Shacknews: Best Strategy Game of 2025 - Sid Meier's Civilization 7

[The_J]

The title is giving it fully away: Shacknews has crowned Civ7 to be their best strategy title of 2025.
It managed to beat the latest Commandos title and Final Fantasy Tactics among others.
The Shacknews team appreciated the changing civs (yes, they did) and the new strategies it allows, the navigable rivers and the removal of workers.
At the end, Civ7 won narrowly with 4 vs 3 votes against Jurassic World Evolution 3, and is now Shacknews strategy game of 2026.

Most of the discussion is in the video, the link to the article is here.

 

[ColtSeavers]

The title is giving it fully away: Shacknews has crowned Civ7 to be their best strategy title of 2025.
It managed to beat the latest Commandos title and Final Fantasy Tactics among others.
The Shacknews team appreciated the changing civs (yes, they did) and the new strategies it allows, the navigable rivers and the removal of workers.
At the end, Civ7 won narrowly with 4 vs 3 votes against Jurassic World Evolution 3, and is now Shacknews strategy game of 2026.

Most of the discussion is in the video, the link to the article is here.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Wonderful, congrats to the team.

 

[pjotroos]

Great to see, as was the recent Eurogamer article. This was never a bad game, but it was certainly a rushed one on release, so the reviews suffered; it will need some positive press to have a chance at the second impression with wider audience.

 

[Leucarum]

I feel conflicted with Civ7 winning awards yet to be honest. It is my most played game this year, so clearly they did something right. But it's a fixer-upper of a game, and I don't think it's just an issue with polish. I want it to succeed, but there are definitely better, more deserving games released this year, even just within the strategy genre.

For all the great ideas (towns/cities, no builders, leader/civ mixing, commanders) there are equally fundamental bad ideas (legacy paths, crises, civ switching), and the central premise of ages is very undercooked, and has exacerbated many of the late game problems it set out to solve.

I think 7 is at least a soft relaunch, probably a 2.0 away from deserving awards. There are too many core ideas to the game which need to change or become far more customizable for it to be great. It can definitely get there and I think it's on the right track, but it feels a little premature to celebrate it just yet.

 

[Spoonwood]

I haven't played civ VII. I don't plan to also.

But from all the negative reviews, here and elsewhere, best strategy game of 2025 really?

What was the overall rating on Steam again?

Oh heck... I'll check...

Mixed - 57% of the 752 reviews in the last 30 days are positive.

Mixed - 50% of the 25,658 reviews in my language (English) are positive.

So... is this "best" rating... like a joke? Or some sort of confirmation that these "best of" categories might just be a way for others to promote games rather than just an honest assessment of the quality of them? Or are there no other better strategy games?

Anyways, thanks for informing us The_J.

 

[pjotroos]

I feel conflicted with Civ7 winning awards yet to be honest. It is my most played game this year, so clearly they did something right. But it's a fixer-upper of a game, and I don't think it's just an issue with polish. I want it to succeed, but there are definitely better, more deserving games released this year, even just within the strategy genre.

For all the great ideas (towns/cities, no builders, leader/civ mixing, commanders) there are equally fundamental bad ideas (legacy paths, crises, civ switching), and the central premise of ages is very undercooked, and has exacerbated many of the late game problems it set out to solve.

I think 7 is at least a soft relaunch, probably a 2.0 away from deserving awards. There are too many core ideas to the game which need to change or become far more customizable for it to be great. It can definitely get there and I think it's on the right track, but it feels a little premature to celebrate it just yet.

It is also my most played game this year. Partly due to all the new & great ideas - and I include civ switching in that - that have kept the series fresh in its seventh entry. And equally, it was due to understanding and retaining the fundamental strength of the series - the perfect onboarding process for a new or returning player. The first 50 turns of Civ VII are as perfect as the first 50 turns of the previous entries in the series; you start very simple, with two units, small set of actions, and a clear weight behind each of them. Each small decision matters, and you want to play that extra turn to see how things play out. Your empire grows out at a pace that allows you to stay on top of everything for a good long while. I'm sure the other strategy games on the market get rewarding eventually, but some of them require incredible amount of effort beforehand. Any Civilization is rewarding from the first fifteen minutes of playing. The latest entry is no different.

I haven't played civ VII. I don't plan to also.

