around and play a European power makes no sense I like humankind but the changing of civilization regions made no sense like playing as Zhou china Than go half way across the world to play aztecs made nos sense to me its like fusing cultures asian culture mixed with mesoamerican wish it's was leaders that suited the era if I really want to play as rome now I have to have the mindset of choosing a different civ in a later era
@@joshuareed2188 But then we couldn't get voiceacting and animation
@ehtlamzone2525 that's true but just not a big fan of culture and civilization change don't get me wrong I like humankind just not the civilization change
I bought civ6 and didn't enjoy it so i returned to civ5. Now i see the new civ7, i guess i ain't got no choice but returning to civ5 once again.
The rest of the gameplay looks amazing, but I think it would be better to switch out leaders instead of entire civilizations.
@@WesternUniverse This. Exactly this.
Something like Europa Universalis yes
My thoughts exactly and what I was hoping for before this reveal
Yes. Picking a new leader when entering a new era would have made more sense. With only three eras, it would not be too confusing.
I so wish a mod like that existed for Civ6.
Will the CPU actually build a navy and fight me in the open sea?
@@dragonsofeden asking the real questions
the ai will be braindead, maybe they release the dll and the community fixes it like they did with civ v vox populi mod
@@liquidmodernitytasteslikeu2855On a side note how’d you achieve your skills as an oracle? I’d love to be able to know everything about a game based on a 20 minute showcase
the ai will make nothing but military and somehow stay ahead of your science output
@@liquidmodernitytasteslikeu2855 Never again will they do that.
>civilizations evolve with time
>I become mongolia as egypt
Yeahhh, they went too close to Humankind with that. Its faction change mechanic was always its weakest part. Completely destroyed faction identity. Ah well, another game that's a skip for me. :/
This mechanic is just so, so dumb.
@@Tosnoob Let's hope that Amplitude will cook something better for Civ VIII
They peaked at Civ III; it's been downhill ever since. Love Gwendoline, though!
Actual country of Egypt be like: We suing! 😐
I want to change my leader, civilisation, map, identity, steam ID, name, wife, between each turn!
Where are the barbarian hordes when the developers are playing? For me it would have been "Egypt settles by the sand and water. A category 5 hurricane destroys the small settlement and the Egyptian people are no more.
Thats why you create a map and set your starting point in paradise while the plebs deal with barbarians and natural disasters
Amen
Barbarians aren’t part of the game anymore
Civ's biggest anouncement - It's Humankind 2.0
lol, would wrap for what they appear to have lost… but the are great games with better implementation and fresher.
As long as it doesn't have Humankinds idiotic war/peace mechanic, it'll be a better game.
Yup, and it wasn't that great of an idea to begin with
Have we ever taken the time to think that maybe the reason why it seems like they copied humankind is cause the idea of having you change civilizations in a game about living throughout world history, something that happens in actual history, is just the logical step to take for your game series that's always been about simulating your own historical journey as an empire?
Humankind was created based on many ideas that had been around thanks to civilization. Look at the districts! So, it's just fair that they could copy a new idea from Humankind and make a few changes to it.
Please can we bring back the civ 5 leader animations, it looks so soulless them just being behind a banner
Fr I want Shakka shaking his stick at me again, being like "Why you so close bitch, Eat this spear"
They need to bring back thronerooms. The series has been on a downward spiral since they removed these
the backdrops were my biggest dissappointment about Civ 6, and now it's somehow gotten even worse than those greenscreen black background chambers they shoved the characters into.
Civ used to be about immersing yourself into a fun alternative timeline with set leaders and civilisations, and now I guess we can't even get "set civilisations" anymore, immersion isn't even in the back seat or luggage, it was left at home. :(
I cannot personally accept the fact that I cannot keep the Civilization for the entirety of the game. If I play the Roman Empire I want to play the Roman Empire for the entirety of the game. If people wants to change Civilization that is great but I want the same freedom of choice as well and keep the Civilization I love and keep playing with it.
I say this in the most respectful way but if this won't change I don't know I will play this Civ and would be the first time ever after playing all of them.
The problem will be not just this. AI civs will do the same. So after a few turns when you as Roman Empire and Attila the Hun in a great war... you just checked the progress of war and realized, you just not at war with the Huns, you are war with Poland Kingdom and Huns allies the Gepids is nowhere. Some Soviet union is on their side. Few turns later USA joined the war, who was the egyptians or the summerians? And thats point you quit the game and uninstall. I did it with HK.
