Just wrote worst review of the decade

I wanna see how many of you fans boys are still gonna be playing this couple weeks down the road ...
That seems a little unnecessary and TBQH I could easily say the same about Civ 5 or 6 which I found distasteful compared to Civ 4, in my view the franchise's peak (and I won't be convinced otherwise, similar to how you won't be convinced otherwise about Civ 6 being good).

Evaluating a game on it's merits is separate from your feelings about the game and whether it captures what you like in particular. No game is going to scratch the itch Civ 4 did for me, even others I enjoy like Old World and Millennia and Stellaris and so on occupy different niches in what I want from strategy games. But just because those games don't bring to the table what Civ 4 did, doesn't make them bad.
 
I don't have a problem with anyone sharing a perspective, positive or negative, that is honest. I also have no problem with people defending or debating that perspective, positive or negative. The only thing I take issue with in the initial post is the use of the term "shills" for people who positively talked about the game. Absent evidence of dishonesty, no one is shilling, they are expressing a opinion you disagree. I think the new game has enough changes that you could get people who have strong feelings either way.
 
I've had little to no disconnect with leaders not leading their own civ throughout the game and I was quite worried about it. I had no problem playing Himiko as Khmer and Hawaii, to me I was still able to flavor it as Japan in my mind :) I think the leaders help a ton
 
That seems a little unnecessary and TBQH I could easily say the same about Civ 5 or 6 which I found distasteful compared to Civ 4, in my view the franchise's peak (and I won't be convinced otherwise, similar to how you won't be convinced otherwise about Civ 6 being good).

Evaluating a game on it's merits is separate from your feelings about the game and whether it captures what you like in particular. No game is going to scratch the itch Civ 4 did for me, even others I enjoy like Old World and Millennia and Stellaris and so on occupy different niches in what I want from strategy games. But just because those games don't bring to the table what Civ 4 did, doesn't make them bad.
You're not wrong, Civ IV is still the gold standard. The modding alone makes it amazing.
 
Im getting alot of hate for the post, but it is my opinion that game is generally very bad. Now you could argue about objective vs subjective etc, but game is still bad. I wrote the review right after playing, so it was my peak disapointment period. But now, still, I feel the same.
 
Strange we can't tell you that you must play through the game to come to realization it may be kinda good, but you can say that people who like it just dont realize it's crap yet.
I noticed that too. Well, I’m glad to know that I will come to my senses and hate this game. Eventually, because I’m loving it right now.
 
Im getting alot of hate for the post, but it is my opinion that game is generally very bad. Now you could argue about objective vs subjective etc, but game is still bad. I wrote the review right after playing, so it was my peak disapointment period. But now, still, I feel the same.

I mean you're getting "hate" and rightfully so because how you're framing your opinion as objective truth and how you've written off anyone with positive opinion of the game as a "shill"

I agree with a lot of you dislikes of the changes but there is definitely a much more constructive way of expressing your disappointment.
 
Im getting alot of hate for the post, but it is my opinion that game is generally very bad. Now you could argue about objective vs subjective etc, but game is still bad. I wrote the review right after playing, so it was my peak disapointment period. But now, still, I feel the same.
I mean it being your opinion that it is bad kind of implies that's subjective, especially since you only spent 30 minutes playing it before deciding all its mechanics were awful and you didn't feel connected to the civ and to the leader, which is again a subjective response.

Objectively I would say the game's worst qualities are some of its legacy gameplay (e.g. relic and codex points scoring), its appalling UI/UX that would be unacceptable from anything but the most indie of devs, and its lack of content to flesh out civ transitions.
 
Bough the game and refunded it. After 30 min.

Don't tell me that I have to play it though to know if I like it or not. I knew immediately that I didn't like civ 5. I loved civ 6. Civ 2 and 3. Even after countless of hours on civ 6 people were telling me that civ 5 is best version ever, so I gave it several tries. Its not. Still don't like it. So no, you don't have to play a game for x amount of hours and x amount of playthroughs until you find it enjoyable. Its either good from the get go or it isn't. Civ 7 isn't.

Lets me go a bit in depth as I didn't on my review on steam page.

I play games for the feel of it. For the fantasy of it. Either that be football manager where you take charge of a team and bring it to glory, or take a civilization under your command and build it up to be the greatest. This manifests very early in the game. With good games, and civ likes, you very early on get attachment to who ever you are playing as. You feel a sense of responsibility, joy, excitement. There is no such thing in civ 7. You can't connect your feelings to a random leader, leading a country that isn't his.

