Just wrote worst review of the decade

[Kyriakos]

Worst review of the decade for now

 

[KayAU]

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

51%, but yeah, it's been a terrible launch, and it will take a lot for Civ 7 to reach a "Mostly Positive" rating overall. At the moment, review scores are trending down, not up. :-/

For me, the reason for not buying is my worry that monetization is taking priority over quality. My main complaint with Civ 6 was that so much more effort was put into monetisable content rather than in refining and improving what was already there. Looking at Civ 7 before launch, I felt that this was going to get even worse. Civ 7 is priced higher than most full-price games on Steam, and the higher editions cost a lot more than what I would consider normal, charging you for future DLC and "early access". I hope to be proven wrong. Perhaps the bad reception may lead to more meaningful changes. I intend to give Civ 7 another look when it has been improved, and the price has come down a bit.

Right now though, there is a Steam sale, and you can get all of Ara: History Untold, Humankind, Old World, Millennia as well as Civ 6, for less than the price of the Civ 7 base game. All of these have higher ratings than Civ 7, and are still being improved and updated.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean this as an attack on the Civ series. I have played all the Civilization games, and the spinoffs, and have thousands of hours invested in the series. I think more competition is a good thing, though, and maybe it is just what Civilization needs right now.

 

[firadin]

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.

I hate this characterization of stopping playing a game you're not having fun with or engaged in as "giving up." It's not giving up, because playing Civ isn't a challenge. It's supposed to be a fun game and if you stop because it's not fun then you're rejecting the game and doing something better with your time, you're not "giving up."

 

[madeirabhoy]

51%, but yeah, it's been a terrible launch, and it will take a lot for Civ 7 to reach a "Mostly Positive" rating overall. At the moment, review scores are trending down, not up. :-/

For me, the reason for not buying is my worry that monetization is taking priority over quality. My main complaint with Civ 6 was that so much more effort was put into monetisable content rather than in refining and improving what was already there. Looking at Civ 7 before launch, I felt that this was going to get even worse. Civ 7 is priced higher than most full-price games on Steam, and the higher editions cost a lot more than what I would consider normal, charging you for future DLC and "early access". I hope to be proven wrong. Perhaps the bad reception may lead to more meaningful changes. I intend to give Civ 7 another look when it has been improved, and the price has come down a bit.

Right now though, there is a Steam sale, and you can get all of Ara: History Untold, Humankind, Old World, Millennia as well as Civ 6, for less than the price of the Civ 7 base game. All of these have higher ratings than Civ 7, and are still being improved and updated.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean this as an attack on the Civ series. I have played all the Civilization games, and the spinoffs, and have thousands of hours invested in the series. I think more competition is a good thing, though, and maybe it is just what Civilization needs right now.

agree, also worth bearing in mind that the DLC for Civ VI was pretty major changes/improvements to the game. Both Rise and Fall and Gathering storm, for me, hugely improved the game, with the introduction of dark ages, and natural disasters. Also Civ V's DLC, not as big but still decent improvements to the game mechanics. Civ VII DLC is basically charging for some extra nations and leaders that could easily have been included in the main game without us feeling over rewarded.

 

[Zaarin]

agree, also worth bearing in mind that the DLC for Civ VI was pretty major changes/improvements to the game. Both Rise and Fall and Gathering storm, for me, hugely improved the game, with the introduction of dark ages, and natural disasters. Also Civ V's DLC, not as big but still decent improvements to the game mechanics.

That's a pretty surprising reversal of conventional wisdom (not saying you're wrong, just surprising). I found Civ6's expansions to be a mixed bag of good and bad features, while Civ5's expansions took an unplayable mess and made it a halfway decent game. Civ5 is pretty close to my least favorite game in the franchise even expanded, but I'll happily commend Gods and Kings as the best expansion for just how revolutionary it was. Civ6 started in a better place but could have benefited from some bolder expansions with a stronger vision.

 

[coolhandluke11]

30 minutes,you already had your mind made up. the true facts are this game is the exactly the same as every other game ever made. its predictable and choice is an illusion but my guess is the penny hasnt dropped for you yet.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate comment removed.