I personally couldn't accept the fact I had to manually build districts and operate workers manually in Civ 6, so I didn't play any of that game. You can wait a decade like I did for a new civ game with non-shit mechanics
Funny because until years after civ 5 came out i didn't even know you could set workers to to improvement automatically... it's weird how some people find trivial things so annoying... maybe you need to grow up a little @@jay4997
"Your civ changes with each new era"
Huh... that's a great idea and makes sense
"Your leader is still an immortal god-emperor though"
And there it is
@AllWalkerB I think it was in amplitude game
Humankind crying in the corner having no fanbase
It's not a great idea and doesn't make sense lmao
@@FOXHOUND1871 it blows in humankind. going from china to freaking france or something ridiculous. firaxis is literally out of ideas if they are literally cloning a failed clone of their own franchise that nobody plays or likes
@@rell0223 yes bro tell it like it is
The biggest news here is that we get another great piece by Christopher Tin.
literally the only good news
One good reason to be optimistic about this. So happy with this news
My ears are ready
The GOAT is back!
@@rell0223 lol what are you talking about, go make your own civ game if you don't like this one😂
dreams of David Attenborough being the narrator shattered 😔
That would have been amazing! I still love Leonard Nimoy's civ iv narration. It was perfection.
@@gedaliaw yes he was amazing!
I’m leaving this comment because I really love this franchise and don’t want to lose it.
I want to play my civ throughout the entire journey; I want to represent my country from the very start all the way to infinity and beyond.
I never played mankind because it made no sense swapping identity all of a sudden.
I don’t want to be a Egypt-Mongolian-British country.
Exactly! It makes absolutely no sense! Maybe if there was a way to make it where like African civs can only turn into other African civs and so forth that would at least make some sense but like you said, Egypt->Mongols->Britain is completely asinine
They said several times in the video that you can still do that. And there were plenty of options of the civ evolving into a more modern version of that same civ. Japan can be more than just samurai now. Norway more than just vikings. And Rome more than just hoplites lmao.
@@chundh99 there's most likely going to be a mod to support this
@@winterxiii My problem is exactly with the "you can still do that" approach. Each civ provides different bonuses, and it always feels awful when I have to choose between being immersive in my choices and choosing the best strategic option.
What I mean is, if I start as Egypt and in the next era Mongols are completely overpowered, I will just feel bad by both choosing an extension of Egypt because it's weaker and choosing Mongols because it's not Egypt-related. I should not be given this kind of choice in the first place.
@@ExeLietuva They mentioned that it is easier to balance, but that is only important for a small part of the player base who plays competitive.
Interesting that they've completely lifted the whole era progression system from Humankind; i.e. selecting a different civ at the start of each era to represent your empire. I was kinda hoping Civ 7 would have innovation rather than copy-pasting a rival studio's gameplay mechanics
diplomacy screen looks like a total war game
It looks awful.
@RAZGR1Z Yeah, Total War diplomacy is more of a means to an end than a good diplomacy system. I don't know why they'd go with something like that.
@@RAZGR1Z Seems like a work in progress to me, if this is what they're going for however, I can see this making the gameplay flow better with the screen popping up during gameplay rather than just being something you need to load up separately. Could be a good thing.
UI update is nice works well with era turns... unreal engine mods pls
You guys weren’t kidding. It looks terrible 😂
Why is nobody talking about the fact that QUESTS from Civilization: Beyond Earth are Back! Those were awesome
I wish Firaxis was more influenced by Civ modders who love the game than rival game franchises who wish to replace the game.
Yeah theyre removing the series' identity to compete with other games wjthout realising that people play Civ due to the aspects that are unique to Civ.
There is basically no reason to play 7, I'll just play 6 or one of the dozen games that is pretending to be civ. They at keast understand what their games are supposed to be about whereas civ7 appears to be designed by people who have never played civ
Yes, I was hoping for that too :/ I don't like the art style, too big units and buildings. Cartoon instead of realism, I can tell I'm gonna have the mod the shizzles out of it.
@@boblionialmao bro y’all are always moaning and whining I swear to god.
People were saying the same exact thing when Civ 6 came out
You should try stop being miserable all the time, life is good ❤
@@boblionia i love all the changes i was so annoyed by the districts and i love the century change from Humankind so i am looking so forward for civ 7
@Aimone dont box me in with those idiots, I was massively part of the civ 4, 5 and 6 hype trains (I'm even one of the only people on the planet who lived Beyond Earth on release) and while I was doubting some of the changes, I was never this hard against any of them. This is the first time in 20 years a civ game has changed a game mechanic that completely breaks the entire concept of the series, so I dont know why you're comparing this to 6 when these arent even in the same league 🙄
Big difference is civ6 didnt change any of the series core identity, it just fiddled with a lot of little aspects and people hated districts for some reason
The era mechanic of 7 changes the game from 1 cohesive civ flow into 3 individual games at the end of each all of your people have to magically change their entire culture
It heavily damages the game for both gameplay and narrative and it does it in a way that literally goes against exactly what the series is *named* after.