All reviews and plays I've seen on youtube have been telling me how this isn't a bad thing. They are sponsored shills. There is no way in hell, this is a good thing. It totally disconnects you from the immersion. You are basically playing a puzzle game they've set up and try to win on conditions they've set up. You are no longer playing for building a great nation and conquering the world, rather, you are just mix-maxing stats on this small island (yes, it feels like an island), to achieve certain points and reach goals of the game. Civ feel is about a sandbox game, where victory goals are the ones you set up for your great civilization. But no, now you have to get x amount of this and that, during each age and it calculates your score. I'm telling you, its a mix-maxing puzzle game and you will realize this very early. (And don't come to me telling me that civ games have always been about min-maxing, because they haven't). Not only that, they figured out, why fudge up immersion only once in the start of the game, lets fudge it up 3 times during game. Also, lets fudge all the hard work the player did and just fudge up his stuff couple times during game.

So they fudged it up this much and thought, lets fudge up immersion even more for everybody. And then they decided to add a tutorial to the game that pops up non-stop over entire screen. (It has to be over entire screen because game is designed for controller platforms like switch). Not only does this ruin your first impression of the game, it also overloads users with information that they would usually gather over a longer period of time. There is no fudging need for tutorials in games. If your game isn't self explanatory and simple in the start, you have failed at game design. Which they clearly did.

As you probably already know, the UI is terrible. I understand why it's terrible, but I really don't care about this. What gets my juices going is all the people who says that once the UI is fixed and tooltips and such, game will be great. It won't. Bad UI is just a symptom of a larger fudge up. And people focusing on UI and blaming UI for reason the game feels bad, just don't want to realize that the actual game is bad. So they are blaming UI and saying how everything will be fine once this is fixed. And they do this because they still have hope that this fudge up can somehow turn around and become a decent game. But deep down they know the game is terrible.

Graphics doesn't make the game. Everybody is praising graphics, and they are great to look at, as a wallpaper. But they messed up hugely. Everything blends into each other. Specially when you are zoomed out a bit, its really hard to distinguish units, buildings and environment. They have no idea about object separation.

Then there are people playing the game and are clearly enjoying the game on youtube and in reviews on steam. So how can game be bad? They haven't realized it yet. The hype and euphoria is still huge and people are blind to constructive criticism. The real test comes a couple months later. Is the "just one more turn" still there then? Is it there after a week?

0/10, worst crap I've played in this entire franchise.

Well you just have more time now for Football Manager. At least comes out every year...
 
Let me write it in a different way.

My points:
- Immersion is gone
- Game has changed drastically into a puzzle type of game (which might have been changing since civ4-5)
- Youtube reviews have been (almost) all sunshine and rainbow all the way until day before launch, while steam reviews clearly show that game has deep problems.
- Graphics are bad in a way that they make it hard to distinguish what's on the map

I might have gone overboard with the launguage, but im my defence, I was just disapointed how the way game was, as I still had hopes that I was wrong after watching countless youtube videos.

So my apologizes.
 
- Youtube reviews have been (almost) all sunshine and rainbow all the way until day before launch, while steam reviews clearly show that game has deep problems.


I might have gone overboard with the launguage, but im my defence, I was just disapointed how the way game was, as I still had hopes that I was wrong after watching countless youtube videos.

So my apologizes.

This is why you really should take early access youtube reviews with a grain of salt. One for the very obvious reason that these people are given early access and have an incentive/bias to downplay criticisms before launch for such a privalege to continue. The other reason is that sometimes these people just have different taste and get different things out of games than I do. Potato Mcwhiskey for example made very clear to me early on that he was willing to entertain changes to the series' formula that I was not.

but still still this is a good starting point though realize that you are totally within your rights to criticize and be disappointed in this sequel, just have to be careful about your tone and understand that even if you think the game is a dumpster fire. your opinion is not universal.
 
Let me write it in a different way.

My points:
- Immersion is gone
- Game has changed drastically into a puzzle type of game (which might have been changing since civ4-5)
- Youtube reviews have been (almost) all sunshine and rainbow all the way until day before launch, while steam reviews clearly show that game has deep problems.
- Graphics are bad in a way that they make it hard to distinguish what's on the map

I might have gone overboard with the launguage, but im my defence, I was just disapointed how the way game was, as I still had hopes that I was wrong after watching countless youtube videos.

