Gottem
explain
>>1830576there is still someone managing that twitter account after the game flopped? Talk about useless jobs.
>>1830605Business socials interacting with each other is hecking wholesome
>>1830608maybe its somebodys teenage niece
>>1830608Just because the business is flopping doesn't mean the Brahmins can't be paid top dollar to do meaningless things.You wouldn't expect the rich to... get a job... right?
>>1830576I just want to know why the gameplay trailer featured so much >this totally brand new, revolutionary idea>only Firaxis could do something so uniqueThey don't actually not know that Humankind exists... right?
>>1830692It really does feel like everything, including the marketing campaign, was cooked up before Humankind released and the suits in charge either don't look at other video games or just put their heads in the sand. Realistically it's probably more of a "no this is nothing like Humankind. You just don't understand. You won't know how much it isn't like Humankind until you pre-order and play it" angle.
>>1830605In civ1 to civ6 you picked 1 civ and played it from start to finish, like Egypt.Civilization 7 was showcased a few days ago, and there you may pick Egypt, but when you change era, you change into a new civ, like Mongolia.They hailed it as a new mechanic.Humankind was released 4 years ago, as a civilization competitor. The big difference was that instead of playing as 1 culture from start to finish, like Egypt, you instead changed your culture as the game went on, like going from Egyptian culture to Mongolian culture.
>>1830729>>1830605And the funny part of OP's image is Humankind saying Firaxis are "moving the genre forward" when they are just repeating the exact same mistake that made Humankind flop. One company is in denial and the other company just appears to be oblivious.
>>1830734Humankind flopped because it was a bland and boring 4X with none of the fantastic aesthetics and worldbuilding that carry the Endless series (which are themselves also bland and boring if you strip the pretty paint away), not because it has a culture-swapping mechanic.
>>1830772Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure Firaxis will definitely get it right! In all seriousness, you're not wrong, it had lots of problems, but I'm of the opinion that culture swapping is the main reason.
>>1830778I love the Endless games but without the aesthetic they are nothing, they have never been interesting mechanically and are in fact actively bad in a lot of ways. Humankind never had a shot because Amplitude is not a competent strategy developer and they should probably just make an RPG instead.From what we know the civ-swapping mechanic is also not really similar to Humankind's beyond the basic concept. It's like comparing Civ 6's district system to Endless Legend's, they're entirely different beasts.
>>1830576They had to know the civ swapping mechanic would get a lot of backclash right? Why couldn't they just let players chose 'cultural evolutions' after every age inspired by other civs with bonuses and such while letting you play the same civ? I also genuinely wonder how they'll handle countries like China (Could exist in all 3 ages) and native americans (Am I gonna be forced to evolve into modern day american countries that have nothing to do with my original culture?)It's also funny that 90% of the time the game's gonna force you to 'evolve' into the people that historically invaded you lol. The gauls didn't choose to become romans citizens, they were massacred, almost genocided. Roman culture was forced onto them, they didn't go>wow these romans sure know how to run a country, let's throw out millenias of traditions and adopt their ways
>>1830697That wouldn't really make sense tho because Civ VII got canceled when Covid began.Are these niggers so lazy they reused the plans they drafted in 2018/2019 for a game they started work in 2021 and finished in 2024?
>>1830772Then why did Old World do better than Humankind when it's just a clone of Civ V with some Imperator features?
>>1830863>Then why did Old World do better than HumankindDid it? I thought it flopped horrifically. It did on Steam, but that doesn't mean much since it came out on Epic first. Or do you mean it did better gameplay-wise, not sales?
>>1830864Sales wise it's about half of Humankind with not even a quarter of the budget and significantly higher critic and consumer rating. The half a mil difference in estimated steam owners could easily be explained by no marketing budget and generic name.People do just prefer functional normal 4X to civ swapping slop.
>>1830858>wow these romans sure know how to run a country, let's throw out millenias of traditions and adopt their waysThat's European history in a nutshell. Everyone except anglos uses a legal system derived from the Roman one even people in Scandinavia.
>>1830866That's true, it definitely was smaller budget. Old World for me was just too different and too narrow. I didn't like the action system, the CK influences and I didn't like the period you're stuck in. Humankind honestly seemed great the first game I played and then just got worse each time I played it again. I just absolutely hate how it becomes a flow to pick the "correct" civ each era because there's really a sliding scale of OP civs that you want to get first or you'll get overtaken. Just so awful. Then you get into shit like pollution and the absolutely hideous player avatars.
>>1830872I have Humankind but never installed it. By the sounds of it they replicated the issue Civ 5/6 have of you need to rush to get certain OP wonder. You need to rush to get certain OP religions. But now you also need to rush to get OP civs.It must also make balancing a bitch and a half. It's hard enough to tweak 20 civs starting bonuses. Now try to do that when civs change every 50-100 turns.
>>1830875>I have Humankind but never installed itGive it a go. Play a couple of matches. It'll give you a good idea of what you're in for with Civ 7. And doing so, you'll presumably have more knowledge on the concept than the Civ 7 devs do.
>>1830868You're talking about legal system, I'm talking about culture. Scandinavians don't speak a romance language as far as I'm aware
>>1830868no
>>1830734I think it's a passive aggressive sardonic message
>>1830729Is this suppose to be bad?>Civilization 7 was showcased a few days ago, and there you may pick Egypt, but when you change era, you change into a new civ, like Mongolia.Looks pretty convenient to me, I am not a historian but I doubt there was the US B.C.>They hailed it as a new mechanic.Yeah, I don't remember Civ games having this mechanic, and you said the same thing.
>>1830909>I am not a historian but I doubt there was the US B.C.No one plays civ for realism, playing as prehistoric australians or space romans is funny
>>1830912If you're mentally stunted
>>1830916And Egypt->Songhai->fucking Uganda is better than George Washington at the dawn of recorded history?
>>1830916>What's that? Fun?? I've never heard of such thing, you must be retarded or somethingYeah because evolving into Mongolians from Egypt because you found 3 horsies is much more logical anyways lmao. Stop arguing in bad faith
>>1830860What do you expect from corner cutting corporations and cagie wagies?
>>1830928He probably also finds that equally retarded to be fair. When coming at things from the realism/immersion angle then it's understandable. You can already suspend some disbelief since you're playing vidya but when the core of your civilization is something as tacky as either of those phenomenon(clashing time period/changing civs). Personally it doesn't bother me so much as long as the game plays well. But it's easy to see why allot of people don't like it.
>>1830880You're doing the same thing you're accusing him of doing, mistaking one aspect (language) for the whole.Legal systems are massive part of culture.
>>1830952Doesn't change the fact that Scandinavians don't go around calling themself romans
>>1830955nta but when it comes to history there are examples of certain groups adopting aspects of another culture(even if only limited) and then considering themselves part of it.However most examples are prior to larger or more organized civilization structures(bronze age and prior, some iron age). Usually it's cultural influence through trade or partial conquest of neighbors(not necessarily allies) leading to cultural ties.You aren't wrong in that it's almost always conquest. But sometimes if one group is sufficiently more advanced or there is enough resource incentives then it happens without it.But this is besides the point because they won't do this civ swaping shit very well. The only way is to extrapolate how a certain civ would look like in a more advanced age had they not been conquered.Or have there be major archetypes for each era that coincide with many of the eras core strategies for development or governance. In other words, not associated directly with any given civ/group.
>>1830729>you may pick Egypt, but when you change era, you change into a new civ, like MongoliaI thought you made up this example for shitposting purposes to make the mechanic look as retarded as possible, but they actually showed that during their promo video lmao.
>>1830903I doubt it. Game devs can never admit they are wrong so this is most likely just Humankind devs thinking they are justified. Or it's just some fucking marketing lady with no knowledge of anything just seeing new game in the series they made a clone of. Post generic support message here.