I agree a lot of the stuff theyre changing looks fantastic, but the era and civ swapping changes the game fundamentally to the point where it isnt a civ game any more 🤷♂️
Can’t wait for civ 8 reveal
if what they presented is a permanent thing like humankind... then yes, I look forward to CIV VIII reveal as well. Going to be the FIRST time ever that I will skip buying a Civilization game since I started waaay back in CIV II😂
Firaxis Devs: “Civs change into something historically related”
*showcases Egypt becoming Mongolia*
“We are teaching history”
*requirement for Egyptian people to become Mongolian = 3 horses*
Kid in 7th grade History to his teacher “I’m Mongolian cause I saw three horses on my way to school today”
Yeah should be possible to turn off for a full game. or have u only turn into to civs that took over the area later. Egypt could become Rome and Abbasid dynasty but not Songhai or the bloody Mongols.
Even if you pick the historical route, Egypt changing into the Songhai Empire is far from historically accurate, and this worries me
in civ 6 you can literally build the pyramids of Egypt as Theodore Roosevelt.
@@SuperTalkHero and? There is a replica pyramid in Las Vegas
Mongolia attempted to invade the Mamlūks of Egypt in 1260. So while not culturally or geographically related, the civs are at least tied together historically in some context. To me Mongolia conquering and taking over Egypt is kind of an alternative timeline civ-esq possibility that you could explore and play out in this game.
That's at least how I am viewing this gameplay mechanic. Its a big change for sure, but will no doubt be interesting to try out reimaging the historical evolution of different empires in civ 7.
Anyone else…old enough to say they played Civ 1 back in the …late 80s! Always a great replay able game. Gees how much time have I played this? 😅
Civ 1 was released in 91, so I doubt you or anyone have played it in "late 80s"
"My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined"- Civ 5 fans
I just want Civ 5 remastered at this point. The reason I played Civilization games over the years is to de-stress and relax, Civ 6 introduced so much extra to manage that it became not enjoyably to me. Civ 7 looks like it goes even further into micromanaging to the point its nearly an RTS game.
- 4x games fans ngl
Huh civ5 trah compare to civ4 you should put civ4 fans here
Completely agree... such a shame
@@mabbook CIV 5 doesnt need a remaster. Its perfectly good as it is.
I think it would have been more interesting to try to connect each Civ to each era than adopt the Humankind approach. It’s fun, but I think the impact of choosing one culture in Civ is a crucial part of why fans love Civ.
Exactly why all hype I had for this game is dead and buried unless they back pedal on this and they literally can't this late in dev
no, its not - the games do not sell tens of millions because your gangus khan for 1000 turns - not even close.
fully agree
@rotomfan63 dont be so dramatic, im sure there will be tons of options to adjust and tweak how you play. I 100% guarantee youll be able to just play one leader your entire game.
I think if they went with something in between that would have been more realistic. Variations or smaller changes such as adapting specific aspects of new civs so that it's more of an incremental build on past ones rather than huge dramatic culture changes. Maybe it is like that sort of but we'll have to see how it plays out.
The title is wrong.
Humankind 2 - Official Gameplay Showcase
thought the same thing lol
You've nailed it.
@@user-bp5qi9fd3b That's exactly what i wanted to write 😅
Ah yes, because a single mechanic that is similar to the mechanic of another game means it's exactly like that game. Nevermind everything else that is exactly like previous civ games
Humankind stole the sauce first and Firaxis validly remixed it
Ok sorry to be that guy but... how do you go from "Antiquity" to "Exploration"? Doesn't that erase around 1,500 years???
Tin foil hat disclaimer they’re gonna add other ages as paid dlc.
Game looks like a mobile game ad, the reccomended requirements would be having less than 70 IQ and a massive wallet.
@@KealGG Yeah but isn't "tinfoil hat" usually only used when you're wrong? lol Good call -- that's definitely what's happening.
@@violentnexus3563 damn that's harsh lol. But are you wrong??? We'll see...
Civilization 7 should have been designed so that civilizations remain fixed while leaders are chosen according to the era, rather than having fixed leaders and choosing civilizations based on the era.
Your idea wont work for certain civs like Australian, Canadian, American etc.
@@xenxx1192 I am sure with enough history knowledge you can pick 3 leaders in history for each civilisation. For the Americas you can have a Native American leader for the Antiquity Era then Christopher Columbus or Ben Franklin for Exploration era followed by Teddy for the Modern era.
