I fully expect more comments to show how people criticise me for things I never said. Let's see how long it takes on this video because despite me being absolutely clear on the hate cycle video they continue to do it again and again.
The best thing they've revealed so far is that they once again got Christopher Tin back to do the new main theme and it is absolutely amazing. Also, I want there to be an option in Civ 7 where the civilization transitions are just random, like HoI4 ahistorical focuses.
I appreciate the way you present new game news , frequently reminding us things may change even the announced launch time. If people are outraged at things before the game is even launched then they are welcome to bear that burden. Keep up the good work.
I'm actually really excited for the Civ-switching mechanic. The implementation we've seen so far looks like it really allows them to vary the types of civs that are in the game. It makes it so they can focus a civ toward being balanced in one age rather than needing to worry about its balance throughout the entire game which has watered down what bonuses they can give in previous Civ games. They also seem to be taking a lot of care to make the gameplay actually different in each age, something that Humankind and Millennia didn't really do. Civ switching also just feels like something Civ should have already been in the series a long time ago. Civ is not strictly a historical game true, but what it and any other historical strategy game do is model historical processes, and when you're modeling the process of over 6,000 years of history, a civilization is always going to change drastically over that amount of time. I'm glad Civ is finally recognizing that and putting it into the game.
I'm doing something very specific. For years, all through my Civ 6 coverage specifically, people gave these people the room to breath because normal chill people give the benefit of the doubt, and try to be 'fair' and hear them out. This has gotten countless people trapped trying to be logical or nice as they discuss things with someone who is actually just terrible. By me pointing out how ridiculous these people are, it gives the average commenter permission to dismiss these kinds of comments. The effect is it makes people leaving nonsensical hate ostracised in the comments, because fewer people fall for their crap. So far, with every Civ 7 video where I specifically call out these people, the toxicity has gotten less and less. On this video, only one has criticised me for something I never said and I've only had to ban 3 people for outright racism or sexism. That's WAY less than the past couple videos.
Oh basically, "ignore the trolls" only works when everyone is doing it. That's why Bluesky is so chill, because it's platform culture to just block. On other platforms like TH-cam, the trolls run rampant because even if you block you can't stop them everywhere you can't control. I can ban people on my channel, but you'll find them flooding the comments of other people's videos because there's an incentive to not ban them. Boost the comment count for the algorithm. I don't do that, but of course most people let the trolls run free.
@@GamerZakh Hey, I guess if it works it works. I just don't like the jarring transition from talking about civ updates to shitting on haters in a youtube vid, feels more like stream content, but I can always just skip the end.
@@mrzoranac Yeah apologies for the tangent, it's here because this was a less structured video so it's kind of a semi-stream haha. In more scripted Civ 7 videos I don't do it, like my Eras & Ages overview and some of the upcoming videos I'm working on. Those will be sticking just to the mechanic being talked about.
Rome--->venice--->kingdom of italy Egypt--->abbasid/umayyah/mamluk--->kingdom of egypt Gaul--->franks--->france Germanic tribes--->HRE--->germany & austria-hungary mycenaeans/ancient greece(athen.spartan.macedon)--->byzantine--->kingdom of greece achaemenid(persian)--->sassanian/timurid/safavid--->qajar Funan/dvaravati--->ayutthaya--->siamese srivijaya---->majapahit--->indonesia Maya--->aztec--->mexico Iberian/carthage--->castile-aragon--->spanish empire Bantu--->zulu--->south africa Yamatai--->tokugawa shogunate--->meji japan Nordic kingdoms(viking)--->kamar union--->norway & denmark & sweden Cetlic--->kingdom of alba--->scotland austronesian--->polynesian--->hawaii |--->maori--->new zealand Mesopotamian(all sumer.akka.assyria.babylon)--->abbasid--->iraq Cusco--->inca--->peru & gran columbian & brazil |--->maphuche--->chile hittite/gökturk--->seljuk sultanate--->ottoman These things still seem more appropriate. both the Dynasty and their correct era
Generally yeah, the more civs they add the more sense it would make. But it's Civ, so of course they're going to put a bunch of civs into the expansions and DLC.
@@vivone7671 It's a Civ game, so there'll be DLC on day 1 lol. Generally there will be 1 major expansion after a year, then the second major expansion around 2 years after release. There will likely be around 4-6 smaller DLC released during the first 2 years as well, then they'll continue with probably 4-6 more DLC after the 2nd major expansion.
A lot of people are complaining about the new civ-switching mechanic, and yeah, it's undeniable that it takes much away from the historical value of the CIV franchise. I'll miss those immersive and realistic moments, like in my last session, where I was a 500+ years old ancient aztec leader slinging hydrogen bombs at the modern australians. What a shame ):
@moonkeele Keeping the civ seems extremely unlikely - Civs are designed to interact with the mechanics of the age they are supposed to be played, and will be weaker/ less interesting out of that age.
I have 3 SMALL THINGS that I hope they would do in Civ 7 that I think would make fans happy about changing civ: - Add a lot more leaders (at least to the same number of the amount of civs at start of each of the previous Civ games), - Make us able to rename our first civ on the antiquity age, and - Not shoving in our face on the exploration and modern age the fact that our civ have more than 1 name and use only the first civ's name as the official name (or the custom name we created). Also make all the other enemy civs when playing a game only show 1 name through and through for the same reason (again, preferably the starting civ name). That way at least we can immersed ourself to think when we pick our leader we pretty much picking our civ too, and the civ we pick each age pretty much just the flavor of the civ. That way I think we will still be able to immersed ourself on controlling 1 civ through and through. Bonus hope: - Maybe when we are about to start a Civ 7 game, give us civilization presets to choose that include a leader, a starting leader, and a recommendation on what civ to pick when changing era. For example like Egypt Preset (Hatshepsut: Egypt > Abassid > Arabian?), or Indonesia Preset (Gajah Mada?: Maurya India, Majapahit, Indonesia?). All the enemy civ may also use this preset's name too instead of their starting civ's name. Personally, I felt a bit indifferent to slightly weirded out to the changing civ concept since I never played Humankind, but I think I get what they want out of this. It's like they want a civilization's existence in the timeline kinda mimic the real world, like England haven't existed since the ancient/antiquity era. Other example is like Majapahit doesn't necessarily exist at the same time as Egypt, but Majapahit do have roots from Hinduism, so we can start with India if we want to "roleplay" as Majapahit empire. That's why I gave those 3 suggestions before to make players able to "roleplay" better as a civ from start to end. I do like some other changes Civ 7 getting, like more support to tall play by upgrading districts/buildings, and a more narrative approach to the game by having random events happen quite frequently.
"If you have some negative views on Civ7 I'm going to laugh and gaslight you for 14 minutes" That's how this feels and I'm actually even looking forward to the game. But you made it apparent you enjoy this so good for you.
For the record, as I said would happen in the video, it took 7 hours after publishing this video for first time commenter Dataraptor here to criticise me for something I never said. Those scrolling down to find 'that' comment, here it is.
@ViniciusDornelasBraz Get lost. Saying you've been "following for 2 years and unsubbing because of this video" but never once commented before. What a liar, if you were actually subbed you would've unsubbed months ago when I made my hate cycle video. You didn't know who I was before this hour and are just revealing the type of person who comments and interacts this way. Thanks for proving once again these kinds of comments are nonsense.
I think most people would be more okay with the civ change if there were an option to play like in previous games, too, locking down one leader/country over the ages. Who knows, this new change might end up being great, but something feels wrong when looking at ancient Greece, for example, becoming the Normans in the next age. It makes more sense for Greece to become the Byzantines in the exploration age. This removes the immersion, and it becomes so weird that it makes the game less interesting.
There is that option tho, it's called *looks like list* wait give me a moment....ah here we go Civ 6, Civ5, Civ4, civ3, civ2, SMAC,.. and tons of other 4x games where you pick Bob from Bobstan and thats who you play. Do you know what i've heard since civ 2? "Man i wish would could swap nations for different bonuses cuz yeah is strong late game but is really great for starting"
@@Alex-vq7fz then why are you trolling comments for a youtube video for a game you're not going to buy... you're invested for someone who says they arent buying it... i wonder why... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
The irony is that the last guy who brought it up said that they were happy with Tomb Raider because her design and image was uninfluenced and wasn't changed "just to make sales". Today, "woman protagonists are forced" they said. "Lara Croft wasn't political at all" was their point. They of course didn't know that Lara Croft was supposed to be Laura Cruz, a South American, but the publisher (Eidos) said that was not "UK friendly" and forced the developer to make her white, british, and rich, which of course wasn't a political decision made to make more sales at all...