>>1830576Damn, that's some advance bants going on. I don't think people who don't know what Humankind is will understand they're mocking them though.
>>1830967It's sort of a civ by civ case, it could work okay with some of them and awfully for others. Going Rome>England>Uk? Not the most retarded path in the world, feels like you're playing as a specific offshoot of your empire and not as someone who conquered you. Going Aztecs>New Spain>Mexico or Egypt>Ottomans>Turkey? Feels retarded and even offensive for many, many reasons.
>>1830977The Mongols got dangerously close to conquering Egypt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut
>>1830912Then why are you complaining?>>1830922They both seem equally dumb, but it would be interesting to try the new system.
>>1831001I'm complaining because I want to play as one civ, not evolve through 3 barely related civs. The whole premise of the game has always been to make sure your civ "stands the test of time", now it can only survive for one era max lol. Do you not see the problem with that?
>>1831007>Do you not see the problem with that?Yeah, here:>I wantI want to play the CiVII they presented.
>>1831009It's not only I, it's many, many people, the most prominent critique of the game by far. I also want to play the next civ minus this one retarded mechanic, not humankind 2
>>1830993>posts an event showing the mongols got BTFO before even reaching egypt
>>1831011I understand that some people don't like new mechanics, but I like something new instead of repeating itself again and again. It would be like criticizing V for hexagons.
>>1831013This is not just some simple mechanical change, it is a complete 180 on the franchise's philosophy. You can have new without changing the franchise's core identity, otherwise don't call the game civilization. It's literally in the name, civilization not civilizations
>>1831016This is a nitpick. >civilization not civilizationsBy that logic the game should've been called Civs because there are more than one civ in the game. Or you can influence other civs.>franchise's philosophyI never heard about it, do you have any links from core devs that confirm your claims? I don't think so. Oh one more thing, even if there were, it wouldn't change anything since games evolve.>civilization not civilizationsBut you will still control one evolving civilization, there won't be the US in tribal era, but some tribe. Which is what I want. At least I hope they make it this way.
>>1831023I'm starting to believe you never played a single civ game
>>1831024I played V and the board game.
>>1830993>mongols conquering Egypt would give validation to the idea of steppe nomads being Egyptians or viceversa
Will see how they implement this feature in the game.Anyway, how did ancient civs change anyway? I mean there were ancient Egypt, Persia, Roman Empire - where did they go and how?
>>1831028Ship of Theseus happened.
>>1831028>old EgyptConquered>old PersiaConquered>Roman EmpireSlowly conquered
>>1831027Mongolia in every Civ game is not really nomadic, tho. The game mechanics just don't allow you to go full-fledged nomads, so these "nomads" are basically standard agrarian civilizations with some bonuses such as plus to the equestrian units combat abilities or their cheaper production.
Civ is actually going to prove how much a name carries in video games
>>1831077Humankind flopped not because it was made by no names, but because its mechanics were shit and didn't work properly.
>>1831028>Anyway, how did ancient civs change anyway?Conquest, civil wars, diplomatic shitfuckery, mass migrations, gradual cultural shifts, etc. There's never just one cause for why civilizations disappear. In pretty much all cases you can only say that they've disappeared at all with the benefit of hindsight and by drawing arbitrary lines for what does or doesn't count as the same culture.
>>1831028>ancient egyptstill sorta existing in the copts, mostly arabised though>persiamoslem'd>roman empiredisintegrated into consitutent parts which then became the various romance cultures or got slav'd or arab'd out of existence
>>1831027>arabs conquering Egypt would give validation to the idea of desert nomads being Egyptians or viceversa
>>1830909>Is this suppose to be bad?It explains the joke from OPs image.
>>1830993Mameluks =/= Ancient EgyptIlkhanate is close enough tho.and it's a super interesting battle
>>1831082And civ 7 will succeed despite mechanics being shit
>>1831033meanwhile, China gaslit their conquerors to still be China.
>>1831162China got conquered multiple times yeah, same with India. They were both kind of too large and populated to be influenced much
>>1831182I'd say it's a bit different with India since it wasn't unified, so the initial muslim invaders and later mughals couldn't just take over one big local institution like what happened with Yuan and Qing just becoming other chinese dynasties.
>>1830991>Going Aztecs, New Spain, Mexico>Feels retarded and even offensive for many, many reasons.That's quite literally how it went.
>>1831201I don't think the Aztecs willingly choose to become Mexico
>>1830912>No one plays civ for realism, playing as prehistoric australians or space romans is funnyThen it shouldn't matter that China turning into Poland isn't realistic.
>>1831211Aztecs most definitely willingly chose to be Mexicans.Look up the birth of Mexico and the paradox of the independence from Spain triggering a massive shift towards using Spanish for the population.Basically as long as they were a Spanish colony it was Spanish and Indians (Aztec/Nahuatli and Maya being the two biggest groups). With Mexico came a new world order where the Indians became just as much citizens as the Europeans. But that meant people getting involved in schools, libraries, culture, politics... all of which only existed in the Spanish-speaking cities, not the Indian countryside.Before Mexico became a thing, the area was majority Native-speaking and most people lived in the traditional villages and towns more similar to the Mayan villages you still see in Yucatan.>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/n7z1rm/only_about_40_of_mexicos_population_spoke_spanish/
>>1831211They didn't, but other nahua city states and surrounding ethnic groups that allied with the spaniards to destroy them did willingly become part of the Spanish new continent holdings (New Spain). But you still have to use the Aztecs because I doubt normies know about fucking Cempoala 'n shit.
>>1831222>Then it shouldn't matter that China turning into Poland isn't realistic.This 'argument' is basically picrel for /vst/
>>1831222Civ has always fairly abstract, but this does undermine the verisimilitude, it's too much of a stretch.
>>1831284holy macaroni a twitter allegory that bears a slight resemblance to the current conversation but fails to make me reconsider my stance the flailing of a clown that hides behind the words of a twitter screencap is infinitely more embarrassing than sharing my opinion on the internet oh man i love these
>>1831290>holy macaroniGo back to civfanatics or leddit
>>1831293t.witteroid
>>1831290oh gosh a typo @_@ this isjust like the time an internet stranger tried to pwn me with a twitter screencap >_< i'm so embarrassed and emotional rnbecause the flailing*
>>1830877I gave it a couple goes.And the Civ changing mechanic doesn't feel that bad but it just feels half baked.It reminds me of Caveman to Cosmos where you can get early bonuses that change your civ as you advance.I feel that you could do the mechanic again by not calling it Civilization picking/changing and it could work as a way of adding flavor. Would unironically want to see a paradox like game do it or even an outright puzzle game like Terraformers(Terraformers leader mechanic is quite similar)
>>1831290>holy macaronigay
>>1831315would a faggot rape your mom
>>1831288Culture switching (a mechanic with real historical basis even if the gameplay implementation is heavily abstracted) is somehow more immersion-breaking than immortal god-emperors leading every nation from 4000BC to 2000AD?
I'm more annoyed by governments just being 10 turn buffs desu
I like video games.
>>1831326Nta but if it was more limited it would be fine. Its also just breaking the classic civ formula so they can sell more dlc. Watch them pad out all the extra variations in small one off dlcs.
>>1831331I can't wait to buy one third of Japan
>>1831329It's a step forward in comparison with civ 6 cards, straight from board games, which you can freely switch between without any penalties or impact on your civ whenever new civik is unlocked, so you can be liberal while your government is fascist.
>>1831339Sounds like canada
>>1831326Anon, there's also going to be immortal God-Emperors leading the civ from 4000 BC to 2000 AD. Except now, instead of viewing them as symbols for a particular nation, they're going to be actual immortal leaders
>>1831326It would work if it was through connected culture trees. It could even make for interesting strategic decisions- do I go with a mediocre but flexible Civ so I can adapt based on what's happening in the map, or do I choose a rigid culture group that's only good at one thing? Make the bonuses build up with each era and allow overlap between choices, as well. For example, the Celts become the Brits but so can the Romans.
