Sid Meier's Civilization® VII Reviews

Draconian game. Locks you out even if you're not using WeMod or other game mods on this game - which, to be clear, SHOULD NOT MATTER in the least. You paid for the game, you must be able to decide how you want to play it since you're playing single-player anyway. I have all the Civ Games, including their DLCs. Guess who's never buying a Civ game again?

I regretted pre-ordering, but did not even post a negative review at that time. I thought I'd give them the time to work on the product as they said they would. So far, I've heard it's better, but I'm still seeing the ''console UI on PC'' vibes, which is absolutely horrible to play on PC. This was an even bigger slap in the face, as I never pre-order games. I loved Civ 6 so I gave them a chance. What made me decide to post this negative review however, is the attitude I'm seeing from Firaxis/2K. I know press releases are also for investors, but I am still their customer. I do not think their recent press release is an acceptable response to CIV 7's launch. Launching a special edition is also laughable when your product is still not up to par. So this is why they are now receiving a negative review from me. Who knows when they'll get their game to an acceptable stage. Maybe I'll be back to update my review at that time.

I've been hooked on Civilization since I first played Civ II on a Mac in the late 90s. There have been versions I liked more and ones that didn't excite me quite so much. But thousands and thousands of hours of gameplay over nearly three decades convinced me that this is a quality game series that would always deliver. Then I bought Civ VII and discovered that even a golden goose can lay a steaming turd. DO NOT BUY THIS TURD.

I have been playing Civilization since black and white Civ I on my mac classic. For me, the franchise peaked at Civ 4 - that was the last game where it felt like you were actually building a civilization and creating an empire. Firaxis launched "Civ revolutions" as a casual version of Civ, and Civ 5 and 6 moved the game in that direction - from a 4x game towards more of a tactical war game with city building. This wasn't the worst, and these games still maintained some Civ elements; however, it attracted a player-base that wanted to play a multi-player tactical war game, not a squishy, expansive civilization building game. Civ 7 is the game where multi-player war-gamer players finally took over the game design. I loved the feel of Civ 7 at first, it is beautiful, and feels much more like an old-school Civ game than 5 or 6. But then I hit the first wall - I couldn't build more than 4 cities? That seems kind of arbitrary - why make an explicit limit instead of a mechanic that discourages you from over-expanding early like the earlier games. Then the next wall - I have to pick what "kind" of settlement I want? Again, why make this explicit, instead of just letting me to influence this through my choices? The game seemed to move hard in this direction with every choice - it was like I was deciding my "build" and looking for the best combos instead of "building an civilization that would stand the test of time." Reading some of the interviews with the designers, I realized this was exactly what they had intended. One dev talked about how they had cut down the tech tree from the earlier games, to make your choices down a particular path more straightforward. Another talked about how they had simplified cities and empire management so it wasn't a "slog." Somewhere in the course of these interviews, I realized what had happened. They weren't building a "Civilization" game as I had always understood it. To the Civ 7 folks, building a civilzation was the "slog." They wanted punchy multiplayer combat, and had purposefully reduced the non-combat part of the game to searching for synergies and op builds to beat your friends in multiplayer. So in summary - this is not a Civ game as I have known it. This is a turn-based war game with city building elements. If you are into that kind of thing, it's fine. If you want to build a civilization, this is not the game for you.

