masterminded
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 92
I think that the assertion that Civ V has been the best received Civ by the fanbase and that detractors are but a vocal minority is just that--an assertion. We don't really have a representative sample of consumers to poll. We cannot know this.
Sales are also a very poor indication, as there are plenty of variables involved in determining sales that have very little to do with or are only partially contingent upon the perceived quality of the game, such as brand recognition, consumer anticipation, advertising budgets, presence of competition, etc.
Let's look at a case in point: Final Fantasy XIII. This game was not received well by the press. But it sold a lot. Why? Brand recognition, anticipation for a title that had built up over years of waiting, and a large advertising campaign. If press and popular reaction are to be believed, then FFXIII was not a good game. Similarly, many games that are reviewed poorly sell well and many games with highly dedicated fanbases and glowing press do not sell well.
And I really don't think metrics such as the amount that people are playing it as determined by steam is very relevant. First, this game is new. It may or may not have legs. Second, Civ games take a very long time to beat compared to games in other genres. As such, it takes longer to evaluate.
Now, of course, this doesn't mean that fans haven't received the game well and that the detractors are not a minority, either. But it will be a long time before this can be evaluated--if we can ever really evaluate it well, as sometimes such things remain ambiguous. I would wait to see how much interest it maintains in 6+ months and look at the sales of the expansions as compared to prior entries, for one.
I do have to add though--and I'm not attributing this to anyone in particular--that I sometimes get the vibe that fans of this installment are using the argument to isolate critics, especially when I stumble upon suggestions to move all posts that express dissatisfaction into one thread.
Sales are also a very poor indication, as there are plenty of variables involved in determining sales that have very little to do with or are only partially contingent upon the perceived quality of the game, such as brand recognition, consumer anticipation, advertising budgets, presence of competition, etc.
Let's look at a case in point: Final Fantasy XIII. This game was not received well by the press. But it sold a lot. Why? Brand recognition, anticipation for a title that had built up over years of waiting, and a large advertising campaign. If press and popular reaction are to be believed, then FFXIII was not a good game. Similarly, many games that are reviewed poorly sell well and many games with highly dedicated fanbases and glowing press do not sell well.
And I really don't think metrics such as the amount that people are playing it as determined by steam is very relevant. First, this game is new. It may or may not have legs. Second, Civ games take a very long time to beat compared to games in other genres. As such, it takes longer to evaluate.
Now, of course, this doesn't mean that fans haven't received the game well and that the detractors are not a minority, either. But it will be a long time before this can be evaluated--if we can ever really evaluate it well, as sometimes such things remain ambiguous. I would wait to see how much interest it maintains in 6+ months and look at the sales of the expansions as compared to prior entries, for one.
I do have to add though--and I'm not attributing this to anyone in particular--that I sometimes get the vibe that fans of this installment are using the argument to isolate critics, especially when I stumble upon suggestions to move all posts that express dissatisfaction into one thread.