Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[aieeegrunt]

My problem is the clear dissonance that not only content creators, but critics review had with the playerbase

Critic reviews had an 80 rating and most content creators praised the game, yet both steam user reviews and metacritic score are way below that. In case of content creators, since they are less amount, it might be that they are not in touch with the playerbase opinion and their fanatism and bias (and maybe a sentiment that if they are too critical they will not get invited to earlytesting anymore) led them to make mistakes

But i do think the critic reviews were paid, just like Dragon Age did. Any time critic ratings are 3 or more point afar from player ratings, i smell something fishy

Gaming journalism has a major potential conflict of interest in that having early insider access gives you a potential advantage over other journalists, but said access is of course controlled by the game’s publisher.

If you slam a game, especially if you are correct, you can expect to never get that access again.

If you see a major diconnect between review scores from professionals and the actual customer base’s reaction, this is often why.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I didn't admit anything of the sort. You really need to look at the argument posters you disagree with are making in good faith. If somebody has a different opinion to you, you can disagree with it without trying to frame it as some kind of fallacy.

I did look at your argument in good faith. it's just not a very good argument. You absolutely are conflating two completely different issue whether you have the honesty and self-awareness to awknowledge what you're doing. This has nothing to do with you just having a "different opinion" this is about your trying to smash two seperate points and beliefs (the idea that streamers are bias and that streamers moving away from the game because its unpopular) into one to make an ultimately dismissive argument that they're contradictory positions when they are not.

Any more than someone who hates the fundamental mechanics of VII and wants the game to be completely rewritten?

Yes absolutely, do you not understand what bias is? Yes being flown out to events for free and given early access when your job is literally relies on access to media makes you way more of a bias than someone simply liking or not liking the game design choices.

I don't think so. Certainly, money wouldn't buy agreement from me, and I've been to plenty of pre-release demos for the years. None for Firaxis, mind you.

Are you a well known streamer or journalist whose livlihood relies on access to these pre-release demos and future partnership with the devolopers? If not, literally no one cares.

You might roll your eyes at this, but we all have bias. It's how we let it impact our opinions that's important. The existence of bias by itself means very little. Otherwise I could just tell you you're biased anytime you post on this subforum. And you could do the same to me. No?

Yes I do roll my eyes at you trying to compare randos liking or not liking the game's changes to someone who gets flown around the country and hosted for free to do early access advertising for corporations via streaming and/or journalism...

Impossible to prove. A common assumption, and it can be correct. But it also can be incorrect. It's a claim that needs evidencing. Do you have evidence that Firaxis or 2K have coerced content creators into misrepresenting the product, or have forbidden them from expressing certain opinions? And if so, have content creators hidden or otherwise downplayed this coercion?

Dude i'm not doing this nonsense song and dance with you. Moderator Action: *SNIP* Stop with the "cope" now. This is the last time. -lymond most everyone else here is well all aware of how media access and bias in journalism works at this point. This thread isn't about our opinions about media bias in game's journalism and media, it's about the game's reception/popularity and the fact that major streamers are moving away from the game is evidence of that poor reception.

Again, whatever our view about bias in media journalism/youtube streamer is completely irrelevant and seperate issue to the point that popular streamers are moving away from VII content because the game is unpopular. You keep saying "no they're not seperate" and essentially trying to call people out for some non-existent hypocrisy for holding these two different positions while simultanously telling us that you're not trying to conflate them and again it's just not working. It's just not a convincing argument whatsoever

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: The use of "cope" or "coping" will stop now. It is condescending, degrading, insulting, and most of all, lazy. Make your arguments with valid points. Don't resort to childish retaliation. This is not TikTok. -lymond

 

[Core Imposter]

Does anyone know of any other products that Firaxis is developing at the moment? I'll take rumors. Thanks in advance.