>>1831342Semi immortal, they will be reborn as a new god emperor
>>1831343Alternatively, you can punish really strong Civs by giving them a few shitty options to choose from. Yeah, the Romans are a powerhouse in the early game, but good luck getting shit done with the HRE mid-game.
>>1831343This is almost exactly what they're implementing. Culture buildings seem to all be permanent, and most progression is along historical lines.The only major departure is also having the ability to unlock civs in alternative ways, like getting certain resources or using a leader from that civ.>>1831344It'll be the exact same leader, you switch civs not leaders. You can even upgrade your god-emperor throughout the game which will carry into later eras.
>>1831351Oh thats even lamer
I like good video games. Wait a minute. Why am I in a civ 4+ thread? Smell you later chumps.
>>1831028>how did ancient civs change anywayThey got fucking killed with their peoples
>>1831290>holy macaroni
They should've done something like Realism Invictus where a "civilization" can cover a bunch of different polities that existed at different times, with the namelists being based on which specific one the chosen leader belongs to, then allowing the player to swap between those
>>1830576>mfw this was amplitudes master plan all along>crashing this franchise>with no survivors
>>1831522Taking this autistically but Mayans evolving into Colombians/Central Americans and Incas evolving into Peruvians would generate one of the biggest shitstorms from the left in the industry ever.
>>1830608There are so many truly useless jobs on the internet these days , like being a 4chan janny. I'd kill myself if that was my vocation, truly rock bottom.
>>1831714Wouldn't burger leftists like the implications because it means modern Central Americans/Peruvians are colonised indigenous persons of color who were victims of white racist settler colonists who were akin to white burgers?
holy shit what a faggot lmao
>>1831828>"Let's say I started out as the Normans, I become England, and then I become the UK, and my bonuses are thematically similar but they evolve, that I'm okay with. But if it's like oh I'm Egypt and I evolved into Mongolia and then I'm Vietnam, that's gonna feel weird. I think that would be really cool as a game mode, as a default it feels weird. This could make or break the game. If it's done poorly it'll literally kill the enjoyment of the game."Uh oh...
>>1831828Yeah this guy has gone full cope. Gets mad at anyone mentioning any resemblance to humankind. Thinks the prices is fine, think the leaders look good, thinks the civ swap will be good because firaxis, thinks any leader ruling any civ is a good change. Just full denial.
he explicitly said the leaders are awful and he's not sure how this whole civ switching system turns out, hell there's a literal quote one post above you, tog lying JEWNIGGER
>>1831856Guess I gotta go back to the stream and find the quote then to prove you wrong. Gimme a bit. You might be right and get to bully me more.
>>1831856>>1831859Ok so Potato says his first impression was seeing Augustus and it looked so bad that he thought his career was over. Spiffing Brit says he doesn't care what they look like. Then Potato says he also doesn't care. Then they cop for a bit saying that Elizabeth in Civ 3 looked bad so that it's ok if Civ 7 leaders look bad. So we are both right. You're right in that he doesn't like them, I'm right in thinking he's coping because he thinks it doesn't matter when they are what everyone wants to see.
>>1831788That would be Mexico
>>1831828What do you expect from some retarded youtuber who's entire channel is devoted to making content for civ shit? He would just ditch the game and give up on hundreds of hours or low effort video content or money. It's no different from other autistic YouTube channels that hyperfocus on a small niche of games. They are shills 100% when the new game comes around.
>>1831855Cleopatra was mullato goy. Lol, this is the same shit as them depicting Persians as black in every other media.
>>1832043That's not Cleopatra.
>>1832040Yeah you have to look at their videos for Humankind and Millenia to get an idea of it. Before they came out they were supposedly amazing and revolutionary. Then when they came out, they were so awesome, look how cool these features are. Then they stop making videos of them when no one watches. Then you watch later videos where they talk about how flawed they are. Just have to accept they are always going to suck farts for any new potential source of income. Saying it's shit does nothing for them.
>>1830576>Ambitious devs leave Firaxis>Develop Humankind (experimental)>Humankind flops>Go back to Civ dev team>Develop Humankind 2 (magnum opus)Humankindification of 4X games will be complete and you will enjoy Egypt -> Mongolia -> Germany
>>1831855>oh massa you finna make me SQUIRT
>>1831828>call humankind irredeemable>firaxis pays him to shill humankind 2>suddenly, all the mechanics he hated are now bold and innovative in the sequellmao
>>1831828>potatohe shills games for money, what do you expect?did it with aow4, the new civ isn't any better or worse
>>1832056no way humankind devs are former firaxis niggas?
>>1831828>that face juxtaposed to the word breathtakingis it an intentional joke?
I think giving humankind credit for coming up with ideas is a dubious claim. Everything in this genre owes itself to old games likerhe first civilization games. For all we know civ swapping could have been in the pipe years before humankind. Civ 7 looks bad but let's not give humankind undue credit, that game is dogshit
>>1832164except aow4 is actually a good game
>>1830858For China they could just do dynasties instead. So antiquity gets Han, Exploration Yuan and/or Ming, and whatever the last age is gets Qing and the PRC.
>>1832672>in order to sell the game in China they make it so that whenever you play as China you're forced to evolve into China in the next age, and the modern age always makes you become the PRC
>>1832471Its not a new idea, its character customization from an rpg done badly for a 4x game.
>>1832672Would be weird if either other civs can become specific chinese dynasties or china is just completely isolated in the system though.
>>1832471Cope and seethe
>>1831828This dude is such a thin skinned baby and and egomaniac. I can't stand hearing his voice for even 10 seconds anymore. I used to respect him in the early days.Can't wait to watch his fall as other players snatch his mantle of go-to civ youtuber.>muh spuddies!!!
>>1831828he loves civ6, what is this surprising to you?
>>1832712>shits on humankind for its mechanics>jerks off civ7 for the same mechanics
>>1830922Meh Egypt was a part of Nubia at one point so its not THAT out of the ordinary
>>1830576I think they've kinda learned from it by having the leaders there as a lynchpin (eg, I've got Cleopatra to my north, Montezuma to my west etc even after civs shift and they're now Hungary and Mozambique) but I don't know how well that would work. From my general, entirely biased experience, most people roleplay as their civilisation, not as the leader of it: Cleopatra and Montezuma are just representations/the spirit of Egypt and the Aztecs and not what you actually feel you're competing against. So I think they're trying to sidestep the issues players had with the mechanic in humankind, but I don't it's going to work because that's not how players actually interact with the previous civ games.
>>1832789Just let me create a character leader at this point and pick bonuses and tech like stellaris.
>>1832760Nubia is nowhere near Songhai and Buganda.
>>1832849ThisAdditionally everyone is talking about how much Egypt to Songhai is a travesty but Songhai to Buganda is equally dumb. I think it's disrespectful to all the civs involved though I don't really know why they even included Buganda. I guess because it's an African modern "state" less influenced by colonization. But there are still better choices.There are plenty of West African civs where you don't have to hop around the continent.Ghana - Songhai - Ashante for an example, though Mali is culturally a better successor for Ghana.Egypt should be Ancient Egypt - Mameluks - Modern Egypt with maybe additional options for Arabia and the Ottomans
>>1832872They should make the player separate from the other civs and have the civs be the civs. Give me techs and ways of government like stellaris like I was saying here >>1832831
>>1831828This video keeps getting recommended over and over again and the views have quadrupled since this post, big shill campaign from Firaxis to make people think its actually "good".