I like the game, but I honestly don't have much faith in it ever being redeemed like every other Civilization game, solely because some mechanic as so deeply ingrained into the blood of this game that removing them would leave nothing but a shallow husk. At that point you might as well ask for CIV VIII. Is this game good? Very much so, but I completely understand why some people don't like it whatsoever and why some of them will never try it, even when the expansions eventually release. It's a Civilization game, if you're a longterm fan, then you're probably used to the games being in a semi-complete state until the DLC's come out and make something out of the base game. The problem is that this game is so far from people's expectations that they don't really see it as a Civ game. The developers ripped out a lot of features straight out if a game called Humankind, which itself sits on pretty mixed reviews itself. I tried playing that game in the past; unfortunately, I didn't really enjoy it. It's by the same Developers that made Endless legend, and like Endless legend, the settlement system functioned on a regional basis, every area of the map was a region, and you could only place one city within it, it's a pretty weird approach, but it wasn't the worse thing ever. The cities themselves also function on a grid system, your cities don't remain within the exact tile that you founded them on. That's what Civilization took from them. Whether you think it's because Firaxis really enjoyed the features of Humankind, wanting to try their own vision for it in the hopes of making it better, or simply a greedy attemp of the devs to take this feature for themselves, that's up to you to decide, I'm not a massive pessimist, so I prefer to believr that It wae the former. Did they at least do a good job at it? Absolutely! It feels more interedting than Humankind, The way those tiles expand are also extremely cool, and I like seeing my cities slowly expand, top that up with having actual unique leaders to choose? Chefs kiss. I can play any civilization is so many ways with them! That being said, there's a lot of issues that I don't like, one of them being how compact they made the ages. It's no longer 7 like in Civ V or 9 like Civ VI, it's 3. In their defence, the eras are technically split into two periods each, but it still sucks. They also removed one of the most interesting ideas from Humankind: The Nenolithic Era. Seeing your civilization in a hunter-gatherer setting would have been an intetesting concept, but I digress! They also FORCE you to change civilizations each time an Era ends. Yes, Humankind allowed you to remain as the civilization you were playing. It wasn't good at all, but they still let you do it. Why not expand on that? I don't like this new pessimistic perspective of "each civilization must come to an end" that the devs have been forcing into this game. There's so many countries in the game that could have literally been around in all three eras. I hate pretending that the people magically turn into something else. If you really have to force a civilizational change, then please, add add more civilizations that make sense with one another. Mayan > Incan > Mexican makes zero sense. Some of the reasons for being able to inately choose some Civs, especially with leaders, is also extremely callous. Simon Bolivar can choose France because he was inspired by the French revolution. Okay, sure I guess. But then he can choose Mexico because 'He was born in the Americas'. Do you know how many options you should be able to have with every leader if you're being this specific? Please, if you're going to keep giving love for this game, make the civilizations make sense, China and India (Mostly) are like this, they're a slow and natural progression of their history. That's how everyone else should be, rather than becoming something completely unrelated. Civilization VII also suffers from Western bias as all their other games do. America has 3 leaders, France has 3, Germany has 3. Please, can we at least once get some Slavic representatiom that's not Poland or Russia? Bulgaria came with this dlc, the Turkic version of it, using middle eastern sprites, yet it confusingly uses a Slavic Bulgarian wonder. It's genuinely all over the place. The game forces you into a crisis near the end of an era, you have to choose negative debuffs until the era finally comes to an end, similar to Civ VI, except you're forced to no matter how well you're doing. I think it's extremely lame for me to suffer if i'm doing good. I much prefer how it was in the previous game. Thankfully, they fixed this, you can outright disable it. I still want it to be a part of the game, but make it like it was before! Ending an era also cancels all wars, resets your cities to being towns, which then need to be turned into cities again, change several resources for absolutely no reason, and shufflr your units all over your lands, even disconnecting them from your General. None of this is good barring the war peace out, i don't mind it, but I genuinely don't grasp the logic of the other ones. Sure, i it's a stratrgic resource that's complrtely useless with new tech? Get rid of it. But for anything else, please stop. The music is amazing! The game feels extremely alive, almost all units, even ships have unique animations depending on whether they're raiding, resting, fighting. There's an insane amount of cultural variety compared to the other games, unit skins are very nice to see. I honestly hope we see even more variation in the future, because labeling all of Eurooe as European is kind of dull. But I can't complain much, this is more effort than I expected. Genetals are also amazing, being able to place a small army into one tile is so helpful, It's hard even thinking if ever playing in a dense mountainous area in the older games anymore, that's how bad the general spoiled me. Faith is near non-existant, and the way you form a religion is also kind of weird compared to the other games. You can't even form one until the second Era. Have fun forming Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism in the Late Medieval era! They desperately need to rework faith. The map generation is some of the worst i've seen in a civilization game. I really hope it gets fleshed out. The map envirinments and the addition of cliffs and navigable rivers is an extremely cool edition, but it doesn't matter if the game keeps generating absolute potatos. I want to believe in this game, I know it has potential. I would argue that it could even be the best Civilization game with enough love. But with it's new features being scoffed at by veterans, the the Anti-Woke crowd absolutely losing their mind because they decided to make Harriet Tubman a leader, the game really isn't doing good. 9k people daily. The record numbers on day one were 84.000. That's half as less as CIV VI, 2000 less than Beyond Earth. CIV VI definitely had an advantage with Covid? but that was long after the game released, and I don't think the Higher ups care anyways. The game will be perceived as a massive flop, and despite them promising to give this game love for at least 10 years post releasr, I honestly feel like this is something they will no longer be able to achieve. I want to be wrong, and I'm sure Firaxis does as well. But unless they make two absolutely insane Expansions that can bring both old and new fans, I think those two Expansions might sadly be the last piece of content we see. Do I recommend the game for you? Only if you're willing to approach it both with an open mind and with an understanding of the fact that this game is far from complete. It will still get you stuck in the loop of "just one more turn", but it will also find a lot of ways to frustratr you. Wait for a free weekend or a sale if you're really curious. And set the game speed to the fastest if you're planning to see if you want it or not.

