Sid Meier's Civilization VII

If you use modding tools for ANY game on your system, not even this one, you can now no longer play this game. Let me clarify, if you are not even using modding tools on this game, but have them on your system, it will not let you run this game.

The game is not bad but i don't understand the age system. 1 minute you play as the Greece empire then you play as another empire. I don't know what the devs are thinking, i want to play as 1 civilization from old up to modern times.

What a disappointment. After investing hundreds of hours into this game, I’ve come to the disappointing realisation that I was fooling myself into thinking it was great. In truth, I was in denial, unwilling to admit that the developers had taken it in a direction that simply doesn’t work. The introduction of the era system feels like a forced gimmick, likely designed to justify selling a “new” experience. But in practice, it resets the entire game every time, stripping away the sense of progression that makes strategy games so rewarding. The constant shift in leaders and civilisations feels arbitrary and breaks immersion. Many buildings feel pointless to construct because their value quickly becomes obsolete in the next era. I could go on for pages about what’s wrong, but honestly, I’d rather not waste more time. I’ve gone back to playing Civ 6, which is vastly superior in terms of depth and replayability. The only thing this game truly excels at is its visuals. It’s absolutely stunning. But beautiful graphics can’t save a broken design.

I'm going in a different direction. If you want negatives, they're well documented. Here are ten things I like about Civ 7 from a novice/medium player. 1, Map Resources. I think adding resources to the map, being able to distribute them to different towns/cities is a fun addition, like a mini game. I find myself attempting to best utilize their bonuses and engaging with them more frequently than previous iterations of the game. 2. Leader Progression. I like unlocking abilities for each leader and how those abilities can be stacked and/or combined to create new strategies. 3. Ships on rivers. Simple, but fun addition. 4, Land/Naval combat. Totally reinvented. More engrossing/tactical, especially with the addition of Generals and Admirals. Best to date, imo. 5. Interaction with Independent City States and their benefits can be truly beneficial, not tacked on. having five choice to choose from after befriending them adds depth/strategy. 6. Interacting with other Civs is way more engaging, from espionage to alliances to counter spying. 7. Music. Always great. 8. I don't mind the Legacy Paths. In fact, I appreciate them. I'm not an expert at the game, so it may be more of a personal thing. But I like having some goals. I view it as a race. 9. Ages. Controversial, I know. But I like them. I agree that they need to be smoothed out, less abrupt. But I', an adult gamer, so I can say, today I'm progressing through antiquity. Leaders progress, xp earned. Then, come the next day and play Exploration, etc. I find myself finishing more games. 10. Win conditions feel more engaging. Finding artifacts, building railroads, launching a space ship. *Honorary Mention. It plays really well on Steam Deck. I think Firaxis will only continue to improve Civ 7. People who say it's dead have no idea what they're talking about (look at Cyberpunk 2077). Maybe wait until it's a few buck cheaper. But I think there's hope.

Hyperaggressive anti-cheat kernel module on a single player game? Really? Flagging dev tools too? So I guess mods will be a no go as well. Refunded.

always been a fan of sid meier civilization from the beginning of time . 1400 hours on civ 6 .........by far it was my favorite so i was excited to play civ 7 however i don't like the changes to the serie . the whole point of civilization is to take your civ to the stand of time battling wars, plagues, economic crisis, etc... but here you have 3 era..........your leader is not necessary your civ and worst you have to change your civ once the era change so i start with India, but midgame i turn out to be mongolia, and finally japan? on top of it . i was fighting another civilization . surrounded their capital, their capital was about to fall . just a matter of a few turns ....... boom . change of era.........and now what? all my armies are split . outside of my enemy's border and i am not even at war with them its like we were in a middle of a battle and overnight we forwarded 100 years and changed era units style and i have to do it all over again if i have to conquer my neighbour does it make sense to you? because to me IT DOESN'T !!! that does not make any sense to me . like you start with india, your units look like indian fighter and then the era change and boom .....its like you decided to switch civ alltogether legacy path...........basically quests ...........you need to do this to get this ......... where is my freedom of choice that i had in the other civ ? in the past if you plan to do a culture victory or religious you could change and go for a science victory etc but here you NEED to do the legacy path to get legacy point to spend later on. your CHOICE is gone ........... for me you end up losing your identity, and if i wanted to play a game with quest i would play something else very disappointed i give it a good try 148 hours 33 last 2 weeks because of the latest update yes sure they fixed some issues but the core gameplay is ruined because some idiot decided to change a formula that does not need to be changed did i mention that modern era last era has no jets? no nukes? why? probably because top executive plan to release dlc to complete this unfinished mess and hope to grab a few more $ from us i think top executive in video games publisher should be fired if they proudly say they are not gamers we can tell, we gamers can tell when your executive care only about $ and end up ruining a franchise ..... i think i will delete civ 7 for now and re install civ 6 ......... will be waiting to see if civ 7 gets some update and some things change but frankly i am not hopeful

As long as Denuvos system is running for singleplayer mode this game goes to the trashbin.

It's just plain not fun. The way they've fractured the game into a few eras, forcing you to change civs every time. It just ruins the immersion, it feels like the city and army building is pointless as you lose troops when changing eras and your cities revert to towns every era. It looks pretty but all of the gameplay seems to abandon all that I loved about civ games. I was extremely excited for this release but couldn't be more disappointed with the results.

