Видео

I'm expecting a DLC with an additional era called "the intergalactic era."

Good grief, that UI is awful. Hope this was just a placeholder

8:05 okay people are so stupid if they don't look past it at the surface because this IS how societies develop their own cultural identity IRL. Think about it, why or how did Mongolians become horsemen? Why are they known for being horsemen? Because the resource of wild horses happened to be plentiful, and they realized their land wasn't great farming land but it made them nomadic moving from place to place. The pastoral land was okay for grazing. Their leaders realized the advantages they offered in warfare with hit and run tactics and mobility making horses important to the Mongolians. They used them in many ways. Takhi - the wild horses that once roamed the Eurasian steppe in huge herds - influenced their way of life so much that it was centered around horses, which were used as mounts, pack animals, and as a source of food (both for horsemeat and mare's milk). To the point where nowhere are horses more central to daily life than in Mongolia. Mongolia still to this day is known as the land of the horse, and Mongols have a reputation for being the best horsemen. My point being if a civilization finds a certain resource then it makes sense that they adapt to it if they are utilizing it. Yes, in history Egypt didn't turn into Mongolia but if any society had the horses and didn't have the rich farmland that Mongolians dealt with that would've developed the same way. So I take it as less of what happened in real history and more of what could or would happen to my civ based on what I discover or how I choose to settle and develop them. They'll develop and change their own culture based on those decisions, and if I find three horse resources then that's fine that they could develop into mongolian civ who are known for being a horsemen culture.

It amazes me people are so upset about a GAME not reflecting history. Its a game guys its not meant to make exact historical sense (dont get me wrong its feels great to play a semi historical game but its not essential). When has civ made historical sense in the past. Some examples below which illustrate how nonsensical this argument is: England building Machu pichu America building the pyramids Sumeria in the modern age Canada in the ancient age A slinger depending your capital in 1950 😂 Do i need to go on? The only historical accuracy in the game has been the names and traits of civs and leaders and the name of wonders and building's.

Yeah, i dont get the complain about changing Civs: You can take it as "Unlike in history, in your game you developed Egypt into a horse-centric civ and it became an egipcian version of the Mongols, which now never existed in Asia"

it always bother me that we had Civ with era specific bonus, specially the unit, because it maded some Civ completly broken compare to other, antiquity civ were nice to bully your neigbor and get big fast and have a snowball effect, but mid game were just the best, in Civ5 i would conquer the whole world with Russia everygame, and that wasn't even hard. and for late game Civ, they are useless, the game is already settle at that point. and historicly, the new system make a lot more sense, i would rather have the egyptian turn into mongol horde because they were geographicly and culturally propice to become it than having the american coesxist with babylon.

I wonder how the determine who choses the new leader as the age changes? I haven't heard much about the role of culture in this game. Perhaps a good way is to give the civ with the highest culture first dibs on the leader going into the next age.

If true I like the idea of the map expanding as the ages progress. With the previous Civs there would be an opponent placed on each continent. By the time you earn the ability to cross oceans the other continents are already fully occupied. This could make the middle of the game interesting as everybody will be rushing to explore and settle the new lands. It could also make the scenario interesting as it could lead to a decision on whether to focus building you military to conquer the existing lands while your opponent is focusing on building settlers and ships.

Humankind did it first

Keep making Civ 7 videos, Saxy

Actually, Egypt into Mongol does make a little bit of sense. Hulegu Khan made it to Baghdad, it wasn’t that far to Egypt and there’d have been pretty good pasture for horses once they got into the delta. I think it was more politics than geography that stopped them, if I recall.

civilization has progressed far n all, but i wanna see some day is civ implement a kardashev scale system, where civilizations can progress to planetary to galactic to multiversal levels

My biggest worry about civ change system is how insensitive it could be. I don't see people talking about it (just the dumb argument about lack of historical accuracy). Like, we know we will get Shawnee, who are Native Americans, right? If they're an Exploration era civ (or even Ancient era), then the best guess would be that they'd turn into Modern era America, right? Doesn't that sound kinda awful, especially for people that might be affected? Other examples from civs appearing in previous games: - Celts becoming England (basically Irish being put under the rule of England) - Cree becoming Canada (another Natives that got almost exterminated by colonizers) - Poland becoming Russia or maybe Germany (2 countries that erased Poland and almost erased it second time) - Inca becoming Brazil (Natives exterminated by colonizers). Also, there's high chance that China will be Modern era civ because Mongolia is Exploration era. And Japan likely will be an Exploration era, because I doubt they'll pass on doing samurais (who fit that timeframe). Which means Japan might have to change into China, which is again just wrong. Imagine if Korea is also an Ancient Asian civ, then we have Korea chaning into Japan (which would be wrong, because at that time period Japan tried to conquer Korea) which turns into China. Another off feeling example would be to make Indonesia change into Australia. I don't think there's a bad blood between them, but still, it suggest one is more primitive than another. For people claiming they want to celebrate a place in history of many nations, they are kinda happy to also celebrate their downfalls or outright traumas. Not to mention that the way it's presented it suggest some real life countries (like Egypt or any I've mentioned, if they would happen) are just primitive compared to others. All that stuff is a good gameplay design (from the looks of it), but wrapped into an awful package. They really should do something about it. Otherwise they will end up alienating part of their fanbase who will feel unpleasant with gameplay forcing them to do that stuff.