Firaxis was one of my most favorite game studios. I played Sid Meiers games since i was a couple of years old starting off on Civ 1. Played every turned based game released from him (as well as that microsoft flop) and loved every one. But cant understand the decision making process of Civ VII. Dumbing down a game for a loyal player base which expected everything but not that. [h1] The Era System: Regression Disguised as Reinvention [/h1] The era system was a major hit and miss that contributes to all the progression the player made in the previous era. This feels awfully underwhelming. Its clearly designed to flatten the game’s pacing—drains all sense of accomplishment from advancing through the ages. Rather than earning your way through the eras via science, culture, or unique civilizational goals, Civ VII now implements a generic, turn-gated advancement system that feels arbitrary and disengaging. Everyone moves through time at roughly the same rate, regardless of their in-game performance or decisions. This change homogenizes the play experience, eliminating the thrill of racing ahead (or clawing your way back from behind) and turns progression into a slow, bureaucratic drip-feed of underwhelming milestones. Even the aesthetic and mechanical transitions between eras feel muted. Units, city visuals, and technologies evolve with all the drama of a patch update. There’s little sense that your civilization is growing, changing, or even reacting to the times. The game wants to present a smoother, more balanced curve—but in doing so, it sacrifices the very soul of Civ: the joy of historical transformation. [h1] Lack of Identity and Depth [/h1] This era flattening ties into a broader problem with Civ VII: a loss of identity. The game strips back or over-simplifies many systems that used to define your playstyle and strategic thinking. Technologies and civics have been streamlined to the point of blandness. Unique units and buildings feel like cosmetic swaps rather than defining traits. And while the UI is slicker and more modern, it's also worryingly sterile, removing the character and charm that made each Civ feel alive. The developers seemed intent on making Civ VII more "accessible," but in doing so, they’ve diluted the sense of agency and discovery that made each run in previous games feel like your own historical saga. [h1] Final Verdict [/h1] Sid Meier’s Civilization VII is not a disaster, but it’s a profound disappointment. The series that once championed dynamic progression, asymmetrical competition, and rich historical flavor has settled into a bland, feature-thin iteration that feels like it's treading water. The era system, in particular, is emblematic of the game’s broader failings: a misguided attempt at innovation that strips away the magic of watching your civilization rise from humble beginnings to global dominance. [h1] TL:DR [/h1] Fans deserved better. Here’s hoping Civ VIII, if it ever arrives, remembers that history is supposed to be [i] epic. [/i]