@@GamerZakh (1) He looks like Peewee Herman LARPing as a Roman, and (2) Making men appear thus compared to strong, powerful women is a typical woke trope.
They complained about it for Civ 6 but not so much about Civ 5. It was about 21% women leaders in Civ 5 and 28% women in Civ 6, so unless there's some massive fundamental difference between 21% and 28% (note both still solidly below 1/3 women), then it's either people's attitude has changed or the hateful people who have always been there are just more vocal now.
There is an anti-"woke" pipeline of TH-camrs out there who farm/cultivate hate and rage from their viewers over otherwise harmless features (such as having women in games) that most people have no issue with. I think it's their viewers that are writing those comments.
I'm really not a fan of the civ-switching. But I'm honestly even less of a fan of the fat that they're cutting from six or seven ages to...three. That just feels like they're cutting out so much nuance in the game, and opportunities to allow for more granular evolutions of civilization sif they really are insistent on keeping the whole civ-swapping thing, while you keep some old traits and get new ones, etc.
I prefer 3 ages with unique gameplay mechanics instead of my screen telling me 7+ times I entered a new age and not really changing anything. And we will still advance through all of history when it comes to civics and tech. For example: the modern age in civ 7 will still let you advance from Napoleonic civics and tech through world war era etc.
Honestly I would be okay with Rome-Byzantium-Greece. Byzantium because they are basically the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages or at least Italy as a path too.
The civ switching murdered the game for me😂 i always loved how you could alternate the history, but in a logical way..... now evolving Egypt into Abbasid is like evolving China into Pakistan or Britain into France.... it's much more nonsense that I am able to digest...... pity, I was really looking forward to this one. And they implemented THE one reason I didn't play Humankind as a core game play mechanic....😢
I mean, no pathway leads from the Abbasids to China, so I don’t see your point of view here (There exists a very logical pathway as for exemple where the Han, Ming, and Qing dynasties succeed one another in that order) and the use of evolving man ? It's not pokemon or a biological theme, we talking about civilization, it's more a legacy/transition/aging. Regional progression makes sense and aligns quite well with History. I’m quite troubled by the fact that, in your mind, scenarios like Gandhi with a hydrogen bomb or Romans in the modern age launching moon rockets seem more logical. Your definition of logic appears to be altered in a way that suits your preferences, I’m afraid. You can dislike the game obviously, but however don't alternate the truth about it .
@@bakaneko5191 Egypt (northern Africa) to Abbasid (90% Arrabic/Persian/Asian with tiny part of northern Egypt) to Buganda (tiny lower middle african kingdom)? Really? It's absolutely random and I just don't like the game forces me to abandon my civilization. Btw India is a nuclear power, so your example with hydrogen bomb does not sound absurd, if that was your intention. If we are going to evolve Egypt into Buganda, we can as well include some mumaks, orcs, The one ring and space marines.
I'll wait for a deep (>75%) sale because of Civs changing between ages. All the other controversial stuff doesn't bother me but that change doesn't make it Civ to me anymore. Played each version 100s of hours (3-6 over a thousand each) and enjoyed the evolution but not going to reward these devs with turning Civilization into Civilizations. I expect everyone to be respectful in the replies 😂
Everything you said is fine and respectful, so I don't see why anyone would be disrespectful to you. I generally recommend waiting for the 2nd major expansion and getting the full game 2 years later on a sale.
Love the great video you've made but just a quick question if you don't mind. I really dig the music being played in the background. What's the music called here? 5:37
The sudden change of civ/culture with every age does feel a little bit awkward. But I actually like the fact that they finally dare to gamify the progression through the ages instead of making it a notification with minimal impact on gameplay. And it is a fun way of portraying history as layered.
I remember being immensley disppointed with CIV6 when it first came out, I hated the mechanics compared to CIV5. It wasn't until I watched some youtube videos explaining how to get the best out of these mechanics i was able to properly appreciate it. I hope the sequel explains things better for new players than its predecessor.
Modder here. Knowing they intentionally fucked Civ 6 with the asset limit and seeing that Civ 7 is already off to a heavy DLC start has my hopes of this game shot. I honestly don’t mind the Civ switching because I know the modding community would fill in the gaps. I just know it’s not in Firaxis’s interest despite what they may say.
Not sure why people get upset. They can still play old versions if they want to. I was hoping for a globe instead of a flat map but I'm still looking forward to 7. And I expect I'll see it as a significant improvement over 6 (which I like a lot). I don't think the ages will be that bad. At least every civ will be optimized for it's age.
The civ swapping needs to be an option that can be turned off. IF it was an option (and made more sense imo), maybe I'd be more interested. This isn't hate, it's disinterest. Not sure that helps if you're into selling things, but maybe I'm in the minority.
Yeah not liking the mechanic is fine, it's very reasonable to not like the new Civ game and it's why about 1/5 of players never move on from their favourite Civ game. That's normal, but Firaxis and 2K keep pushing forward because they tend to increase their new playercount by 50-100% with every new game since Civ 4.
@GamerZakh I guess my question then would be, are they increasing their player count specifically because of those divisive changes or in spite of them? It's hard for me to imagine there's this massive player base that's just waiting for civ swapping, but I'm open to being wrong.
@@emperor187 It's impossible to know exactly why things go the way they do, but with Civ 6 being so heavily criticised yet making 400% more money than Civ 5 on Steam alone, not counting console sales which Civ 5 had zero, the bottom line is it doesn't matter. Firaxis and 2K will continue going with the approach they have as long as they keep making record money.
What would make the most sense if they have every one of the thousands of civs that have ever existed. The more there are to choose from, the more sense the system makes. Based on the previous games, expect the number of total civs to be at least double from the launch day count. Civ 6 has Norway with Harald, I would guess they'd add a 'Viking' civ option before it's over.
@@wilcoxchar the normans were vikings who got normandy from the french, which they took back years later, and hence has nothing to do with the roman empire. The norman dynasty still lives on in the british royal family, a direct continuation of the william the conqueror and the normans. That they happened to conquer sicily and south italy later still don’t mean they have any links to the romans.
@@Gordon_86No, No, it doesn’t make more sense than the actual pathway. You are using the exact same reasoning as the original pathway: the regional context. The region of Gaul (modern-day France) was once conquered by the Romans under Caesar. Later, during the era of Frankish royalty, the region along the Seine was pillaged by Danes and/or Norwegians, which eventually led to the establishment of the Duchy of Normandy. Years later, this became part of the Empire of France. As a French person, I am quite surprised by the lack of knowledge outsiders seem to have about our history. It feels as though other histories are prioritized by you when all should be equally represented.
@gamezakh I think a lot of critical comments come from people with agendas and hidden motives. Some just want to troll. It's good to remember that. For me I thought Civ 6 was a maximized game. It took tiles and turns and trees to the ultimate level. It still exists and Civ 7 is not taking it away. As someone who played Civ 6 for thousands of hours, and still love it, I wanted Civ 7 to be radical and really challenge every single mechanical assumption. Do we still need tiles? Do we still need turns? Do we still need leaders? Tech trees? To me only 1 thing must be kept, only 1 thing is sacred: The game must make the player feel like they are running a civilization. That's it. It could be in first person. It could be real time. It could be open world. It could have the billions of humans rendered like Cities Slylines or Total War. It just needs to create the feeling of running a civilization. I have shared the idea that Civ 6 doesnt really reflect the way history works, with the rise and fall and emergence of civs over time. So it seems rational to try to emulate that. The solution they went with is deserving of criticism, even on paper. Not all civs shift from one to another. Certainly not all at the same time. I would have much preferred an organic system, with civs rising and falling throughout the game. Players could choose to follow an ideology, a tribe, a religion, etc as the game progresses. You could end up on a new continent mid game. You could win with a late game emerged civ. A deep system like that would have been a worthy expansion to Civ 6. What we got feels arbitrary and unnatural. I generally feel let down over the lack of ambition around Civ 7. It feels like a game designed by a CFO, and I mean that in the worst possible way. It hurts when you see the things you love making bad choices.