But from all the negative reviews, here and elsewhere, best strategy game of 2025 really?

Mixed - 57% of the 752 reviews in the last 30 days are positive.

Mixed - 50% of the 25,658 reviews in my language (English) are positive.

So... is this "best" rating... like a joke?

Snipped the relevant parts - even though you haven't played the game yourself, you clearly picked the "game bad" camp, and only value the opinions that confirm that. That leads to a few logical leaps.

Objectively - the game had a disappointing reception if you're a shareholder. The initial review scores were lower than in the previous entries. The civ changing mechanic is controversial.

Also objectively - even in the Steam example you quote, of the people that have reviewed the game, at least half of them would recommend it across the board, and more than that recently, but the numbers are fairly even.

That's what "controversial" means. Some people like it, while some other people don't. "Game good" and "game bad" camp, if you will. It doesn't mean there is some global agreement across the board that the game was exactly 50% good on release, and have only managed to become 57% good since then.

The Shacknews crew clearly falls into the "game good" camp, hence the award. It only looks like a joke if you think the 57% of recent Steam reviews are also a joke, and only the other 43% matter. Hope that clears things up.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I haven't played civ VII. I don't plan to also.

But from all the negative reviews, here and elsewhere, best strategy game of 2025 really?

What was the overall rating on Steam again?

Oh heck... I'll check...

Mixed - 57% of the 752 reviews in the last 30 days are positive.

Mixed - 50% of the 25,658 reviews in my language (English) are positive.

So... is this "best" rating... like a joke? Or some sort of confirmation that these "best of" categories might just be a way for others to promote games rather than just an honest assessment of the quality of them? Or are there no other better strategy games?

Anyways, thanks for informing us The_J.

Remember, this 'rating' is a Comparison with other games they defined as 'strategy games' released in 2025.

It doesn't say anything about how good any of them were, only how good they were in comparison to each other.

I was a little taken aback by the rating myself until I realized that: it says as much or more about the quality of games released this year as it does about the quality of Civ VII in particular.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Also, part of the negative customer reviews and feedback isn't something that is actually a "flaw" of the game design as much as people's self-imposed expectactions of what Civ 7 should have been.

 

[Spoonwood]

Snipped the relevant parts - even though you haven't played the game yourself, you clearly picked the "game bad" camp, and only value the opinions that confirm that. That leads to a few logical leaps.

I quoted the aggregate statistics for the reviews. That's more than just the opinions which confirm "game bad", for sure, since more than 1% of reviews got rated as positive. So, no, I didn't pick the "game bad" camp here. I picked the totality of reviews.

The best game in a category has less than 60% positive reviews on Steam? Come on people... that has to mean something. I'm not sure if it means more about the reviewers or the state of strategy games overall, but do you really think it's normal for the best game in a category to have that low of positive reviews? Because it doesn't seem normal to me.

 

[Leucarum]

The first 50 turns of Civ VII are as perfect as the first 50 turns of the previous entries in the series

This is an interesting point. I'd go further than you do here. Antiquity Civ7 is the best that the Civ franchise has ever been! The game starts off amazing. I'd estimate 90%+ of my game time has been in antiquity. But the remaining 2/3 is too bad for this to deserve an award unless it was "best intro".

Any Civilization is rewarding from the first fifteen minutes of playing. The latest entry is no different

I don't agree here. Exploration is repetitive and derivative - it's ok a few times then gets boring. And then Modern is thoroughly awful. As much as antiquity is the best that civ has been, I genuinely think modern is the worst. It's noticably worse than other entries in the series. Snowballing is worse than ever. Legacy paths make the game repetitive force you to engage with minigame systems that would have been optional in other civs. Crises exacerbate the AI's woes. I'll acknowledge that it looks like a minority either likes or is neutral on Civ switching. But I think it'll always be a feels-bad mechanic for me. The one ray of light is reduced micro - but even that gets too bad to be fun by the end of exploration...

If Civ were to win awards for soundtrack or even something like narrative (it does have the most immersively designed civs to date) I'd be more supportive.

And the thing that really should be getting awards is Firaxis' work with the Shawnee.

 

[Spoonwood]

Remember, this 'rating' is a Comparison with other games they defined as 'strategy games' released in 2025.

It doesn't say anything about how good any of them were, only how good they were in comparison to each other.

