Strategy gaming veterans Al and Joe examine the highly anticipated but controversial release of Civilization 7, with Joe delivering a scathing assessment of the game’s new mechanics, broken AI, and questionable design decisions that have left the community divided and wondering if this represents the future or failure of the beloved franchise.
https://criticalmovespodcast.com/listen
This episode provides an unfiltered examination of Civilization 7’s launch state, featuring Joe’s extensive hands-on experience with the game’s most controversial changes. The hosts discuss the problematic ages system borrowed from Humankind, the generic feel of civilizations and leaders, AI behaviour that prioritizes land-grabbing over strategic thinking, and a user interface that fails to provide essential information. The conversation explores whether these fundamental design changes represent innovation or misguided attempts at differentiation, while analysing the game’s potential for improvement through patches and DLC. Joe’s brutal three-and-a-half out of ten rating reflects broader community frustrations with what many consider an undercooked release that prioritizes monetization over player experience.
Critical Moves Podcast – Civilization 7 Review Show Notes
Episode Title: Sid Meier’s Civilization VII – Is it Any Good?
Hosts: Al, Joe
Episode Length: ~38 minutes
Episode Summary
The latest episode of Critical Moves delivers an unflinching examination of Civilization 7’s troubled launch, with Joe providing extensive first-hand experience while Al represents the perspective of cautious potential buyers. The discussion reveals fundamental problems with the game’s core systems, from the disconnected ages mechanic borrowed from Humankind to AI behaviour that prioritizes mindless expansion over strategic depth. Joe’s harsh assessment – rating the game just 3.5 out of 10 “Big Macs” – reflects broader community sentiment that Firaxis has released an unfinished product at premium pricing while holding back content for future DLC releases.
Generic Leaders and Interchangeable Civilizations
The Homogenization Problem
Joe’s opening criticism centres on how Civilization 7’s leaders have lost their distinctive identities. Unlike previous games where leaders offered compelling unique advantages that influenced player strategy, the new system makes every leader feel interchangeable. The universal presence of unique units and buildings paradoxically makes none feel special – when everyone has distinctive features, nobody stands out.
This design philosophy extends to the controversial separation of leaders from specific civilizations. Players can now choose Frederick Barbarossa to lead Britain or any other historical mismatch, breaking the thematic connections that gave previous games their narrative coherence. While this offers theoretical flexibility, it eliminates the historical authenticity that made choosing a civilization feel meaningful.
Random Selection as Last Resort
Joe’s decision to select leaders randomly – unprecedented in his Civilization experience – demonstrates how the homogenization has drained personality from what should be the game’s most characterful elements. Previous games made leader selection a strategic decision based on preferred playstyles and unique advantages. Civilization 7’s approach reduces this to an arbitrary choice between functionally similar options.
The loss of distinctive leader personalities represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what made Civilization compelling. Players didn’t just choose gameplay bonuses – they chose to embody historical figures with unique characteristics and forge alternate histories through their decisions.
The Problematic Ages System
Borrowed Mechanics, Inherited Problems
Civilization 7’s ages system represents a direct lift from Amplitude Studios’ Humankind, a game that was marketed as a “Civilization killer” but failed to achieve lasting success. The mechanic forces players to change civilizations between historical eras, supposedly representing cultural evolution but actually creating narrative disconnection.
Unlike Humankind’s competitive race to claim desirable civilizations, Civilization 7 transitions all players simultaneously while requiring specific achievements to unlock certain options. This creates situations where the Inca might become Nubia and then Germany – cultural progressions that make no historical or thematic sense.
Mechanical Disruption and Strategic Chaos
The ages system’s most problematic aspect involves its complete disruption of ongoing military campaigns and strategic planning. When ages transition occurs, all units either disappear or return to cities, effectively resetting the strategic situation regardless of player actions. Joe’s example of being on the verge of destroying an eternal enemy, only to have victory stolen by an arbitrary age change, illustrates how this mechanic undermines player agency.
This reset mechanism destroys the continuity that made Civilization campaigns feel like epic historical narratives. Instead of guiding a civilization from ancient origins to modern supremacy, players experience disconnected episodes with artificial breaks that eliminate strategic momentum.
