Just wrote worst review of the decade

[TheGrayFox]

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?

because complaining heavily about the game before review embargo ended would lost them their access to 2K and Firaxis' future early access products. That's how the business operates

 

[lo24681]

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?

there was a review embargo as well, and they may have felt that talking about the issues with the UI would have been too much like a review, also like GrayFox said, doing so could affect future opportunities with Firaxis.

 

[canadamufc]

because complaining heavily about the game before review embargo ended would lost them their access to 2K and Firaxis' future early access products. That's how the business operates

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you, I am just wondering how the other person thinks that because of the embargo, videos mentioning the bad UI couldn’t be made.

 

[canadamufc]

there was a review embargo as well

Didn’t know that. Thanks

 

[Ornen]

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.

yeah, that's crazy to me. the impression I got from both review sites & streamers was that the game was launching with a lot of issues, and that has proven to be true. I have not read tales of sunshine & rainbow

 

[Devilbound]

Well that was a hilarious edgelord wannabe troll review. Sorry cba to read all 7 pages just to comment on the OP, nor do I think I really need to. Did read the first page. And most importantly the OP.

Chill the f down lol. One might also quote an older film and ask; what is your major malfunction, son?

Ungkh. And I thought I was edgy

 

[KayAU]

I respect your opinion, but I personally don't think you can fairly judge a Civ game in 30 minutes. I haven't played it myself, and don't intend to buy it in the near future, but at least for me I usually need dozens of hours to get a sense of how all the systems work, the competence of the AI, how interesting and varied the maps are, and so on.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

I was able to finally play Civ7 on a friend‘s pc, read and saw so much about it, i wanted to get a feeling how good or bad the game is. only 2,3 hours but i‘m now even more shocked… what‘s that? It‘s not Civ for me, the whole game experience doesn‘t feel good at all. Even the graphics, though more detailed, are a huge step back to me. The textures are surely more detailed than in Civ6 but the feeling is bad, where in Civ6 it was just a beautiful feeling. Don’t want to write a long text about what i don‘t like, i‘ll keep it short: Civ7 feels like a soulless game -.- It just feels totally wrong.

Never thought Firaxis would deliver a Civ game like that. A few years ago, i thought it would be even better than 6, but 7 is just… not good.
It‘s even not the UI that bothers me, the UI is the smallest problem for me.

Now i‘m just hoping that the AI mods for Civ6 turn Civ6 into a even better game, then i‘ll stick with Civ6… RealStrategy or RomanHoliday‘s AI Rework, all my hope is on you.

 

[Bobolove]

I respect your opinion, but I personally don't think you can fairly judge a Civ game in 30 minutes. I haven't played it myself, and don't intend to buy it in the near future, but at least for me I usually need dozens of hours to get a sense of how all the systems work, the competence of the AI, how interesting and varied the maps are, and so on.

I just started playing Vintage Story. Withing 30 min I was hook. Game is amazing. You should try it.

 

[firadin]

I respect your opinion, but I personally don't think you can fairly judge a Civ game in 30 minutes. I haven't played it myself, and don't intend to buy it in the near future, but at least for me I usually need dozens of hours to get a sense of how all the systems work, the competence of the AI, how interesting and varied the maps are, and so on.

This is such a funny comment because, on the other hand, you have everyone making fun of the people that give negative reviews after 50 hours in the game. Like if you stopped early and didn't like it, you "didn't play it enough to understand the game." But, if you played it for long enough to understand the game and still didn't like it, everyone dunks on you for "must've liked the game if you spent so long playing it." There's no winning.

Anyway, Steam returns are required to be under 2 hours played so it makes sense that people will play for an hour and drop it if they don't like it.

 

[Disgustipated]

I just now noticed this thread. Not much to say but to say they don't understand what a shill is. I'm certainly not getting paid. I'm not going to play something I don't enjoy. That said, the game has numerous problems. I don't mind civ switching, but legacies are just kind of annoying and pigeonholes you into going for them every time for those points at the start of the next age.

 

[KayAU]

This is such a funny comment because, on the other hand, you have everyone making fun of the people that give negative reviews after 50 hours in the game. Like if you stopped early and didn't like it, you "didn't play it enough to understand the game."

If you say so. But those would be other people. I have never made fun of anyone for giving a game 50 hours before giving up on it. I don't think I was overly harsh towards the OP either, and stand by my opinion. The guy played the game for 30 minutes, concluded that it was "0/10, worst crap I've played in this entire franchise." He also asserted that the people who claimed to be enjoying it, were wrong about enjoying it, and just hadn't realised how bad it was yet.

To this I responded with "I respect your opinion, but I personally don't think you can fairly judge a Civ game in 30 minutes." I don't think that was unreasonable.

