Review: Sid Meier's Civilization 7
I was able to get my hands on Sid Meier's Civilization 7, the latest installment in a series known for it's historical sandbox strategy. It is a series that I have many thoughts about, so this might be my lenghtiest review to date. Overall, Civ 7 is an extremely fun game that I already spent so many hours on, but with the issues present at launch, it is not a game that I can stand behind and recommend. Here are my thoughts below:
The Good:
Presentation and artstyle:
The graphics of Civ 7 was certainly an upgrade from it's previous installments, combining the realism from Civ 5 and the city sprawl from Civ 6. The color-coded districts in Civ 6, while identifiable from afar, seemed unnatural to me, and and I'm glad Civ 7 presented us with an organic city composition. Overall, the game's miniature-like style is very appealing to look at.
In terms of presentation, the game has put a lot more effort in highlighting the gravitas of history, with quotes that are specially curated (rather than the comedic ones of certain Civ 6 quotes), to highlight the expansiveness of humanity. It's tone and soundtrack reminiscent to that of Civ 5.
Same formula of addictive gameplay:
A guranteed staple of the Civ series is that "one more turn" addictive gameplay that leaves you hooked and wanting to play more of the game. Despite my many gripes for this game, I would still say that this game is fun and engaging to play. I do not know how to explain this point further beyond "It's just fun".
Diversity in Civilizations:
Representation has long been a cornerstone of the Civ series, it's ability to gauge the interest of it's players to read more about underrated facets of history is an iconic staple. It is largely thanks to Civ that I learned about cultures such as the Scythians, Malians and Mapuche, and other miscellaneous topics such as Medina quarters, Pax Britannica, Sihkism and so much more. Civ 7, at launch comes with 31 civilizations with the most diverse roster in it's history, containing the mainstays such as America, Egypt and Rome, with wildcard picks from previous installments such as Inca, Khmer, and Siam, and entirely new civs such as the Shawnee, Buganda, and Aksum. "De-blobbing" has long been a contentious issue for the representations of various civs with drastic changes in it's real-life history, especially for China, India and Germany. The Civ series has long struggled to encapsulate the diverse history of these entire civs, and if often leads to broad generalizations in culture, such as India's ability in Civ 5 being awfully named "Population Growth" or China's ability being "Dynastic Cycles" in Civ 6. Civ 7 tackles this issue in a unique way, seperating India and China into separate dynasties, each with different sets of abilities and affinities.
It is not just the diversity, but rather the creative approaches into how these civilizations are depicted is what earns my praise in this aspect. In some ways, their depictions feel historically authentic and weel-rounded yet also providing unique gameplay mechanics that add to the game. Take France for example, where in past games, France has always been depicted as a purely cultural civilization, in Civ 7, France is still the same cultural powerhouse, but it now comes equiped with significantly more militant and diplomatic abilites, in reference to the Frances military dominance in Europe and worldwide during the 18th and 19th century. I love how these historical details are reflected into gameplay and I do look forward to what new civs will be added in the future.
An evolution in combat and war:
Combat takes a fresh new approach in Civ 7, with the introduction of commander units, which are an extended version of the great generals from previous games. Individual units can no longer be upgraded or gain promotions, but instead, that feature is now relegated to commanders, which also come with a myriad of abilites that makes combat more exciting and dynamic. The possibilities are endless, you can specialize your commanders for many situations such as sieges, assaults, and defenses, with further specialization on certain unit types. There are also commander abilities that can be useful for times of peace as well, such as improving surrounding yields and fortifications. Outside of commanders, warfare is also transformed with new and returning abilities as well, such as building lookouts, setting traps and fire on certain tiles.
On the visual side of it, I'm glad the army size count returned back to Civ 5 proportions, where it appears as though your army is vast and numerous. I also like the battle animations as well, it is realistic and engaging to watch every time.