 

[Gorbles]

I did look at your argument in good faith. it's just not a very good argument. You absolutely are conflating two completely different issue whether you have the honesty and self-awareness to awknowledge what you're doing. This has nothing to do with you just having a "different opinion" this is about your trying to smash two seperate points and beliefs (the idea that streamers are bias and that streamers moving away from the game because its unpopular) into one to make an ultimately dismissive argument that they're contradictory positions when they are not.

It's not about self-awareness or anything like that. As I've said a couple of times, I am drawing a connection between two things, and you're saying there isn't one. This isn't a situation where either of us can say we're right. We're exchanging opinions. You really need to understand the difference.

Yes absolutely, do you not understand what bias is? Yes being flown out to events for free and given early access when your job is literally relies on access to media makes you way more of a bias than someone simply liking or not liking the game design choices.

I disagree. I've seen such rigid, uncompromising dislike (and like, tbh) from posters here and in other communities that make the bias incontrovertably clear. Bias doesn't scale with the amount of free stuff you get. There isn't a brain chemical equation for that.

And, again, in all cases, people can do different things with their bias. Good or bad, positive or negative. If I've followed a developer for over 20 years, I am biased in favour of that developer. You're telling me a trip to a games development studio trumps 20 years of personal investment in the good products I think a developer puts out? I doubt that, because you're going to find it hard to measure. Because you're attempting to quantify feelings.

This is why output matters. The problem we have here is the driving motivation isn't "bias". The driving motivation is you, as a critic of the game, are predisposed to either disagreeing or rationalising away praise of the game. I have a similar problem, the opposite way. Either of us having these positions isn't the problem! It's what we do with it. It's how we let it affect our arguments; our logic.

Are you a well known streamer or journalist whose livlihood relies on access to these pre-release demos and future partnership with the devolopers? If not, literally no one cares.

Are you? Do you see how much you're missing the point here?

Yes I do roll my eyes at you trying to compare randos liking or not liking the game's changes to someone who gets flown around the country and hosted for free to do early access advertising for corporations via streaming and/or journalism...

A person's profession doesn't matter to the fact that bias affects us all. You and I are both "randos" in this context. Neither of us are content creators. Neither of us have been flown out to Firaxis (or a 2K office, or whatever). We're all still beholden to it.

Why are you rolling your eyes? What difference do you see? Is it the higher standard that you believe content creators should be held to because of the relative size of their platform? I understand that, but it isn't related to what I was saying about bias. If there's another reason, feel free to explain.

This thread isn't about our opinions about media bias in game's journalism and media, it's about the game's reception/popularity and the fact that major streamers are moving away from the game is evidence of that poor reception.

You keep making it about those opinions. They're intrinsicly tied to the claims you keep making about content creators! You seem to be referring to them in the same breath!

I agree it's a tangent (of a tangent), and I would also like to avoid it because it gets off-topic very quickly. But if your entire point is "major streamers are moving away from the game", as I said in my previous post: this has been said before. It isn't a new insight. The fact it is being repeated by known long-term critics of the game doesn't actually prolong discussion. It doesn't add anything new. It's the same (critical) posters saying the same things that have already been said, in order to further their opinion that the game is doing poorly / is bad / both.

I get that. Which is why I asked if that was your entire point, earlier on. You didn't respond! What's a guy supposed to do?

Again, whatever our view about bias in media journalism/youtube streamer is completely irrelevant and seperate issue to the point that popular streamers are moving away from VII content because the game is unpopular. You keep saying "no they're not seperate" and essentially trying to call people out for some non-existent hypocrisy for holding these two different positions while simultanously telling us that you're not trying to conflate them and again it's just not working. It's just not a convincing argument whatsoever

When you are accusing content creators of being paid-for, it is relevant when you attempt to raise those same streamers moving away from VII. Because the paid-for angle is relevant, by definition.