I have thousands of hours across every Civ title since Civ 3 and have extremely mixed feelings on 7. [b]The Bad:[/b] [list] [*]I absolutely hate civ switching; I tried giving it a chance, but it practically ruins the experience. I play Civ games to invest in my singular civilization—[i][b]to see one civilization stand the test of time[/b][/i]—not see it be remade every age. If something has to change between ages, it should be leaders, not civs. [*]Age transitions aren't inherently bad; in fact, I think they're a great idea that's just poorly implemented in its current version. [*]Legacy paths feel narrow, restrictive, and need significant work. [*]Religion system feels like an afterthought. [*]Trading needs a revamp. Civ 6 trade was much better. [*]Maps don't feel unique or nearly diverse enough. [*]The UI and Civilopedia need MAJOR work. [/list] [b]The Good:[/b] [list] [*]The artwork is good, striking an acceptable balance between the aesthetics of 5 (which I prefer) and 6. [*]The music is great, particularly Christopher Tin's "Live Gloriously"—the best theme since "Baba Yetu". [*]Combat is massively improved. [*]Commanders are a fun and refreshing addition, enhancing tactical combat while removing simultaneously removing many frustrations. [*]Naval combat finally feels worthwhile. Plus, finally... NAVIGABLE RIVERS! [*]Towns are a fantastic change! (Further iteration on this, like a "resource outpost/village" system, would be great!) Love the prospector unique—wish every civ had one, just enhance the unique American version. [*]Love the inclusion of an economic victory condition. Would be even better with a revamped trade system and more open-ended legacy paths. [*]Meta progression is a great addition that adds some depth and variety between individual games. [/list] [b]Overall:[/b] Aside from civ switching, the bones of the game are good. Updates are slowly moving many things in the right direction, but it's going to take a lot more work. Is it worth playing? I still think so, but would probably recommend waiting for more development. If Firaxis can fix the disjointed ages and find a way to implement playing one civilization from beginning to end, then I think Civ 7 has the potential to be a truly great experience—but it has yet to meet the significant expectations for such a storied franchise. P.S. Bring back the customizable palace! I've missed it tremendously since Civ 3!!

This game is, at best, an mediocre knockoff of a Civ game. For a Civ game, it is head-scratchingly bad. The one thing in this game that is 5 stars is Gwendoline Christie's superb voiceover, and that's likely due to developers minimal involvement (historical quotes). The rest of the game is a mixture of (repeated) wasted efforts, new terms, and concepts that are inexcusably convoluted. Civilopedia is so barren of useful info, that it may as well just say "Google it!". This all suggests three likely motives: 1. Pushing the envelope on "minimal effort/maximum price" (or just excessively cheap) 2. Hubris to think that they could/should reinvent the wheel (no pun intended)-blindly making drastic changes for the foolish sake of change itself 3. A development team that forgot (or never understood) the successful formula for all prior Civ releases. The empires, the leaders, the ages are all shoehorned together is a way that doesn't truly make much sense. Regarding age transitions, the change is a sharp pivot (despite ample warning), rather than the gradual ascension over time that we'd expect to see. Much of what you had or did is erased, negated, or drastically altered-exemplifying what it means to wonder "Why did I waste my time doing ALL of that?". The most insulting of which, is the "52 pickup" you have to do with your troops at the onset of a new age; it can take as much as quarter of your time in an age to transport/reorganize them to something that resembles what you had prior to the "age wipe". The "build-over" is an overrated concept whose relevance is forced and inflated. Then there are the rewards, costs, perks, and penalties...most of which appear randomly imbalanced between cultures, leaders, players, and AI. As a whole, these were pointless changes that seemingly attempt to justify the pointless changes made to the fundamentals of the traditional Civ empire that people enjoyed. The game is not challenging. Instead, it is dumbed-down, stripped of the complexities that allowed (and encouraged) a player to learn how to play smarter, and left us wanting to go back and try the different leaders. Civ 7 has minimized the "passive" educational value found in its (far-superior) predecessors. I tried to play a game all the way through (at least once), in hopes of finding some redeeming aspects that could justify my paying for the deluxe edition. By the beginning of the Modern Age, the game was devoid of any anticipation of fun or interesting challenges. Each turn felt lackluster, and the moves carrying little incentive, intrigue, or consequence; it lacks the immersive structure found in all prior Civ games, and instead encourages a playstyle of doing the bare minimum and just going through the motions. In their attempt to be clever with their creativity, they took away the "porterhouse" of strategy games and replaced it with a fatty "chuck eye" that is dry and tough to chew through. I use this analogy because, this game cannot be fixed just like a poorly cooked steak. I'm sure they'll will continue to dangle small carrot changes to string people along, and that's because a gaming company rarely acknowledges anytime there is egg on their face. I don't think they can overhaul this to anything resembling what we've come to expect from a real Civ game. Instead, I think they'll draw from the "double down" playbook, insistent that they got Civ 7 right the first time, when they should just cut the cord, accepting humility, take the "L", and immediately get to work on making a redeeming Civ 8, that could otherwise come out much sooner than expected. I think the majority of the fan base would gladly forgive them if they succeeded in that effort. I will not pay for this game again, let alone play it for free (if I were given a refund). I hate saying that it's bad, because every prior Civ game crushes it by comparison (during their respective heyday). I can confidently say that Civ 4 through Civ 6 are all still and by far more enjoyable to play today (you might even find Civ 1, 2 or 3 fun too if you have something to play them on). They are also cheaper to buy and feel like a strategy game of this caliber should. If you insist on trying this game, borrow it from a friend. Don't pay for it. It's not worth the shocking disappointment. It stands alone as the worst Civilization release as none of the others are objectively bad-which is why this was shocking-at least for me. Had this been released under a different brand name, and labeled as knockoff of the Civ franchise, my review might have been less scathing, but a knockoff copies off another and hopes they found enough right answers to pass the test. Civ 7, however, already possessed all of the right answers, yet still managed fail-as if they copied from a cheap knockoff. 1 out of 10-would rather eat a tub of shredded paper moistened with vinegar, than start a new game. I'll gladly settle for playing Civ 4, 5, or 6.

