It looks like civilization 5.5 if we were to put it on a scale of civ v's realistic and civ vi's cartoonish visual style, with a bit a polish overall to make the graphics prettier. I think I like it.
Also, yeah, why is this a gameplay reveal. It's also halfway on a scale of a theatrical trailer and a gameplay trailer.
I guess the gameplay showcase is live right now: https://iv.ggtyler.dev/watch?v=Tc3_EO6Bj2M
It looks like we can mix and match leaders and civilizations now, nice!
It looks like they took a lot of ideas from Humankind.
I wonder if the pre-purchase bonuses are exclusive to preordering only or if we could still purchase them later when the game goes on sale. I hate preorder exclusive content.
Oh god why is this presentation so earnestly serious about le epic history simulator of human progress.
Video games are presented way too seriously. They hype the shit up like the dawn after revolution is about to occur. So much hype for a game to get me addicted and waste too many hours of my life.
okay so after watching the gameplay reveal trailer, i was thoroughly unimpressed, BUT: If leaders who were not heads of state but still notable philosophers and scientists like (who I assume to be) Confucius and Ben Franklin can be leaders, this means that there is very real potential to see Karl Marx as a playable leader
They better not increase system requirements so much that I need to get new hardware.
It's supposedly still supported on the Nintendo Switch. I hope this means it will be well optimized.
It also looks like there will also be Linux support again, yay!
wtf this "Ages" thing seems horrible. You have to just randomly convert your entire civilization into a completely different one?
It seems like you can follow a cultural line if you want, or go into different civs based on your leader or by meeting certain conditions.
Considering the default for Egypt is to become Songhai, I doubt there will be many logical cultural lines to follow.
I find this to be a stupid mechanic. I would rather have something like in Victoria 3 where the nation is the same but changing the government will impact the name and mechanics of the civilization, or by meeting certain requirements you can form different nations, like Indonesia, Laos, Scandinavia, etc. I think I like the mechanic of mixing and matching leaders and civs, but I want some limitations and realism.
Civilization was my first strategy game that attracted me into the genre, and I thought it was the coolest thing to play as France and build the Pyramids. Mixing and matching leaders and civs fits into the spirit of Civilization. Straight up changing civilizations willy nilly is just an Endless gimmick that sucked. I rather stick to a Civ and culture, but have the freedom to change as long as I meet certain conditions. What kind of civilization roleplay has civilizations swap names and cultures immediately after the beginning of a new era? That just kills the story aspect and makes the game gamey.
If there's anything from Civ VII that I hope is fixed, according to changes I heard from early playtesters, it would be the min-maxing focus of the game. I like Paradox strategy games, like Stellaris, as they have a story focus, and even if I lose, it's fun to get immersed into the universe. Civ V and VI's mechanics involve a lot of micromanaging (which is heavily required to beat the game in the higher difficulty settings), making game-breaking OP civs, and not enough story immersion. I want losing to be fun. It looks like they are removing some mechanics like resource and population focuses, builders, etc., which I hope manages to fix this problem.
the difference in visual scale between the units and the now even more detailed multi tile cities is looking weirder than ever
I noticed that right away too, big king kong sized mfs working right next to the city lol
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I can't wait for the game to be full of missions and objectives completely unrelated to the other players, like every other 4x game these days, because Endless Legend did that and that game was popular, so every game has to do it regardless of how little sense it makes, or how much it ruins the overall replayability.
Yeah, I am having doubts about some of the changes in Civ VII and if they will be executed well. I don't want games to mirror each other just because one gets popular. If I want to play Civ, I want to play Civ because of its own original style. I don't want yet another Endless clone.
I'm a bit of a snob there because Civ hasn't felt like Civ since IV to me. V is still fun, but it just doesn't quite have the same vibe as the older civ games. It has felt that VI and by the looks of things VII are just chasing popular current trends in the genre instead of doing their own thing, which saddens me a lot to see. A lot of these games like Humankind or Millennia were touted as "Civ killers" but it seems like the franchise might end up killing itself due to just folding into generic games with nothing unique or noteworthy about them. I hope I'm wrong though and Civ VII is a trendsetter in the industry and not another follower.
I only played Civ V and Civ VI. I believe I have III and IV, and I played a little bit of IV iirc. I should try Civ I-III when I have the time.
I and II are good, III is...probably the weakest of the early civ games. IV is my personal favourite so I'm a bit biased, but it's pretty unique, there isn't another game like it in the series, even if it does have some major problems (like the stack of doom being pretty much mandatory).
they're still making these?
Civ 1 was awesome.. it went downhill from there and apparently hasn't hit rock bottom yet
Civ 4 was my first and I'll always think it was the best.
Also Baba yetu.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