I can guess why you wouldn't find such an argument convincing - because it's a counterargument to what you're posting. I get that. That's why I'm making it. We have a difference of opinion. You can either choose to discuss it, or otherwise try to avoid doing so. It's entirely your choice. My PMs are open if you think this is too niche for the thread - I'm happy to talk through any ways we might have been talking past each other.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

It's not about self-awareness or anything like that. As I've said a couple of times, I am drawing a connection between two things, and you're saying there isn't one. This isn't a situation where either of us can say we're right. We're exchanging opinions. You really need to understand the difference.

You are conflating two seperate issues and then trying to tell everyone that you're not doing that while expecting to be taken seriously. There is no connection between these two seperate points. You've given us your opinion and several users including myself have given their opinion about your opinion. Trying to hide behind subjectivity won't change the fact that your entire argument is conflating these two seperate positions to try to infer some sort of hypocrisy that literally does not exist. No one is fooled here

I disagree. I've seen such rigid, uncompromising dislike (and like, tbh) from posters here and in other communities that make the bias incontrovertably clear. Bias doesn't scale with the amount of free stuff you get. There isn't a brain chemical equation for that.

Actually typically when people are referring to bias in the context of media coverage, it absolutely does amount to the scale of free stuff and privaleges like advanced access and paid trips that these people recieve....

Again I won't use the "c-word" but i will say its absolutely laughable to try and compare the "bias" of someone subjectively liking or disliking something on a message board with the bias inherent in a journalist/media personality being given free trips and/or being paid to advertise for a corporation and if you don't see that there is nothing else that can be stated in good faith to you other than the fact that most others will not agree with such a silly sentiment.

Moderator Action: Please stop the PDMA. leif

And, again, in all cases, people can do different things with their bias. Good or bad, positive or negative. If I've followed a developer for over 20 years, I am biased in favour of that developer. You're telling me a trip to a games development studio trumps 20 years of personal investment in the good products I think a developer puts out? I doubt that, because you're going to find it hard to measure. Because you're attempting to quantify feelings.

If you are a journalist or a media personality whose business relies on continued cooperation and towing the line for devolopers who give you preferential treatment like early access, paid trips, and in some cases literal payrolls you ar absolutely biased and that needs to be disclosed for anyone who cares about intergrity. Does this bias mean that your opinion is completely worthless? not all the time but you will absolutely be scruntinized for your relationship with the devolopers.

It's wild that I have to explain this to you, so much so it's hard to take you in good faith. Honestly I'm not going to bother dealing with the rest of your post when from quick glance it just seems to be a lot of going on and on about something this topic isn't about. Again this is why I emphasized the reality which is that the thread isn't about whether or not journalists, streamers, etc are reliable, unbiased, etc, etc, that subejct is completely irrelevant to the point that all the popular streamers are moving away from the game because of its unpopularity. This topic isn't about defending the honor of game media personalities, streamers or journalist like you seem to want to do so badly, It's about the game's reception and popularity. A completely different subject that we won't let you conflate with an obviously unrelated tangent about some people also believing streamers, journalists, etc are biased and/or unreliable

Moderator Action: Please stop trolling other forum members. leif

 

[Naokaukodem]

But i do think the critic reviews were paid, just like Dragon Age did. Any time critic ratings are 3 or more point afar from player ratings, i smell something fishy

I don't think, even though that probably exists, that all the press had been paid. It suffices that the said press is afraid to be disconnected with its consumers for a game to have a correct but not skyrocketing rating. In other words, either they are incompetent, either they do not assume their opinions. All for the sake of audience.

It's even easier for them to fall in that trap when the franchise is well known, established and loved. They just don't want to go too far from their expectations of what would be the audience expectations. Just because they see themselves as respectable institutions. I wouldn't call proud and coward institutions respectable.

 

[Gorbles]

You are conflating two seperate issues

For the third or so time, I am not.

There is no connection between these two seperate points.

There is. I've repeatedly explained why I think there is. But we're going in circles.

Actually typically when people are referring to bias in the context of media coverage, it absolutely does amount to the scale of free stuff and privaleges like advanced access and paid trips that these people recieve....

