Comparing Civ 7 and Humankind is Disingenious

[Konzi]

While I agree very little should ever be taken from Humankind with it's Civ switching, it very much not even close to the same and often comes from misinformation, sometimes on dev's part. They haven't given great examples from time to time lol, but culture switching is organic, and to extent is only available based on leader, or cultural connections (such as Rome to Spain, Normans to France, etc).

Most importantly there is an actual effort to balance the civ's rather then doing what Humankind did and just have an obvious right choice (such as making Egypt completely overpowered). Obviously it isn't for everyone, and while there is fair criticism, saying it's just a copy of humankind is dumb. My personal criticism is there should be a few more through lines (ala Chola India to Muhgals), and that civ's shouldn't be DLC locked, but from what has been shown in developer live streams and dev dairies, the ages civ switching in it of itself I'm excited for. Like with everything it depends on the execution, and while I appreciate the amount of civ's at launch, I personally feel locking future leaders behind dlc is dumb and there are better ways of monetisation (ie leader personas or cosmetics)

[Esau]

To be clear, most detractors are more frustrated with the thought of losing the civ that they want to play as from beginning to end. I had personally been looking forward to VII from its first launch trailer up until later info and dev streams came out. I maintain that a civ-switching mechanic could be succesful, but given what we have seen thus far I believe it will end up feeling underwhelming. I suppose we shall see.

[The Gray Fox]

Culture switching in VII is not organic at all. It occurs as the result of a hard coded era defining crisis that effects every single player in the game world at the same time and results in an abrupt end of round, a vague transition to a new round with what is sometimes a completely different cultural group....

Last time I checked Arab empires don't become subsaharan Africans and things like going from Normans to France is stupid. The Medieval Kingdom of France literally existed before the Normans settled in France. Why do the Normans transition to the US? You know that Normans stopped ruling England centuries before America was discovered right? Most of the designed historical transitions are just nonsense and are a smack in the face to fans used to series' staple about taking a civilization and building an empire to stand the test of time (notice the singular nouns there) .

What civ fans were asking for civ swapping at all? Thats why it will always be compared to Humankind.

[Oaks]

Originally posted by Konzi:

While I agree very little should ever be taken from Humankind with it's Civ switching, it very much not even close to the same and often comes from misinformation, sometimes on dev's part. They haven't given great examples from time to time lol, but culture switching is organic, and to extent is only available based on leader, or cultural connections (such as Rome to Spain, Normans to France, etc).

I agree. I found they did not emphasize enough that everyone is not just switching to everything else like in Humankind, but you are actually a bit restricted on how you switch. I think that's an important aspect of note.

Still, it's not gonna be for everyone, but I'm looking forward to it.

[katzenkrimis]

Originally posted by Konzi:

Saying it's just a copy of humankind is dumb.

The ages civ switching in it of itself I'm excited for.

There is a lot of stupidity being thrown around. People don't like change, but in the case of this video game, change is good.

They'll warm up to it. They just need time to practice, play, explore, and learn. Lack of funds will continue to keep some of them away.

I don't play play Humankind, but listening to people cry about the evolution of civilizations is worse than listening to climate change activists.

These are history deniers.

They refuse to accept the fact that Rome isn't forever. They want "Hail Caesar!" From the H.omo erectus to outer space.

If they could put one of Caesar's descendants on Mars by turn 500, they would approve of this game.

In the case of Civilization VII, change is good. A godsend compared to Civ VI.

There are so many great changes. And I've never showered Firaxis with praise.

[The Gray Fox]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

humankind fanboy yap

yeah no thanks. I won't touch this garbage until its on sale for dirt cheap and even then I'll probably just go back to V like VI because it'll be garbage

PS: Abbasids don't just become Saharan Africans for no reason and Harriet Tubman didn't lead the Greeks who become Normans then America. Civilization games are not history simulators. If you want this nonsense go play Humankind instead of cheering while Firaxis ruins a long established series built on a foundation of building empires that stand the test of time that you apparently don't even like you goofy

[Evilgenius]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

change is good.

This sentiment depends on so many factors that it is a moot statement to make.

[NisseDood]

Era switching is probably something they will expand on with expansions because firaxis.

[keviinb]

Civ Switching was one of the worst idea's in humankind .

No one asked for this , and seems to mean this "idea" was copied for the sole purpose of selling more and more and more -

It's a con

[NoxMortus]

One of the key elements of the Civilization franchise was playing your chosen civ from beginning to end. Not being forced to change "civs" through the game. This was a mechanic that detracted from Humankind and will likely do the same for Civ.

Leaders come and go (even obscure and irrelevant ones are tolerable), but the civ was the core identity.

[wildcardbitches]

Originally posted by NoxMortus:

One of the key elements of the Civilization franchise was playing your chosen civ from beginning to end. Not being forced to change "civs" through the game. This was a mechanic that detracted from Humankind and will likely do the same for Civ.

Leaders come and go (even obscure and irrelevant ones are tolerable), but the civ was the core identity.

agreed. If anything we should be swapping leaders not civs.

[Steve]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

Originally posted by Konzi:

Saying it's just a copy of humankind is dumb.

The ages civ switching in it of itself I'm excited for.

They refuse to accept the fact that Rome isn't forever. They want "Hail Caesar!" From the H.omo erectus to outer space.

If they could put one of Caesar's descendants on Mars by turn 500, they would approve of this game.

Yeah, that's all we wanted. That's all we've ever wanted out of the game in the end. To take our civ, and do it our way, start to finish.

Until VII, we got to do that too.

Acting shocked about people not liking that big of a departure from series mechanics is pretty disingenuous itself.

[Ambushbob]

Ill wait for Civ 8 when they take out the mechanic they took from Humankind.

[King_Kiff]

yeah comparing it to ARA is more apt.

[Aeekto]

Not only humankind....
CIV7 took all the bad stuff everyone was moaning about (the reason why they failed) from humankind, millenia and Ara and put them together into a game with a civilization tag on it.

[Deadwinter]

Same wait for Civ VIII, wait to get humankind and propaganda out of the game.