It's a good game, but imo, the biggest issue is that the ages systems makes it feel like three games in one, with each age sort of being disconnected from the other. For example, cities in one age will revert back to towns in the next, religion only plays a role in the Exploration Age and if you were suzerain of the independent powers, you lose that status in the next age. If they were to resolve this, make the game more fluid and connected between the ages, then it could fix a lot of the issues.

The game is fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed. I preordered this game and seriously regret it, its such a shame because I thought Firaxis wouldn't be like other devs and release a half baked product, but they have. I have 700 hours on Civ6 and like 400 hours on Civ 5, and I do not think I will be exceeding 100 on this. The core issue is the ages system, which is such a core mechanic in the game that I do not think they can remove it, but I actually cannot complete a game anymore. I enjoy the antiquity age, but as soon as that end of age screen comes up I can't continue, it entirely ruins the flow that Civ has been known for. I have managed to get into the exploration and force myself to complete a game, but I just find the victory conditions to be just box ticking exercises - how fun! (s) Other reviews go into much more detail on this, I could go on but honestly I will just be repeating what others have already said. Such a disappointment :(

I've played on Civ since number 2 and fell in love with it ever since and persevered with the various bugs in each game, particularly number 6. So I was mega excited to be buying this one! Well ... consider me disappointed. The main thing that stands out is the three different ages. I've tried and tried to get used to it but it just doesn't work. And takes far more away from the game than it adds. But there's also little annoyances. For example, I've noticed an Ai player will only ever ask for an alliance in order to pull me into a war in the very next turn. You say no and their enemy asks you and so on and so on. So the diplomatic part needs help. There also a feeling that the speed of the game is just broke, due to the three ages, once the first age is done - you are done with everything in that age, you can't continue etc it feels like a reset. When you do reset into the next age, your capital city remains a city and everything else reverts to a town, meaning all the gold you spent on getting them to city status was half wasted. There is of course still the little bit of magic in the game that keeps you clicking next turn. But after 150plus hours of game time, I'm ready to uninstall ... which is disappointing considering I spent 3000 hours on CIV5 and 2000 hours on CIV6!

Currently (June 2025) this is an early access game with no disclaimer and a full-game price. Wait a year or two.

Almost forgot I bought this game even though it's only been a few months. I've been playing Civ for over 20 years now. Civ 7 is a completely forgettable entry into the Civ series. It's amazing to me that after all this time Firaxis insists on making Civ games with the most easily manipulated AI in the strategy game genre. The sense of challenge is what makes or break a good 4X game and yet they insist on reinventing the wheel instead of polishing and perfecting what they got. If I can get to the end of a game, completely steamroll the AI on deity, and then completely forget I've played the game a few months later, I'm just not spending any more time on it no matter what DLC come out, even with how nostalgic I am for the series. Until I read the words, "This is the smartest and most challenging AI ever made for a Civ game", I'm done with Firaxis and this entire franchise.

Unfortunately took me 8 hours to figure out this game is not worth purchase, dont be me and waste 8 hours of time or 100.00 on this absolute trash. I am quite certain I have never made a negative review in my life so congrats to Firaxis on that accomplishment.

At just over five months since launch, the base game has $85 worth of DLC of which is required to expand the pitifully small and uninspiring cast of leaders and civilizations. There's many more meticulous men and women than who can expound the other QoL, UIX, and more issues with the overall experience. So I will keep it short. This game, and its leadership, deserve to fail. The only plausible situation is that a hostile civilization's spies infiltrated Firaxis and 2k to sabotage the game. Our only hope is creating an AI complex enough to give us Civ 8, the true Scientific Victory.

Civ switching was just a horrible design flaw. I really liked the game until that point. Love some of the new concepts regarding about how you develop your cities. It would have been a thumbs up if you kept the same civilization and it just had three dramatic era changes, but changing your civilization twice each game... nope, never playing again. I would love to know how this got approved by the design team. Change simply for the sake of change and nothing anyone ever wanted or should have been predicted to like.

It's disappointing. Mostly just find it boring. I have over 900 hours into Civ VI. I'm having trouble keeping Civ VII open for longer than an hour. I wish I could get my money back

Liked this game. Interface is awful, hard to understand many things, especially after 1000+ hours in civ 6. a lot of things are not on the screen. The gameplay feels really fresh, population system is very fun. At first i thought that civ without builders is very weird but no, it's good. I Did not like the army system, seems very easy and boring because of the generals but it helps to manage a lot of units in the end of the game. The golden age system is fun, but harder than in civ 6 (and i like it). Graphics is perfect, but this game still needs to be developed and updated. I'd recommend you to add a game mode when you play the same leader and civ from the first era, because i hated the change. It's very weird when Ben Frankil plays as Rome, Spain or France. 6.5/10. (Sorry for my grammar, english is not my native language)