There are no "people" here. It's just you and me, in a tangent. Anyone can of course chip in, but don't make the mistake of presenting your singular opinion as some kind of common factual truth.

I was talking about bias, period. Bias about Civ VII specifically (both positive and negative bias). You're the one attempting to (now) claim that bias in media coverage is such a unique thing it requires its own conditions and qualifiers. This isn't necessary.

It doesn't matter why someone is biased for or against something. What matters is the impact on the resulting argument / opinion / content. Do you agree, or do you disagree?

if you don't see that there is nothing else that can be stated in good faith to you other than the fact that most others will not agree with such a silly sentiment.

"agree with me or you're being bad faith" is a poor ultimatum. You're not taking my previous advice on board. You're not willing to tolerate opposing opinions. Nor can I force you to. But again, this is going in circles.

It's wild that I have to explain this to you, so much so it's hard to take you in good faith. Honestly I'm not going to bother dealing with the rest of your post when from quick glance it just seems to be a lot of going on and on about something this topic isn't about. Again this is why I emphasized the reality which is that the thread isn't about whether or not journalists, streamers, etc are reliable, unbiased, etc, etc, that subejct is completely irrelevant to the point that all the popular streamers are moving away from the game because of its unpopularity. This topic isn't about defending the honor of game media personalities, streamers or journalist like you seem to want to do so badly, It's about the game's reception and popularity. A completely different subject that we won't let you conflate with an obviously unrelated tangent about some people also believing streamers, journalists, etc are biased and/or unreliable

Nobody said this topic was about "defending the honour of game media personalities".

You said two things. One, that streamers leaving VII behind is a bad indicator for VII. And two, that streamers are biased because they got to something at Firaxis others didn't. You made it about bias. About the relative worth of these personalities when you made the claim! You did that!

If you don't want the subject to involve these things, it's on you to not raise them in discussions. Don't complain that people are fact-checking your assertions that you yourself raised!

I already said - several times - what I thought about you raising streamers leaving VII as an indicator of its popularity. You keep refusing to engage with what I've said. You've done it again, just now.

My PMs are still open, but I think I'm finally done with this tangent here.

 

[Crashdummy]

I don't think, even though that probably exists, that all the press had been paid. It suffices that the said press is afraid to be disconnected with its consumers for a game to have a correct but not skyrocketing rating. In other words, either they are incompetent, either they do not assume their opinions. All for the sake of audience.

It's even easier for them to fall in that trap when the franchise is well known, established and loved. They just don't want to go too far from their expectations of what would be the audience expectations. Just because they see themselves as respectable institutions. I wouldn't call proud and coward institutions respectable.

I am sorry but anyone that played 5 hours to Civ 7 experienced the terrible UI, the bugs, the forward settling, etc, without even mentioning the age transition and civ switching

So anyone that gave Civ 7 a 9 or a 10, or call it a great game after experiencing all those problems is not being honest

Now, if they are being dishonest because they are being paid, or because they dont want to lose privileges with the publishers, or because they have bias or fanatism towards the franchise, i cant know. But they are being dishonest towards anyone that read/hears/watches them

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

For the third or so time, I am not.

There is. I've repeatedly explained why I think there is. But we're going in circles.

There are no "people" here. It's just you and me, in a tangent. Anyone can of course chip in, but don't make the mistake of presenting your singular opinion as some kind of common factual truth.

I was talking about bias, period. Bias about Civ VII specifically (both positive and negative bias). You're the one attempting to (now) claim that bias in media coverage is such a unique thing it requires its own conditions and qualifiers. This isn't necessary.

It doesn't matter why someone is biased for or against something. What matters is the impact on the resulting argument / opinion / content. Do you agree, or do you disagree?

"agree with me or you're being bad faith" is a poor ultimatum. You're not taking my previous advice on board. You're not willing to tolerate opposing opinions. Nor can I force you to. But again, this is going in circles.

