After 24 years of saga, it seemed impossible to reinvent the wheel. ‘Civilization VII’ has achieved it
One more shift and I leave it. When we talk about a shift strategy game, specifically one of the saga ‘civilization’that phrase is a cliché. That is why it is less true, and something that I have discovered in recent days with the analysis of ‘Civilization VII’ is to what extent I missed that feeling that I had for months with the fifth installment and that lost some magic With the sixth. It is always difficult to talk about a strategy game because what it offers is very different from what we can live in an adventure or action title, these being more linear and anchored experiences, in general, to which developers want you to live. In a ‘civilization’, the strategy has to do, but it doesn’t matter the plans you make because the artificial intelligence of the game is there to punch. And from the last game of the remarkable saga of Sid Meier I have two things to say. The first is that I thought I was tired of the franchise formulasince I have been with this experience for many years and, despite being the VI in the market, I kept playing every time to V (For me, the best). The second thing I have to say is that I was wrong. I didn’t know to what extent. Who wants historical fidelity Every time a game with historical dyes is launched, there is no lack of those who argue that any detail that comes out of what is considered ‘historical fidelity’ is something that ruins the experience. I read some comments of this style when it was learned that in this game we could have Isabel I of Castilla as the leader of the Han of Chinabut let’s be serious: we are in a saga in which it is goal to launch the atomic bomb with Gandhi. We cannot come now with historical fidelity. I admit that it is shocking for those who carry several deliveries of the saga, but choosing leader and civilization separately is something that changes everything. If the saga already allowed us, more or less, to do what we would like, Now freedom is total. Each of the leaders has some attributes and their own tree, but each civilization also has its characteristics. Taking advantage of that mechanics is what will help us to have a better or worse in the game (not in fun, but in terms of frustration) but I think, otherwise, it is pure ‘civilization’. This is: to found the capital of our empire, building buildings of production, fun, research, economy or military in the adjacent boxes; Found new cities and try to conquer the map. All this in shifts and while we make crumbs with some neighbors who, many times, are quite touches noses. I think the best thing I can do is tell you about my first game. I started with the Vietnamese Trung Trắc, who faced the Han dynasty. Well, my civilization, precisely, was that of Han. Attributes: militaristic and scientific. “It serves me,” I thought, so … to work. As I knew it was the game for the analysis, I wanted to give it pepper (I regretted immediately) and I started in medium difficulty, with huge map and founded my capital next to a volcano (they enter into the erupting destroying buildings from time to time). I started expanding and soon I founded two other cities: one mining company and one agricultural, all with the sea, so it could happen in the future. I continued advancing my city and creating only some units, Until I met Benjamin Franklin. All good at first. Also with Machiavelli, whom I met shortly after. And with José Rizal things also like silk. “I am a pacifist,” I thought, although Trung is doing the military. To Machiavelli, no water When I followed my ball expanding and strengthening my relationship with the three, Machiavelli and Benjamin went their heads and declared the war mutually, also Rizal. He supported whoever supported, two were going to be angry, so I did what any militarist shark mind would do: I supported Rizal, who lived much further, and went into war with Machiavelli and Benjamin. Both. I wanted to stay its cities, so it came from pearls. I started to fortify my cities and reinforce the borders. I created a siege ballist and destroyed one of the cities of Machaiavelo. It was the one hundred and peak turn and my enemy were no longer two dead as Italian and the American, but … the crisis. I knew that crises were a mechanics of the game, but I was so concentrated that I didn’t see him coming. And it arrived, as if it were Lehman Brothers in 2008. Aid The crisis reached my empire with social discontent and an economic hole due to the number of units it had to maintain. I did what a leader does: look for oil in a foreign nation And keep pressing my enemies without paying attention to my people when, suddenly, everything ended. Antiquity came to an end and the era of discoveries came. It was necessary to decide what civilization to make the leap and chose the Norman (total, put to burst historical fidelity …) and discovered something curious: the crisis had vanished. My units had made the leap to their most current versions of the new age, the buildings had changed design, some that no longer served were gone and all the wars had vanished (although the relationship with the enemy leaders did not improve). He had to start over a new era, one that rewards you with juicy resources if you are going to explore new continents, where there will also be other factions with which to decide how to relate. And there I was, with the crisis resolved as if by magic, with a city of Machiavelli in my possession, having demonstrated to Benjamin how the Chinese are spent controlled by a Vietnamese and with a new … Read more
