Frankenstein has been active since Civ3, with the earliest members having had a connection to Civ testing since Civ2, though.
Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread
- Thread starter protocol7
- Start date
They should probably re-assign this group to a different set of tasks then, because this game plays like it had zero QA testing.
The majority of reviews says the game is bad. It's divisive and bad at the same time. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.
Heh, it's not a paid group. There is no assignkng sans Civ testing. It's, as you will see if you check the credits, a large group. Just a handfull of volunteers. QA is something different. This group is described as more of a feedback group. And I guess Firaxis can choose to listen to said feedback or not. What feedback was given is not public either, so we the public cannot know what it said to the changes. With the divide in the bigger civ fandom, I will wager it went both ways, though.
Then they need to stop using this group, because they should have told Firaxis that this game is a dumpster fire.
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,006
Ah that's quite interesting! I was not aware.
Askia Muhammad
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 296
The creators who went to the preview pretty unanimously expressed worry and the devs told them not to be worry, the reception would be great. I remember hearing that on a few YTs preview videos.
That is harsh. It’s not up to this group to decide what Firaxis does. They can only advice. None in here knows what the group said if not a partvof said group. Any blame is on Firaxis and/or 2K.
I agree, it is too harsh. You are correct, Firaxis/2K is responsible for this game design. Apologies to the Frankenstein group, all and sundry involved. It isnt their fault that this game is really, really terrible.
Last edited:
There is always functional disparity with volunteers and actual customers.
Playtesters are committed to the product, have promised to devote their time to play it. They want to play it. Even if one finds it boring he might just drop out.
Customers are different. First working hard from 8 am to 4 pm, he comes home, downloads the new Civ 7, carefully opens a beer... And 4 hours later he is writing on r/civ why this game is a pile of the dog poo.
Playtesters are committed to the product, have promised to devote their time to play it. They want to play it. Even if one finds it boring he might just drop out.
Customers are different. First working hard from 8 am to 4 pm, he comes home, downloads the new Civ 7, carefully opens a beer... And 4 hours later he is writing on r/civ why this game is a pile of the dog poo.
So are you just here to troll, then? Is every post going to be "this game is garbage" with no explanation or suggestions for making it better?
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,441
My personal experience having been a playtester (not for Civ) is that the role is a bit like parenting a teenager. You can share your experience and recommendations, but they'll make their own decisions. Sometimes they'll listen to you, and sometimes they'll think they know better. And sometimes they'll be right that they do know better! And sometimes they definitely don't. But its their game, not yours, so you support them and give honest feedback and hope that it all works out great for them in the end.
Here's a suggestion/critique I made three months ago. Change leaders and not nations during an age reset.
What kind of reception do you think that received from you glazers on this forum?
Nahh fam - the game is a mess and it wont ever recover because polite discussion on what can be improved is shouted down by people too heavily invested in the current design.
You don't have to nasty or hateful for the devs to listen and implement change, take the feedback channel in the official discord for example.
protocol7
King
Why do people who hate discussion of how bad the reception has been or low player numbers keep coming to this thread? It’s the closest thing to the quarantine sub-forum requested in the other thread. Apart from not looking at reviews or player counts online, avoiding this thread seems like the best way to not see people complaining about the game (and player count / reception in general). The literal title is “Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread”. It’s not the “Polite constructive criticism thread”, imho it’s totally normal for people to be spicy when a game is getting 30 something percent positive reviews.
I empathise that it’s annoying if people show up in the strategy forum to talk about player counts, but if you go into the player count and reception thread to talk about how it’s inappropriate to talk about / have feisty opinions and speculations, even venting, on player count or reception or why those might be poor, it sort of seems like you keep hitting yourself in the face just to have something to be irritated about.
I’m not talking about people who participate here who like the game and bring that perspective, which is great to have.
I empathise that it’s annoying if people show up in the strategy forum to talk about player counts, but if you go into the player count and reception thread to talk about how it’s inappropriate to talk about / have feisty opinions and speculations, even venting, on player count or reception or why those might be poor, it sort of seems like you keep hitting yourself in the face just to have something to be irritated about.
I’m not talking about people who participate here who like the game and bring that perspective, which is great to have.
Last edited:
Askia Muhammad
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 296
I like changing leaders but if we were doing that I’d still like it to be somewhat culture/civ coded.
I’m not saying every civ needs a historical leader in each era - that would be impossible for most. I really like the idea that there are generated leaders and achieving golden ages allows you to select a civs actual historical leader. The leaders can provide era specific bonuses whilst the civ may have bonuses geared toward a specific era and their golden age historical leader will further enhance those
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think the problem is that there's no discussion. Since all this is pure speculation, there's nothing to argue about, just hundreds of "Yeah, it's bad" posts.
The saddest part is that there are actually bits of information, which would be possible to gather together as a community and analyze for meaningful results. But all the relevant threads are flooded with pure negativity posts.
Moderator Action: Critique is welcome. As is praise. But both sides need to act civil. Both sides need to respect the difference of opinion. In this thread, and in other parts of the subforum. 
Similar threads
- Sticky