Nobody said this topic was about "defending the honour of game media personalities".

You said two things. One, that streamers leaving VII behind is a bad indicator for VII. And two, that streamers are biased because they got to something at Firaxis others didn't. You made it about bias. About the relative worth of these personalities when you made the claim! You did that!

If you don't want the subject to involve these things, it's on you to not raise them in discussions. Don't complain that people are fact-checking your assertions that you yourself raised!

I already said - several times - what I thought about you raising streamers leaving VII as an indicator of its popularity. You keep refusing to engage with what I've said. You've done it again, just now.

My PMs are still open, but I think I'm finally done with this tangent here.

Hopefully we're done here because this entire conversation has been tiring to say the least. You are trying to conflate two seperate issues and hold them up as contradictory as a means to dismiss people pointing out that streamers are moving away from the game because its unpopular and it's remarkably disingenious that you're still pretending that isn't exactly what you are doing. Even more disinegnious that you're trying to blame me for the unrelated tangent you obviously introduced to the conversation with your silly questioning.

Streamers are moving away from the game because it is unpopular. That is directly relevant to the thread at hand. Your ramblings in defense of the bias and honor of streamers, game journalists, and people who get flown on planes to provide early access media content for video game corporations is not. The end.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I am sorry but anyone that played 5 hours to Civ 7 experienced the terrible UI, the bugs, the forward settling, etc, without even mentioning the age transition and civ switching

So anyone that gave Civ 7 a 9 or a 10, or call it a great game after experiencing all those problems is not being honest

Now, if they are being dishonest because they are being paid, or because they dont want to lose privileges with the publishers, or because they have bias or fanatism towards the franchise, i cant know. But they are being dishonest towards anyone that read/hears/watches them

Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying that this dishonesty is probably more ruled by fear of displease / being wrong. Civ7 has been a long awaited iteration and I can imagine some people rating it by this sole metric. #dishonesty #views #clicks

Among them, I'm even sure that there are some who are not even always aware that they are being dishonest. #pride #cowardice

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying that this dishonesty is probably more ruled by fear of displease / being wrong. Civ7 has been a long awaited iteration and I can imagine some people rating it by this sole metric. #dishonesty #views #clicks

Among them, I'm even sure that there are some who are not even always aware that they are being dishonest. #pride #cowardice

Yeah this explaination doesn't hold much weight because mainstream legacy game media doesn't care about the fear of displeasing fans or being wrong/dishonest and they're a complete jokes in the eyes of your average "gamer" these days for that very reason. Mainstream legacy gaming media cares more about maintaining their symbiotic early access relationship with major devs and publishers than they do remaining impartial and credible . Which is exactly why IGN giving every mediocre game a 7/10 is a running joke at this point.

When stories like these exist and such practices are common within the industry (casual reminder: the first story is about a 2K PR affiliate) its obvious why such a disconnect between critical reviewers and users exist.

Duke Nukem’s PR threatens to punish sites that run negative reviews

Last night an explicit threat was made by a PR company working with 2K Games…

arstechnica.com

Yes, a Games Writer was Fired Over Review Scores

What was once just heavily rumored has now been confirmed by those involved

kotaku.com

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yeah this explaination doesn't hold much weight because mainstream legacy game media doesn't care about the fear of displeasing fans or being wrong/dishonest

Why wouldn't it ? That's all the base of their work ! Well, for the "being wrong"/dishonest part at least. As to "displeasing" (fans or not), that's not supposed to, but it is what it is...

Mainstream legacy gaming media cares more about maintaining their symbiotic early access relationship with major devs and publishers than they do remaining impartial and credible

What is the difference between displeasing by not providing a test in time and displeasing in general ? At best, it is equal, but the second is often worst than the first ! (because of displeasing for WHATEVER reason) So they should better keep more people happy than fewer. Unless there is this race to money : why bother to build loyalty when the inflow of "customers" is seemingly the same or even growing ? But at that point, I call those sites garbage sites. They are easily identifiable. No, I'm talking about sites that claim to be impartial, exigent and "the place to be" for the "hardcore players". Those at least make the effort to not be involved with publishers agendas, and never hesitate to provide reviews 1 weeks after release with a version they bought themselves. But yet, I find they can claim all sort of things, they are not that different from garbage sites, but for the reasons I specified more particularly.

