CIV VII Will Be a Weak Entry In the Civilization Franchise - And It's Not Why You Think

[@troycarson9412]

"Evens good and odds bad" is a bizarre expectation. Too many wild opinions for me to take this seriously--you like your favorites too much to be anywhere near objective.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Odds weaker than evens - not "bad". Thanks for watching. And remember to keep playing and making your own civilization stories - your own unique paths through history.

[@ichifish]

I gotta agree with OP. When you talk about narrative elements (e.g. diplomacy screens / goodyhut text) that's something we can understand from a single example. But you put forth a lot of assumptions (like rubber-banding) that we won't understand until after millions of people play the game.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I like to think that I approached what we "know" with skepticism and not certainty. I state clearly that "all of this is 'wait and see'" and just my initial impression of how I expect it might shake out.

[@knuckleheadwestwind3585]

I would suggest that nobody will ever be objective, this is his view, and I think it’s odd to expect anything else.

[@mafdutra]

It’s weird to put civ 5 at the bottom, it’s the community favorite.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Well, it got sandwiched in between my two favourite iterations of the game so I would hope that it would be understandable. I still love CIV - all versions. But, as I mention, CIV IV was so good that I didn't stop playing because of CIV 5. I was going through other stuff in my life (whole different long story). But that's just me.

[@e1123581321345589144]

yepp, V was better than VI imho.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Cool. Thanks for watching.

[@alanmilnes1264]

Community favourite, no way! It's generally regarded as the worst in the franchise. Look at the activity on Civ Fanatics for example.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I try not to judge people on which version is their favourite. I assume everyone has a good reason as to why. But yeah, CIV 5 is at the bottom for me.

[@cengiztaner4754]

I remember when Civ6 released everyone was praising Civ5 and criticising Civ6 for looking childish and being dumbed down. Now suddenly Civ6 is the hero and Civ5 is dogshit?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I think opinions (online ones anyway) just always tend to be extreme instead of measured. I thought 5 was a fine game - just not as good as the others, for me. I really enjoyed my first play through of CIV 6. I am hoping to feel the same way for CIV 7. Thanks for watching.

[@acoustic5738]

Civ 5 is far more played, isnt it? I dont think this rank reflects reality.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I wasn't trying to tell audiences which is the most played. I shared my opinion. My reality.

[@ZeusPatagonia]

I started with Civilization, the board game, before computer games existed ... and a lot of D&D, Steve Jackson, and Avalon Hill games. First taste of CIV 1 on a PC was with a paper white monochrome CRT for months, playing it the first time on colour monitor after all that time, really blew my mind. Good video quality, relevant clips, clearly narrated, and good post production.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thank you so much for watching. It's awesome to hear about how the game has affected people, their first experiences, and how it has stuck with them. If you're interested, I just launched a new video about my own history with the game and why CIV players are so awesome.

[@christianbrenner984]

I've just noticed that it's inconsistent to pronounce "CIV VII" as "Civ 7". It should either be "104 7" or "Civ vii".

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

OMG, this took me a while to figure out and I was just about to ask you to explain... And then I got it. Very clever. 🤓

[@ichifish]

The problem with the UI is not the gray color, but people think that because they see so much of it. The problem, as shown at 08:50, is that the text that you need to read is tiny. The text under "Pax Imperatoria" and in the "Next Step" box is unnecessarily small. Like in Civ 6, there is far too much blank space. UI scaling isn't the correct fix because 1) you shouldn't have to "fix" bad UI, and 2) there are lots of places where UI scaling doesn't do anything, like on the tech and civics trees in Civ 6, which have enormous amounts of empty space. This problem is exacerbated on large screens as well, so good luck, console players!

[@anthonylulham3473]

Having CIV V at the bottom is a silly statement to make especially when say you basically didn't play it. Just don't rank them with an uninformed take. Civ 5 is the best looking and is very beginner friendly. it was an amazing launching point for people while CIV 4 was still pretty niche. Civ 4 sold 3million, Civ 5 sold 8million. Civ 5 is in wikipedia top 20 PC games ever sold by units tho i think slightly out of date as CIV 6 has done ~11 million but isnt included in the wiki list. Imma go boot up CIV V tonight

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Something has to go at the bottom in a ranking, right? I played it, just not as much as the others I mentioned because I didn't enjoy playing it as much. Plus, when I was playing OG CIV, it was like 30 years ago. I'm basing this, not on the merits of the game, but how each made me feel while I played it. Judging from the hate I've received from lovers of CIV V, I cannot deny its appeal. Have fun making your own unique paths through history no matter which iteration you love, and thanks for watching.

