It's shit, unfinished, and completely regressive from what Civ games have featured before. Don't waste your time or money.
Civilization 7 - It's shit
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,209
- 4,068
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,209
- 4,068
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Ok Fine.
Civ 7 continues the tradition of Civ games being terrible until an expansion comes along to fix most of the issues with the game, from bad ai, to bad ui, to straight up missing features present in the previous Civ games removed for the new one, only to be added back in later for no reason when it should have been there in the first place.
Civ 7's biggest issue is UI design, maybe because it's trying to be streamlined for consoles I don't know Civ 6 isn't great on consoles because the genre really isn't built for a controller in mind. But the UI here in Civ 7 seems to be trying to be clean, but ultimately makes things harder to find and navigate because each little menu doesn't have enough information on it.
What happened to auto explore? I don't why but now you have to set your ground troop movement every turn, even the exploration units. Why?
The AI also seems really buggy. I had warriors take over a bandit camp, only to have an army of bandits spawn in the next title on the very next turn and killed my weaken troops immediately. How did a camp I took over continue to generate troops against me?
I also had a nation ask me for open boarders, only to get mad at me when I agreed. Why?
Game feels unfinished and undercooked and I wouldn't bother with it. Steam refunds are nice.
Civ 7 continues the tradition of Civ games being terrible until an expansion comes along to fix most of the issues with the game, from bad ai, to bad ui, to straight up missing features present in the previous Civ games removed for the new one, only to be added back in later for no reason when it should have been there in the first place.
Civ 7's biggest issue is UI design, maybe because it's trying to be streamlined for consoles I don't know Civ 6 isn't great on consoles because the genre really isn't built for a controller in mind. But the UI here in Civ 7 seems to be trying to be clean, but ultimately makes things harder to find and navigate because each little menu doesn't have enough information on it.
What happened to auto explore? I don't why but now you have to set your ground troop movement every turn, even the exploration units. Why?
The AI also seems really buggy. I had warriors take over a bandit camp, only to have an army of bandits spawn in the next title on the very next turn and killed my weaken troops immediately. How did a camp I took over continue to generate troops against me?
I also had a nation ask me for open boarders, only to get mad at me when I agreed. Why?
Game feels unfinished and undercooked and I wouldn't bother with it. Steam refunds are nice.
I think my biggest issue is change to the gameplay format, particularly on how the leaders don't necessarily have to represent the civilization that they lead, and you are allowed to pick any combination that you want; I.E. Benjamin Franklin can lead a Mongol empire.
IDK, feels like this is one of those features that belong in an arcade mode or a mod, and shouldn't be the core gameplay mechanic. Granted it let's you experiment to your heart's content, but I also feel if everything becomes a melting pot, then the elements that makes up that mix lose their uniqueness.
And while it can be argued that the units always looked the same for all civilizations, and the way the cities and territories looked were the same as well, I think civ 7 kinda went overboard with the freedom of building your own little empire.
Also, no Korean leaders at launch. Boo....
IDK, feels like this is one of those features that belong in an arcade mode or a mod, and shouldn't be the core gameplay mechanic. Granted it let's you experiment to your heart's content, but I also feel if everything becomes a melting pot, then the elements that makes up that mix lose their uniqueness.
And while it can be argued that the units always looked the same for all civilizations, and the way the cities and territories looked were the same as well, I think civ 7 kinda went overboard with the freedom of building your own little empire.
Also, no Korean leaders at launch. Boo....
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,209
- 4,068
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Much much better. When you just say something is shit, that means nothing, you have to be able to say why something is shit for it to have any weight.
I'm used to civ game being essentially release in early access, but this seem to take it to whole new level. The number of feature not present is astounding, like limited map type and size, no renaming city and apparently end game being essentially non existent (apparently you can win military victory without actually having a military).
Their big signature feature, the era, also doesn't seem to be something anybody wanted, was by all account poorly implemented, was tried before (humankind) and left people firmly unimpressed and seems to have been implemented in a way that essentially make previous era progress meaningless.
Anyway, here's a few 4x game that do interesting stuff and deserves your time more.
Ara has a fun supply management side to it, with raw material being used to make intermediate goods that can be used to make advanced stuff. Nothing ground breaking (check out Anno if you want one step above that), but it gives a unique flavor to the 4x genre.
What if crusader king and civ fused together? Its pretty neat, not has deep has either, but theres some nice synergy. Only cover up to early medieval era.
What if knight of might and magic and civ fused together? Honestly its decent, but I find it gets way to tedious as the game goes because you end up with massive battle of 18 vs 18 units, which just take forever and aren't very fun team based turn.
Really similar to AoW, but with a bigger focus on army, hero and quest and less focus on city (you only really have one and some outpost).
EDIT: Oh yeah and endless lengend 2 has been announced! Hopefully they learn their lesson from humankind.
Their big signature feature, the era, also doesn't seem to be something anybody wanted, was by all account poorly implemented, was tried before (humankind) and left people firmly unimpressed and seems to have been implemented in a way that essentially make previous era progress meaningless.
Anyway, here's a few 4x game that do interesting stuff and deserves your time more.
Ara has a fun supply management side to it, with raw material being used to make intermediate goods that can be used to make advanced stuff. Nothing ground breaking (check out Anno if you want one step above that), but it gives a unique flavor to the 4x genre.
What if crusader king and civ fused together? Its pretty neat, not has deep has either, but theres some nice synergy. Only cover up to early medieval era.
What if knight of might and magic and civ fused together? Honestly its decent, but I find it gets way to tedious as the game goes because you end up with massive battle of 18 vs 18 units, which just take forever and aren't very fun team based turn.
Really similar to AoW, but with a bigger focus on army, hero and quest and less focus on city (you only really have one and some outpost).
EDIT: Oh yeah and endless lengend 2 has been announced! Hopefully they learn their lesson from humankind.
0 days without Western Developers releasing another flop the culture vultures and press can skewer to get ragebait money with their stupid and half-assed sociopolitical chest beating, all the while ignoring pretty much all the good 4x games above.
Thus, restarting the paste eating "gaming is dying" discussion until the next big release fixes everything and "gaming is saved again!"
Thus, restarting the paste eating "gaming is dying" discussion until the next big release fixes everything and "gaming is saved again!"
Last edited: