State of the game xmas 2025: Is it a good buy at -35 % (and why/why not)?

[marius_kaparius]

I am having a lot of fun. The new Civs are especially fun to play and well thought out. I'd suggest getting it while you can still get the DLC for free. Iceland is a blast.

 

[Siddorm]

I don't have data on this but I just scrolled through the Steam Winter Sale and my impression is that there is a trend towards bigger discounts. If this is the case, then titles like Civ 7 may join that trend next year because they would look comparatively more expensive otherwise. For example, on the current Steam global sales (by revenue) Top 100, 90% of the titles are currently cheaper than Civ 7.

 

[Lord Lakely]

At 35% off, and Tides of Power being included for free, now's the moment to take it, if you plan to play it.

If you don't want to particularly play it, I would wait for a bigger sale. The game's in an okay spot right now. It still needs several improvements but there's a marked difference between its current state, and what it was like seven months ago, which is when I got it.

If you don't like the idea of interrupted continuity, then I wouldn't bother altogether.

 

[Kev1916]

So, I just was curious what the temperature among forumers here is about the current state of the game. It's currently at -35 % discount (again), and I'm debating whether I should buy it or not. I bought it at 35 % earlier this fall, but ended up getting a refund because I felt the gameplay was not really to my liking (I know I've been going on at length about my dislike for many core aspects of the design of this game, but the main thing I got to sample myself was the annoying citizen/tile improvement system). It doesn't help that I find the game overall very ugly as well - well not all of it, but the resource icons and the garish player colours are really an eye-sore to me, destroying the otherwise pretty nice-looking map.

So please help me get a picture by placing a vote on your current feelings about the game.

Nope no chance -

from one of many negative reviews from a buyer

"
Biggest disappointment of the year. The original Civilization had a simple and compelling elevator pitch: "Build an empire to stand the test of time." They knew that it was a great sales pitch, and put it on the front of the box, right under the title. Civilization VII doesn't let you build an empire that will stand the test of time. Your empire will fall, off camera and without drama or even player involvement, at predetermined intervals. It will be replaced by a new empire that will also fall, and then a third one that will survive for what little time you have left to play, if you still care or feel much attachment to it at that point.

Each of these age shuffles is accompanied by a rubber banding mechanic that brings all of the other civilizations up to an approximate level of technological parity, keeping the game competitive like a lazy AI script in a racing game. Civilization VII doesn't have to worry about what happens when a Spearman fights a Battleship because it literally does not allow such matchups to ever occur. It's a solution to a problem, I guess, but one that removes a lot of what made Civilization interesting in the first place. The age transition shakeups also deprecate most of the city improvements that you spent the previous age building, which is as punitive and unfun as it sounds. Each age comes with its own set of fixed goals and challenges, making the game's march of history feel like an on-rails amusement park ride through a fixed series of checkpoints, rather than the player-driven expanse of possibilities that previous Civilization games provided.

There is also the atrocious AI, the perplexingly terrible UI, and a host of other problems, but the core failing of Civilization VII is not its rough edges so much as its lack of them. I admire the team's willingness to try new ideas in an attempt to address long-running problems with the series, but this game feels like they sanded away the rough edges so vigorously that they ended up with something that is no longer even recognizably a Civilization game.

 

[gdr_willter]

Nope no chance -

from one of many negative reviews from a buyer

"
Biggest disappointment of the year. The original Civilization had a simple and compelling elevator pitch: "Build an empire to stand the test of time." They knew that it was a great sales pitch, and put it on the front of the box, right under the title. Civilization VII doesn't let you build an empire that will stand the test of time. Your empire will fall, off camera and without drama or even player involvement, at predetermined intervals. It will be replaced by a new empire that will also fall, and then a third one that will survive for what little time you have left to play, if you still care or feel much attachment to it at that point.

Each of these age shuffles is accompanied by a rubber banding mechanic that brings all of the other civilizations up to an approximate level of technological parity, keeping the game competitive like a lazy AI script in a racing game. Civilization VII doesn't have to worry about what happens when a Spearman fights a Battleship because it literally does not allow such matchups to ever occur. It's a solution to a problem, I guess, but one that removes a lot of what made Civilization interesting in the first place. The age transition shakeups also deprecate most of the city improvements that you spent the previous age building, which is as punitive and unfun as it sounds. Each age comes with its own set of fixed goals and challenges, making the game's march of history feel like an on-rails amusement park ride through a fixed series of checkpoints, rather than the player-driven expanse of possibilities that previous Civilization games provided.

There is also the atrocious AI, the perplexingly terrible UI, and a host of other problems, but the core failing of Civilization VII is not its rough edges so much as its lack of them. I admire the team's willingness to try new ideas in an attempt to address long-running problems with the series, but this game feels like they sanded away the rough edges so vigorously that they ended up with something that is no longer even recognizably a Civilization game.

LOL we all know about this issue from February. You don't need this long sentences to say "no civ 7 sucks".

 

[stealth_nsk]

I like how in all similar polls we initially have very positive scores and then they slow slide down. Quite understandable (people who enjoy the game, presumably check this forum much more often), but still interesting.

 

[Kev1916]

LOL we all know about this issue from February. You don't need this long sentences to say "no civ 7 sucks".

question was asked, "
state of game Xmas 2025 is it a good buy?

​

No for me , and long sentence was a review posted in December; Christmas time

"Biggest disappointment of the year"

 

[Leucarum]

Cherrypicking a review doesn't really help anyone though. You could just as easily pick a gushingly positive one.

I suspect people also already know if civ switching or the era system are red flags for them.

However OP detailed what they didn't like about Civ7 when they did try it, and I suspect the things they dislike are never going to change. So based on that I'd have to say it's not worth it for them.

