GamesRadar: "A revolutionary strategy game that cements the series' legendary status" 4/5

[The_J]

GamesRadar has given 4/5 stars.

Civilization 7 review: "A revolutionary strategy game that cements the series' legendary status"

Civilization 7 is a revolutionary strategy game for newcomers and long-time fans alike, though some tweaks around diplomacy and Ages fall short

www.gamesradar.com

The conclusion reads:
"I had no idea what to expect from Civilization 7. Firaxis has a habit of scaring fans by announcing wild choices (hello, Marvel's Midnight Suns) then pulling them off so slickly you forget there was ever any doubt. Civilization 7 isn't quite so slick – with its heavy-handed Ages diplomacy rework – but it's certainly a huge stride forward for the legendary strategy series, joining the clarity of Civilization 5 with the added depth of Civilization 6.

Ages will be more divisive – I personally think the system does wonders for the usual tedium of late-stage campaigns – while other features, like pairing Leaders with evolving civs, should be a staple going forward. Civilization 7 already feels like the best entry point yet, and with Firaxis' habit of saving the real polish for expansions, I think this is going to become a grand strategy titan. Just keep an eye on that Ben Franklin fella – and don't believe a word he says about any "war crimes"."

 

[Quintillus]

Some tidbits:

Finding unclaimed land is now genuinely scrappy, and racing to plant my flag in undeveloped continents has been the highlight of my time in Civilization 7. I've admittedly found myself engaging with the cultural side of Civ less because of it, though, and AI has an irritating habit of squeezing a town right outside of your established borders.

Reminds me of Civ III, in a good way - both the scrappiness of racing to claim a site, and the AI wanting to settle every tile. The review also mentions fewer penalties to expanding in VI, which as a wide player is something I was worried about due to city limitations. So that' s a positive.

During my first campaign as Xerxes, a three-way war with my continental neighbors Machiavelli and Himiko drew the attention of meddling outsiders Ben Franklin and Ashoka, World Renouncer. The latter two factions had no settlements in the continent, but decided to wade in anyway, landing masses of tanks and gun-toting infantry on our shores and transforming the countryside into a fiery wreck until I turned the sea into a killing field of my own with a blockade of battleships. I've sunk hundreds of hours into Civilization, but that single conflict is the most fun I've ever had with combat.

Sounds fun, I love when moments like that emerge - and they should emerge in Civ.

It's not always a smooth transition, as each Age has a hard stop that resets the board a little. This is particularly frustrating if you're in the middle of something important. In one match, I was closing in on the end of a particularly bloody war and within reach of my mortal enemy Amina's capital when the Age shifted from Exploration to Modern, ending our war and warping my soldiers back to my own distant territories. (...)

That's not an indictment, though. Since then, I've realized that it takes time to learn how Ages work.

That could be a downside - an age transition just prior to the climax of what in another Civ iteration could be a climactic moment of the campaign. Also perhaps a warning to not judge the game by the first playthrough.

when a few quirks are ironed out, this will be the series' best modern iteration to date

He never clarifies what he means by "modern" iteration. Better than V and VI, but... not one of the earlier ones? I don't think that would be a bad outcome if it were the case, but it's curious phrasing.

------

All in all, more positive than the IGN review, although still tempered.