True the antiquity leader is not easy or necessarily well known outside of Africa, Asia and Europe but it would have more strongly lent itself to the theme of developing civilisations. You can then have a "realistic leaders" setting that you can turn on which limits your leader choices in each era to a small handful based on your civ or turn it off and just create your own made up history.
Civ 6 KINDA made a fair compromise for a couple of Civs. Like Greece, you can choose either Athens famous leader, or Spartas.
I...WANT to say France did the same.
Hey, Im all for oeader variety. Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy, Ill take ALL the US Presidents for the America civ.
@TheJamsplat Christopher Columbus as an American leader? He was Italian by birth, worked for the Spanish and it's best known for "discovering" the south and central america...
@@snizzle I guess we'll have to settle on charles e cheese then
I will miss Sean Bean's narration. His voice is golden
Leonard Nimoy
I'm not really digging the new narrator. Feels like I'm watching BBC instead of a Civ game
too bad he's not female
Already sick of the Giants voice
Peter Dinklage would be cool
The fact they said exclusive made me feel that if you want to, you CANNOT be one Civ throughout the entire game. That makes no sense to me.
if they do it anything like humankind u can pick to change to a different civ that existed throughout that era of the game but if u want you can pick the same civ and get continued improvements to them
What makes less sense is one person leading a civilization for millennia. I like this change.
I mean on earth no civilization has lasts forever. This makes more sense to me then having a 2000BC America.
@@carrollmusician I mean this is a game based on rewriting history so your point is irrelevant
There are some good examples from real history: The American civilization has not existed for that long but it can be said to be one descendant from the British/English civilization, which in itself is mainly a descendant from the Germanic civilization.
IRL it is a bit more complicated of course. You could say England happened when the Norman civ conquered the Anglo-Saxon civ. America happened when the English civ settled in a new far-away region. Maybe the triggers for these events should be more varied than fixed era changes - but maybe that's an acceptable (possibly necessary) simplification.
And of course in history in some cases the original civ survived (England) and sometimes it disappeared (Anglo-Saxon). Hopefully they will allow us to choose to continue as the original civ (although it didn't sound like it here).
look all you have to say is "fixed desyncing" and ill pay up to 100 dollars for this game
I really like the immersion of playing one civ, let us keep that please
Immersion? It makes sense to you for ancient rome to split the atom and go to space? This civ swapping is more immersive not less lmao
True because the Roman's never split the atom they just became black and settled China in history. Rome is Italy and Greek.
@@michalcynarski7321yep and thanks to civ swapping you can likely turn into one of those more accurate civs for rome. Like allow you to turn into renaissance rome for age of exploration, etc. No one is forcing you to turn into china buddy, choose to be historically accurate if you so want (they mention this in the video if you actually cared to watch). As for the skin color comment, nobody else was talking about race here buddy, just you. If you want to make sure all of your civs are white…you can still do that i guess, kinda weird to think like that though tbh
@rocketGimbal sorry I think you misunderstood what I was saying, it's the context of absurdity, unlike your racism little exposition there. Kind of like the context of that assassin creed game in Japan.
Also what if I want to beat up the British empire or fight Russia in the frozen waste? Guess not there Aztec and Japan now.
@@rocketGimbalNothing screams immersion more than “have three horses as egypt? Congrats, you can be mongolian now lmfao.
Where is Civilization VII i see only Humankind 2
Hahahahhaha wow very original
@@TherealWashtaliunlike Civ 7
Dobre pytanie, teraz muszę czekać na Civ 8 żeby się opamiętali i powrócili do lepszych starych rozwiązań a nie kopiowali na siłę z Humankind
Let's not just look at the negative points
You can sail on rivers
There are natural disasters
Cities expand
I think it will be a good game
I thought the price was a bit bad, in my country's currency it was equivalent to 349 .
And most people here earn a salary of 1,500
Hybryda Civki, Humankind, ale rownież widze po niektorych rozwiązaniach że i Millenni. Widać, ze firaxis boi sie poeksperymentować z mechanikami (6ka na początku wyglądała jak dodatek do 5ki a nie nowa część, kilka nowych mechanik i tyle), inspiruje sie mniejszymi twórcami i ich rozwiazaniami. Podaje je w nieco prostszej formie, żeby gra trafila do szerszego grona graczy. Niema w tym nic zlego, inaczej albo by nie bylo nowej czesci, albo byla by to znowu kopia poprzedniej części z jedna nowa mechanika na start tak jak pomiedzy 5ka a 6ka. Widac natomiast od razu ,ze gra ma sporo wiekszy budżet niz konkurencja. Jakby jakieś duże studio chciało zrobić kolejny klon civki ,to firaxis miałby spory problem coś mi sie zdaje.
