Sid Meier's Civilization VII arrives February 11, 2025 - Gameplay reveal trailer live

QuoteLinux via Steam

I hope that doesn't just mean they're going to leave it to Proton to handle. Not that Proton hasn't been great, but it too often seems to mean that they will happily sell to the Linux/Steamdeck crowd without ever committing to supporting the product there.

There are a few things I like from their reveal, and many I loathe.

Just going to have to wait. It comes out in Feb, so I'll make up my mind about then.

(yes, there is river travel. One thing I do like.)

Quoting: rambo919Now it's all relativistic drivel all the way down dressed

Relativistic? The game is traveling near lightspeed, making all the graphics look foreshortened?!

Quoting: FergleFergleson

QuoteLinux via Steam

I hope that doesn't just mean they're going to leave it to Proton to handle. Not that Proton hasn't been great, but it too often seems to mean that they will happily sell to the Linux/Steamdeck crowd without ever committing to supporting the product there.

Looking at more of the sentence,

QuotePC via Steam and Epic Games Store, and Mac and Linux via Steam

it's pretty clearly just a reference to what store it's available on.

From watching some actual footage, it looks like my odd-even theory holds: I like most of what I've seen so far! Leaders once again have the proportions of real humans, and I like the art style in general. The ability to mix up leaders and cultures is interesting; reminds of Beyond Earth, and while there were plenty of things that didn't work out so well in BE the ability to customize your start a bit was interesting. Then there's changing cultures in different eras, the changes to armies, and a bunch of other changes that are hard to judge without experience, but which I don't hate.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyOne detail I noticed from the trailer is it seemed like there was some kind of river travel.

Yes, traversable rivers was mentioned in the video I watched. They'll take up full tiles rather than some awkward in-between thing.

Quoting: rambo919

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: rambo919Now it's all relativistic drivel all the way down dressed

Relativistic? The game is traveling near lightspeed, making all the graphics look foreshortened?!

I meant how everyone is obsessed with making everything political.... now the current fad is no civilization is actually inherently distinct from any other.... you can take up a new civ with every age as if changing your clothes.... it's stupid.

History has become "who's line is it anyway".

Mm, that feature seems kind of weird to me too. But it's not mandatory, so if I prefer to play through as a civilization, I can still do that. I don't see that being a big problem, gameplay-wise. Similarly with the leader mix-and-match thing where you could have like Augustus Caesar leading the Mongols . . . if you don't want to be bizarre, you don't do that. They're not issues like, are these "towns" going to work well or be boring? If those suck, you have no way around them.

On the political thing, though . . . it's been my experience that to the contrary, everyone seems to be obsessed with making everything apolitical. And certainly a game that is about the sweep of human history is going to be political--history is made of politics. Every technology, let alone every civic, represents a value judgment about what that thing does to society . . . that's politics.

Quoting: rambo919now the current fad is no civilization is actually inherently distinct from any other

But…they specifically still are distinct? Leaders get bonuses, and civilizations have unique units/buildings/etc., so mixing and matching them allows for interesting gameplay combinations.

Quoting: rambo919you can take up a new civ with every age as if changing your clothes

This is a lot more historical, actually, given how most "civilizations" don't really survive more than a few hundred years before morphing into a different form or being absorbed into another one*. It's the "The USA popped into existence in 4000 BC and has existed unchanged ever since guided by the immortal Abraham Lincoln" take from previous entries in the franchise that makes zero historical sense.

It might be a bit too revolutionary for Firaxis to have civilizations restricted to certain eras, but it sure would be an interesting mechanic!

*China might be a rare exception, depending on how you feel about things like the Warring States period or the various dynasties founded by nomadic peoples from the north.

Quoting: rambo919I dislike the idea of history becoming an amorphous fantasy plaything.

Gotta say, that's a weird take for a gamer. There are swathes of alternate-reality franchises: Bioshock, Wolfenstein, Battlefield, pretty much any Steampunk game, it's a big list. I can't see how fiction is "disrespectful", but maybe you only meant in the context of the Civ games directly? But even there, the entire premise of Civ is to allow you to build alternative histories, YOUR history, YOUR perfect civilisation. It's hardly going to be historically accurate.

Quoting: rambo919The function of any game psychologically is to play out scenarios, a form of learning without risk. Anything you do in a game is an expression of what you would do IRL if given the opportunity and resources, it's just that most seem to not notice this about themselves.

The function of most games psychologically is to entertain the player. Some games do aim to play out scenarios and allow you to learn without risk, others are just a bit of fun or harmless wastes of time. And regardless of the scope or aim of the game, you're always secure in the knowledge that any consequence is purely virtual, and it's perfectly safe and acceptable to make decisions you'd never willingly make in real life.

Quoting: rambo919

Quoting: tuubiThe function of most games psychologically is to entertain the player.

By acting out scenarios. You would never kill or rape someone virtually if you were not capable of doing so in person. To reverse it if you cannot do something in person you could never force yourself to do it in a game. The entertainment comes from virtually doing what you physically cannot, the fact that it's entertaining is linked to the purpose of games being preparatory for real life things. You enjoy doing things in games that you might do later in IRL the same way you enjoy other things IRL that benefit you, that's how endorphins work.

None of this is true. I can kill someone in a game only because I can easily make the distinction between a bunch of pixels and a real human life. If endorphins are released, that's because I succeeded in a challenge provided by the game and am rewarded for my effort with points, loot, whatever. Not because I think I just murdered a person. You're way out of your depth with this sort of armchair psychology.

Quoting: rambo919

Quoting: tuubiSome games do aim to play out scenarios and allow you to learn without risk, others are just a bit of fun or harmless wastes of time. And regardless of the scope or aim of the game, you're always secure in the knowledge that any consequence is purely virtual, and it's perfectly safe and acceptable to make decisions you'd never willingly make in real life.

That's a self deception. Anything you would willingly do in a game where there are no consequence you would do IRL under the right conditions. The same way many people think themselves "good" just because they have never done anything truly evil.... yet. There exists no such thing as a "good" human as history and any large jail has proven.

Have you considered that maybe you're just a nihilist?