The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom

1. JensL

   Mar 29, 2010

   10

   To be honest it is absolutely appalling that DRM protection has made people downgrade games. While I do not condone DRM on any level other To be honest it is absolutely appalling that DRM protection has made people downgrade games. While I do not condone DRM on any level other than theoretical, it is downright wrong to rate games badly out of a dislike of an element that is non-related to the game itself. My rating of Settlers 7 would be somewhere between 8 or 9, but as I've seen an increasing tendency towards downranking games with DRM, I'll give it 10.… Expand

   • 6 of 24 users found this helpful
2. CoyoteWAN

   Apr 29, 2011

   10

   Not sure what everyone is complaining about this DRM for I play Settlers 7 on Steam without a hitch all the time. Unfortunately, in today'sNot sure what everyone is complaining about this DRM for I play Settlers 7 on Steam without a hitch all the time. Unfortunately, in today's world it is coming common place to only be able to buy or activate software online, and that is not just for games. Personally, I find Steam very convenient as I work off of four different computers and every once in a while I misplace an old game CD I wanted to play, that means I have to pirate something I own which is frustrating stupid and time consuming. Whereas if the game is on steam I can just pull it up and install. And then I am done. Simple! Settlers 7 is the best Settlers since 4 in my opinion. Although I still like 4 the best it just seemed to look nice and had so much freedom. Although it was very buggy. But it had the coolest of stories. Final Note Settlers 5 was unplayable in my opinion it just seemed like another RTS. And Settlers 6 was okay but just to repetitive A went to B then AB went to C then ABC went to D ... I was just always annoyed by it.… Expand

   • 2 of 4 users found this helpful
4. Macca

   Mar 25, 2010

   8

   I have been tracking this game for some time and was a fan of the settlers series up to and including 4, but I lost interest in the gameplay I have been tracking this game for some time and was a fan of the settlers series up to and including 4, but I lost interest in the gameplay at 5 and never played it since. Settlers 7 is an improvement and gameplay is a little retrospective towards its old style and also with some nice new touches and personalization. However, there is a beast of a problem underlying in this game which many gamers will use as an excuse (and probably a justifiable one) not to buy this game, and that is it's DRM. Whilst not as bad as other Ubi games that use this, forcing the user to be online 100% whilst you are on the game isn't everyone's cuppa tea, but at least with Settlers 7, if you do lose your connection it will attempt to reconnect for a short time. So, if your internet goes down due to a spike or some other reason, at least it will attempt to get you back in the game, whereas other games using this platform will just boot you off the game and won't even attempt to save where you were. I would have scored the game a 9 but for it's poor DRM system (my opinion), and I haven't written much about the game and its play, but you can get a good idea from the official reviews around the internet, they all pretty much agree that the game itself has high production values and has been released in a stable version at release with not too many bugs or technical issues - which for a new release on PC these days, is saying something.… Expand

   • 3 of 6 users found this helpful
5. KooKyUnO

   May 26, 2011

   5

   This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am a newcomer to the series which, for better or worse, eliminates any expectations I may have had from the series. I believed I was in store for a dynamic economic/military kingdom builder, but what I got was repetitive and narrow game play (tedious micromanagement can still be narrow). I was able to put in 5 hours before being so bored that I may never boot the game up again. 5 hours 5 score. The meat of my problem was in world layout, warfare, and victory. The nature of each level and the layout was redundant, and provided for pretty much the same game every level. Then there was the disappointing game component of "neutral" regions. If I have an army and they don't, I say sucks to their neutrality.
   
   In warfare I was disappointed in defense and offense. Defense, I wanted to have better control of towers and walls. Maybe this became available deeper in the game, I may never know. Offense was even more of a joke. There was ever only one way to attack a region, the horrible bottlenecks, and there was no command and control other the retreat.
   
   Finally the most important aspect of any game, achieving victory. I understand that they wanted to allow for different modes of ending levels, using economy, military, or trade, but it always felt as though my conquest was incomplete. The Victory Point system was a cheap out for the developers. The enemy, or myself, would suddenly be defeated because one held more regions, and had a higher prestige, never having to directly challenge the opponent on the field. Silly. High points of the game was that citizens were very intuitive and got their work done. Nice variety to the economy.
   