Thank for the video. Do you know if there will be regional skins for units this time? The greatest gripe I have with both the Civ and the Age of Empires series is the samey looking units. Like, a bowman from a Native American civ looks exactly like a bowman from any given African civ or Asian civ. Good day to all.
Yes they showed those off. The units look different depending on which civ you're playing, even the same units. Like we've seen a few 'tank' designs. I'm not an expert of specific military models or anything, but they were different tanks that matched the civs controlling them.
Your right about the communication thing 😂 the developers sort of come off as awkward in the gameplay releases. It feels more genuine but they definitely do not spend a lot on PR
@gamezakh I think a lot of critical comments come from people with agendas and hidden motives. Some just want to troll. For me I thought Civ 6 was a maximized game. It took tiles and turns and trees to the ultimate level. It still exists and Civ 7 is not taking it away. As someone who played Civ 6 for thousands of hours, and still love it, i wanted Civ 7 to be redical and really challenge every single mechanical assumption. Do we still need tiles? Do we still need turns? Do we still need leaders? Tech trees? To me only 1 thing must be kept, only 1 thing is sacred: The game must make the player feel like they are running a civilization. That's it. I have shared the idea that Civ 6 doesnt really reflect the way history works, with the rise and fall and emergence of civs over time. So it seems rational to try to emulate that. The solution they went with is deserving of criticism, even on paper. Not all civs shift from one to another. Certainly not all at the same time. I would hav much preferred an organic system, with civs rising and falling throughout the game. Players could choose to follow an ideology, a tribe, a teligion, etc as the game progresses. You could end up on a new continent mid game. You could win with a late game emerged civ. A deep system like that would have been a worthy expansion to Civ 6. What we got feels arbitrary and unnatural.
I think it was Rhye's scenario in Civ IV that had that rise and fall element. It would start off with the ancient civs then gradually introduce newer and newer civs that started with multiple units so that they could quickly flourish and sometimes eclipse what had been firmly established ancient civs. And the player could choose to stick with their current civ or take up the reigns of a new one. It was a great idea but has never been used at any other time in the Civ franchise. I agree that the Civ 7 mechanics are clunky and inorganic.
@@True_Heretic How can you claim that the Civ 7 mechanics are clunky and inorganic when you haven’t even played the game? How can you, by analogy, assert that Titan, the satellite of Jupiter, contains life forms if you’ve never sent anything there to confirm it? Some players here are quite extreme in their opinions-one wants Civ 7 to be essentially the 10th DLC for Civ 6, another wants it to be Civ 5.2, and yet another dreams of a fusion of Civ 4 and Civ 3. Strangely, though, none of them seem willing to just stick to the game they truly enjoy, instead becoming fixated on a new one that hasn’t even been released yet. Of course, you’re free to dislike a game, but there’s no need to show up every time with a wishlist of what you think should be included, as though you’re designing your own game. No two people would have the same list anyway. Finally, what you call clunky and inorganic is not an absolute truth-it’s just your personal opinion. That’s why we use phrases like “in my opinion” or “I think”-because it’s subjective. Otherwise, by your logic, I could claim that Darth Vader exists in reality just because I say so.
@@bakaneko5191 I mean the mechanics of changing civs. Egypt and Rome still exist. They didn't become France and China. Its ridiculous. In my opinion. 😃They could have included the concept in a better way. FACT. Gauls, Kingdom of France, La Republique. Britons, English, British Empire. Rome, Papacy, Italy. Easy. But I think they are lazy. They were too lazy to have proper scenarios in Civ VI. Now, instead of having multiple leaders for one civ (realistic) we have god leaders for multiple civs. I do stick to Civ VI (11,000 hours) but wanted improvements on a game that is excellent in many ways, but fails badly in others. Instead we are clearly going to get a new city builder. like Humankind and Ara, instead of a proper 4x or proper Civ. I don't "show up every time". But there are effectively only two main types of Civ players, with many sub-divisions. Those who want historical reality and those who want to play the game in a less or unhistorical way. As an historical player I feel there are OBVIOUS changes that need to be made. Having cities already founded by WWII instead of a blank map. Multiple leaders for each nation (5 or 6). Having different levels of tech based on a civ's history. ie The British shouldn't be throwing spears at the Zulu in Victorian times. They should be way ahead in most scientific areas. Having nations suddenly appear, flourish and exclipse other nations like they do in reality. Getting rid of the ludicrious loyalty nonsense that sees cities constantly flipping from civ to civ. I just want a realistic game. Some historically-orientated players may well place different levels of emphasis on these things, but they are essential for realistic credibility. The good thing about Civ VI is that you could mould a game to your own specifications to some extent. Especially with the excellent mods that the game would be too vanilla without. Though there would always be glitches. Like expecting to earn a pantheon in the Medieval era as Germany when the game won't let you and just stops dead. Or bad decisions, like the bloody awful Rifleman unit that looks like a door man and a chaueffer. The original Rifleman was fine. One of Sean Bean's Chosen men from the Sharpe series. Civ 5 was a simpler game, but you could play it as wide as you wanted. Though most games won't save any more. Pah! Civ VI went taller and less wide. The size of Civ VII cities makes it look strongly like it will be even taller and even less wide. You are right, of course. These are my opinions. And stating so might make them less unpalatable to some people. But with or without niceties commentators are usually just laying an opinion down, maybe with too much passion sometimes. Personally, I sometimes deal in the niceties. But I'm pissed off with the way I can't save Civ 5 games and the way Civ VI games always crash even on a modern computer. I've bought every Civ so far and paid a lot of money out to do so. Civ VI has been good value in some senses. But they created settings that fail every single time. I feel justified in resenting that and wanting something better. You're right about Darth Vader. He really does exist.
That seems to be the idea here. Each age has its own victory conditions. In a full game, 'winning' a cultural victory in the antiquity age gives you legacy bonuses that carry forward into the other ages, but it seems primed to have single-age games. To me it sounds like an easy add to have 'Antiquity-only' and set it to Epic speed so it's a full length game in just one age. I'd be baffled if they didn't have that.
They haven't finished revealing modern age civs, so we don't know if Ottomans will be the default option or not. These graphics are all temporary, which they didn't communicate very well when they showed them off.
I feel like Firaxis woke up from it's coma the last several years & saw that Humankind & others had tried their own hand at the civ formula and have tried to do what they did in a kind of fumbling manner i guess.
They said in many dev videos that this civ will be shipped with most civs than any other civ game and it would have more variability. That is false. Only 5 players per age until modern, then 7, 10 civs per age (except the exploration age 11 civs). Which means that civ variability per game session is MUCH lower than any other civ games. And as a MAN LOVER (not WOMAN HATER), I would play every leader :D
What makes you think Civ 8 would be more of what you like? To check, did you like Civ 6? Because Civ 6 is the more played and most successful Civ game ever by a wide margin. Civ 7 is continuing in that direction, and if Civ 7 goes the way of Civ 6, Civ 8 will go even further in that direction.
Cities don't get renamed from what we've seen. Real world start locations would have to be based on the age you start in. Each age is meant to be a game by itself, so the idea is a full Civ 7 game is 3 minigames combined into one. Essentially, they're sacrificing universal real world start location with real time start location. If you want to be Majapahit in Southeast Asia, you'd either have to start as the closest antiquity civ like Khmer or you start a game in the exploration age as Majapahit. I mean England didn't exist until about 1000AD, so if we're being realistic, a real world start for England can't be in the Antiquity age.
Mandatory civ switching is a lazy solution to the perennial Civilization problem of how to make the endgame (the point at which your civ is #1) interesting. I could suggest many less immersion breaking solutions to this, but the designer chose the least realistic and most immersion destroying one.
Knowing how game designers work, they tried every suggestion possible before settling on this one. In my experience of discussing the potential solutions, it almost always boils down to the solution just having its own broken problems that can't be solved. Humankind was an iteration of this. People seem to think that's worse than what Civ 7 is doing, so the consensus is at least Civ 7 isn't the least realistic and immersion breaking because Humankind is less realistic and more immersion breaking.
@@GamerZakh Have they tried going down the route of civil war to break the endgame problem? Have they tried having all/most of the other civs colluding to engineer your civ's downfall?