[@tequila_tibbs7938]

Civ 7 looks great. I dont trust your judgement

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

We have progressed to the tier-3 governments and you possess the right to dissent. Tbh, the Age of Discovery Developer's Livestream did raise my spirits and my optimism.

[@clinthenness7186]

@@tequila_tibbs7938 looks great as he said. It is the play and things that changed that make it look bad

[@alexnikols8996]

I think you made a mistake in your opening that has really closed a lot of people’s minds. Civ 5 is a lot of people’s favorite Civ and placing it last made myself and many others quite defensive. I nearly clicked off of the video immediately. I like what you have to say about Civ 7 and your ideas for how it could succeed and fail, I think in most regards you are quite right, especially regarding UI. But unfortunately after the stumbling block of an intro most people have already decided that you are wrong. Sorry.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I made the video for lovers of the Civilization series, not lovers exclusively of CIV 5. Somehow, we'll all survive my transgressions. It might be fun to make a video bashing on the psychological fragility of CIV 5 players. I'll keep it in mind.

[@BossyGoose]

Thank you for this. I was a young adult when I played Civ 1, and played and loved each additional entry in entry in the series on release. You articulated many of the concerns I have about 7, and I am just not confident on how much I will enjoy it day one. That being said, I will buy and play it on day one as always, and trust the devs to fix what isn't fun and iterate until it is also a "just one more turn" classic alongside all the others. Fingers crossed they won't let me down.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Sounds like you an I might have had similar experiences with the CIV games. I made a video recently called, "Why CIV Players are Smarter than Regular Gamers" and some of what I talk about in there might echo for you. Check it out. The Civilization series is something that is always building itself out. Even if the new one doesn't kill it from the get go... it, or some version of the game, will get itself where it needs to go. Bet on it!

[@danielpatterson9599]

Civilization IV: Rise of Mankind - A New Dawn It didn't get any better then that.

[@MxSheep]

Maya who become french is weird but Maya who build the Eifel tower is fun. To me both are fun (and a bit weird which is something i enjoy in games).. changing cultures did work for me in Humankind for example

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I never played Humankind. I agree, a Mayan Eiffel Tower is awesome. As far as switching CIVs, it just gives me butterflies. Fun when it's a choice, less so when it's put upon you. But I'm hopeful 🙏

[@funnyrateater]

I think civ 7 will be the best entry, or at least has the potential to be the best. Previous civ games have very dated design, probably because of the abstraction which had to be made when trying to convert real history into a game which could be run on a 90's computer. Civilizations did evolve irl, an English person from the 12th century would almost certainly be more norse of german in style and aesthetics than what we would consider 'english'. Plus the 'distant lands' feature they have teased will be real colonisation, making the mid game actually interesting and have conflict as you once again scramble for land much like in the first 50 turns of a Civ 6 game. The influence mechanics are also looking like a much better diplo system then previous games. Especially when considering the potential civs and leaders like Machiavelli which utilise. Being able to strong arm less diplomatic civs will add so much. New trade looks good as well. The new city growth system with no builders and no chops looks like such an improvement its crazy. I honestly don't believe that the game will be that unplayable on release and its already looking like a better thought out game than civ 6 in my opinion.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I am hopeful and there are some game mechanics that do look really fun. You mention the new diplo system which, I agree, has a lot of potential there. Thanks for watching.

[@AnAngelineer]

The devs have said something akin to "people don't say they play America or France, they say they play Teddy or Eleanor". ...I don't know where they got that data/information/idea. Me and all my buddies playing the game have always referred to the culture/country first, with the leader being the secondary descriptor at best, rather than the first one. In Civilization, the characters you play as are... the civs themselves. And I don't understand how the devs could move away from that convention of the series.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I totally agree. As I have said, I am optimistic that this shift won't steal from the experience. But as someone waiting in anticipation to see how it plays out, I have my apprehensions that it might feel a bit icky.

[@Emiltat]

I would say that is both true and false. Some are more mentioned as leaders. Ghandi mainly comes to mind. You dont talk how india is nuke crazy, it have always been ghandi. Same somewhat with gilgamesh. Some leaders just simply outshine their civ

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I guess this all boils down to how you view the game as you play. In my videos, I refer to myself as the civilization, or "we". I will say that it's the leader that made decisions for their civ, for example: "Gandhi declared war on us." Also, depending on the screen, it will change how I view the history. For example: "I traded amenities for gold with Alexander" on the leader screen but "Spanish forces captured the Macedonian city of Pella" if it's on the map screen. As far as CIV 7, is concerned, after watching the Exploration Age livestream I'm still not convinced I love the CIV switching/evolution mechanic. But I will tackle that in a future video.