I just dont know. Being one civilization is one of the big reasons I fell in love with civilization. I get that they want to try something new but its an idea i didnt like in humankind. That continuity is important to me and i feel like i would have been more ok with changing leaders.
I care less about my leader then the core of my civilizations identity. I get this wont change now but i wish they had focused more on refining the districts which was already a huge change.
I hope it works out but I fear civ is straying to far from what i loved for me. Not that what i think matters.
Being the roman empire uo to the space age was great... Im not angry, just disappointed since i loved a lot of what i saw but this one thing kinda ruins the whole concept for me personally.
@@nathanfry991 100% agreed ruins the entire premises of civilisation, might give this one a miss soly due to thjs
Agreed, love some of the changes but would like it more if the leader changes instead of the civ. Big reason why I do not like human kind
I think there is an option to stay as the same civ as well ( I guess)
We will need more info on how they wanna make this competitive and fun rather than try to innovate for the sake of innovation !!
Yeah but how else are they going to prepare their players for the One World Order?
@@Sivzram yeah it was possible to stay as the same civ in humankind (though usually not a good idea). I'm hoping they also have that feature in civ 7 for people who want to remain the same. but unfortunate if you want to be a civ from a later era the whole time
No option to play a single civ through the ages: “You will own nothing and be happy” 😮
I really hope a classic mode is available in this.. I really like playing as a single Civ and advance them through history.
I don’t need Civ to be like humankind.
The reason noone plays or likes Humankind is this exact feature. Lunacy from the dev team.
@@_CosmicWizard_ waiting for mods
@@andrewwestwood7773 You know that you can choose to keep the same civ in humankind through all ages?
@@andrewwestwood7773 That isn't the reason at all
@@andrewwestwood7773 naaaa, not really. its more the winning condition, that sucked for most people.
Essentially Age of Civ: Humankind Edition
By the way, pay 250 dollars if you want to unlock two civs at day 1
Exactly what i was thinking. This looks like a polished up version of Humanity....
@@DimosasQuest tbf Humankind art still looks better than this
@@Giltr0y Agree
first showcase and immediately you can buy dlc content. how about launching a game as a whole, not piece by piece and then creating extra content?
Dont act stupid. It is a preorder Bonus which is absolutely fine.
@Flummiification you know they are actually a company trying to make money? Otherwise what's the point?
@@LiamJamieTaylor to make a good game? or is that not in your neo liberal vocabulary
@@MT-me2sg ur right they should just lock the whole game behind a pre order
@@LiamJamieTaylorThey're already making money. They're selling a game at full retail price.
Once a child I saw my father played civ V, now I’m playing civ VI.
Then I discovered a civ II cd when I was moving stuff from my home.
*Then I realised how old this game really is*
I started with CIV 1 on the SNES, the game has been around forever.
I think I'll just play Civ 5
By far the best civ game
Despite its terrible enemy AI
@@googoofeesmithersmits4536 And yet the AI is still somehow better than VI. Every iteration of Civilization had a worse AI. I regret preordering VI. the the first 10 games, I had an AI get conquered by barbarians on turn 3 and another on turn 16. Part of what makes strategy games great is the challenging well-programed AI brings to the experience. We're in the "Age of Artificial Intelligence" now, so no excuse to not train AI to play the game and be the opponents.
Love the art deco art
Might start a Vox populli civ 5 Game rn, Need some real civ after watching whatever this reveal was 💀
I don’t play Civilization for its historical immersion, changing civs like humankind just doesn’t appeal to me. That’s humankind’s thing civs is to see how far you can take that Civilization. I fear this takes out the character of Civ that I and many people have grown to love.
Kind of contradicts the games tag line too.... build a Civilization to stand the test of time, apparently in this new CIV VII you can't and will be forced to switch to another CIV at the cusp of a new era. 🤨
Well, changing from Egypt to Mongolians is actually the opposite of historical immersion. )
I feel like changing leaders is also bad, as many of us personalize rival civs. "Shaka has been a thorn in my side the whole game" will no longer make sense. Taking revenge on a civ and a leader won't feel as satisfying because that rival will eventually be replaced with someone you don't have a connection with. The personal storyline of each playthrough might be severely impacted by these changes.
Exactly.
This is EXACTLY why I couldn't connect with Humankind. I couldn't remember who I was holding grudges with because everybody kept changing all the time it wasn't a fun experience.
They should have borrowed elevation changes from Humankind and left behind civilization changes which sucked.
