I played Civilization 7 for 20 hours and things aren’t looking good

by

In Civilization 7, they’ve teased a genuine overhaul. Unlike previous games where you lead a singular civilization through the ages from the Bronze Age to moon landings, in this version, you actually reshape your civilization not once, but twice during gameplay. This involves building new empires on the ruins of the old ones.

Admittedly, the news of this revolution in the game sparked joy within me since it seemed to capture the essence of civilization – the thrill at the start of the game – and establish the gameplay based on that strong base. However, after more than 20 hours playing, I find myself with a complex set of emotions. The experience has been enjoyable as I explore various civilizations and grasp the rules. Yet, there are moments when the seventh part feels disorderly, unclear, and not consistently well-planned. The question remains whether I’ll continue to be drawn back once my initial excitement for a fresh installment in such an influential series subsides. Time will tell as I gather more thoughts on this new game.

Who messed this up for ya, sir?

To kick things off, let’s consider an illustration that I believe encapsulates the essence of the current version of “Civilization 7“. In the game, as with its predecessors, city-states have been strategically positioned. These aren’t full civilizations, but rather smaller settlements, with which we can engage in diverse interactions. Some of these settlements are hostile towards us, acting much like the barbarians found in earlier games – a role that is absent in the seventh installment. However, there are also city-states that are friendly to us. By spending a few points from our diplomatic currency (let’s call it influence), we can protect these cities under our care. Nothing particularly innovative, you might say.

The issue arises when we delve deeper into this system. For instance, when you click on a subordinate city-state, a menu appears with various options, one being “form an alliance.” Unfortunately, I was unable to utilize this option because a message in the user interface consistently stated: “Your relations are not good enough to form an alliance.”

Now, it’s puzzling because this city-state appears to be on my side during warfare. However, I’m unsure of our relationship status and how to improve it or gauge its current state. There doesn’t seem to be a menu or guide that explains this, even Civilopedia fails to provide clarification. This leads me to question whether this alliance option with the city-state is perhaps a mechanic that was discarded during game development, but the button was inadvertently left on the menu?

Gosh, alliances aren’t something we typically rely on. When a city-state is placed under our protection, it becomes inalienable – meaning it can’t be taken away from us or given to another civilization. The tricky part is, if we want to claim a vassal city-state, our only choice is to wage war and annihilate it, which would lead to conflict with its ruling power.

In essence, controlling a vassal city-state amounts to securing it for our own civilization. The catch is that if we don’t assimilate the vassal into our culture before the end of an era, they will vanish from the map and be replaced by another entity with no ties to us. And just to add a little extra flavor, if we fail to act swiftly, we might miss out on valuable connections that could bolster our civilization’s growth.

Currently, Civilization 7 seems quite confusing to play, yet strangely enough, its mechanics have been streamlined. What’s more, the game often feels like it’s nearing the end of beta testing. There are numerous smaller and larger glitches in it, and many aspects that look promising on paper need further polishing or enhancement to execute smoothly.

Revolution of ages

In the game Civilization 7, the mechanics of the ages are vital. During a typical game, we start in prehistoric times, move on to the era of exploration, and end up in the contemporary period. Each age has its unique civilizations that can’t be encountered at other times. Building a new Norman empire upon the remnants of ancient Rome is an intriguing concept, especially when medieval knights stand alongside the Colosseum. This feature of Civilization is something I find particularly engaging so far, and it’s a great idea, even if it was inspired by competitors like Humankind.

In our journey through various stages, we accumulate legacy points that strengthen our civilization as we move towards the next phase. However, I’ve noticed a potential issue: the tasks required to earn these points seem to repeat with each attempt, which could lead to a monotonous experience in future games. Although I am still exploring this system, it appears that it may restrict player freedom as well, since one is compelled to follow specific paths – ones that don’t change from playthrough to playthrough.

I’m encountering another issue concerning the ages – the developers have decided that all civilizations beyond heritage will share one leader, whom we select at the start of the game. Although I recall that Ashoka is located to my north and Charlemagne resides to my west, I can’t seem to recollect who heads my own civilization. It’s quite astonishing how little character the leaders possess in this game. The individual we choose barely talks throughout the entire experience, and during those rare diplomatic interactions (which are notably streamlined), all we hear is grunting. Engaging in self-talk with limited hand movements doesn’t provide me with the sense that I am playing as Hatshepsut or Xerxes. It’s even more surprising that the developers highlighted the importance of leaders in the seventh installment, where they were meant to serve as the unifying factor across evolving civilizations.