Anyway, who read reviews ? The conclusion and the rating maybe, but not further than that, or exceptionally. (taking my own example here ) No I go into video games sites for the news, and as far as I remember, I also bought video games magazines back in the day principally for the news and the pictures in the tests. Obviously I was interested by the rating and the conclusion, but also by the opinion of the diverse reviewers, because in the magazine I think of, there was 2 or sometimes 3 different reviewers for the same review, which opinions that often diverged. There was no "bloc editorial line" that seemed like everyone was agreed for a certain text and a certain rating. These sites, whether they claim to be better than all the others, are equally ridiculous IMO, because they boast of an authority they are far to represent, often with the idea that they could be "objective". #pride #cowardice

 

[DennisCastro]

I disagree. I've seen such rigid, uncompromising dislike (and like, tbh) from posters here and in other communities that make the bias incontrovertably clear. Bias doesn't scale with the amount of free stuff you get. There isn't a brain chemical equation for that.

I just want to add that this misses the point. Sure we all have bias, but that’s meaningless. If I dislike chocolate, I’m going to be biased against chocolate chip cookies and it would be silly for someone to complain about that - or even to point out that bias.

People dislike bias when the bias is influenced by a payment, either in cash, gifts or access. People dislike this for obvious reasons because it means their opinions cannot be trusted. It seems unfair.

I’ve been a civ fan since civ 2 and have liked every game firaxis has put out through civ vi. I strongly dislike civ vii. Am I biased against civ vii? I guess? But I’m biased because I strongly disagree with their decision making around the game design. What possible reason could I have to unfairly hate on this game? I wanted to like civ vii. I find the decisions they’ve made to be objectionable. This is a very fair way to approach the issue. There is no other motive at play here.

 

[Wrenched]

An amusing anecdote about streamers occurred when Sony released their Concord shooter game. A game that was so poorly received that it was promptly delisted and taken offline.
Sony paid streamers to play the game at release for something like 2-4 hours. Nearly every streamer ended their sponsored stream exactly to the minute they were paid for, stopped streaming Concord, and went back to whatever game they usually stream like Call of Duty.

Regarding professional reviewers, most respected strategy reviewers that had been in the business a long time have departed for better opportunities. Most trusted strategy reviewers I used to follow are long gone from the industry. The only long-term strategy reviewer of Civ VII that I recognized was Sin Vega. She gave Civ VII a 2 out of 5 on Eurogamer and exclaimed "The king isn't dead, but now's a good time to come at him." Indeed.

 

[Gorbles]

I just want to add that this misses the point. Sure we all have bias, but that’s meaningless. If I dislike chocolate, I’m going to be biased against chocolate chip cookies and it would be silly for someone to complain about that - or even to point out that bias.

People dislike bias when the bias is influenced by a payment, either in cash, gifts or access. People dislike this for obvious reasons because it means their opinions cannot be trusted. It seems unfair.

I’ve been a civ fan since civ 2 and have liked every game firaxis has put out through civ vi. I strongly dislike civ vii. Am I biased against civ vii? I guess? But I’m biased because I strongly disagree with their decision making around the game design. What possible reason could I have to unfairly hate on this game? I wanted to like civ vii. I find the decisions they’ve made to be objectionable. This is a very fair way to approach the issue. There is no other motive at play here.

Yes, you agree with me in that people dislike bias when it means opinions cannot be trusted. The why doesn't matter. You, like other posters, are trying to make this about the why. The why in this case is (allegedly) being "influenced". It doesn't matter. What matters is the impact on their opinions / the content they put out.

