Sid Meier's Civilization VII

I have been a fan of this franchise since Civ 5, and I'd love to tell you why I love Civ 7. First.. through a lens of its criticisms: COST and AGE REGROUP rework. COST TLDR-- Love that Firaxis hasn't paywalled the playability of this game through its additional content/leader pack DLC's, and committed to free improvements/updates. Buy what you can, or wait for a sale--the gameplay remains the same for all! COST:: I actually really like the way that Firaxis has chosen to release this game. Largely the comments about this game being overpriced come down to the content packs/DLC's that have been added. What is nice, is that I think the game is completely playable without any additional DLC's. The added content at release is overpriced, I agree, though they are completely unnecessary in enjoying the actual game. I felt like Civ 6 was largely not enjoyable until AFTER its first major expansion was released that added more gameplay functionality. It's reassuring that Firaxis has added multiple updates for free (one major game update already, and another now, at the time of this review 9/15/26). If you can afford the DLC's, feel free to support the game, otherwise wait for a big sale.. but I do like that the core game's additions aren't paywalled, which is what MOST other games do, and what most fans expect when purchasing additional content. AGE REGROUP TLDR-- FIRST this is already addressed in the first major game update: They reworked the game by breaking it down into three ages: Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern ages, which I REALLY like. It makes the game bite sized with each age feeling like its own playable short segment of the game. (I can do a 3-5 hour session with one age instead of having to marathon an entire playthrough with 14+ hours, OR come back to an increasingly hectic game days or a week later). It focuses civ abilities within each so all civs are relevant at every Age that you play in too! AGE REGROUP:: Apex Age: All civs are classified into Aniquity, Exploration, or the Modern Age making their abilities relevant at each stage of the game. You CAN play any civ in each, but Apex civs get their bonus units and abilities within their respective age. ((No more playing as America with a unique P-51 plane and film studio which you don't get to until the end of the game! In Civ 7, you can play them in the modern age after progressing through two other civs respective Apex ages. Remember you CAN change this option)). If your abilities work for the session you are in, you can keep your civ and unlock other abilities through the same civics tree through a new mechanic called 'Syncretism', OR pick a new Apex civ. This makes abilities (mentioned below) like religion or planes more relevant for the age they exist in. Length of Ages-- I started SO MANY Civ 5 and 6 games that I only got halfway through because city management, and worker and unit actions just got SO HECTIC. I can't play for 14+ straight hours, so digesting each one in its own play session keeps me engaged through the end, every time for me. And the reset isn't so bad. It makes each era feel fresh and relevant with new strategies. ((Maybe I was losing Antiquity militarily and I can progress from Greece to the Normans, which are a scientific AND defensive civ having fortifications bonuses?? )). This does majorly disrupt the traditional way to play the game in previous CIV titles, but I think it improves where Civ 5 and 6 just.. dragged on. HERE IS WHAT I REALLY LIKE:: Cities and Towns: I love how the settlement cap works within cities and towns. You only have to manage a handful of city's build actions in Civ 7. Everything else starts out as towns that can later be specialized to help cities grow via farming or mining towns, increase culture or science yields as urban centers, improve trade and happiness bonuses as trading outposts and resort towns, OR function as strategic/defensive military