 

[TheGrayFox]

30 minutes,you already had your mind made up. the true facts are this game is the exactly the same as every other game ever made. its predictable and choice is an illusion but my guess is the penny hasnt dropped for you yet.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate comment removed.

Civ VII is objectively not the same as every other game ever made, that's just a silly statement

 

[Thormodr]

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 put. I quite agree with this part:

"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."

I play Civ for the story and often set up artificial goals for myself where even winning the game is secondary. It's the journey and not the destination.

 

[ThichN]

Well put. I quite agree with this part:

"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."

I play Civ for the story and often set up artificial goals for myself where even winning the game is secondary. It's the journey and not the destination.

1. Play on fractal

2. Yes, you are building a great nation and conquering the world, with layers of your past evidence in the present, morphing your civilization into truly a sandbox. The quote from the OP here is interesting in both simultaneously praising and deriding the "sandbox." More like, "The sandbox I am used to is better than the new sandbox. I like yellow shovels instead of red shovels."

3. Recent game (I like giving examples, since most in the neg camp are "played for 30m lolz y the AI grunting at mez" or "I haven't played it"):
Hatshepsut. Egypt -> Abbasid -> Russia. Insanely fun. Sandboxed the heck out of a fractal map. As Egypt, I was immediately beset by invasions from independent powers. I was forced to build up a military and fight in my own lands (their UU gives a bonus for this). That insanely promoted my army commanders, though. I went through the game with these commanders. Later on, as Russia, they'd come in handy. I also founded Egyptian cities along all the navigable rivers I could find, cementing my ancient empire in marshes and deserts.

Come Exploration. I chose Abbasid -- some historical/geographical overlap, which I enjoy, but also love their unique quarters and special social policies. I actually only did the science goal for the Exploration Age, and unintentionally at that. I did not do any treasure fleets. I did do religion but only because I picked the +4 science to settlements following my religion. I founded Islam. I made an Abbasid empire that stretched through my home continent, different landmasses and all.

Modern era rolls around. I had thought to play the Mughals, but my Islamic empire had stretched all the way from the north to south poles in one sliver of the map, so I thought, hey, why not play Russia? It seemed to fit. It was a strange choice for me at the time, but dang, it really worked. Also, Russia is very science-focused, while the Abbasid's are as well -- the ageless quarter with my Abbasid Madrasa were powerhouses in the modern era, as were my Abbasid policies (all of which remained). One of my most focused science cities got to change to St. Petersburg, the new capital city. My roleplaying synapses were firing. The new Russian Empire founded from the detritus of a religious war. Soon revolution would occur, and we would share our perfect ideology with the others on our continent. Starting off as Russia, because I focused on the "Old World" in Era 2, my empire was massive and sprawling. I had to satiate my people, first, increase happiness, but also guard against newly-hostile independent powers who occupied the crevices of my huge land area. This was tough! With a newly-established navy, I prevailed.

I ended up doing a domination victory, though -- smoothly pivoting from science (though I also could've finished my space project in a couple more turns). Locked in an endless ideological battle vs Napoleon (he fascism, me communism). Nukes were launched. The world teetered. Before that, though, other civs in my continent ganged up on me. That was when I united the continent (3 major landmasses) into one empire, linked by smaller seas (that had access to the ocean), navigable rivers (which I built cities upon as Egypt), and -- most importantly -- a massive amount of natural resources.

The oil flowed like wine. Oil, coal. Boosts to my military strength, all of it. Factory resources, with a breadbasket to boot. Mother Russia soared.

Finally, Soviet scientists completed Operation Ivy. The world stood still at last. I had enough excess global happiness to where 35/26 settlements was no issue for me. Half the map was Russia or its satellites.

For me, this was the journey. The only thing missing was a "one more turn" button, which is on its way next week. But I think people grossly misunderstand legacy paths and the "goals," placing too much weight on their tracking (there is a reason its optional to "track" the milestone, and not default). I would go so far as to say this is the most sandbox-y and free form Civ has been in ages. I created a story from my empire, through the ages, hard-won, bleak, and extremely fun.

