To all who are complaining about the Leaders chosen

[flyingleaf]

I have read through several discussions about leaders and who should be chosen and so on and so forth. You all seem not to getting the point, sorry. Civ VII is not the game it was before and it has other ideas how to play and whom to represent then all other titles before. You are not deciding which nation with which historical leaders you represent. You have some "personas" who are picked by the game designers which have some historical context or were leaders, or simpley very interesting persons , but they were not chosen because they were the greatest leaders with most impact on our actual world. They were chosen to have a variety of "decisions" based on their abilities and to be able to write your complete own story playing them.. as simple as is.

E.g. to complain now that Barack Obama would have been better then Harriet Tubman... these people forget Civ VII refuses to be a political simulator or to stay 100% with historical powerful persons only and I am glad that they do because of many reasons. CIV VII is first of all a game and the design decisions behind are good. There will be plenty of strategical options based on with which "persona" you do a playthrough in combination with the different cultures you choose from.

The replayability could be that way much greater then it ever was before and I am very curious to test it myself when it is released, because from a "gamer point of view" all what I have heard so far enriches the gameplay and makes it more fluent and more fun. Same is true with the leaders and with many other aspects of this game.

[Henryk]

Originally posted by Shekels:

Fascinating read. I will continue to not buy the game however.

Ok, thank you. Then I can buy an additional license ;-)

[Bfloo]

We still need to see if the design decisions are good or not. 5 starting factions is still a big red flag, you can start with more in a rts.

Replayability has never been an issue.

[Dr.Acula]

The central question is whether it improves Civilization from a gameplay perspective or not. I don't see how this is supposedly better even from a conceptual aspect...

[colostmy4]

This is a game. It will always be a game and not a historical documentary. It will never be 100% historically accurate no matter how it is made. Why? Because it's a game. Let it be a game.

[Dr.Acula]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

This is a game. It will always be a game and not a historical documentary. It will never be 100% historically accurate no matter how it is made. Why? Because it's a game. Let it be a game.

I refer to my prior comment though. In what way do the changes especially regarding leaders improve the gameplay aspect?

[Bfloo]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

This is a game. It will always be a game and not a historical documentary. It will never be 100% historically accurate no matter how it is made. Why? Because it's a game. Let it be a game.

This decision is just another red flag for some among many. I still need to see some gameplay and what the start options are.

The ones looking for historical accuracy are in the wrong franchise.

[flyingleaf]

Originally posted by Dr.Acula:

Originally posted by colostmy4:

This is a game. It will always be a game and not a historical documentary. It will never be 100% historically accurate no matter how it is made. Why? Because it's a game. Let it be a game.

I refer to my prior comment though. In what way do the changes especially regarding leaders improve the gameplay aspect?

In having the possibility now to choose from every interesting person which the Developers identify for the game instead of some already well known leaders from the past series, they achieve a much bigger variety of characteristics they could define to enable a richer deeper and more challenging or interesting gameplay when competing againts them or chosing one of them.

Means they are not bound to some well known but in their characeristics sometimes more similar leaders where it would be much more difficult to define such difference in behaviour then doing it that way. This alone could bring the gameplay, a much more interesting course then possible before.

But this is for sure actually only an estimation and assumption since I had not the luck to test it so far ;)

[katzenkrimis]

All this because of one leader.

Now we've got two games, releasing three days apart, that people are going bonkers over. Both because of a black character being inserted into the game.

There is going to be a mass prediction failure this Valentine's Day.

I will have chocolates and a front row seat.

It's going to be just as funny as when Yong Yea trashed Valhalla and everyone predicted that game would bomb. Not only will Civilization VII park the bus in Steam's top 20 most-played games list and never leave, but Assassin's Creed: Shadows will smash Valhalla's sales record.

Egg on your face time.

In 58 days.

[MarVerine]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

All this because of one leader.

Now we've got two games, releasing three days apart, that people are going bonkers over. Both because of a black character being inserted into the game.

There is going to be a mass prediction failure this Valentine's Day.

I will have chocolates and a front row seat.

It's going to be just as funny as when Yong Yea trashed Valhalla and everyone predicted that game would bomb. Not only will Civilization VII park the bus in Steam's top 20 most-played games list and never leave, but Assassin's Creed: Shadows will smash Valhalla's sales record.

Egg on your face time.

In 58 days.

Sorry to burst your bubble but AC Shadows is most likely already dead. Ubisoft value after the AC Shadows backlash sank so low that they now have the market worth of a bigger indie game studio.
Tencent is bound to take them over soon as they forced them down the path of selfdestruction.

[flyingleaf]

Originally posted by Ixal:

And many people do not like that "Civ7 is not the game it was before" as it makes both the nations and the leaders pretty arbitrary and complain about it, using the most egregious instance as example which in the case if leaders is now Tubman.

