Games

Yeah. Lots of changes. They reduced the number of ages down to three, Antiquity, Exploration, & Modern. In each age, you play a different civ. For example, you could start Antiquity with the Romans, transition into Spain for Exploration, and finish as Mexico in Modern.
Leaders and Civs are detached, so now you can play as Benjamin Franklin of Egypt or Napoleon of Japan. Leaders stay with you the whole campaign.
Settlers create Towns now instead of Cities. Towns are like puppet cities from Civ 5 in that they act autonomously. They mainly serve to harvest and send resources to your Cities. If they grow enough in population, you can spend money to convert them into Cities. District system has been reworked. Now there's only two types of districts, Urban and Rural. Rural districts take the place of resource improvements, since there are no more builders. Urban districts get two building slots, and from what I've seen some buildings do get adjacency bonuses.
There's a new unit called Commander that lets you stack your other army units on top of it and transport them across the map. Still have to unstack your army to engage in war.

There's more changes, but these are main ones that jumped to mind in terms of dramatically changing the feel of the game.

I haven't delved into it much but the big change this time is that as eras change, so do leaders. So you can change from one leader to another mid-game for different bonuses and strats.

I do this for a lot of games, but definitely for the Civ games. I play one generation behind because I can get the entire package for a reasonable price. And let's be honest, I have shitloads of other games to play in the meantime. I'm not missing anything.

Best advice. Get strung along for a few years until they make it whole.

Especially in a game like Civ. it's hard to know how people feel about it until a week or so later. I remember when Civ 6 was said to be the best game in the series on release, but after spending some time with it, it was lacking. Reviews like these are more of a first impressions.

Unless my friends, who have put a lot of hours into both Civ 5 and 6, unanimously recommend 7 to me, I have no intention of getting it.

I'm both satisfied enough with what I already own, and not sold on the new one yet. Not to mention that it'll inevitably be a vehicle for more dlc and expansion pack sales

Agreed. The reviews are way too good for a Civ game on release. Would be the first in a while that doesn't need DLCs to be really good.

Really? Because there are plenty of reviews that captured the state of that game at release, and they're generally better at articulating it than the guy who has 1000 hours in a game and calls it "literally unplayable" in a Steam review.

Civ7 does indeed use Denuvo. Concerning for a game like this with far more CPU usage than your typical game.

For me, Civ6 at launch felt like a couple steps forward and a couple steps back. I really appreciated the increased transparency with diplomacy, but the AI was aggressively bad in mid and late-game, something they never ended up getting right.

I detested civ 6 on launch. I bought the dlc when it was cheap but idk if I’ll ever like that game. Hopefully 7 is good, but I’m definitely gonna wait until I read all of the reviews.

The way of the future

Which part was confusing? The only major difference iirc was the districts mechanic, wasn't it? Was that the issue?

IIRC from when I first got the game, the tutorial hadn't been updated to account for changes from patches and expansions. It was probably fine for launch day, but decidedly not for the final game.

They said it will. Hopefully it will work better than with civ6