After discussing the concept of epochs, let’s share some initial thoughts on the assortment of crises encountered throughout history, whether they occurred at the tail end of antiquity or the era of exploration. I have personally faced numerous challenges, such as barbarian invasions (represented by hostile city-states popping up), internal revolts, religious disputes, and pandemics. It’s fortunate that crises come in various forms and can strike unpredictably; however, it’s unfortunate that most of them were rather uneventful. They didn’t present a significant challenge for me either – only the rebellions gave me some trouble initially, but that was during my first experience, when I was still acquiring knowledge, so now I feel more equipped to manage them effectively.

It is equally clear to me that the shift between eras will create division among players. When a new phase starts, conflicts abruptly cease, some city-states are superseded by others, a segment of our troops vanishes, and the surviving ones automatically upgrade to units of the following era. Moreover, a significant portion of our cities demote to the status of towns, meaning they no longer lose inhabitants but cannot be developed as freely until they are elevated back to city status. Essentially, it’s like hitting the reset button – an unprecedented feature in Civilization. I must admit that I require additional trials to determine its long-term effectiveness, as there were instances when I found it intriguing, and others when it only irritated me. Regrettably, it instills a sense of demotivation at the end of an era, as investing in certain aspects becomes unnecessary because we will essentially restart in a way.

How did it happen? I don’t know

For over eight years now, we’ve been waiting for the terrific sixth installment’s successor from Firaxis. I get why they felt the urge to innovate in the seemingly exhausted formula of their series. However, they could have simply repeated the game, as EA’s past shows, but I applaud them for taking on this challenging endeavor. The issue lies in the fact that their new approach feels like it’s still being developed. It’s filled with disorder, errors, and inconsistencies. It needs time to solidify, but at this point, it’s come too late.

It’s puzzling to me how a map could be created that’s so hard to decipher. I have a feeling it was made by developers who prioritized intricate and impressive visual design over readability. It’s fascinating to see our cities evolve over the centuries, expanding on the map and undergoing visual changes as time progresses. Up close, it looks stunning indeed.

One potential rephrasing for the given text could be:

The issue lies in the fact that the multitude of colors makes it difficult to distinguish anything, and the units are nearly indistinguishable from the backdrop, which creates challenges during warfare. To put it frankly, one can appreciate the beauty of Civilization when viewed up close, but most of the time is spent observing from a distance (it’s worth noting that the maximum zoom-out level from the sixth game, which transitioned to a painted map, was eliminated). I find it puzzling why this wasn’t addressed during development: “Perhaps we should consider that while the map may be aesthetically pleasing, its readability is questionable. We need to take action and make improvements.

It seems like the development of this game was quite challenging, possibly due to limited time for testing different mechanics. This assumption arises from the game’s current issues such as frequent freezing and numerous major and minor bugs. At this point, it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of these problems, but they often stem from inadequate management or a rushed publishing process. Only with time will we likely uncover the truth behind these difficulties.

What now?

While I’m engrossed in playing this game before its official launch, many ideas are swirling around my mind as I navigate through it. Keep in mind that things might still change until release, but I have to confess, I’m not very optimistic about that. To elaborate, when I tried out Civilization 7 at an exhibition in August, I noticed similar issues like the AI making questionable decisions (a common challenge in Civilization games) and the presence of non-existent units on the map, seemingly haunting it.

Moreover, a significant portion of the game’s issues isn’t primarily due to bugs, but rather from the fundamental structure of its gameplay design. While it’s true that you can enhance and modify established roads significantly, which form the basis for epoch mechanics (these structures often overlook our advancement), it’s unlikely that these changes will alter the fact that they appear to restrict the open-ended aspect of the game, guiding players towards particular profitable strategies. Consequently, I’m not optimistic that significant improvements will be made in these crucial areas by February 11th.

Ultimately, I must confess that this situation leaves me feeling a bit nostalgic and wistful, much like an ancient author observing the gradual decline of Rome. “Civilization” is undeniably one of my most cherished video game series, and it holds a special place in my heart as one of the very first games I ever played. I adored the sixth installment immensely, awarding it a 9/10 rating, and after eight years, that score still stands firm. Given this deep affection, I eagerly anticipated what the developers at Firaxis had in store for us this time around. My hope was that they would once again captivate me with their vision, drawing me in for countless hours just as the previous game did. Though my curiosity remains piqued, I can’t help but wonder if it will give rise to the infamous “one more turn” syndrome. Despite seeing traces of the series’ DNA in what I’ve experienced so far, I fear I may instead feel overwhelmed by the “one turn too many” syndrome.

Read More

2025-01-16 17:32