Civ 7 starts strong. It looks fantastic, the music is great, and the early turns feel like classic Civ—scouting, expanding, building toward something bigger. I also really like the new city expansion system and commander level features. But then the first era ends… and the game shows its worst flaws. The new era system, in my opinion, is a disaster. Imagine: you’re deep in a war, setting up a massive play—and BOOM, new era! War’s over. Pack it up, boys, history’s on a timer now. No peace deals, no aftermath, just poof. Why? Because a few civs hit some vague legacy goal? Playing “correctly” means ticking off an era progression checklist and negotiating peace at 98%—which feels completely unsatisfying. I often find myself ending the run at one of the era changes because I feel disconnected from my civ’s progression and story. I’ve never once had a “just one more turn” moment in Civ 7. Usually, I’m just relieved it’s over. And that’s the saddest part and the most dramatic departure from Civ 6. There’s still a great game buried under it. I’ve enjoyed most of the time I’ve spent with it—it just gets repetitive fast, and the era changes break the progression. If the devs can rework how eras halt and add a more dynamic era progression list, Civ 7 would be easy to recommend. But as it stands? Civ 7 keeps interrupting itself every time it gets good.

Buyer Beware - Locked out of game play by 2k's FairPlay System. I purchased the £119.99 deluxe edition version of the game when it came out on Steam with full intent to play it fairly. No cheats, no mods, just the based game and the DLC content. However, i was and have been since launch, locked out of launching the game due to 2K's FairPlay enforcement system, which flagged my PC simply because i had unrelated modding tools installed (used for other games). I never modded Civ VII in any way or had plans to. This restriction was not disclosed at the time of purchase, and 2K's support confirmed that unless i removed the modding software (even though it wasn't used in conjunction with Civ VII) they wouldn't let my play the game i legally purchased. 2K refused to escalate the issue and i was initially denied a refund due to an automated policy by Steam. After weeks of persistence and failed launch attempts (the time was flagged as 'playtime'), i was eventually granted a steam wallet refund - only after explaining that i never have actually gotten to access the game. This is more than a technical issue, this is an invasion of digital autonomy. I believe it is completely unacceptable for a game publisher to dictate what software you're allowed to keep on your personal PC, especially when it has nothing to do with the game in question. If you have modding software or game tools on your PC for any reason, you may be blocked from launching Civ VII at all. Proceed with caution. This kind of behaviour from a publisher sets a dangerous precedent. In its current state, i cannot in good conscious recommend this game to anyone who values digital autonomy and due to the extreme lack of support from 2K. Steam, on the other hand, gets a big tick from me for being helpful and easy to deal with. Edit - For transparency, it was WeMod, Nexus Mods, and CurseForge.