Long time Civ fan, and can remember playing earlier titles on my friends Xbox and PC as a kid. CIV 7 IS good, I have now roughly 110 hours on record. The game changed alot of things from the earlier editions with the eras, which was controversial. BUUT it solved the #1 problem most people have in multiplayer games of never finishing a full game. Which my friend and I can attest to, playing civ 5+6 it was a slog to finish most games, because they took forever and wed forget our win strategies or plans or scheduling conflicts would occur. So that has been a huge improvement. The graphics and animation are FANTASTIC. Smooth and gorgeous maps that show great detail and no longer cartoony animated looking soldiers made up of 4 guys supposedly representing an army. The towns and cities mechanic makes it interesting to be careful where you expand and which towns you elevate to a city as it gets more expensive. Now to the Bad, as the critics have pointed out, the UI is rough. Things that were BASIC features in prior games going back to CIV 4 that werent here. Like the Autoexplore option, or the delete unit option (yes i know, you can delete them if they are back in your territory) But if you have units exploring that get trapped or cant escape your made to suffer everyturn clicking do nothing or sleep until they are killed or freed, which is usually never until the next era. Simple but basic, alot of bugs are apparant but thats to be expected in any new game, still alot for a game thats now 4 months after launch. They just added a button to finaly upgrade all units in a fleet or army so progress (Hence why I still reccommend the game) Last chief complaint is the lack content thats still missing post launch. theres alot of Civs to pick from, but apparent that there was some basic ones still missing that have been present in most titles, again they just added the United Kingdom/British empire but are missing ones like the Dutch, korea, Iran, portugal, australia, canada, mexico the aztecs holy roman empire, etc. I feel that the devs may have needed a bit extra time to fix the glaring issues that were present at launch, but the game is still good. Right now if they fix the issues and add some more civs/leaders they game would be GREAT. and it probably will be as most CIV titles come out ok and get DLC to improve it way past the mark. As it stands right now, the game is good, but nothing more and needs work, I would still reccomend it but warn that it will need a bit to fully surpass CIV 6.

If they replace the age and legacy system with what we had in the every other civ edition, then I might consider coming back and changing this.

TLDR Version: Zwei zentrale Designfehler ruinieren ein ansonsten technisch starkes Spiel. Trotz toller Performance, schöner Grafik und spannender Ideen wird Civilization VII durch ein seelenloses UI und ein erzwungenes, unausgereiftes Zeitaltersystem ausgebremst. Besonders letzteres reißt den Spielfluss regelmäßig komplett auseinander – inklusive erzwungenem Nationenwechsel bei jedem Übergang. In der aktuellen Form: leider nicht empfehlenswert. Detailierte Kritik: Als jemand, der seit Civilization II dabei ist und Hunderte Stunden in jeden einzelnen Teil gesteckt hat, tut es mir weh, das zu schreiben – aber Civilization VII ist aktuell eine der größten Enttäuschungen der Serie. Positives: +++ Karten-Design: Die Map ist atemberaubend schön, detailverliebt und flüssig. Selbst der „Nebel des Krieges“ sieht fantastisch aus, und das aufdecken des selbigen macht aufgrund des visuellen Feedbacks, dern man beinahe taktil erfühlen kann richtig Spass. +++ Performance unter Linux: Läuft wie ein Traum. Deutlich schneller als unter Windows. Ladezeiten sind absurd kurz, das Spielgefühl butterweich. +++ Einige Gameplay-Features (z. B. Nationenwechsel bei Age Transition) sind gut gemeint und teils interessant umgesetzt. +-+- Interessante Idee die Nationenleader zu leveln. Hat was. Stand 28.06.2025: Mit den letzten Patches wurden bereits einige sinnvolle Verbesserungen vorgenommen. Aber dann kommt das große Aber: --- Das UI ist eine Katastrophe: Steril, seelenlos, klickintensiv, unübersichtlich. Kein Vergleich zu den früheren Teilen. Selbst Civ II auf Windows 95 hatte ein funktionaleres UI. Die Designlinie des Logos – eine Mischung aus Steampunk und Imperiumsluxus – wird im Spiel komplett ignoriert. Das hätte ich gerne gesehn im UI, besonders cool wäre gewesen wenn das UI sich gewandelt hätte mit Civilisation und/oder Zeitalter. Schade um das Potenzial. So ist es leider nur Konsolencatering (No hate gegen Konsolenspieler by the way) was in einem Drögen, leblosen und Informationsbefreiten UI Geendet ist. --- Age Transition ist ein Spielkiller. Das neue Zeitalter-System fühlt sich aufgesetzt, forciert und unausgereift an. Kein Schalter, um es zu deaktivieren. Warum? Wer es nicht mag, muss es trotzdem spielen. Spielerautonomie: null. Es nimmt einem Mid Game völlig den wind aus den Segeln, man freut sich nicht mehr auf die Age-Transition, man fürchtet sich davor. Furchtbare design entscheidung. Die Möglichkeit, bei jedem Age Transition die Nation zu wechseln, ist eigenartig und fühlt sich irgendwie nicht richtig an. Vorallem weil man teils nationen wählen kann, die nichts miteinander gemein haben. Die intention hinter der Mechanik ist mir durchaus bekannt, ich versteh es. Man möchte bei den Age Transitions ein "Even Playingfield" erschaffen, das es Spielern die nicht im lead sind ermöglicht auzuholen. Nur leider saugt das momentane System den Spass aus dem Spiel. Ja bei Civ 6 wurden viele Mehrspieler Partien frühzeitig abgebrochen, weil es sich anfühlte, dass der lead nie eingeholt werden konnte. Aber da wäre es schlauer gewesen dem lead einen Malus aufzudrücken für den restlichen Spielverlauf, anstatt allen eins mit dem Holzhammer über zu Braten. Ich will kein Hater sein – bin ich auch nicht. Ich erkenne die guten Punkte an, aber das UI und das erzwungene Zeitaltersystem haben bei mir so viel Spielspaß gekillt, dass ich nicht mehr weiterspielen will, obwohl technisch und optisch vieles stimmt. Civ VII fühlt sich an wie ein solides Spiel, das an zwei zentralen Stellen so danebenliegt, dass es den gesamten Rest überschattet. Wenn das UI grundlegend überarbeitet und das Age-System optional gemacht wird, ändere ich diese Review gerne. Ich will dieses Spiel mögen. Aber aktuell: Nicht empfehlenswert. Spielt einen der älteren CIV Teile und Spart euch das Geld. ===================================================================== ENGLISH ===================================================================== TL;DR Version: Two major design flaws ruin what is otherwise a technically impressive game. Despite strong performance, beautiful visuals, and some genuinely interesting ideas, Civilization VII is held back by a soulless UI and a forced, underdeveloped era system. The latter regularly breaks the game’s flow – including a mandatory nation switch with every age transition. As it stands: not recommended. Detailed Critique: As someone who’s been playing Civilization since Civ II and has spent hundreds of hours with every single entry in the series, it hurts me to say this – but Civilization VII is, at present, one of the biggest disappointments in franchise history. Positives: +++Map design: Absolutely stunning. Visually rich, fluid, and filled with detail. Even the fog of war looks gorgeous, and uncovering the map gives you a sense of tactile feedback that’s genuinely satisfying. +++Linux performance: Runs like a dream. Way faster than on Windows. Load times are practically nonexistent, and the overall gameplay is butter-smooth. +++Some gameplay features, like the idea of shifting nations during age transitions, are interesting and show potential. +-+-Leveling up leaders is a nice touch. Adds personality and a light RPG feel. As of June 28, 2025: Some recent patches have already addressed a few key issues in meaningful ways. But then come the major issues: --- The UI is a disaster: Sterile, soulless, click-heavy, and confusing. No comparison to earlier entries. Even Civ II on Windows 95 had a more functional interface. The game's logo hints at a steampunk/imperial-luxury aesthetic, which is completely absent in the game’s actual design. A UI that evolves along with your civilization and age would have been amazing – but instead we get generic console-friendly blandness (no hate to console players, by the way). The result feels lifeless and devoid of meaningful information. --- The Age Transition system is a game killer: The new age mechanic feels tacked on, forced, and clunky – and there’s no way to disable it. Why not? If you don’t like it, you’re still stuck with it. Player agency: zero. It wrecks the midgame pacing. You don’t look forward to the transition; you dread it. The required nation switch at every age change is strange and never feels quite right – especially when you can end up with civilizations that have nothing in common. Yes, I get the intention. It’s meant to level the playing field, to give players who are behind a way to catch up – a known issue in Civ VI multiplayer matches where early leads often led to snowballing. But this system drains all joy from the game. A better solution would’ve been to apply a scaling penalty to the leading player, rather than hitting everyone with a hammer and resetting progression. I’m not here to hate – I really want to like this game. And I can see the good parts clearly. But the UI and the forced era system kill so much of the fun that I just don’t want to keep playing, even though technically and visually the game shines in many areas. Civ VII feels like a solid game buried under two fundamental design decisions that drag everything else down with them. If the UI gets a major overhaul and the age system becomes optional, I’ll happily update this review. I want to love this game. But right now? Not recommended. Play one of the older Civ titles and save your money.