I think it’s looking good overall. But I’m also not a fan of switching civs. I always liked the idea of creating an “ancient” USA or an “ancient” Canada and guiding them through the ages to create a Canadian Empire that stood the test of time. Or taking an ancient civ like Babylon, and guiding them through the ages and eventually to the stars. However, if the system is better implemented than it was in Humankind, I’ll probably like it!

I'm disappointed you didn't get to play the game. I was looking forward to your opinion specifically about it. I've been watching your Civ 6 videos for a while now so I was hoping to hear your thoughts. I'll keep an eye out at launch for your thoughts though. Glad you're posting again!

Ya this feature plus only 5 player killed the game for me.

Ages look gimmicky ... does everything suddenly change appearance when you hit a new age, rather than growing organically?

When Civ6 came out and I was playing Civ5 I wasn't too receptive. Now I like Civ6. I'm sure this will be the case with Civ7. Looking forward to taking it for a spin.

8:30: Egypt is on the same continent as Mongolia... and the mongolians ironically stopped their conquest at egypt, being defeated by the Mameluq Egyptians.

I'm very excited to try this game once it's possible. I appreciate that they're going all out with big expansive changes - the ages is actually the thing I'm most confident about working out. As everyone has mentioned, they're actually very long so I'm not worried about that overblown concern that the AI will be tag switching so much you can't track it. The lack of tile management is what I'm afraid might make the game less interesting, but will have to actually try it.

They should change strategy set of civilization via changing great person (not leader), rather than changing civilization itself.

Historical accuracy. Like when the Incas built the Great Wall

I was offended you didn't get an invite. Your videos are the BEST for civ players of every level. Potato talks to damn fast, and most others are just showing off. You and Drew are the titts.

Can’t wait for True Start Earth Map in Civ 7 🥳

That was the beauty of Civ, playing as Babylon until the future, regardless of how it fell in real history. Locking Civs to specific eras can lead to unfortunate implications. Are all Native American Civs gonna become America in the Modern era? Maya and Aztecs become Spain or Mexico? China and Korea become Japan? I need to see the full Civ roster to judge how well planned the Civ paths are. But if I don't like playing Civ7, I will stick to playing Civ6.

Exploration age probably = Spice as a luxury resource 🤔

If I want to play USA I first have to play 2 ages with civilisations I didn't want to play with and I can't even be sure I'm playing USA because another player might grab USA in the last age? Is this the fun in Civ7?

I think it'd be awesome if we could continue as the same civilization only if we handled the crises superbly at the age end. This would add an extra challenge. If we fail the crisis our empire fragments and we have to choose which fragment/civ to rule.

Its garbage. Civ 7 has all the markings of a cheap knockoff of a Civ game, but lacks all the features that make Civ great. Also, they have joined Paradox in the DLC scam... create a piece of trash, then sell parts of what should have been in the game to start, in expensive add-ons. Never touching this mess... changing cultures, no workers, destroyed religion, mass advancements, can't build roads where you need them, missions (to force players to play a certain way, to cover weakness of play styles), A set crisis at the end of every Age will force players to unrealistically pre-plan for the crisis in every game rather than play naturally... and these are only the nonsense they have revealed. Changing cultures and no workers alone will keep me from ever buying or playing this garbage.

This new era change feature is going to be the most controversial gameplay change in all the civilization games. It could force Firaxis to change it during their mid cycle updates because some gamers are going to hate it and (maybe) some are going to like it. I understand the reason behind the developers plan to make the game feel more realistic as you manage your civilization through time but at the same time it adds unrealistic characteristics to the game with the ability to mix civ leaders with different civilizations. If I am not mistaken the plan was to take one leader e.g. Benjamin Franklin, then choose your first antique age civ like Egypt and then morph Egypt into Mongols in case you can find two horse resources. So, in the late game there might be a war between Montezuma, the leader of the United States versus Benjamin Franklin, leader of the Mongols? Come on guys! This is ridiculous! I don't see even one percent realism in such a scenario, which will occur in very game. The only way to prevent such nonsense from happening if Firaxis narrows down the civs a great person can choose and then narrows down the evolution path of each civilization. Meaning: England starts as Celts in the antique age, then transforms into either Vikings or England and in the late game to Great Britain. Another example would be for Rome to transform into Holy Roman Empire during exploration age and then into Italy when entering the modern age. Otherwise, this game becomes just another strategy game that takes place in some randomly generated world with random civilizations fighting for land and gold.

CIV 7 is completely ruined for me after i learned they copied Humankind and are forcing us to play multiple Civs in one playthrough. The whole reason i played civ in its iterations is because it's fun taking a single CIV from the Ancient era to the future and being the most successful civ in the game. I'm only Unsubscribing because CIV 7 is ruined for me and i don't want to hear about it anymore i loved your CIV 6 leader spotlights those were great.

