I'm a fan of , but I'm afraid that my worst impulses might get in the way of some of the game's strengths. While the game has some problems, most of them seem like relatively achievable fixes, and I'd argue that the barebones original release of may feel more incomplete when playing without expansions even today. My biggest hesitations regarding involve how unsubtle its approach to progression can be, and now that I've had time to get deeper into the multiplayer experience, I'm finding it hard not to abuse the system.
's defining feature is its Ages system, which transitions between eras and civilizations with surprisingly hard resets. It can be a great way to stop a snowball or regroup with a failing civilization, but it can also feel like flipping a binary switch that should have a little more nuance. Some of my most memorable experiences so far have come from the impact of age changes on my games, for better or worse, and those major shifts feel even more pronounced when I'm speedrunning history with friends.
My current multiplayer game of has been, overall, a relatively relaxing one. With two human players serving as a physical buffer between me and the AI in the Antiquity Age, I haven't been thrust into any unwanted conflicts. I had the good fortune of rolling Confucius with the random leader selection, so aside from some disagreements with Independent Powers and a minor scuffle I initiated with another player, I spent all of Antiquity and most of Exploration content to watch my Science numbers go up.
Sid Meier's Civilization 7 evolves the defining 4x series with both elegant additions and imperfect changes, but the end results are still glorious.
I do, however, have an archnemesis in this game — Friedrich. As the only leader who has unfailingly appeared in every game I've played so far, Friedrich has started to become an inherently annoying presence, and his decision to settle some cities on prime real estate just as I was getting a foothold in the Distant
Read more on screenrant.com