>>1832672No, that would be cool and make sense. They need to add as many mudhut african, american and SEA native tribes as possible!
The real power move from Amplitude would be to make a sequel to Humankind and title it Humankind 3.
>>1832831That's quite literally what Humankind did, tho
>>1833087Half the video is whining about stupid shit or saying "idk wait and see". I don't think this is the video they would be promoting if they were doing that. I don't know where you people are getting the idea he's sucking this game's dick unless you only looked at the thumbnail.
>>1833210Yes, they only look at the thumbnail and run with it because that reinforces their narrative.
>>1830729>instead of playing as 1 culture from start to finish, like Egypt, you instead changed your culture as the game went onwhy would you do that?
>>1832683If it is done well (the Egypt->Mongol example has me doubting), then it could be reasonable. The Yuan and Qing dynasties are basically already an example of another civ 'becoming' China.
>>1830576>5 was worse than 4>6 was unplayable >7...If the pattern continues 7 will be worse than unplayable, whatever that looks like.
Civ 3 continues to reign supreme.
>>1833418You mean 2.3 Might as well be the start of the boardgame slop.
>>1833441You mean 1.2 might as well be zoomer slop.
>>1830729The only problem with the civ switching thing is that's it's implementation is totally illogical. Like, I can't evolve from ths Mongols into the Mughals into India, or Egypt into Arabia or Sudan, Teutons into Dutch or Germans, but I can go from Egypt to Nigeria? Two countries that don't border each other and have absolutely no shared history? I'd buy it was a forced diversity thing if it didn't result in the same shit in reverse. You start as Nigeria and then you can become Rome or France but not like Congo. Apparently the future is only white. Thank you, Reichskanzler Sid.
>>183346990% of diversity shit ends up racist and not just towards white people, many times, it is even more racist towards the groups it claims to be defending. This all is annoying but the big reason this all will flop is because of rp. If you want to be China, you will not be pleased with being shoved west every evolution. Even in humankind with full control it is obnoxious, if you wanted to roleplay as a country such as Japan you only get two eras later on to be it so your only option is to maybe choose Zhou or whatever and take the hit you get for not "evolving" so you can at least pretend you are Japanese precursors because your buildings look Asian. If you want to be competitive you have to contort your nation between many different cultures which ruins any rp. It is quite offensive since it also diminishes these cultures and their uniqueness by pretending there is little difference between them. Strategy players in general love to rp, many times in the form of reenacting real history, so this bleeds players to other companies like paradox which is much better for roleplaying. People also like to feel like their decision matters and being able to switch to whatever else lessens it as it feels like you aren't choosing a permanent "character" with unique abilities. This adds to the fact that games that do this changing shit typically let "players make their own choice" by allowing all civilizations to access most content that would've been unique otherwise. These people seem to be allergic to competition and want to push some game with lower competitiveness. I hope civ 6 continues to get modders' support for years to come as civilization has gone off the deep end and even if civ 8 would come out after the bad game pandemic ends, I doubt this studio will last that long as they will probably shutter civilization if 7 bombs because they "couldn't possibly have made something bad".
>>1831326Yes, because the God-Emperor is just a representation of player connection to the game, not an unit or political token having actual in-game purpose and balance.You play Ceasar not as a guy himself nbeing emperor through the tribal era, kingdom and then democracy still having an emperor, but as a symbol of the nation you play as.That's like having your civ have bonuses depending on which level of zoom you play at, or having your serfs laze around because you haven't looked at them in a while.The Civ ruler was part of the ui, up until now.
>>1833033>>1832831A fun way to do that shit (not that I think it should be done) is to relegate the "civ leader" to be your advisor.It would also be an excuse to give them more voice lines and may be make the game funny again.
>>1830576If """Humankind""" wasn't shameless wokeslop to a degree that the Civ series has yet to approach people would care more
>>1831326>Can do logical historic progress of a civilization instead of randomly turned from British into Buganda, Timbuktu, or Suriname>Give the player the ability to change leader for each era to support thatBut nah, that's too much effort. Instead we should make leader separate so we can sell them piece meal later and get paradoxbux
>>1832056civ 7 is going to be a disaster, not a magnum opusat most it will highlight how bad race swapping idea is
>>1833537Honestly, unbinding leader from civ is a fun idea when it comes to "what mpdding will achieve", and honestly avoids them the "Napoleon was actually Corsican!" problem that it seems they were getting hit by recently. It's more, that whole "binding cultures to ages instead" that's going to bite them in the ass.
>>1833522>Yes, because the God-Emperor is just a representation of player connection to the game, not an unit or political token having actual in-game purpose and balance. You play Ceasar not as a guy himself nbeing emperor through the tribal era, kingdom and then democracy still having an emperor, but as a symbol of the nation you play as.You can likewise say the same thing about civs in the game: they represent the idea of their countries, their stereotypical portrayal. And this is true, because no matter where your start and who your neighbors are, the RL essence of civ remains unaffected which is absurd from a historical point of view you rely on so much.>not an unit or political token having actual in-game purpose and balance.And this is just wrong, because in civ 6 the leaders already had their own unique bonuses, which significantly affect how you play the game, even if your civ is the same (see Eleanor's England, Victoria's England and Elizabeth's England)
>>1833581>"binding cultures to ages instead"It's not even so much about cultures as it about era system (and associated things like quests, victory points and narrative events) as such. It feels like we are moving from a pure sandbox to a heavily railed game, which is the real problem with this game, unlike culture stuff.
>>1831828>Its breathtaking>ItsHe deserves to be shat upon for this alone, the needless ellipses just make it worse
>>1833585They "were" that. Now they're part of gameplay mechanics, and are suddenly open season for the "it's inacurrate and quite honestly insulting" accusations, quite rightfully so.>>1833585>And this is just wrong, because in civ 6Because in civ VI (mostly in the DLC's) they started experimenting with the sort of stuff I was talking about, the taking of clear symbolic elements, and trying to make them matter in-game.
>>1833537>Can do logical historic progress of a civilizationWhy? Why do you dumbfucks keep suggesting this? It's retarded and equivalent to saying China shouldn't be able to build the Pyramids because it didn't happen historically. Civ has never been about being a history simulator, if you want that go play Paradox games or something. Civ is supposed to be a history-themed 4X with a very fast and loose interpretation of said history, ahistorical culture switching is no more egregious than any of the other shit in the game and if it had existed 20 years ago none of you would be complaining about it. Total midwit garbage to be complaining about historical accuracy in a Civ game.
>>1833609Civ IV had leader-specific bonuses too. Your strategy when playing Louis XIV's France is very different from Napoleon's France.
>>1833616I suppose you're right, it didn't really feel like it in civ iv, i dunno why.
>>1833609>"it's inacurate and quite honestly insulting"These accusations are political and have nothing to do with the actual quality of the game and its mechanics.
>>1830690Indian culture disgusts me.
>>1833622The game and both its looks and mechanics rely on and are modeled after existing political entities. That doesn't mean that they are hard bounds, but if you remove the "political element" from Civ, you would have to sell the game on its own merits, and I suspect it would flop as hard as FIFA without real football players and leagues.
>>1833632>The game and both its looks and mechanics rely on and are modeled after existing political entities.Cultural, not political. Half of the civs in civ games don't exist anymore and some don't even have any direct descendants nowadays.
>>1830576 I really don't see an issue with this feature? I'd be pretty pointless to not innovate the seventh instance of your game to something different that hasn't been done before?Everyone also hated VI and said V was better when it came out, and everyone also hated V and said IV was better when it came out.Like, They said on the showcase that they want your faction's history to feel "layered" no? So they new civ traits will be bonus to the ones of your previous civs, not replace them entirely I think?If you just want to play a game with similar features but not the new ones you can just continue playing VI, or V, or IV, just like people keep playing AoE2 despite 3 and 4 existing.Also, the variety of civs available to evolve towards can be increased by multiple factors and we don't know all of them yet. Maybe it's something akin to having a certain variety of resources, or controlling certain natural wonders or creating certain man-made wonders? The options available can be pretty big.
