• Donut@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Can it still be called “Sid Meier’s” Civilization when he doesn’t even know what the game ships with?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been playing since CIV2 and it’s been pretty good, but that just strikes me as weird.

    • 100@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      ego move by a manager

      imagine if todd wanted his name in front of every bethesda title

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        It’s not like Bethesda called their games “Fantasy” - “Civilization” is such a generic name that I respect putting the author’s name before it to avoid any confusion.

      • Donut@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Well, Sid Meier did originally design Civ, Todd Howard was “just” a director / producer.

      • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Iirc it wasn’t even Meier’s idea to put his name on the games. He was a well known figure in the simulation game genre so when his company was making Pirates! the other co-founder, Bill Stealey, had the idea of putting his name on the box because it was a big departure from their usual games. The idea worked and they just started using his name for every game.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          Ehhh. The Kojima thing is at least somewhat understandable. He knew Konami was going to boot him out. Nothing like a constant reminder of who made the magic happen in the game they didn’t let him finish creating.

          • Drasglaf@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            Such a shame he couldn’t finish it. Its gameplay is quite polished and the story isn’t that bad. His games are usually very well crafted

            • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              14 days ago

              While I can see how that idea works incredibly well with the themes of the game, and I don’t think the game was ever going to get a traditionally satisfying conclusion… there’s a lot of cut content lying around in the files, on top of the “phantom episode” stuff from the collector’s disk that was included in the special edition that documents the work in progress next chapter they had to cut.

              Hideous Kojambles is a great auteur, but they idea that all of that was just a front to further emphasize the themes doesn’t ring true to me.

  • sinkingship@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    The second big change is that when you transition from one age to the next—there are three ages, Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern—you’ll pick a new civilization to lead, one that was at the height of its power during the age in question. So you might go from controlling Rome in Antiquity to Mongolia during the Exploration age.

    Well, I still play civ4 bts, never went beyond civ5 and unless I update my hardware probably won’t try civ6 and civ7 anytime soon.

    But what you mean, you’ll change civilization midgame? I can’t wrap my head around this concept. Or does your civilization simply change it’s name?

    • Malgas@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      There’s a board game called History of the World that does something like this, where score is tracked per player, but you play as a new civilization every turn. (And, depending on the draw, may wind up fighting against your previous civ.)

      It’s a good game, but, yeah, it’s hard to imagine that working in something like Civilization.

    • shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      So in Civ 7, leaders and civs are separated. At the start of the game, you’ll pick a leader who you play as throughout your run, as well as a civ.

      The civs available to you depend on the age, so if you start in Antiquity you’ll have appropriate civs from that time period to choose from. When you get to Exploration, you’ll get to choose another, and so on.

      You’ll keep everything, it’s just that your name (I think) will change, and obviously, each civ will have its own strengths and weaknesses, different units, art, etc. I hope that, since they’re now tied to their age, it’ll allow them to really focus on what made them unique within their time period, rather than having to make the Roman Empire make sense in the Modern age.

      I’m not sure what Civ 7 specific features there are, but I’m sure their options will depend on your chosen civs as well.

      • kusttra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        It also seems like there’s some sort of unlock mechanism for what civs will be available for you to choose from in the next era - you’ll assumably have to do certain things in an era to unlock specific civs for the next era

      • sinkingship@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        That makes sense, I guess. Like to choose a skillset for the next epoch, if you’re right. That sounds kinda cool. Almost like a skill tree for your civ, only that it comes with a civ name change.

    • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I’m pretty sure this is just an idea they took from Humankind, another Civilization like game that came out a bit ago.