Sid Meier's Civilization VII blends and modifies features from its predecessor. Although it is a bit barren in terms of innovations, it is a good game in terms of the strategic depth it brings to the series. I can say that it is positioned as an alternative to its predecessor, not a sequel.
I’m glad Firaxis is still finding ways to improve a genre it has mastered over the years, and as a result, Sid Meier’s Civilization 7 has the series in its best shape yet.
Civilization 7 is a very pretty and very chaoitc game. Brave but not thought out. It introduces changes that aren’t inherently bad, and they build an interesting foundation for a probably great game in the future. Unfortunately now we got an early access production for a premium access price.
Civilization VII refines its strategic depth through era transitions and civilization changes, though the most thrilling moments feel more spaced out. Despite these shifts, the game retains its signature "just one more turn" appeal—undeniably Civilization.
Despite the fact that the Civilization series has been around for a while, it still manages to bring something new that at least slightly enriches and changes the gameplay. Here we have another quality piece of work that is worth playing.
Civilization VII is bold enough to add big changes to its formula, without getting rid of everything that has made the series iconic. Say goodbye to your free time, as from PC to handheld, every waking moment will be consumed by One More Turn.
The core elements of the game are there, they work and it’s fun to play. The incentives and dynamism that the new approach to Civilization switching with the legacy paths will keep the game fresh both across games and within them. Abandoning games after about 80 turns was a big issue for me in the last few titles. I’ve not had the notion to do that yet.
Especially in a game like Civ. it's hard to know how people feel about it until a week or so later. I remember when Civ 6 was said to be the best game in the series on release, but after spending some time with it, it was lacking. Reviews like these are more of a first impressions.
Unless my friends, who have put a lot of hours into both Civ 5 and 6, unanimously recommend 7 to me, I have no intention of getting it.
I'm both satisfied enough with what I already own, and not sold on the new one yet. Not to mention that it'll inevitably be a vehicle for more dlc and expansion pack sales
No one's said anything about hating it. For me, it's primarily a co-op game, and if they're not going to switch to it, it's better for me to save the cash, and put it towards something else
Really? Because there are plenty of reviews that captured the state of that game at release, and they're generally better at articulating it than the guy who has 1000 hours in a game and calls it "literally unplayable" in a Steam review.
Individual Steam reviews may be trash but the average rating is valuable and usually pretty reliable. The biggest downside of the system is that it isn't quick to "respond" to updates but the separate "Recent" rating helps a lot.
The point you're responding to is that C:S 2 was praised by reviewers at launch despite it having TONS of issues and missing features. The Steam ratings were a way more accurate picture of the game.