People who like Civ usually don’t like it when y’all make changes, so it’s kinda surprising that Civ changes so much.
If you like a particular Iteration there is little to stop you from playing it.
Every version is an unique interpretation of the core premise.
That is true, but sometimes technology advances and it gets difficult to get the older titles to play nice with newer hardware. That doesn’t mean the gameplay needs to be completely changed up in the next iteration.
It seems more like a software issue than a hardware one. Try a VM my dude…
Sounds like a you Problem. Just because you cant get it to run doesnt mean we shouldn’t have a New Civ.
Their design process is 1/3 old stuff, 1/3 reworked stuff and 1/3 new stuff. The idea is that why should release a new game if it’s just the same as the last one. This is actually a problem so often that there is a recurring meme within civ communities every new release
Because after a few years they complain again when more changes are made because the current game is so good…
Friendly reminder that this game ships with Denuvo.
The biggest and dumbest change you made was to implement Denuvo.
The transitions between these eras will offer the chance to select a fresh civilization, with a range of options determined by your previous choices.
Wait a minute. I feel like I’ve seen that one before…
Oh well, fair enough. Humankind drew heavily on Civ in its design anyway.
Yeah, I’m not mad that they chomped Humankind’s flavor. I see it as an admission that the game had good ideas (if less-than-stellar execution). I’ve just seem rando comments trying to tamp down on claims that there are similarities like their stock portfolio is riding on it.
I’m sure it’s management’s fault but they should be shouting out fellow devs in their breakdowns: “oh, we saw Humankind and thought it’s mechanic was fascinating. But we wanted to adapt it closer to our style and refine some pain points we noticed in our execution.”