[@Rsge14]

I think what it comes down to for me is that I * play * a civilization, but I * interact * with leaders. There is a reason e.g. why EUI for Civ V changes the order of the culture selection screen to be ordered by civ, not leader like in vanilla: Because you play as e.g. the Shoshone, not as, sorry, whatever their leader is called again. But in the Diplo screens you see the name of the leader directly and refer to them pars pro toto: "Attila has declared war on me again, I'm f'd". In Multiplayer this becomes diluted, especially with players you don't know that well, because then it's easier most of the time to just refer to "America has declared war on me" instead of looking up what the player is called again.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I know what you mean about referring to rivals by civilization or by leader as being situationally specific.

[@sportscardsandthings]

I will argue that Civ 6(and Civ 5 to a lesser degree) are the worst iterations of the game because on release you can expect a scaled down, crippled version of the game for the sake of future monetization and DLC. Civ 7 will be terrible on release because those problems are only getting worse. My recollection is that Civ 4 and previous games were great out of the box, and even better with the expansion content.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I loved my first playthrough of CIV 6. But yeah, companies do love to milk that cow for all its worth by dripping out the real game over time.

[@doesntmatter6736]

I agree with Husky that Civ IV is better than 5. There are so many gay things about Civ 5 that maybe some people like. The penalizing of the player for trying to build an empire. The focus on the importance of the Olympics as unlimited resource sink. The difficulty of conquering city states. The designer discouraging roads because "they're ugly". Well anyways it's in the past now and time heals all wounds. Civ VI is even more popular than V on steam. IV is almost pre Steam. I like the idea of Civ 8 being modular. Just update the graphics and let people play their favorite rule set from Civ history.

[@mahaphoublue7644]

They just won’t update on building expansion aside from update higher but not outward. Civ 5 almost did, civ6 did but the building only limited on the tile that surround the city. While this one, it’s more a district than what need for house or building spread out and road too tho it would be more spaces.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thanks for watching.

[@gbiebs5609]

Civ 3 is the best civ that ever came out in my opinion, the gameplay potential has never been paralleled by other civ games - it just needs a remastery to operate better with improved graphics

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I loved CIV 3. Yes, graphics and functionality on more robust systems is usually where there is no going back with a new iteration of the game. Already CIV 7 looks mostly great visually speaking.

[@sebastiansorondo4440]

It was a good take until you put civ 5 below civ 6 then i laughed.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Ha! You're not alone. Hopefully people have enough strength to get over the initial shock and see it to the end of the video.

[@brucehilton1662]

I think a lot of people think civ 5 may be the best, while you have it at the bottom. Of course, it all depends on your personal preferences.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Fanatics of CIV 5 have not been shy about telling me how wrong my opinion is. Part of life.

[@airbound1779]

I like most of this, I hope the Civ Team is taking notes

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

They are. That's what makes CIV so great. It keeps refining itself and developing into a better game.

[@InkyBlitz]

Well what you said at the start is true, the series already survived 5, Beyond Earth, and 6. Surely yet another mediocre dud wouldn't sink them.

[@PROdotes]

So... this was interesting to listen to... but... was this basically just a 30 minute rant about the player not being the leader in previous civ games? :)

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I like to think I cover a little more than that over the 30 minutes. Lol.

[@PROdotes]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories well yea but... since I usually listen to these kinds of videos while playing... whenever my focus was on the video it was mostly that... and then a little bit of "oh and btw" :)

[@alilsnailboi]

this is a great vid, i agree with your point of view on a lot of it, thank you for the vid 🙏

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thanks! And thank you for watching.

[@unbeardedwizard2912]

Counterarguement to the first point; 7 is a lucky number. I loved civ 5, but to be fair, I never played civ 4.

[@unbeardedwizard2912]

Good video so far though! You make some points that I haven't heard brought up.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I hope you're right and CIV 7 blows my hair back. CIV 4 was so good. To someone who has only played later versions, it might seem lame, but at the time... Dude! Amazing!!

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thanks for watching and giving it a fair shake. I think I might have upset some staunch CIV 5 supporters. But I'm not going to apologize for liking what I like. Remember to keep making your own CIV stories - your own amazing paths through history.