 

[Taefin]

Is a

51%, but yeah, it's been a terrible launch, and it will take a lot for Civ 7 to reach a "Mostly Positive" rating overall. At the moment, review scores are trending down, not up. :-/

For me, the reason for not buying is my worry that monetization is taking priority over quality. My main complaint with Civ 6 was that so much more effort was put into monetisable content rather than in refining and improving what was already there. Looking at Civ 7 before launch, I felt that this was going to get even worse. Civ 7 is priced higher than most full-price games on Steam, and the higher editions cost a lot more than what I would consider normal, charging you for future DLC and "early access". I hope to be proven wrong. Perhaps the bad reception may lead to more meaningful changes. I intend to give Civ 7 another look when it has been improved, and the price has come down a bit.

Right now though, there is a Steam sale, and you can get all of Ara: History Untold, Humankind, Old World, Millennia as well as Civ 6, for less than the price of the Civ 7 base game. All of these have higher ratings than Civ 7, and are still being improved and updated.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean this as an attack on the Civ series. I have played all the Civilization games, and the spinoffs, and have thousands of hours invested in the series. I think more competition is a good thing, though, and maybe it is just what Civilization needs right now.

Would folks say that Ara is worth playing for someone who is seriously enjoying VII and thinks Old World is the only good game in the roster of VI, humankind and Millenia?

 

[Thormodr]

Is a

Would folks say that Ara is worth playing for someone who is seriously enjoying VII and thinks Old World is the only good game in the roster of VI, humankind and Millenia?

Hard to say. Ara is a hybrid of sorts. Part Anno series, part Victoria series (Paradox game) and part Civ. (The design team worked on civilization 5.

I happen to love Civ (not a big fan of 5 but the resemblance is largely graphical), I loved the Anno series and I love the Victoria series. So, it's a great match for me. It is sort of niche game in a way but it's my niche.

The game is graphically gorgeous and a bit taxing on all but the most up to date computers. I find it very calming to play and see the citizens walking around.

The game has been pre-budgeted for a year of free updates and we are six months in. So far, the patches have made a big difference, especially with the UI and diplomacy. They are next targeting making the Civs more distinct. It currently has 40 different Civs and 43 different leaders.

Finally, no dlc to date. They seem committed to getting the game right before even thinking about that which is refreshing.

EDIT: Oh and Old World is excellent, I agree. A very worthy competitor for Civ and I think Ara is getting there.

 

[KayAU]

Would folks say that Ara is worth playing for someone who is seriously enjoying VII and thinks Old World is the only good game in the roster of VI, humankind and Millenia?

I basically agree with what @Thormodr said. It is interesting, because we don't really agree on the main line Civ games (of which Civ 5 is my favorite, and Civ 6 was a bit disappointing), but it seems Ara hits a point where our preferences overlap. I think for me, the reason I enjoy it is a combination of a fresh take on many of the concepts of Civ, combined with some elements of classic city builders, and a dash of grand strategy, all of which I like. A big part of Ara is production chains. Rather than just building an extractor and being done with it like in Civ, in Ara you will for example build a Hunting Camp to get Bison, a Tannery which uses those to make Leather, and another Tannery which takes the Leather to make Shoes. Shoes is an amenity, which you can give to a city to increase its production and health. Health is one of 5 "Quality of Life" statistics for a city, which determine things like production, growth, wealth and science generation, and how defensible it is. The system reminds me vaguely of Social Engineering in SMAC, but only vaguely. Production chains can be much more complex than that example, though. The Leather could go into a bunch of other processes, and even the Shoes are not necessarily an end point, as they could go into crafting things like Fine Clothes, which is a much more potent amenity for your cities.

The biggest drawback of Ara is probably the amount of management work you have with these production chains, especially later in the game. It is better than it was at launch, and I expect it will continue to improve, as it is a well known issue. Still, as someone who doesn't really have the highest tolerance for excessive micro, I have managed to live with it in Ara. It's probably due to the game's other positives, and the fact that what you are doing does actually amount to something, which makes it less tedius to me.

As @Thormodr said, Ara looks gorgeous and highly detailed, and I still haven't tired of zooming in to watch my citizens wander around and do things. Every time I build a Triumph (Wonder), I feel the need to take a screenshot, even though I probably already have several of the same wonder from previous playthroughs.

Spoiler :

Ara is in my opinion, the most promising of the Civ challengers. It is already good, and it still has a lot of untapped potential. I don't guarantee you will like it, but it's certainly worth a look.