The parts of Civ 5 and 6 that I enjoyed [to the tune of over 6000 combined hours] was the ability to prioritise exploration, lateral growth, and growth over time. I could build up my own narrative to accompany the growth of my own cities and the evolution of my own choices, again over time. I don't know what this game is, and it may not be a bad game, but it is not a Civ game. To echo one of the YouTubers, this is an Excel spreadsheet masquerading as a Civ game.

I took a chance on this game thinking: "how bad could it really be?" It's REALLY BAD given the price. It's mostly playable, but feels like Beta testing. It may eventually be a great game, but they clearly rushed it to launch to start raking in that $70/copy. Strongly recommend you just play Civ 6 and wait at least another 6-12 months to see if Firaxis/2k are interested in shipping a finished product. A few lowlights: 1) I was actually interested in the new Ages system, and thought people were just too wedded to the first Civ games. But it's actually as bad as everyone is saying. I'm all for new Age mechanics-- maybe resetting resources, different quests, different strategies to succeed by Age... but why would I be forced to switch entire Civilizations? How is Rome still my Capital when I'm now playing as Spain? The ONLY possible explanation for this insanity is that it enabled them to add more civs and sell more DLCs later. Otherwise it's inexplicable. 2) There's no in-game explanation for many of the mechanics, so be prepared to live on Google and Reddit if you actually want to understand any of the new things going on. And it's a lot, because this is very different from previous Civ games as others have stated. Could have been a good thing except it's a TERRIBLE tutorial/advisor mechanic. 3) Basic functionality and QoL/UI components are missing. One of many examples: there's no way to see a list of your units. 4) A lot of the in-game explanations are clearly unfinished, and some are so confusing and poorly worded (English language version) that... see #5 below. 5) I would be SHOCKED if they have professional play testers on staff. It's understandable that game designers can't see their own blindspots pre-launch, but that's why Alpha/Beta testing is a thing, or why you hire it in-house. Clearly they didn't build this into their roadmap. 6) Also... I've quit the game three times so far, and all three generated "Firaxis crash reports". At least they're consistently bad. In summary: wait 6-12 months and it COULD be a great game. Way too unfinished/frustrating to spend even $20 on right now. And honestly it's not even the money, it just feels shameful that a major studio/IP feels like this is acceptable, taking advantage of a loyal fanbase's devotion to a series by releasing something so half-baked. Rant over, you've been warned.