The Mixed:
Civ-Switching:
Perhaps the most controversial change in this game is the Civ-switching mechanic, where akin to Humankind, players must choose another civ when transitioning to another era. Of course this can lead to natural civ evolutions such as Rome>Spain>Mexico, and Han>Ming>Qing, but also some cursed combinations such as my first playthrough, Greece>Abbassids>Mexico. Having played Humankind, I too, was skeptical of this change, as I did not like the feature.
However, Civ 7 approaches this in a more reasonable and palattable approach, using both narratives and gameplay to limit your choices and make it somewhat believable. Certain civs unlock others in the next era due to historical connections, (Such as various dynasties or successor states), or regional proximity. You can also unlock civs through gameplay, such as having three coastal settlements or reconquer a former city, but I find those to either be purely situational or random.
Leader-Civ separation and leader choice variety:
The leader roster for Civ 7 is certainly a mixed bag, comprising of returning leaders from earlier games (Ashoka, Hatshepsut, Fredreich), with a noticeable majority from Civ 5 (Augustus, Isabella, Napoleon), and non-heads-of-state, (Confucius, Machiavelli, Harriet Tubman), with the latter being a major pivot in the philosophy of leader choices. I like this approach, as it reasonably pairs well with the seperation of civs and leaders. In Civ 7, leaders no longer represent a national or cultural identity, but instead a certain archetype or philosophy (Isabella, for example, is no longer synonymous with Spain, but rather the theme of exploration and exploitation, or Ashoka no longer representing India, but instead the philosophy of penitent pacifism). I think this is both a good and a bad thing, but mostly bad in a way that it takes away the uniqueness of the leaders. But on the gameplay side of things, I could see a potential of mixing and matching leaders and civs, in order to make optimized playstyles.
The base game leader roster definitely feels the weakest out of any other civ base game, where it somehow feels very barebones, despite having the most leaders and diversity at launch than any civ game. But my gripes is not about the leader choices, but rather the diversity in playstyles. In Civ 7, leaders are grouped into certain attributes that define their gameplay (scientific, militarist, economic, to name a few), with 11 out of 27 leaders being militaristic, there is definitely much needed variety in terms of playstyles. I suspect that as more leaders get introduced in future content, this point might be elavated to a positive rather than a mixed one.
City management:
City management undergoes a major overhaul in Civ 7, with the removal of builders/workers, manual border expansion, and placing of individual buildings, I feel like city management has become too tedious and annoying once you have atleast three or four of them. One new change I do like is that border-growth is now correlated to population growth, unlike previous games, which use culture, a nice and somewhat realistic depiction of historical border growth. The meticulous planning and foresight required to manage your cities on a tile-by-tile and building-by-building basis adds a whole new level of strategy, but it often feels like a distraction in the grand scheme of things, and I find it tiresome and repetitive.
Rogue-like mechanics:
.png)
When viewers were able to observe hints of a meta-progression system in Civ 7, many were right to worry about the implications of this, given 2K's history with such things. Much to everyone's relief, it was not a battlepass system or any other system that uses FOMO, but instead the "mementos" system. Similar to roguelikes where one might create optimized builds for a certain run, mementos allow you to equip additional abilites, mostly unlocked through gameplay, in order to steer your game in a particular path. For one, this seems very interesting, but on the other, I find it tiring to grind to unlock certain ones.
The Bad:
The User interface:
The user interface of this game is downright horrendous, and is probably the reason why much of the score for this is much lower than what I'd like for it to be. A mixture of bad formating, lack of available information, and a terrible notification system were all things that I had trouble with during my first few games. There are times where I refrained from several decisions because the UI ws difficult to keep up with. There needs to be a better way to accurately track my victory progress or provide better information so that I could make the right decisions. Most egregious of this has to with the modern age's economic victory, which the game provides no clear indicator of whether or not cities are connected by rail. The Unit icons are very small, and very difficult to track the health. Overall, the UI is bad, and this needs to be the number one priority that needs to be fixed.
Map script:
The map generation of this game leaves much to be desired, with inorganic landmasses and island alignments. There are times where I encountered unnaturally straight coastlines and islands that perfectly line up. It's a George RR. Martin-esque map script that is significantly worse than previous games, I do not understand why they have to downgrade when Civ 6 has already has the perfect map script.