For the record, I also think Old World is great. It has a smaller scope than Civ, but is very well designed mechanically. For me, the biggest drawback is that it is so heavily focused on the Crusader Kings-style dynasty management. I don't hate it or anything, but it's something I have a limited appetite for, and will tire of after some time.

 

[ThichN]

Is a

Would folks say that Ara is worth playing for someone who is seriously enjoying VII and thinks Old World is the only good game in the roster of VI, humankind and Millenia?

Same exact taste as me, and I didn't much care for Ara. At the time I played, religion was confusing and warfare was a slog. I can be tickled by production chains in games, but at a certain point it starts to feel like I'm filing my taxes. Truthfully I was immediately charmed by Ara, but it wore off fast. It's how I feel about Anno games, too. But on the other hand, the economics system is kinda the most interesting part of Ara (I can get lost in it, despite the busywork), and can scratch a certain itch. UI is bloated and often you have to click a million times to do something simple. But my absolute main gripe with Ara was the diplomacy. I hear that is being improved with an upcoming patch (or maybe it already dropped). Maybe wait for a sale? I think it was half off recently. Full-price it is $60 and I did not feel it was money well-spent. Like Civ7, it has devs that seem to listen and respond, and are actively updating it.

Old World is one of my all-time favorite 4x, second only to SMAC.

Your hyperbole was not asked for nor wanted. Thanks.

The game is not good. Accept it and move on. No pitchforks needed.

You seem capable of thoughtfully replying to other users on this board, so I'm not sure why my AAR post was so offensive to you. If your mind is made up and you feel only like trolling, there is little reason to engage with me here.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Ara is in my opinion, the most promising of the Civ challengers. It is already good, and it still has a lot of untapped potential. I don't guarantee you will like it, but it's certainly worth a look.

I have 2 main problems with Ara:
1. Positioning as Civ challenger looks really wrong. There are management games and I think Ara should be positioned as such, or as a hybrid, i.e. "Civilization meets Factorio". Current positioning creates quite false expectations.
2. They missed opportunity to make it sci-fi stars game. Ara's graph-based map, order-based unit controls and resource chains are perfect for galaxy of connected stars, not for regular map. Anyway, I hope after getting experience with Ara, developers will make their Stellaris competitor using the same mechanics.

 

[KayAU]

I have 2 main problems with Ara:
1. Positioning as Civ challenger looks really wrong. There are management games and I think Ara should be positioned as such, or as a hybrid, i.e. "Civilization meets Factorio". Current positioning creates quite false expectations.
2. They missed opportunity to make it sci-fi stars game. Ara's graph-based map, order-based unit controls and resource chains are perfect for galaxy of connected stars, not for regular map. Anyway, I hope after getting experience with Ara, developers will make their Stellaris competitor using the same mechanics.

I both agree and disagree. Yes, you are right saying Ara is a Civ challenger/Civ game does probably create the wrong expectations. Ara is very different from Civ. But at the same time...it kind of is a Civ game. It covers the same scope and most of the same concepts as Civ. It's a turn based historical 4X where you play as the immortal leader of a nation from ancient times up to modern times. You build cities, research techs to unlock new stuff, found a religion, move your scouts, settlers, and armies around, there's trade and diplomacy with other nations, and so on. From a top level perspective, you could use the exact same words to accurately describe both games. It's just that Ara solves things quite differently, and has a complex production system which is a major focus of the game. I said this during the alpha, playing Ara feels somehow familiar, yet oddly unfamiliar at the same time. Perhaps for some people it is too different, or there may be other aspects which turns them off, but I kind of love it. It is different from anything else I've played, and I see a lot of potential in it.

I find your point on making a sci-fi game based on Ara interesting. I think you are right it would be a good fit. Oxide games is co-founded by Brad Wardell, founder of Stardock, so it wouldn't be unfamiliar territory.

Personally, what I would really want now is a good fantasy civ-like though. Something similar to the Fall from Heaven modpack for Civ 4, or Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes would be great.

