Why is Civ 7 Unliked/Bad?

[NewTeutonica]

I've seen stuff about the shill program for this game and I've watched the developers run damage control all the way to its release but what about the game is bad exactly? Why is it getting such a negative response and is this the first time this has happened on this scale and/or has it been a long time coming?

Thank you for your time.

[PhalseDemeise]

A lot of people feel like they've deviated too far from the formula we've known in previous versions with the way they've handled age transitions. There has been backlash before, never on this scale

[Sovereigndrake]

Take a civ game, remove 1/2 of it, cut the remaining half into 3. That's civ 7.

[dnorton97]

I am so disappointed in Civ7. Wishing I had not spent all this money on this version that has venture so far away from its original content. Too few characters, poor building graphics, diplomacy is boring, etc. I am going back to Civ6

[TheNightglow]

tbh I dont mind the new mechanics too much, with the civ changes etc
their implementation feels a bit clunky and jarring but its not like those changes make it a terrible game...
however, the game is unbalanced, unfinished, buggy, does not communicate mechanics at all and is lacking a lot of content and fundamental features

even if you d like the new mechanic changes, a lot of the bugs, UI and balance issues are really disheartening
the game needed a few more years in the oven

[kasnavada]

Originally posted by NewTeutonica:

I've seen stuff about the shill program for this game and I've watched the developers run damage control all the way to its release but what about the game is bad exactly? Why is it getting such a negative response and is this the first time this has happened on this scale and/or has it been a long time coming?

Thank you for your time.

A combo of :
- "it changed",
- bad UI/UX,
- youtubers are making more money for negative content than positive one
- users are gaining internet points with awards on forum threads and reviews
- it's not already out with 3 years of balancing and DLC for the equivalent of 10 dollars, so there is missing content, bugs and balance issue
- it's an AAA game
- it has denuvo
- it's a civ game and everyone had different expectations of where the franchise would go, but, obviously, everyone had... a DIFFERENT expectation. It's impossible to go in 2 different directions at once.

That said, most of that is fixable and given what Firaxis's record is, it will be fixed.

The part that some don't get is that the franchise needs to get new stuff out. This time the big feature are ages. It's not really a new concept, it was in Endless legend, games like Reus and Reus 2 and so on... but while I like it, I can't disagree that it needs a lot of work.

For example: military transtions.
The game needs to review how ending wars work. Currently the war "stops", whatever you were conquering is reverted back, units are moved back to cities... I get why this is, since it's supposed to be 100 - 200 years between ages but... it's a lot.

The game also needs to keep the "content" of armies similar to what it was in the previous age (if I have commanders with 2 infantry, 1 cavalry and one siege engine, I don't want to redistributes my units next age). I wanna know if the age transition is going to make me lose units (from antiquity to exploration you keep 6 units + what your commanders can hold).

Virtually all aspects of the transition requires that kind of work.

Overbuilding for exemple, I like it a lot, but the tooltip doesn't show me what I lose. I can find the information in a subscreen but.. like. It's annoying. And since the game doesn't explain properly how maintenance and specialists work, you've got people with 130 science / civic at the end of exploration age when a "regular" player should have 300.

Victory conditions for the 3rd age require an heavy rework. First, the game seems to imply that a 4th age will be in a DLC, but even then. Currently it's easy to end the game in 50 turns at the 3rd age but it feels like an age is supposed to be 100-150 turns long (on standard pace).

Ages are also very limited right now, since there is only a single age type. When (I hope not if ?) the age transitions to multiple age types, that would also use the age mechanic. Again, I like the age mechanic but since I always transition to the same age, like... I feel like civ7 should follow the Reus 2 formula on this. Age transition on Reus 2 are great, varied, interesting, it's got the equivalent of overbuilding too.

[Stormfrenzy88]

A lot of people just hate change I guess. The game itself is actually really great aside from it severely lacking polish.

[jecstir]

If anyone makes it to end, the endings suck kind of and too simple. THey made it $70.00 so everyone i think is a little pissed. if it was $35 and they opened up to consol to expand their audience, i think it would have gotten 2x as many people to play it with lower price grudge and gotten better reviews

idk it's better as far as an "arcade mode" type of game but still very slow... risk online is more fun and sim city is better at building cities... this is like not as good as many games that specialize but still a good game at its core. Really ig the game is all about chasing building adjacency bonuses - i got to modern age with 10 times per turn for the science and culture as the remaining civs

[Rudel]

I generally like the game, my main gripes are that

- it's completely unfinished in terms of UI (and they know that and released it anyway)
- DLC pricing policy is bascially a highway robbery, main game content is missing / to be monetarized
- releasing for consoles, mobile and PC obviously is too much for Firaxis to handle
- it feels very "railroady", they dropped the sandbox

[keviinb]

It's just bad a 3 in 1 mini game for casual mobile play

[Central]

the negative reviews are split in 2 sides.

the first side side believes that they deviated to much from the civ gameplay
the second side gives negative reviews because of UI and bugs.

right now reviews are mixed.
if they fix the bugs and UI than the reviews should be more positive than negative.

[Fabiano]

DLC policy;
The lack of continuity in game (I dont mind an ages system, but the way they implemented is really bad IMO...ages reset my campaign, including wars, and I hate this);
The leader not being tied to civs is a bad design IMO;
The price;
The UI;
The victories feels less organic than before (ts like if you have quests now that you need to complete, I dont like being pushed to do this or that in a Civ game);

I played every civ since civ I. Its hard to compare this edition to the older ones because of nostalgia, but its the first time I drop a new civ game after less than 30h played. I think the Devs will fix the UI and other bugs/balances, but the philosophy of the game cant be changed and its not in line with I look for in a Civ game. I do hope Mods can save this edition.

[Darkboss]

Originally posted by NewTeutonica:

I've seen stuff about the shill program for this game and I've watched the developers run damage control all the way to its release but what about the game is bad exactly? Why is it getting such a negative response and is this the first time this has happened on this scale and/or has it been a long time coming?

Thank you for your time.

Because its not a Civilization game anymore

You dont grab a Civilization and make it stand the Test of Time, that is gone. Now, you have to play with 3 different Civilizations and fulfill a list of objectives

New Civilizations are cheaper to make if they can only be played during 1/3rd of the game, and therefore they can maximize DLC earnings by selling you stuff that its cheaper at the same or even bigger price than before

[Central]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

New Civilizations are cheaper to make if they can only be played during 1/3rd of the game, and therefore they can maximize DLC earnings by selling you stuff that its cheaper at the same or even bigger price than before

civs had 1 ability, 1 unique building and 1 unique unit in the past, if anything they are more expensive to make since there is now a lot more to a civilisation.
they did a load of custom artstyle and besides having the bonuses the old civs had they now also have their own custom culture research, sure its limited, but it is things that they didnt have.

they didnt cut anything from civs themselves to make them fit. in no way shape or form did they get cheaper to make.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by NewTeutonica:

what about the game is bad exactly? Why is it getting such a negative response and is this the first time this has

Just the UI and some documentation, like Civilopedia.

Gameplay is in perfect position, generally speaking, but there is of course need for tweaks and maybe rebalance of some features like artifact collections and explorer management in modern age.

[skunkno1]

Some people don't like the fundamental changes to the game, not because they think change is bad(as some people imply) but because they think those particular changes are bad. Others think the UI is bad, the game lacks depth, it seems too gamey and lacks the old sandbox appeal, and panders to console users. Some think the game was designed for maximum DLC potential over everything else. Still others think the game is woke, some dislike it for that reason and some like it precisely because of that reason. I am not endorsing or condemning any of those reasons specifically but I think that list pretty much covers it.