This is why someone who genuinely wants the game to fail is similarly biased (tired note: not saying anyone here wants VII to fail). Why they want the game to fail doesn't really matter, in that it's not objectionable. They're allowed to want that. But in terms of bias affecting actions, it's that subsequent affecting of actions that is important.

Because it impairs rationality. Now, I'm not a big "everyone must be a logic robot at all times" kind of guy. Emotions are important and valuable (see: a lot of critical sentiment around Civ VII - it's important. I'm sure it's valuable for the devs even if I disagree with certain particulars). But arguments need to be rational. "i hate this and it sucks and it must go completely" (second tired note: also a hypothetical position) is not a rational position. It cannot be argued with. The bias is overriding any aspect of trust in that person's position.

I feel like you're taking my argument too personally. I'm not saying you (or anyone) is unfairly hating on this game. I'm not saying you're wrong (or right) for disagreeing with the decisions the devs made. You're free to do that. I'm explaining how bias works (redundantly, for a bunch of posters, I'm sure). I'm saying that bias isn't the problem. Having bias isn't the problem. It's what you do with it that can cause problems.

However, it has been repeatedly pointed out to me that bias isn't relevant to this thread, so as such I'd really prefer it if any future tangents could come via PM, instead of taking up thread space. Thanks

 

[youngsteve]

I am surprised anyone that believes professional reviews are above board & honest. They never have been. Even going back to the 80's when magazine & paper reviews were king, most people knew that most were in the pockets of the big companies, & were marked up, whilst small independant producers had to depend on the quality of their product to succeed. Nothing has changed, except going digital, where the same dishonesty holds court. People need to take these reviews + content creator ones wuth a pinch of salt, & look at the full package like word of mouth, developer diares, videos, written reveiws etc, to get an idea of whether you will like a game or not. Last game I got caught out on was Civ 6, & that was for different reasons, but other than that nearly a decade ago I have bought games that were at least playable & enjoyable to me.

 

[Core Imposter]

In my mind the problem with what Ed Beach did with Civ 7 was not that he and the company did new things with the game. They just did the wrong things. Risk taking is good and bold and brave and disastrous when you screw up.

Virtually everybody wants them to go back to Civ 4 and start from there but for some reason they kept messing up. I said when I first heard of 1UPT that it would destroy the franchise and now we are at the brink.

 

[kotpeter]

In my mind the problem with what Ed Beach did with Civ 7 was not that he and the company did new things with the game. They just did the wrong things. Risk taking is good and bold and brave and disastrous when you screw up.

Virtually everybody wants them to go back to Civ 4 and start from there but for some reason they kept messing up. I said when I first heard of 1UPT that it would destroy the franchise and now we are at the brink.

What do you mean "destroy"? Civ 6 is a huge financial success and has a very high player count. Civ 5 has more than 10k people playing simultaneously.

I guess with all the nostalgia surrounding previous civ games we may soon be receiving remasters of Civ 4 and Civ 5 with graphic upgrades, network code fixes, perhaps even more paid DLCs, balance tweaks and whatnot. I just hope it's done by a separate team, while the other team works on new games with different 33/33/33 formula implementations. I don't want Firaxis to succumb into remastering of their successful titles.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Virtually everybody wants them to go back to Civ 4 and start from there but for some reason they kept messing up. I said when I first heard of 1UPT that it would destroy the franchise and now we are at the brink.

No they don't, again there's a reason why V and VI are by far the most popular and succesful entries in the series. The majority of CIvilization fans prefer 1UPT/tactical combat (or something in between) to stacks of doom and this fact can be confirmed by poll after poll after poll here over the last decade or two.

We're never going back, the best you're going to get is a compromise like we see in VII with limited stacking. Personally there are mechanics I'd like to see return from IV but this idea that everybody wants stacks of doom back, the franchise has been DeStRoYed because 1UPT, and that virtually everyone wants to go back to IV is just not reality.