@@earlofdoncaster5018 I am almost certain they tried those, why would they not? You didn't specify much, how does the civil war work? Half your cities split into another civ? And a ton of people complained about enemy AIs joining forces against the player. People have hated that in the past and generally people feel it's 'unfair' or just 'unfun'. SO many people already complain about you being labelled a 'warmonger' and being penalised for wiping out a civilisation and all the other AI players hating you for it. Until today, it's one of the biggest gripes about Civ 6, that all the other AIs punish you for going too far in war.
@@marekg5884 What are you talking about? Augustus, Napoleon, Charlemagne, Machiavelli, Benjamin Franklin. There are more white men leaders than any other group. Not to mention they haven't even finished revealing leaders, so Alexander could be a launch leader still. Your comment is nonsense. Edit: This person was banned because they began with "white men aren't allowed anymore" when there are more white men than any other demographic, they followed this with "it isn't about race", of course. It went downhill from there.
@@marekg5884 Btw this is a perfect example of how no amount of white men is ever 'enough'. There can be just one confirmed leader representing the entire region of Southeast Asia, but 5 (FIVE) white men is not enough to alleviate accusations that "white men are being marginalised". If you want to make your comment make sense, give a number. How many white men is 'enough'? 10? 20? Does 80% of the leader lineup need to be white men? How much?
@marekg5884 You said the thing about white men. Race doesn't matter now? Your comments are nonsense. Alexander and Genghis will be added, or maybe it'll be Kublai or named 'Temujin' like Civ 3 but Mongols are in every Civ game. But the real underrepresented parts of the world? No you don't speak out when they're missing. Gajah Mada not included? Silence. Gilgamesh not announced? Nothing. A white man missing and insanity ensues. Now you throw in Genghis to seem 'fair' but you didn't complain because Genghis was missing, what prompted you to complain was "white men" missing. "Forced diversity" you say, when there isn't even diversity. What's forced is the 5 white men. Charlemagne AND Napoleon?? Seriously? Why not complain about that? Benjamin Franklin?? The one who was never even President? Really, that's the best option here, no complaints about him? No of course not, Benji who was never leader of America is definitely more deserving than Amina who at least led an army, conquered land, and ruled a kingdom spending half her life waging war to expand her territory. How about that Machiavelli, totally normal choice right? You would've seemed fair if you criticised all the weird leader choices, not just the non-white women. I gave you a chance to complain about them but you went straight for Amina, looking past all these weird choices because they're white men. Sorry your hand has been played at this point.
But Zak, you're forgetting how dumb people can be when wanting to be outraged. It's too complex for them to see an example with implied flows rather than explicit 😂
@@Jeremy-k9t I have a whole section on "criticism isn't hate" in my hate cycle video. I recommend you watch that. No one is saying, "criticism is hate". People are saying "hate is hate". All you're adding to this discussion is trying to reframe actual hate as "just criticism". Sorry but people leaving outright sexist comments isn't a criticism of the video game, it's just sexist.
Depends how you define microtransactions. Civ 5 has like 15 DLC, some are like a couple buck map packs. Civ 6 similarly so. Civ 7 will have that stuff too.
I don’t think they’ll be like here is a new policy card for 2 USD, or here is a new building for 3 USD But they will release leaders and civ pack with maybe a few (natural) wonders, improvements, …
Too many women leaders? They REALLY said that ignorant argument? It's ignorant to include that into their rant because Civilization II (2 from 1996!) had the most women leaders of all Civs with over 20 of them, of course it was optional but they had 1 woman for each civilization.
They never fixed Civ VI late game complete bloat and utterly useless AI, and people expect Civ VII will be a good game? How Zack? Please explain me human logic... did you ever lost a single game in Civ VI? Did anyone ever faced a barely competent army invasion in Civ VI? How can possibly Civ VII not talk about AI? Never show anything other than unsurmountable mountains of...
People expect Civ 7 to be better than Civ 6, because they like Civ 6 better than Civ 5. It's pretty simple dude. An individual has preferences, some say Civ 6 is worse, some say Civ 5 is worse... whatever. The consensus? Civ 6 is the most liked, most played, and most bought Civ game in the history of the series. It's not even close. Civ 6 is by FAR the most successful Civ game.
You should be more confident with your instructions if you want them to have a stronger impact. Check if it does have denuvo, then tell people it does and why they shouldn't buy it. 'If' it has denuvo makes it seem like you're just saying that randomly on whatever video.
@GamerZakh they might remove denuvo due to customer pressure. If they do it's fine to buy this. So I'm happy to phrase it exactly this way. If you prefer a different phrasing, say it yourself the way you want it said.
@@PatGunn Your comment doesn't tell me whether or not it has Denuvo. I don't know if it has Denuvo, and I haven't heard anything to that effect, so I will dismiss your comment.
Civ VI was a disgrace, made for 5-7 years old. Civ VII thought it was a massive hit even Humankind. Expect one-directional gameplay boosted for 5-8 years old this time.
Ah yes, the exact same comment people said 8 years ago. Why bother? Civ 6 made 400% more money than Civ 5 on Steam alone not counting console revenue which Civ 5 has zero. If you don't like Civ 6, the Civ series is dead for you. Move on, it's over.
@@erez87xp As a first time commenter, there's no benefit of the doubt. This person has literally never said a thing to me before ever, and if it was a joke I'm sure they would explain. Silence speaks volumes though.
@@GamerZakh it was a literal quote going around specially on reddit that ppl used to hate on the game even half way through its reveal i care about about nothing beside gameplay if your curious
I fully expect more comments to show how people criticise me for things I never said. Let's see how long it takes on this video because despite me being absolutely clear on the hate cycle video they continue to do it again and again.
You dare think you can get in front of it and disarm it to some extent? Well....here's hoping it works.
Spain in exploration?? Sure they did but the exploration age is given to Portugal.
@@Alemiha I don't think I can disarm it, but getting in front of it makes it very funny.
@@GamerZakh That is actually commendable in this environment...grace under fire.
Hats off to you, sir.
I can't believe that GamerZakh said "strategy games are peepeepoopoo" I vehemently criticise him for it.
Zakh! So glad you are here for us!
Hey thank you so much for the support, that's so kind of you!
The best thing they've revealed so far is that they once again got Christopher Tin back to do the new main theme and it is absolutely amazing.
Also, I want there to be an option in Civ 7 where the civilization transitions are just random, like HoI4 ahistorical focuses.
I can't believe you said all those horrible things about those orphans in this video Zakh, it's disgraceful.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The Rise and Fall and Rise Again of GamerZakh
And I'll not say it again!
I don't even speak English but I was curious to see your video with subtitles.. I loved it. You've said everything I think.
Greetings from Mexico. ^ ^
Thank you! I try to speak clearly so the subtitles are as correct as possible. I'm glad you found it useful.
I appreciate the way you present new game news , frequently reminding us things may change even the announced launch time. If people are outraged at things before the game is even launched then they are welcome to bear that burden. Keep up the good work.
I'm actually really excited for the Civ-switching mechanic. The implementation we've seen so far looks like it really allows them to vary the types of civs that are in the game. It makes it so they can focus a civ toward being balanced in one age rather than needing to worry about its balance throughout the entire game which has watered down what bonuses they can give in previous Civ games. They also seem to be taking a lot of care to make the gameplay actually different in each age, something that Humankind and Millennia didn't really do. Civ switching also just feels like something Civ should have already been in the series a long time ago. Civ is not strictly a historical game true, but what it and any other historical strategy game do is model historical processes, and when you're modeling the process of over 6,000 years of history, a civilization is always going to change drastically over that amount of time. I'm glad Civ is finally recognizing that and putting it into the game.
I understand haters can get annoying, but complaining about it in the video generally makes it worse. Save the venting for stream!
I'm doing something very specific. For years, all through my Civ 6 coverage specifically, people gave these people the room to breath because normal chill people give the benefit of the doubt, and try to be 'fair' and hear them out. This has gotten countless people trapped trying to be logical or nice as they discuss things with someone who is actually just terrible. By me pointing out how ridiculous these people are, it gives the average commenter permission to dismiss these kinds of comments. The effect is it makes people leaving nonsensical hate ostracised in the comments, because fewer people fall for their crap. So far, with every Civ 7 video where I specifically call out these people, the toxicity has gotten less and less. On this video, only one has criticised me for something I never said and I've only had to ban 3 people for outright racism or sexism. That's WAY less than the past couple videos.