So my apologizes.
Totally fair criticisms (although immersion is subjective and I would argue players want different things when it comes to immersion) and TBH hard-agree on the puzzle nature of the game, although I personally think Civ 6 had the worst puzzle gameplay and at least in this game we're not working on theming bonuses or moving rock bands around to maximize culture in specific foreign cities. The puzzles here are at least not frustrating to work out and generally go along with standard gameplay (e.g. researching tech gives you codexes, if you can't spread religion to get relics they're sprinkled in the civics tree, the treasure ships at least relate to the expansion mechanics which are thematic for their era, etc) as opposed to Civ 6 where they kind of had a life of their own separate from playing on the map and expanding your empire.

Youtube reviews being dishonest tbh just reminds me how gross the games industry is these days. If you're not endlessly-praising a game, publishers will often cut you off from the early-access teat which can kill your channel as a gaming Youtuber/streamer. See the debacle with Total War and Sega for how that turned out, hopefully 2K isn't nearly as bad.
 
Let me write it in a different way.

My points:
- Immersion is gone
- Game has changed drastically into a puzzle type of game (which might have been changing since civ4-5)
- Youtube reviews have been (almost) all sunshine and rainbow all the way until day before launch, while steam reviews clearly show that game has deep problems.
- Graphics are bad in a way that they make it hard to distinguish what's on the map

I might have gone overboard with the launguage, but im my defence, I was just disapointed how the way game was, as I still had hopes that I was wrong after watching countless youtube videos.

So my apologizes.
Sadly for you, they just announced that Football Manager 25 is cancelled. https://www.footballmanager.com/news/development-update-football-manager-25-1
 
I play games for the feel of it. For the fantasy of it. Either that be football manager where you take charge of a team and bring it to glory, or take a civilization under your command and build it up to be the greatest. This manifests very early in the game. With good games, and civ likes, you very early on get attachment to who ever you are playing as. You feel a sense of responsibility, joy, excitement. There is no such thing in civ 7. You can't connect your feelings to a random leader, leading a country that isn't his.
This might be true for now, but it will steadily get fixed. Most civilizations will get a national leader. Hell, some will even get two or more. Look at France or America or Germany. And if it still bothers you too much because you are forced to change your civilization in every age, then you can play it the way I would it. Pick Genghis Khan, then pick to play only in the Exploration Age, and finally pick Mongolia. In that way, there is no need to lead the Han or the Qing with Genghis. When mods and expansions are released in the future that will enrich the gameplay, then it will feel more amazing to play a game only in one age.
 
Let me write it in a different way.

My points:
- Immersion is gone
- Game has changed drastically into a puzzle type of game (which might have been changing since civ4-5)
- Youtube reviews have been (almost) all sunshine and rainbow all the way until day before launch, while steam reviews clearly show that game has deep problems.
- Graphics are bad in a way that they make it hard to distinguish what's on the map

I might have gone overboard with the launguage, but im my defence, I was just disapointed how the way game was, as I still had hopes that I was wrong after watching countless youtube videos.

So my apologizes.
I think these are all fair criticisms.
 
only point I can't is the youtubers being sunshine and rainbows, This may just be poor selection bias but I feel like there has not been a review higher than like a Seven, at least from the ones I have watched (Van Bradley, Potato, Boes, Marbozir) that being said, while I don't agree with you points personally, as one who has been enjoying the game a lot, Your criticisms are more than fair.
 
I feel like once the Early Access started for the entire playerbase a lot of youtubers became a lot more honest. This is why I took all of the preview videos with a grain of salt. Potato would have never made his video that is deservedly crapping on the UI during that preview period.

But it’s good now, that we see the game’s strengths and problems for what they actually are.
 
I mean, they did start before the early access, they couldn't release those types of videos during the initial preview phase cause the review embargo was still en force.
 
I like the guided directions and the feeling like i am playing against the map. Totally open ended sandbox means competing with inferior AIs = boring.
 
I mean, they did start before the early access, they couldn't release those types of videos during the initial preview phase cause the review embargo was still en force.
I’m sorry, I don’t think I follow. The embargo was on the Modern Age and other unrevealed content. Why couldn’t they have complained about the UI?
 
Back
Top Bottom