Game is an utter disappointment. They got too far away from the concept of the Civilization franchise we all enjoyed and tried to replicate too much Humankind which turned out to be awful to say the least. I have put this down after 2 campaigns after release and every time a patch comes out i review the notes but still not enough has been done to fix this trash game. I don't think it can be fixed at this point. Save your money.

this shit is ass, so many menus and decisions while the UI looks like placeholders the game uses so many ideas (pandemics, civ focuses, civics, diplomacy, city states, etc.) but none of them feels fully developed or like they work with each other graphics and battle animations are nice tho

You are not allowed to choose victory conditions. If you like nuking other civs, there are no thermonuclear weapons instead the completion of operation ivy is a victory condition. Modern Era wars are one of the best parts of the game and they have been really limited. Just stick with Civ 5 or 6 for now.

Civ is my favorite gaming franchise. I've been playing it since Civ 2 and lost countless days and nights as a child telling myself beautiful stories about the empires I was building and destroying. No other series has brought me more joy. Because of this love I have for the franchise, I can safely say that I have never hated a game more than I hate Civ 7. I have played worse games, sure—but I have never had my heart so thoroughly broken by one. I've only played 7 hours, and so far everything I’ve encountered has either insulted my intelligence, made me feel stupid, destroyed my suspension of disbelief, confused me, or outright disgusted me. I can’t go into full detail because it’ll make me lose my shit, so here are just a few examples from the first 10 minutes of a recent desperate attempt to enjoy myself: Can’t mouse over unique buildings or wonders (e.g. Songhai, Sanchi Stupa) in the leader selection screen Mementos system is bloated and indistinguishable; no guidance on picking useful ones Tutorial tooltips block all mouseover functionality, breaking the UI Tooltips in general are broken or missing—it feels like the game wants you to alt-tab constantly just to function Graphics barely look better than Civ 6, and massive UI design failures ruin the gameplay, making it impossible to distinguish buildings, units, or options So I'm done. I won't be playing this game anymore. I won't wait for patches or updates because honestly I think it's so terrible that it's truly unfixable. They took a wonderful franchise - one focused on creating a fascination with storytelling, history, warfare, human culture and science - and turned it into a giant, tedious, ugly brown mess. Like the worst board game I've ever tried to decipher, but I'm playing it all on my own. One of the saddest gaming experiences of my life.

During my teacher's training, a strong piece of advice was that you don't always need to reinvent the wheel when designing a lesson. Firaxis hasn't heard of this yet. Pro's: - Good music - Commanders reduce unneeded unit micro - graphics are noticeably better than Civ VI Cons: - voice acting is quite boring - progressing an age acts as a soft reset. A lot of building effects are strongly reduced and you armies are deleted and replaced by fewer units of that age. - combat animations only last until you pass turn. - the age mechanic feels clunky, unnatural and overal poorly implemented - There are no clear historical age choices for many civs. The game only has Meji japan, but no Yamatai Japan (cfr. Himiko) or Ashikaga/Tokugawa Japan. This breaks any possible immersion. In addition, recommending an entirely different civ becuase it was "on the same continent" feels like throwing salt in a wound. - ages get progressively more complex and somehow boring as you go on. - Resource management for cities is incredibly tedious - There are no counters for national disasters, e.g. rivers flood, but you'll never be able to build a dam. This was present in civ VI, so there's no excuse for not implementing it here. Aside from the game, the marketing was incredibly deceptive. When you pre-ordered the founder's edition, you were promised to recieve the first 2 DLC's for free in return for 120EUR. What's in these DLC? A few leaders, nothing more. There are many more points but the overal effect of this is that you have to convince yourself to continue playing and - after a while - even start a new game. When this is the case, there's a severe problem with the game. I've had the game since early release and I simply can't bring myself to play a minute more. It's not that I don't enjoy civilization. I've played since civ IV, including Beyond Earth. All of them simply eclipse Civ 7 in quality. I sincerely hope Firaxis turns this around. Civ 7 was hyped beyond belief, but right now it's been the biggest disappointment of the entire franchise. Conclusion: come back to this store page in 2 years and see if it's improved at all. If it has, great! If it hasn't, I'm sorry but I'd recommend skipping this civ game. Score: 2/10

This game is unfinished mess, slapped together with ideas from other 4X games and totally lousy mobile gacha games UI. Far far FAR from the level of previous CIV games. I don't think it is salvageable, at least not without going back on fundamental game design decisions. But overall, I would like to thank the whole Civ VII development team - because of them I will not preorder another game in my life. Probably saved me decent amount of money down the line.