Oh basically, "ignore the trolls" only works when everyone is doing it. That's why Bluesky is so chill, because it's platform culture to just block. On other platforms like TH-cam, the trolls run rampant because even if you block you can't stop them everywhere you can't control. I can ban people on my channel, but you'll find them flooding the comments of other people's videos because there's an incentive to not ban them. Boost the comment count for the algorithm. I don't do that, but of course most people let the trolls run free.
@@GamerZakh Hey, I guess if it works it works. I just don't like the jarring transition from talking about civ updates to shitting on haters in a youtube vid, feels more like stream content, but I can always just skip the end.
@@mrzoranac Yeah apologies for the tangent, it's here because this was a less structured video so it's kind of a semi-stream haha. In more scripted Civ 7 videos I don't do it, like my Eras & Ages overview and some of the upcoming videos I'm working on. Those will be sticking just to the mechanic being talked about.
Rome--->venice--->kingdom of italy
Egypt--->abbasid/umayyah/mamluk--->kingdom of egypt
Gaul--->franks--->france
Germanic tribes--->HRE--->germany & austria-hungary
mycenaeans/ancient greece(athen.spartan.macedon)--->byzantine--->kingdom of greece
achaemenid(persian)--->sassanian/timurid/safavid--->qajar
Funan/dvaravati--->ayutthaya--->siamese
srivijaya---->majapahit--->indonesia
Maya--->aztec--->mexico
Iberian/carthage--->castile-aragon--->spanish empire
Bantu--->zulu--->south africa
Yamatai--->tokugawa shogunate--->meji japan
Nordic kingdoms(viking)--->kamar union--->norway & denmark & sweden
Cetlic--->kingdom of alba--->scotland
austronesian--->polynesian--->hawaii
|--->maori--->new zealand
Mesopotamian(all sumer.akka.assyria.babylon)--->abbasid--->iraq
Cusco--->inca--->peru & gran columbian & brazil
|--->maphuche--->chile
hittite/gökturk--->seljuk sultanate--->ottoman
These things still seem more appropriate. both the Dynasty and their correct era
Generally yeah, the more civs they add the more sense it would make. But it's Civ, so of course they're going to put a bunch of civs into the expansions and DLC.
@@GamerZakhHey guy when are they releasing the dlc?
@@vivone7671 It's a Civ game, so there'll be DLC on day 1 lol. Generally there will be 1 major expansion after a year, then the second major expansion around 2 years after release. There will likely be around 4-6 smaller DLC released during the first 2 years as well, then they'll continue with probably 4-6 more DLC after the 2nd major expansion.
A lot of people are complaining about the new civ-switching mechanic, and yeah, it's undeniable that it takes much away from the historical value of the CIV franchise. I'll miss those immersive and realistic moments, like in my last session, where I was a 500+ years old ancient aztec leader slinging hydrogen bombs at the modern australians. What a shame ):
Thk you to say the truth about this fake hIsToRiCaL argument !
I hope there'll be a DLC that allows you to switch leaders when switching civilization and / or keep the same civilization all the way through.
@moonkeele Keeping the civ seems extremely unlikely - Civs are designed to interact with the mechanics of the age they are supposed to be played, and will be weaker/ less interesting out of that age.
I reckon its the first thing the modders will look at.
lol the thumbnail is like him saying "Up yours"
I have 3 SMALL THINGS that I hope they would do in Civ 7 that I think would make fans happy about changing civ:
- Add a lot more leaders (at least to the same number of the amount of civs at start of each of the previous Civ games),
- Make us able to rename our first civ on the antiquity age, and
- Not shoving in our face on the exploration and modern age the fact that our civ have more than 1 name and use only the first civ's name as the official name (or the custom name we created). Also make all the other enemy civs when playing a game only show 1 name through and through for the same reason (again, preferably the starting civ name).
That way at least we can immersed ourself to think when we pick our leader we pretty much picking our civ too, and the civ we pick each age pretty much just the flavor of the civ. That way I think we will still be able to immersed ourself on controlling 1 civ through and through.
Bonus hope:
- Maybe when we are about to start a Civ 7 game, give us civilization presets to choose that include a leader, a starting leader, and a recommendation on what civ to pick when changing era. For example like Egypt Preset (Hatshepsut: Egypt > Abassid > Arabian?), or Indonesia Preset (Gajah Mada?: Maurya India, Majapahit, Indonesia?). All the enemy civ may also use this preset's name too instead of their starting civ's name.
Personally, I felt a bit indifferent to slightly weirded out to the changing civ concept since I never played Humankind, but I think I get what they want out of this. It's like they want a civilization's existence in the timeline kinda mimic the real world, like England haven't existed since the ancient/antiquity era. Other example is like Majapahit doesn't necessarily exist at the same time as Egypt, but Majapahit do have roots from Hinduism, so we can start with India if we want to "roleplay" as Majapahit empire. That's why I gave those 3 suggestions before to make players able to "roleplay" better as a civ from start to end.
I do like some other changes Civ 7 getting, like more support to tall play by upgrading districts/buildings, and a more narrative approach to the game by having random events happen quite frequently.
"If you have some negative views on Civ7 I'm going to laugh and gaslight you for 14 minutes" That's how this feels and I'm actually even looking forward to the game. But you made it apparent you enjoy this so good for you.
@@Dataraptor-v9l Hey congrats! You're the first person to not listen to what I actually say.
For the record, as I said would happen in the video, it took 7 hours after publishing this video for first time commenter Dataraptor here to criticise me for something I never said. Those scrolling down to find 'that' comment, here it is.
@ViniciusDornelasBraz Get lost. Saying you've been "following for 2 years and unsubbing because of this video" but never once commented before. What a liar, if you were actually subbed you would've unsubbed months ago when I made my hate cycle video. You didn't know who I was before this hour and are just revealing the type of person who comments and interacts this way. Thanks for proving once again these kinds of comments are nonsense.
I think most people would be more okay with the civ change if there were an option to play like in previous games, too, locking down one leader/country over the ages.
Who knows, this new change might end up being great, but something feels wrong when looking at ancient Greece, for example, becoming the Normans in the next age. It makes more sense for Greece to become the Byzantines in the exploration age.
This removes the immersion, and it becomes so weird that it makes the game less interesting.
There is that option tho, it's called *looks like list* wait give me a moment....ah here we go Civ 6, Civ5, Civ4, civ3, civ2, SMAC,.. and tons of other 4x games where you pick Bob from Bobstan and thats who you play. Do you know what i've heard since civ 2? "Man i wish would could swap nations for different bonuses cuz yeah is strong late game but is really great for starting"
@@RyochanHibukoexactly! That's why I'm not buying Civ7 😂
@@Alex-vq7fz then why are you trolling comments for a youtube video for a game you're not going to buy... you're invested for someone who says they arent buying it... i wonder why... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Much love for the shade thrown to the asshats bitching about games going "woke" by having not enough "dudes for them to lust over"
The irony is that the last guy who brought it up said that they were happy with Tomb Raider because her design and image was uninfluenced and wasn't changed "just to make sales". Today, "woman protagonists are forced" they said. "Lara Croft wasn't political at all" was their point. They of course didn't know that Lara Croft was supposed to be Laura Cruz, a South American, but the publisher (Eidos) said that was not "UK friendly" and forced the developer to make her white, british, and rich, which of course wasn't a political decision made to make more sales at all...
You mean the bigots have been inside the house the whole time! *fry shocked meme*
The only thing 'woke' in C7 that I have observed is making Augustus a bit of a soyboy.
@@earlofdoncaster5018 You have to explain how Augustus is (1) a 'soyboy' and (2) why that's 'woke'?
@@GamerZakh (1) He looks like Peewee Herman LARPing as a Roman, and (2) Making men appear thus compared to strong, powerful women is a typical woke trope.
Is the too many women thing newer than most of the usual hate cycle stuff or did they complain about that for older civs?
They complained about it for Civ 6 but not so much about Civ 5. It was about 21% women leaders in Civ 5 and 28% women in Civ 6, so unless there's some massive fundamental difference between 21% and 28% (note both still solidly below 1/3 women), then it's either people's attitude has changed or the hateful people who have always been there are just more vocal now.
Like GZ said it's the bigots are feeling free to be more vocal now., it's all just a dog whistle
Probably a little of both 😂@@GamerZakh
There is an anti-"woke" pipeline of TH-camrs out there who farm/cultivate hate and rage from their viewers over otherwise harmless features (such as having women in games) that most people have no issue with. I think it's their viewers that are writing those comments.