>>1833844mindlessly grafting a competitor's failed mechanic onto your own product isn't innovation.
>>1833844>I'd be pretty pointless to not innovate the seventh instance of your game to something different that hasn't been done before?Have you played humankind. There is a difference between innovating and using an idea that has already been proven to not work either out of hubris that you're good enough to make it work or ignorance. I really feel like the only people that have your opinion are the ones that haven't tried the recent Civ clones. After all these failed attempts at innovation, people are clamoring for something close to home. All Civ had to do was drop the cartoony aesthetic, improve the graphics, new leaders and leader art/backgrounds, double down on unique asymmetrical playstyles and add new mechanics that add to or mesh with what they had before. This is a complete table flip and leaves me feeling exhausted knowing that I'm not going to get a new civ game for another 5 or so years now.
>>1833844>>1833858Also to add to this, I think the changes they made could have been enough without the civ swapping. I think instead of focusing on "history as layers" they marketed the big feature being that leaders no longer need to be political leaders and then really go hard how they represent those leaders both graphically and mechanically. Like beautiful intro and diplo scenes for them. People would eat that shit up. As it stands now though, it feels more like a shitty idea in the cotext of the civ swapping to just get more leaders in to sell in separate packs.
Civ Reddit is unsufferable>DEAR HATERS, YOU DISLIKE THE CIV SWITCHING BUT STONE AGE AMERICA
>>1833866It's like people saying this shit don't understand why people played civ.>I like x nation>x nation was only in this period>Now I get to see x nation in all of historyWho the fuck has ever cared about historical accuracy in civ. It makes no sense for the type of game.
>>1833855From what we know Civ 7's culture swapping is barely like Humankind's. This is like saying 6 is bad because they "copied" districts from Endless Legend despite the two mechanics working completely differently.
>>1833873>From what we know Civ 7's culture swapping is barely like Humankind's.And from what we know it's exactly like Humankind's. All we know is that there is culture swapping and that it's not limited to historical paths of progress. We don't know the limitations so we can just as easily assume it will be as free as Humankind's. Either way it's going to feel jarring when all your opponents suddenly become different nations and from a gameplay point of view, you're going to have to choose between roleplaying what you want and choosing something more optimal. It's like having to wear better armour that looks like shit in an RPG. There is simply no reason to do civ swapping unless that's literally the only idea they came up with. It doesn't work and it won't work for this and nothing you say can prove that it will.
>>1833879>All we know is that there is culture swapping and that it's not limited to historical paths of progress. We don't know the limitations so we can just as easily assume it will be as free as Humankind's.So you have no idea what you're talking about. As seen from the gameplay showcase each civ has a single assigned "historical option" that will always be available, other civ options need to be unlocked through gameplay like getting 3 horses to unlock Mongolia, ie there will be no default best path unlike Humankind and you will need to adapt your strategy game-to-game depending on what civs you're able to unlock. The way the civs themselves are designed is also totally different from Humankind, Humankind just had UBs and (usually useless) UUs plus a generic trait based on their civ type (Builder/Science/Military/etc) which meant you just picked the Builder or Agrarian civs every time because they had the strongest bonuses. Civ 7 has 2 unique units, multiple unique civics, multiple unique buildings, a unique wonder, and a unique power per civ. You also only swap civs 3 times with much longer eras meaning individual civ choices are more impactful as opposed to in Humankind where you just rush through the eras as quickly as possible so you can get to the Khmer in medieval and autowin.Again, it's exactly like trying to compare the districts in Civ 6 to Endless Legend and ignoring the fact that the mechanics work completely differently.
>>1833886>other civ options need to be unlocked through gameplay like getting 3 horses to unlock MongoliaYes exactly my point. We have no idea what limitations there are. That's literally the only one they've shown. The other option was just "others". We don't know how easy it will be to get other civs. Maybe you get a production one by getting iron maybe you get a warlike one by killing a certain amount of units. There are going to be some that are very easy to get and will be optimal choices but make no sense other than to get the better numbers. You are defending a bad design decision based off one example and zero gameplay showing the UI for switching from one civ to the next. Civ is ultimately a casual game. I can guarantee you that if they have been as free as they have with the leaders by letting you pair any leader with any civ, then they will be very generous with what civs you'll be able to pick. Again your argument does not work. You're saying nothing and basing it on trust of a company. You're coping, purely and simply.
>>1833866yeah it's really tiresome, there are even dishonest shills like that here>>1833873>>1833886we all know both firaxis and amplitude want to push the same woke agenda of portraying all cultures as being interchangeable from one another since we are all the same, that's the only reason they went for this "mechanic"
>>1833900You're assuming the worst case scenario going off of absolutely nothing. Yes, civ is largely a casual game but difficulty options exist for a reason. It's impossible to get every religion or wonder or great person you want on deity and I see no reason to assume you'll be able to pick every civ you want either.>>1833900Civ has been a woke globalist series since the first game. The entire reason Zulu is a series staple is because Sid wanted to include a black civ for the sake of diversity.
>>1833900>that's the only reason they went for this "mechanic"I'm more inclined to believe incompetence than maliciousness when it comes to game devs usually. These people are just idiots. Still, it's not off the books. They definitely look like they've hit the size that companies hit when they become staffed largely by HR reps hiring more HR reps.
>>1833859>>1833858>>1833855>>1833866I thought Humankind failed because it was made by the french, yet had no sexy girls with big cleaveges on the game?
>>1833918That definitely didn't help. Can't argue there. Dunno why they'd throw away their heritage and the good will they built up with fish milkers from ES2.
>>1833918The Endless games were carried hard by a great aesthetic and interesting lore and losing that is in my opinion the main reason why Humankind failed. Arguably it's just a straight upgrade over Endless Legend in terms of gameplay but without the Endless branding it just ended up extremely bland.
>>1833927I would take an Endless Legend 2 with Humankind's general improvements to gameplay any day. Only thing that really stops me from playing EL is the combat, and Humankind combat was fine. I really hope that's what they are doing. Realistically what they are doing is restructuring and preparing to close though.
>>1830576is the joke that both of these companies release worse games every title since like 2010
They could had made a new 4x like Beyond Earth but they are afraid it will lose sales, so they use civilizations name to change the rules and force these shitty iterations.
>>1833941>They could had made a new 4x like Beyond Earth but they are afraid it will lose salesDude, it's been like 8 years since the last civ game. They've definitely waited long enough to make a new one. I just wish they tried this idea out on something else and not a mainline civ game.
>>1833253There's no thought behind this comment.
This dumpster fire would probably be bearable if half the leader cast is an exotic half-naked anime MILF.
>>1830617>>1830690the day that someone tosses a live grenade into a board meeting of executives is the day I jerk myself off quite merrily
>>1833964How could you possibly wish harm on the person that thought of this for the Civ series.
>>1831855
>>1833927You're forgetting that the best part of the endless games is having each civ being functionally distinct and unique instead of just stat bonuses, whereas humankind is the exact opposite. Ironically, civ 6 has greater varieties in playstyles than humankind
>>1833844>everyone also hated V and said IV was better when it came outThat's bullshit, there were several holdouts for V when vi came out, most of people who were saying that V was shit and VI was better also preferred IV to both of them. I was there
>>1833895>We don't knowExactly, we don't know. So stop doomposting ahead of time.>You're saying nothing and basing it on trust of a company. You're coping, purely and simply.And you are also saying nothing but whine, because someone else fucked up once. That's the whole reasoning behind your whining.
