Recommended? No, and here's why
After spending hundreds of hours with Anno 1800, I expected Anno 117 to build upon what is arguably the strongest entry in the series. Instead, it feels like a sequel designed to minimise risk rather than maximise creativity.
What disappoints me most is that Anno 117 doesn't feel like it was driven by developers asking, "How can we make the best Anno ever?" Instead, it gives the impression that executives and investors were asking, "How can we make the next profitable Anno?" Many of its design choices seem focused on accessibility, broad appeal, and creating a platform for future DLC rather than delivering a bold evolution of the franchise.
The biggest problem is that Anno 117 rarely feels like a meaningful step forward. The core gameplay loop is almost identical to previous entries, but without the same sense of scale, complexity, or satisfaction. Production chains are simpler, city progression feels more linear, and many of the systems that made Anno 1800 endlessly replayable have been streamlined or removed. Rather than innovating, it often feels like certain decisions have been made more impacting at the expense of depth.
Compared to Anno 1800, there's simply less to manage, less to optimise, and less to discover. Anno 1800 constantly rewarded expansion, logistical planning, and mastering increasingly intricate supply chains. Every new population tier fundamentally changed how your empire functioned. In Anno 117, progression feels much flatter, with far fewer moments where your city truly evolves into something spectacular.
The naval gameplay is another noticeable downgrade. Ships instantly rotate instead of carrying momentum, movement lacks the satisfying weight of Anno 1800, and the removal of wind mechanics makes naval gameplay feel less dynamic. Even visually, I can't get behind the new ship designs. The oversized towers mounted on many vessels look absurd, resembling floating siege towers balanced on wooden hulls rather than believable Roman warships. They completely break the immersion and make naval battles look unintentionally comical.
The campaign doesn't help either. It feels more like an extended tutorial than a memorable Roman story. The characters are forgettable, your choices rarely feel meaningful, and the narrative barely explores the incredible history of Ancient Rome. For a setting with so much political intrigue, engineering marvels, military conquest, and cultural depth, the game does surprisingly little with it.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect is how much the game feels built around future expansion. Rather than shipping as an ambitious successor, it often feels like the foundation of a live-service roadmap where features and content will be sold back over the coming years. That may sound harsh, but it's difficult to ignore how heavily the experience appears designed around future expansions instead of delivering a complete, ambitious sequel from day one. Rather than feeling like the next great Anno, it feels like another platform-an expensive, DLC monetisation platform that will eventually be sold back to players piece by piece.
Visually, the game is undeniably attractive, but graphics alone can't carry a strategy game. Once the novelty of the Roman setting wears off, there's little that stands out as genuinely new. The economy lacks the complexity of Anno 1800, city building feels familiar rather than exciting, and the overall experience never reaches the same highs. Newcomers will probably enjoy it, but veterans expecting the next evolution of the series are likely to come away disappointed.
Anno 117 isn't terrible, but it's a disappointing sequels in the series. Instead of delivering the next evolution of Anno, Ubisoft has produced a safer, shallower experience that relies on a new setting and future DLC rather than meaningful innovation. And for a series that has always evolved with each entry, playing it safe is perhaps the biggest disappointment of all.
