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.
There’s one historical movie scene that comes to mind for me when I think about Sid Meier’s Civilization 7, and it’s not a flashy arena fight in Gladiator or mission control cheering as we safely bring Apollo 13 back home. It’s Leo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes in The Aviator, running his hand along an airplane fuselage and insisting that he doesn’t want to see any rivets.
Civ V had mediocre-to-bad gameplay on release, but was transformed into something good by the Brave New World DLC. I have read that Civ VI was similarly improved (although perhaps with a bit less success) by way of DLC.
Judging by the initial reviews of this one, it looks like a pattern is developing. I guess I’ll once again wait a few years until the “fix” DLC has been out for a while, and buy the combo pack on sale.
Unless they use Denuvo or some other anti-customer nonsense that I won’t support.
Civ7 does indeed use Denuvo. Concerning for a game like this with far more CPU usage than your typical game.
For me, Civ6 at launch felt like a couple steps forward and a couple steps back. I really appreciated the increased transparency with diplomacy, but the AI was aggressively bad in mid and late-game, something they never ended up getting right.
Had the same thought. Plus, according to some of these reviews, there’s no information age units, so that gives them a possible fourth era to work with in upcoming DLC.
I detested civ 6 on launch. I bought the dlc when it was cheap but idk if I’ll ever like that game. Hopefully 7 is good, but I’m definitely gonna wait until I read all of the reviews.
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.
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.
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
I do this for a lot of games, but definitely for the Civ games. I play one generation behind because I can get the entire package for a reasonable price. And let’s be honest, I have shitloads of other games to play in the meantime. I’m not missing anything.
Is it more understandable can civ 6? I’m a fan of goddamn stellaris and could competently play civ 5 but civ 6 is like being beaten half to death with a textbook on quantumn physics and then told to sit an exam. The tutorial prepares you for the game about as much as a stick of chewing gum prepares you for the beating.
Culture victories are never really explained, but that was also a Civ5 issue. I never completely figured out how luxuries/amenities are distributed between your cities, and cities don’t show a breakdown, just how many they have. I do like 6 better than 5 over all, though, but I’m also not OP.
IIRC from when I first got the game, the tutorial hadn’t been updated to account for changes from patches and expansions. It was probably fine for launch day, but decidedly not for the final game.
I’ve done zero research into the new release. Does it add much in the way of major game changing alterations? I’m thinking along the lines of how the district systems dramatically the feel of the game
Yeah. Lots of changes. They reduced the number of ages down to three, Antiquity, Exploration, & Modern. In each age, you play a different civ. For example, you could start Antiquity with the Romans, transition into Spain for Exploration, and finish as Mexico in Modern.
Leaders and Civs are detached, so now you can play as Benjamin Franklin of Egypt or Napoleon of Japan. Leaders stay with you the whole campaign.
Settlers create Towns now instead of Cities. Towns are like puppet cities from Civ 5 in that they act autonomously. They mainly serve to harvest and send resources to your Cities. If they grow enough in population, you can spend money to convert them into Cities.
District system has been reworked. Now there’s only two types of districts, Urban and Rural. Rural districts take the place of resource improvements, since there are no more builders. Urban districts get two building slots, and from what I’ve seen some buildings do get adjacency bonuses.
There’s a new unit called Commander that lets you stack your other army units on top of it and transport them across the map. Still have to unstack your army to engage in war.
There’s more changes, but these are main ones that jumped to mind in terms of dramatically changing the feel of the game.
I haven’t delved into it much but the big change this time is that as eras change, so do leaders. So you can change from one leader to another mid-game for different bonuses and strats.
I don’t understand why we let Civ get away with amputating gameplay from the end-of-lifecycle previous game to repackage as new DLC again? If they hit upon great ideas in an expansion, why is that not folded into the core product like most decent games do with sequels?
They started with a triangle for 6, slowly carved it down to a semi-smooth, functional circle, then turned around for 7 and said “how about a cube this time?” Stop reinventing the wheel and finish refining it.
Honestly, the development mirrors my playthroughs of 4Xs: start with something funky and a lil different, struggle to make it work, and then restart when I’m close to done.
Anyone know if it will have cross platform play? My brother is going to get it on ps5, but I would rather get it for Mac… unless we will be unable to play together.
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.
Ign gave it a 7/10:
Ouch
The way of the future
Civ V had mediocre-to-bad gameplay on release, but was transformed into something good by the Brave New World DLC. I have read that Civ VI was similarly improved (although perhaps with a bit less success) by way of DLC.
