Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[TylertheDestroyer]

Nobody said that names and presentation didn't matter. All Sammy said was that people get hung up and names and presentation. You're not disputing that folks do. Neither am I. So what was the point of trying to say something about Disney in the first place?

Neither of us can answer that. Neither of us are trev What you and I can do is try not to accuse people of "deflection" and the like. It's unnecessary. If people are getting their wires crossed, there are much better ways to unpick that kind of confusion.

tomato tomato.

People "get hung up on" names and presentation because they matter. Again bringing us back to the same exact point you accused someone else of missing before this sudden shift into victim mode. The point has been explained several times. At this point the real question is why do you seem so offended at the mention of Disney characters in rather basic and easy to understand argument?

 

[Gorbles]

tomato tomato.

People "get hung up on" names and presentation because they matter. Again bringing us back to the same exact point you accused someone else of missing before this sudden shift into victim mode. The point has been explained several times. At this point the real question is why do you seem so offended at the mention of Disney characters in rather basic and easy to understand argument?

I'm not offended? At the risk of repeating myself, nobody said names and presentation didn't matter. Sammy was responding to a suggestion to change the game, and they thought the proposed change wouldn't be popular because people get hung up on names and presentation. Because it's important to folks.

But the way this is going doesn't seem very productive, so I think I'll bow out here. Have a great day. My PMs are open if you want to follow up at all.

 

[trev1972]

It's not an appeal to absurdity, it's a simple example that proves that it can't possibly be true that only certain people are "hung up" on names or immersion. What we'd call in mathematics a proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum. I think you might be confusing it with appeal to ridicule, which is something else. What do you call the fallacy when you misunderstand and misquote someone and then act offended when they point out that you've misunderstood and misquoted then?

More on topic, the point is that everyone cares about that stuff, they just have different places where they draw the line. I'd play a Kingdom Hearts civ. I was a big fan of Fall from Heaven in Civ4 which had giants and dragons and stuff. It really doesn't bother me to mix it with the historical in a game. I also like secret societies mode and all that. But I totally get why someone's experience would be ruined by stupid names, leader and civ combinations, and civs changing into each other in ahistorical ways. I don't think they are "hung up" on silly things to feel that way.

Yup it was purely intended as an example to make a point, no i wasnt suggesting people want Disney characters

I agree we all have different places we draw the line. Personally i was not a fan of secret societies, so i didn't play them- all good

Over half my games tended to be TSL games on an earth or Eurasia or European map. So while i fully understand the argument that Abe Lincoln was not around in ancient times etc- it absolutely matters to me that i feel like i am playing a real historic civ with a famous leader from that civ and trying to 'stand the test of time' with them, rewriting history and taking them from nothing to world domination.

Deep down i know it is a board game and a matter of numbers, but i want the game to hide that it is a board game from me, i want to feel like i am leading an empire and making relationships with the AI.

One area i had hoped would move forward a lot was the AI, i hoped they would invest effort to make the interactions feel more real, and of course to make the AI more intelligent.
I was very disappointed to discover nothing of the sort had happened.

 

[Gorbles]

Yup it was purely intended as an example to make a point, no i wasnt suggesting people want Disney characters

Just one small piece of clarification: at no point did I think you were, nor did I at any point say you were. Peace!

 

[aelf]

... and I think, here you are completely wrong. The wave of enthusiasm must come from Firaxis by finding convincing solutions for the problems.

The problem is people must be convinced. I'm sure there are studies to show that once opinions have been formed, they tend to be relatively difficult to change, but that would be going off-topic.

Speaking about Scotland: In that Civ 7 release post longer time ago I wrote, that I still hope Civ 7 will fly to the correct direction and not in direction Scotland. Unfortunately Civ 7 flew in direction to Scotland (but it still could return to the correct direction to Paris).

Wut?

 

[itix]

Civ 6 is on sale and selling over 80k new copies/week. They could earn millions with a new Civ 6 expansion.

I already have an idea. It could introduce a new game mode where you fight through 3 ages and on each transition you switch to another civ

 

[protocol7]

Wut?