[@unbeardedwizard2912]

​@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories I agree about the Historytelling, humankind fell off for me because of it. As a avid civ 5 player, I enjoy the complexity of storytelling in a simple game. Civ 7, will be more complex. When me and my friends play civ 5, we roleplay our countries. I have a feeling I am going to ignore the small history paragraphs and make up my own stuff, and I think that the modding community will change them aswell. I disagree with some of your points throughout the video, but you make educated and valid points that make me take a second look at my wants in the game. Thank you so much for the brain tickle.

[@unbeardedwizard2912]

​@@EmotionalHuskysCivStoriesalso, it's pretty astonishing how angry people get when you have differing opinions.

[@miravlix]

Can't you just let me decide if it's a good game, instead of filling 2/3 of the video with empty words about how good it is, without giving any details?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

No one forced you to watch. And of course, make up your own mind. Thanks for watching!

[@pawel8365]

Classic reply from a content farm. Thanks for contributing to the enshittification of KZbin 👍🏻

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Lol. Not a content farm. I'm just a guy who loves playing CIV and has some opinions. I wonder how your "kind words" regarding my craft are contributing to KZbin. Are they contributing to KZbin? But thank you for stopping by all the same. Peace.

[@crisp-waffle]

some great ideas here, thanks for sharing :)

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thanks for watching!

[@KlausWulfenbach]

Oh man, this was a divisive video, huh? Well I thought you made some good points.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I think a lot of CIV V fans found out that it was my least favourite version of the game and weren't too thrilled.

[@1Stersky]

I'm curious about Civ VII. From what I understand, there are some elements from Humankind in it and it's great they took inspiration. However, I...did not enjoy Humankind : it bore me very quickly, unlike Civilizations (I've played Civ IV,V and VI). But I'm hopeful ! Firaxis knows how to make great games and I find it great that they are trying new elements and another approach. In the worst case, Civ VII is bad and we can all still enjoy Civ VI !

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I will always enjoy CIV VI! I never played Humankind. I am pretty darn loyal to CIV and, after 30 years of CIV joy, I don't expect that will change.

[@ComradeKaine]

Love the marble reference 😎

[@leshiq4214]

Civ 6 was great t the begining nd spoiled from my point of view with upgrades to the point that I've stopped playing it and returned to the previous titles. Civ7 is 100% BS for me. Won't buy - criticly dislike the new features.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I hear you. I remain forever optimistic. I don't love all of the features added to the game but, overall, I feel that most of the DLCs do give the games greater depth. Whichever version of the game you love playing, I support.

[@avefreetimehaver5154]

subbed for being a civ iv master race!

[@turtley4444]

I've played only civ 5 rip offs and civ 6, and in my opinion, the ripoffs were better. Then again, it was open source so i could find hundreds of mods. Edit: also im excited for civ 7

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Everybody has their favourite. I hope CIV 7 is great.

[@mrarmaggedon31415926]

CIV:CTP will always be the highlight of the franchise. Fight me.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

TBH, I never played it, so I don't know. I only played the major CIV releases and their expansions. But if it gave off that CIV feeling, I bet it was amazing. If you want a harder punch than, I can deliver. Just let me know ;)

[@mrarmaggedon31415926]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories it was like CIV plus. This was back in 1999 and it went through ancient rennaisance modern genetic and diamond ages. You could send a space probe through a worm hole to collect alien DNA. You could bomb cities from space. It has televangelists ecoterrorists lawyers cyberninja and so many other special trade units that allowed you to sneak into enemy territory and manipulate cities. If they had kept that stream and spent the last quarter century developing it we would be living in a strategy golden age. The intro movie still gives me chills.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Sounds dope.

[@JaJDoo]

i cant even tell if this is tongue in cheek or not

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Im always deadly serious when it comes to CIV. Thanks for watching :)

[@allanbessani5128]

good points. subscribed.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thank you!

[@RedstoneDefender]

OK, so I keep trying to make comments, but they seem to be constantly deleted automatically. I know part of the issue is that they're long, so long I split it into three parts, and maybe the system is "taking them down then reviewing them", which it does sometimes... but the problem is, I had to cut it into three parts, and if the first part isn't here to reply to, then I can't actually finish my comment. So, I guess I wait for a few hours for it to do?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

@RedstoneDefender I have no idea why that would happen and sorry if you're having trouble leaving a comment. Thanks for watching and hopefully all of your thoughts show up at some point.

