Sorry for the negativity, but the game is currently unplayable and boring.

Saw some screenshots where this combination gave insanely high settlement limits in Explo.
Yeah, being able to snowball without even thinking about settlement limit. I understand what they were going for with giving the Mongols so many civics that increase settlement limit, due to just how expansive the Mongol empire was historically, but I honestly think they'd be better off giving significant one time bonuses for razing cities, or just allow you to raze cities much faster. New settlements are already powerful enough in the game as is, and the Mongols cavalry focus already allows them to expand very quickly. And the historical angle doesnt really work that well, because even as expansive as the Mongol empire was, it was only substantially unified in a central way for ~100-200 years afaik? And fractured fairly quickly in terms of historical timescale, compared to other civilizations in game?

Regardless I don't think the settlements limit bonuses are necessary to simulate Mongolian civilization. It would probably be more interesting if that was swapped out anyway, the Mongols are known for things besides cavalry + rapid expansion, and cavalry is already very good and rapid expansion is already the "meta."
 
I think it's hard to interpret what reviews really mean. The game I play the most is PUBG, it also has "mixed reviews" on steam. Yet, it sits comfortably, over years, in the top 3 of steams most played games, every day -even recently rising in player numbers significantly- which probably means it is one of the very most enjoyed game overall. And for playing it myself, I can tell how high the quality of the game is overall. I think the mixed reviews it gets is probably from frustation by players who find it too hard or something like that. (complaining about cheaters when there's actually quite few for example). Sometimes they sit on something they want from the dev while their demand isn't really feasible (being able to pick the map you play every time while managing the player queues is complicated). They'll say they hate having a store to buy cosmetics in the game but they still want anticheating, which takes constant effort from the admins.

Maybe sometimes, a lot of players take the time to go write a negative review for their own reasons, and a lot of other players just play the game a lot and don't write a review (?). I don't think I wrote a positive review on steam for PUBG I played it for 3000hours lul.
That’s a valid point but also look at concurrent users - even JumboPixel (who has been pretty positive about the games release) - pointed out 7 was still slightly behind 6 in concurrent users.
 
That’s a valid point but also look at concurrent users - even JumboPixel (who has been pretty positive about the games release) - pointed out 7 was still slightly behind 6 in concurrent users.

Uhm, isn't that normal for a new release though? IIRC it took a while for Civ VI to overtake Civ V as well.

Thing is, millions of people have already bought Civ VI, but tons of people haven't yet bought Civ VII, for example because they're waiting for a sale, just plain don't have the money to buy it yet, or aren't even aware that it's out.
 
No it's not normal for a new release, it didn’t take a while for VI to pass V. VI launch peak was higher than V’s player base had ever seen

Here's the thing.

I am pretty sure I remember Civ VI being outperformed by Civ V, and in fact I remember being worried that Firaxis might take this as a sign that people preferred V and that the next game would move more towards V's ideas, while I myself very very strongly preferred VI.
 
Here's the thing.

I am pretty sure I remember Civ VI being outperformed by Civ V, and in fact I remember being worried that Firaxis might take this as a sign that people preferred V and that the next game would move more towards V's ideas, while I myself very very strongly preferred VI.
You remember because that is entirely correct, it's all on SteamDB. In terms of peak player count by month, 6 was well ahead of 5 in October and November 2016 (although the November figure is on the 5th, bearing in mind that 6 only released on 21st October). 6 then didn't outperform 5 in terms of peak players until Feb 2018, when R&F was released. But even this only lasted a month, in March, 5 was back ahead of 6.
 
Here's the thing.

I am pretty sure I remember Civ VI being outperformed by Civ V, and in fact I remember being worried that Firaxis might take this as a sign that people preferred V and that the next game would move more towards V's ideas, while I myself very very strongly preferred VI.

. VI’s peak was double that of V’s.

The fact that after buying many went back to V after some time while they waited for more content is quite a different situation than VII where people just are not buying. Again sales are what matter to shareholders, so to say V outperformed VI in that regard is just wrong
 
The fact that after buying many went back to V after some time while they waited for more content is quite a different situation than VII where people just are not buying. Again sales are what matter to shareholders, so to say V outperformed VI in that regard is just wrong

And do you have numbers on Civ VI outperforming Civ V in terms of sales in the first, say, six months, or are you just making an assumption that aligns with your bias of Civ VII being a bad game?
 
First of all, I apologize for the negativity—if you're enjoying CIV7, that's great! I also loved many of the new ideas and still have high hopes for the future of the game. But in its current state, it’s completely unplayable, not fun, and just tedious.

I think I have the right to criticize it since I paid a small fortune for it (in Brazil, it costs half the minimum wage, just to give you an idea).