>>1833868>Now I get to see x nation in all of historyAnd it won't be this nation anymore, idiot. States and nations are products of their time and space and if you place them in a context different from their historical background, then it won't be X nation anymore but something completely different.
>I don't like these new mechanics I didn't even try>ok offer something new >ehh... mhhm...
>>1834151These retard literally want Firaxis to sell them a reskinned civ 6. But I guarantee, if Firaxis did that, these same fags would whine that there is not enough innovations in this new entity and the game is boring.
>>1834156Wasn't 6 a reskin of 5?
>>1834158More like a direct continuation of it.
>>1834158Didn't it have shittier workers?
>>1834186Workers have "charges" in 6, which honestly just makes them more of a pain to deal with
>>1834186>shittier workersI don't think so. Limited workers added an extra layer to the game
charge workers are definitely more strategic, have interesting mechanics like bonus charges or spending charges to boost wonders, and dont leave you with AFK workers for the last third of the gamerepairing tiles shouldn't require an available worker thoughever
>>1834187I think charges can be fine as a mechanic.Problem is then you have the extra charges based on civics, wonders and stuff coupled with scaling costs of workers.Means you need to plan your farms much more carefully from the early game, ideally, never changing a farm, letting it occupy the same space from 4000 bc to 2000 ad, while it would be more immersive to change it.Also weird how building your 50th worker thousands of years later now has insane costs because of the scaling.
>>1834151Choosable bonuses per new era and not bullshit switching civ.There, how hard was that instead of copying a failed mechanic.
>>1834253>Means you need to plan your farms much more carefully from the early game, ideally, never changing a farm, letting it occupy the same space from 4000 bc to 2000 adThis is the main problem with Civ VI. The meta is to perfectly plan out every city, district, wonder, and tile improvement for optimal yields which means that around turn 20 or so as soon as you've scouted the surrounding area you spend 30 minutes planning out your expansion and laying down tacks and then just mindlessly follow that plan for the rest of the game until you win. There's way too much long-term planning frontloaded to the start of the game and not enough opportunities for reactive strategy. I genuinely dread starting a game of Civ 6 sometimes because I don't feel like playing city planning simulator for 20 minutes again.
>>1834253The scaling is by far the worst and most annoying part of 6, much like happiness was just a no-fun-allowed mechanic for 5. I wish firaxis would stop trying to balance the game by inserting breaks into it all the time
>>1834368>much like happiness was just a no-fun-allowed mechanic for 5.Honestly I don't think it was much of an issue.Like I thought it was when I first played og civ5, but once you figured out policies and stuff you could even go ICS, in fact it was meta, and it got disgusting with the happiness from religion in g&k.It wasn't until BNW with the tech cost scaling with #cities that the game settled more into 4 city tradition.Even in BNW I managed to go ICS on emperor for my first game.
They should just have state switching instead of civ switching.You could even use it in place of government or include political parties like advisors that ask you to do shit.Italy civ:>Latin League (Confederation)>Roman Republic (Classical Republic) >Roman Empire (Autocracy) Era 2>Roman (Byzantine) Empire (Feudal Monarchy)>Papal States (Theocracy)>Venice (Merchant Republic)Era 3>Italian Empire (Fascism)>Italian Republic (Democracy)>Italian Union (Socialism)It's not like making a bunch of civs is hard anymore since they don't need to make a leader for each one.Plus you can just easily invent ones for civs that didn't stand the test of time.
>>1834404this is too much historical context for the average plebditor and girl gamer believe it or not I know 2 girls IRL who play civ6
How can you introduce civilization progressions like IRL in CiV games?
>>1834451It would just look like different stat bonuses to them which it already is
>>1834463Skip character modelsThen release the game with like 1000 civs.(elaborate animated character models leads to fewer civs in game development.)Each civ have relevant civs they can turn into, under more specific circumstances, not entirely unlike eu4 tag switching, like "be X, have Y1, Y2, Y3, but don't have z1, z2, z3"You also don't have to switch.So you can play rome, stay as rome, or you can give up your capitol for a new one and become eastern rome, you can become ostrogoths if you lost land to goths and in turn give up a lot of your other cities.Goths can also become Ostrogoths, but they have to conquer roman cities for that.So if you want the power fantasy of a rome that lasts to modern age you can do that, but it might not be ideal. Or you can switch to nations that inhabitated the italian peninsula, or other parts of the roman empire depending on your circumstances and interactions.Would probably clash too much with mainline civ tho anway and feel too different, but I think that's one workable way.Might feel too much like civ4 rhye.It's not my ideal way of doing civ, but I think that's one way it could be done.
>>1830729>Humankind was released 4 years ago
>>1832760Egypt becoming the west African kingdom of Songhai, a place thousands of miles away is nuts.And then it goes to Buganda by lake Victoria? Which is way farther away from them both?It's terrible.It would be one thing if it were Ancient Egypt into the Mamelukes, into modern Arab Egypt, but instead it just goes across all of Africa for no reason.
>>1834463>>1834484They could just have a bunch of armies spawn during the "collapse" and let you choose one and reconquer your civilization which is then taken over by ai. That way it's not as stressful because you're not slowly losing everything, just reconquering everything. It would also spawn new civs.If you want to continue as your civilization they could either let you stay and defend or just frame it as a civil war.If we're using the example of Rome I'd have a bunch of armies spawn. Non playable ones such as the Vandals, Suebi, and Lombards and let the player choose between the armies of Eastern Rome, Venice, Francia, Gothic Spain, maybe even the papal states. Just straight up switching is unrealistic imo and this would make collapses a lot of fun.
>>1833418Enjoy your despotism penalty
>>1833611>Why? Why do you dumbfucks keep suggesting this?Well if Firaxis is really concerned about how the uniques of civs are weighted to specific stages of the game, making some fall off the in the late game and others start weak early on, then having a historical progression can fix that without doing the dumb Humankind thing.It's a compromise position.Personally I like how it worked in Civ games before 7, I think just picking one and playing them for the whole game is iconic and fun and I don't want any swapping.But if some swapping by age needs to be done, it should be fitting to the civs
>>1833844There's difference between innovation and completely removing the most iconic element of the series.All Civ games have innovated. The major additions of Civ 5 changed the world map and removed doomstacks in favor of front line warfare with 1UPT.Civ 6 thought that Civ 5's spamming of farms and trading posts in every tile was bad and added urban sprawl with districts and wonders taking up their own tiles.Those were changes which, even if they were controversial, innovated without changing the identity of Civilization as a series.Switching Civilizations removes the iconic element of being able to play George Washington in the ancient era, or have industrial-age Aztecs wage war on ancient Egyptians. Without that, the sole of the series is diminished, the charm is nerfed.It is degradation, not innovation
>>1834502>and completely removing the most iconic element of the series.to add to that point.even since Civilization 1, the manual, the 5th paragraph of the introduction says"You are challenged in Civilization to build an empire that stands the test of time.", variations of which has been a staple in the series since.Now even if you're playing Egypt successfully, it won't stand the test of time.Bonus:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK7HaDzKzxA
>>1834502>removes the iconic element of being able to play George Washington in the ancient era,But you will be able to do that still, because leaders are now distinct entities, not tied to any particular civilization.
>>1834187>>1834189>>1834253They should've just let you "recharge" the workers rather than have to build new ones or depend on civics and shit.
>>1834555>They should've just let you "recharge" the workersAnd what's the difference?
>>1834561You can build other stuff at the same time, you can scale the cost better, the units don't just poof, you can keep the same couple builders the whole game and have them get unit bonuses if you wanted to get crafty with it.
