This is the first time I've ever truly despaired that there is no "thumbs in the middle" option on these reviews. Is Civ VII a bad game? Absolutely not. Is Civ VII a good game? That answer is very dependent on what your experiences with this franchise has been, but I think the most honest one is...not really.

I am not going to write a diatribe here about all of the flaws that the game has from a UI and functionality standpoint. Suffice to say, in 2025, it has become standard practice for studios to release games in a condition that would never have been acceptable in generations past, and then possibly patch them over time after they've seen if the sales warrant further support. It is shady and dishonest. It is also reality. If you are wanting to purchase a polished, finished product of a top-tier franchise and developer, then this is not that time.

For those that do, what you will be in for a is a fundamentally different experience from any Civ game in years, maybe decades. Since the beginning, the Civ franchise has been about building upon the foundations of previous games in order to reflect the ever growing complexities that face a growing civilization in the modern age. Increased options for Diplomatic, Cultural, Science, Trade victories instead of the simple "annihilate all other civs to win." Drilling down into City and District management. Choosing long term tech tree progress over short term gains.

Most of that is now either gone or very "streamlined" which is to say "dumbed down to appeal to new players."

The first thing you will do is select a leader from what at this stage is a very trimmed down list. This choice doesn't have any role in deciding your civilizations going forward. Did I say civilizations, plural? Yes I did. Because the game has now been divided into three stages, and you will be limited to civs in each one that correspond to that time period. So am I Ben Franklin leading Athens through the Ancient World? Yes, until the end of that Age, at which point I will have to pick a different Civ. Gone are the days of taking one fledgling nation of your choice and building an empire to the stars.

All of the changes and paring down of options feel completely aimed at broadening the player base and enticing inexperienced players that may have been put off by the complexities of past games. From a business perspective, I understand that. But this isn't a review of whether Take Two made a smart business choice, it's a review of whether or not this is a good game.

So, we return to what I said earlier. What is your previous experience with Civ games? If the answer is "none, but boy I've always wanted to get into them" then I suppose this is a good jumping on point. It certainly won't overwhelm you. But if you , like me, have been playing Civ games since the first one? Then...I just cannot honestly recommend it on its own merits. Other than the usual slightly better looking assets that comes with new generations of hardware, it is outshined on almost every level by both of its immediate predecessors. So for now, play those. If this game goes on sale, or if Take Two decides to take these criticisms to heart and do some serious overhauling of the game (unlikely given that it would fundamentally change the entire gameplay of it) then it may be worth a pickup. But for now...it's a sad thumbs down.