[@RedstoneDefender]

​@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories It happens if the comment is very long, and/or if the comment has formatting, because you CAN do some actual markdown or HTML formatting, just, youtube doesn't like it and has to scan it to see if it's some sort of malicious code attempt. Just, when you have a large comment that could be a few pages of an essay, well, with no formatting makes it just a block of text... so I use formatting to make it more readable.

[@RedstoneDefender]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories Let's try again! Part 1 (of 4): All these people ignoring the meat of the essay to say things like "I was into the video until you said you liked CIV V the least", when that is basically at the very START of the video. So they didn't actually bother watching, I guess? Everyone is going to rank the games slightly differently, and surprise surprise, I do too, but that's NOT what this video is about. I think you might get a better result if you edit things to take away any explicit ranking or things like that, and just say "Oh, I love all the civ games, but my personal favorites are Civ IV and, of all things, Civ VI", with an added section explicitly calling out how you are trying to compare CIV VII without expansions vs how CIV VI and CIV V were when they started without expansions. (Because up to and including Civ IV, the games were far more complete in their initial state. How times have changed.) I mean, I know you did, but apparently people are deaf AND blind, so, have it be a cut, change in colors, make the music change to point it out, the whole deal. Like an "we interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to do this" from TV.

[@RedstoneDefender]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories Part 2 (of 4) In the end, I agree with lots of the stuff you pointed out: - The title / main packaging of Civ VII being this inlaid marble, with no real connection to the game UI and style. I agree 100%, lost opportunity there. At least style the "sleek grey" UI as that dark grey/black marble with the white stripes. Have Gold/ Silver/ Copper/ Brass inlays. Go forth, art department, make a statement! Instead we get no follow through. - That civs get bonuses to building "their" wonder - which I agree is very much not a good idea. First, having civ bonuses towards building wonders specific wonders is a horrible idea. I can understand the point, but it just goes against what playing CIV is about. In earlier games, you could get civs with bonuses to building wonders in general, in exchange for not having a different civ or leader bonus, and that was OK. I didn't *like* it -just felt kinda 'meh' - but considering the opportunity costs and various other balancing mechanics, its OK. I prefer the idea of getting bonuses to building wonders depending on what resources are available: that if you have marble, then things like the Parthenon are easier. I feel like they could have leaned into that more, if the different resources they used/created for that system also had an identity outside of that. Like, perhaps certain wonders get bonuses from "Gold", but even if you can't make those wonders, gold is still a luxury good with other bonuses. Coupling this with how resource management appears to becoming more significant with CIV VII, and it would fit right in. Finally, the big three: - The potential and issues with new era system. - The issues with the evolving civilization system. - which I completely agree with. - The inclusion of story telling elements when it doesn't make sense in the grander scale (Story telling vs history-telling) All of these, to me, are related and I have some ideas on changes I can imagine. But first, another thing I wanted to talk about to lead up to this. You talk about a few of the conceptual conflicts that arise in in civilization, like storytelling vs history telling, and how you are the leader, and you shouldn't see the leader you chose to play on screen. There is one that most people don't recognize consciously but quite foundational - Cities vs States/Provinces. In game, you settle a "City" and claim vast amounts of territory, percentages of the entire world - there are vast swaths of jungles, forest, mountains, and lakes in that territory. If we took a Civ game with the largest world size and fit all the nations in the world to their real-life locations, how many tiles would Belgium take up in Civilization? One? Two? Five? How about Luxembourg? Is it big enough to appear at all? In the end, it's called a city because that's what people recognize (especially from older civilizations that didn't have the modern concept and systems of a Nation-State and sectioning out the nation into federated territories) but what it really is, is a province or territory. It's why cities could have any number of buildings inside a city. Then Civ VI comes along and adds districts. This is an interesting concept, but as I expected, immediately runs into issues as people now associate the concept of civilization "cities" with actual real-life cities, when the scale is all wrong. As these newer civilization games continue to push these ideas, the conflict in scale between a real life city and civilization city pops up again and again. A solution could be to have it be "provinces", "territories", or "states" that you claim, and the "city" is actually the capital city of that "province". But, that would highlight the issues with the district system. Personally, I would rebrand the district system to be a form of "____" focused villages/towns. I don't know if there is a specific term for this, but, IRL you have things like mining towns, farming villages, even university towns. This system would replace "districts" , but also, it would mean that "what's a building vs what's a district" suddenly becomes far more clear. A blacksmith is a building, a mining town is a "district". Ironically, making "districts" just re-flavored "improvements"... which they were to begin with.

