So desperately I wanted to like this game. New and interesting leaders make this game so appealing to me, especially with the level up system (I'm a sucker for level ups in games, it makes my monkey brain go 'hee hoo'.)
But so, SO much of this game just does not catch the attention it needs to be worth 70 bucks, let alone 100 or more.
The leaders are interesting, but some of them aren't even nation leaders. I love Harriet Tubman, she was an amazing person and as one of the best actors in the Underground Railroad I have so much respect for her. But she never lead a nation, and it's a little jarring to see her, Confucious, or Blackbeard at the front instead of someone who historically ran a nation just kinda feels bad.
They were awesome cornerstones of history, but what they've done kind of plays into my next point. Instead of the game being about leading a nation, strong among the ages and seeing your history flourish, it feels more like some kind of Civ party game. Recently they added a way to stay as the same Civ so you CAN keep running the Inca in modern times if you wanted, but you get punished a bit if you play someone out of their timeframe, and you still have to lose your armies and some of your cities between ages so what's the point?
I've only played Civ 5 and 6, and each of those gave the feeling of amazing developing nations, with struggles that lead to war, commerce, and eventually Ghandi's nuclear wrath. That feeling isn't here. In a weird way, this one feels the most like a game (in the worst way possible) rather than a long intricate legacy or story you can tell your friends.
When I play games—games like Left 4 Dead, Hearts of Iron 4, or Conan Exiles—my favorite part is being able to tell my friends stories and how 'I did this thing and it was funny' or 'I did this thing and it was super ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cool'. That basically doesn't exist in this game, past 'today I beat Gilgamesh in war'.
An example story for Civ 5 is how I gave myself Shaka as an ally when I was first starting out in 5, he lead us to war and everybody hated me. Nobody hated me more than the Ottomons, and when I was through crusading through the world, I punished them for treating me like ♥♥♥♥ by nuking their capital 9 times in a row. Those kinds of stories just don't blossom with Civ 7.
Even in Civ 6 I was able to get my brother to come join me by telling him about the bad ass giant death robots and its upgrades at the end of the tech tree (which are in 5 but I swear they feel different in 6). Or another story was the time I was getting destroyed in war and the only thing that was able to save me was advancing to the Crouching Tiger and taking out their infantry.
When I first played Civ 6, I thought the game was awful. Then over time, it slowly got better and better, and now it's my favorite Civ of all time. I was really, really hoping Civ 7 would get there, but in all honesty it feels like what they're doing is too little too late.
They sailed from Civ's base foundation a little too much, and their boat sank around the time where it didn't look like home anymore. A little deviation is fine, every game should have its quirks and uses that makes it feel unique, otherwise why buy the next installment? But this one definitely feels different. It's like Humankind wearing a Sid Meier's Civilization costume, and it just isn't where it needs to be to be worth it.
If they make a deep decline in prices (we're talking MAYBE 40 for a good portion of the content and the base game), then it might be worth it at that point. Otherwise, steer clear.