In my opinion, a good strategy game needs two essential elements: meaningful decision-making (different paths you can take) and negative consequences that make some other aspect of the game harder. Should I build a granary or a library? Should I choose this or that social policy?

At first glance, the choices seem to be there. That’s what caught my attention and made me spend so much to play early and support future DLCs.

However, they’re so obvious and overpowered that decision-making becomes completely irrelevant.

I’m not a hardcore strategy gamer. I don’t watch YouTube guides, I don’t look up the best combos, I don’t min-max. I just play intuitively—but still in a way that makes sense and is somewhat strategic.

I had never won a CIV game on Deity in my life (been playing since CIV2). I didn’t even try Deity because Immortal was already a tough challenge for me.

In CIV7? I played two games on Deity—one with Amina + Aksumite, another with Ashoka + Persia—and won both with no difficulty.

With Amina, my only goal was to play casually and explore the mechanics. I tried to go for an economic victory but without a super focused strategy. I built things intuitively, picked the best policies, and I won. I was so rich in every era that the game quickly became boring. Sure, at least now the game doesn’t end before reaching the final era like in previous CIVs. But instead of one snowball effect, we now have three. Every era eventually becomes dull because you run out of things to build, you can buy as many units as you want, and there’s no real threat to challenge you.

With Ashoka + Persia, the game was even easier. I didn’t expect the combo to be that powerful, but I had an endless stream of units being produced and bought, allowing me to crush any neighboring civ effortlessly. The only things that slowed me down were the era timer and the ocean. The reset was fun—I thought I was behind in tech and culture, and I probably was, since other civs were producing more. But in the end, it didn’t matter at all.

I picked the Normans in the second era, and halfway through, I once again had so many units and so much money that only the era timer kept me from conquering everything.

The third era is the worst. A mindless race to the objective. There’s no point in building anything because the bonuses won’t make much difference anymore. Economic victory is just buying everything you need, waiting for highway points, and winning. Conquest victory is just producing and buying infinite units until you win. I haven’t tried the other victory conditions, but they don’t seem much more exciting.

In short, decision-making in CIV7 is almost meaningless. Just follow the obvious choices, and you’ll be unbeatable. This is terrible for a stategy game.

I’ve had similar discussions in CK3 forums because I hate this same issue in that game (although mods fix it, and I love CK3 just because of them). People tell me to "just roleplay," but this is was supposed to be a strategy game (which is even less debatable in the case of CIV). I should be making strategic decisions and facing real challenges, not deliberately weakening myself. If a strategy game forces you to self-sabotage to have fun, then it’s a bad strategy game.

The main issues:

  • Everything gives bonuses, and almost nothing has penalties. Same problem as CK3—everything benefits the player, and almost nothing forces you to struggle. Just when you think you already have too much money, a random event gives you even more. The economy is completely unbalanced.
  • Building isn’t fun because you can build or buy everything. You don’t have to make tough choices. Production and income are so high that every city becomes overpowered by the middle of the era. Just keep building and you’ll become the dominant civ.
  • Cities grow too much. I remember in the other CIVs that some cities faced serious problems growing, especially if they were in isolated places and lacked resources. Now it’s different. Every city or village grows infinitely with no effort at all.
  • Combat is enjoyable, but unbalanced. Since you can produce and buy infinite units, you can steamroll everyone. There are barely any upkeep costs, and several policies make maintenance even cheaper or completely free.
  • The AI is awful. It flees to the ocean where your ships are waiting. It doesn’t build a navy. It offers no real challenge.
  • Happiness seems to be designed to limit expansion, but it’s not working.
  • Victory conditions are boring, easy, and lack immersion.
  • Ages: The concept is great, but by the end of every era, the game becomes frustratingly boring. However, all the ages end up becoming annoyingly boring in the end, when you only don’t destroy everyone out of pure choice, and there’s nothing left to build, so the cities can only focus on producing research, culture, or infinite units..
  • Crises are pointless. Even an average player (like me, who hasn’t played CIV in over seven years) can handle them effortlessly.
I don’t usually post in forums, but I really hope Firaxis is aware that, in its current state, CIV7 is practically unplayable and extremely boring for anyone with even a little experience in strategy games.

I appreciate the new ideas, the graphics, and the overall structure, which is fantastic and has huge potential. But right now, that potential is completely wasted due to the lack of balance.
I have to admit I am putting this game on the shelf for a year in hopes that it is worth playing after all the bugs and nonsense is corrected or taken out and game play is fun and actually do able.
 
And do you have numbers on Civ VI outperforming Civ V in terms of sales in the first, say, six months, or are you just making an assumption that aligns with your bias of Civ VII being a bad game?
If someone cares that much they can look at the steam charts. If there are more players - it obviously sold more. You can’t sell fewer copies and have more people playing,
 
Back
Top Bottom