settlements as fort towns. Gone also are workers and endless (and quite frankly, kinda pointless) micromanagement. Every population bump in a city/settlement either adds another yield tile, or adds a specialist to an urban 'district'. Settlements RANT:: I HATED the Civ 6 expansion strategy of frantically just trying to wood chop out a settler to expand to the perfect spot, because early military was just SO costly to try to capture an opponents settlement if he got there first (and the advantage of early settlements meant you had 10-40 turns of population growth to a city). You can only get to half the map in the Antiquity in Civ 7 anyways, so it DOESN'T MATTER. Focus your cultural yields! Focus your science! If you're a military civ, it's not a huge impediment to your own growth to go take another settlement if your neighbor overextends and has a weak approach to military strategy. It felt like Civ 6 punished you for military expansion if someone else had the technological edge on you with a higher tier unit. Combat felt like it was far weaker than just simply having a better expansion strategy, SO YOU HAD TO DIVERSIFY WITH ALL THESE SPECIAL MILITARY COUNTER UNITS. Combat in Civ 7 is much simpler, and it is self contained within each age. I've spent the Antiquity pummeling my neighbor, just to ally and trade with him in Exploration Age as we both go off in opposing directions to settle distant lands. Military:: Oh wow! It's refreshing that this isn't overly complicated, yet still tactically engaging and WAY MORE FUN. They reworked Great Generals into Army or Fleet or Squadron Commanders. Now you have simpler unit types that are either enhanced by Army Commander Abilities or civics abilities (which makes civics so relevant from a defensive perspective). Yes, the unit types are simpler, but it's not impossible to hold off an attack with an earlier tier unit, OR conquer and hold a settlement if you're technologically behind. Army commanders make combat WAY more strategic by allowing you to withdraw/deploy units more flexibly, exercise special combat tactics, or maneuver terrain to overcome positioning. It focuses the combat from just reaching higher tier units to a dynamic tactical strategy by multiple types of commanders. Religion: Because the game is split into multiple ages, it makes everything more relevant. Religion in Antiquity is a basic bonus applied to settlements with altars.. In Exploration you have missionaries that can convert other cities for your specific purpose (you select one specific way to acquire relics for culture, and then a yield type that focuses science, culture, or maybe a military enhancement). It's no longer a win condition and sits on the side as an enhancement you CAN pursue, or something that you lean on to give you a big leap. You can't get locked out of a religion like you did in Civ 6, and you don't reach end game basically "fighting" another version of combat for a religious victory via "religious combat". Triumphs, Dedications, and Victory Conditions:: Seldom mentioned, but this is what the game is really about! You get a list of triumphs to achieve within each Age that unlock dedications you can select in the next. Some give immediate bonuses, and others allow you to plan some of the next age's strategies. I like that Civ 7 also unlocks WHICH civs you progress to in the next era conditionally. If you settle next to a bunch of mountains, you unlock the Incas, which can work mountain tiles in Exploration (before Modern). Dedications are bonuses that make each game feel more focused for YOUR strategy. There is so much more, but I think this game does so much right! It mitigates hard RNG factors in Civ 5 and 6 and makes the game more flexible and exciting to play. I play above middle difficulty, and would say it's got an easier learning curve for new players and deeper strategies for veterans. All around, I think it's the best installment in the series and it is only getting better.