My first Civ game was Revolution and I’ve been hooked ever since. Civ 7 however is a mockery to the franchise, absolutely disgraceful. They are charging more for less, a lot less and lower quality at that. Please save your money and consider playing the older games. You can get them pretty cheap, don’t get scammed

I hesitated on reviewing this game and would have given it a "meh" rating if I could have. However, given the choices of recommending or not, I'll have to fall on the side of a _conditional_ not. First, Who do I think might enjoy this game? People who enjoyed Humankind _might_ find this enjoyable. People who played Civ on the highest speed or got frustrated that they didn't finish games of Civ. People who enjoy unlocks and meta leveling in games. Fundamentally, as someone who likes playing Civ on the longest settings, largest maps, victory conditions disabled, this is fundamentally not a game for me. From a gameplay perspective, the breakup into ages makes this 3 sub-games instead of one cohesive one. Each one has a start that is influenced by the last age, but with a lot of stuff reset, so it doesn't feel like the world has evolved in the meantime. With everything reset each age and rule systems to discourage anyone from getting too overpowering an advantage, there is no chance of most of the kinds of events that I remember from Civ happening in this version - there just isn't the ability to have the isolation and imbalances that lead to the most interesting situations. In regards to some of the actual systems or subsystems: + Excluding the influence mana pool and espionage system, I do like how most of the diplomacy system is set up. There are more options than in most previous versions and I would say it is already in a better state than most previous Civs. + Army grouping and interaction: This feels clunkier than Civ VI and the current grouping mechanism is not as nice as the Corp/Army method, but it works well-enough and feels like a system that has significant potential. + Rivers, especially navigable ones, are done better than any other Civ I can think of. They can be used as a proper defensive layer as well as a transit artery. + Accomplishment-based Civ unlocks. While I dislike the way they did the "play multiple civilizations" in general, I do like the "Meat this goal to unlock the civ" which feels more natural than any of the other methods. - Ages. As I mentioned before, this is the big minus. It breaks up the game and basically transforms it into 3 mini-games that only some of the stuff you've done carries over for, - Leveling / unlocks. This is a horrendously gamified concept that feels like something added by corporate to drive engagement. It could be dealt with by simply having an "unlock everything" button. But as-is, you need to play all the leaders multiple times to have all the configuration options available at start. - Required changing of Civs, but not changing leaders. Having the same leader through every age but requiring the Civ to change feels fundamentally broken. Rename the leader to "National Spirit" and it would make sense (It would also help deal with the issue of "interesting people" being chosen instead of leaders or potential leaders ("Spirit of Ada Lovelace" vs "Dictator Ada Lovelace"), but as it is, the disconnect helps break immersion. The required changing of Civs is not really done well, especially with the way Ages are set up. It doesn't feel like you naturally transition from one to another. Instead it is "sub-game A: Egyptian", "Sub-game B: Norman". - Crises are not nearly as impactful as they should be. Every Crisis I've played was a minor inconvenience at most - If they actually were devastating, the "end of an Era" would make sense, but instead, it feels like a failed narrative device. It feels like the "forced loss" battles you see in other games - despite knocking out all their health and not getting hit yourself, the crisis/boss is just so powerful that you lose. Because.. The game says you do. Overall, I've played this twice all the way through - the first time was before the "broken long game fix", so I gave it another chance. The second game was longer. But still shorter than I would have liked - maybe 20-30 hours instead of the 4-6 of the first game. I don't think this is a terrible game, and I wouldn't hold it against anybody who enjoyed it. But I don't see myself coming back to this version of Civ unless the core game is completely rebuilt. Does it poison Civ forever for me? No. But it does break the continuity of fun and Civ VIII, if it comes, will be the first major version that won't be an automatic get based on the strength of the Civ legacy for me.

Until I can play any civilization from the beginning to the end I'm out, I find the ages mechanic halts my game and changing civilization just breaks any connection. Bland bland bland

Simply not enjoying the game. You build a civ and it feels like restarting every time an era ends and it simply takes away the momentum and flow. No satisfactory or fun.

Downvoting for launching a game 10% complete with 4 rotating maps at full price

Honestly, a really low-quality game. Just doesn't have any appeal like its predecessors did. At first I was all excited but the AI is just SOOOO screwed up.

I remember being so hyped for this game when it was first announced. I preordered the founders addition and everything. Even took off work so I could play it on launch. I have over 700 hours in Civ 5 and another 1500 in Civ 6. All this to say I am a huge fan of this franchise and have dumped thousands of hours into it, and was ready to sink even more time into the newest title. Boy was I blindsided… I am extremely disappointed in this latest installment in the series. This game lacks so many things on launch and many of the new features added to the game take away from the heart and core gameplay of the franchise (changing Civs and mixing around different leaders with different civs). I am not sure why Firaxis went this direction when it had already been done by others and yielded horrible results. I feel like I am forced to switch my strategy around multiple times during the play session and have to do wacky combos like Benjamin Franklin of Mongolia (why is this a feature?). And don’t get me started on all the bugs and glitches that ruined the gameplay. My friend and I tried play a multiplayer game on day two and couldn’t get past 3 turns without the game crashing. Not fun! I feel like I’ve been robbed! I understand that it’s a Civ game and that every installment has launched with issues, but this really feels like a slap in the face when they charge $130 for it. I mean I expected it to launch with issues, but I thought they would at least finish the game first ya know. I did enjoy the new graphics and the new military mechanics. The city state/barbarian overhaul also was a fantastic addition. There are some good parts to the game, but the bad parts completely overshadow them. All this to say I strongly do not recommend this game and encourage you to wait until it is fixed until buying it. In the meantime you can still play Civ 6 and 5 (finished games). I would try coming back to this game in a year or two once some overhaul dlc (like gathering storm and rise and fall in civ 6) releases to fix this atrocious game.

