-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Civilization 7 Opens To Mostly Negative Reviews As Players Call It An "Unfinished Mess"
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
Inviusx
Member
Despite my reservations about the civ/leader situation, I bit the bullet and bought the founders edition on PS5 Pro. Some thoughts:
1. There is a weird amount of input lag, in all menus, gameplay, all the time. Immediately noticeable upon boot but you get used to it. Not sure why though, hopefully patched soon.
2. It runs really well so far on PS5 Pro, no performance issues yet except for the input lag mentioned above. Turns resolved quickly although I'm yet to have a Modern age game with 8 Civs.
3. UI as mentioned above is pretty atrocious, in terms of readability however it plays really well on controller. It supports dual sense haptics for a few things, the click when zooming in and out feels nice.
4. Despite my stance against the uncoupling of Civs from Leaders, the base gameplay ideas are actually fun, influence is great, independent people's are awesome, resources having perks is amazing, also the legacy paths provide a clear goal to work towards.
This game has issues but the core of it is solid, I wouldn't recommend buying the founders edition and if you're not a fan of the bugs and UI issues I would hold off for a few patches but this is a good Civ game, just needs some polish now. Feel free to ask questions about the console experience if you have any.
1. There is a weird amount of input lag, in all menus, gameplay, all the time. Immediately noticeable upon boot but you get used to it. Not sure why though, hopefully patched soon.
2. It runs really well so far on PS5 Pro, no performance issues yet except for the input lag mentioned above. Turns resolved quickly although I'm yet to have a Modern age game with 8 Civs.
3. UI as mentioned above is pretty atrocious, in terms of readability however it plays really well on controller. It supports dual sense haptics for a few things, the click when zooming in and out feels nice.
4. Despite my stance against the uncoupling of Civs from Leaders, the base gameplay ideas are actually fun, influence is great, independent people's are awesome, resources having perks is amazing, also the legacy paths provide a clear goal to work towards.
This game has issues but the core of it is solid, I wouldn't recommend buying the founders edition and if you're not a fan of the bugs and UI issues I would hold off for a few patches but this is a good Civ game, just needs some polish now. Feel free to ask questions about the console experience if you have any.
Last edited:
P:axMagellanic
Member
A civ game with no England or Elizabeth...
amigastar
Member
Honestly a good core game with bad UI and such is better than a bad game with good UI.
Last edited:
Lagspike_exe
Member
What's FPS like?
Inviusx
Member
It's 60fps, can't confirm if it's locked all the way through because I haven't had a massive end game war yet or anything like that but all the way up through Antiquity age it felt great.
Shadowstar39
Member
Well how is it?
vpance
Member
I think a good portion of western dev teams have DEI hires in all sorts of roles at this point. Some recent article had stats that showed how significant it was now. So it's bound to influence the quality of development.
Yeah you pretty much have to enjoy the events and family mechanic to like the game. You can disable or reduce it but that's what makes it unique, for better or worse.
vpance
Member
I saw that there was some good UI mods already, lol.
They're definitely going to ride off the backs of modders on this one. Braindead easy fixes too.
Shadowstar39
Member
Civ 6 plays great on ps5. Shit it plays good on the switch too. Only issue is long turn lengths later in the game but that is every civ really.
SidViscous
Member
Played a dozen or so hours and really enjoying it, I think the ages being their own self-contained thing is great, I hated the idea of things being reset and everyones progress being rubber banded back together on paper, but in practice it feels like I get to keep most things, if I'm ahead, I'm still ahead even when the age starts, and if I'm behind, I'm still behind, but I have a chance to pivot and try another strategy and maybe grab a win in the new age to balance things out.
The 2nd age (exploration age) is really fun, it captures the best parts of starting a new game, the mad rush to explore new lands, see who's there, and get the good settling spots. But you still have your existing island and cities to think about, I wonder if it's a valid strategy to completely ignore the new lands and just focus on dominating and conquering the starting lands whilst the AI is busy pouring it's resources into expanding elsewhere.
3rd age seems somewhat pointless and a bit too early in the timeline to justify the "age" reset, railroads and flight don't drastically change things and take quite some time to benefit from, compared to the being able to travel out to sea for the 2nd act. The tech seems to end in around 1950, so I suspect they will DLC a 4th age which is the nuclear/electronic/future age stuff, but it's a shame this isn't in the base game, then act 3 could have been pushed a bit later to make more or a gameplay impact/difference compared to the end of act 2.
I jumped on the UI hate bandwagon but wondering if, well, I'm just moaning about it because everyone else is, it's not something I really get annoyed or notice when I'm playing the game, it's missing some minor QOL things but it's hardly game breaking.
The 2nd age (exploration age) is really fun, it captures the best parts of starting a new game, the mad rush to explore new lands, see who's there, and get the good settling spots. But you still have your existing island and cities to think about, I wonder if it's a valid strategy to completely ignore the new lands and just focus on dominating and conquering the starting lands whilst the AI is busy pouring it's resources into expanding elsewhere.
3rd age seems somewhat pointless and a bit too early in the timeline to justify the "age" reset, railroads and flight don't drastically change things and take quite some time to benefit from, compared to the being able to travel out to sea for the 2nd act. The tech seems to end in around 1950, so I suspect they will DLC a 4th age which is the nuclear/electronic/future age stuff, but it's a shame this isn't in the base game, then act 3 could have been pushed a bit later to make more or a gameplay impact/difference compared to the end of act 2.
I jumped on the UI hate bandwagon but wondering if, well, I'm just moaning about it because everyone else is, it's not something I really get annoyed or notice when I'm playing the game, it's missing some minor QOL things but it's hardly game breaking.
