Reviews are so mixed.

[[AdD]♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞]

Is it really that bad guys? Is it not fixable with a few patches?
The player count on this game seems to be pretty high but so many neg reviews on here.

Its hard for me to figure out if its good or not.
Trying to figure out if I should save up and buy this game or not.

[dcbobo]

Originally posted by AdD♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞:

Is it really that bad guys? Is it not fixable with a few patches?
The player count on this game seems to be pretty high but so many neg reviews on here.

Its hard for me to figure out if its good or not.
Trying to figure out if I should save up and buy this game or not.

Go find a youtube video, watch game play. Turn the volume down if you're feeble minded and can be influenced easily. Specifically look for issues that are worrying you. Don't buy it if it's something you may not like.

[The Tear Collector]

If you're on the fence, wait till the first sale comes around. By then the most criticized issues like the UI should be fixed

[TheCollector]

There are countless youtube videos about Civ 7.
Only way to figure out if this game is for you without buying is probably to watch some video summaries.

The mixed reviews are caused by facts like
+ the game has interesting choices and mechanics and is a good game
- is too expensive
- has bugs
- has currently a less optimal UI
- is not the Civ game many players expected.

The new features like mixing leaders and civilizations, 3 separate Ages, switching civilizations may kill immersion, so players have to see how they feel about these changes ...

[Beermachine]

If the price point of the game is such a consideration that you have to save up, then I'd say definitely don't buy at this point.

Far too many other polished games out there that cost peanuts in comparison.

[jodnus]

Negative reviews stem primarily from disagreement over the direction the franchise is taking, not that the game itself is broken or incompetent.

The specific controversy is around age transitions and civ switching. There is plenty of media showing this, so no need to rehash the details here.

If that seems like a deal-breaker for you, it probably is going to be a pass.

Those who are open to this idea are generally getting some enjoyment out of the game.

[Aeekto]

Originally posted by AdD♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞:

Is it really that bad guys? Is it not fixable with a few patches?
The player count on this game seems to be pretty high but so many neg reviews on here.

Its hard for me to figure out if its good or not.
Trying to figure out if I should save up and buy this game or not.

Game has a good foundation with some of the new/changed gamemechanics.... while the game don't give you the informations you quickly need and nothing gets realy explained (this results in hating the game first but start to like it once you figured stuff out).

On top of it the era change destroys the flow of the game on the one hand, but on the other hand it gives the other players/AI a chance to easily catch up again after one person snowballed throug an era.


I am one who hated the game first because i basicly didn't understand anything (even i am an oldschool player since Civ1) because the UI is just ridiculous bad and optimized to consoles who are used to make severall cicks for 1 single information. and i got somewhat reminded of humankind, Ara and millenium too......
BUT once i started to figure out some mechanics and undestood them, i started to like the game on its own, not as a old civ game, but as something new/fresh that is an huge upgrade to humankind.


This all is basicly the reason for the mixed reviews.... people either hate it from the beginning or give this game a chance and start to like it.

[Kettlebloke]

Originally posted by AdD♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞:

Its hard for me to figure out if its good or not.
Trying to figure out if I should save up and buy this game or not.

The game has a lot of good ideas but they are poorly executed, its clear that the game was not ready and was most the publisher made the devs release the game. The game might be decent after more patches ( thay have released three already) but at the moment I would pass on it. I have 40hrs on the game, feel free to see my review if you are interested.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/kettlebloke/recommended/1295660/
There's so many games out there and at the moment Civ7 is not a wise investment in your time.

[martinolund]

Yes, you should buy it. I recommend it! You can easily find it at a 30% discount right now in one of the stores.

[Darkboss]

Originally posted by AdD♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞:

Is it really that bad guys? Is it not fixable with a few patches?
The player count on this game seems to be pretty high but so many neg reviews on here.

Its hard for me to figure out if its good or not.
Trying to figure out if I should save up and buy this game or not.

Player count is the worst since Civilziation: Beyond Earth

The work required to fix it is HUGE. The core gameplay of the game was changed for the worse, there are TONS of bugs and missing information

We are talking about years of work away from being decent

[blechwurmpilot]

There are countless of videos and reviews out there which should give you a good idea as of now if this game is for you or not. Can it be "fixed" with just a few patches? That's very, very hard to answer as "fixing" depends on how you look at the game.