Thematic Disconnection
The ages system breaks Civilization’s fundamental promise of guiding a people through history. Previous games allowed players to imagine coherent alternative histories – Rome discovering gunpowder, Egypt reaching the stars, or Greece colonizing the New World. The forced civilization changes eliminate this narrative coherence, replacing it with arbitrary cultural jumping that serves no clear gameplay purpose.
Artificial Intelligence Problems
Land Grab Mentality
Joe describes an AI obsessed with rapid expansion rather than strategic development, creating cluttered maps filled with poorly planned cities. This behaviour reflects programming that prioritizes quantity over quality, leading to scenarios where AI civilizations spread settlements without regard for strategic positioning or economic viability.
The emphasis on settlement spam creates early game experiences focused on territorial competition rather than the careful development and strategic planning that characterized successful Civilization campaigns. Players feel pressured to abandon preferred playstyles to compete with AI land-grabbing rather than pursuing diverse strategic approaches.
Predictable Diplomatic Patterns
The AI’s diplomatic behaviour follows rigid patterns where certain civilizations automatically become friends or enemies based on proximity and predetermined personality traits rather than dynamic relationship development. This predictability eliminates the diplomatic uncertainty that made previous games engaging, replacing complex relationship management with foreseeable outcomes.
Joe’s experience of consistent hatred from neighbouring civilizations regardless of his actions demonstrates how the AI fails to create meaningful diplomatic gameplay. Instead of reacting to player behaviour and creating emergent political situations, the AI follows scripts that make diplomacy feel predetermined rather than dynamic.
Combat and Strategic Deficiencies
Unlike more sophisticated strategy games such as Age of Wonders 4, which features meaningful tactical combat with flanking mechanics and positioning advantages, Civilization 7’s combat feels simplistic and unrewarding. The AI shows no evidence of tactical sophistication, relying on numerical superiority rather than clever positioning or strategic thinking.
This combat weakness extends to broader strategic thinking, where AI civilizations fail to demonstrate the kind of long-term planning and adaptive strategy that would challenge experienced players. Instead of becoming more intelligent at higher difficulty levels, the AI simply receives numerical bonuses – lazy design that prioritizes artificial challenge over genuine strategic depth.
User Interface and Information Problems
Missing Essential Data
One of Joe’s most significant criticisms involves the game’s failure to provide essential information for strategic decision-making. The removal of detailed tile information means players cannot easily determine the benefits of different improvement choices, forcing them to make crucial decisions without adequate data.
This information deficit extends to natural wonders, where even Spain’s leader bonus for wonder proximity fails to clearly communicate what benefits players receive. For a strategy game that depends on informed decision-making, this lack of transparency represents a fundamental design failure.
Automation Without Explanation
The automatic worker system, while potentially streamlined, provides minimal feedback about its decisions. When cities expand and automatically build improvements, players receive vague notifications without understanding the strategic implications of these changes. This automation without explanation eliminates the learning opportunity that came from manually directing city development.
The UI problems reflect a broader trend toward oversimplification that removes strategic depth without providing adequate compensation. Players lose both control and understanding, creating frustration rather than accessibility.
Missing Features and Combat Weakness
Simplified Combat Systems
Joe’s comparison to Age of Wonders 4 highlights how Civilization 7’s combat fails to evolve beyond basic mechanics. While other strategy games have developed sophisticated tactical systems with meaningful positioning, terrain effects, and unit interactions, Civilization 7 offers little advancement over previous entries.
The lack of combat depth particularly hurts during the extended campaigns that Civilization games encourage. Without engaging tactical decisions, military conflicts become tedious exercises in numerical superiority rather than strategic challenges that reward clever thinking and tactical positioning.
Extended Campaign Problems
The game’s length creates additional problems when combined with its mechanical issues. Joe’s experience of reaching turn 200 while still in the first age on Epic speed demonstrates how the pacing feels wrong, creating lengthy periods without significant progression or meaningful decision points.
This pacing problem compounds other issues – when campaigns take hundreds of turns to develop momentum, mechanical disruptions like age transitions become even more frustrating. Players invest significant time building strategies only to have progress arbitrarily reset by systems they cannot control.
