Review Keys Out, Embargo ends on Feb 3rd

[Mudkip1001]

AI conquering cities is no small feat. It was something thoroughly crippled starting Civ5, when cities became self-defending, auto-attacking fortresses AND not every unit was capable of city capture. Double wrench to the AI's head.

Well in Civ6 it was nee impossible for the AI to take another city after walls came up, so I was glad to see that they've removed the range attack and made them less formidable; that was my main grip was having to deal with ridiculous ever-increasing wall strength of ai city walls.

 

[8housesofelixir]

he’s always pretty honest and in particular has expressed his concerns with civ 7 pretty heavily throughout this media and launch cycle so i would def trust him

I generally don't really like the "older Civ is always better, 6 (and 7) is a downgrade" crowd (in fact, I was just being harassed by such a grognard on reddit), but Marbozir is an exception. Honest and clear-eyed. His criticism is very on point as well.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Thus far my sense from the written reviews is exactly what I expected: lots of interesting changes, a refresh of the franchise, and not quite sticking the landing on several things

Their post-launch roadmap is very promising as it shows they are planning on a lot of free updates in addition to paid DLC, meaning that there should be ample opportunity to smooth away rough edges.

Regardless, I'm happy to be excited to try Civ again, and the janky glory of vanilla release is always fun to experience.

 

[Sprenk]

Because now it's repetitious three times per game

But there are multiple legacy paths available in each age, far more leader/civ combos to try out now that they are split . . .

Well, guess I'll just have to find out for myself! But I still find that criticism HIGHLY dubious

 

[pokiehl]

and the janky glory of vanilla release is always fun to experience.

Well said. There’s just something special about this time. For Civ 6, I never had more fun with the game than the first week of its release despite all the improvements it had over the years.

 

[Mudkip1001]

For Civ 6, I never had more fun with the game than the first week of its release despite all the improvements it had over the years.

Those Victoria England Antarctic starts, those were the days.....

 

[Sprenk]

I think it may be a combination of fewer civs available to play (when divided up by ages), the map generation which trends towards large, rectangular blob masses, and the legacy paths which encourage you to tick certain boxes or move towards prescribed goals.

The map thing might be a good point, and I'm not sure yet about the legacy path system, but surely we have FAR more "civs" (or civ/leader combos) available now that civs and leaders are decoupled?

 

[queenpea]

The map thing might be a good point, and I'm not sure yet about the legacy path system, but surely we have FAR more "civs" (or civ/leader combos) available now that civs and leaders are decoupled?

One review (I forget which one at the moment, but maybe someone else can recall) said that the choice of leader felt relatively inconsequential compared to the civ choice. The reviewer said the choice felt 30% consequential compared to the civ choice which was 70% consequential.

 

[pokiehl]

Those Victoria England Antarctic starts, those were the days.....

That bug where everyone spawned on top of each other in snow happened months after launch. Sometime in 2017, maybe the summer?

That spawn bug really, really frustrated me. Just came out of nowhere with a DLC patch. It made the game unplayable. I couldn’t believe they let it remain unfixed for weeks.

 

[Ornen]

She gave Dragon Age: Veilguard a 9/10.

reviews are opinion pieces

 

[thecrazyscot]

This is a pretty neat review, written from a narrative perspective: https://www.pastemagazine.com/games...vii-firaxis-wants-everybody-to-rule-the-world

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

She gave Dragon Age: Veilguard a 9/10.

I actually enjoyed it quite a bit more than I was led to believe I would. Perfect, no. Enjoyable, yes.

 

[Sagax]

IGN gives every AAA title a 9 whether it's playable or not. They're whores.

While their integrity is indeed up to debate, I’ve learned to more or less navigate IGN’s scoring of AAA games:

7/10 - the game is the epitome of “minimum viable product”. It has issues that can be legit deal-breakers to many players, but we cannot score the game lower, because it checks all the soulless boxes in the corporate definition of a functioning product. Think twice before committing to the purchase.