 

[firadin]

If you say so. But those would be other people. I have never made fun of anyone for giving a game 50 hours before giving up on it. I don't think I was overly harsh towards the OP either, and stand by my opinion. The guy played the game for 30 minutes, concluded that it was "0/10, worst crap I've played in this entire franchise." He also asserted that the people who claimed to be enjoying it, were wrong about enjoying it, and just hadn't realised how bad it was yet.

To this I responded with "I respect your opinion, but I personally don't think you can fairly judge a Civ game in 30 minutes." I don't think that was unreasonable.

Hope i didn't find off as attacking you in particular, just more of a commentary on how everyone has a different standard and it's impossible to write an acceptable review. The way I see it, if the first 30 minutes were bad or even uninteresting enough to not be worth continuing, a negative review sounds like the correct review.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'd agree, I've player Civ V for an insanely large amount of time. I enjoyed it in the first 30 minutes and ever since.

I played Civ VI and instantly didn't gel with it. I kept grinding out time in it thinking it'd grow on me but it never did.

I think 30 mins is enough time to judge a game of Civ personally.

 

[KayAU]

Hope i didn't find off as attacking you in particular, just more of a commentary on how everyone has a different standard and it's impossible to write an acceptable review. The way I see it, if the first 30 minutes were bad or even uninteresting enough to not be worth continuing, a negative review sounds like the correct review.

Fair enough.

Yes, sometimes you can get a sense of your own appreciation of a game in a relatively short time. For example, my son wanted me to try Fortnite, and I could tell very quickly that it probably wasn't for me. I would not say that it's a horrible game though, nor that anyone who likes it is somehow mistaken. I don't think I have played it enough to fairly judge it.

The first time playing a Civ game, 30 minutes would barely be enough to get me through the game setup screen, and it took me hundreds of hours to form an informed opinion on Civ 6. As I stated though, that's how it is for me. I didn't say the OP is wrong for not liking it himself. But I myself would be hesitant to state such a strong opinion based on so little experience with the game.

The point about having to play the game for less than 2 hours to get a refund is interesting. I think it has been discussed many times since the limit was introduced, but how much sense it makes really depends on the type of game. For a complex strategy game or major RPG, which you will typically play for hundreds, maybe even thousands of hours, 2 hours is very little. I guess you can get a sense of whether the game starts and runs okay. For a game like, say, Street Fighter, 2 hours may be about right. You can do a few fights and see if you like it. Then you have games like Donut County, where 2 hours may be too long, as you can complete it in that time.

I think it would be better if developers could set this limit themselves, within certain bounds, perhaps partially determined by the price. The refund limit should then be clearly stated on the store page. For a premium priced game like Civ 7, 5 hours might be a more reasonable minimum, with 10 hours as an option if Firaxis/2K wanted it. I don't think anyone who plays it and enjoys it will stop after 5-10 hours, and a higher limit may also encourage some people to give it a chance.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

56% of those reviewing on Steam agree with you OP. A terrible and unforgiveable launch.

 

[MACKA0ili]

I never review games on steam, but honestly this thread is making me want to leave a positive but cautious one.

 

[Jesper87]

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.

I have not played civ7. I just watch some youtubers play it but I totally agree on the sandbox thing. For me it has never really bern about winning a civ game by its victory condition. It is the immersion of leading the civilization.

I will play this game when there are mods out fixes the random leader stuff. Remove the age mechanics etc. Not sure why they need this age stuff and everyone transition at once. In civ4(last civ I played) on a continents map you could meet civilization that where more backwards than you once you travel avross the ocean, or you get visited by lore advanced civs.

 

[madeirabhoy]

I'd agree, I've player Civ V for an insanely large amount of time. I enjoyed it in the first 30 minutes and ever since.

I played Civ VI and instantly didn't gel with it. I kept grinding out time in it thinking it'd grow on me but it never did.

I think 30 mins is enough time to judge a game of Civ personally.

Im still at that grinding out time stage. im a good few hours in but this must be the 10th game Ive started. A lot of that was a good thing, restarting as I realized that I now understand something I didnt before. but honestly not feeling engagement, feel im often clicking randomly on things, dont feel a connection with my chosen nation or leader, feel im missing lots of things. and ive played Civ a lot every iteration since Civ 1. but not giving up.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

but not giving up

This i think is a good thing. I don‘t lost all my hope on Civ7… but some things need to get removed AND a lot of things need to change in the game itself, for me to give it a try again and actually installing it on my own pc.

Civ7 in it‘s current state is just disappointing to me, but i‘m not giving it up yet, because we talk about „Sid Meier‘s Civilization“…