Review Keys Out, Embargo ends on Feb 3rd

[Thenewwwguy]

It's just 'not bad' level I'd say. Civ 4/5/6 had 94/90/88 respectively.
But who knows, maybe it's just reviewers becoming more critical over time.

most are critiquing it feeling incomplete/buggy/ui concerns. that’s pretty valid for a score lower than those.

 

[Eramas]

Basically what I've expected, looks like a decent experience with some flaws, something like 6 or 7/10, so a classic vanilla experience.

 

[Acken]

Basically what I've expected, looks like a decent experience with some flaws, something like 6 or 7/10, so a classic vanilla experience.

Pretty much. Civ at release is always the worst version of the game (and the most expensive).
I remember really enjoying Civ5 at GnK and Civ6 at GS and basically forgetting about the game after a few playthrough between release and these expansions.

 

[Taefin]

It seems like an unforced error to make learning the game so painful, when they had a chance to create a positive first impression and draw new players in.

I’m guessing that won’t diminish my enjoyment, since I’m interested in learning the mechanics, however fun or painful that is.

At best, maybe game journalists are in an awkward middle ground of having the experience to want to know how everything works, but needing to view their first playthru as part of the review. Some of the players I know IRL might very well prefer the obscurity of “add a building/improvement where it gets the most stuff and never think about it again”.

 

[AD1730]

IGN gave it a 7.

Lol, of course IGN gave it a 7. Seriously, are they not aware that it's become a running joke about how they give 7s to just about everything these days?

 

[8housesofelixir]

Eurogamer - 40%
https://www.eurogamer.net/civilization-7-review

I read this one in detail. The reviewer made some valid points, especially regarding the UI hiding too much information from the player, but the majority of the complaints seem to be simply not a fan of many small design choices in their current form.

For instance, they mentioned that they played an older Civ game as a kid and have a fond memory of happy citizens celebrating the We Love the King Day, then complained that in Civ 7 the citizens are always unhappy and destroy the cities. It sounds like someone who played a much simpler strategy game in the past, then grew old and felt the more complex challenges introduced in newer 4x games are frustrating punishments.

Disliking forced challenges or limitations is perfectly fair, but these issues are very common across the entire 4x genre and many other strategy games in recent years, not unique to Civ 7.

 

[queenpea]

Lol, of course IGN gave it a 7. Seriously, are they not aware that it's become a running joke about how they give 7s to just about everything these days?

Posting that as a follow up to my previous post. Civ V received a 9 and Civ VI a 9.4. Understood that those reviews are now ancient history.

Meanwhile, Millenia received a 5 recently and by the same reviewer.

 

[Eramas]

I'm really happy so many reviewers criticize the UI, I can't imagine playing more than a few games without a mod fully revamping it.

 

[Uberfrog]

That Eurogamer 2/5 hits pretty hard, as I think Sin Vega is one of the very best games critics out there (and actually I was expecting her to be doing the RPS review). She clearly isn’t a fan of many of the design choices, and I may well feel different, but I think she might be on to something with the general lack of personality? I wonder if Firaxis’ formula of iteration and improvement has eroded some of the essential charm of the game. I guess we will see.

The IGN review is also pretty thoughtful, so don’t ignore it just because of the 7/10 meme. Leana Hafer definitely seems like a fan of the series and 4X in general, and she does seem to think the game has promise despite the flaws. So I think a 7 is a fair reflection of her opinion.

The Guardian give it 5/5 but I actually think Keith Stuart is being a bit uncritical here. He obviously is enjoying the game, but it’s much less detailed than the above two.

Still waiting for RockPaperShotgun, but I am a little deflated.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

I read this one in detail. The reviewer made some valid points, especially regarding the UI hiding too much information from the player, but the majority of the complaints seem to be simply not a fan of many small design choices in their current form.

For instance, they mentioned that they played an older Civ game as a kid and have a fond memory of happy citizens celebrating the We Love the King Day, then complained that in Civ 7 the citizens are always unhappy and destroy the cities. It sounds like someone who played a much simpler strategy game in the past, then grew old and felt the more complex challenges introduced in newer 4x games are frustrating punishments.

Disliking forced challenges or limitations is perfectly fair, but these issues are very common across the entire 4x genre and many other strategy games in recent years, not unique to Civ 7.

And what do you think about this one? BTW, I'm still buying the game.

Gamepressure 55%:
https://www.gamepressure.com/editor...iled-revolution-with-a-whole-bunch-of-p/zc750

1. very limited replayability due to the Legacy always looking the same;
2. age system limits the classic sandbox nature of Civilization, and the lack of a fourth era suggests plans for aggressive monetization;
3. Crises, although interesting in theory, turned out to be a minor threat;
4. interface is an unreadable mess;
5. major simplification of mechanics from earlier games and lack of QoL features;
6. bugs affecting the gameplay;
7. AI is even worse than in previous games, as it can't handle the new mechanics;
8. game feels like it's actually in early access.

 

[Taefin]

AI is even worse than in previous games, as it can't handle the new mechanics;

If true, this will be the killer for me, if it feels like playing civ6 game modes against AI not programmed for them.

Edit: a quick skim and the article states the AI focuses (too much) on the legacies. Their problems were more with commanders and giving free cities at the end of every war. Less concerning IMHO, as easier, almost inevitable fixes.

