Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Ironically, those who dismissed our criticisms years ago, seeing us as outdated players refusing progress, now find themselves in the same position with Civ7.
Uhhh.... no.
Anima bruda
In RI, everything feels more realistic than in VP. VP feels "gamey" to me as you build same stuff in the every city basically. Every city is the same since you have global happiness.
In RI, every city feel personal. You don't build every building in every city unless you are playing on the easiest difficulty. Civics make your empire feel more alive whereas in VP, you are "forced" to do certain culture paths through culture tech tree. It just feels empty. In RI, your empire feels much, much more dynamic. You can even adjust research/culture/espionage tax sliders a bit.
VP has city-states and quests, which I find a bit tedious. I basically never care about quests. In RI, there are no city-states, only barbarian civs. I like it. Less is more sometimes.
It's a matter of taste of course, but this is my little two cents. I wouldn't go back to VP after finding RI. I find RI more complex in terms of everything, which makes it nice. It's not overwhelming but it has some tight mechanics. Every decision has a meaning.