I like the idea that you change your civilization. It's creative BUT it cannot be random. It must be connected civilizations otherwise it breaks the entire game atmosphere because it makes a lot of sense to go from, lets say, Rome to Italy or other Romanic civilizations but it makes zero sense to go from Rome to India or Japan. If they make nations completely random then it's a deal breaker for me.

still mixed feelings. slightly more positive. i think with swaping civ you become more flexable. then the culture civ spawned next to a war civ. ruining your plan. also wonder if the era's are even in turns or era 1 is shortest 2 is middel and 3 is longest. if the era sytem works what you think of a posible mars/moon colonly era 4! future era.

Why CIV youtubers are so disingenuous, no one really asked about historical accuracy (CIV was never historically accurate), but asked for historical sense (authenticity), people do not have a problem with an evolution that make sense, happened in history or could happen, like Otomans into Byzantium (where otomans conquer byzantium but they asimilate into byzantium culture). Egypt into Mongolia or Songhai makes no sense, it pure artificial and kills half of what people liked and play for CIV. In EU4 there are different path of evolution that people like, Firaxis could have inspire from them not from Humankind, from Humankind they could take battle sistem that is better than CIV in my opinion.

My big fear is that the cities become too alike from game to game (I like builders). I don't play fast domination games at all so I'm also worried that there is no other viable gameplay. Lastly my other fear is that the random generator options will be too limited and reduce replayability.

I'm not impressed.

There has to be a way to make civ switching feel cohesive. If they let me NAME my civ (i give them a unique identity) and then they called the civ switch a "style" / "inspiration" I'd be fine with it (and if they kept the old building styles where they are)

So Nuclear Gandi got demoted to regular ol'dude?

There is nothing historically accurate about this civ changing. Egypt never turned into Songhai or Mongolia. It's just a gimmick and a bad one too.

"Civ was never a historically accurate game." I disagree with this kind of response. Not that it's not factually true. I just disagree with this _kind of response._ Well yeah duh, no game is ever completely realistic or historically accurate, is it? Of course not. But at the same time not every developer uses that as an excuse to do the most unintuitive, incongruous things ever either. Just because people can tend to understand a few weird things like a game still presenting you with stone-age barbarians in the middle-ages, doesn't mean they'd be just as fine with EVERY departure from realism or intuition without limits. And I'm not even someone who necessarily disagrees with Civ 7's feature of "becoming different civs." I just disagree with the flippant and lacking response people have to the concern about it. It reminds me a lot of a stupid mantra I kept hearing back in the day on the forums of Warhammer 40K Dawn of War, quipped by the gatekeepers whenever people had criticisms or views about visuals : "graphics don't equal gameplay :)" Duh, but there's a reason people still buy/upgrade their gaming machines instead of playing tetris or pacman all day everyday.

I love the look from what I’ve seen so far! I’m not a big fan of the cartoonish look in the prior series

I really hope this enables them to add a lot more Civs to the game. One of my favorite parts of Civ VI has been the sheer amount of diverse civilizations they kept adding, it made me return to the game and have a lot of fun. Their expansion passes also really felt like a good deal, compared to other shady gaming companies. I hope one day I'll get to see my Civ on there (Dacians / Thracians in Antiquity, and Romania in the Exploration or Modern age)

idk if I like changing civilizations I like testing to see if I can do al eras as one culture and I like having more eras and having an advantage.

what we need is a way to stop us from memorizing the map and resource locations between New games and reloads

Sad to hear you didn’t get selected to try out Civ7. Your videos taught me how to play Civ6, and I hope you’ll make tutorials for 7 as well!

The map looks amazing, such a step up from the cartoonish map of civ 6

The argument of civs not being on the same continent makes no sense for civilization. The continents are not that of earth. Civilizations pop up everywhere. Rome can be a neighbor of America.

tbh I'm more concerned about the (in my opinion) ugly UI + fonts, and leaders (Augustus) for the mechanics, there will always be pushback initially, even Civ 5 was disliked when it was released.. People will geet used the new stuff

One thing I see people not understanding about the Ages is that each is 200-300 turns. So they're more like a full game, and then a full Campaign is like a Marathon game.

The whole civ switch just feels wrong and basically ruins what made civ fun for me, the whole "build a civilization to stand the test of time". I didn't care if America or Canada was starting in the ancient era because that was the whole point of the game, starting small and build your civilization. Now that's basically ruined and not only that I won't be able to complete a game with my country and wining with it. I would have honestly preferred that the leaders switched insted of the civilization, for me at least it would have allowed for a far more interesting gameplay where each leader offered different bonus to game while keeping it just being one civ throughout the whole game. Let's say for example England you start with William the Conqueror where in the first age your leader will give bonus for a more domination focus game, and then in the next age you play as Victoria where she offered bonus for a naval and production game and then in the modern age you get someone like Churchill. That for me sounds way more interesting and would have probably caused way less uproar in the community.