DO (NOT) BUY THIS GAME

[Intellyless]

Okay, I know the title is clickbait, but hey, I got your attention. Did I?

So I've got 25+ hours into this game. I purchased the founder's edition in early January, and I didn't even realize it came with 5 days of pre-release access. Here is my opinion, and no I'm not trying to sell you the game or try to keep you from buying it. You're old and ugly enough to decide that for yourself :) Hence the title.

Okay, here we go.

Do I like this game?
Yes, I do. Very much even, if I dare say it.

Is the game perfect?
No, of course not.

Is the UI as terrible as the critics make you believe?
No, but it isn't great either. It is different from the previous installments, and you'll need to learn the lay of the land a bit. It also lacks a few features that we're used to in Civ 5 and 6. Then again, Civ 6 has had over a decade of development, including initial development, all its DLCs, expansions, and whatnot. So these features will come back over time, no worries.

Is the game finished/bug-free?
No, and no, there are plenty of bugs. I encountered a few here and there, and the game crashed once on the infamous age transition. There is no Information Age and no future Age, but I think these are, at this moment, too underdeveloped and thus will be included in a future update (Yes, I think update instead of DLC). I also believe that is why there is no "one more turn" option at the end of the modern era: You literally have more ages to go and thus have not finished the game.

So far, I have played three games, one of which I actually finished and won with a culture victory. So why did I only finish one? The first game I started, I was playing too casually, as I sometimes did in Civ6. I had barely any troops, and all my (4) settlements were turned into cities, and I didn't realize/know the Civs here are more aggressive than in Civ6. So, by the time the modern age turned around, I got jumped by all the remaining 6 or 7 Civs in the game at the same time. I tried to get around it a few times, reloading a previous save, but I couldn't win; I had no army, no money, and no income, so that game was done.
I tried again at marathon speed in the second game, but I soon realized that this was not balanced, as I couldn't even research one-third of the tech and civic trees. So, I abandoned it and tried again with epic game speed, which, in my opinion, is the most balanced at this moment.

Would I recommend this game?
That is a nuanced question with a nuanced answer because it all depends on what you like and whether you are willing to accept that this is a different adaptation from the previous installments, like those old sobs on this forum who are unwilling to evolve and try something new. They would rather play Civ2 because it's simplistic and easy to get the hang of. Well, to you people, go back to your precious Civ2 and stop whining about Civ trying to evolve past your understanding. If you don't like it, this game is not meant for you!

Last but not least, what is the OH, SO INFAMOUS age transition like?
During each age (except the last), a crisis starts at 70% through the age. This crisis is reasonably easy to manage, to be honest. (Or that's just the difficulty I played at.) It doesn't really interrupt your overall game that much. By the end of the age, the game tells you your civ has fallen (even though it's still standing the way you left a turn ago) and who will live on our legacy. Then you're pulled out of the "game," and you have to choose another civ, not the leader just the civ. There are 8 or 9 options to choose from. The first game you play, you will see that only three are unlocked, and the rest are locked. You can unlock them by playing in a certain way and getting achievements or leveling up your leader (which is done by playing). It is not like Humankind, where the first to reach a goal is the first to choose. Each civ chooses from a set list of each new age.

Then, in the new age, the playing field is leveled as much as possible (if you conquered a dozen or so settlements, you will still have all of them and thus still have an edge over the rest). If you had loads of armies, you would find that you had lost some to a lot. Cities are turned back into towns, and your policy slots are empty. This does feel very disruptive at first and breaks emersion, continuity etc., etc. So I hope they can either make it more believable that you have to take a step back to go forward or make it less disruptive. Which would make the game that much better. On the other hand if you have played a couple of games you also get used to it and you prepare for it beforehand instead of being tunderstruck at what you lost.

So this has been my opinion I like the game, sure, it can definetally be improved but we got about a decade for that until the next game so I'm not worried. If you read this entire rambling of me thanks and I like to here your thoughts on this game!

[-=Maure=-]

Originally posted by Viper:

Originally posted by -=Maure=-:

Grow up kid

argue the point...

You have no point. Grow up.

[MrQun]

Don't worry, I won't be buying it.

[Intellyless]

Originally posted by MrQun:

Don't worry, I won't be buying it.

Don't just read the title and come to conclusions, I'm not telling you to buy or not to buy

[Skull]

Originally posted by Intellyless:

Originally posted by Skull:

The one problem I have with the UI is information about things like treasure fleets and religion weren’t really clear the first time around. After my first playthrough (Charlemagne is fun as hell btw I highly recommend him) I’ve gotten used to the UI and all the little nitpicks YouTubers are noting just fall to the wayside.

Yeah same it lacks a bit info here and there but you have to get used to it then it will become better.

They’ve stated they’re working on the UI too which is great. It’s nowhere near as bad as a lot of people are saying but it needs work.

[Intellyless]

Originally posted by Skull:

Originally posted by Intellyless:

Yeah same it lacks a bit info here and there but you have to get used to it then it will become better.

They’ve stated they’re working on the UI too which is great. It’s nowhere near as bad as a lot of people are saying but it needs work.

That's indeed what I said as well :)

[Lonetac]

I just purchased a 2nd copy on another account just because you told me not to. Thanks OP, love supporting good games!

[Sesikee]

Originally posted by Lonetac:

I just purchased a 2nd copy on another account just because you told me not to. Thanks OP, love supporting good games!

Clearly you're a undercover dev. You've been smoked out.

[Lonetac]

Originally posted by Sesikee:

Originally posted by Lonetac:

I just purchased a 2nd copy on another account just because you told me not to. Thanks OP, love supporting good games!