[@RedstoneDefender]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories Part 3 (of 4) So, what about the big three changes: - The era system - The evolving Civilizations - The storytelling vs history-telling of events that aren't at the right scale. Well, I think these are all expressions of the same idea, done poorly. They want there to be more stories generated from playing civilization. I think how they approached these three is wrong - they should all be intertwined somewhat. The easiest to explain would be to take the "storytelling moments" and "End of an Age effects" and use that to create the "Evolving Civilizations". No, you do not change to a different civilization over the course of the game. Instead, it would be like an inverse of the policies from Civ V. The actions you take, the order you research in, the types of resources and goodie huts you run into, these all give "points" to different parts of the "Civilization cultural identity" reverse policies board. (sorry if this gets confusing or disjointed, my initial idea evolved a bit when writing it out and considering the implications, and then, because my comment is so large, youtube can't post it by itself, which causes even more problems because youtube comment boxes don't save spacing correctly, so I have to add newlines here and delete extra newlines there and... its quite the process) The "Civilization Cultural Identity" I imagine is based off of the Empire "Ethics" from Stellaris (in a bit of reciprocal influence, as its "Tradition" tree is very clearly copied from Civ V "Policies"). For sake of simplicity in explaining the idea, I will base the further explanation directly off of the "Ethics" Wheel in Stellaris, even though in-game it would probably be changed somewhat. The eight categories are "Militant", "Xenophobe", "Egalitarian", "Materialist", "Pacifist", "Xenophile", "Authoritarian" and "Spiritualist". (If you look it up, there is a ninth in the center, but that represents hive-mind entities who's gameplay and thoughts are too different to have traditional "ethics".) The two which need a slight edit for Civilization are "Xenophobe" -> "Isolationist", and "Xenophile" -> "Internationalist" As you can tell, it's really 4 ideas, each with a positive and a negative, so 8 total categories effectively. So, my idea is, you go about and do things with your civ, and as things evolve, the 4 different categories get points. You end up fighting a ton of barbarians or go to war really early with a civ? Get "militant" identity. Build a certain wonder? Get points of that flavor. The government policies you choose end up influencing this as well, where choosing "Monarchy/Aristocracy" vs "Classical Democracy/Republic" gets different effects. At the end of each era, all the points are counted, and the largest ones get added as "Cultural Heritage" of your empire, changing it's art-style and such, while granting a bonus to your empire specific to that trait. Perhaps, of the different types of "cultural identity points", the top two you have give you bonuses/changes to your civ, and if you're highest in the world in one of those categories, you get a special bonus. Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I'm not sure how you would rubber-band that. (top two, because there are four axis, so, probably top three for 5 axis) ---------- Just to make it clear, while I'm stealing stellaris's stuff for the explanation, I'd imagine it be best to set up a 5 axis list with choices specific to civilization, even if they're analogous to Stellaris's

[@aguy6641]

I'm back to playing civ 5 because civ 6 ai is terrible. I still hate civ looking like a phone game. Civ 7 has nice sketch art in the cut scenes but go with Disney animation leader art.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

So much of this comment gets a "Woof! Hell yeah!" from the Husky.

[@Philosjutsu]

6:50 I haven't played a civ game just seen others/friends play. Thinking about getting into it. I have no idea what I am supposed to be hating?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I go pretty deep into why the CIV 7 diplomacy screen looks like a bad idea compared to older games. But if you're thinking about getting into CIV, I highly recommend that you do and don't let anything I say dissuade you in figuring out which version of the game is your favourite.

[@acoustic5738]

Prepare to spend 1000 hours of your life in it 😂

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Working on it.

[@zacharyjordan399]

the game isn't even out yet ya silly

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I'm pretty sure I mention that and the fact that the video is about the concerns I expect to have based on available information with regard to my enjoyment of the game once it does release.

[@zacharyjordan399]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories No worries, just think it's an odd title to have about a game that none of us have even played yet. I stopped watching the video once I realized you hadn't played it either :P no harm though you're entitled to your opinion and can make a judgement whenever you like of course

[@MichaelCollins-dl5om]

The whole Civilization swapping mechanic is part of the reason Humankind flopped

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I never played Humankind, but I agree. Not a good idea in my humble opinion. Or, put another way, a fine idea - just for a different game, not CIV.

[@shallendor]

Civ 4 & 5 are the weakest games in the series! Civ 3 is my favorite!

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Oooof! CIV 4 has a special place in my heart. Saying it's the weakest... thems fighting words! CIV 3 was great though.

