Review Keys Out, Embargo ends on Feb 3rd

[AriochIV]

Embargo ends tomorrow (I can’t believe it!)

Which publications/websites do you trust most when it comes to reviews?

None. The ones I did trust no longer exist... but it doesn't matter, since they're irrelevant in the age when we get user reviews and we can watch people actually play the game.

There are dozens of hours of Civ7 gameplay already out there. Does anyone really expect to be surprised by reviews?

 

[Uberfrog]

RockPaperShotgun and The Guardian are probably the reviewers I align most with these days.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Embargo ends tomorrow (I can’t believe it!)

Which publications/websites do you trust most when it comes to reviews?

I used to appreciate Colin Moriarty of Sacred Symbols (and before that Kinda Funny and IGN) as a truly distinct voice amidst the homogenous sea of games journalists
Lately, however, he and everyone else on the podcast have had positions and perspectives indistinguishable from your average Kotaku or Polygon writer.
I'm still going to listen to see what he has to say about Civ VII, but I don't expect it will be particularly interesting or insightful.

 

[Black Gate]

Youtuber Van Bradley says the embargo specifically ends at 6am UTC-8. Unless I've understood my timezones wrong, that's a little under 12h after I've made this post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ig4cfo/civilization_7_review_information_and_faq

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

@Mods Is there / can there be a separate forum for reviews? Please?

 

[Leyrann]

@Mods Is there / can there be a separate forum for reviews? Please?

I think that'd be a bit much? Reviews are interesting for like, a month around release and then become irrelevant.

(also you pinged a random forum user there)

 

[V. Soma]

Youtuber Van Bradley says the embargo specifically ends at 6am UTC-8. Unless I've understood my timezones wrong, that's a little under 12h after I've made this post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ig4cfo/civilization_7_review_information_and_faq

yes, CET 15:00

 

[UWHabs]

None. The ones I did trust no longer exist... but it doesn't matter, since they're irrelevant in the age when we get user reviews and we can watch people actually play the game.

There are dozens of hours of Civ7 gameplay already out there. Does anyone really expect to be surprised by reviews?

Van in his reddit post there at least is forward enough to post about biases. Frankly, all the youtubers should suck up to Firaxis, because the more people buy the game and play, the more views they get on their videos. And if you cut off the hand that feeds you, and give it a negative review, the bigger chance that when Firaxis is looking at who to give early copies of the next expansion to, they might skip some names.

I think all the previews should give people an impression of whether someone individually might like the game or not. And for any reviews from youtubers or other self-interested sources, it's more about reading between the lines. Are they like 98% happy and just want some tweaks? Are they saying they're 100% happy but then their list of negatives is like 22 minutes of a 28 minute video? Is someone saying some system is great while all the actual reviewers and some of the other streamers saying that a system is lacking? Or is the reviewer going for the negative strategy, and posts complaining about everything, maybe to be contrarian to everyone else?

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Which publications/websites do you trust most when it comes to reviews?

My own first-hand experience when i get to play the game
Of course it doesn't help me decide whether to buy the game or not (or since it's not released yet whether to pre-order or not) so in this case i simply decided to trust a developer and franchise i've been loyal to for a good 20 years as my presence on these boards attest.
I know the start will be rough and the game will hardly be balanced because Civ5 and Civ6 were like that (i didn't jump on Civ4 immediately at release so can't talk about that one) but hopefully there will be some funny absurd strategies to abuse until they "fix" the game After that i trust them to come up with something more balanced and interesting. The game won't be perfect but given the series past and what i can already see in the various videos i don't imagine it being garbage so i'll probably have hundreds if not (more probably) thousands of hours in by the time Civ8 gets announced. Civ6 was a bit of a disappointment for me but i still have slightly over 2000 hours in (i'm here at Civfanatics Center for a reason).

Were it a different title i would probably wait for it to be released, and then filter the steam review to show only the negative reviews, then see whether those are nitpicking or serious enough. That's usually my approach for titles i'm not familiar with as positive reviews simply can't be trusted when you can just pay review-monkeys to increase your score.

 

[queenpea]

None. The ones I did trust no longer exist... but it doesn't matter, since they're irrelevant in the age when we get user reviews and we can watch people actually play the game.

There are dozens of hours of Civ7 gameplay already out there. Does anyone really expect to be surprised by reviews?

I agree that your personal experience is more important than a review, especially if you’re already committed to purchasing the game.

Not having any gameplay or impressions on the Modern Age, I think the question of the games conclusion is still an open one. Also the streamers were prohibited from providing their opinion on the game, though admittedly that line was blurred and crossed frequently.