 

[AD1730]

And what do you think about this one? BTW, I'm still buying the game.

1. very limited replayability due to the Legacy always looking the same;
2. age system limits the classic sandbox nature of Civilization, and the lack of a fourth era suggests plans for aggressive monetization;
3. Crises, although interesting in theory, turned out to be a minor threat;
4. interface is an unreadable mess;
5. major simplification of mechanics from earlier games and lack of QoL features;
6. bugs affecting the gameplay;
7. AI is even worse than in previous games, as it can't handle the new mechanics;
8. game feels like it's actually in early access.

The negative reviews have generally echoed one of my frustrations: that they aren't taking full advantage of the mechanics.

I agree with almost none of the design choices Firaxis has made with this entry. But, if they are going to do things that I fundamentally disagree with and alienate many longtime fans, they should at the very least do them boldly. For example, not having crises be an actual challenge for the player is a massive missed opportunity.

It just feels like they made some design choices and then felt ashamed of them or did them halfway to bring alienated fans like me back into the fold. The fact of the matter is that there really isn't anything they can do with this entry to appease fans like me at this point, so trying to do so only makes the game worse.

 

[8housesofelixir]

And what do you think about this one? BTW, I'm still buying the game.

Gamepressure 55%:

https://www.gamepressure.com/editor...iled-revolution-with-a-whole-bunch-of-p/zc750

My impression is that it is a more well-thought-out review and offers a more comprehensive criticism of the Age system. I fully agree with this comment and hope FXS devs could seriously consider the limits and the potential of the legacy system further:

"This wouldn't be such a big problem if these [legacy] objectives were quite general. Instead, they are the same each time and boil down to very specific requirements...... No matter how intriguing it is, it still requires playing in a strictly defined manner, as the developers determined that players didn't deserve the freedom to make choices."

I disagree with their view of a possible 4th Contemporary Age reserved for a later DLC for further monetization, though.

 

[UWHabs]

It's good to see the reviews, and get a wider range of opinions. It's definitely not "everyone loves everything", but it's also not "this is an unprecedented pile of garbage".

Definitely UI concerns, and some concerns over some of the complexities. I think the dev team definitely knows the UI needs work, so I am confident that is high on their list of things to clean up first. And I think when the UI gets improved, that will help the complex stuff be easier to get through.

The "same-ness" of the era legacy goals is a concern. It's a little annoying that EVERYONE has to run for wonders to get culture points early, then EVERYONE has to spam missionaries to get culture the next era, etc... You can't avoid settling the distant lands (either by settlers or force), if you want any economic points. My hope is that at least within that space, there's some replayability.

Will continue to check out reviews, but ultimately, I know I'll get through, so I already pre-ordered. It may be a question of whether I get 200 or 2000 hours in it once we see. Plus how much they can update going forward.

 

[theadder]

And what do you think about this one? BTW, I'm still buying the game.

1. very limited replayability due to the Legacy always looking the same;
2. age system limits the classic sandbox nature of Civilization, and the lack of a fourth era suggests plans for aggressive monetization;
3. Crises, although interesting in theory, turned out to be a minor threat;
4. interface is an unreadable mess;
5. major simplification of mechanics from earlier games and lack of QoL features;
6. bugs affecting the gameplay;
7. AI is even worse than in previous games, as it can't handle the new mechanics;
8. game feels like it's actually in early access.

Has it been taken down? The link doesn’t work.

Edit: No: https://www.gamepressure.com/editor...iled-revolution-with-a-whole-bunch-of-p/zc750

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Firaxis definitely knows the UI needs work. They've talked about that in interviews. I think they also are aware of the Legacy sameness. I think that was hinted at in the recent post-launch livestream. It appeared that they intend to broaden legacy options with later content.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

My impression is that it is a more well-thought-out review and offers a more comprehensive criticism of the Age system. I fully agree with this comment and hope FXS devs could seriously consider the limits and the potential of the legacy system further:

I notice many imperfections and missed opportunities in the implementation of new mechanics, but the more I watch, the more I become accustomed to them and I hope that Firaxis will modify them in a more satisfying direction. Either way, I'm looking forward to the game as it is now.

I disagree with their view of a possible 4th Contemporary Age reserved for a later DLC for further monetization, though.

I hope so. A possible 4th Age could be a type of AC/BtE expansion that would rightfully have to be paid for separately.

 

[Gorbles]

What I find interesting is despite some limited common themes, the variance of the criticism is quite wide. I'm seeing some attempts to shoehorn it to fit existing criticism from CFC, when it's even more varied than that.

Some find the legacy paths stifling, some find that the UI obscures too much information (not that the UI looks poor, which is a separate reviewer's concern). Some find the numbers game exhausting, some find the streamlining excessive.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Without playing yet, the issue of the same goals all of the time seems really valid. I suppose that it's not that different than any other version of the game; other than instead of one big goal at the end of the game you have three, so you'll notice it much more.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Without playing yet, the issue of the same goals all of the time seems really valid. I suppose that it's not that different than any other version of the game; other than instead of one big goal at the end of the game you have three, so you'll notice it much more.

I think the difference is that civ7 really puts more focus on the goals since each Age highlights 4 goals and you need to pick one primary one to focus on during each Age. In previous civs, you had different victories but they were at the end of the game. So previous civs felt more "sandbox" or open ended. Civ7 feels much more directed.