Mostly Negative reviews

[Rice Field Marshall]

Why are reviews mostly negative and only 7k players in game, compared to 30k in civ 6 and 12k in civ 5 as of May 2025?

[alexleshok]

IDK. The game is pleasing me even without Atomic and Future Age DLC's.
The best synthesis of Humankind and civs.
Never liked the idea of Americans in the Stone Age or Babylon in Information Age.
In Humankind I always paced my cultures to current age (so no Ancient Egyptians in the Contemporary Age).
Progress reset is also a cool feature. Lagging civs get their chance to strike at the start of an age while advanced civs can race ahead and counter Napoleonic warfare with WW II militaries.

The only things this game lacks - cavalry as an apex predator (no countering infantry units, paper and scissors, no rocks) and 1953-2025 and Mass Effect/Fallout Ages.

[MONOCLE DEBACLE]

Because it's just not fun. They did a rug pull on the fundamental underpinnings of the game structure and completely ruined it.

[Eddy]

Because Civ VII is a sequel that forgot why people play Civilization.

What Went Wrong:

1. UI Designed for Consoles, Not Strategy

* Menus buried in menus.
* Clicks where none are needed.
* A “streamlined” interface that feels like a mobile game ported to PC.
* Steam Deck and PC players both feel punished.

2. The Age System Is a Gimmick

* It adds grind without depth.
* It gates strategy instead of expanding it.
* It punishes experimentation and pushes you into **one narrow optimal path**.

3. Missing Features at Launch

* “One More Turn” wasn’t even available on release.
* Longstanding systems like proper map trading, AI diplomacy depth, and victory tracking felt half-built or absent.

4. Day-One Monetization Model

* Pre-installed DLC you had to pay to unlock.
* Gated progression.
* “Upgrade to Deluxe” packs that feel like content amputated from the base game.

5. Empty “Community Engagement”

* Weekly posts about fanart and advisor tips, not major issues.
* No direct response to UI complaints, progression criticism, or the review freefall.
* Devs say “we’re listening,” but never say what they’ve heard.

6. Steam Reviews Tell the Story

* 38% recent rating (as of May 24, 2025).
* Daily review positivity often drops below 30%, sometimes hitting below 20%.
* Reviews consistently cite UI, Age System, and monetization as key reasons for refunds.

7. Steam Player Count Confirms It

* Civ VII’s all-time peak was 84,558 at launch.
* It’s now sitting around 6,500–7,000, often below games like Kenshi, Deep Rock Galactic, or even Cookie Clicker.
* Meanwhile, Civ VI floats around 25k–45k, and Civ V holds 12k–18k daily without any updates at all.

Civ VII isn’t the future of Civilization. It’s the example of what happens when a sequel forgets player trust, franchise legacy, and gameplay clarity.

If Firaxis doesn’t rebuild--not patch, but rebuild--it’s not just a failed launch. It’s a permanent fracture in the series’ legacy.

And the player count, the reviews, and the refund stats? They're just the receipts. We're basically doing a postmortem of Civ VII at this point.

[Rhapsody]

Another analysis from someone who doesn't even own the game here. Typical.

Originally posted by Teammates go mid 2% slower:

Why are reviews mostly negative and only 7k players in game, compared to 30k in civ 6 and 12k in civ 5 as of May 2025?

You're kinda answering your own question there. Many players prefer the simple progression of keeping the civilization the same and not having to consider the legacy paths on even theoretical level. And then there are all the non-subjective issues like bad documentation, random bugs and UX woes like lack of functionality in civilopedia, Denuvo, pricey and confounding but not disproportionate DLC, and then all the weird and generally disingenuous protests about misrepresentation, Harriet Tubman existing and so on. But for each problem it can also be pointed out that virtually every previous game has had a comparable issue, so for most part the problem is gamer memory being nonexistent.

Seven was a small step for Civilization but too large leap for civ "fans".

[Yglika]

Separate eras + Civ swaps/resets. Unless that is put into some sanity (=removed, plain and simple), no amount of "fixes" can save this game. As then it is simply not Civilization game anymore but some weird "wanna-be Civ" spin-off.

[z3rk]

Because that is usually the end for failed experiments. On contrary to the popular opinion shared here, not ALL changes are good changed. Not ALL changes are worth 'adapting to' and if you don't there must be something wrong with you. Some changes are bad and simply missed, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as people who rely on the results, learn from the experience, because otherwise they are doomed to repeat mistakes in the future.

"Persistence is noble, said the captain while going down;
Went down with his ship, that old fool
Lacked the courage to turn around "

And one more thing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking a failed experiment (because reasons) AND admitting that it failed. I liked and like Civ BE, i think it is a good game, not best but a good one. At the same time i don't have a problem admitting that it failed hard. Enchanting reality or covering your ears and eyes and screaming 'NONONONONO IT"S DOING GREAT IT"S DOING GREAT" is not the best approach here, but, to each and everyone i guess.

As I stated before, they took a swing, they missed, now they try to turn it over but it seems it's too late. Maybe they'll learn from the mistakes, or double down on them, their decision but based on the choice results can be anticipated.

[jorgen_cab]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Another analysis from someone who doesn't even own the game here. Typical.

They likely refunded the game... you don't need to own the game to know that it is flawed. You might have refunded it and/or views enough let's play to figure that out without playing it for very long.

You should not make such comments as it does not sit well with other people reading their opinions. It is a rather bad reason for disregarding someone having an opinion.