1:34:45 note that there's a limit on how many cities you can build, visible near the other stats. It appears to be 3 in the first era.
Oh dear...
Like humankind...
Hmm. Perhaps with the amount of urban sprawl and the size of the city reach, that might not be as restrictive as it currently seems?
That's great!
They did mention that settlements can eventually turn into cities. So maybe you can send out settlers and gobble up land, but you have to wait until the next era for them to graduate to cities.
My favorite part is buying part of a game then later paying that same amount 10x over for additional pieces of the game as DLC
I think instead of choosing different civs per era, they should’ve taken a page from civilization revolution and give all civs specific era bonuses instead.
but thats how all civs have been for the most part, civ 6 was well balanced but it was still pretty easy to tell when a civs high point was in terms of bonuses.
@@stonedmason614 that’s fine though. I’m fine with each civ having an age where they are at their highest. Makes strategic decisions matter more and adds depth. Now it’s just generic
@@Drbeattles I'd argue that the more fluid civs will make the game more stretegic because you'll have more decisions you have to make
@@stonedmason614 no. if civs still have perks that lean towards eras you will just start with one civ every time since they have the best starting perks then swap to the best for the next age and so on. so picking a civ and having to strategize between long play or trying to blitz the map depending when the civ is the strongest doesn't matter. reducing strategic depth and reducing the character of the civs.
I think we should not be forced to switch civilizations upon entering a new era. If I want to play as i.e. Egypt, I want to play them from start to finish. Adding different versions of the same civ (one for each era) with different bonuses would have been a lot more elegant imho (and I actually mean added, not replacing the system they are going for). Well, let's hope that modding is going to be easy. This game will probably only reveal its full potential once the mods and DLCs start coming in, just like it happened for CIV 6.
Edit: Also, I want to mention something. If this game was made with, let's say, a maximum of 12 players in mind, then that would mean that there would have to be 12 civs for each era, or 36 civs in total at the very least. Just thought it would be worth mentioning since I haven't seen anyone talk about that.
They stated you can continue to play your civ true to history if you want, which I have a feeling means you can stay as the same Civ throughout the game, or at least until it doesn't exist anymore, it just maybe called something else
@@rumplestiltskin3441 Yeah it would be really odd if say China was not in all of the ages.
@@PlayinFreak but you can. Just pick your Civilization again.
It’ll be the same as Humankind. You can get buffs for keeping the same CIV.
@@robertpeacock894 Where do they say that? I rewatched the showcase, there is nothing that suggests that. Please give me a timestamp or your source.
After watching this, I knew the comment section would be gold.
@@ProfessorKroog In what way?
@@volcryndarkstar this is literally the gameplay style of Humankind, released back in 2021
@@TheAserghuiAnd? Humankind borrowed a lot from civ, it makes sense they’d borrow aspects from each other since they’re trying to emulate the same thing
@@gooper3644 humankind was nfamously worse. especially the random consecutive ages
@@gooper3644 No it doesnt. It makes sense to copy good successful things, not just anything vaguely in the same genre.
Peak CIV was Civ IV. It is the most well-designed CIV game in the entire series.
0/10 the scout unit didn't have a pet doggo button
REAL BRO
Honestly, that's kind of a tired gimmick...
Now if you could get your other units to pet the scout's doggo, now we're talking
Splitting it up into 3 "mini" games worries me.
Why
@@swaggymcgee4663 We love the grand, expansive and lengthy gameplay marathons the series is known for.
@@aexetan2769this sets it up for an even greater marathon though, no? Has the potential to make the marathons even more immersive, which is a great thing imo, the immersion is my favorite part. Each age seems to be fleshed out like a game in its own, this would allow your precious marathons to be three times longer without getting stale.
Smells like DLC...where you initially only get the first one.
I dont like it either. I want my civ to build and grow throughout the ages - overcome the hard times and flourish in the good times... I don't want my civ to switch to a completely different one. It's not even the same game at that point
My grandma always told me: i dont care what they teach you in school, cleopatra was mongolian...and then north american...and then japanese...and then nobody knows becuase this is a mess...
Yep my grandma told me how the old civ games were much better for immersion and learning. Like how the assyrians had tanks and nukes and had a space race against ancient egypt and rome.
@@rocketGimbal they got to the space race cuz they built and empire that could stand the test of time
@@rocketGimbal I think they're trying to fix that problem that's existed since Civ 1 (Stone Age United States!), however without experiencing the gameplay I'm worried they might have overcorrected. Egypt turning into Mongolia makes no sense.
It would have made more sense to start as the Celts, in a new age you can choose to become the Gauls, Britons, or stay as Celtic. The age after that the Gauls become the French, Swiss, or Dutch, the Britons could become English, Scottish or the United Kingdom, and the Celts could become Ireland, etc.