I was a little taken aback by the rating myself until I realized that: it says as much or more about the quality of games released this year as it does about the quality of Civ VII in particular.

Alright before you come to a firm judgement... do you have any idea of what the reviews on Steam aggregate to for other strategy games released this year in comparison to civ VII?

Let's see... Commandos Origins on Steam has

Very Positive 88% for 78 user reviews in the last 30 days

Mostly Positive 77% for 1,458 user reviews.

Final Fantasy Tactics, the 2025 release has

Very Positive - 91% of the 381 reviews in the last 30 days are positive.

Very Positive - 92% of the 3406 reviews are positive.

Jurassic World Evolution 3 has

Very Positive - 93% of the 1,195 reviews in the last 30 days are positive.

Very Positive - 93% of the 4,042 reviews are positive.

Well, according to the Steam users, it appears that all of those games end up better than civ VII. Easily. The aggregate review numbers aren't close. I haven't played any of them. I'm not making a personal judgment. However, the statistics suggest that those who voted at ShackNews stand... no SIT... at odds with the Steam reviewers. Is there some other site one should check to see what popular opinion on this matter of "best strategy game of 2025" looks like? Because it looks like those into strategy games in the majority would not agree with ShackNews, from those Steam statistics. And that those other strategy games aren't as bad as you suggested Boris.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't agree here. Exploration is repetitive and derivative - it's ok a few times then gets boring. And then Modern is thoroughly awful. As much as antiquity is the best that civ has been, I genuinely think modern is the worst. It's noticably worse than other entries in the series. Snowballing is worse than ever.

Not diving into discussion about legacy paths again, I just wanted to ask, didn't second half of the game always felt repetitive in Civilization?

To me, Civ6 feels much worse than Civ7 here. After about 30% of the game it was like "ok, now I know what I will be doing for the rest of the game".

 

[Leucarum]

Not diving into discussion about legacy paths again, I just wanted to ask, didn't second half of the game always felt repetitive in Civilization?

To me, Civ6 feels much worse than Civ7 here. After about 30% of the game it was like "ok, now I know what I will be doing for the rest of the game".

No Civ has had a great end game, but I played far more Civ6 games to completion. There was something satisfying about bringing your strategy to its conclusion. Like finishing off the culmination of all your plans. Civ7 keeps the same flaws, but adds in serious narrative disconnect, railroading, and worse snowballing than before. Previous Civs also hadn't locked Civs to the end game... But hopefully that will be fixed in a satiafying way.

My assumption is that the narrative disconnect is the biggest culprit, it doesn't feel like a culmination - rather something new and yet far worse than what came before.

 

[Daigotsu Max]

I haven't played civ VII. I don't plan to also.

But from all the negative reviews, here and elsewhere, best strategy game of 2025 really?

What was the overall rating on Steam again?

Oh heck... I'll check...

Mixed - 57% of the 752 reviews in the last 30 days are positive.

Mixed - 50% of the 25,658 reviews in my language (English) are positive.

So... is this "best" rating... like a joke? Or some sort of confirmation that these "best of" categories might just be a way for others to promote games rather than just an honest assessment of the quality of them? Or are there no other better strategy games?

Anyways, thanks for informing us The_J.

I'm always amazed at people who don't play Civ 7, have no plans to play Civ 7... yet keep coming to the Civ 7 forum.

It'd be like me, a bald man, loitering in the shampoo aisle.

 

[pjotroos]

I don't agree here. Exploration is repetitive and derivative - it's ok a few times then gets boring. And then Modern is thoroughly awful. As much as antiquity is the best that civ has been, I genuinely think modern is the worst. It's noticably worse than other entries in the series. Snowballing is worse than ever. Legacy paths make the game repetitive force you to engage with minigame systems that would have been optional in other civs.

Splitting hair here, but I don't think Legacy paths themselves contribute to the feeling of repetition, but the pacing. In other words, you are trapped in Exploration era until you reach an arbitrary number of points, and one of the most straightforward ways of doing that is by completing all four of those paths. Antiquity also has four legacy paths, with the science one also being a minigame. The difference is, you are forced to chose between them in most of the games. Completing all four is very rare, relative to Exploration.