Bugs:
Civ 7, as of right now, is swarming with bugs that make certain elements of the game unplayable. These bugs include certain abilities and achievements not functioning properly, buildings not being able to be built, and yields not being reported. There is times where the audio is missing, assets failing to load, or the number turns it takes to produce something is inaccurate. Because of these bugs alone, I cannot justify a score above average.
Crises mechanic and age transitions:
My biggest gripes gameplay-wise are these two features: crises, and the transition period between ages. Crises are the inevitable events that occur near the end of each age, whether they be plagues, revolutions, or barbarian invasions. In theory, these events are large-scale disasters that affect multiple civilizations, testing your adaptability. However, these events are simply forced maluses that are very inorganic, unecessarily disrupting gameplay and even setting back victory progress.
Futhermore, I get the intention that each age is supposed to act like a seperate game, but how Civ 7 approaches it, especially near the end and beginning, seems very inefficient. Your city-state allies will be gone the next era, and your relationships also reset, (with some carryover from the previous age), and your cities revert back to towns by default. I have had allies suddenly declare war on me by the next age. Additionally, wars near the end of the age do not matter as well, as they automatically resolve once an age ends. There is work that needs to be done in this aspect, and I'm glad that recent patch notes have addressed some of this.
Missing and watered-down features:
Civ 5 and Civ 6, at default, has a maximum of 20 players in a game. Civ 6's largest map size is 106*66 hexes. Civ 7 only has a maximum of 8 players, with it's largest map size being 84*54 hexes. Civ 7 is devoid of that "one more turn" post-game feature as you cannot continue a game once it ends. The game will come to a halt once any victory is achieved, or when an era comes to an end. So many other features are reduced as well, such as religion, government, and loyalty. There are no post-game statistics, or the features as basic as map tacks and renaming units and cities. It is a downgrade and feels like a sandbox game with a small box and little sand.
Incomplete roster and glaring omissions:
Despite my praise for the diversity of the civilization and leader roster, I feel that Firaxis has made a arbritary and self-imposed limit that leads to glaring omissions in the roster. For the first time ever, England/Britain, and the Aztecs, were not part of the base game, nor any ancient mesopotamian civilization. Not to mention, there are civilizations without their corresponding leaders (Maya, Greece, Mongolia...), and there are leaders without civilizations (Trung Trac, Jose Rizal, Amina). Also, I am so surprised that there is no Greek philosopher in the leader roster. This is not me complaining that certain things are not present in the game for representation reasons, but rather because content developed alongside the base game are relagated to DLC at an extra cost, especially in the case of Great Britain, which was pushed into DLC.
Leader screens and diplomacy:
The leader screen feels like an amalgamation of Civs 4, 5, and 6, containing the minimalism of Civ 4, the dated graphics of Civ 5, and the expressiveness of Civ 6. I really miss the immersion of Civ 5's leader backgrounds, and that was one of my wishlists for Civ 7, but I was dissapointed by the Mortal Kombat-esque leader screen where it looks like you are selecting characters to fight. It also feels less immersive to see the opponent's leader facing and addressing your leader rather than to you, the player. I feel like this is something that might take a while to get used to, but for now, I'm not a fan.
As for the for the diplomacy features themselves, it is very bare, as a decent amount of Civ's staple diplomatic options (trading resources and cities, making promises, and managing third-party powers) are taken away. Your options are basically limited to yield boosts, denouncements, open borders, and war. Not a lot of flexibility.
Monetization Structure:
If you want the full package at launch, the game costs $129.99, at it's cheapest, it is $69.99, it is certainly a steep price for what I feel is incomplete and unpolished. The pricing of the DLC seems too expensive with the small amount of content one might expect to get from DLC, where an extra $60, (and mind you, this is roughly the price of TWO Civ 6 expansions) gets you only 8 civilizations and eight leaders, with four of those being literal reskins of existing leaders, no gameplay features. It sets a dangerous and predatory precedent and I do not look forward to this.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment