Press build preview
- Thread starter playshogi
- Start date
The years have always been essentially cosmetic. You could even have a dynamic year range - so like you go through the default years assuming 200 turns, so you assign each turn as 50 years, for example. But then at some point, the game re-calculates and decides it will only be 180 turns, now each turn shifts to be 55 years. So yeah, in one game turn 100 might be 1 AD, and in another game, turn 100 would be 300 AD. Then at least the age would be guaranteed to end around the same year each time, even if the turn counter was different.
I've seen 3 games by now by streamers who liked civ 7 when it was announced/when they first played it in summer. They seemed to be very happy with the game, while of course also criticizing unfinished stuff, bad UI, smaller missing features, etc. But with these players, the disruption of the beloved San Marino Experience of the civ iterations of the old days seems to sit really well: ages and all related major mechanics (incl. switching) appear to be well implemented and great fun. Of course, this might also be the novelty: they seemed to look forward to age changes and loved the age of exploration mechanics for the changes they bring - but they didn't play many games yet (one was level 8 and mentioned a second game, another said something about 25 hours).
Now, I wonder whether someone looked at videos of players that were reserved or refused the changes in summer and what they had to say about ages & co. after playing for 20+ hours. I suppose there are quite a few streamers that didn't that civ switching as the brilliant idea that breathes new life into the series. Did anyone care to give a bit of a conclusion? E.g., it ruins the game or it's unnecessary but you get used to it?
Now, I wonder whether someone looked at videos of players that were reserved or refused the changes in summer and what they had to say about ages & co. after playing for 20+ hours. I suppose there are quite a few streamers that didn't that civ switching as the brilliant idea that breathes new life into the series. Did anyone care to give a bit of a conclusion? E.g., it ruins the game or it's unnecessary but you get used to it?
From what I understood, there is still an embargo on reviews, so none of the videos I watched had anything like a conclusion.
that would have been a few lines of code in a mod or one of the game's file (one line per civ/leader to hide)
then only by editing or browsing the game's files one would leak content.
and no YouTubers do that...
or if one does, please share a link, I'm not the only one who'd be interested
Exactly this. It was mentioned in several videos that this is not review and can not be one.
ThERat
Deity
I watched two German reviews, one was very honest and seemed balanced the other was from a paid youtuber, it even had the word -commercial- right on top of the video the entire time. Do take those videos with a pinch of salt.
Okay, so Polish tvgry/gry-online.pl outlet published a "preview" (it really feels like a review honestly, even though they have a disclaimer that "it isn't", and to their credit they avoided talking about modern age). It is a very big Polish outlet, but with the best journalists leaving a couple of years ago they aren't associated with that much of journalistic quality and maybe integrity nowadays - I honestly would much rather prefer if guys from arhn.eu got a preview copy. Either way, the things that they noted in the YT video and web article are:
- according to them, the age changes are demotivating ingame progress
- there's more linearity, instead of "sandboxiveness", and they think that the quests are too specific and one can't play their own way, which limits replayability
- the legacy paths, units and quests are reportedly very buggy
- they say the game crashes quite a bit
- once again they are really insistent that the game is very buggy and "unreadable" at that
- their b-roll shows city banners to bug out even more than we've seen (curse you city banners!)
- you can't decide how to unpack a commander's unit, or something doesn't work with it?
- they say the AI is very bad, and think that there are remnants from Civ VI code
- they were confused by how relationships with city states work - suzerains can't change
- they think the game is not finished
- they didn't like how the diplomacy options related to war work
- they claim that "the game doesn't want to share information with the player, it doesn't want them to know anything"
- the borders aren't easy to understand, they still don't show on the minimap
- the game doesn't show when your units are attacked by the AI
- at last, 20 minutes into the video, they complimented how cities look on the map and how the music sounds; these are the only things they liked about the game
- they had a problem with the "identity" of the leaders (?); your leader appears on the screen too rarely, if you ask them
- the leaders make the "hmmmm" sound very often
- they suspect that "the devs seem to have lost faith in their ideas at some point" and they abandoned too many core concepts of the series
- they think that the one more turn syndrome won't occur
- they likened the state of the series with VII to the Fall of Rome, their conclusion was that it's a dark age for Civ.
Safe to say they didn't like the game. I can't help but note that they were VERY annoying to listen to, but their complaints are still valid. So far this was the most negative review of the game I've seen. I'm in a weird state where I'm still very hyped, but a little worried at the same time.
- according to them, the age changes are demotivating ingame progress
- there's more linearity, instead of "sandboxiveness", and they think that the quests are too specific and one can't play their own way, which limits replayability
- the legacy paths, units and quests are reportedly very buggy
- they say the game crashes quite a bit
- once again they are really insistent that the game is very buggy and "unreadable" at that
- their b-roll shows city banners to bug out even more than we've seen (curse you city banners!)
- you can't decide how to unpack a commander's unit, or something doesn't work with it?
- they say the AI is very bad, and think that there are remnants from Civ VI code
- they were confused by how relationships with city states work - suzerains can't change
- they think the game is not finished
- they didn't like how the diplomacy options related to war work
- they claim that "the game doesn't want to share information with the player, it doesn't want them to know anything"
- the borders aren't easy to understand, they still don't show on the minimap
- the game doesn't show when your units are attacked by the AI
- at last, 20 minutes into the video, they complimented how cities look on the map and how the music sounds; these are the only things they liked about the game
- they had a problem with the "identity" of the leaders (?); your leader appears on the screen too rarely, if you ask them
- the leaders make the "hmmmm" sound very often
- they suspect that "the devs seem to have lost faith in their ideas at some point" and they abandoned too many core concepts of the series
- they think that the one more turn syndrome won't occur
- they likened the state of the series with VII to the Fall of Rome, their conclusion was that it's a dark age for Civ.