I'm really not a fan of the civ-switching. But I'm honestly even less of a fan of the fat that they're cutting from six or seven ages to...three. That just feels like they're cutting out so much nuance in the game, and opportunities to allow for more granular evolutions of civilization sif they really are insistent on keeping the whole civ-swapping thing, while you keep some old traits and get new ones, etc.
I prefer 3 ages with unique gameplay mechanics instead of my screen telling me 7+ times I entered a new age and not really changing anything.
And we will still advance through all of history when it comes to civics and tech. For example: the modern age in civ 7 will still let you advance from Napoleonic civics and tech through world war era etc.
The current civ is more like one age, not seven. There are 7 eras, but a single age, i.e. one long continuous game.
We need 4x game but its dating sim snd can date ur opponents 😂😂
Great comments!
Honestly I would be okay with Rome-Byzantium-Greece. Byzantium because they are basically the Roman Empire in the Middle Ages or at least Italy as a path too.
The civ switching murdered the game for me😂 i always loved how you could alternate the history, but in a logical way..... now evolving Egypt into Abbasid is like evolving China into Pakistan or Britain into France.... it's much more nonsense that I am able to digest...... pity, I was really looking forward to this one. And they implemented THE one reason I didn't play Humankind as a core game play mechanic....😢
100%
I mean, no pathway leads from the Abbasids to China, so I don’t see your point of view here (There exists a very logical pathway as for exemple where the Han, Ming, and Qing dynasties succeed one another in that order) and the use of evolving man ? It's not pokemon or a biological theme, we talking about civilization, it's more a legacy/transition/aging. Regional progression makes sense and aligns quite well with History. I’m quite troubled by the fact that, in your mind, scenarios like Gandhi with a hydrogen bomb or Romans in the modern age launching moon rockets seem more logical. Your definition of logic appears to be altered in a way that suits your preferences, I’m afraid. You can dislike the game obviously, but however don't alternate the truth about it .
@@bakaneko5191 Egypt (northern Africa) to Abbasid (90% Arrabic/Persian/Asian with tiny part of northern Egypt) to Buganda (tiny lower middle african kingdom)? Really? It's absolutely random and I just don't like the game forces me to abandon my civilization. Btw India is a nuclear power, so your example with hydrogen bomb does not sound absurd, if that was your intention.
If we are going to evolve Egypt into Buganda, we can as well include some mumaks, orcs, The one ring and space marines.
I'll wait for a deep (>75%) sale because of Civs changing between ages. All the other controversial stuff doesn't bother me but that change doesn't make it Civ to me anymore. Played each version 100s of hours (3-6 over a thousand each) and enjoyed the evolution but not going to reward these devs with turning Civilization into Civilizations. I expect everyone to be respectful in the replies 😂
Everything you said is fine and respectful, so I don't see why anyone would be disrespectful to you. I generally recommend waiting for the 2nd major expansion and getting the full game 2 years later on a sale.
If they didn't add "Norman instead of Frank" in the first launch of the game and Egypt didn't become "Songhai & mongol", no one would complain a lot
Love the great video you've made but just a quick question if you don't mind. I really dig the music being played in the background. What's the music called here? 5:37
Thanks! The music is from a music service I subscribe to, the title right now is The World Awaits but sometimes they rename the tracks.
@GamerZakh Thank you so much! I found the music. Quite a lovely taste I must say!
From what I've seen, I think civ 7 will greatly modernize the formula and I'm eager to see the result.
The sudden change of civ/culture with every age does feel a little bit awkward. But I actually like the fact that they finally dare to gamify the progression through the ages instead of making it a notification with minimal impact on gameplay. And it is a fun way of portraying history as layered.
I remember being immensley disppointed with CIV6 when it first came out, I hated the mechanics compared to CIV5. It wasn't until I watched some youtube videos explaining how to get the best out of these mechanics i was able to properly appreciate it. I hope the sequel explains things better for new players than its predecessor.
men men men men, men men, men, men , men omg woman! how dare you
Im hoping that as they add more dlcs they can change the current 'natural' civilization paths to match history better
Modder here. Knowing they intentionally fucked Civ 6 with the asset limit and seeing that Civ 7 is already off to a heavy DLC start has my hopes of this game shot.
I honestly don’t mind the Civ switching because I know the modding community would fill in the gaps. I just know it’s not in Firaxis’s interest despite what they may say.
Not sure why people get upset. They can still play old versions if they want to. I was hoping for a globe instead of a flat map but I'm still looking forward to 7. And I expect I'll see it as a significant improvement over 6 (which I like a lot). I don't think the ages will be that bad. At least every civ will be optimized for it's age.
The civ swapping needs to be an option that can be turned off. IF it was an option (and made more sense imo), maybe I'd be more interested.
This isn't hate, it's disinterest. Not sure that helps if you're into selling things, but maybe I'm in the minority.
Yeah not liking the mechanic is fine, it's very reasonable to not like the new Civ game and it's why about 1/5 of players never move on from their favourite Civ game. That's normal, but Firaxis and 2K keep pushing forward because they tend to increase their new playercount by 50-100% with every new game since Civ 4.
@GamerZakh I guess my question then would be, are they increasing their player count specifically because of those divisive changes or in spite of them?
It's hard for me to imagine there's this massive player base that's just waiting for civ swapping, but I'm open to being wrong.
@@emperor187 It's impossible to know exactly why things go the way they do, but with Civ 6 being so heavily criticised yet making 400% more money than Civ 5 on Steam alone, not counting console sales which Civ 5 had zero, the bottom line is it doesn't matter. Firaxis and 2K will continue going with the approach they have as long as they keep making record money.
@@GamerZakh No argument on that, they'll definitely continue if money.
I hope it does well enough, financially or optically, for there to be a Civ 8.
Agreed, Emperor. It needs an option. Hopefully, mods will change it. Until then, I will pass on it for now.
an example could be foundation! If u see the betha version wich is so different from the alpha version
Rome to Norman to French, makes no sense what so ever. Viking - Norman - England makes more sense...
What would make the most sense if they have every one of the thousands of civs that have ever existed. The more there are to choose from, the more sense the system makes. Based on the previous games, expect the number of total civs to be at least double from the launch day count. Civ 6 has Norway with Harald, I would guess they'd add a 'Viking' civ option before it's over.
Nobody tell this person about the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, or that Normandy is part of France.
@@wilcoxchar the normans were vikings who got normandy from the french, which they took back years later, and hence has nothing to do with the roman empire. The norman dynasty still lives on in the british royal family, a direct continuation of the william the conqueror and the normans. That they happened to conquer sicily and south italy later still don’t mean they have any links to the romans.
@@Gordon_86No, No, it doesn’t make more sense than the actual pathway. You are using the exact same reasoning as the original pathway: the regional context. The region of Gaul (modern-day France) was once conquered by the Romans under Caesar. Later, during the era of Frankish royalty, the region along the Seine was pillaged by Danes and/or Norwegians, which eventually led to the establishment of the Duchy of Normandy. Years later, this became part of the Empire of France.
As a French person, I am quite surprised by the lack of knowledge outsiders seem to have about our history. It feels as though other histories are prioritized by you when all should be equally represented.
thousand civ in one game means, that balance will be bad
@gamezakh I think a lot of critical comments come from people with agendas and hidden motives. Some just want to troll. It's good to remember that.
For me I thought Civ 6 was a maximized game. It took tiles and turns and trees to the ultimate level. It still exists and Civ 7 is not taking it away. As someone who played Civ 6 for thousands of hours, and still love it, I wanted Civ 7 to be radical and really challenge every single mechanical assumption. Do we still need tiles? Do we still need turns? Do we still need leaders? Tech trees? To me only 1 thing must be kept, only 1 thing is sacred: The game must make the player feel like they are running a civilization. That's it. It could be in first person. It could be real time. It could be open world. It could have the billions of humans rendered like Cities Slylines or Total War. It just needs to create the feeling of running a civilization.