[@grindsauce3017]

104, 7. What could that mean?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

CIV in Roman numerals is 104. C = 100 IV = 4

[@nathangamble125]

Combat hasn't improved in every iteration of Civ. It's worse in Civ III than in Civ II. Doomstacks are dumb, both thematically and in terms of how unfun they are to play with.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Didn't civ 3 introduce hp versus the win or lose scenario where a spearman could occasionally destroy a tank? I thought that was an improvement. I didn't mind the death stack. Until one unit per tile it was just part of the game. Just my 2 cents.

[@Veylon]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories Civ 2 introduced hitpoints.

[@e1123581321345589144]

INCA CAN INTO SPACE!

[@tellyvisionwatcher8617]

Civ 5 the worst? Clearly this person’s opinion is invalid

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Awesome. Thanks for watching!

[@BxPanda7]

Civ 5 at the bottom ? Opinion rejected lol Civ 6 IS the bottom, that game is ass, 5 is so much better and less "gameified" with bad game mechanics that make no sense, it's annoying and convoluted in the most boring and unsatisfying way possible.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Enjoy playing whichever version of Civilization you prefer. Keep playing and making your own civilization stories - your own amazing path through history - and thanks for watching.

[@acoustic5738]

Mmmm not buying this. Civ 7 looks good, feels good enough.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I feel the developer livestream of the exploration was cause for hope.

[@elgera2k]

Thank you for the video and your opinion on some of the future the game as it stands. I have been waiting so long for this game but I am TOTALLY DISSAPOINTED with this game as it stands and I won't play it in its current form. Like you I have played all the version of the game and I don't undestand why you fail to point out the problem with the lack of workers in the game. Let me explain. I remember the first box of Civ one: Build an Empire to Stand the Test of Time. The essence of the game has been building an empire over the ages. The workers, they have been an essential part of the game. They are not only pieces to micro manage. They make the game more engaging and interesting. They give you an advantage when you protect them and develop your lands. They make the game fun because you have to protect them or you can capture them and assimilate them slowing your openents a little and allowing your Civ to grow a little faster. Having workers make the game fun; you can see them working on the land building things and you can see their efforts turn into mines, farms and railways over time. The sudden magical appearance of a building looks cheap; it kills the expectation to see a little project completed. Sometimes barbarians or other Civs will take your worker and you can see your project half way completed and you learn to protect your workers. The sudden appearance of buildings without workers is awful, unrealistic and reminds me of all those awful games some people play on their phones; e.g. that awful "Hero wars" game and the like. Your idea to have the leader evolve and take on new abilities for other Civs is spot on. A change of appearance and a change in the way they do things as the Civ learns from past experience and from other events and Civs will be much better than to change the Civ all together. I like to stay with the concept of evolution of Civ to stand the test of time instead of a total swap; unless you perish in the game which is a different thing all together. The distric use of the land restricts the game play and courtails creativity. I would rather have villages, towns and small cities, in the way they were used in Civ 4, but with the ability to specialise them as you wish and depending on the landscape you settled. I really like Civ 4 but I prefer the Civ 5 combat system because it does away with the stacks of doom. The ability to gain bonus from combining different types of weopons on tile would be great but with a limit to the amount of units on a tile. The cartoon like leaders are simply awful and their voices are terrible. I agree with you that there is no need to see ourselves when interacting with other leaders. I would have like the inclusion of our own throne evolving with our progress in the game, in a similar fashion to the first version of the game. I hope it is not too late for them to put the workers back on. After all, it is the workers that have made empire building possible, both in the game and throughout history.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I do have a small section of the video where I talk about no workers, but I think what's going on there is that developers have swapped a micromanagement system for new one. We will see. I love workers/builders but am hopeful that there non-inclusion maybe helps the game. I will only know until I actually give it a try. Thanks for watching. And thanks for the thoughtful comment.

[@Martin-azerty]

Workers of the world, unite!

[@matthewwagner2444]

Lost me as soon as you put Civ 5 at the bottom and said it was also the one you played the least

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

You are not alone there. I am discovering that CIV 5 players defend their favourite game with ferocity. Thanks for watching.

[@eshameditation3263]

🎉🎉🎉

[@clinthenness7186]

Civ 7 looks like it will suck

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I am hopeful, if it does not live up to the hype, that it will get there at some point.

[@clinthenness7186]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories true

[@pawel8365]

I'll stick with eu4

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I've never played, but I hear it's good.