Last edited:
amigastar
Member
Honestly? I like it very much so but i always thought i will overlook the shortcomings this game has such as UI and ages and other things.
Game looks beautiful also and runs buttery smooth with 165 fps on a 4070.
All in all it shapes up to be one hell of a Civ game imo.
Last edited:
Hari Seldon
Member
I suspect that the post honeymoon period backlash is going to be super strong for this game.
Rambone
Member
Just finished my first game. Game is okay.
I was a bit surprised that once the game finishes you don't have the ability to continue playing, it just goes straight to the main menu after you get your stats. WTF kinda Civ game doesn't let you keep playing. I'm not sure how I feel about ages yet, seems like once a age ends, everybody kinda resets, gets upgraded units for free and is more or less on a level playing field unit wise. You don't get to keep all of your units but just enough to have at least 1 per city and whatever excess you might have had gets distributed out to commanders, so lots of incentive to have a few commanders before the end of a age to make sure your units don't removed. I used to like having a tech advantage and rolling around stomping Civs still stuck in the stone age, guess that isn't a thing now.
Natural disasters like Volcanos are obnoxious and are constantly erupting causing damage to everything around them. I'd just avoid building around volcanos if possible.
Game has a kill switch if you have cheat engine or WeMod open, directs you to a 2K Code of Conduct website. LOL, the fuck.
I was a bit surprised that once the game finishes you don't have the ability to continue playing, it just goes straight to the main menu after you get your stats. WTF kinda Civ game doesn't let you keep playing. I'm not sure how I feel about ages yet, seems like once a age ends, everybody kinda resets, gets upgraded units for free and is more or less on a level playing field unit wise. You don't get to keep all of your units but just enough to have at least 1 per city and whatever excess you might have had gets distributed out to commanders, so lots of incentive to have a few commanders before the end of a age to make sure your units don't removed. I used to like having a tech advantage and rolling around stomping Civs still stuck in the stone age, guess that isn't a thing now.
Natural disasters like Volcanos are obnoxious and are constantly erupting causing damage to everything around them. I'd just avoid building around volcanos if possible.
Game has a kill switch if you have cheat engine or WeMod open, directs you to a 2K Code of Conduct website. LOL, the fuck.
Last edited:
Radical_3d
Member
Hudo
Gold Member
I think you could say that. The formula for Civ is just really solid. You'd have to actively go out of your way to fuck it up, imho. Even the "bad" Civ games like 6 (imho) and 7 (at least for now) are just "bad" in comparison to other Civ games. It's not like they are actually bad games.
Edit: That being said, it is unlikely I will ever touch Civ 7 because changing civilizations after "aging up" is a dealbreaker for me. I like the fantasy of controlling a civ from antiquity to the near future.
Last edited:
TheRaidenPT
Member
They do need to support it since August 2024 though, might just lack the tag?
Inviusx
Member
Since 4, Civ games have been improved over time with DLC and updates, to the point where they get reaallllly good and then the next game drops, no patches, no DLC, new mechanics people aren't used to yet and players get shifted out of their comfort zone which leads to some unfair criticism (see people not liking change).
It's a cycle, by the time Civ 8 comes out, people will be clinging onto Civ 7.
Last edited:
amigastar
Member
You might be missing out Dude, I personally am ok with changing Civs.
Hudo
Gold Member
I already didn't like Humankind because of that.
Hari Seldon
Member
My fear is that this game went too far into board game design land rather than sandbox civilization builder. So while it may be fun for a little bit, playing the same board game for hundreds of hours gets really old, unless you are doing multiplayer exclusively. Personally I have installed Civ5 again and I am finally going to deep dive Old World to resist the temptation of buying this at launch because I am hugely skeptical of its design. Waiting a month or so for the honeymoon period to end and people to start critiquing the systems instead of being distracted by new and shiny is prudent, imo.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Well, they are trying to fix a problem with this game going back to the beginning. If you're used to the games and that problem doesn't really bother you then yea I can see how it is an unmitigated negative, but the change was with reason.
Hudo
Gold Member
It's OK, I don't have to play every game.
Shadowstar39
Member
Whats the end goal of this game for a single player only gamer? Civ has always been choose your nation and become a super power. Later one's had cultural, religious, scientific victories as well as take over the world miltiatary conquest. If I can't make my civ grow, what's the point?
Is this some woke move to stop nation states being a thing? "we are all the same" bs when each culture /nation has pros and cons.
I have played every civ at launch starting with civ 1, back in 1991 (OK not on launch day for civ 1, got it from a friend on copied 1.44mb floppies but it was the same year) civ 2 even played on ps1.
I don't know if I want to play a civ game that I can't expand my nation and am forced a switch. Please someone tell me what I am missing?
Otherwise, I may just buy age of wonders 4 instead.
Is this some woke move to stop nation states being a thing? "we are all the same" bs when each culture /nation has pros and cons.
I have played every civ at launch starting with civ 1, back in 1991 (OK not on launch day for civ 1, got it from a friend on copied 1.44mb floppies but it was the same year) civ 2 even played on ps1.
I don't know if I want to play a civ game that I can't expand my nation and am forced a switch. Please someone tell me what I am missing?
Otherwise, I may just buy age of wonders 4 instead.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Well, this ensures I won’t buy this game. Fuck you too, 2K. Having memory monitoring shit on SP games is beyond ridiculous.
Ubi is doing the same thing with Shadows, although in that case it’s to sell their “currency” to bypass the grind they themselves implemented.
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
The VR trailer piqued my interest...