Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
It still remains a fun game but series veterans may grumble at concessions being made to likely cater to the console crowd.
That's the fault of consoles.
I'm sure that they'll spruce up the UI as the game develops.
- Metascore currently stands at 81 over 49 reviews.
- Scores range from 40 to 100
- Removing the top 5 best scores and bottom 5 lowest scores puts the range between 65 and 90% <--I often do that to help remove fan boy praising reviews as well as hater bashing ones. For instance, the lowest scores being 40, then 55 and then some 60's, those are obviously written by critics who doesn't care if a game is well made and they're gonna trash it anyway and the 100%'s clearly aren't deserved, as there are obvious flaws and technicalities Firaxis will have to work on.
- IGN has several reviewers across the globe, so technically, they gave 60, 70, 80, 80, 90, 90, 90 and 90 again.
- OP seems to emphasize on the 70's scores when in fact, there are only 4 critics giving the game a 70 scores. There are like 30 reviews above 80.
- Obviously, reviews are subjective, even when the critics are trying not to be. Each and everyone will have it's own vision.
- The game launches really soon for the early adopters. Can't wait!
It was like that for Civ4, it was like that for Civ5, it was like that for Civ6 - heck even CivBE's single expansion was a major improvement to a very lacklustre base game.
Not defending the business model but it seems to always be like that with Civilization games.
Such as the idea that my civilization will fall at the end of each era. One of the things I always liked about the series was choosing a civilization from the start and carrying it through to the end. I don't want to have to pick a new civilization and/or a new leader every few turns or so. It makes me wonder if that will lead to the game feeling more like a series of scenarios, rather than a continuous march through time like the previous games.
I also don't like the idea of reducing espionage or religion to such a minor category, either. Both of those were elements I enjoyed in the prior games (especially 6). The article doesn't specify what victory types are available in Civ 7, either. Are we down to the default three that existed in the first games (space, score or military), or are there new ways to win?
... I don't know what to think. I used to think the game sounded promising, but after reading this review (and seeing that Denuvo is still a part of it, according to the store page) I have my doubts. This is definitely not a "day one" purchase for me, but after reading this review it makes me more determined to keep Civ 7 in the "wait and see" category.
For me, I was really excited for Civ 5 hex tiles and unstacked units, and I truly loved it day 1. Civ 6 felt like Civ 5 with a districts expansion and civic rework. So more of the game I already liked (though I admit was getting stale and the DLC practices were predatory). Civ 7, on the other hand, just feels so empty, inauthentic, rushed, and mechanically unambitious. It's pretty, but they stripped out a lot of the detail that made every turn full of interesting decisions. The new features are good ideas on paper but executed in very arbitrary and uninteresting ways. Having military all go at once is a good idea, but now you have to do triage at the start of each turn to see what happened. Having civs emerge mid-history is realistic, but having 2 simultaneous changes where everyone changes at once is not realistic. I would have enjoyed them stepping away from the multiplayer match structure and allowing full new civs to emerge organically, at any time, altering the player count. Players can be eliminated in any era, why can't players also emerge? Do we really need to hang on to the goofy immortal leader system? Lots of games have come up with really interesting power transfer mechanics. You're leaving rich gameplay on the table. I get that the game spans thousands of years so maybe have a dynasty and political party system for longer spanning rulerships. Still make the historical figures appear as great people. You could have done so much better here.
Bottom line is there isn't a single thing that looks cool or interesting to me and that is a stark change from Civ 5 and 6 launches. The game reeks of non-gamer business leader decisions. Part of me hopes the game underperforms to a degree to alter the future decision making at Firaxis. Personally I'm going to wait for sale and spend more time in Old World which I keep hearing glowing remarks about.
-Still a Civ player, but no longer a fan.