Why the Video Game Reviewers need to stop proping up bad or mediocre games

There is general idea among regular gamers that professional reviewers are basically being bribed to push game sales. While we cannot say that this is the truth in every instance, it is clear that there many journalists are no longer able to review games without trying to use them to prop up their factions in culture wars.

It seems to me that the video game reviewers have become more like political activists rather than people who are actually trying to play the games and show their thoughts on it.

Some of it is a cultural change in our culture. The video game industry was seen as a not serious industry by many governments. It was simply part of the entertainment industry, which in the highly technocratic era of the Post-World War 2, was not seen it as a threat to their power. However, more recently, people have started to take a closer look at video games.

Politics and video games do not really mix as video games unlike movies, were truly seen as diversions not were taken up by the avant-garde. This means that video games have been more a product of middle-class values and concepts

However, more recently, people who tend to be more political have been getting more interested into video games. With this attention, they are bringing along the baggage which has been hurting the industry and its ability to make games.

What we need to is to return to when Video Games were made for people playing games.

We do not need activists in our games. Neither should they be in any form of media. Activism in this age seems more of a way to help one’s side of an oligarchical system in America.

Video games should return to being about entertainment and telling an inspiring story that matters to people of all ages, races and abilities.

When the video game industry and its critics manage to stop being so elitist, then the industry will be able to make great games that people will purchase and cherish.

Why Civilization VI is winning the war with Civ 7

Civilization VI is simply a better game. I bought both Civ 6 and 7 when they came out. This means that this is when they were new and did not have dlcs or many patches. The difference between the two cannot be clearer. Civilization VI had its detractors in the beginning, mostly in the area of it being cartoony and too impressionistic in its art style.

However, the game came out in October 2016 complete and many new features and refinements of what came before. The game was modernizing the micro which many old players enjoyed. Unlike in Civilization VII, there is a degree of control with how one runs their civilization. There is no plopping of improvements on the map, you have make to the choices for yourself and see how they affect your civilization in the game.

This is what is sorely lacking in Civilization VII. It is that choice and control which I enjoy.

It is not simply that control however, it’s the feedback one gets one playing in the game world of Civilization VII. It feels like a flat and uninteresting game. It just seems that the team that was working on it have no passion for it.

Civilization VI is clearly the one you should playing now.

Is Civilization VI still worth playing in 2025?

I think that Civilization VI is superior to Civilization VII in many ways. The game is simply lacking in respect for the formula which gave the series so much staying power. Civilization VII simply does not understand how to harness the goodwill of so many fans across the decades and instead decides to go after people who are casual players who are not interested in actually playing a complex game where you have to use your brain. Many aspects of Civilization VII, from its UI to the 3 mini games hiding behind the base game, Civilization VI simply outshines it.

Civilization VI is better than Civilization VII and it is also cheaper in comparison to it.