• firadin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I don’t think Firaxis would agree with any of my feedback because I think I disagree with them in a fundamental sense about how the game should be oriented. Mandatory disasters appear to be a fundamental part of the Civ 7 game philosophy: you build your civ, face the crisis, reset your civ in a new era, and start over with some amount of carry-over. I get the motivation: by forcing these soft resets, Firaxis is making it so you can’t snowball so far ahead that the mid/late game is a chore of uninteresting gameplay. An advantage in the first/second eras won’t put you in so far of a lead in the third era that it’s just a rush to hit the next turn button. On the other hand… that also means that everything you do in the first/second eras counts way less, and that feels bad.

    Granted I obviously haven’t played the game yet; this is just my read from demos and press around the game/design philosophy. We will see if I’m right or not.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The biggest issue I foresee is just how short eras are. If they’re going to do these resets then eras need to last way longer relative to unit production and movement.