Sid Meier's Civilization VII

Civ 7 Review I purchased the Founders Edition on day one at launch and, like many Civ 7 players, was hugely disappointed by the state of the game. Now, about a year later, it feels as if they finally finished the base game that we all bought into. As someone who became a die-hard Civ player during Civ 6 and has logged almost 3,000 hours across both games, I still have some notes for Civ 7. Mostly, and unsurprisingly, the UI is still my biggest problem. Mods save this game for me. Without mods, I probably wouldn't play at all. I hate how much they try to conceal information from the player. Civ players love strategy. I, for one, love trying to min/max within reason, and Civ 7 makes it so hard to understand what's actually going on. Yields are unclear and unexplained. There are tables that are essentially pointless because, when you open them, you still can't understand why or where a yield is coming from. Civ 6 did a great job of making the map searchable and helping you understand how all the yields added up (except tourism). I wish data were easier to find, interpret, and therefore use to enhance gameplay. My biggest issue isn't that the lack of data keeps me from min/maxing. My biggest issue is that I don't always understand what the good or bad moves are because the game doesn't give you enough useful data or feedback. This makes decisions lose value and reward, and really just adds friction because gameplay with no reward is actually a net-negative. When Civ 7 came out, it gave me the impression they were trying to make a more immersive game that involved less math, less calculus, and more intuition. That completely failed. Why? Because it's taken me a year to relearn this game, and it still isn't intuitive. The result is that you constantly feel like you're fumbling decisions because the cause and effect of your choices aren't clear. My other big UI issue is the map. I constantly struggle to read it. Basic information is concealed. I think the enhanced graphics are a failure compared to Civ 6 because they make it harder to process the absolute basics of the game and constantly cause me to fumble small unit movements. It should be absolutely evident when you're about to move onto a tile that will end your unit's movement. Rough terrain and vegetation get completely obscured once you have buildings and armies covering the map. I cannot stress enough how this has been my least favorite part of Civ 7 since day one. Don't even get me started on cliffs. I actually love the concept but hate the execution because, again, they're impossible to read. There need to be icons along the hexes, coloring, or something that tells me, "If you move in this direction, your turn will end." It is the least rewarding part of the game to be in the middle of a brilliantly executed war and lose units or ground simply because you can't clearly see the board's properties anymore. Graphics are useless if the visual stimulation gets in the way of the gameplay. They really failed the UI. I won't go further because I have a long list of complaints that plenty of others have already covered. Map readability has been my number one issue since day one. On the positive side, they did fix the broken game mechanics and made the meta far more dynamic. It's a good game now that they've pulled off the Test of Time update. I actually felt the difference. After two or three games learning how the new mechanics changed gameplay, I'd stand by this being a genuinely good and playable game. I don't love all the gameplay changes, but because I came into the series with Civ 6, I'm not especially attached to one style or another. As long as it's a good game, it works for me. What did interest me is that Deity is now a lot harder, war is more interesting and relevant, and you really need the Modern Age to overtake the AI. I enjoy that because, before this update, it felt like I could always win during Exploration and the Modern Age (or late game, if you will) just became filler and rote execution (something that civ 6 struggled with as well). The governments are better, and across civs, techs, civics, war, and settlement expansion, it feels less like a race toward one obviously optimal decision and more like balancing good decisions against slightly less good ones. There aren't as many "if you can just get three +5 science buildings early, you win" moments, and I enjoy that. I will say I'm still confused about how the AI gets these insane yields. I'll have 11 thoughtfully constructed settlements, cities with great adjacencies and efficient specialists, and a nice town balance, yet still have half the science and culture of a neighboring civ whose cities are poorly constructed, have weak adjacencies, and terrible wonder placement. I like the challenge on Deity, but... is it just a buff? The only reason this is a bummer is because, once you finally capture the capital of the civ that had you on the ropes for an entire era—which is incredibly rewarding—you start rebuilding the city and realize how underwhelming it actually is. So how were they so far ahead? It's not a huge deal, but it makes earning the city I stole feel surprisingly unrewarding because there isn't much great about it. It also sucks that you can't really reconfigure those cities. One comment PotatoMcWhiskey made really stuck with me. The way these maps and city builds work—especially with ageless buildings—makes the map feel incredibly cramped. My own thought is that, because of the progressive un-buildability of cities, expansion becomes less and less interesting over time. Expanding and building in the Ancient Age feels exciting and full of meaningful choices. By the middle of Exploration, it starts feeling like a slog. You're no longer making exciting decisions; you're mostly choosing between decent options. Something has to change with ageless buildings. While they help anchor gameplay across ages, they reduce your city's buildability in a way that just isn't fun. It doesn't even feel like a meaningful choice because you basically have to build them. Even if you don't need them all in the Ancient Age yet, you're locking yourself into progressively fewer opportunities for creative city planning later. In Civ 6, I miss the feeling of playing turns 1–50 while already anticipating the setup for turn 150. You can't really do that in Civ 7 because of age-locked buildings and wonders. There just isn't enough visibility or permanence to intelligently reserve space for long-term plans. I can't stress enough how much of a loss this is. For a player like me, pulling off a great strategy after dozens of turns of tension, planning, and buildup is one of the most rewarding parts of Civilization. Civ 7 just doesn't deliver that feeling as often. The wins don't hit as hard because so much of that long-term anticipation and payoff is gone. I still play this game a lot, and I enjoy it far more now than I did at launch. But I still think Civ 6 is just a far better game. It's simply more enjoyable, period. Civ 7 is stimulating, and I enjoy the intellectual challenge that Civ offers. For me it’s worth continuing civ 7 as the game community keeps up with the meta and helps reduce the friction of relearning the game through these updates. I have hope that modders will help solve some of these UI issues and that one day the devs might keep up. For someone new to civ, I think civ 6 is the better game to play. But if you have already played lots of civ, try civ 7. It’s a *different* but interesting game. You will need mods though.