Theory: The Review Negatives Are Because... The Game Was Designed Low-key For Esports Play
Here are some very common complaints I read in the many reviews:
- Streamlined, minimal info UI
- Very bookended world maps with minimal customization
and what really clued me in
3) Pacing of ages seem to compel you to pick one strategy and stick to it because points
Really think about point #3. Now think of how the meta works for a game like League of Legends.
So what I'm seeing here is a game where every single strategy is "solved" in the meta, and your job is to basically learn it from the community. Ergo, it's not about seeing the yields or details. Each play isn't meant to be a totally unique, emergent solution. It's supposed to be that the pros who have it all memorized just have figured out the meta.
Then, you learn that meta from them.
It all leads up to the intended gameplay: with so many combinations of civs and leaders, a single match will never have one clear solution. Some leaders and civs in combination will present clear strategies, but there's enough variability that there's always room for error. Like how... MOBAs work.
Now think of eras as quick, curated, competitive rounds.
WHY DO THIS???
I think they want to really really nudge and funnel players into learning the meta, so they'll shift to intended competitive scene.
"That's so cynical"
Maybe, but I can see one very good argument for it.
I've just recently replayed Civ VI and III. I played Civ IV for the first time ever. I was shocked at how badly I sucked at Civ III and even worse at IV. I failed a ton of times until I realized you have to do trade offs on building cottages as soon as possible to grow them and get commerce yields to keep up with midgame science. Other stuff too. It's freakin' hard (unless you just spam military, conquer cities and dominate yields - on easier difficulties of course, but I dare you to try a culture victory with a tall strategy).
Combine this sense that Civ games have become very finely tuned to the meta, and are meant to actually be very tight and very hard, with things devs complain about. They don't like that people just reroll if they get a bad spawn. Or just quit 90% of the time in the ancient era if their start is bad. They see it as a design flaw to overcome.
We can debate whether devs have a right to do this. Avoiding the general argument, the idiosyncratic argument is that a ton of people play civ literally just to spam military, take over early, get yields, do god mode. All on marathon huge. I suppose there's an argument to want to do that with modern graphics and animations.
For the devs' side, they've been nudging this franchise to better balance. To create tight metas, and then disrupt them with systems (like Civ 4's civics) to have a tight, clean meta for gameplay without it seeming "solved". You use the systems to work around variable start scenarios.
If the idea is to drop you in a random world, you shouldn't just reset until you get the perfect start. That misses the ENTIRE point of the first X of the 4: explore.
Designing systems so you can overcome a bad start, usually, with good strategy, but that's tight and punishing enough to be challenging and therefore fun, is the goal. I know that I really hate getting into the later ages with awesome carrier battle groups and the AI has galleons. I want to feel like I'm in a serious battle with unclear outcomes, but not feel like I have to be some civ God to navigate all its systems.
This is where Civ VII as a "pre-programmed meta" concept comes in. By leaning us towards score and achievements, they're forcing us to settle on one strategy for each age. Then we learn how to execute that strategy the solved way.
This kind of forces any semi-serious player to just frickin' learn the meta. To log in to the wiki, join the forum, and learn how the game works. It makes it sort of easier to learn how the game works.
Like with MOBAs, you don't have to learn the meta of every leader. You can learn one or two leaders metas, what civs work with them or not. You can just play them over and over until you're great. Then, you maybe try a new, third or fourth leader, get your butt kicked, and decide which you want to invest in.
If the MOBA analogy doesn't work, consider fighting games and learning the move set of specific characters.
I think Civ 7 is low key designed to kind of funnel us into sticking to preferred leaders, and learning their metas, so that we can appreciate the balance of the game and actually face a challenging but not overwhelming, tight and quick strategy round.
And then, yeah I think they want to foster a competitive scene.
But, other silver lining, they can add crazy new ages within this paradigm. A "fall of Rome" scenario age. A "high medieval" age. A "post war mid century pop culture cold war" age. A "silk road between great empires" age.
EDIT:
I think they feel too many people play this on easier difficulties, never learn the systems, reroll starts. I feel as if, it's not like they want to force players to play in a way they don't want to, but they want to test - for one iteration of the franchise - if they kind of make it more important to learn systems and metas, will the playerbase actually do that.
Because if more people know these metas, they can enjoy the strategy part of the game. I think if a wider community was doing this, I'd play this thing on 1 hour multiplayer rounds almost every night.