Bought the game despite reviews

[eugenekop]

I just bought the game, despite reading dozens or even hundreds of negative reviews. Here is my reasoning:

1.

About half of the complaints are about trivial things like missing scout auto explore, missing map types, missing ability to play after winning, missing city renaming, etc..
To me this seems like people expected the new game to be CIV 6 with better graphics and more features. That’s not what Firaxis has ever done, so I don’t know where the expectation is coming from.

Specifically, regarding missing map types, this is mostly irrelevant, because you have at least a few hundreds of hours with the game until it becomes repetitive, and at that time Firaxis will surely add additional maps. I don’t need the extra map types right now.


2.

Most of the negative reviews are after a few hours of play. You can’t judge a strategy game like this. I trust much more the 80 reviewers who had early access and played dozens and even hundreds of hours. They ranked the game on average 81, which is good enough for a base version.

I watched many streamers, and the majority of them say that despite its flaws, the game is fun. I really don’t need scout auto explore if the game is fun. Fun is all I ask for.

3.

This is the same thing as with CIV 5 and CIV6. Everyone hates the game until they don’t. By the way, this is not necessarily because of DLCs (to CIV5/6) making the game complete, Many times its because people get used to the base game features and start liking them. (i.e. CIV 6 districts).

4.
Even if I buy the game and not like it, even after a year of DLCs (not very likely), it is still not much money wasted. Games have the best ratio of money spent per hour. Going to a good restaurant with your family will cost you more than the base game, and that’s just for a few hours of enjoyment. Strategy games give you hundreds and thousands of hours, many times more. I’m fine taking the risk.

[Steve]

1. Those are... trivial to you? Interesting! I consider some of those things not just staples of Civ, but of 4x grand strat in general. I've never enjoyed micromanaging exploration but without auto-explore, what other choice is there? A sandbox that reduces choices is... problematic.

2. We don't have a choice there. Steam gives us 2 hours. It is what it is.

3. Civ V and VI seemed to start out in better places. This is more like Civ: BE at this point, at least reviewwise. At least BE is no longer the worst-reviewed Civ title on Steam, right? Silver linings!

4. I never did find much value in the "fun per dollar" metric. I'm glad you have though. But I don't pay Stephen King every time I re-read his book. If a game gives me 10 hours or 10,000, what matters most is "am I having fun?"

I'm glad you're having more fun than I did. I hope it keeps up.

[dcbobo]

1: The new scout mechanisms adds nice exploration, it generally encourages you seeing what is there to start working out strats and tactics. The search is awesome for exploring and the lookout is awesome for combat support.

2:yup

3:This is far far far and away better than 5 at launch.

4: you may or may not like it, but you should get your money's worth.

[katzenkrimis]

Originally posted by eugenekop:

Most of the negative reviews are after a few hours of play.

You can’t judge a strategy game like this.

Strategy games give you hundreds and thousands of hours.

39.8 hours to complete my first match.

Learned a lot from my mistakes. Will need to play differently the second time.

Value for money with Civilization VII will prove to be extremely high. Replayability is through the roof.

Best bang for our buck if you're looking for an enjoyable, long-term investment. Imagine the hype when the first expansion releases. Everyone and their dog will return for another four hundred hours. Same for expansion number two.

The expansions will deal with the future. That's what people are after. A solid end game. As long as the Giant Death Robot doesn't return for the 15th straight year.

They need to change it up.