My cousin and Uncle got me into Colonization as a kid. From there I sought out the original Civ and ultimately ended up on Civ 2. I played that game for an absurd amount of time. Borderline embarrassing. I did much of the same with Civ 3, 4 and then slowed down a bit with Civ 5. All those games were amazing. I loved each and every one. Civ 5 was the last true Civ game in my opinion. The game designer and programmers, artists... the entire team were all amazing. They even brought on a big Civ fan by the name of Ed Beach who contributed to some expansions/DLC. Little did I know at the time that Ed Beach, a boardgame designer would be taking the lead for the next two instalments. Something I later learned that was clearly out of his scope. So along comes Civ 6 with a team led by Ed Beach. I pre-ordered. I got the big box and all the goodies inside. Loaded up the game.... it was TERRIBLE. Most of the players I knew that grew up playing Civ, as well as many others on forums such as Civ Fanatics didn't care for it. We all went back to Civ 5. But Civ 6 was available on EVERYTHING (even your phone!). And Civ 5 had a lot of good advertisements that were resurfacing that helped the popularity of Civ 6. So, a metric ton of new players to the series started with Civ 6 and were unaware just how great this series used to be. They liked the game. But not many were as fanatical about it as previous entries. Again, I despised this game. There were very few elements I liked about it. The game felt like it lacked soul. It was joyless and felt like a chore. So, I wrote the game off and waited YEARS for Civ 7. Finally Civ 7 launches. I'm super excited. Since about Civ 4 reviews were harsh early on. I liked all Civ games up to 5 in their launched form. I think all got better with DLC's as well though. So when I saw some negative reviews I didn't worry about it. But I did worry that people were a little too defensive of the game. I've seen it happen before and its often from people who regret their purchase but have to defend it so they feel justified in their mistake. I was aware of the new "ages" mechanic. I was aware of many of the other changes. I wanted to see how it worked out. Nothing worked out. Its terrible. I absolutely hate the little reset between ages. I hate changing my civ as well. Especially since often there is no true link. I don't like the new leaders. Many do not belong. But the real deep issue is the game has been simplified to the extreme. There is nothing going on in the front or backend. Its so basic. Leader interactions used to have deep impact. They have never been perfect, but declaring war and bringing others with you into battle was amazing. That is removed. Cities used to be important to their leaders. Now, you can start a war, never actually go to war and the Civ will give you a handful of cities to stop the non-existent battles. Resources used to be needed to produce things. No oil? No tanks. This was important for trades too. A Civ without access to something like oil or another resource needed for their wonders or what-have-you would be willing to trade so much more. Now resources have no impact. You can trade them, but it barely changes a thing. They are no longer required for anything really. Its another little points mini-game. You can also have an agreement with another leader to receive gold out of thin air. Thats right! You can both just go "We want more gold" and then get it out of nowhere for several turns. All your actions with the leaders are assigned points. You have to choose what to select based upon these points. The text beside them is in most cases irrelevant. Its just "ooOOooh I can select this option and it'll improve the relationship!". No thought behind it at all. It affects other civ relationships, but its so easy to balance. I could go on much more about how they failed this aspect of the game. The whole economy is simplified too. Just everything is! I enjoy the graphics. I think districts are almost there in terms of being good. But they still suck and require very little thought. If you're stressing out about what to upgrade or not you're wasting your time. This game is not deep and does not require a lot of concentration or tactics. I've only played about 25 hours. I have beat the game several times and sadly used the same tactics each time. I don't like that I would get a victory before I truly wanted one. I would try to delay the victory but its so hard. Even on higher difficulties. I miss the epic/marathon games of before where I could spend days or more working on my civ and expanding. I missed the nuances and how the world would just change due to a couple mistakes, or an unhinged AI. Now all AI's are unhinged. There is no logic behind it. If you want to win you only need to concentrate on gold and happiness. And both of those are easy to be successful with. Everything else, science, military, it all comes into place. I typically start of expanding early, then I place a few military units around the cities. Other civs declare war but never attack due to my literally "just standing there" army. They ask for peace, they give me cities, I keep growing. I get to the next age, rinse and repeat. Then the game ends too early because I win before I even want. I don't even have to aim for a win condition, and if I do, I still win another way. The only challenge in this game is to avoid winning in a manner you don't want too. Ed Beach has killed Civ for me and many others. He has finally fully transformed this game into a full on boardgame. Civ has always felt like a boardgame to some extent. But not like this. You used to feel a lot going on behind the scenes. There were a lot of moving parts. Now its just a bunch of basic incredibly watered down points games. I don't think any expansion or DLC can save this game. It has deep rooted issues right to its core that need to be tackled. And the fact they are selling DLC before the game is even technically done really pisses me off. Its sad that this series ended with 5. Hopefully they can bring on a game designer to lead for the next iteration. I will not be excited for civ 8. I will not be waiting for it. I will not be pre-ordering. If they want me to get excited, bring someone back who actually gets how PC games are supposed to work and the advantages they can have over a boardgame. Bring back Soren Johnson. Bring back Jon Shafer. Bring back Sid himself. I don't care. Just bring back a game designer please. And maybe then I will keep an eye out on Civ 8.