I have shared the idea that Civ 6 doesnt really reflect the way history works, with the rise and fall and emergence of civs over time. So it seems rational to try to emulate that. The solution they went with is deserving of criticism, even on paper. Not all civs shift from one to another. Certainly not all at the same time. I would have much preferred an organic system, with civs rising and falling throughout the game. Players could choose to follow an ideology, a tribe, a religion, etc as the game progresses. You could end up on a new continent mid game. You could win with a late game emerged civ. A deep system like that would have been a worthy expansion to Civ 6. What we got feels arbitrary and unnatural. I generally feel let down over the lack of ambition around Civ 7. It feels like a game designed by a CFO, and I mean that in the worst possible way. It hurts when you see the things you love making bad choices.
Hmmmm.. But what if.. the people who claim you are paid to say X.. are paid to say that you are paid to say X? :P
Thank for the video. Do you know if there will be regional skins for units this time? The greatest gripe I have with both the Civ and the Age of Empires series is the samey looking units. Like, a bowman from a Native American civ looks exactly like a bowman from any given African civ or Asian civ. Good day to all.
Yes they showed those off. The units look different depending on which civ you're playing, even the same units. Like we've seen a few 'tank' designs. I'm not an expert of specific military models or anything, but they were different tanks that matched the civs controlling them.
@@GamerZakh That's great!
Your right about the communication thing 😂 the developers sort of come off as awkward in the gameplay releases. It feels more genuine but they definitely do not spend a lot on PR
People forget devs' jobs are to dev, so when you put them on stage or in front of a camera it's not exactly their skillset.
@ it’s endearing in a way
@gamezakh I think a lot of critical comments come from people with agendas and hidden motives. Some just want to troll.
For me I thought Civ 6 was a maximized game. It took tiles and turns and trees to the ultimate level. It still exists and Civ 7 is not taking it away. As someone who played Civ 6 for thousands of hours, and still love it, i wanted Civ 7 to be redical and really challenge every single mechanical assumption. Do we still need tiles? Do we still need turns? Do we still need leaders? Tech trees? To me only 1 thing must be kept, only 1 thing is sacred: The game must make the player feel like they are running a civilization. That's it.
I have shared the idea that Civ 6 doesnt really reflect the way history works, with the rise and fall and emergence of civs over time. So it seems rational to try to emulate that. The solution they went with is deserving of criticism, even on paper. Not all civs shift from one to another. Certainly not all at the same time. I would hav much preferred an organic system, with civs rising and falling throughout the game. Players could choose to follow an ideology, a tribe, a teligion, etc as the game progresses. You could end up on a new continent mid game. You could win with a late game emerged civ. A deep system like that would have been a worthy expansion to Civ 6. What we got feels arbitrary and unnatural.
I think it was Rhye's scenario in Civ IV that had that rise and fall element. It would start off with the ancient civs then gradually introduce newer and newer civs that started with multiple units so that they could quickly flourish and sometimes eclipse what had been firmly established ancient civs. And the player could choose to stick with their current civ or take up the reigns of a new one. It was a great idea but has never been used at any other time in the Civ franchise. I agree that the Civ 7 mechanics are clunky and inorganic.
@@True_Heretic How can you claim that the Civ 7 mechanics are clunky and inorganic when you haven’t even played the game? How can you, by analogy, assert that Titan, the satellite of Jupiter, contains life forms if you’ve never sent anything there to confirm it? Some players here are quite extreme in their opinions-one wants Civ 7 to be essentially the 10th DLC for Civ 6, another wants it to be Civ 5.2, and yet another dreams of a fusion of Civ 4 and Civ 3. Strangely, though, none of them seem willing to just stick to the game they truly enjoy, instead becoming fixated on a new one that hasn’t even been released yet.
Of course, you’re free to dislike a game, but there’s no need to show up every time with a wishlist of what you think should be included, as though you’re designing your own game. No two people would have the same list anyway.
Finally, what you call clunky and inorganic is not an absolute truth-it’s just your personal opinion. That’s why we use phrases like “in my opinion” or “I think”-because it’s subjective. Otherwise, by your logic, I could claim that Darth Vader exists in reality just because I say so.
@@bakaneko5191 I mean the mechanics of changing civs. Egypt and Rome still exist. They didn't become France and China. Its ridiculous. In my opinion. 😃They could have included the concept in a better way. FACT. Gauls, Kingdom of France, La Republique. Britons, English, British Empire. Rome, Papacy, Italy. Easy. But I think they are lazy. They were too lazy to have proper scenarios in Civ VI. Now, instead of having multiple leaders for one civ (realistic) we have god leaders for multiple civs.
I do stick to Civ VI (11,000 hours) but wanted improvements on a game that is excellent in many ways, but fails badly in others. Instead we are clearly going to get a new city builder. like Humankind and Ara, instead of a proper 4x or proper Civ.
I don't "show up every time". But there are effectively only two main types of Civ players, with many sub-divisions. Those who want historical reality and those who want to play the game in a less or unhistorical way. As an historical player I feel there are OBVIOUS changes that need to be made. Having cities already founded by WWII instead of a blank map. Multiple leaders for each nation (5 or 6). Having different levels of tech based on a civ's history. ie The British shouldn't be throwing spears at the Zulu in Victorian times. They should be way ahead in most scientific areas. Having nations suddenly appear, flourish and exclipse other nations like they do in reality. Getting rid of the ludicrious loyalty nonsense that sees cities constantly flipping from civ to civ. I just want a realistic game. Some historically-orientated players may well place different levels of emphasis on these things, but they are essential for realistic credibility.
The good thing about Civ VI is that you could mould a game to your own specifications to some extent. Especially with the excellent mods that the game would be too vanilla without. Though there would always be glitches. Like expecting to earn a pantheon in the Medieval era as Germany when the game won't let you and just stops dead. Or bad decisions, like the bloody awful Rifleman unit that looks like a door man and a chaueffer. The original Rifleman was fine. One of Sean Bean's Chosen men from the Sharpe series.
Civ 5 was a simpler game, but you could play it as wide as you wanted. Though most games won't save any more. Pah! Civ VI went taller and less wide. The size of Civ VII cities makes it look strongly like it will be even taller and even less wide.
You are right, of course. These are my opinions. And stating so might make them less unpalatable to some people. But with or without niceties commentators are usually just laying an opinion down, maybe with too much passion sometimes.
Personally, I sometimes deal in the niceties. But I'm pissed off with the way I can't save Civ 5 games and the way Civ VI games always crash even on a modern computer. I've bought every Civ so far and paid a lot of money out to do so. Civ VI has been good value in some senses. But they created settings that fail every single time. I feel justified in resenting that and wanting something better.
You're right about Darth Vader. He really does exist.
I have never liked civ games stone age to the rocket timeline. You should be able to select and stay in the period you personally like.
That seems to be the idea here. Each age has its own victory conditions. In a full game, 'winning' a cultural victory in the antiquity age gives you legacy bonuses that carry forward into the other ages, but it seems primed to have single-age games. To me it sounds like an easy add to have 'Antiquity-only' and set it to Epic speed so it's a full length game in just one age. I'd be baffled if they didn't have that.
@@GamerZakh Cool! Tywm!
Ottomans would have made more sense for Modern age. Even though they’re Turks and from the nomadic culture, makes more sense than Buganda.
They haven't finished revealing modern age civs, so we don't know if Ottomans will be the default option or not. These graphics are all temporary, which they didn't communicate very well when they showed them off.
I feel like Firaxis woke up from it's coma the last several years & saw that Humankind & others had tried their own hand at the civ formula and have tried to do what they did in a kind of fumbling manner i guess.
They said in many dev videos that this civ will be shipped with most civs than any other civ game and it would have more variability. That is false. Only 5 players per age until modern, then 7, 10 civs per age (except the exploration age 11 civs). Which means that civ variability per game session is MUCH lower than any other civ games.
And as a MAN LOVER (not WOMAN HATER), I would play every leader :D
Could you be the same civ in all the ages? 🤔
@@masterexplore No each civ is tailored specifically for that age.
Think I will wait until its bargain basement or Civ8 comes out. I prefer the older Civs over this tripe.
What makes you think Civ 8 would be more of what you like? To check, did you like Civ 6? Because Civ 6 is the more played and most successful Civ game ever by a wide margin. Civ 7 is continuing in that direction, and if Civ 7 goes the way of Civ 6, Civ 8 will go even further in that direction.
Question. So how will the real world start location work? Norman... To France.. maybe into England in Italy.. 😂
Capital cities gets auto renamed?