The linked post in the message you quoted referenced a movie about a race to Paris. Flying to Scotland would be flying in the wrong direction, like the plane in the story.

 

[aieeegrunt]

For me personally the civ switching is the big one that makes me not want to play the game.
the game actually has many great mechanics like diplomacy, combat, graphic details, rivers..

I would like a mode where I could start in ancient era with any civ like Russia or France, and also ai empires would be randomized so the opponents would not be only ancient empires like Aksum.
I miss the discovery of who the neighbors.are.

Then there would be no switching, the civs would stay the same till the end. I dont mind that there would be no unique units for each era.

So I consider myself a potential returner to the game.

Just getting rid of builders is a change I have wanted for a long time

But the civ switching and era resets make everything else moot to me, and apparently many others, because it completely ruins any sense of immersion, role play and “make your own story”.

I am getting major flashbacks to the Fallout76 debacle. You’d think the fall of that particular titan would have taught people NOT to completely change the core mechanics and identity of a game, but here we are.

 

[mbbcam]

I'm sure there are studies to show that once opinions have been formed, they tend to be relatively difficult to change, but that would be going off-topic.

At the risk of going off-topic ...

https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/w...ts-Dont-Change-Our-Minds-The-New-Yorker-3.pdf

 

[bladex1200]

At the risk of going off-topic ...

https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/w...ts-Dont-Change-Our-Minds-The-New-Yorker-3.pdf

I would argue it's on-topic in that the observation that people rarely change their minds and their opinions are subject to inertia is a huge argument against the state the game was released in and against the idea that reception will improve with slow, iterative changes.

Stellaris has gone through 3 major reworks, and part of the reason the fan-base is reacting much less badly to a game they bought essentially being redone 3 times (vs Civ 7 just radically changing the Civ franchise once) is that the initial opinion for Stellaris was so strongly positive (despite people then pointing out severe flaws and gameplay shallowness and poor performance), partially because it had less franchise-expectations and partially-because its initial quality really was that addicting and fun.

Civ7 is unfortunately saddled with franchise expectations from existing games (which, to be fair, also boosted it with franchise anticipation, it's not some fresh new title nobody's ever heard of and is cautious about) which will predispose opinions negatively unless initial opinion came out swinging. And it kind of didn't, at least not for very long - bugs, lack of UI clarity, unfun mechanics and unbalanced systems, etc.

 

[MutilationWave]

At the risk of going off-topic ...

https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/w...ts-Dont-Change-Our-Minds-The-New-Yorker-3.pdf

Not off topic. Also thank you, I need to share this with my people.

 

[itix]

Stellaris has gone through 3 major reworks, and part of the reason the fan-base is reacting much less badly to a game they bought essentially being redone 3 times (vs Civ 7 just radically changing the Civ franchise once) is that the initial opinion for Stellaris was so strongly positive (despite people then pointing out severe flaws and gameplay shallowness and poor performance), partially because it had less franchise-expectations and partially-because its initial quality really was that addicting and fun.

I agree. But I also think it is advantageous to have major reworks every 2-3 years rather than try to create a completely new game every 9 years.

 

[protocol7]

On the first day there was about 400 more people playing than the previous day, that probably has to be chalked up as big a win all things considered. It’s about a 4% increase day over day.

On the same day it had 65% “don’t recommend” reviews. Or 35% positive if you’re more a glass 1/3 full type. But no guarantee that it’s new people leaving the mostly bad reviews, I would guess it’s a few days before they decide.

 

[trev1972]

On the first day there was about 400 more people playing than the previous day, that probably has to be chalked up as big a win all things considered. It’s about a 4% increase day over day.

On the same day it had 65% “don’t recommend” reviews. Or 35% positive if you’re more a glass 1/3 full type. But no guarantee that it’s new people leaving the mostly bad reviews, I would guess it’s a few days before they decide.

Definitely a sustained increase in players so i think the patch went down fairly well. I am not sure it will overtake civ 5 at this point for steam figures but do think it will go above 10k this weekend