>>1830576Has there ever really been a bad mainline civ game? With all the anxiety surrounding civ VII, does the series’ history suggest that these concerns might be overblown?I started with civ 1, 2, and 3 back in the early 2000s, playing them consecutively around 2005. I loved the first one so much that I moved on to the second, then the third. I spent a lot of time on civ 3 before attempting to switch to civ 4, but my PC couldn’t handle it at the time. Since I played these games well after their releases, I’m not sure what state they were in when they initially launched.Later on, I played Civ 5 at release and then Civ 6 at launch as well. I’ve enjoyed every single one I’ve played. The expansions certainly enhanced them, but even without those, I found the base games to be excellent, with hundreds of hours invested before any expansions were added. For me, the expansions elevated a great game into an outstanding one.Of course, these are just my personal opinions, but I suspect they align with what most players think about the base Civilization games: great at launch, not mind-blowing, but consistently improving with expansions. I expect Civ 7 to follow this pattern. I’m curious about others’ thoughts on this, though. Were the earlier Civ games considered bad at launch? Is there any reason to believe Civ 7 will be worse than its predecessors? This subreddit feels very “chicken little” right now, and given Firaxis’s track record, I don’t think these knee-jerk reactions are warranted.
>>1834502>George Washington in the ancient era,But you can still do that?Leaders are not gonna be tied to civs anymore, so you can play the Incan Civ as led by George Washington during the ancient era and then switch to something like Ottomans or the like during Exploration era.
>>1834595>so you can play the Incan Civ as led by George Washington during the ancient eraI believe that the Incas are also an exploration era civ.
>>1834597Makes sense to be fair.At least timewise.Incas and Aztecs really came into their own quite late.Mayans on the other hand.
>>1834598>Makes sense to be fair. At least timewise.Yeah, but the problem is that Native American RL Chalcolithic-tier units will be extremely overpowered in the game to match other exploration era civs. It was dumb as fuck in Humankind, it will be dumb in civ as well. The old system where jaguar warriors and the like were ancient eras units was more consistent.
>>1834535>>1834595That anon's example was not the best, but his point about the mechanic going against the series' identity stands.You will no longer be able to build a civilisation that will stand the test of time because now you'll have to switch it.Also, one of the appeals of the series is leading the same people throughout the ages, it's not just about the leaders. This mechanic is just overall retarded and I can't even fathom why they would think it'd be a good idea.
>>1834614>You will no longer be able to build a civilisation that will stand the test of time because now you'll have to switch it.You change your culture, but your civilization remains the same. Think of it as a transformation that happened to the Eastern Roman Empire over time.
>>1834616Egypt and Mongolia and Buganda are not the same civilization you disingenuous retard.
>>1834661You have autism.
>>1834662You have nonverbal learning disorder
>>1834616>your civilization remains the sameIt changes to completely different and unrelated shit, which is why people are being so negative about it. It has already been said several times that it wouldn't be bad if the changes were historical or related like in EU4, but the problem is that they aren't.The Eastern Roman Empire is actually a good comparison because after going from Greece to Rome to Greece again it turned into fucking Turkey.
>>1833469Well France started as France and then became Congo irl
>>1834667>It changes to completely different and unrelated shit,It changes according your playstyle and environment as far as I know. Cultures just represent these combinations. If, say you live in the mountains and don't have metals you become an Inca, which is fair and much less railed than "historical" choices, because the game itself is absurd from start to finish and has nothing to do with the actual history.
>>1830576>move the genre forward in exciting ways>civ7no
>>1834608>The old system where jaguar warriors and the like were ancient eras units was more consistent.yeah I suppose
>>1834679>Cultures just represent these combinations.So, the Zulus aren't actually the Zulus and the Songhai aren't actually the Songhai, and the Mongols aren't actually the Mongols. They just "represent" the earlier civilization adopting certain new ways of living. Something tells me that the people at Firaxis would disagree with that. And if this is the case, just say that instead of what they went with. Ancient Egyptians undergoing some kind of catastrophe where the survivors end up retreating to the countryside is believable. Those survivors eventually using their large number of horse pastures to form mobile encampments centered around a group of mounted warriors who eventually become the center of a "New Egypt" that has adopted a nomadic pastoralist way of life that eventually reclaims their old lands. The end result is a new Egypt ruled by the "horse lords" of the crisis era who establish a new state where the recaptured cities co-exist with the nomadic encampments and the nature and character of Egyptian culture is changed forever. That's actually really cool.The Egyptians becoming Mongolians like in that one South Park episode? That's fucking stupid.
>>18345865 and 6 are "bad" because of stupid fucking gameplay choices that were worse than games prior. If it was its own thing that wasn't part of a good franchise of games it would be different.
>>1834595Sounds like trash.
As nervous as I am about the civ switching, different eras could make the late game not tedious. Imagine actually having a tactical battle with aircraft carriers, tanks, and choppers.
>>1834793Depends on what sort of gameplay changes we'll see between each, but I am a little excited. While civ swichting is a mistake hopefully they didn't fuck this up. Ijust think they should have squished an additional era between antiquity and exploration though, feels a little brutal
>>1831326The former breaks my immersion while the latter doesn't. Therefore the former is more immersion breaking than the latter. It's simple logic really>buh buh buhNot interested shill. Firaxis needs to hire a new marketing team
>>1834800>my immersionWho the fuck cares? kys.
>>1834800its a stupid fucking mechanic but immersion? You know humans don't live thousands of years right anon?
Chads...
>>1834846Seems realistic to me.
I actually like Ara more, is it just me?
>>1834846Truly we wuz...
>>1834812Your employers will when it flopsDie shill>>1834814>too retarded to understand the difference between realism and versimlitudeNot worth talking to youDie shill
>>1831836I agree with him on that, even if he still sounds like a fag with a lisp
>>1831836>If it's done poorly it'll literally kill the enjoyment of the gameThe example he gave about Egypt and Mongolia already proves it's retarded. So unless they're hiding something big or game-changing, or planning on actually turning it into an optional game mode before release, there's no scenario in which this could "make the game".
This just in from the Nintendo Direct>Queen Himiko leads Ancient Era Japan>???>Modern Era will be Meiji Japan
>>1835054I guess they'll pander do some more than others.Like china getting 1 for each, since otherwise they'd complain too much.
>>1835054>>1835130>give Japan and China actual accurate paths while Egypt turns into fucking Uganda Buganda>people complain about it being unfair>they eventually add accurate paths to all civs but as DLC>in the finished game the civ switch shit can be completely ignored but now you have less eras than in the previous gamesI'm calling it now.
>baka they take from HumankindI mean I'd rather see the crisises of Millennia.
>>1835001isn't that just Irish (British)
I'm gonna buy humankind aw yeah
you should try buying a drink for your mom
>>1833965Fog of war tileset???? They're gonna sell DLC to change the color of fog??????? I'm going crazy fellas I'm fully convinced games getting worse and gayer for the last decade is part of a vast demoralization conspiracy to destroy everything we like and torture us even in our leisure. I can't even buy any new games. The games coming out these days have a higher chance of torturing and humiliating you than they have of entertaining you. Games are over. Gonna go swing a sword irl
>>1835193If Civilization had more alt history it'd be a much better game.
>here's your new japanese leader bro
>>1835293Why does she look like an insect?
>>1835293cute
>>1835299Easy with the racist remarks bud
>>1834986>everyone that doesn't agree with me is a shillok rabbi buddy guy
>>1835172>but now you have less eras than in the previous gameshonest question, what's your iq?
>>1835342It literally has 3 eras retard.
>>1835353If the techs are still there isn't the only difference the music?
>>1835293>Japanese LeaderUh... Anon, this is clearly the Leader of the United States of America, currently fighting a war against the Tuskish Civilization led by Moctezuma, are you dumb?
>>1835357If the game is divided in more eras you have more opportunities for more era-specific stuff. Bunching everything together in bigger segments is just simplifying it for no reason other than to make it easier for the devs to implement this retarded mechanic that no one asked for.