Cities don't get renamed from what we've seen. Real world start locations would have to be based on the age you start in. Each age is meant to be a game by itself, so the idea is a full Civ 7 game is 3 minigames combined into one. Essentially, they're sacrificing universal real world start location with real time start location. If you want to be Majapahit in Southeast Asia, you'd either have to start as the closest antiquity civ like Khmer or you start a game in the exploration age as Majapahit. I mean England didn't exist until about 1000AD, so if we're being realistic, a real world start for England can't be in the Antiquity age.
Mandatory civ switching is a lazy solution to the perennial Civilization problem of how to make the endgame (the point at which your civ is #1) interesting. I could suggest many less immersion breaking solutions to this, but the designer chose the least realistic and most immersion destroying one.
Knowing how game designers work, they tried every suggestion possible before settling on this one. In my experience of discussing the potential solutions, it almost always boils down to the solution just having its own broken problems that can't be solved. Humankind was an iteration of this. People seem to think that's worse than what Civ 7 is doing, so the consensus is at least Civ 7 isn't the least realistic and immersion breaking because Humankind is less realistic and more immersion breaking.
@@GamerZakh Have they tried going down the route of civil war to break the endgame problem? Have they tried having all/most of the other civs colluding to engineer your civ's downfall?
@@earlofdoncaster5018 I am almost certain they tried those, why would they not? You didn't specify much, how does the civil war work? Half your cities split into another civ? And a ton of people complained about enemy AIs joining forces against the player. People have hated that in the past and generally people feel it's 'unfair' or just 'unfun'. SO many people already complain about you being labelled a 'warmonger' and being penalised for wiping out a civilisation and all the other AI players hating you for it. Until today, it's one of the biggest gripes about Civ 6, that all the other AIs punish you for going too far in war.
I just hope the AI can have some level of intelligence this time.
I just wanted it to have HotSeat mode T_T
what! there is no alexander?? :)
It would make sense if they added a specific leader for every civ option. If Alexander isn't there on launch it'd be a no brainer DLC addition.
@GamerZakh yeah gotta save up and pre-order :) this is the only game targeted at me.
@@marekg5884 What are you talking about? Augustus, Napoleon, Charlemagne, Machiavelli, Benjamin Franklin. There are more white men leaders than any other group. Not to mention they haven't even finished revealing leaders, so Alexander could be a launch leader still. Your comment is nonsense. Edit: This person was banned because they began with "white men aren't allowed anymore" when there are more white men than any other demographic, they followed this with "it isn't about race", of course. It went downhill from there.
@@marekg5884 Btw this is a perfect example of how no amount of white men is ever 'enough'. There can be just one confirmed leader representing the entire region of Southeast Asia, but 5 (FIVE) white men is not enough to alleviate accusations that "white men are being marginalised". If you want to make your comment make sense, give a number. How many white men is 'enough'? 10? 20? Does 80% of the leader lineup need to be white men? How much?
@marekg5884 You said the thing about white men. Race doesn't matter now? Your comments are nonsense. Alexander and Genghis will be added, or maybe it'll be Kublai or named 'Temujin' like Civ 3 but Mongols are in every Civ game. But the real underrepresented parts of the world? No you don't speak out when they're missing. Gajah Mada not included? Silence. Gilgamesh not announced? Nothing. A white man missing and insanity ensues. Now you throw in Genghis to seem 'fair' but you didn't complain because Genghis was missing, what prompted you to complain was "white men" missing. "Forced diversity" you say, when there isn't even diversity. What's forced is the 5 white men. Charlemagne AND Napoleon?? Seriously? Why not complain about that? Benjamin Franklin?? The one who was never even President? Really, that's the best option here, no complaints about him? No of course not, Benji who was never leader of America is definitely more deserving than Amina who at least led an army, conquered land, and ruled a kingdom spending half her life waging war to expand her territory. How about that Machiavelli, totally normal choice right? You would've seemed fair if you criticised all the weird leader choices, not just the non-white women. I gave you a chance to complain about them but you went straight for Amina, looking past all these weird choices because they're white men. Sorry your hand has been played at this point.
But Zak, you're forgetting how dumb people can be when wanting to be outraged. It's too complex for them to see an example with implied flows rather than explicit 😂
Lol the marketing has started slapping "POTENTIAL PATH" on everything to try and make that clearer because of the anger.
@@Jeremy-k9t I have a whole section on "criticism isn't hate" in my hate cycle video. I recommend you watch that. No one is saying, "criticism is hate". People are saying "hate is hate". All you're adding to this discussion is trying to reframe actual hate as "just criticism". Sorry but people leaving outright sexist comments isn't a criticism of the video game, it's just sexist.
My brother thinks it going to have microtransactions.
Depends how you define microtransactions. Civ 5 has like 15 DLC, some are like a couple buck map packs. Civ 6 similarly so. Civ 7 will have that stuff too.
@@GamerZakh DLC usually is not microtransactions but i suppose it depends on the nature of the DLC
I don’t think they’ll be like here is a new policy card for 2 USD, or here is a new building for 3 USD
But they will release leaders and civ pack with maybe a few (natural) wonders, improvements, …
Too many women leaders? They REALLY said that ignorant argument? It's ignorant to include that into their rant because Civilization II (2 from 1996!) had the most women leaders of all Civs with over 20 of them, of course it was optional but they had 1 woman for each civilization.
Yup, they showed off 1 (ONE) woman leader and people began the "too many women" comments.
They never fixed Civ VI late game complete bloat and utterly useless AI, and people expect Civ VII will be a good game? How Zack? Please explain me human logic... did you ever lost a single game in Civ VI? Did anyone ever faced a barely competent army invasion in Civ VI? How can possibly Civ VII not talk about AI? Never show anything other than unsurmountable mountains of...
People expect Civ 7 to be better than Civ 6, because they like Civ 6 better than Civ 5. It's pretty simple dude. An individual has preferences, some say Civ 6 is worse, some say Civ 5 is worse... whatever. The consensus? Civ 6 is the most liked, most played, and most bought Civ game in the history of the series. It's not even close. Civ 6 is by FAR the most successful Civ game.
If it has denuvo, don't buy it
You should be more confident with your instructions if you want them to have a stronger impact. Check if it does have denuvo, then tell people it does and why they shouldn't buy it. 'If' it has denuvo makes it seem like you're just saying that randomly on whatever video.
@GamerZakh they might remove denuvo due to customer pressure. If they do it's fine to buy this. So I'm happy to phrase it exactly this way. If you prefer a different phrasing, say it yourself the way you want it said.
@@PatGunnI don't prefer a different phrasing, I'm just telling you your lack of confirmation means people will dismiss your comment.
@GamerZakh I'll take that risk because if firaxis does the right thing and removes it, my "if" will still make sense.
@@PatGunn Your comment doesn't tell me whether or not it has Denuvo. I don't know if it has Denuvo, and I haven't heard anything to that effect, so I will dismiss your comment.
CIv over the years, take your ancient leader to the starts. But not Civ7. We force you to change Civs. For our enjoyment, not yours.
In Civ 7 you get a sword.
Civ VI was a disgrace, made for 5-7 years old. Civ VII thought it was a massive hit even Humankind. Expect one-directional gameplay boosted for 5-8 years old this time.
Ah yes, the exact same comment people said 8 years ago. Why bother? Civ 6 made 400% more money than Civ 5 on Steam alone not counting console revenue which Civ 5 has zero. If you don't like Civ 6, the Civ series is dead for you. Move on, it's over.
1 woman leader is 1 too many
7:32 "woke piece of trash" is the what your looking for here
Hello first time weird commenter! Define 'woke' or I ban you.
@@GamerZakh Some men just prefer their games the same way they like their women.
Asleep.
I think that was said as a joke zakh 😂
@@erez87xp As a first time commenter, there's no benefit of the doubt. This person has literally never said a thing to me before ever, and if it was a joke I'm sure they would explain. Silence speaks volumes though.
@@GamerZakh it was a literal quote going around specially on reddit that ppl used to hate on the game even half way through its reveal
i care about about nothing beside gameplay if your curious
Regardless of bad or good, one thing is sure: as with all predecessors, Civ 7 will be a very enjoyable game.
@@Jeremy-k9t Are you seriously here just to hate? Weird.
@@Jeremy-k9t Ah I see, random hate, new account, no profile picture, and username is firsnamebuchanumbers. Banned bye.