Safe to say they didn't like the game. I can't help but note that they were VERY annoying to listen to, but their complaints are still valid. So far this was the most negative review of the game I've seen. I'm in a weird state where I'm still very hyped, but a little worried at the same time.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Still, one video had a "initial conclusion of the preview" ;-) and of course, they way streamers tend to comment on mechanics, graphics, or UI often contains praise or criticism. So, despite the ongoing embargo on reviews, I would expect some evaluation in every video.
Oh, of course I do. But I'm watching the same 3 streamers that I've watched for the past ~10 years. I feel I know their (different) tastes by now, their ways to express themselves, and what they look for in games. And also who takes "commercial" videos in what way. E.g., displaying it because they were sponsored but then giving the money they received from the publisher to charity. Anyone claiming that such a preview isn't a paid ad isn't to be taken seriously tbh. All of yesterday's videos are sponsored ads, even a free early access copy is sponsoring, so it's only fair to display it all the time or at least state it at the beginning of the video.
This surprises me, whenever i see reviews from IGN etc for almost any game they seem gushing up to the point where i assume they are paid.
I generally ignore the 'critic' reviews for that reason, and look at user reviews.
Yeah, the gap between something being a "review" vs someone saying their opinion of the preview is a fine line. Similarly, obviously these streamers have been gifted a preview copy of the game, how much they treat that as effectively a paid advertisement or not. None of them can truly be impartial - if they make their money streaming the game, they're not going to be like "this new version is total and utter garbage, and you shouldn't buy it". They may have criticisms, but everything should always be taken with a grain of sand.
civfanatic4sure
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2025
- Messages
- 67
No fast unit movement options 
And now with the "Age Progression" an actual number in game, they can make it increase immersion (as an alt history) rather than breaking it.
queenpea
Emperor
Quarbit’s video actually goes into his thoughts at the very end of his video, which surprised me.
In short, he is not a fan of this iteration of Civ; though an important caveat is that he’s not a huge Civ player to begin with.
Criticisms include the age system, which he said broke up the game too much for his liking. “One more turn” has become — ok, let me start this chapter tomorrow.
In short, he is not a fan of this iteration of Civ; though an important caveat is that he’s not a huge Civ player to begin with.
Criticisms include the age system, which he said broke up the game too much for his liking. “One more turn” has become — ok, let me start this chapter tomorrow.
Last edited:
For what's it's worth, this video from a German magazine (and currently only in German, but earlier ones got english subtitles) is pretty close to a review (at current state).
They see lots of things to improve but praise the freshness. They specifically recommend that people shouldn't shy away just because they dislike switching - of which they themselves don't seem to be too convinced - because they would otherwise miss a very good and interesting gameplay experience.
I'm not going into the "good" parts because those are mentioned often enough in all previews.
They note that many of the present issues are not where they thought they would be - at the ages and related stuff. Instead, they noted:
- AI is often (but not always) too passive
- Yield inflation would be problematic (like in Humankind)
- Too many buildings with similar effects
- Balance would be off, but somethings could be improved even until launch
- Onboarding is bad and follows an outdated concept: it relies too much on the civilopedia and hides too many things from players
But they also note age-related issues:
- Techs/Civics towards the end of an age are relatively useless, because you have hardly time to make use of the unlocked things
- Resetting wars and IPs at age transitions make for strange interruptions
They claim that the success of 7 will rely on 3 things:
- Fine-tuning onboarding and balance
- Inclusion of a fourth (post-modern) age in a free update instead of an expansion
- Whether players are willing to accept so many novelties
They see lots of things to improve but praise the freshness. They specifically recommend that people shouldn't shy away just because they dislike switching - of which they themselves don't seem to be too convinced - because they would otherwise miss a very good and interesting gameplay experience.
I'm not going into the "good" parts because those are mentioned often enough in all previews.
They note that many of the present issues are not where they thought they would be - at the ages and related stuff. Instead, they noted:
- AI is often (but not always) too passive
- Yield inflation would be problematic (like in Humankind)
- Too many buildings with similar effects
- Balance would be off, but somethings could be improved even until launch
- Onboarding is bad and follows an outdated concept: it relies too much on the civilopedia and hides too many things from players
But they also note age-related issues:
- Techs/Civics towards the end of an age are relatively useless, because you have hardly time to make use of the unlocked things
- Resetting wars and IPs at age transitions make for strange interruptions
They claim that the success of 7 will rely on 3 things:
- Fine-tuning onboarding and balance
- Inclusion of a fourth (post-modern) age in a free update instead of an expansion
- Whether players are willing to accept so many novelties
criZp
Deity
What do you mean with onboarding, I've never heard this word before
queenpea
Emperor
I think they mean the tutorial system/how the game teaches players about new mechanics.
Showing players how the game works, what possibilities there are, and some strategies or tips what to do.
You might think of the tutorial first, but the concept goes beyond: why are certain buildings recommended? what does this building to? etc. In a way, it's how the game guides the players into and while playing the game.
Similar threads
