New Civilization game currently at a 51% rating on Steam
(store.steampowered.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
Its an innovative idea that everyone can see the potential in. In a way, Civ 3 having your leader "progress" every age from a caveman to a well dressed gentleman is the seed of that idea. But neither Humankind nor Civ7 actually managed to make it work in anyway that feels right.
So in this case, it feels like they arrogantly thought they could take a failed game's call to fame and use it for themselves. And ended up doing even worse. Because afaik Humankind's version was just kinda boring and not impactful enough for how important it was. Which ironically is the opposite of Civ7 which has it so impactful it ruins the game with no ability to mitigate or truly control it.
Yeah, that idea definitely works. Effectively your leader is like the old Assyrian "Gods". Each city-state had a God, and as a result, each God represented the metaphysic of a city & it's people. Your Civ leader would act in the same way, but you'd have to figure out how the personality traits of your Gods would move through time and tech.
The problem I can see is that, from a gameplay perspective, there's almost no way to balance that. Some cultures will be inferior and others will be superior based on the leaders attitudes. Otherwise, you'll have too many and they'll basically all play the same.
"Why is every multiplayer game played with Trump, Bismark, and Aethelred? Why doesn't anyone want to play as Mandela. Wait, why does Mandela get bonus points to light infantry?"
Much like Total War however, the question remains.
Who the fuck plays multiplayer? Basically no one, its a dead empty avenue on the game for a variety of reasons but it remains that way. Nothing they can do will change that fact. The people who play these games play for single player, or coop multiplayer with their friends neither of which need considerable balance and in fact would benefit from hilarious unbalances too.
Its the same forever cycle of chasing an esport scene that doesn't exist, listening to "influencers" that make 1000 videos on your game alone and become sort of brand ambassadors that legitimately mindrape the fandom with their opinions.
Which is a larger problem that I have extreme opinions on, because LTC-niggers have ruined Fire Emblem more than the Woke ever did. A grim reminder that we have more than one enemy at play.
I was under the impression that the only good way to play any Total War game was with Multiplayer because the AI is so shit.
And what you point out is fair, but I think it's a culture war that can be more easily won because they are funded by morons, not Blackrock
Of the dozen or so people I know who play Total War I can't think of a single one that plays multiplayer with randos. Lots of us play together but that's often not antagonistically, leaving it just against the AI. TW W3 specifically has something like less than 5% of players even touch the PVP mode, even though it made up like 90% of the balance patch notes for months on release.
The AI is shit but the point of the game, both Total War and Civ, have literally never been about challenge and anyone who says otherwise is trying to flex. Its about painting maps and power fantasies of building an army and steamrolling your enemies in various ways. Getting epic battles is part of that, but that's stand out singular moments not game long struggle sessions.
And I don't think its a war that can be won much easier than a Blackrock funded one, because most of the time its a Chinese funded one that is putting dollar signs in the eyes of Western Devs who will chase that dragon into bankruptcy.