[@SithLurker]

The correct ;) ranking is 4 > 1,2,6 >>>> 3,5 . 3 and 5 are the worse because they introduced new mechanics which were very badly implemented. I guess people who like 5 mostly play multiplayer. It probably is an OK MP game.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Cool! I looooooooved CIV 4. A lot of CIV 5 fans have dropped their share of hate, but yeah... I guess CIV 5 maybe is a game more geared toward MP.

[@dr.sbrule5817]

putting any weight to odd/even entries... seriously? Putting Civ 5 at the bottom? Civ 6 felt awful on release for me, AI was 1 dimensional and laughably bad even by civ standards. It only started to be somewhat enjoyable for me after all dlcs were released, even then I enjoyed it less than 5 and needed to fork up £100+ for the dlcs to flesh out a mid entry. Are you being intentionally contrarian to get people to comment to farm engagement or are your takes as bad as the first 2 minutes suggests?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

For you to decide. As someone who has played all of them at first release, I stand by my rankings. Everyone is different. You, the community, whoever, can put them in whatever order you please. I would love to reach people and engage with them, but I'm just sharing my truth. Remember to keep playing and making your own CIV stories - your own unique paths through history. Thanks for watching.

[@Nearly_Quality]

Civ V at the bottom? No thank you

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Have fun playing your favourite version of the game. And remember to keep making your own civilization stories - your own unique paths through history. Thanks for watching.

[@Morgotth1916]

Civkind sadly is going to fail Civ switching and Denovo is a hard no

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Developers are adept at responding to players' concerns. I am hopeful it will become a great game.

[@zeusapollo6504]

I played the Civ series for a long time, too, starting with Civ2 during the mid 90ies. My, only real issue with those games is, starting with Civ5, the wars are in the background, while Civ3 and Civ4 still had expansions focused on wars and war-scenariors with "Conquest" and "Warlords The disney artstyle is not making things better in Civ6, too. I am really disappointed with the modern titles, they do not reflect all game aspects of the previous games, especially war, well enough and mechanicly, lack the A.I. Doomstacks. If you go back to Civ3 and start a game on higher difficulties you will not be spared by the agressive A.I. doomstacks that spawn allready in the first few turns, while i feel the most dangerous element in a Civ6 game are agressive barbarians and world desasters, and maybe an agressive ruler personalities that starts just 1-2 hex next to you, as modern A.I.s are coded to be more agressive if you are in range. The old Civ3 A.I. beelines you with doomstacks from the other side of the map.

[@paradoxjunky3619]

If you like civilization that much, wait until you find out about eu4 or the upcoming eu5. Your mind will exlpode with joy.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

As I mentioned in another comment, as with my underwear, I'm pretty brand loyal. But I have heard good things about EU (assuming you Europa Universalis and not the European Union).

[@ITNEPress]

5 is best

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Uh... no. Thanks for watching! :)

[@ITNEPress]

@EmotionalHuskysCivStories 7 is best!

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Let's hope so.

[@AugustVonpetersborg]

Civ hasn't been even close to the best in its class since IV

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

For me, it's really the only turn-based 4x game. But I am aware of my bias. Thanks for watching.

[@Emiltat]

Actuall question. What other 4x games have been bigger than civ since 2005?

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I honestly have no idea. I'm not a huge gamer. And, as I have been a CIV fan for 30 years, I don't see myself dipping my toes in the water to try out a competitor. I am brand loyal.

[@NikolajLepka]

"the best turn based strategy" lmao no

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

I know... Crazy right? Thanks for watching!

[@ggpl8117]

Every new recent civ is worse therefore civ7 will be bad Simple as

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Maybe. But I'm hopeful that, at worst, it's just growing pains.

[@kirktown2046]

Nah, 2, 3 and 4 were all incremental improvements. 5 and 6 were closer to spinoffs than sequels

[@ggpl8117]

@@kirktown2046 yeah i should have said every recent not every overall

[@petemagyar1445]

@@EmotionalHuskysCivStories Nah, at worst the game shits the bed and they don't even bother with all the xpacs.

[@jtreidno1]

Best turn-based strategy game available? Getting kinda bold on the opinions. There's plenty of competition. Stellaris? Total War? There's literally hundreds of turn-based strategy games. You're fanboying too hard.

[@kostyasorokin9266]

Stellaris is not turn based, and total war is good not because of it's turn based system, but because of it's battles. There might be other good turn based games, but as a videogame series civ is the most popular. And as the most popular it at least has a claim to be the best

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

Thirty years ago, I played other games. Now, yep... I only play CIV. My channel is dedicated to the game. Happy fanboy here. Thanks for watching.

[@EmotionalHuskysCivStories]

As with my underwear, I am brand loyal.