Clearly you're a undercover dev. You've been smoked out.

clearly you lack critical thinking.

[Unfit]

If you're okay with them cutting content into bits and pieces and selling them in a tiered system every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ new release. Go ahead and support them.

[Sesikee]

It's like watching a bunch of people having Stockholm syndrome because they're afraid if they bad-mouth it then the studio will abandon this game.

The AGE/ERA mechanic is a deal-breaker. It absolutely destroys what an civilization iteration should be. You can't even build a consistent civilization to "withstand the test of time."

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS FRANCHISE! Civ VII doesn't even follow this principle at all.

[Intellyless]

Originally posted by Sesikee:

It's like watching a bunch of people having Stockholm syndrome because they're afraid if they bad-mouth it then the studio will abandon this game.

The AGE/ERA mechanic is a deal-breaker. It absolutely destroys what an civilization iteration should be. You can't even build a consistent civilization to "withstand the test of time."

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS FRANCHISE! Civ VII doesn't even follow this principle at all.

So what? If you like to see a replica of your precious civ2, then go play civ2. Stop whining about civ trying to evolve past your understandibg. I actually do like this game, and so do many people with me.

If you get offended by something you read on the internet it's like stepping in d*g sh!t instead of walking around it.

[MrQun]

Originally posted by Intellyless:

Originally posted by MrQun:

Don't worry, I won't be buying it.

Don't just read the title and come to conclusions, I'm not telling you to buy or not to buy

I read the first line where you clearly mention clickbait. So I disregarded the rest of your post. So I'll repeat: I won't be buying this game.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Intellyless:

Okay, I know the title is clickbait, but hey, I got your attention. Did I?

So I've got 25+ hours into this game. I purchased the founder's edition in early January, and I didn't even realize it came with 5 days of pre-release access. Here is my opinion, and no I'm not trying to sell you the game or try to keep you from buying it. You're old and ugly enough to decide that for yourself :) Hence the title.

Okay, here we go.

Do I like this game?
Yes, I do. Very much even, if I dare say it.

Is the game perfect?
No, of course not.

Is the UI as terrible as the critics make you believe?
No, but it isn't great either. It is different from the previous installments, and you'll need to learn the lay of the land a bit. It also lacks a few features that we're used to in Civ 5 and 6. Then again, Civ 6 has had over a decade of development, including initial development, all its DLCs, expansions, and whatnot. So these features will come back over time, no worries.

Is the game finished/bug-free?
No, and no, there are plenty of bugs. I encountered a few here and there, and the game crashed once on the infamous age transition. There is no Information Age and no future Age, but I think these are, at this moment, too underdeveloped and thus will be included in a future update (Yes, I think update instead of DLC). I also believe that is why there is no "one more turn" option at the end of the modern era: You literally have more ages to go and thus have not finished the game.

So far, I have played three games, one of which I actually finished and won with a culture victory. So why did I only finish one? The first game I started, I was playing too casually, as I sometimes did in Civ6. I had barely any troops, and all my (4) settlements were turned into cities, and I didn't realize/know the Civs here are more aggressive than in Civ6. So, by the time the modern age turned around, I got jumped by all the remaining 6 or 7 Civs in the game at the same time. I tried to get around it a few times, reloading a previous save, but I couldn't win; I had no army, no money, and no income, so that game was done.
I tried again at marathon speed in the second game, but I soon realized that this was not balanced, as I couldn't even research one-third of the tech and civic trees. So, I abandoned it and tried again with epic game speed, which, in my opinion, is the most balanced at this moment.

Would I recommend this game?
That is a nuanced question with a nuanced answer because it all depends on what you like and whether you are willing to accept that this is a different adaptation from the previous installments, like those old sobs on this forum who are unwilling to evolve and try something new. They would rather play Civ2 because it's simplistic and easy to get the hang of. Well, to you people, go back to your precious Civ2 and stop whining about Civ trying to evolve past your understanding. If you don't like it, this game is not meant for you!

Last but not least, what is the OH, SO INFAMOUS age transition like?
During each age (except the last), a crisis starts at 70% through the age. This crisis is reasonably easy to manage, to be honest. (Or that's just the difficulty I played at.) It doesn't really interrupt your overall game that much. By the end of the age, the game tells you your civ has fallen (even though it's still standing the way you left a turn ago) and who will live on our legacy. Then you're pulled out of the "game," and you have to choose another civ, not the leader just the civ. There are 8 or 9 options to choose from. The first game you play, you will see that only three are unlocked, and the rest are locked. You can unlock them by playing in a certain way and getting achievements or leveling up your leader (which is done by playing). It is not like Humankind, where the first to reach a goal is the first to choose. Each civ chooses from a set list of each new age.

Then, in the new age, the playing field is leveled as much as possible (if you conquered a dozen or so settlements, you will still have all of them and thus still have an edge over the rest). If you had loads of armies, you would find that you had lost some to a lot. Cities are turned back into towns, and your policy slots are empty. This does feel very disruptive at first and breaks emersion, continuity etc., etc. So I hope they can either make it more believable that you have to take a step back to go forward or make it less disruptive. Which would make the game that much better. On the other hand if you have played a couple of games you also get used to it and you prepare for it beforehand instead of being tunderstruck at what you lost.

So this has been my opinion I like the game, sure, it can definetally be improved but we got about a decade for that until the next game so I'm not worried. If you read this entire rambling of me thanks and I like to here your thoughts on this game!

70,000 people disagree with your 1 voice..

[Maverick]

Then why did you buy the game?

[Martin]

Originally posted by MrQun:

Don't worry, I won't be buying it.

I already did and what a fantastic game it is. Your loss.. our gain.