In each age you get a new leader from whatever civ you're leading.
It would be harder to implement that system for certain civs, but no system will be perfect. Either way it would solve the problem while improving historial immersion if it's implemented correctly.
@@ducttape82 this is what I eventually hope it could come down to. If not, it would be better to change leaders than to change civilizations between ages.
@@leo1fun I’m fine if there’s an option that locks you and opponents into a historically accurate progression and a game mode where you can switch wildly between civs.
I just want to make sure that historically accurate progression is there. Then I’m really looking forward to the game.
Never expected Brienne of Tarth to narrate a Civ game
Woke as hell
Is it just me or do the leaders look like Xbox360/PS3 quality? Looks like they took a step back…
They look ripped directly from Humankind, in order words a huge let down
The leaders look a little paltry, but at least it does not look like a mobile phone game and cartoony.
Leaders look terrible. Terrain and buildings are incredible. Also RIP leader screens
@@brad5426 What were they thinking lol. They basically made humankind 2
Those are obviously not finalised.
You can tell the design is still work in progress.
I’m not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, a lot of the new features seem fun. On the other, this feels like a completely different game.
It’s supposed to be a new game. Gamers are a weird bunch. They want something new and game changing (pun intended), but still feel completely familiar to past iterations. People hate on sports games for just rehashing the same mechanics as the last year but with a new coat of paint. Then Firaxis does something very different for their new iteration and gamers are here angry that it “doesn’t feel like the last iterations”. Well then play those iterations.
@@davidortega3393 OP doesn't seem particularly angry lol
@@saligonth this is directed more at all the other angry comments that are under this video.
Looks to me like it's exactly the same game in all the best ways, but a very new game in all the best ways too.
I'm sure the old ones still keep working if you want to keep playing the same old :)
I wouldn’t mind a game mode like this, but the base game mode should always be about ONE CIV “standing the test of time”… I think introducing different leaders for each era or simply having new eras unlock more abilities of the civ would have been a better direction.
I agree, but even then it should be an option that the player unlocks. If I want to play as an Iroquois chief and see how far he can go as such, without morphing into Teddy R., et al., that's my prerogative.
This will be the first civilization I've ever passed on.
So it's Humankind. And still has Day 1 DLC as well as stuff locked behind a superfluous spyware account.
presidente
So if you have to switch Civs mulitple times... you can't make a Civilization that stands the tests of time?
It's a stupid idea that kills immersion. Start playing as Egypt and finish as France or something? gtfo.
@@dmc6262 yeah totally kills immersion! the french were always french! Franks? Gaul? What's that?
@@aa9945 There's a big difference from going from Gaul to France or Prussia to Germany than this retarded idea of Egypt to Songhai as they have in the video. One is historical, a continuation of your civ and makes sense. The other is stupid.
@@aa9945if they went based strictly on historical ties it would be one thing but sounds like you can go from Egyptian to Mongolian which has no historical context
@@kadinwilliams7474 the incans never fought the russians and yet you can do that which doesnt have historical context
Did I understand you correct, you take feature with eras from Humankind? "... istead of playing as one single civilization across every age, you'll evolve your empire into a new civilization for each new age." Just like in Humankind
Or Millennia. Or Ara. It's nice for the Civ dev to realize that they've been left behind, even if they refuse to publicly acknowledge that and pretend they invented the wheel.
@@Alblaka ya, if it a hit, you call it a strategic evolution of game play, if its not, its call betraying your fanbase, depend on how many remain in civ franchise because they dont like changing your civ like changing cloth during rainy days.
I dont know about those other games, but humankind was not recoeved well, and I don't think it sold very well either. @Alblaka
This is the only feature I disliked in Humankind (to the point I stopped playing it altogether. I hope Civ will implement it better
@@Alblaka You make it sound like that somehow makes those games superior, it does not, it just made them different.
Personally I hated it, I hated how disjointed it felt to go from, say Carthage, to the Vikings, civilizations that had no, historic, geographic or cultural link ever, it was horrible and I was hoping not to see that in Civ.
I wanted them to continue improving on their own formula, not copy an experiment from another competitor.
I'm actually so stoked that they went even further into the realm of fantasy. We need more games that abandon realism entirely.
I sure hope your being sarcastic but so people know I always put a /s after a post if I am.
Is it me or are the "Completely new concept of Ages in Civ7" just a copy of what the game Humankind already did?
it's a completely new concept in civilziation series, do you have comprehension problems?