8/10 - the game is pretty good and does its job well. It falls noticeably short in some aspects, but it knows its strengths and fully delivers on those aspects.

9/10 and above - pure dice roll, could be legitimately a good game, or a super biased perspective. Checking multiple review sources for this game is mandatory.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Unfortunately, this reviewer is not alone in this particular criticism.

CD-Action 60+% - https://cdaction.pl/recenzje/civili...m-zla-wiadomosc-to-najgorsza-civka-w-historii
[Google transl.] "we get quite a lot of variety... at least for the first 10-15 hours. Then, unfortunately, the game becomes more and more repetitive. Despite all these varieties, no Civilization has bored me that much."

GryOnline 60% - https://www.gry-online.pl/recenzje/...y-moze-to-i-wczesny-dostep-ale-za-to-w/z446d6
"- too similar legacy paths, which make subsequent playthroughs of the game repetitive;
- few options for generating maps - and those created by the game are similar to each other and therefore repeatable;"

Yep. On the other hand, VanBradley with 60+ hours in the game and Marbozir with 140+ hours think it has high replayability.

For me that's one of the areas where I trust video bloggers more than journalists. I'm quite confident that both VanBradley and Marbozir actually played the game a lot and with journalists you can't be sure if they played the game at all.

 

[AriochIV]

I actually enjoyed it quite a bit more than I was led to believe I would. Perfect, no. Enjoyable, yes.

Would you give it a 9/10? Didn't think so.

 

[thecrazyscot]

There's like a million other reviews - not just IGN - why don't you all talk about those.

 

[AD1730]

While their integrity is indeed up to debate, I’ve learned to more or less navigate IGN’s scoring of AAA games:

7/10 - the game is the epitome of “minimum viable product”. It has issues that can be legit deal-breakers to many players, but we cannot score the game lower, because it checks all the soulless boxes in the corporate definition of a functioning product. Think twice before committing to the purchase.

8/10 - the game is pretty good and does its job well. It falls noticeably short in some aspects, but it knows its strengths and fully delivers on those aspects.

9/10 and above - pure dice roll, could be legitimately a good game, or a super biased perspective. Checking multiple review sources for this game is mandatory.

If IGN gives a AAA game a 7, it likely means that they don't want to give it a lower score and risk losing access in the future, but if they give it a higher score it would damage their credibility too much. So, a 7 ends up being the nice Goldilocks score.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

Yep. On the other hand, VanBradley with 60+ hours in the game and Marbozir with 140+ hours think it has high replayability.

For me that's one of the areas where I trust video bloggers more than journalists. I'm quite confident that both VanBradley and Marbozir actually played the game a lot and with journalists you can't be sure if they played the game at all.

Yes, I trust Marbozir more than any other streamer when it comes to replayability. VanBradley is a different matter - in my opinion, the guy focuses too much on fixing his hairstyle in front of his camera instead of drilling holes in the game.

 

[Pistol90]

I preordered Founders edition.

But just honestly looking at everything, it really looks like 7/10 game

Its like demo, standard map size (???) - basicly one map type (???) - game ending in 1950 (???) - religion oversimplified - culture oversimplified etc etc

This is not Civ6 level on launch.

Lets hope they fix thing in expansions, because i was expecting better to be honest.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Ars Technica's review: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025...a-major-overhaul-solves-civs-oldest-problems/

The good

The ages system helps to solve many longstanding problems with the overall arc of a Civilization game
Influence yield makes diplomacy better than it's ever been
Tweaks and additions turn building city districts into the full realization of what VI was hinting at but never achieved
The visual presentation is excellent, with sprawling, intricate cities and detailed leaders
Several additions streamline annoying busywork the franchise is known for without curtailing depth

The bad

Content is light even though systems are robust; there are no scenarios at all
The final few turns of an age end up feeling wonky
You can't rename your cities for some reason

The ugly

Some launch-window bugs and other issues might make it worth waiting a few weeks before digging in