How big is the factor of players purchasing the game and going into it with a negative mindset because of the negative reviews and everything negative they've read on the game?
"Bury threads with dislikes" yet some of the most upvoted posts of the past year and past month in that subreddit are negative and not positive.
This is circuitous and not particularly helpful, in my opinion. You can't blame consumers for being dissatisfied with a product they have purchased.
Then they should be super concerned.
I mean it somehow manages to be the best and worst of Civ simultaneously. Antiquity compared to modern get dramatically different scores. I think that's the most frustrating part. You can plainly see how great the game could be.
This sentence summarizes almost all gaming discourse over the last few years lmao
The point still stands. People are influenced by popular opinion. Despite the Steam reviews showing a near 50/50 split in terms of recommendations, I've seen many many people claim that Civ VII is "universally disliked" because its Steam rating is 47%. Most people consider the popular opinion on Civ VII to be negative.
My point was that the popular opinion on Civ VII is to hate it, so it can't easily go the other way. If the popular opinion was positive then this too would influence people's mindset going into the game.
The comment section of this video is pivoting around Reddit threads that asks for harsher Age transition?
I am trying to learn the procedures of this forum to better engage in conversation. On a review of this “steam charts” for Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, I was shocked to find that the average number of daily players has declined over 90% since launch, and now has fewer players than Skyrim, a nearly 14 year old game.
Isn't it fair to say that a significant portion of the franchise's fans chose to not buy the game based on how the game is designed/plays? By definition, their perception of the game is negative. The people you want to buy the game are most likely more critical of the features, than those that already bought it. I would say that the overall sentiment surrounding the game is much worse than 50/50. It's simple logic.
Blame the audience territory. Countless reviews and videos have gone into great detail about why the game isn't enjoyable. Tons of people bought and played it themselves and stopped playing.
When the game has so few concurrent active players, half of its reviews are negative, what is this weird gaslighting effort to convince us that Civ 7 is only bad and failing "in our minds"? This is has been a constant since unhappiness with the released product began.
There's a brigade of "top 1%" posters on the subreddit that seem to browse new 24/7 and immediately downvote all negative posts. Even a comment in a post that says something like "yeah not feeling this game" get -22 downvotes within minutes.
Yeah we're never getting that Genghis plushie...
Of course it doesn't. Building new stuff is risky. That makes the decision of Firaxis to completely change the formula of Civ baffling. They didnt take their founders rule of thumb (rule of thirds) seriously, because they thought they knew their audience and knew better than someone who actually knew his audience and product development. They doubled-down on their supposed intellectual superiority - telling people this is what you want, and this is how the game should be played, and this is why its good, etc... But, they dont know their audience and dont know their product, and they failed.