Mostly a copy yes. Shame for these lazy devs. Why bring so many disliked mechanics from a separate game into your own "unique" franchise
It's not you, they've just copy/paste humankind
Yes it appears to be a rip on HumanKind
did you hear the news? every single FPS game in the world is a rip-off of Halo! Ghost of Tsushima is a ripoff of the AC games, which are ripoffs of the Elder Scrolls games! etc etc
Unlocks linked to a 2k account? Seriously? In 2024?
And here i was thinking they learned their lesson as they buried the 2K launcher...
It'll get review-bombed until they walk it back.
I doubt it, pretty much every 2k game has unlocks tied to the 2k account including civ 6. People havent really complained about it before, why would they review bomb based on this?
The review bomb is going to happen because they removed all the aspects of the game that makes it a Civ game, not because you're missing out on 1 leader without linking an account 😂
Land Cliffs, finally. tactical advantages, and the "scale cliff walls" unit upgrade isn't just for amphibious purposes anymore, I've been waiting for this since Cvi 5.
rivers are in the middle of tiles, instead of on the edges, and looks like navigatable rivers.
I Just Hope they fix their AI for Higher difficulties. I am already tired of fighting uphill Battles from civ 6 and These cliffs Look Like a Nightmare. Maneuvering your Army through choke Points is awfull enough, without cheating AI getting even more buffs.
It doesn't seem like there is a lot of cliffs, most footage has completely flat land, not even hills.
Yes these are the best changes. I've been hoping for river units since civ2. Maybe there will be PT Boats? Its a shame about the changing civs thing midgame as that is not the fantasy for me when I play. I want to take the Romans to the Stars.
@@tuckster27 yeah I feel like if anything you should change leaders while keeping the same civ. But a lot of civs don't span antiquity to modern day
Yea I'm really happy about those changes
My initial hesitations about change are completely overshadowed by all the good faith your games have built up in me through the years - so bring on the new age!
I think what should have been done with the ages is that maybe instead of changing Egypt into Mongolia because you have horses, say, just give them a perk that makes it a cavalry-focused civ.
That way Egypt can turn into whatever playstyle you want, and instead of feeling like you're ruining historical accuracy for the sake of the gameplay, you're creating an alternate history according to your playstyle
I agree.
I think it would be better if you keep the same Civ, but get a new ideology each era. For example, in the modern era Egypt could be capitalist, socialist, or fascist. Or more. So you'd be the Liberal Republic, Peoples Republic, or Nationalist Empire of Egypt.
In the middle ages, maybe you'd have exploration, isolationism, warlordism, religious, etc. So then you might have a Merchant Republic, Dynasty, or Holy Monarchy of Egypt.
@kfirlevy7635 I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but it won't/can't be historical accurate and never really has been in the franchise.
I agree with this
Or take advantage of there being multiple leaders throughout all the ages.
No one person can cover hundreds of years. So when it's time to change Era, you should get a list of irl leaders from that civilization in that time to choose from.
Since many civilization aren't even around anymore there would still be overlap at some points.
Like, if you start native American you're eventually gonna have British/French/Spanish rulers at some point. Which will themselves give way to American/Canadian/Mexican rulers. Even a bit of Russian if your civilization was Alaskan.
@@ethans.1905 If you think about it, Civilization has always been a bit about, "what if...?". So, what if an ancient civilization hadn't been destroyed or defeated? What if the Jewish people hadn't been forced to move from place to place, being enslaved and then found freedom, what might have happened if they had fully dominated instead? The same for many ancient civilizations that had fallen for various reasons, how things played out would have been very different.
Changing civs at each era sounds horrible. I don't understand why they wouldn't change leaders instead.
I can't agree more
I was going to comment the exact same thing.
I reckon it sounds awesome. Reminds me a bit of the boardgame Smallworld. It'll be interesting to watch how your "Civ" evolves. I'm interested to see how it'll work in practice though.
It works for Humankind but this game just makes it look bland
@@Pringles2.0 I've not played Humankind (is it worth it for a casual Civ 6 gamer?)
Please don't do this. Humankind was a fun idea but not a fun game long term. I sunk thousands of happy hours into Civ 5 & 6 and I have close to no desire to play Civ 7 after seeing this showcase. Please rethink this approach before launch.
Love Civ. After 8,754 hours of gameplay I completed most (some!) of the options on Civ 5. My boyfriend asked me 'What was the point of that?' and I told him it was kinda like life. He had to agree. The journey is the point, not the destination.
I guess I’ll start getting excited for civilization 8
Lol. Civ 8 will be a mobile only game with microtx instead of the DLC factory this game will be.
@@VegasKeVa And still it will be better then civ 7 presented in this video.