 

[Kwami]

agree, also worth bearing in mind that the DLC for Civ VI was pretty major changes/improvements to the game. Both Rise and Fall and Gathering storm, for me, hugely improved the game, with the introduction of dark ages, and natural disasters. Also Civ V's DLC, not as big but still decent improvements to the game mechanics. Civ VII DLC is basically charging for some extra nations and leaders that could easily have been included in the main game without us feeling over rewarded.

Oh, come on. Both Civ V and Civ VI had multiple small DLC packs that contained leaders and civilizations, scenarios, wonders, etc. during the first year. They didn't get the bigger expansion packs until much later.

And the expansions for V were massively important to the game. Before them, the game was so... empty. Simple. Boring. The release version of V was a much, much worse game than VII is now.

EDIT!

In fact, here's the release timeline for V:
2010.09.21: Civilization V
2010.10.25: Civilization and Scenario Pack: Mongols (Free!); Babylon
2010.12.01: Four Cradle of Civilization Map Packs
2010.12.16: Civilization & Scenario Double Pack: Spain & Inca
2011.03.03: Civilization & Scenario Pack: Polynesia
2011.05.03: Civilization & Scenario Pack: Denmark; Explorer's Map Pack
2011.08.11: Civilization & Scenario Pack: Korea; Scenario Pack: Wonders of the Ancient World
2012.06.19: Gods & Kings Expansion Pack
2013.07.09: Brave New World Expansion Pack
2013.10.15: Scrambled Continents Map Pack
2013.11.05: Scrambled Nations Map Pack
2014.02.04: Scenario Pack: Conquest of the New World

So, the first expansion was nearly two years after the initial release and the second expansion was a year after that. In the meantime, there were fifteen other small DLCs.

Civilization VI followed the same pattern. The first expansion came about 1.5 years after release, the second expansion was a year after that, and there were seven other small DLCs. (And then we had a pandemic and they added three more small DLCs, plus the New Frontier Pass (all small DLCs) and then the Leader Pass (more small DLCs).)

 

[ThichN]

Oh, come on. Both Civ V and Civ VI had multiple small DLC packs that contained leaders and civilizations, scenarios, wonders, etc. during the first year. They didn't get the bigger expansion packs until much later.

And the expansions for V were massively important to the game. Before them, the game was so... empty. Simple. Boring. The release version of V was a much, much worse game than VII is now.

EDIT!

In fact, here's the release timeline for V:
2010.09.21: Civilization V
2010.10.25: Civilization and Scenario Pack: Mongols (Free!); Babylon
2010.12.01: Four Cradle of Civilization Map Packs
2010.12.16: Civilization & Scenario Double Pack: Spain & Inca
2011.03.03: Civilization & Scenario Pack: Polynesia
2011.05.03: Civilization & Scenario Pack: Denmark; Explorer's Map Pack
2011.08.11: Civilization & Scenario Pack: Korea; Scenario Pack: Wonders of the Ancient World
2012.06.19: Gods & Kings Expansion Pack
2013.07.09: Brave New World Expansion Pack
2013.10.15: Scrambled Continents Map Pack
2013.11.05: Scrambled Nations Map Pack
2014.02.04: Scenario Pack: Conquest of the New World

So, the first expansion was nearly two years after the initial release and the second expansion was a year after that. In the meantime, there were fifteen other small DLCs.

Civilization VI followed the same pattern. The first expansion came about 1.5 years after release, the second expansion was a year after that, and there were seven other small DLCs. (And then we had a pandemic and they added three more small DLCs, plus the New Frontier Pass (all small DLCs) and then the Leader Pass (more small DLCs).)

This is a useful timeline to put things in perspective, thanks for sharing!

Not to mention the pricing of each Civ iteration (used AI to find original prices of the games + adjust for inflation):

1. Civ1​

• Original Price: $49.95 (for PC)
• Adjusted for Inflation (2024): $112.51

2. Civ2​

• Original Price: $39.99
• Adjusted for Inflation (2024): $75.71

3. Civ3​

• Original Price: $49.99
• Adjusted for Inflation (2024): $84.85

4. Civ4​

• Original Price: $49.99
• Adjusted for Inflation (2024): $72.81

5. Civ5​

• Original Price: $49.99
• Adjusted for Inflation (2024): $67.78

6. Civ6​

• Original Price: $59.99
• Adjusted for Inflation (2024): $74.31

Notes:​

• The inflation adjustment used is based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the original release years to 2024.
• The original price is the general retail price at launch, which might vary slightly by region, special editions, or bundles.

