Firaxis are bringing one of the "most requested" features to Civilization 7 - the chance to bypass the Age system and play as one Civ all the way through.
Even this won’t be enough. Each age is still basically a disruptive reset of the game.
It’s interesting looking at metacritolic where formal reviews give the game a score of 79 out of 100, while the player score is 3.7 out of 10, and the Steam score is 49% positive / 51% negative.
A great example of what bullshit much of the gaming press spouts. People will have spent their hard earned money on this trash based on nonsense reviews.
Now we have this constant stream of “news” from the devs / publisher about how they’re going to fix their broken game.
Civ Vii is fundamentally a broken game, released by a big publisher to be a DLC machine like it’s predecessors. But unlike Civ VI, or games like Cybperunk 2077 or No Man’s Sky, it is fundamentally broken as a design. This isn’t going to be redeemed with patches and content updates like those other games; it needs to be fundamentally be rebuolt. It’s unlikely the publisher will have the patience or willingness to fund that.
I think once we get through this financial year the publisher will decide to cut it’s losses, release a couple of crappy DLCs next year rather than actually fix the game and possibly even move on to Civ 8. They’ll talk a lot about how they listened to gamers for Civ 8 - glossing over the money gamers have wasted on this shit fest.
I have yet to play Civ7, Civ4 and Civ5 work fine for me and I am not bored of them (there are also a lot of total conversation mods to play if I am looking to spice things up).
If anything I need to start playing Civ6 (only have 40 hours which is nothing compared to earlier releases).
I am honestly surprised they have a mere 3.7/10 on metacritic.
A great example of what bullshit much of the gaming press spouts. People will have spent their hard earned money on this trash based on nonsense reviews.
Individual reviews for sequels are useless, across the board now.
What we need is dual reviews. One player that had never played the franchise before, and another that has. And the more beloved or large a franchise is, the more involved that second review needs to be.
Because sometimes new players coming in to beloved franchise have a better time because they don’t have preconceived not goons of what the game “should be”.
Just because something is changed, that doesn’t make it inherently worse. Fans are the worst critics, across the board in every type of media. While they sometimes have valid criticism, they also often don’t.
Other times, changes are objectively bad, for both new and existing players. The only way to really know is to get both perspectives. And that’s hard to figure out looking at random reviews on various sites. The reviewers don’t always provide their previous experiences for context very well.
A great example of what bullshit much of the gaming press spouts.
I imagine, the problem is mainly that they need to publish review scores after one or two weeks of playtesting. How such game mechanics feel long-term is hard to judge in that timeframe.
Even this won’t be enough. Each age is still basically a disruptive reset of the game.
It’s interesting looking at metacritolic where formal reviews give the game a score of 79 out of 100, while the player score is 3.7 out of 10, and the Steam score is 49% positive / 51% negative.
A great example of what bullshit much of the gaming press spouts. People will have spent their hard earned money on this trash based on nonsense reviews.
Now we have this constant stream of “news” from the devs / publisher about how they’re going to fix their broken game.
Civ Vii is fundamentally a broken game, released by a big publisher to be a DLC machine like it’s predecessors. But unlike Civ VI, or games like Cybperunk 2077 or No Man’s Sky, it is fundamentally broken as a design. This isn’t going to be redeemed with patches and content updates like those other games; it needs to be fundamentally be rebuolt. It’s unlikely the publisher will have the patience or willingness to fund that.
I think once we get through this financial year the publisher will decide to cut it’s losses, release a couple of crappy DLCs next year rather than actually fix the game and possibly even move on to Civ 8. They’ll talk a lot about how they listened to gamers for Civ 8 - glossing over the money gamers have wasted on this shit fest.
I have yet to play Civ7, Civ4 and Civ5 work fine for me and I am not bored of them (there are also a lot of total conversation mods to play if I am looking to spice things up).
If anything I need to start playing Civ6 (only have 40 hours which is nothing compared to earlier releases).
I am honestly surprised they have a mere 3.7/10 on metacritic.
Individual reviews for sequels are useless, across the board now.
What we need is dual reviews. One player that had never played the franchise before, and another that has. And the more beloved or large a franchise is, the more involved that second review needs to be.
Because sometimes new players coming in to beloved franchise have a better time because they don’t have preconceived not goons of what the game “should be”.
Just because something is changed, that doesn’t make it inherently worse. Fans are the worst critics, across the board in every type of media. While they sometimes have valid criticism, they also often don’t.
Other times, changes are objectively bad, for both new and existing players. The only way to really know is to get both perspectives. And that’s hard to figure out looking at random reviews on various sites. The reviewers don’t always provide their previous experiences for context very well.
I imagine, the problem is mainly that they need to publish review scores after one or two weeks of playtesting. How such game mechanics feel long-term is hard to judge in that timeframe.