Alright before you come to a firm judgement... do you have any idea of what the reviews on Steam aggregate to for other strategy games released this year in comparison to civ VII?
(snip)
Well, according to the Steam users, it appears that all of those games end up better than civ VII. Easily. The aggregate review numbers aren't close. I haven't played any of them. I'm not making a personal judgment. However, the statistics suggest that those who voted at ShackNews stand... no SIT... at odds with the Steam reviewers. Is there some other site one should check to see what popular opinion on this matter of "best strategy game of 2025" looks like? Because it looks like those into strategy games in the majority would not agree with ShackNews, from those Steam statistics. And that those other strategy games aren't as bad as you suggested Boris.

A different way of looking at the exact same set of numbers:
- 12,830 positive reviews for Civilization VII (50% of the 25,660).
- 3,759 positive reviews for Jurassic World Evolution 3 (93% of the 4,042).
- 3,134 positive reviews for Final Fantasy Tactics (92% of 3,406).
- 1,123 positive reviews for Commandos Origins (77% for 1,458).
In other words, Civ 7 has more positive reviews than the other three titles combined. So if it was a straight popular vote, Civ 7 would win it by sheer volume. But that's not what it is. This is a single website, who was going by their own judgement, not a volume of public vote. And they aren't some ultimate authority on strategy games, but it's nice that there is a popular website, out there, who liked the game enough to give it their flowers.

 

[Leucarum]

Splitting hair here, but I don't think Legacy paths themselves contribute to the feeling of repetition, but the pacing. In other words, you are trapped in Exploration era until you reach an arbitrary number of points, and one of the most straightforward ways of doing that is by completing all four of those paths. Antiquity also has four legacy paths, with the science one also being a minigame. The difference is, you are forced to chose between them in most of the games. Completing all four is very rare, relative to Exploration.

I mean they are all to some degree minigames. Antiquity's legacy paths just benefit from being minigames you naturally do in a traditional game of Civ. After antiquity they move over to far more optional Civ mechanics - religion, monopolies, colonization, artefacts... Only now you have to do them game after game.

Also I don't think I have failed to max science or economy in antiquity in a long while. Culture is only difficult if you play with a lot of civs. So really the only one in question after game setup is whether you decide to play a millitary game.

I have become a bit of an evangelist for turning off legacy paths. It definitely improves the game (though you need abbreviated ages for pacing to still feel right )

Sorry to stealth_nsk for the conversation coming back to legacy paths.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, according to the Steam users, it appears that all of those games end up better than civ VII. Easily. The aggregate review numbers aren't close. I haven't played any of them. I'm not making a personal judgment.

But you are. Jurassic Evolution 3 was a game up for the same award at Shacknews. You're expressing negative, even critical surprise at another community arriving at a conclusion you evidently don't think they should have.

If you don't care, or you're not passing judgement . . . what are you even doing? Why does it matter that Shacknews thinks Civ VII is deserving?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean they are all to some degree minigames. Antiquity's legacy paths just benefit from being minigames you naturally do in a traditional game of Civ.

I tgink there's important conceptual thing here. Antiquity legacy paths follow natural gameplay, because initial settlement phase (antiquity) is already the best in all civilization games.

Later game stages, on the other hand, could be quite boring if you turtle on your initial land, or less boring if you do aggressive settlement or conquest. So, exploration legacy paths try to do just that - push players to do more interesting things.

I'd say there are some things why it doesn't work as well as it should be:

1. Many people think the push is too hard. Legacy paths are framed as victory conditions, so they look mandatory to complete.
2. Religion. If you play it for maximum spread (which is surely not needed, but many people, who played previous games, try to do always), it's just exhausting.
3. With ages presented as individual little games we expect each of them to be as fun as antiquity. When ages weren't separated that hard, they just weren't compared.

 

[Leucarum]

Later game stages, on the other hand, could be quite boring if you turtle on your initial land, or less boring if you do aggressive settlement or conquest.

Is that true? Early warfare is interesting because of the scarcity of resources. When you have fewer units, how you use them matters a lot more. By midgame expansion is a lot less interesting as the outcome has pretty much already been settled. So I find the opposite is true, early conflicts are far more fun, and from mid game turning things into a city builder is more fun. And mid/late game conflicts are just too much micromanagement.

And legacy paths do interact meaningfully with age rewards. I think you have to turn them off to see how much they warp gameplay.