Civilization 7 is making major changes to its game’s model, and I think it might undercut one of the things I like about the franchise the most. I’ve thought about it a lot because I wanted to give Firaxis Game veterans who worked on it Civ The benefit of the doubt about their recent decisions to change underlying aspects of the Civ Games. The main issue that arguably causes the most controversy is the severing of ties between civilizations and their leaders. After all, this is a Civilization game, and previous iterations would have their most memorable (or infamous) actual historical figure(s) tied to the civilization they influenced in actual history.
Civil 7 Forgoes that idea, instead allowing players to choose any leader and any culture, mixing and matching like a trip to the frozen yogurt shop. While this, on the face of it, isn’t that big of a deal – after all, leaders were basically just figureheads for the Sive in previous games – it makes for an odd problem of eventually running into situations where someone like Teddy Roosevelt might then be the leader. of a Greek, German or Chinese civilization. And as absurd as this may seem on its face, aside from a non-ideal leader bonus, I can live with this change.
Civilization 7 is no longer about civilization
Create your own story
What is more troubling than the mixing and matching of leaders is the changing of saves between eras. In the latest developer stream, Civil 7 Developers explained more about the three era system and how, during each era, it is possible to switch to whatever civilization you want, completely replacing the previous one. But this is more than just the visual change – it would essentially open the door for any civilization to drastically change to another save between eras, as long as the prerequisites are met.
This completely abandons the concept of one historical thread and turns the campaign into true fiction, where the barriers of cultural and social change in any given group of people now become irrelevant. This is not to say that there are not historical periods where one dominant culture or religion replaced another in a specific geographic area, but the way that Civil 7 Will go about it seems to have no rhyme or reason. That’s to say there is a reason, but it is completely arbitrary and left to the player.
A similar mechanic caused some controversy previously when fans pointed out that the trailer showed the animation for the conquering action, with buildings with rich and detailed cultural relevance being immediately replaced by new ones without any connection to the previous ones. in Civil 6When a new town or city was conquered, it would remain the same culture until arriving at a new era, where the buildings would eventually be replaced by the new owner’s civilization and culture.
How will the Civilization 7 era change work?
Choose your path
Firaxis explained itself in a recent developer livestream when Ed Beachcreative director, said, “Civ 7, is it the same as Civ 6? not reallyEventually explained the choices during Eras more clearly. Outlining the potential paths for Hatshepsut – the fifth pharaoh of Egypt’s eighteenth dynasty – his flow chart pointed to obvious choices, such as Aksum (an East African and South Arabian society that originated in classical antiquity) and Egypt – then showed You potentially transition into civs like Mongolia.
Related
Although in a sense, he is right that certain “requirements” are met. Can Justifying an Egyptian empire transforming itself into the Mongol hordes (I guess?), it completely gamifies the different civilizations, replacing a desire to explore an interesting faction or culture in a stat min/max game. Because, at the end of the day, I’m a gamer, and I’m not going to choose the Songhai Empire because geographically it was closer to Egypt and makes more sense to me to become them – I’m going to choose whatever is best for my chances to Reach the next era. Putting the onus on the player to adhere to historical accuracy will result in, well, non-historical campaigns.
Related
Instead, the excuse is that I’m supposed to carve out my own historical timeline, except in this case, I think that history in general just might not matter at all anymore. Reducing each save down to a Terran- or Zerg-like choice, where decisions don’t depend on the strengths and weaknesses of society over time, will create disjointed civilizations that make little to no sense, with those baked into history lessons because Lost in the process.
Who cares about history, anyway?
Firaxis seems to really care
To say that Firaxis is flippant when it comes to actual historical accuracy would just be untrue. In fact, they have painstakingly, over the years, strived for some level of historical accuracy and education in their series of games by consulting with anthropologists and historians. That’s one of the reasons I like it Civilization. As a child, it helped me learn interesting factoids I would not have known otherwise and introduced me to many different cultures. The eras also served as an introduction to the history of huge turning points in humanity, which my class in social studies has not yet reached. In this new version, that may be lost, replaced in favor of ​​the next S-tier meta build.
in Civil 7Players are limited to the Antiquity Age, Exploration and Modern Ages.
More than modernizing the game for a new audience with a lower attention span (which is part of it), it is quite undeniable that the game mechanics will take the front seat. Civil 7 About historical accuracy. While I’m sure the information in the game will still be accurate and true to history, the ability to change to whatever civilization you want after reaching a certain era is not in line with how civilizations are actually formed.
Societies do not really get to choose where they go based on a set number of conditions, and trying to justify this with the radical transformative periods of time like the rise of the Roman Empire is really missing the nuance of history or is just not an. Claim made in good faith. Those societies, although they have changed over a short period of time, still retain many of the cultural and social norms established for hundreds or thousands of years before. The ability to select based on what is best is, unfortunately, not how it works.
Simplification is not good with 4X strategy or save
You can’t please everyone
in Civil 7Players are limited to the Antiquity Age, Exploration and Modern Ages Civilization 6There were nine total Eras, including the Future Era that was introduced in Civilization 6: Gathering Storm. in Civ 5There were seven periods. In both games, each of the eras accurately reflects major changes in humanity and civilization, whether it is the Middle Ages, Renaissance or industrialization. It also served as a turning point in the game to get new tech.
I love strategy games, but there’s just something about 4X that I can’t stand, and these Civilization Franchise is the one exception for me. I understand where they’re coming from in wanting to simplify things and open it up to a larger audience, but so far, while the new animations have been impressive, I’m not a fan of some of the game’s decisions. From the looks of things for now – the effort in simplification and player choice (two things I’m usually a proponent of) could erase the historical bits of the game in favor of ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​another 4X game, not the Game. Civilization 7 Play that I want.