izigame.me

After 200+ hours I have a good feel for the game and its time to write a review (my first review on steam!).
Graphics:
(+) Very nice overall. You can create some really cool looking cities, towns, and landscapes. Very nice looking detailed units and building textures.
(-) Pillaging/razing cities looks lame and its not intense enough imo. Too much detail was added to certain buildings for example showing small fountains that are hard to see unless zoomed in, but then little effort was put into cities burning. This could have been done on purpose due to system specs/performance, but it is one of my observations that I dont like.
(-) Disasters are meh looking, small, and lack intensity. Also happening too often (volcanoes erupting or floods happening every three turns?).
(-) Battle animations seem to stop after hitting end turn. I really like the animations, but on next turn everything seems to halt. What was once a big battle has suddenly stopped...
(-) Civs appear to lack flags and emblems especially on units. You get more of a feeling of red versus blue rather than civ 1 versus civ 2. Some colours are really hard to distinguish.
Sound:
(+) music is good and sounds as if it adapts with the civ that you play. Excellent battle sound effects.
(-) the battle sound effects seem to dampen in the background over time. With the music set down to low and sound effects all the way up, the battle sounds go very quiet to a point where war feels not as intense.
Civs & Leaders:
(+) There are quite a few civs and leaders to choose from for the different ages and they all differ somewhat in play styles. Some of the leaders were done well (Xerxes imo ... the military one). While transitioning between ages, there are enough civs to make a historical connection (not 100% though, but with DLCs the gaps will be filled).
(-) I am not a fan of leaders leading civs that are not historically linked - it gives off a strange feeling in game and I cannot connect with a civilization (ex: if HT can lead Rome .... weird ... time to restart). I tend to pick the civs I go against only often to be disappointed later with their automatic choice at the next age (I want Napoleon to go Rome-Norman-France, but he chooses something bizarre, which doesn't feel right). My thought on this was that it was a poor attempt by the company to add diversity to the gameplay meanwhile butchering/at the cost of immersion.
AI:
(+) the AI works "ok" and personally on Sovereign difficulty I find it a decent setting.
(-) AI is easy to manipulate. It is very predictable especially if you pay attention to the leader traits. Higher difficulty setting doesn't make AI smarter, but rather gives them more resources. AI settling across the map without strategy is a problem, but this apparently will be fixed soon.
Legacies:
(+) good idea if they were implemented properly. They can be fun and add purpose to each game / curve balls.
(-) legacies feel enforced and remove the sandbox experience. Forcing "exploration" in exploration age is tedious, repetitive, and flat out boring. Expansion in the original continent/area is not rewarded and forces you to "explore" to the new world only to find nothing exciting.
Other:
(+ & -) One of my most fun things to do is plan out cities and I do this with a pen and paper since the UI is ... well ... I think you all read enough comments about it. I figured out how the system works and have been building cities quite well. Obviously there is no UI to really help you do this hence the positive and negative....
(---) Several minuses to maps. I cannot stand the maps in this game. They are balanced, predictable, and boring. This is by far my major negative. No pure tundra areas, or desert, or mountain areas. its a splash of them all everywhere, almost evenly distributed for all civs. This really hurts replay-ability. It is supposed to be fixed next patch and I hope they do a good job as this is a really big game changer for me. "Explore the new world in the exploration age only to find the same land evenly distributed" YAWN. Not every single shore on the map has to have a beach like in Cancun, Mexico.
(-) Age transitions are not all that smooth. I personally don't mind the age transitions and like the idea (civ7 did it better than Humankind), but you do feel at times as if something that you built is suddenly gone and you are are asked to repeat again in the new age (units disappearing, wars ending, lack of historical connections).
(+ & -) Battles are better than previous civ games, but I still think battles in Humankind were a bit better due to terrain/positioning. The leaders in civ 7 add a bit more depth to battles, but regardless battles tend to be too quick and easy. I think that units do too much damage and usually its the same battle strategy of having your 2-3 units focus on one to kill it quickly and then rinse and repeat (forget those battle animations as there is no chance to see them). Leaders only gain experience through battles. It doesnt feel worth it to spec them in another skill tree aside from aiding battles since you need to fight to gain experience! do these devs even play this game to notice this?
(-) Resources feel useless. In Humankind, if you wanted to build cavalry you needed a horse resource (makes sense right?). I love this idea and concept as it required you to think about where to settle your towns or conquer others for resources, or as a last option to trade for them. Civ 7 resources are completely a joke and have no meaning aside from earning legacy points. The +1 damage for (choose your unit here) is lazy and stupid. If I recall correctly, this is to be fixed down the road....
(-) The game is too pricey for the quality in what was released. I think that I got my moneys worth since I spent 200+ hours on it and with the deluxe version I think that I am covered for probably the next 1-2 months :P, but I can see that many people will be upset with the quality of the game for what you pay for.
(-) Another negative is the lack of innovation. The overall concept of the game was taken from Humankind, and although done better, the game play is rather dull. The legacy points system is very linear, forced, predictable, easy to manipulate, and repetitive, which imo also makes the game feel more like a mobile game and completely "dumbed down". The sandbox gameplay is non-existent.
(-) Ill stop here with a last negative. The company planned DLCs knowing the issues with the release....The game was stripped of basic features implemented in previous versions of Civ games, but deemed by management as acceptable to release only to fix them later via patches or paid DLCs. I can accept bugs in a new game, but dirty and shady sales tactics leave a bad taste in my mouth...
(no comment on multiplayer as I did not try it)
OVERALL: the game is fun. I would strongly recommend this game on sale. This game will get much better with time, but there are currently many issues and we will mostly likely all have to pay a lot of money going forward to get a stable and balanced product. The current formula/foundation of the game is cool, but there is a lot of work to be done to make it enjoyable and re-playable.
If you made it this far, cheers for reading my review. On a final note, I am happy with the current status of reviews/ratings of the game as I feel they are very accurate. IMO this game is a 6/10, but for shady sales tactics and disrespect to its customers it loses points, so its a negative review from me.