7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[TylertheDestroyer]

It the issue is that you (and some others) think balanced maps is bad game design... others players disagree and they think that RNG unbalanced maps is bad game design.
The developers chose what those other players thought over what you thought... and that is what they are designing the game around.

and look how much good that has done them. The game has less players than Civization V now

 

[MutilationWave]

and look how much good that has done them. The game has less players than Civization V now

We are all aware of this. There's no reason to keep beating that drum.

 

[Krikkit1]

and look how much good that has done them. The game has less players than Civization V now

Yes, however I don't think balanced map starts is a net negative (it maybe why it isn't even lower)

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

We are all aware of this. There's no reason to keep beating that drum.

there is a reason to bring it up when I'm responding to someone arguing that some players agree with the design choices the devs made. and that devs chose what some players thought was good design and designed their game around that.

I beat the drum to point out that "hey maybe they made the wrong decision"

 

[aelf]

It must be fun to use that reasoning on everything.

"Look how much good navigable rivers have done them. The game has less players than Civization (sic) V now. Commanders? Unique civics? The game has less players than Civization V now."

 

[AntSou]

and look how much good that has done them. The game has less players than Civization V now

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but this is like disagreeing with the colour of paint used at Chernobyl then saying "I told you so" after it blew up.

 

[aelf]

We are all aware of this. There's no reason to keep beating that drum.

Supposedly that's all part of legit criticism and passion for the franchise, according to some.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but this is like disagreeing with the colour of paint used at Chernobyl then saying "I told you so" after it blew up.

It must be fun to use that reasoning on everything.

"Look how much good navigable rivers have done them. The game has less players than Civization (sic) V now. Commanders? Unique civics? The game has less players than Civization V now."

Boring, too balanced, and unrealistic map design/generation were some of the most commonly criticized features before and during launch

meanwhile Navigable rivers and commanders are two of the only features universally praised

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Supposedly that's all part of legit criticism and passion for the franchise, according to some.

I mean you getting upset at the constant and passionate criticism isn't going to change the fact that most users don't like the game

 

[aelf]

Boring, too balanced, and unrealistic map design/generation were some of the most commonly criticized features before and during launch

That list seems designed to conflate different map generation issues. As for the actual topic at hand, no, not even close to the most commonly criticized.

I mean you getting upset at the constant and passionate criticism isn't going to change the fact that most users don't like the game

Sorry, most users of what? What data are you referencing?

 

[user746383]

Two thirds of players (most by any sane definition of the word) who buy the game and leave a review on Steam leave a review that they don’t recommend other people make the same mistake. Steam categorises this level of negative reviews as “overwhelmingly negative.” I like the game and left a positive review, but that stands out as significant to me. It at least says that you can’t assume that if the devs made a decision it is proof it must have been a good one. Of course it also doesn’t say that every decision the devs made was bad, either.

 

[firadin]

Supposedly that's all part of legit criticism and passion for the franchise, according to some.

Are fans of a franchise not allowed to criticize new additions? Maybe people are so upset because their beloved franchise put out a game they don't like and they won't have a new game to play that they like for the next decade. Have you considered that?

 

[MutilationWave]

Two thirds of players who buy the game and leave a review on Steam leave a review that they don’t recommend other people make the same mistake. I like the game and left a positive review, but that stands out as significant to me. It at least says that you can’t assume that if the devs made a decision it is proof it must have been a good one.

I like the game and I didn't leave a review. I don't think I've ever left a review of a game. There are tons of people like me that don't use the steam forums, do reviews, or otherwise.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Sorry, most users of what? What data are you referencing?

let me refer you back to the overwhelmingly negative user scores across every medium and the fact that the game has ten thousand less players on average than a 15 year old game in the same series

 

[user746383]

I like the game even though it’s unpopular and poorly reviewed, but for whatever reason a lot of people seem to need to convince themselves that actually it’s popular and well reviewed we just can’t prove it for some strange reason. And because of this, any discussion about why it’s unpopular and poorly reviewed is taken as a personal attack on their worldview and cannot be tolerated.