DLC Strategy and Market Positioning
Premium Pricing for Incomplete Experience
Civilization 7’s $60+ pricing represents an attempt to reset market expectations while delivering what many consider an incomplete experience. Joe’s payment of extra money for early access, only to discover significant problems, illustrates how publishers exploit fan enthusiasm while delivering substandard products.
The obvious absence of major civilizations suggests a deliberate strategy to hold back content for future DLC releases. This approach prioritizes monetization over player value, charging premium prices for base games while reserving desirable content for additional purchases.
Subscription Models and Ongoing Revenue
The discussion of potential subscription models reflects industry trends toward ongoing revenue extraction rather than complete product delivery. Joe’s reference to Civilization 6’s leader subscription program suggests similar approaches for Civilization 7, where players pay repeatedly for content that should be included in the base purchase.
This monetization strategy undermines the value proposition of strategy games, which traditionally offered years of replayability for a single purchase. The shift toward ongoing payments changes the relationship between players and developers, prioritizing revenue extraction over long-term satisfaction.
Comparison to Previous Entries
Civilization 6’s Retrospective Value
Joe’s admission that he initially disliked Civilization 6 but now appreciates it in comparison to the new release illustrates how perspective changes with experience. What seemed like problems in Civilization 6 pale beside Civilization 7’s more fundamental issues, suggesting the latest entry represents a step backward rather than evolution.
This comparison reveals how incremental improvements in established franchises often go unappreciated until replaced by inferior successors. Civilization 6’s polished systems and coherent design become more valuable when contrasted with Civilization 7’s experimental approach and execution problems.
The Modding Community’s Role
The discussion of AI improvement mods for games like Stellaris highlights how dedicated communities often solve problems that developers ignore. Joe’s hope for similar community solutions to Civilization 7’s problems reflects both the game’s potential and the failure of professional development to deliver complete experiences.
However, the uncertain modding support for Civilization 7 raises questions about whether community solutions will emerge as readily as they have for previous entries. Without robust modding tools and community engagement, the game may lack the extended support that has sustained previous Civilization titles.
Industry Context and Development Trends
Total War’s Redemption Precedent
The comparison to Total War’s recovery from problematic releases suggests potential paths for Civilization 7’s improvement. Creative Assembly’s willingness to acknowledge problems and provide substantial free content to rebuild goodwill offers a template for how Firaxis might address community concerns.
However, this redemption approach requires acknowledgment of problems and commitment to free improvements rather than paid DLC solutions. The question remains whether Firaxis will follow this precedent or continue pursuing monetization strategies that prioritize revenue over community trust.
AAA Gaming’s Quality Standards
Civilization 7’s problems reflect broader issues in AAA game development, where marketing schedules and investor expectations often override quality considerations. The release of clearly unfinished products at premium prices has become increasingly common, eroding the value proposition that once made AAA titles worth their higher costs.
This trend particularly affects strategy games, which depend on mechanical depth and long-term engagement rather than short-term spectacle. When core systems are broken or incomplete, no amount of visual polish can compensate for the lack of strategic satisfaction.
Contact & Links
About | Contact | Meet the Team | Get Involved | Forum | Episodes
Patreon | Discord | Reddit | Twitter / X | Facebook
Instagram | Twitch | Steam Group | Steam Curator
YouTube | Spotify | Apple | Amazon
Email: [email protected]
Episode Verdict
This episode serves as a valuable warning for strategy gaming enthusiasts considering Civilization 7’s purchase. Joe’s detailed criticism, backed by extensive gameplay experience, reveals fundamental problems that go beyond typical launch issues to structural design decisions that undermine the franchise’s core appeal. His harsh 3.5/10 rating reflects not just technical problems but philosophical disagreements with design choices that prioritize change over improvement. The recommendation to wait three months before purchase acknowledges both the game’s current state and potential for improvement through patches and community feedback. However, the fundamental issues with the ages system, AI behaviour, and monetization strategy suggest problems that updates alone cannot solve. For long-time Civilization fans, this episode provides essential perspective on whether the latest entry deserves their time and money, ultimately concluding that patience rather than immediate purchase offers the best chance for satisfactory experience.
Next Episode: The Best and Worst of Steam Next Fest
Discover more from Critical Moves Podcast
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.