>>1833844>Everyone also hated VI and said V was better when it came out, and everyone also hated V and said IV was better when it came out.These are both still true tho.
>>1835357Maybe now the cities will only have paved roads with the according tech rather than just changing everything because you entered the Industrial Era
>>1835376Do you still play IV exclusively?
>>1835376Nah, no. 6 is better than 5 in almost every way (except its style, maybe), and I'm saying this as a dude for whom 5 was his first civ game. Simply because vanilla 6 is just 5 with all its addons included.
>>1835400You can't play tall in 6.
>>1835172>while Egypt turns into fucking Uganda BugandaShouldn't have gone extinct as a civilization, lmao.
>>1835370>If the game is divided in more eras you have more opportunities for more era-specific stuff.In theory, but in civ games it never properly worked that way and most eras were indistinguishable from each other in gameplay and aesthetic terms. Less is more, I suppose.
Looking forward to playing as Wakanda then playing the Confederate South in the next era
>>1835400>Nah, no. 6 is better than 5 in almost every wayexcept having fun
>>1835409Yes you can. It's not as optimal but you can absolutely win deity games quite easily with only 5-6 cities. In comparison Civ 5 makes tall play so overpowered that there is literally never a reason to settle more than that.
>>1835370No, with more eras you just tech through them so quickly that none of them matter individually. Unless you're a marathon player have you literally ever noticed a meaningful difference between ancient and classical era gameplay? Or industrial and modern? Civ 7 having less but much longer eras (with ending crises) should allow each of them to feel more unique.
>>1830772The civ switching is a key part of why the game was Bland and Boring. Suddenly, your faction is nothing more than a line of text, a set of options where you pick whichever one gives the numbers you need to go up right now.
>>1830858Well, given the one example they showed was Egypt to fucking Buganda, they'll handle these cases by just throwing whatever unrelated nations together in a """""""historcal""""""" line
I bought Civ 6 when it was new cause I got caught in the hype and it was shit then, is it better now? Do you need specfic mods or DLC to make it not shit? Or should I just stick to alternating 4 and 5?
>>1834846WE WUZ FR
>>1835357idiot
>>1835409IncaJapanKhmer
>>1835293Could have been worse.
>>1830576WHERE IS ENDLESS LEGEND 2 YOU FUCKS
>>1835409? its literally incentivized, there's massive tech diminishing returns for more cities/districts. or at least there was last time i playedyou just can't stay a glorified city state, boohoo little buddy
>>1830858>The gauls didn't choose to become romans citizens, they were massacred, almost genocided.They agreed to become roman citizens after getting beaten fair and square, and then they revolted soon after like absolute niggers. So yeah, the romans made sure to teach them some manners. Same thing that happened with the jews. Fuck around and find out
>>1836405>there's massive tech diminishing returns for more cities/districts.Nope.>or at least there was last time i playedNot then either
>>1836539oh right i have it backwards, techs increased district cost not the other way around. absolutely retarded shit, the other way round actually would have made some sensemy bad it has been a long time i never play 4x games again after beating them on max difficulty once or twicei actually really liked some parts of humankind but it was the easiest to beat because one map had a "new world" continent and none of the AIs showed up to colonize it so you just become a superpower for free
>>1833522>having your serfs laze around because you haven't looked at them in a whileNow I want a game like this
>玩家玩CN10次 比只玩一次的CN有加成。这就有点像网游一样 肝久一个文明 这个文明就会有加成**。>If a player played CN* ten times, then it will has some bonuses compared to CN that only played once. This is similar to an online MMO, if you grind a civ long enough, this civ will have bonusesit's so over and it hasn't even begun
>>1836750The fuck? Where is this from?
>>1836776baidu
>>1836732play dungeon keeper. Slap your imps to keep them productive.
>>1836404When they had a lot of showcases for Endless Legend during Amplitude Day I was hyped, but this long without anything from them + Humankind and Endless Dungeon flopping... well maybe we can look forward to modders hitting Endless Legend like they did Endless Space 2
Kael left stardock and is working at amplitude on their next big game according to Brad Wardell so i think it's safe to say we're getting either EL2 or Kael is getting to finally make his own fantasy 4x game through amplitude
CIV VII HAS DENUVO>CIV VII HAS DENUVOCIV VII HAS DENUVO>CIV VII HAS DENUVOCIV VII HAS DENUVO
>>1835293Who is that supposed to be?
>>1837722Himiko.
>>1837734Who is that?
>>1837736https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HimikoDo you really need to be spoonfed
>>1837748Sounds like an odd choice for a leader. Especially when there are many more interesting Japanese options even among the mythological/half mythological ones.
>>1837696Well, guess I'm not even going to pirate it then.
>>1835293She somehow looks even less human than an actual fucking Altmer. Incredible.
>>1837696>/v loves wokeong>it's a single player duenovo game.I guess Civ 7 devs took inspirations from you guys, why don't you like it?
>>1837777>trannies love something, so you should too/vst/ is not /v/ you fucking tourist predditor.
>>1837754They need put all women they can "anon"
Okay anons, which route will you take?The historical route, with Iroquois becoming United States, Aztecs becoming Spain, etc.?The revisionist route, with Spain becoming Aztecs etc.?Or the Frankenstein monster route, with China becoming Denmark becoming Zulu and similar progressions?
>>1837696Oh nice, that will be a nice money save. Never touching that shit.
>>1835293>Chinese bitch in charge of Japan.I fucking hate it.
>>1838118They wouldn't dare not add a china for each age, so I'll play China-China-China and spam cities across historical china on a real world map.Actually, no I won't spam cities, there's a hard limit.
>>1838229There isn't a hard limit though. Going over it just increases the happiness burden.
>>1838118I'm not gonna play it.
>>1830608it's cheap as fuck to pay some intern or teenager/college student to run the social media
>>1838236How much are they paying you? Srsly, I could do with a side hustle
>>1838192What about her is supposed to be more Chinese than all Japanese?
>>1838118im going for the "buy it 90% off 4 years down the line when mods possibly fix it"
>>1838411five dollars a post
I wonder if this is gonna be the first civ game without AI. I bet enemy troops will randomly teleport around and enemy cities will just get random buildings once a couple of turns pass.Switch hardware means they have to stick to 1980's AI.
>>1831326Based anon noticing chuds duality
>>1838532>Switch hardwareWhy do devs even release strategy games on console to begin with? Who the fuck even plays them?
>>1838532Civ AI is so bad that it wouldn't have issues running on switch at all. The AI barely even plays the game since 1 upt.
>>1838673I thought the Switch was a mobile platform. Which is even worse actually.
>>1838939a seven year old, almost eight year old mobile platform by the time Civ 7 comes out.>>1838432Now, my knowlege of this time in JP history is pretty slim, but shes from a time period when China still had very strong cultural and political power of the Japanese islands. And with that in mind, most historical texts referring to her are Chinese in origin, and the Japanese barely refer to her at all. So she didnt have long lasting influence that would have people recognize her as a leader of Japanese History. It'd be like if for the US they picked a colonial governor of Virginia or another of the 13 colonies, rather than starting with what we call our Founding Fathers and people from that time.
>>1831326Immortal God Emperors are more funny. Especially if their clothes changed across eras.
>>1838956There was no political Chinese influence in Japan at all during that time. However there are no Japanese records from the time, so she's only mentioned in the chronicles of wei in the part about western barbarians as the the queen of wu, an island people west of China. This was the first time there even was any kind of contact between "Japan" and China. They supposedly did exchange gifts, and she was "granted" the land she already owned thanks to this, but that was more of a ritual matter.
Why even have historical civilizations with this system, wouldn't it be better to let the player build their completely unique civ by letting them choose perks or abilities every new era?
>>1839069But how do you sell DLCs with this system?
