Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[trev1972]

It's not a train wreck, though. It has the value that GeneralZift identifies:

There's a psychological dimension to that, too, so I'm not surprised mbbcam has found this thread interesting.

Civ VII has polarized the community, but in so doing, it has brought to the foreground the satisfactions that various kinds of players look for in these games.

Before the release of Civ VII, I thought what I liked in the game was what everyone else liked in the game. It has been eye-opening to me to learn how different are the appeals to different people. Sandbox vs victory-conditions is one of them. What percentage of games various players like to win is another. I had a debate with one poster about the unpacked cities (or whatever they call them) and I learned that some players would find it burdensome to make one single click to enter a city screen. I've grown way less confident in my own sense of what makes a Civ game.

Same here, i play civ as an alt history simulator and its all about pretending that i am building an empire against real opponents. That means i value freedom in how i play, and also value opponents that seem to have a personality. I tend to roleplay in my games (for example as a Brit i tend to play England the most and always wipe out the French first if they are in the game, and tend to kill the Canadians/Aussies last if they are in the game)

I spent a huge amount of time playing earth maps. I also love games where i go all out for a science lead - and then utilise it. I hate things that remind me i am playing a board game where its just numbers. Hence why civ 6 was a move away from what i want and civ 7 was a gigantic leap away. I really hoped that civ 7 would be the one where they invested heavily in making the AI both competent and also made an effort to make it feel more 'real' when you interact with it.

It has been an eye opener to discover that i am in a bit of a minority in how i play and that many play primarily as a strategy game with little attachment to the civ they are playing etc.

 

[mbbcam]

People appreciate a good train wreck if they're not personally and directly affected. As a professional, I'm pretty sure you'll agree with my unprofessional opinion.

I have qualifications in social psychology, too, and it is fascinating to watch people trying to make sense -- both collectively and individually -- of what has happened with regard to Civ 7 over the months since its release. There does seem to be quite a lot of effort put in to arriving at rational explanations for opinions and ideas which are really driven more by emotion than reason. But that is quite normal in my experience. Not many people are aware that they are subject to cognitive biases, automatic processes and the power of the unconscious mind -- for the obvious reason that these things operate below the level of consciousness. You need to have studied them to be aware that they exist.

Before the release of Civ VII, I thought what I liked in the game was what everyone else liked in the game.

This actually has a name in psychology: it is called the False Consensus Effect. There is a decent article about it on Wikipedia.

If you want a fun ten minutes, look at the list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia. And for a deeper dive into automatic processes, look at John Bargh's work, such as "Before You Know It".

Cheers!

 

[GeneralZift]

It's not a train wreck, though. It has the value that GeneralZift identifies:

There's a psychological dimension to that, too, so I'm not surprised mbbcam has found this thread interesting.

Civ VII has polarized the community, but in so doing, it has brought to the foreground the satisfactions that various kinds of players look for in these games.

Before the release of Civ VII, I thought what I liked in the game was what everyone else liked in the game. It has been eye-opening to me to learn how different are the appeals to different people. Sandbox vs victory-conditions is one of them. What percentage of games various players like to win is another. I had a debate with one poster about the unpacked cities (or whatever they call them) and I learned that some players would find it burdensome to make one single click to enter a city screen. I've grown way less confident in my own sense of what makes a Civ game.

I think the "Civ formula" is just how they design these games to appeal to many types of people. Maybe what is lost on Civ7 design is that it doesn't have this same widespread appeal. You can't necessarily enjoy all the same things you could've enjoyed before.

This is what leads to the widespread controversies and conversations about what people enjoy