And in general, I think my caution would be that you're buying a game which is only 1/3 (antiquity) complete. The rest is very rough (exploration) or still just a sketched outline (modern). I personally got enough out of antiquity, but YMMV, and my playtime has plummeted as I need the game to get a bit of a refresh to make me want to play it.

 

[James_Champagne]

I've still only done one playthrough of the game (that literally took me almost 9 months, due to long stretches of apathy where I sometimes went weeks/months without playing it at all). I might give it a second go next year, maybe when I get a new computer.

I don't think I've ever mentioned it before, but one thing I don't like about the civ switching is that (aside from the annoyance with the feature in the first place), it's annoying to have to deal with figuring out another civ's unique abilities/civics/units/buildings (to say nothing of trying to figure out how all of these things change for the AI players as well). And for whatever reason, I just don't find many of the civ/leader abilities as memorable as I have from some of the previous civ games.

 

[Haig]

Yeah I too feel there are way too many bonuses to memorize and too many sources of them.

Like why on top of everything there needs to be the attributes like Diplomatic and Scientific etc.

Rather have less but more memorable and powerful abilities, and maybe even some negative choices.

 

[MutilationWave]

Yeah I too feel there are way too many bonuses to memorize and too many sources of them.

Like why on top of everything there needs to be the attributes like Diplomatic and Scientific etc.

Rather have less but more memorable and powerful abilities, and maybe even some negative choices.

I still have to make little notes after age transition to decide how to spend my points. I don't think it's necessary to memorize the attribute bonuses, I just strategize a bit.

It would be cool to have less and more powerful abilities though.

Now this is totally unnecessary- my next goal with the game is to memorize the narrative events. I can't help myself with min/maxing when it comes to civ.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I'd spend some into a Civ VI DLC with a bunch of new Nations and units, like Tibet, Benin, Morocco, Switzerland, Dacia, Libia, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordania, Apache, Iroquois, Cherokee, Great Tartary, Venice, Monaco, Olmecs as well as a new set of Unique units for the late Industrial revolution period, a bunch of new tech for the 1500-1880 period, much less speedrunning Civs that reach "Modernity" .Air and anti-air units and a bunch of new workers options (clean pollution, plant trees) and new Barbarian units like Animals and a nerf to their access to modern tech. Maybe Air transportation with Helicopters and Zeppelin for both civilian units and military units instead of just Air "scouts" and an AI capable of using them.

I bought all Civ VI DLCs and I don't feel like it's a finished game.

I voted "other"

 

[Civinator]

I like how in all similar polls we initially have very positive scores and then they slow slide down. Quite understandable (people who enjoy the game, presumably check this forum much more often), but still interesting.

It is pure coincidence, that I have read about this poll. My interest for Civ 7 has disappeared from my radar. Therefore no vote. Is Denuvo now finally be removed ?

 

[GeneralZift]

People who like the game will check back more often and see polls. People who don't like the game might have checked out a long time ago (because why would they stay?) and only check sometimes perhaps from curiosity

 

[NickTheGreek!]

If you have other games that interest you, just wait and see where the game ends up(maybe a year or so?) and get a fat discount. I preordered the founders edition, played it the first few months and have not touched it since then. I have seen everything released till now and i am not in the mood to play at the moment for several reasons. I will come back to it eventually but for now my turn based itch is thouroughly scratched by "Old World" with no intention to return on a game with leaders that never actually led their nations and a pirate that has smoke mysteriously coming out of his beard (i get it, smoking is bad, i quit it as well but come on).

 

[Gorbles]

and a pirate that has smoke mysteriously coming out of his beard

You do know that that's kinda Teach's motif? Like it's an actual thing. Historically.

I'm not sure "smoking is bad" is what was meant, there.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

You do know that that's kinda Teach's motif? Like it's an actual thing. Historically.

I'm not sure "smoking is bad" is what was meant, there.

LOL, i honestly did not know that he is supposed to look like this . I thought that was a "creative" way to show a smoking pirate without him smoking a pipe or cigar. I mean,he looks like his beard is about to combust and burn his face off!

 

[MutilationWave]

LOL, i honestly did not know that he is supposed to look like this . I thought that was a "creative" way to show a smoking pirate without him smoking a pipe or cigar. I mean,he looks like his beard is about to combust and burn his face off!

Historically he tied cannon fuses into his beard and lit them to terrify his enemies when boarding.

 

[m_mus]

I voted "It's still got a good way to go, but it's decent as is".
Yet at the moment, I am not playing the game. To me 'decent' is not a term that applies to the game as a whole.
Antiquity is great (better than in Civ6), Exploration is 'decent' and Modernity is something that I usually do not engage with. Because I dislike the simplicity of its win-conditions (yes, I belong to those few who love Civ6's cultural victory - because there are so many ways to reach it) and most games are won by the end of Exploration already.
If FXS does overhaul legacy paths in a meaningful way, teaches the AI to better play this game ... and sprinkles their effort with some UI-updates along the way (many of which are already present in various mods ... I don't get why FXS does not implement some of their fixes ...?) I'd be back.
Currently I'd say that the game entertains for a few playthroughs, but - at least for me - that's it.

 

[kaspergm]

If you don't like the idea of interrupted continuity, then I wouldn't bother altogether.

The idea of interrupted continuity is definitely an issue for me, the frankenstein mix-and-match leaders and civs even more so. The announced continuous mode may fix the former issue, but will probably not fix the latter. I am more and more considering the possibility that I may just never get to like Civ7. After I discovered my original dislike for the game, I always assumed that with time I would get to warm up to the game and eventually get to like it, but the longer there goes, I guess I have to consider the possibility that I will just never like civ7.