I totally agree; this game really shouldn't have even been considered Civ 7; should've been a reboot just called Civilization.
I gave it a try because Civ has been my favorite game throughout the years....and it just doesn't work for me. It feels like a very different game and just not one that I'm enjoying. It's been excessively over simplified and to me the soul of the game is completely gone with the Civ switching and Ages. I don't even really care what Civ I choose in this game and the Ages feel like 3 mini games rather than 1 whole game, not to mention how jarring it feels. This just feels like some really drastic changes to try and get the lower attention span audience engaged and I'm really just not a fan of much of any of it. The roguelike stuff feels gross. And none of this is even getting into the UI. To me if anything the UI is a microcosm of the gameplay itself. Over simplified and half baked.
This game feels like it could be Civ Rev 3 just as much or more than Civ 7. I'm not really sure how much more time I'll give it in the short term...I'll see how it develops with expansions but the core changes just aren't doing it for me. As for a score...I don't know. But it's no higher than a 6 and that feels generous.
Absolutely agree.
I got the founders edition thinking even though I was aware of its issues that it was a decent investment judging by the years of play from previous versions. However Im doubting this now, as for me its Civ by name only and bears none of the hallmarks of the game that gave us a sandbox to build an empire, instead we have tightly funnelled gameplay that allows none of the deviation we could do in previous versions.
The thing that really makes me worry for the future is the decision to bind the console and PC version development which will of course limit the scope (outside of mods) of what PC players get as it will always have to work on the lowest common denominator which is quite a gap considering that the only listed difference between the switch and PC versions is map size support, apart from that they are the same game which is quite ridiculous. Its why even playing at 4k the graphics are simply upscaled 1080p due to this cross developent choice. So yes, thats why it feels like Civ Rev 3 as you mention- its because rather than develop differing versions to fit the hardware available we have a game that will always have to work on the least capable hardware.
Saying that gameplay is boring and repetitive, considering my investment Im struggling to have the desire to play it as the amount of clicking to do very little is an absolute joke and again smacks of a game designed for consoles first and foremost. The levelling up mechanics are simply a less engaging and rewarding version of unit promotions, the ages are limiting with it utterly ridiculous that even if you are building a wonder that this just stops and disappears. Also with these ages that the paths to victory or progress are dicated to the player taking away from Civs previous strength that every game would be different and you could creatively make your way to victory, or just enjoy building and ignore the victory conditions for that one more turn game.
In a nutshell this version of Civ is lacking the strengths and fun of the series and has a huge lack of replay value due to the way it dictates to the player how they need to play, and gameplay as a whole sees a lot of clicking but not much true depth.
I give it a 5, and really I don't see that improving unless development of the PC version is put on a different course to the console ones (it being on par to the switch version is insulting), and really this could kill the series- all because 2k wanted to save money by developing a one size fits all version.