 

[KayAU]

@ThichN
It's true that video games used to be more expensive, and the price has not kept up with inflation. But I'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare Civilization 7's pricing directly with the early titles. Some things to keep in mind:

• Games used to be distributed on physical media, often in big boxes, with instruction manuals. There's a cost both to the items, and to the distribution itself.
• Games used to make their money off that initial sale, there was no DLC to provide a continuing stream of revenue.
• I think it is fair to say that people buy a lot more games these days, and with digital distribution reducing the unit cost to basically nothing, it makes sense that volume has gone up, and relative pricing down.

I think to compare apples with apples, you have to look at how current games are priced. Looking at my Steam front page, Civ 7 is the most expensive one there. If I go to new releases, Civ 7 is the most expensive one there. This is the price of the base game. They were also selling editions where they charged a significant amount of money for things like not having to wait an extra 5 days, and future DLC which I had no way to assess the value of. They really went all in with exploiting the most dedicated fans this time around. The price of the top edition of Civ 7 cost more than twice what I paid for the top edition of Civ 6.

From my point of view, 2K seem to be trying to tick off every box they can when it comes to anti-consumer practices, including releasing the game in a poorly finished state, using 3rd party DRM, charging for "5 days Early Access", cutting away content for day 1 DLC, and selling poorly specified/unspecified future content before the game is even released. And if the reviews are anything to go by, the DLC is probably quite overpriced. I just took a look at the reviews for the DLC, and if you think Civ 7 has gotten poor reviews on Steam...hoo boy. The Deluxe Content Pack currently sits at 23% positive, and may soon drop significantly, as recent reviews are at just 13%. Crossroads of the World is doing even worse, with all time reviews at 12% positive, and recent reviews at a whopping 10%. Admittedly, it's a very low review count, so it could change...but so far, people seem to be very unimpressed with the value of the DLC.

Please understand, I don't mean to attack Firaxis here. They have made so many of my favorite games, and I am actually glad they are trying new things. Surely they knew that things like civ switching would lead to some backlash, as these changes always do, and still they moved forward with new ideas. I am not sure if I personally will like those ideas, but I keep an open mind, and admire them for taking a chance. That said, I think Civ 7 has been hit by a perfect storm of being released too early, while introducing controversial changes, and with a publisher who is completely out of touch and trying to extract as much money as they can, in any way they can. It sucks, because Civilization is probably, almost certainly, my favorite games franchise, and I suspect that is the case for many of us on these forums. I think we need to be honest, though. This has been a very bad launch, and for 2K's part, I think the backlash may be entirely deserved.

 

[uppi]

I have 2 main problems with Ara:
1. Positioning as Civ challenger looks really wrong. There are management games and I think Ara should be positioned as such, or as a hybrid, i.e. "Civilization meets Factorio". Current positioning creates quite false expectations.
2. They missed opportunity to make it sci-fi stars game. Ara's graph-based map, order-based unit controls and resource chains are perfect for galaxy of connected stars, not for regular map. Anyway, I hope after getting experience with Ara, developers will make their Stellaris competitor using the same mechanics.

My main problem is that it gets the act transition completely wrong. Instead of being a catchup mechanic like ages in civ 7, it instead eliminates the Civs ranked at the bottom. Which on higher difficulties is the player who has not yet caught up to AI bonuses. So basically if you make Act 2, you have more or less caught up and won the game. But there is still 2 acts out of 3 to play. (yes, I know that there is an option to exempt the player, but it feels like cheating to play by other rules than the AI)

Other than that, I feel like the balance is all over the place. Some things you make are completely overpowered, while others do not seem to be worth even the inputs required to make them.

Because Civ 7 does both of these much better, I find it to be much more fun.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Right now though, there is a Steam sale, and you can get all of Ara: History Untold, Humankind, Old World, Millennia as well as Civ 6, for less than the price of the Civ 7 base game. All of these have higher ratings than Civ 7, and are still being improved and updated.

Old World is a great game - from the designer of Civ IV. Humankind is also decent and Civ VII stole several ideas from HK but did them worse.