New Ages System - Hit or Miss?

[z3rk]

As per title, i wonder what are your thoughts?
I'm not going to focus here on bugs, price, UI, customization etc, because these are 'additional' mechanics, they can be fixed with patches, sales, DLCs etc,
My concern/focus is the Ages System, because it is a core mechanic, and I fear that as such, it won't be fixed, it can't be fixed (unless they decided to make completely new game mode)

So, let's start, for me this new system is a MISS:
I've been playing civ games for a long LOOONG time, and while next iterations had some changes or even innovations, the body/core remained the same.
One could argue that starting with Poland (or any other civ) in 2000 B.C.E. and playing until the end of times was historically innacurate.... but it was great. You had a one nation, YOUR nation that you could build, expand and tailor as you like.
A never ending war with Germany starting in ancient era and ending in Information times? Sure
An England empire on a map without seas, building their Man-O-Wars on lakes for gigles? Why not
Ghandi capturing London with his ELEPHANTS (because why not, why should I upgrade them even?) AFTER droping a nuke there? Be my guest.
Babylon mining Coal in Classical Era? Right this way
Etc,
For me the game, each civ up until Civ 7 was ONE long run, no breaks, no forced changes, just me, my leader and my ONE nation, that could and will stand the test of time.

I'm not bashing the Civ 7 or saying that 'it's my way or highway', i'im kind of sad and disappointed that the genre that was part of my gaming life is no longer for me, that it is more like a Humankind 2 (on a side note, i really tried to like Humankind, spent some time there but in the end, i couldn't relate to my ever changing nation in the long run). But hey, that's change i guess.

But, what do you think? Is this a great change or a poor one? a Hit or Miss? A good direction or a dead-end? Will IT, stand the test of time?

[Townsendvol]

I don’t prefer it but it’s a part of the game they are not going to remove for this one. That’s my opinion.

But despite it I am enjoying the game and am excited for the future of the game. It’s not a make or break for me.

[Kidkiedis]

Originally posted by z3rk:

I've been playing civ games for a long LOOONG time

Maybe you should play this one too? So that you could see pros and cons of ages system..

[Evrach]

For me, as a long time player too that play since civ 1 in 1992, it's more a hit than a miss.

I wanted the game to be different, to explore new gameplay areas and is not disappointed on this. I just don't see the point of having the same gameplay over and over with just new graphisms and I like how civ games always succeeded in renewing themselves by changing between eachs game so we can have a brand new experience each time.

I can perfectly understand how this age system can be disliked by some people, and I was a little worried at the begining, but now that I have played a few games, I really enjoy it. I think it mostly depends on what experience you are searching in the game. As a competitive mp player, shorter better shaped game sessions with clearly defined goals are pretty appealing, but I can imagine the "long run break" you're talking for chill solo players.

Civilization always was a mix between a "strategic board game" and a "sandbox empire construction" game. With all a variety of players and playstyles inbetween these two approaches. I guess this specific iteration of the game really support the strategic boardgame side over the sandbox building one. And most of the players I see complaining are from the second category : people that just want to "build their empire" the "way they like" without constraints. they want auto-explore, they want "one more turn", they want to "finish the tree of an era" "without a break".

Different people, with different perspective and expectations. It's a very polirizing choice the devs make. And how interesting the feature is, I don't see it renewed for the next games ; like some features are always specific to one particular civilization game.

[Larkis]

It add a lot to historc authenticity. Inside the Age, you play a civ, you work with other civs from that age and with units from that age. Playing in Ancient Age really gives the feeling of an ancient age. Same with exploration and modern. You have allways some authenticity here other civs doenst have.

Second is special gameplay. In old civs, ages are just names, that get dropped at some point in time. They dont change something. They just word throw on you. "hey you are in medival age now" Great, when your first tanks are in production, cause you rush science. Now every age has some special gameplay elements and new victory conditions based on that age.

And finally, it adds a rubberband mechanic to keep the game challenging and interesting.

[Nerzalar]

I like it a lot, it makes me re-think my strategy often times when it happens wich to me is a good thing.

I play startegy games to think on my feet, not having my whole gameplan solved in the early game and then just clicking things I already know i'm going to click for the rest of the game.

Also, real history is full of examples of empires rising and falling, and soceities changing dramatically everytime that happens, I like the authenticity.

[Ishau]

For me it is a hit.

I feel sometimes the ages are too short, but I end up gaming the system and playing in such a way to limit the amount of points I am getting to slow the age down and using that to build up ready to dominate in the modern age. My last game had me win the science victory within 60 turns doing this.

I would like to see an option for longer ages, maybe even an age after the mordern age and being able to turn off certain victory types - but overall I am enjoying it.

[Danger Noodle]

I both like and hate the new age system.

Starting with why I don't like it: The forcing of all players to switch ages at the same time, no matter what, is grating to the way I like to play. The whole time-skip feeling and board wiping of elements you were working on doesn't make for a fun experience. As a review I read stated, it feels like three different games in one.

Why I like the idea: Having point where there is a clear change in your empire is a neat idea. I certainly don't mind having my empire morph while I'm working it into something new.

[Darkboss]

Definitely a miss. Specially because it forces to change Civilizations, but also for other things

We shouldnt have to compromise being able to choose ANY Civ and play from 0 to Victory

I think they NEED to make a new game mode, or alter the game enough so you can pick any civ in any age and complete a whole game with a single civ

[gmsh1964]

A lot of references to this in the above posts - because the UI is bad and the Civilopedia is useless, you need to put a lot of time into the game. As you put more and more time into it, you start to see how the Age changing mechanic is great. The entire game is great, they just should have waited until the UI and Civilopedia was completed before release.

[Martin]

Ages don't bother me, I actually kind like it.

[gmsh1964]

I do too. But it took me about 50 hours to start to see how you use it.

[Kidkiedis]

Like the idea, but crisis events are not that challenging as they should be. So needs a bit of fixing same as the whole game.

Originally posted by gmsh1964:

I do too. But it took me about 50 hours to start to see how you use it.

That's the main reason why some people here on forums keep whining. They didn't play it. lol

[strategic_panda]

Well, I haven't bought this game yet, and I might not buy it at all, so I can't really judge it.
But from what I've seen, I feel like Civ has completely abandoned its historical simulation elements in this installment.

That means I'm no longer part of its target audience. It's a sad realization.

To be fair, Civ has always positioned itself as a strategy game, not a historical simulation.
So in the end, it was foolish of me to expect simulation elements in the first place.

Moving forward, I guess I'll have to wait for a similar game that values simulation more.
Though, from what I can see, all the similar titles seem to be struggling commercially...

[Steel Rain]

Its a miss for me. It feels like we are playing 3 mini civ games. I feel it destroys the epic feeling of Civ and trivialize things like science. Science was key to all the other civ games, but since it effectively resets after each 1/3 of the game, getting behind in it is not a game killer and you can mostly ignore science unless you are going for a science victory.

[Arsenal - Whoop whoop]

Unfortunately it’s a miss for me too. Sorry. Fingers crossed the devs may be able to give an option not to play the ages. But, sadly, I doubt it. Civ 5 is a fond memory.