Whatever interesting conversation starts to happen about what people like or don’t like and how the game could be improved gets near instantly shut down by people trying to use their reality distortion fields on it.

It may work if you’re a super fan and you just want to be king of an empty forum, but lashing out at new members just because they have complaints is not going to create a great civ community, and I saw this happen yesterday. I’m trying to stand up for listening to each other instead of boring sarcastic fart-sniffing comments like above, but I’m ready to give up too. I guess that’s what the sarcastic jerks want anyway.

 

[Kev1916]

It the issue is that you (and some others) think balanced maps is bad game design... others players disagree and they think that RNG unbalanced maps is bad game design.
The developers chose what those other players thought over what you thought... and that is what they are designing the game around.

Probs just me, but I've no idea what your point is or what your trying to get over

What is a balanced map!!? and what did this civ do that wasn't in previous versions, and who said the developers picked Larrys thought's over Mo's

The new Civ appears to have a fair few complaints about set up options , from well not very many to "balance" issues !

How a game is set up is or should be a staple for all decent 4x games, I've never seen any poster mention that all maps should be huge, all speed must be marathon etc

There is to me a select few poster go out there way to misrepresent other posters.

 

[aelf]

let me refer you back to the overwhelmingly negative user scores across every medium and the fact that the game has ten thousand less players on average than a 15 year old game in the same series

Can you be more specific?

I mean, let's take Steam reviews. A Steam review is a choice between Recommended and Not Recommended. Equating a Not Recommended review with disliking the game is a bit of a stretch. You could easily see this by actually reading the reviews, some of which are a lot more nuanced than saying they dislike the game (e.g. maybe they think the game just needs some anticipated improvement or is just too expensive right now). And given that All Time reviews are at 47% positive, concluding that "most users dislike the game" would be categorically wrong if just 3% of the Not Recommended reviews are by players who don't exactly dislike the game.

Anyone who knows data shouldn't make a mistake like that. But, oh well - not even professionals are always competent at what they do.

As for the data on average number of players compared to Civ 5, that also doesn't prove that "most users dislike the game."

 

[aelf]

Are fans of a franchise not allowed to criticize new additions? Maybe people are so upset because their beloved franchise put out a game they don't like and they won't have a new game to play that they like for the next decade. Have you considered that?

Yes, yes, criticism of the game consists of repeating "Civ 7 has fewer players than Civ 5" ad nauseam. Awesome critique.

 

[firadin]

Yes, yes, criticism of the game consists of repeating "Civ 7 has fewer players than Civ 5" ad nauseam. Awesome critique.

No, criticism of Civ7 consists of analysis about preferred gameplay styles im balance vs roleplay, immersion breaking of various mechanics, railroading vs sandbox, etc. People discuss lack of polish, or reversion on various game mechanics, or whether certain perceived problems were false complaints or valid pain points in need of work.

When people question why the criticism exists and it's broad appeal, people revert to statistical analysis to prove the validity and general agreement of that criticism. No one is criticizing a game by saying it sold poorly - that doesn't even make sense because sales numbers isn't a thing inherent to a game and a game can be good or bad independent of sales.

 

[aelf]

No, criticism of Civ7 consists of analysis about preferred gameplay styles im balance vs roleplay, immersion breaking of various mechanics, railroading vs sandbox, etc. People discuss lack of polish, or reversion on various game mechanics, or whether certain perceived problems were false complaints or valid pain points in need of work.

When people question why the criticism exists and it's broad appeal, people revert to statistical analysis to prove the validity and general agreement of that criticism. No one is criticizing a game by saying it sold poorly - that doesn't even make sense because sales numbers isn't a thing inherent to a game and a game can be good or bad independent of sales.

Um, it seems you jumped in without following the conversation. So good day to you?