Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,388
How much money did they spend on producing this thing?
Then I guess 2K will call it a day .
Considering they didn't when Civ 5 was mostly hated out of the gate, I seriously doubt that. At least one proper expansion is coming I expect.
So did VII, though. Just look at all the awards on the Steam store page. Metacritic is at 79/100, which is "generally favorable". OpenCritic is at 76% recommend. There's a whole list of reviewers on Steam and Wikipedia that gave it 4/5 or 5/5 ratings.According to Wikipedia, it received critical acclaim.
The other controversial aspect was the AI, which was hyper aggressive and yet so incompetent that you pretty much couldn't ever lose a game if you put in even minimal effort. And there just wasn't much to do. Civ V on release was boring.It had good reviews, good sales, and the number one controversial aspect (1UPT) was heavily praised by everyone who was coming in new to the franchise.
Civ7 also received critical acclaimI still cant find evidence that Civ 5 was doing poorly at the release. In 2010, it was the 5th top selling game on Steam. According to Wikipedia, it received critical acclaim.
1UPT wasn't number one controversial aspect. Number one controversial aspect was awful quality on release. Look at Civ7 initial reception and double it. Civ5 has performance issues, carpet of doom was terrible, late game was completely untested.Civ5 on release was panned by Civ4 players, but was pretty well received by the general public as a whole. It had good reviews, good sales, and the number one controversial aspect (1UPT) was heavily praised by everyone who was coming in new to the franchise. None of that applies to Civ7.
Civ7 also received critical acclaim
I highlighted many more good reviews already. There are more on Steam and Wikipedia. The game received very good critical reviews overall, though not quite as good as Civ V.Lol literally no. First results on google searching "Civilization VII review":
- IGN - 7/10
- Aftermath - no vote, simply calls the game "bad"
- Eurogamer - 2/5
- The guardian - 5/5 (it's the only "critical acclaim", but I would definitely not consider the guardian a good game reviewer...)
- Metacritic - 79
- The sixthaxis - 7/10
- Audience review 1.7
Stuff like 7/10 and even a 2/5 is definitely not critical acclaim.
Literally searching "Civilization V Review"
- IGN - 9/10 (2010 review, no expansions at that time)
- PC gamer - 93% (2010 review)
- Metacritic - 90% (2010 review)
- Eurogamer - 8/10 (2010 review)
Those are literally the first google results, it's not cherry picking.
And another thing I thought of is maybe the game is popular on consoles. Anyone have any info on that? It's obvious the game will never do well on steam, it's dead in the water there.
Based on what, though?Best we know is overall reviews of the game for consoles are roughly in line with steam reviews (<50% positive)
Civ7 also received critical acclaim
Based on what, though?
In the end, yesterday there were 9 positive reviews and 50 negative ones (15% positive), continuing the trend of more and more negative reviews each day since the new patch, both in raw numbers and especially as a % positive.
View attachment 735412
Current Steam store state:
View attachment 735415
I see 12 positive and 28 negative. Does that mean at least 22 players got a refund? That would mean a 33% refund rate at the very least. Or am I missing something?In the end, yesterday there were 9 positive reviews and 50 negative ones (15% positive), continuing the trend of more and more negative reviews each day since the new patch, both in raw numbers and especially as a % positive.
View attachment 735412