 |
| The graphics are quite stunning in Civ VII especially the wonder animations |
| Quick Info | |
|---|---|
| Reviewed by: | Mark Goninon |
| Developer: | Firaxis |
| Publisher: | 2K Games |
| Release Date: | 11 Feb 2025 |
| Time played: | 62 hours |
There are almost 5 years between the release of Civ VI: Gathering Storm and Civ VII, and over 8 years between the release of vanilla Civ VI and Civ VII, so either way you look at it, it's been a long wait for Civ fans for the next entry in the series. The game was number one on this blog for most anticipated game of 2025 so we were definitely looking forward to this one and as I'm a long-time fan of the series, I decided to purchase the Founders Edition of the game which includes the Tecumseh and Shawnee pre-order DLC, the Deluxe Content Pack (which includes 2 leader personas and profile customisations), Founders Content Pack (which includes 2 leader personas and more profile customisations), the Crossroads of the World (which was released shortly after the game launched and included 2 new leaders, 4 civs and 4 world wonders) and the future Right to Rule Collection (which includes an additional 2 new leaders, 4 civs and 4 world wonders). It's definitely not for everyone though as it cost $200 (I speak in past tense since the Founders Edition isn't available for purchase anymore).
The game was a critical success on release with a Metascore of 79 (despite an out-of-place 40% from Eurogamer). But then came the player reviews: currently on Metacritic the game has a User Rating of 3.8 and on Steam the game is sitting on a "Mixed" rating based on 47% of the over 32,873 reviews being positive. So what happened? What is responsible for this huge discrepancy in scores? Usually when a new Civ game comes out the fans generally pine for the last entry, but is the fan backlash warranted in this latest entry in the Civ franchise?
 |
| Early versions of the game had very basic loading screens |
In the beginning, the game was without form, and void
Saying Civ VII had a bit of a rough launch is an understatement and when the game first came out, there were several issues with the user interface, and basic features that existed in previous Civ iterations were noticeably absent in Civ VII. In terms of the user interface, on launch it was very basic and looked like an indie game made in the early 2000s, not a AAA title in the 2020s (however, as I type up this review they are finally adding a fresh touch of paint on the civ loading screens at least). City hexes are difficult to see as they're represented by a dull green highlight, there is no ability to quickly visit entries in the Civilopedia and even when you visit Civilopedia pages, they're not very helpful. For example, when reading up about particular civics, the Civilopedia will give you some historical context on the civic but will offer little with respect to gameplay related information, such as what is a prerequisite of the civic or what it unlocks? It's not easy to glean information from the tech tree and civics tree so it's definitely one area that could do with some improvement.
Thankfully user interface issues are probably easy to resolve in the grand scheme of things and the area I'm most optimistic about when it comes to improvements. In fact, I noticed the last time I played that they reintroduced an indicator of what your city just completed in the build queue. Since this was a feature that existed in previous Civs you can understand why fans are a bit annoyed and perplexed they weren't in the game on Day 1. Although, by far the biggest bugbear you'll hear from fans is the inability to auto-explore with scouts: this fix is apparently still being worked on, and it's been several weeks since release.
Dumbed down yet also more confusing
There have been quite a few gameplay mechanics that have changed and this is even before you touch on the new Ages system. Some are actually for the better, such as the ability to choose how your city expands when it grows, similar to purchasing land in previous Civ games except it's now just the default method of expansion when a city's population grows. I also like how each civilization has its own specific civics tree and I do appreciate the throwback to previous Civ games where traversing the deep ocean is possible in the early Exploration Age but it comes with great risk. I also find the graphics in the game appealing, despite my yearning to see skyscrapers in the Modern Age (the Modern Age roughly covers two centuries, with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1750s marking its start and the beginning of the Space Age in the 1950s marking its end). Geoff Knorr and Roland Rizzo have also done a splendid job with the soundtrack: each civ has its own theme like before mixed with some epic background music in each Age (my favourite has to be the Modern Age's “Hope Rising" and “Stand Firm"). It also goes without saying that Christopher Tin's intro theme, "Live Gloriously", is an earworm too).
So there's quite a bit to like about the game but there are also many things that have me confused. You'll find that it's very easy to urbanise in this iteration of Civ and it won't be long before you have sprawling conurbations all over your empire. The reason for this is that in Civ VII, improvements you make to the city are no longer condensed into the city centre hex but are spread out around your city, so each time you want to build a granary, a bank or a monument, you need to convert a rural hex, which has a farm, a camp or a mine, into an urban one. Each urban hex allows two improvements to be built but it still doesn't take long to fill these up over the course of an entire game. When you've eventually run out of room, but still want to build new buildings, Civ VII introduces the concept of “overbuilding" where you demolish an old building and build over it. Now, while I like the concept of this in a historical context (i.e. empires building on top of the ruins of old empires) it becomes a convoluted exercise determining which is the best spot to build on since buildings that are considered “ageless" cannot be built over and you don't always seem to get the choice of which building you want to demolish: upgrading a library to a university makes sense, but if you're demolishing a culture or happiness building, not so much.
Another concept I was confused about is "influence". I understand it is similar to "diplomatic favour" from previous Civ games and is the currency used in diplomacy but there's no screen that shows you the sources of influence generation which are presumably generated by certain buildings and wonders. Also, befriending city states in this game seems to just be a matter of investing some influence and hoping for the best that you'll become suzerain before a competing empire. I preferred Civ VI's side quest system where completing certain tasks for city-states would grant you extra envoys.