For example pretty much everybody agrees on the UI situation. I am pretty sure this one can be fixed in a rather timely matter, some minor improvements, bugfixes have already been made with the first small patches. I guess adding hotkeys could also be a rather simple addition. They also already announced to bring back the hotseat multiplayer mode.

I guess some more advanced settings for creating a new game, like amount of ressources on the map, having plentyful starting locations, selecting the rough amount of independent cities, enabling/disabling certain winning types, bigger maps or better map generation overall could be possible, but I can't see them happening in the short term.

There was an outcry of some missing civilizations, most noteworthy Britain, which I am pretty sure will be an easy fix - and in terms of Britain it is already coming - however these will be payed "updates" in terms of DLC. So if you are willing to spend further money, you will get more content in the future.
Same goes for the missing modern and future ages, I am pretty sure these will be introduced as further DLC or full expansion sets much later on.

Gameplay wise, it's much more difficult. Some people like myself, who bought the game even though we were skeptical about the new mechanics but wanted to give them a chance, will be pretty much out of luck. Making the transition between ages less aprupt and forced, if most likely too much of a change for the whole game, even just as an options. The same goes for an optional setting of having the civilizations transition with each age - as each one is really only designed with the designated age in mind and they are lacking features for the missing ones.
At the same time, there are people really enjoying these new mechanics and they don't want to see them fixed and I can actually sort of understand it, even though I am clearly not a fan of them. They make the gameplay more dynamic and interesting.


TDLR: You really should ask yourself what you expect from a Civilization game and read some reviews and comments, it's not that this game is completely bad, but especially for some longterm fans the changes made to mechanics are too much and simply aren't well received with many of them. The Steam rating is currently almost 50/50 showing the strong divide within the player base for Civ VII.

[Valandryl]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

Originally posted by AdD♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞:

Is it really that bad guys? Is it not fixable with a few patches?
The player count on this game seems to be pretty high but so many neg reviews on here.

Its hard for me to figure out if its good or not.
Trying to figure out if I should save up and buy this game or not.

Player count is the worst since Civilziation: Beyond Earth

The work required to fix it is HUGE. The core gameplay of the game was changed for the worse, there are TONS of bugs and missing information

We are talking about years of work away from being decent

The core gameplay will never be different. They made choices, and will have to stick to them. In august, when the game was announced, it received a lot of backlash and Firaxis could have changed things to appeal to their playerbase but they decided not to. Now they're stuck with what is the "Heroes of Might and Magic 4 of the franchise" which will never succeed no matter how good the game is in itself.

[deltamike35a]

I've played every game in the Civ Franchise and have found that every one got better than the last. The well known "just one more turn" was true for each. However, Civ 7's "one more turn' was different for me--it became one more turn to see if it gets better and it did not. It seems to have devolved into a "city management" game with constant unwanted interruptions in game play. I think it could be saved, albeit with a near complete overhaul.

Bottom Line: would not recommend buying at this time.

[bshock]

Only you playing it yourself can tell you if it's "worth it." It's very different from 6, a game Civ fans have been playing for almost a decade. People will either accept that fact and come to enjoy the changes or go back to a previous entry, as it has always been in the franchise.

[Larsen]

There's the foundation for a good game, but it has so many flaws and shortcomings. It's very unpolished and basically an unfinished game. The UI is terrible, the game gives you almost no information about what's going on, and there was clearly meant to be a fourth era that they just crudely hacked off, leaving a lot of weird issues in the third (and currently final) era.

It also has some extremely bad design decisions, such as having to level up each leader in order to unlock all of its abilities. Until you've done that, you're playing a scuffed newbie version of that leader, and it takes a LOT of games to level them up. So you're fiercely punished for trying different leaders instead of just playing the same one over and over until it's maxed out and you finally have the full version of it.

The win conditions are a mess, too. For instance, cultural victory actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the culture resource. There's no relationship between the two. Having high culture doesn't help with a culture victory, and having low culture doesn't hinder it. The very first civic in the modern era allows you to dig up artifacts, and if you dig up 14 of them, you get a culture victory.

Stuff like that makes me question everything about their design mentality. If this was their initial vision for these features, can we even expect "a few patches" to fix it? Patches can fix surface issues, but I don't anticipate such things as a total redesign of win conditions to be something they just do in a random patch.

[[AdD]♛K♛ng♛C♛sper♛ ۞]

How long do u think itll take them to fix it?