It's been over a year now and this game still isn't good. Moreover, the fact that everything costs so much when its in this kind of state is a joke. Play the previous games, they're great. This one is pretty trash.

I've played Civ 1 since release (I'm old!) and everything up til now. I gave it 14 hours and just couldn't be bothered with the plodding pace, only having one city that can produce buildings/troops in the traditional sense (all others require gold not production), the nerfing of religion, incessant irrelevant decisions, pop-ups, and the new era mechanism. It was not only plodding but boring. The only positive I'd say is I like the new diplomacy mechanic better. A waste of $50 (for the Bundle on sale).

For me CIV 4 is my favourite, this game plays nothing like it. Does not make it nesscary a bad game, but for i liked civ 6 and civ4 more and the way the game played. If you consider buying this game i would wait a few years. Its probably going to be around 4/5 euros then.

I have been playing Civilization since the very first one, a port for the SNES and was hooked immediately although back then I did not really understand the game as a kid. I have played all parts except for 4 and I was always a huge fan and liked the games a lot. Of course I was excited about Civ 7, especially when it was sales season. I read the reviews but ignored them as I want to experience the things myself. I have played the game for 2 hours, that is when I progressed in the age era, and immediately stopped after. Why? The new age did, in spite of the test of time update, reset many things. Strategic alliances with City states are gone, because of a new age The buildings I built are gone, because they are not ageless. The units are inexplicably upgraded because of a new age. Why can't I steam roll horse archers with my armada of tanks, or bomb knights with my AEGIS cruiser, or bomb my opponent in the medieval times back to ancient times with my sweet fruits from project Ivy? The research you have done - gone, because it is a new age now. These are just some examples. The game recommends to change the leader. Well, good idea, if you give me Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, Flavius, Konstantin with all different abilities and strengths and weaknesses. But not that Augustus can be a leader of a new Civilization, then in the end it was always the Roman empire. If the game wants to be more realistic in terms in history, great, but history has the beauty of a fluid motion and there is not clear cut when which era ends and you could implement the change from Augustus to Konstantin to have an advantage in the orient and a disadvantage in the occident to keep it more realistic, but not like it is implemented. Civilization tries to fix things that were never broken. I like the visuals and many of the new aspects and mechanics, but the age era and the included resets is no fun at all. If a new update lets me choose between the classic and new experience, I buy in again. But for now, 2 hours of playtime and I got my refund. Something that never happened before. Such a shame.

To preface this I have 2500 hours in civ5 and this review is based on one game as Catherine and Russia. I tried this out during the free week to see if this was a good game after seeing the negative reviews for it. I love civilization so leaving a negative review for a series I love stings. I really dislike this game. To start beyond the ui which I think needs improvement and my distaste for the dark atmosphere of the graphics as the former can be improved and the latter is an aesthetic preference, there are fundamental design decisions that prevent me from enjoying this game. The ages system as well as the building districts/quarters are imo the worst aspects of this game and are fundamental to this game. The ages system is terrible and there is no redemption for it. I finally got a hang of the game had about 4 cities and my syncretism up (something I actually liked) everything just reset. It took me out of my civilization experience. I lost all connection to my civ. It felt as if I was no longer playing for fun and instead was just hitting next turn to get this game over with. All the planning and decisions I made before felt like they were pointless and as if nothing mattered. The only age that matters for winning is the last age as everything resets and all the contributions beforehand towards score are miniscule compared to the final age. It seems as if you are on predetermined rails and not building your own civilization. Your decisions don't feel consequential. Not even where you settle feels consequential. Resources at first seem really important, but they slowly become worthless. By the final age a factory resource gives a 3% buff, which why bother? It was painful having to look at the resource screen every time a new trade route was established by the end. In civ5 strategic resources were the end all be all. You fought over them, here it doesn't matter. Technology doesn't even feel important. Some techs in previous civs changed how you played and the pace of your development. Getting universities or observatories in civ5 first made or broke you. Getting a certain tech was felt meaningful and felt like a strategic decision. Here I could care less which tech I chose. None of them changed what I needed or how I played or influenced my decisions. I could say more on this but I will leave it there. For the districts and quarters it seems like they tried to pull something off from Humankind but failed even worse. At first planning your districts seems important but it in the end is meaningless. In previous civs you had your worker to improve tiles, here you just click and it improves. I think this is both a downgrade and an upgrade. Once you decide what to improve you are locked in and forced to work that tile and until another pop grows you can't change your decision. In previous iterations you could change what you were working. It is nice how you don't need a worker now, but not nice how you are locked in. If you wanted to go full production while strategically starving yourself to get a wonder it is no longer an option. I also miss my worker buddy sometimes, added flavor to the game and made it feel lived in. City placements don't matter due to the districts/quarters. You will run out of space and there is nothing you can do about it. The ages system comes in here as planning loses its meaning. As russia I get a unique building which improves yields in tundra on non district tiles, but everything will be developed so that building is worthless. More to say but this review is too long. Many features are undeveloped. Religion is undeveloped, diplomacy is undeveloped, even war imo is undeveloped. The game has certain design decisions which I disagree with and I believe are not fun as well as many undeveloped features. My main complaint is that this just does not feel like a civilization game; both civ5 and civ6 feel like a civ game even when I dislike certain features. I don't think I will be buying this game in the near future or ever. I was really excited and wanted to like it, but I just cant. 3/10.

VI is far better then this one.