I Don't Understand the Negative Reviews for Civilization 7

[Boop da Snoot]

I’m genuinely confused by the negative reviews surrounding Civilization 7. If we look back at the launch of Civ 5 and Civ 6, they both felt incomplete without their DLCs at release. It’s always been a part of the Civilization series that the game improves significantly through additional content over time.

Sure, the base game might not be perfect right out of the gate, but it's never been about just the initial release. Over the years, Civ 5 and 6 both became much better thanks to the DLCs. In fact, they often turn into completely different, more refined experiences once the expansions roll out. Why is it any different this time?

I believe we should give the developers some time to work on DLC and updates, as they have done with previous titles. I’ve been playing the game and enjoying it, even in its early form, and I'm optimistic about what will come next.

Edit: I can understand why someone would be disappointed with the industry's standard.

[Larkis]

Its easy. The game evolve a lot and do a lot things different. And some people dont like it.

[Boop da Snoot]

Players would have broken down if they had experienced the transition from Civ 4 to Civ 5, lol

[keviinb]

It's not that hard, Civkind is overpriced, buggy with an insidious UI .

It's made for casual mobile players , it's core mechanics are just well boring and repetitive

[Boop da Snoot]

I’ve played one game (about 10 hours) and thankfully didn’t encounter any bugs. I find various mechanics (trade, religion, and diplomacy in particular) to be more in-depth than in Civ 6.

As for the price: it’s the new market standard. I don’t necessarily like it either, but I don’t really see why it should be any different here.

[Mentally Unstable]

Originally posted by Boop:

I’m genuinely confused by the negative reviews surrounding Civilization 7. If we look back at the launch of Civ 5 and Civ 6, they both felt incomplete without their DLCs at release. It’s always been a part of the Civilization series that the game improves significantly through additional content over time.

Maybe that's the problem itself and that folks are becoming sick of it. Is that something we should really be endorsing? Putting out half-baked goods at increased prices and having to wait for another 100 bucks or so of dlcs just to fix what should have been the base state to begin with?

It's just like we know that it is a trend for AAA games to come out in a poor technical state, doesn't make it any more acceptable.

[Boop da Snoot]

Originally posted by Mentally Unstable:

Originally posted by Boop:

I’m genuinely confused by the negative reviews surrounding Civilization 7. If we look back at the launch of Civ 5 and Civ 6, they both felt incomplete without their DLCs at release. It’s always been a part of the Civilization series that the game improves significantly through additional content over time.

Maybe that's the problem itself and that folks are becoming sick of it. Is that something we should really be endorsing? Putting out half-baked goods at increased prices and having to wait for another 100 bucks or so of dlcs just to fix what should have been the base state to begin with?

Hmm, yeah, I can definitely understand that point. There are certain studios I support even though I know that’s how things are. It’s like with Bethesda, for example. I’m surprised so many long-time fans are acting shocked about this. It was the same with Civ 4, 5, and 6 (unfortunately).

But at this point, I trust the developers. From experience.

[Hohenheim]

The previous game launch was not as bad as this.

That probably happen when you try to release to all platform at the same time with the same baseline interface and VR.

[Beermachine]

Originally posted by Mentally Unstable:

Originally posted by Boop:

I’m genuinely confused by the negative reviews surrounding Civilization 7. If we look back at the launch of Civ 5 and Civ 6, they both felt incomplete without their DLCs at release. It’s always been a part of the Civilization series that the game improves significantly through additional content over time.

Maybe that's the problem itself and that folks are becoming sick of it. Is that something we should really be endorsing? Putting out half-baked goods at increased prices and having to wait for another 100 bucks or so of dlcs just to fix what should have been the base state to begin with?

It's just like we know that it is a trend for AAA games to come out in a poor technical state, doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Exactly.

There is definitely a growing trend of gamers not putting up with half baked releases for AAA prices from big publishers. This is compounded by the comparison with indie developers, with many offering early access discounts, and are fast approaching AAA quality for a reduced price.

The gaming market has evolved considerably in the last 10 years. and there's a glutton of great games across nearly all genres. It's far more competitive, and much less dominated by the big development houses. All great things for the average consumer.

[SeverdNerv]

The Price for entry, Making u feel like a peasant if you just got the STANDARD EDITION for the £59.99

The in game UI bugs, overlapping, horrible placement, not enough info and more.

Tiered price versions asking for at least £119.99 for extra leaders, wonders and cosmetics day 1

The age Transition IMO is unique yes but feels like a bad intermission when im just getting into the game only for it to reset my units and everything else and just skews my inital focus.
I predict one of the Expansions/DLC willl incorporate a Continuous Gameplay age transition
or normal play rather than these breaks making it a purchase to disable that mode, and if they do that will suck

[Dr.Acula]

I have a suggestion for you if you really are confused about the negative reviews. How about you try reading them instead of just looking at the number and then shrugging like "no idea why that's happening".

[Boop da Snoot]

Originally posted by SeverdNerv:

The Price for entry, Making u feel like a peasant if you just got the STANDARD EDITION for the £59.99

The in game UI bugs, overlapping, horrible placement, not enough info and more.

Tiered price versions asking for at least £119.99 for extra leaders, wonders and cosmetics day 1

The age Transition IMO is unique yes but feels like a bad intermission when im just getting into the game only for it to reset my units and everything else and just skews my inital focus.
I predict one of the Expansions/DLC willl incorporate a Continuous Gameplay age transition
or normal play rather than these breaks making it a purchase to disable that mode, and if they do that will suck

Personally, I think they’ve done a pretty good job with balancing with age transition so far. In Civ 6, it didn’t really work, but here it seems (for me) to be working quite well. I also believe it’s better for the competitive scene’s balance.

One thing I do find a bit exhausting is how much work the era transitions require, but I think I’ll get used to it fairly quickly. On the other hand, I really like how the city and community systems evolve differently from one era to the next. It adds more dynamism and flexibility, which I find pretty cool.

[Boop da Snoot]

Originally posted by Dr.Acula:

I have a suggestion for you if you really are confused about the negative reviews. How about you try reading them instead of just looking at the number and then shrugging like "no idea why that's happening".

Look at what I’m doing here: I’m reading what different people have to say on the topic, I’m having discussions too. I’m even taking the time to respond to pointless comments that aren’t even related to the subject.

[Mentally Unstable]

I am ambivalent towards the age transition thingy but what really grates my nerves is how they left out the post-modern/information age that had been a mainstay of the series, effectively "shortnening" the game. No doubt to sell as dlc later. You can tell that it was intentionally cut out, with the abrupt ending to the modern age, basically a "you win" screen. That along with the fact that you can still get legacy points in the modern age.

That should have been in the base game. We are now getting less.

[Boop da Snoot]

Originally posted by Mentally Unstable:

I am ambivalent towards the age transition thingy but what really grates my nerves is how they left out the post-modern/information age that had been a mainstay of the series, effectively "shortnening" the game. No doubt to sell as dlc later. You can tell that it was intentionally cut out, with the abrupt ending to the modern age, basically a "you win" screen. That with the fact that you can still get legacy points in the modern age.

Yeah, that's a valid point. Maybe it's because the developers felt that four changes would be too user-unfriendly? If it really was just a way to push a DLC on us later, that would be pretty cheeky, and I’d definitely hold that against the studio.

[Ayscotty]

The game IS really good, the people who are posting comments are not understanding the game and allowing themselves to engross in what the game is.

Also know that alot of players are feeding into the negative mindset and not giving constructive feedback when it matters most!