[Eddy]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Another analysis from someone who doesn't even own the game here. Typical.

Originally posted by Teammates go mid 2% slower:

Why are reviews mostly negative and only 7k players in game, compared to 30k in civ 6 and 12k in civ 5 as of May 2025?

You're kinda answering your own question there. Many players prefer the simple progression of keeping the civilization the same and not having to consider the legacy paths on even theoretical level. And then there are all the non-subjective issues like bad documentation, random bugs and UX woes like lack of functionality in civilopedia, Denuvo, pricey and confounding but not disproportionate DLC, and then all the weird and generally disingenuous protests about misrepresentation, Harriet Tubman existing and so on. But for each problem it can also be pointed out that virtually every previous game has had a comparable issue, so for most part the problem is gamer memory being nonexistent.

Seven was a small step for Civilization but too large leap for civ "fans".

This is a textbook apologist cocktail dressed up in “analysis,” but loaded with deflection, minimization, and historical revisionism.

“You don’t even own the game.”
Classic gatekeeping tactic. The truth is, you don’t need to own a disaster to see the smoke pouring out the windows. SteamDB is public. Reviews are public. Gameplay streams are everywhere. And if someone did buy it and left a negative review? They’d be dismissed as “entitled” or “whining.” So… only blind loyalty counts now?

“People don’t want to think about legacy paths.”
Translation: "The game is failing because it's too smart for its audience.”
No. it’s failing because the legacy path system is overdesigned, underexplained, and mechanically underwhelming. It adds complexity, not depth, and it punishes experimentation rather than enabling discovery. That’s not “too complex.” That’s poor UX and bad system design.

“Non-subjective issues like bad documentation, random bugs, Denuvo, pricey and confusing DLC…”
Wait, so you admit to everything the community is frustrated by, but then brush it off with “every previous Civ game had comparable issues”? False. Civ VI didn’t launch with: Preinstalled paywalled DLC, a neutered Civilopedia, and a UI tailored to consoles first. This isn’t just “another rough launch.” It’s a record-setting misfire in the franchise.

“Disingenuous protests about misrepresentation, Harriet Tubman, etc.”
This part? Just thinly veiled dismissal of real player concern, while trying to frame representation backlash as irrational. It ignores the core issue: representation being used as a marketing shield, not a meaningful game mechanic or narrative element. People aren’t upset that Tubman exists. They’re upset that she’s being deployed like a defense mechanism against criticism for everything else.

“Gamer memory is nonexistent.”
Players remember Civ V and VI vividly. That’s why Civ VII is bleeding users to them.
They remember smooth UI, smart expansions, and trustworthy dev pipelines. They’re not being forgetful. They’re being disappointed in real time, while remembering better games made by the same studio.

“Seven was a small step for Civilization, but a too large leap for fans.”
This is the coup de grâce of the apologist mindset: “The game didn’t fail. You did for not getting it.” It reframes poor reception as player failure, not developer failure. It is a way to maintain loyalty without confronting the game’s actual issues.

But the truth? If tens of thousands of players leave, if Steam reviews crater into red, if concurrency drops 90%+ in three months, that’s not a “bad memory” problem.

That’s a bad product problem.

[jorgen_cab]

The main problem is that negative reviews just grow by the day, this probably means that allot of people that now played the game for a while realize how boring it really is, allot of people likely even change positive reviews into negative. Not everyone played the game at launch either even if they bought it or pre ordered it or only played it briefly and had no time to form an opinion of it.

After serval patches and some changes to certain mechanics the game should at least stop leaking bad reviews not gaining them and tanking much worse than before.

Having a review average of 38% in the last 30 days is really bad and it actually is worse as it just get worse for every week that passes.

[Sharp]

Well I put over 200 hours in the game, but the feeling that I have with this game at the moment is the same with ARA and Humankind. The ideas are novel, it can give interesting gameplay and it can be fun. But after a while it gets very repetetive(legacy paths). Previous civs did not have this problem. As for civ switching I get that many people don't like it, it is jarring. But I liked the gameplay enough at the start that I did not mind it as much. But I feel now that this change was just unwarrented. I removed my positive review but I will not give a negative review because I did have fun. I just think Civ 7 has had too many problems to begin with and that is just dissappionting. Old World is a good alternative, can recommend.

[The Red Menace]

Getting mad at rhapsody for running interference is like getting mad at the clouds for it raining.

[universecreep]

Originally posted by Sharp:

I removed my positive review but I will not give a negative review because I did have fun. I just think Civ 7 has had too many problems to begin with and that is just dissappionting. Old World is a good alternative, can recommend.

I changed my review several times after playing the game more. I've left it now at negative.
It just isn't that fun. I agree it's boring. I've never said that about a Civ game before.

I think Ara is developing into something good. Millennia was decent as well but it's not getting updates any longer.
Old World is very good and still getting updates I think.

[[PMC] Portable Merc Collector]

Even Revolution on the 360 was more fun and that's a damn legitimate console game..

[Бвонсамди]

Increadibly bugged PoS (piece of s...).
On my PC (which i bought recently, so hardware is OK) it hangs my Windows 11 completely, after switching to browser, or scanning some document (or even simply working with Excel). And this completely ruined my game expirience (which also wasn't too high).
So I don't recommend this game to anyone.
Wasted time and money and ruined expectations for me, as Civilization series fan!

[f0st3r]

do you really need someone to tell you whats obvious ?