Judging by the initial reviews of this one, it looks like a pattern is developing. I guess I’ll once again wait a few years until the “fix” DLC has been out for a while, and buy the combo pack on sale.
Unless they use Denuvo or some other anti-customer nonsense that I won’t support.
Civ7 does indeed use Denuvo. Concerning for a game like this with far more CPU usage than your typical game.
For me, Civ6 at launch felt like a couple steps forward and a couple steps back. I really appreciated the increased transparency with diplomacy, but the AI was aggressively bad in mid and late-game, something they never ended up getting right.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the era system is partially to mitigate the late-game AI issues.
Had the same thought. Plus, according to some of these reviews, there’s no information age units, so that gives them a possible fourth era to work with in upcoming DLC.
I detested civ 6 on launch. I bought the dlc when it was cheap but idk if I’ll ever like that game. Hopefully 7 is good, but I’m definitely gonna wait until I read all of the reviews.
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.
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 can read into individual reviews rather than just looking at the aggregate. Plenty pointed out its problems.
You can use both :)
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.
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.
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.
Seriously, don’t buy the game at launch. Wait till the GOTY edition because many features that we had in the past will be packaged as expansions.
I do this for a lot of games, but definitely for the Civ games. I play one generation behind because I can get the entire package for a reasonable price. And let’s be honest, I have shitloads of other games to play in the meantime. I’m not missing anything.
Best advice. Get strung along for a few years until they make it whole.
Is it more understandable can civ 6? I’m a fan of goddamn stellaris and could competently play civ 5 but civ 6 is like being beaten half to death with a textbook on quantumn physics and then told to sit an exam. The tutorial prepares you for the game about as much as a stick of chewing gum prepares you for the beating.
Which part was confusing? The only major difference iirc was the districts mechanic, wasn’t it? Was that the issue?
Culture victories are never really explained, but that was also a Civ5 issue. I never completely figured out how luxuries/amenities are distributed between your cities, and cities don’t show a breakdown, just how many they have. I do like 6 better than 5 over all, though, but I’m also not OP.
IIRC from when I first got the game, the tutorial hadn’t been updated to account for changes from patches and expansions. It was probably fine for launch day, but decidedly not for the final game.
I’ve done zero research into the new release. Does it add much in the way of major game changing alterations? I’m thinking along the lines of how the district systems dramatically the feel of the game
Yeah. Lots of changes. They reduced the number of ages down to three, Antiquity, Exploration, & Modern. In each age, you play a different civ. For example, you could start Antiquity with the Romans, transition into Spain for Exploration, and finish as Mexico in Modern.
Leaders and Civs are detached, so now you can play as Benjamin Franklin of Egypt or Napoleon of Japan. Leaders stay with you the whole campaign.
Settlers create Towns now instead of Cities. Towns are like puppet cities from Civ 5 in that they act autonomously. They mainly serve to harvest and send resources to your Cities. If they grow enough in population, you can spend money to convert them into Cities. District system has been reworked. Now there’s only two types of districts, Urban and Rural. Rural districts take the place of resource improvements, since there are no more builders. Urban districts get two building slots, and from what I’ve seen some buildings do get adjacency bonuses.
There’s a new unit called Commander that lets you stack your other army units on top of it and transport them across the map. Still have to unstack your army to engage in war.
There’s more changes, but these are main ones that jumped to mind in terms of dramatically changing the feel of the game.
I haven’t delved into it much but the big change this time is that as eras change, so do leaders. So you can change from one leader to another mid-game for different bonuses and strats.
I don’t understand why we let Civ get away with amputating gameplay from the end-of-lifecycle previous game to repackage as new DLC again? If they hit upon great ideas in an expansion, why is that not folded into the core product like most decent games do with sequels?
They started with a triangle for 6, slowly carved it down to a semi-smooth, functional circle, then turned around for 7 and said “how about a cube this time?” Stop reinventing the wheel and finish refining it.
Honestly, the development mirrors my playthroughs of 4Xs: start with something funky and a lil different, struggle to make it work, and then restart when I’m close to done.
Wow, this completely snuck up on me. How exciting!
Anyone know if it will have cross platform play? My brother is going to get it on ps5, but I would rather get it for Mac… unless we will be unable to play together.
They said it will. Hopefully it will work better than with civ6
I never realized 6 had it, but I have not played multiplayer in probably 12 years.
It’s kinda broken because you have to use the same build but 99% of the time they are not synced across platforms
I am still waiting to see if they kept the ‘play by cloud’ feature.