I guess I am interested in the IGN review. If it’s above 9, I’ll preorder the Founders edition.

 

[Siptah]

I don‘t give much on gaming journals. I expect high ratings almost all around, but I’m curious whether the German GameStar will put a temporary malus on their score. E.g., the games could easily be a 93, but there‘s this list of issues and until they are fixed, we list the score as 88.

 

[queenpea]

I don‘t give much on gaming journals. I expect high ratings almost all around, but I’m curious whether the German GameStar will put a temporary malus on their score. E.g., the games could easily be a 93, but there‘s this list of issues and until they are fixed, we list the score as 88.

Agreed. If the game is fine and playable, IGN is bound to score it at least a 9, which is why I think that’s a useful indicator.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Game journalists often spend very little time in games and rely on other sources when writing articles - it's not uncommon to see some misinformation repeated between them.

Video bloggers are much better, because they often play much more and could actually show the process, so I found it more helpful. But they are not always honest.

Finally, aggregated review scores from players are often prone to bots, so those are probably the least trustworthy source.

 

[pokiehl]

Agreed. If the game is fine and playable, IGN is bound to score it at least a 9, which is why I think that’s a useful indicator.

I think that’s a little cynical to assume if it’s basically just good it’s getting a 9 as fait accompli. IGN’s reviewer for 4x games, Leana Hafer, is an enthusiast of the genre and is fair and insightful. I am looking forward to her review.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Not having any gameplay or impressions on the Modern Age, I think the question of the games conclusion is still an open one.

You can watch some of the dev streams for modern gameplay (including some multiplayer in the latest one). I think the pacing is off at the end of the modern age but on the bright side it took both Ed Beach (creative director) and Tim Flemming (the developer who's in charge of the game pacing) by surprise when the game ended on a score victory so they will be reviewing the late game pacing, that's almost guaranteed.

 

[queenpea]

I think that’s a little cynical to assume if it’s basically just good it’s getting a 9 as fait accompli. IGN’s reviewer for 4x games, Leana Hafer, is an enthusiast of the genre and is fair and insightful. I am looking forward to her review.

If I’m cynical about reviews, I’m not alone and am echoing a lot of the opinions posted above which reflect at least some distrust in game reviews.

Review inflation is definitely a thing.

9 remains a good indicator as Civ V scored a 9 (despite the state of the game at launch which has been widely discussed on these forums). Civ VI scored a 9.4 on IGN.

I am also looking forward to the IGN review, which is why I mentioned IGN specifically.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

You can come here and read in excruciating detail about the game soon enough if you’re undecided.

 

[UWHabs]

You can watch some of the dev streams for modern gameplay (including some multiplayer in the latest one). I think the pacing is off at the end of the modern age but on the bright side it took both Ed Beach (creative director) and Tim Flemming (the developer who's in charge of the game pacing) by surprise when the game ended on a score victory so they will be reviewing the late game pacing, that's almost guaranteed.

Yeah, stuff like that is the most easily fixable. It probably takes 5 minutes to make the change to push the modern era score victory happen 50 or 100 turns later (okay, 5 minutes to make the change and 100 hours to test to make sure nothing else breaks). Or if there's balance changes needed (specialists give too many yields, techs need to be 2x more expensive, etc...), those are generally not that hard to correct for.

It's more if there's a problem with the civ switching, or some other much more fundamental part of the game, that could render it completely unplayable. If the AI is constantly user their army commanders as scouts across the open ocean, or they have a complete inability to stay under the settlement cap, or anything like that, those can take longer to correct for. There are bits there that could render the game "unplayable", and depending on the issue, can be anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to a few years to balance and fix.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

It's more if there's a problem with the civ switching, or some other much more fundamental part of the game, that could render it completely unplayable. If the AI is constantly user their army commanders as scouts across the open ocean, or they have a complete inability to stay under the settlement cap, or anything like that, those can take longer to correct for. There are bits there that could render the game "unplayable", and depending on the issue, can be anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to a few years to balance and fix.

As far as civ-switching, i think it's mechanically sound. Whether or not it will render the game "unplayable" is up to everyone's feelings. I despised the idea when it was first announced (my "identity" in a civ game used to be the civilization, not the leader) but the more i see streams and think about it, the more i think i'll be able to live with it (even thought i'd like the ability to use a custom name for my civ now, something i never missed before).
As for the AI, everything i've seen makes me think it's "working" (i guess). It didn't make any blatant mistake but wasn't super efficient either. I suppose it will be good enough for most players (should force you to plan ahead carefully at higher difficulties) but it won't beat the top players.

 

[Daigotsu Max]

Not a bad start on Metacritic