Combat and religion appear to be dumbed down in Civ VII perhaps to entice newbies to the franchise with their simpler mechanics but I miss the rock paper scissors model from previous games. For example, Spearmen no longer have any bonuses against cavalry. It's simply a Tier 2 melee unit, an upgrade to the Warrior. With respect to religion, all it now involves is sending missionaries to cities and once you've converted a rural tile and an urban tile, the city converts to your religion. And that's all there is to it. No longer do you have theological combat, you just have to spam missionaries. On one level, this is probably a breath of fresh air for those that hated the religion gameplay in previous Civs thanks to its simplicity in Civ VII and the best part is, it only lasts for one age (i.e. religion isn't a path to victory in the Modern Age). However, one could argue why even bother having it in there at all if it's just extra busywork (although the Firaxis devs are apparently looking at making religion gameplay more interesting in future updates).
Anyway, speaking of Ages…
 |
| When you enter a new Age, you need to pick a new civ |
The Age of Humankind
There was a reason I wanted to play Humankind before I played this game because leading up to its release, people were drawing parallels between it and Amplitude Studios's attempt at a historical 4X game in 2021. Once you've played Humankind, it's hard not to see the similarities. Ages have always existed in the Civ franchise however in Civ VII they are now similar to the Eras in Humankind where each age gives you the opportunity to change to a different civ. While nobody really bats an eyelid when concepts like this occur in other 4X games, this is a controversial and dramatic shift for the Civ series, probably the most controversial choice that has rubbed a lot of fans the wrong way. While thankfully you're able to retain the same leader from start to finish, you're unable to retain the same civ and will have to pick three over the course of a standard game. Worse, towards the end of ages, you will enter a dark age of sorts, most of your cities will reset to towns at the start of the next age and there is also the possibility of losing some of your units, if you don't have enough military commanders.
Oh, and what's this about "towns" you ask? Well this is another concept familiar to Humankind players. When you first take over territory in Humankind you start off with outposts. They're nothing more than the ability to exploit local resources but eventually you can upgrade these into proper cities which allows you to build units and improvements instead of merely purchasing them. While during an age you might be converting towns into cities, at the start of a new age, only your capital remains a city, although you can potentially increase your starting city count to two if you decide to move your capital (i.e. both the old and new capitals start off as cities).
While Civ purists would hate the fruits of their labour not carrying forth throughout the whole game, I'm actually fine with these changes with respect to empires inheriting from the ones that preceded them. My only wish is that they added more civs to the game so that there are more historically accurate prospects when picking a civ to evolve to, or civ and leader pairings: it always feels weird picking Jose Rizal and realising that there is no Filipino civ to play.
 |
| Treasure fleets are critical for an economic victory in the Exploration Age |
When Instead of Winning, You're Wasting Time
Civ VII takes another leaf out of Humankind's playbook by changing the way victories work. Each Age you will be given the opportunity to try out for one of four victory types: conquest, cultural, economic and scientific. Now, if you were playing a previous Civ game you already know that one who can max out their science, is going to win a Scientific Victory, or someone who maximises their profit, will win an Economic Victory. Not so in Civ VII. For example, gaining an Economic Victory in the Exploration Age involves plundering treasure in the New World which actually pushes you into conflict with other empires, not to mention it's nothing really to do with earning money but colonisation instead. And if you want to win a Scientific Victory in the Exploration Age, it's nothing to do with how far you've advanced down the tech tree but instead revolves around the yield of specialist citizens in your cities. What's worse about being far ahead in science is that once you start researching Future Tech, you will get pushed 10% closer to the end of an age, meaning you can become a victim of your own success, missing out on the victory condition by ending the age too early.
Oh, and that's the thing about progress. Just like Humankind the length of the age is determined by the amount of progress you make. If you're making good progress, it will pass by at a reasonable pace, but if you're not, the game can drag on for what seems like an eternity (especially on easier difficulty levels).
Lack of Character
Earlier I mentioned the many ways the game makes civs feel unique such as the music, the architecture, the unique units, civ-specific civics trees and even Great People (at least for particular civs). However, the same can't be said for the leaders. The leaders look good enough and are animated well but besides an introductory spiel, they don't really talk much like previous iterations of Civ and often just communicate to you with a series of grunts and gestures. They won't even complain to you when you're messing around with their agenda, although come to think of it, it was kind of annoying when they used to do that.
Also, relics and works of art have been relegated to just generic things to collect instead of being unique pieces based on famous paintings, sculptures and literary works. It's a shame since it's one of the things that made previous Civ games great. There's also no concept of theming when you display the artifacts so it's yet again, another example of how the game has been dumbed down.
|
7
|
A combination of a rough launch, basic UI, dumbed down gameplay and the splitting of the game into multiple acts with sometimes convoluted victory conditions, makes this iteration of Civ a hard pill to swallow. It's not all doom and gloom though: Firaxis are committed to updating the game and there have been many improvements in the few months since release. Civ VII is heading in the right direction, but in the meantime, if you're able to appreciate the game's idiosyncrasies, there is still fun to be had. |
If you like this game, you might like…
Comments
Post a Comment