Sid Meier’s Civilization VII blends and modifies features from its predecessor. Although it is a bit barren in terms of innovations, it is a good game in terms of the strategic depth it brings to the series. I can say that it is positioned as an alternative to its predecessor, not a sequel.
I’m glad Firaxis is still finding ways to improve a genre it has mastered over the years, and as a result, Sid Meier’s Civilization 7 has the series in its best shape yet.
Civilization 7 is a very pretty and very chaoitc game. Brave but not thought out. It introduces changes that aren’t inherently bad, and they build an interesting foundation for a probably great game in the future. Unfortunately now we got an early access production for a premium access price.
Civilization VII refines its strategic depth through era transitions and civilization changes, though the most thrilling moments feel more spaced out. Despite these shifts, the game retains its signature “just one more turn” appeal—undeniably Civilization.
Despite the fact that the Civilization series has been around for a while, it still manages to bring something new that at least slightly enriches and changes the gameplay. Here we have another quality piece of work that is worth playing.
Civilization VII is bold enough to add big changes to its formula, without getting rid of everything that has made the series iconic. Say goodbye to your free time, as from PC to handheld, every waking moment will be consumed by One More Turn.
The core elements of the game are there, they work and it’s fun to play. The incentives and dynamism that the new approach to Civilization switching with the legacy paths will keep the game fresh both across games and within them. Abandoning games after about 80 turns was a big issue for me in the last few titles. I’ve not had the notion to do that yet.
Especially in a game like Civ. it’s hard to know how people feel about it until a week or so later. I remember when Civ 6 was said to be the best game in the series on release, but after spending some time with it, it was lacking. Reviews like these are more of a first impressions.
Unless my friends, who have put a lot of hours into both Civ 5 and 6, unanimously recommend 7 to me, I have no intention of getting it.
I’m both satisfied enough with what I already own, and not sold on the new one yet. Not to mention that it’ll inevitably be a vehicle for more dlc and expansion pack sales
No one’s said anything about hating it. For me, it’s primarily a co-op game, and if they’re not going to switch to it, it’s better for me to save the cash, and put it towards something else
Really? Because there are plenty of reviews that captured the state of that game at release, and they’re generally better at articulating it than the guy who has 1000 hours in a game and calls it “literally unplayable” in a Steam review.
Individual Steam reviews may be trash but the average rating is valuable and usually pretty reliable. The biggest downside of the system is that it isn’t quick to “respond” to updates but the separate “Recent” rating helps a lot.
The point you’re responding to is that C:S 2 was praised by reviewers at launch despite it having TONS of issues and missing features. The Steam ratings were a way more accurate picture of the game.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
I don’t trust any review website anymore. If I did I would have bought cities skylines 2 on release.
I’ll wait for people to play and rate it
Especially in a game like Civ. it’s hard to know how people feel about it until a week or so later. I remember when Civ 6 was said to be the best game in the series on release, but after spending some time with it, it was lacking. Reviews like these are more of a first impressions.
Reviews like these are paid advertising.
Why’d they pay for bad ones?
When Civ VIII rolls around they won’t send review copies to anyone who gave bad reviews last time.
Just like they wouldn’t the last time…and the time before that…and the time before that…
It’s not a thing at outlets like these. Paid promo from influencers and independent reviews are not the same thing.
That’s not paid advertising. And review scores only tend to slide by a couple of points in aggregate after everyone else gets their review in.
Unless my friends, who have put a lot of hours into both Civ 5 and 6, unanimously recommend 7 to me, I have no intention of getting it.
I’m both satisfied enough with what I already own, and not sold on the new one yet. Not to mention that it’ll inevitably be a vehicle for more dlc and expansion pack sales
They won’t. For some reason you are only allowed to like a single civ game and you must hate every sequent game.
No one’s said anything about hating it. For me, it’s primarily a co-op game, and if they’re not going to switch to it, it’s better for me to save the cash, and put it towards something else
I was just making a joke about civ fans always dislike every civ game except their favorite.
Wait until there’s a steep sale on the Complete Edition later on. I only paid $5 for Civ5 Complete, and I think $15 for Civ6 Complete.
Really? Because there are plenty of reviews that captured the state of that game at release, and they’re generally better at articulating it than the guy who has 1000 hours in a game and calls it “literally unplayable” in a Steam review.
It’s more about how does the game function at release is there a performance issue that would prompt a hardware upgrade.
It’s not a dig at the game I’m sure it’s great but these websites are frequently paid for a good review.
Civ is known for having issues at release just because its such a giant game to program
I don’t know which sites you think are getting paid for good reviews (this is a persistent myth), but find one or two that you trust.
Individual Steam reviews may be trash but the average rating is valuable and usually pretty reliable. The biggest downside of the system is that it isn’t quick to “respond” to updates but the separate “Recent” rating helps a lot.
The point you’re responding to is that C:S 2 was praised by reviewers at launch despite it having TONS of issues and missing features. The Steam ratings were a way more accurate picture of the game.
You can read into individual reviews rather than just looking at the aggregate. Plenty pointed out its problems.
You can use both :)
Agreed. The reviews are way too good for a Civ game on release. Would be the first in a while that doesn’t need DLCs to be really good.