The game does a evolutionary step forward and as many who could be not so fine with it there are people who are relieved that finally they are bravely enough to renew the game where it is since ages appropriate and to perhaps bring a complete new gameplay feeling with it. I play this series since ages myself and only to renew graphic and bring here and there some slight differences is not enough anymore for a modern game these days. It needed a fresh take and a better smoother and in many aspects more impactful rework as it was before. Micro Management and hundreds of units pushing over the map is not a long term motivator anymore ;) And yes they reworked as well the idea to have one nation and bring it to be the greatest after going through history. But this rework is much more realistic then the gameplay before suggested history works was. Because they are right that all nations are born from history and mixed up and reworked over hundred of years several times. So I am very fine with that approach and the more twists and changes this is including in the game which make it hopefully more varied and more unpredictable who will finally win, since from age to age the cards are mixed new. And the very last concern for me personally is which persons they choose to be the "personas" we could choose from to become our leader of choice or enemy of choice. I like that they highlight other interesting persons from history that way which had till date not so much attention. I learn more this way and I like to learn via this game about real history context as well as always.

[Bfloo]

Originally posted by Ixal:

And a lot of people see it as unrealistic that Egypt ends up as Buganda or that Spain does not exist in modern times. Or that leaders are just goodie bags you minmax instead to tied to the nations they lead.

You seem to think that this is the only way forward, but it is not.
People don't want Civ to be static and unchanging, but they want steps into a different direction and are completely in their rights to let others, including Firaxis, know about that.

If they want a 'realistic' historically accurate game, Civ is not the game. I'm not knocking Civ for it, just stating a fact. It throws in a lil bit of history for game play, but that is where it ends.

For history buffs who want historical accuracy, there are so many choices catering to that niche.

[flyingleaf]

Originally posted by Ixal:

And a lot of people see it as unrealistic that Egypt ends up as Buganda or that Spain does not exist in modern times. Or that leaders are just goodie bags you minmax instead to tied to the nations they lead.

You seem to think that this is the only way forward, but it is not.
People don't want Civ to be static and unchanging, but they want steps into a different direction and are completely in their rights to let others, including Firaxis, know about that.

I did not say that I see it as the only way of how they could have evolved this game, so this is only your point of interpretation or in other words you are pointing here something towards me what I never said with one word.

I only explain my point of view that I can follow and understand the way they choose to alter the game and how their new interpretation of a civilization game will look like. I think many things makes sense and will be very interesting to play.

And yes your are right for the old fashioned players who want to keep their nation or want tranditional leader figures in the game will be for sure not very happy. But there is enough stuff out there including the older Civ games which can be used if this is really a so important point for some people.

For me the game mechanics are much more important and that I will be satisfied and interested to play from begin to end... (that was a very big issue many older Civ games had that you lost interest in finishing the game especially the 6th part in my eyes had here big weaknesses) And this very big problem could be adressed very good with their design decisions showed so far.

But last but not least I hoped personally for a complete different game myself with other aspects but with even more changes that they have shown and done. So that for the point if I am a fanboy of what they have shown already or not. I am not, but I can see that also this sort of game could be a very good step forward and attracts me in playing it again very intensely.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by flyingleaf:

Originally posted by Ixal:

And many people do not like that "Civ7 is not the game it was before" as it makes both the nations and the leaders pretty arbitrary and complain about it, using the most egregious instance as example which in the case if leaders is now Tubman.

The game does a evolutionary step forward and as many who could be not so fine with it there are people who are relieved that finally they are bravely enough to renew the game where it is since ages appropriate and to perhaps bring a complete new gameplay feeling with it. I play this series since ages myself and only to renew graphic and bring here and there some slight differences is not enough anymore for a modern game these days. It needed a fresh take and a better smoother and in many aspects more impactful rework as it was before. Micro Management and hundreds of units pushing over the map is not a long term motivator anymore ;) And yes they reworked as well the idea to have one nation and bring it to be the greatest after going through history. But this rework is much more realistic then the gameplay before suggested history works was. Because they are right that all nations are born from history and mixed up and reworked over hundred of years several times. So I am very fine with that approach and the more twists and changes this is including in the game which make it hopefully more varied and more unpredictable who will finally win, since from age to age the cards are mixed new. And the very last concern for me personally is which persons they choose to be the "personas" we could choose from to become our leader of choice or enemy of choice. I like that they highlight other interesting persons from history that way which had till date not so much attention. I learn more this way and I like to learn via this game about real history context as well as always.

So an evolutionary step forward is locked to 5 Civs on a small map in the ancient era to start?

Or the game stopping in the 1960's now so they can sell extra age DLCs later?

LOL

[Steve]

Can I do a custom leader yet? Make a character, pick out their attire through the ages, set my bonuses (with reasonable drawbacks -- i love how the Maori were balanced in 6), that sort of thing?

[Octavus]

They should have made a fantasy-ish spin off where we could name the leaders of our campaigns or have them randomly generated. Then add some light fantasy elements, yeah dragons and stuff, lol. Lets face it, by game 7 running the same formula, you're gonna be running out of ideas.

Take a page out of Total War's™ play book. Do something different.