Every new Civ release always starts out like this: the veterans (like me) hate most of the changes, whether they're actually good or bad. And every version needs tweaks and patches to be actually decent.The early review scores will not be a good indicator of the game's eventual quality. I do not like them hiding details, however, one thing I counted on in past civs is that if you make the effort, all the nitty gritty is there plain to see if you want to understand the details of how it all works.

Interestingly, Humankind, a major Civ-like game, is free to acquire on Epic starting today, available for the next week. Still a $50 value at full price. The reviews are not very kind, but I might take it for a spin at some point.
 

r/4Xgamingaren't exactly raving about it, but they are way more positive than Steam. Generally I respect Steam reviews, but I think they may be overreacting, and cooler heads will be more generous, and also more inclined to wait and see how the game is in six months or a year.

Personally, I'm hooked right now on Old World. I got it in a Humble Choice a couple of months ago, and I even bought (inexpensive) DLC.


 

Agreed. Played a few hours today and it's probably the strongest a civ game had been on release. 4 and 5 were simply broken until a few expansions in.
 

I think this is a much more nuanced issue than most people realize.

First off, if you read the Steam reviews, even the negative ones welcome the changes to game play. Most long-time Civ players realize that keeping a Civ both interesting and balanced across the whole game is almost impossible. Personally, I love the fact that playing Kumiko starting as Han is very different than Kumiko starting with Khmer.

But that's the actual problem, and one that's not immediately obvious but instead is emergent as you play those different variations - if paths to winning are very different, than the game needs to be very good at giving you feedback on your progress. Or, failing that, making it very easy and obvious on how you get to that information.

That's where your point about being built for consoles (or more likely tablets/phones) comes into play. I think you absolutely nailed that point - one of the most frequent complaint in the Steam reviews is the lack of tool tips, and a "hover" gesture is not something universally supported on other platforms. So there's a conflict between a need for a more responsive, informative UI and the desire to engage audiences outside of the "core" historical platform.

But I have to ask whether an audience like that really exists. Recently, just before a long flight, I was delighted to discover that I could get Civ 6 on my iPad through my Netflix subscription. So I downloaded and played it for several hours. While it was certainly playable, it was not enjoyable. The screen was too small to get a birds-eye view, and moving both the camera and units was cumbersome.

Even with Civ 7's improvements, those problems still remain. And that's before you ask the question of whether console and tablet users use patterns are compatible with the longer play sessions associated with 4X games. Are you really expecting people to be choosing city district placements from 3 meters away for hours on end?

I am left to wonder if Firaxis is chasing an audience that doesn't exist.
 

I don't know why I don't get the appeal of this game. I bought Civ V on Steam (I had heard Civ VI wasn't as good). I played for several hours but didn't really know what to do. I found a lot of turns nothing happened so you ended up skipping most turns just waiting for stuff to be ready. I built a small army but couldn't figure out how to attack with multiple "troops". Attacking with a single square of units normally caused me to lose that battle. Eventually I grew tired of building things and skipping turns and wondered why people love these games.