They did not make radical movement by changing game mechanics. I think they changed whole developer team and this new team does not understand what this game for and what are the dynamics! First : There are no victory condition settings. You cant event change how to win. Even you are the first some one always beats you on cultural or scientific race. Second: There are no Civ like Ottoman or the best leader like Ataturk. What the f*** its like playing football game without Brazil or playing NBA 2k without USA. Third: In each age epoch all of your army deletes and you have to make them again if you want to play for war. Then this game says you that dont, make army only make cultural or scientific race. This new dev team does not know this game + does not know history. Please Human source also make history tests and IQ tests when recruiting.

The game isn't terrible. It just isn't fun. I regret paying $70 for it, but I wouldn't have cared as much if 2K / Firaxis had actually finished the damn thing instead of releasing a buggy, DLC-locked mess that's going to take at least a year of updates to be playable.

After 121 days here is what you need to know.. Pros: Graphics, Animations, and Soundtrack meet all expectations of a Sid Meier's Civilization franchise. (The teams behind these features should all have a spot at the table for Civilization 8) Cons: Game play, Leader choices, Maps, Interface, Content. (The teams in charge of the larger half of the game failed the Civilization community) Personal opinion: Heather Hazen (Studio Head), Ed Beach (Creative Director), Dennis Shirk (Executive Producer) have wasted a lot of time and money, not only for fans but the designers on this game who will not get another chance at it. Firaxis Games should take a deep dive into these peoples mindsets and really ask themselves, why are we implementing other brands strategy models into a franchise that leads grand strategy gaming? Why take steps backward in the year 2025? After the monumental success of Civ. 6, why abandon that model so excessively? Lastly: How can this be a Sid Meier game without an Earth map? Pitiful.

The decoupling of leaders from the Civilizations was a huge L. The changing of civilizations between eras was a huge L. If you want to make it so multiplayer games are only in one era, then do it, but don't penalize people in all era games by removing stuff they worked for between eras. Maybe I'm looking too deeply into this, but it seems like ideology of developers came before the adherence to history. When I first started playing Civ 6, it made me interested in the civilizations and their rulers. I did deep dives into parts of history I never touched. Civ 6 rekindled a lost love of history for me. That's what Civilization is at it's best. It wasn't just a game. Civ 7's lack of identity with decoupled leaders, civ swapping, and leaders that aren't actually historical civ leaders makes this game completely unappealing. Why you would take aspects of a game like Humankind, that is statistically-speaking a fail, and put them in the sequel to your insanely popular game is one of the biggest gaming blunders in history. Please fix the game.

2k is afraid of the customers, if you have ANYTHING running on your computer that their systems thinks is you trying to cheat at their game, they will close the game and take you to the 2k website about "online" gaming code of conduct, EVEN when you are NOT playing online!! STAY AWAY from this game!

Played 1000+ hours and 2600+ hours, respectively of V and VI. Looked forward to VII, but was disappointed. I liked the new graphics and movement style of the game. I completely despise the settlement caps/penalties. I can't imagine playing this game beyond the tiny or small map. They totally ruin the game for me. The mixing of of leaders and civilizations and change of civilizations era is silly, if no plan stupid. Although I got used to it, I have mixed feelings about the leader experience system. I feel like the developers have taken control of how they want the game to be played without regard to individual players' styles.

Still no hot-seat :-/... Single player is OK for one play-through, after that it just feels small, boring and repetitive.

this is the most disappointing, half-baked game to come out in a while. The Civilization series does not have the large enough fanbase and prestige to be pulling these EA ahh moves. They seperate leaders and civs to make DLCs more profitable since it'll be like selling history themed booster packs. And also the fourth age to be paywalled.

This one misses the mark for me. The removal of units at the end of an age makes absolutely no sense. So many little things that make this not fun. Graphically it's pretty. I love the addition of some of the new units based on culture, etc. And you aren't one nationstate throughout? Overall Sid Meier removed some of the best elements of the previous Civ game(s) to add in terrible choices in this one. All these game reviewers... I wonder how many other versions of Civ they played before playing this one? What a shame overall.

Hundreds of hours in Civ V and VI (and Revolution lol) and yet since this game released I've only put a little over 3 hours into this title. I think that says enough.

having played all the other CIv games to date. I decided to buy this months after release to see for myself if its as bad as everyone lead on. After beating it twice. I feel like this is a step back in many ways. Previous titles were much better.

Wish I had never purchased this game. Worst Civ game in the series ever. I loved this series in the past and own them all but not happy with VII.

The only even remotely pleasing thing about this game is the opening when you first launch the game. The choices for leaders seems so odd, almost to the point of pandering. There is no little variety in anything at all, it is as if they forgot this is a Civ game and just tried to make the most low quality product they could in terms of gameplay. Ships taking damage when at sea and not glued to the coast seemed neat at first, but grew ever more tedious as time went on. Having so few options to interact with your cities, or even develop with them missed the mark entirely. If you love the series, this game will break your heart. Nothing that fans of the series love is in here. It comes off as if they decided to just take all the goodwill they have garnered over the years by making good games and squander it on this dumpster fire. Would that I could return it.