   There were many other problems outside the scope of this short review. sigh...
   
   When will someone let me build a real Kingdom!… Expand

   • 2 of 4 users found this helpful
6. Sirik_Matak

   Apr 11, 2016

   4

   In opposition to the majority I will say that I like the overall art direction and stupid, bumbling characters that don't know what they'reIn opposition to the majority I will say that I like the overall art direction and stupid, bumbling characters that don't know what they're doing. They're really Settlers 3-4 alike and I take the look of Settlers 7 over two previous ones.
   But sadly the looks aren't everything. DRM aside. The game is resource hungry and tends to overheat my GPU for no reason and very often I suffered serious FPS drops (from 60+ to 5). And the good overall art direction for the most of time is barely visible outside of cut-scenes. Most of the time you play on the smallest zoom, which is FAR away from the ground. So far, that every single building looks exactly the same and every single settler looks the same. The developer was aware of that and implemented small goods icons above the settlers, so you can see what exactly is happening in your settlement. Also, the initial charm of Settlers 7's looks is ruined by animation. They have too much frames and every movement seems like put into x2 speed (on x1). The issue is extremely glaring on soldiers' animations. The world is also too sterile. Remember wildlife, dogs, cats and chicken in Settlers 6, settlers wandering around the town, etc? You will find none of that in Settlers 7. Say goodbye to different architecture (already limited in Settlers 6) - everything is the same in Paths to a Kingdom.
   But the above is just a nitpicking, really. The real problem lies in the gameplay. It's awfully stale and ultimately boring. It's even more simplistic than Settlers 1. There are production chains, but they don't come out of 2 levels. Settlers don't have any needs other than food (which is partially optional). And the worst of all - the building itself is extremely limited. You can't rebuild the main routes (as you are able in Settlers 6), every structure needs a road which placement is extremely limited, you can't even build walls. Their placement is predetermined. I bet you hated control zones in the previous Settlers game. Well, it's worse in Settlers 7. The outposts are prebuilt and you can only order your armies to attack/retreat. They're limited to roads (it's even bigger limitation than Settlers 2!). All maps are boring and even quest zones don't change anything. It's all about send quantity X of resource Y or kill some bandits. Settlers 7 have technology trees, but every single technology = % bonuses for your soldiers and structures.
   I guess the sandbox where you can put together your headquaters is nice...
   Other than that, you're better off with the original 2-4 Settlers and even Settlers 6. It's better than the 5th game, but that's not saying much.… Expand

   • 3 of 4 users found this helpful
7. aecsuter

   Aug 29, 2022

   4

   How lazy this game is... Not much to do in matches. Maybe the focus is really on you building and maintaining a city, with logistics and all.How lazy this game is... Not much to do in matches. Maybe the focus is really on you building and maintaining a city, with logistics and all. But then you need to remove the victory points among other things. Not my favorite genre, but this one I hated.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
8. Zippybungle

   Apr 27, 2013

   0

   I've been playing the settles for a long time. 1,2,3 and 4 and then lost interest a bit. I downloaded a cracked torrent of this and I'm glad II've been playing the settles for a long time. 1,2,3 and 4 and then lost interest a bit. I downloaded a cracked torrent of this and I'm glad I did.
   
   The graphics were hugely improved, the story hit just about every cliche as fast as Lara Croft empties a magazine and the gameplay sucked. The UI/UX was non intuitive and the whole thing was dumbed down to try and make it more attractive. Massive fail.
   
   I could possibly tolerate DRM if the game was absolutely amazing but with this pile of s**te I'm glad I didn't waste my money and got improved playability for it. Not that I played much. 30 minutes and it ended up in the trashcan to hell.
   
   Good riddance
   
   Good quality games are worth paying for Good publishers inspire loyalty by fans and reap the rewards. I pay for great games. Stuff like this I decompose back into bytes… Expand

   • 2 of 10 users found this helpful

See all 44 User Reviews