Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gori the Grey]

Civ-switching and the Ages system (they aren't the same!) are major issues but they're still a minority of the negative reviews.

Yes, Civ-switching is also a minority of the reviews which have any substance.

The Ages system is more prevalent in the reviews, but Ages system ≠ Civ-switching. Most complaints around the Ages system are to do with transitioning, the feeling of being reset & "3 mini-games".

Well, first, you claimed that the Ages system wasn't listed in the majority of negative reviews, but now it appears that it might be in the majority of negative reviews that list some feature.

But probably the larger point is I'm not sure you can slice the issue as finely as you are trying to do. People might use any of those three terms--transitioning, being reset, or 3 mini-games--and what they're all referencing is the same basic dissatisfaction that stems from ages-and-civ-switching together. Frankly, they might use the term "ages" when what bothers them is civ-switching, or vice versa: because most dissatisfied players see those as just two sides of the same coin.

You'd need reviews that say "I don't mind the game being broken into ages, but I don't want to have to shift civs at that break." I think almost no one feels that way; what would be the value?

I think you might find a few that said "I don't mind the idea of civ-switching, but I don't want it to happen at one particular spot in the game; I want it to feel more gradual." Because there have been a few posters here who have tried to imagine a game that worked that way.

But for most people, I think Ages do = civ-switching. They're effectively synonymous.

 

[Xur]

This logic is based on the fact that most negative reviews for the past 30 days came during sales. As seen on the picture below. The entire period has 39% positive reviews. The period that I highlighted (past 7 days or so) has 43% positive reviews. So unless Firaxis screw up the game in the upcoming weeks, the review score should improve.

View attachment 742167

Overall score is 47%. Both 39% and 43% is lower than that, so the overall score is getting worse either way. Your logic makes no sense.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

But for most people, I think Ages do = civ-switching. They're effectively synonymous.

It's a challenge for sure, when trying to read the tea leaves of reviews, because unless the reviewer goes into detail about what they dislike, then when they say "they don't like the Ages system", does that mean:

• they didn't like having to pick a new civ?
• they didn't like the crisis system that ended the age?
• they didn't like the reset system on starting a new age?
• they didn't like how victory conditions carry over from age to age?
• they didn't like that game rules change from age to age?
• they didn't like having the flow of the game interrupted for the age transition process?
• some combination of the above?

 

[Core Imposter]

The fact that you can't play civilizations with an appropriate leader is a more significant problem than many mention. If you switched leaders when you chose a new civ, and had a choice of at least two civ appropriate leaders for that age, everything would have gone much more smoothly.

 

[kotpeter]

Overall score is 47%. Both 39% and 43% is lower than that, so the overall score is getting worse either way. Your logic makes no sense.

When talking about dynamics of some metric, it's always important to define a time period. It must be common for two conflicting statements, otherwise they may not relate to each other at all.

You're obviously right if we take the entire lifespan of Civ 7 as the time period. The review score has dropped drastically over the time period from release till the last 30 days.

I'm only talking about today and a few past and upcoming weeks. In fact, I'm mostly talking about possible future dynamics of the review score, while you're mostly talking about current lifetime results of Civ 7.

Which brings me to conclusion, that we're talking about different things, and one does not invalidate the other.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Well, first, you claimed that the Ages system wasn't listed in the majority of negative reviews, but now it appears that it might be in the majority of negative reviews that list some feature.

What? I never said such a thing. You just misinterpreted what I said. There is not one single complaint which makes up the majority of negative reviews, thus all the main complaints are a minority of the negative reviews. The main complaints which make up the majority of negative reviews include:

• AI
• Ages system/Age transitions
• UI
• Unfinished/incomplete feel of the game
• Boring
• Price of the base game
• Price of the DLC + amount of DLC already
• Civ-switching
• Errors, crashes, bugs
• Leader/Civ decoupling

But probably the larger point is I'm not sure you can slice the issue as finely as you are trying to do. People might use any of those three terms--transitioning, being reset, or 3 mini-games--and what they're all referencing is the same basic dissatisfaction that stems from ages-and-civ-switching together. Frankly, they might use the term "ages" when what bothers them is civ-switching, or vice versa: because most dissatisfied players see those as just two sides of the same coin.

How am I trying to slice the issue finely? The Ages system and Civ-switching are quite obviously different things. You could have Civ-switching without the Ages system and you could have the Ages system without Civ-switching. You're trying to say everyone who complains about the Ages system is complaining about Civ-switching too as it fits your agenda when that isn't the case. Many people do not reference Civ-switching when they mention the Ages system, they don't care about changing Civs, they care about disruptive transitions which in their perspective ruins their game, here is 10 but there are more:

1. Cities reverting to towns
2. Independent Powers disappearing
3. Resources being changed or disappearing
4. Abrupt Age endings
5. Crises
6. Late Age buildings feeling useless
7. Military units being sent back to cities
8. Military units automatically being upgraded
9. The loss of Civilian units
10. Relationships with other Leaders resetting

These are complaints against the Ages system which have NOTHING to do with Civ-switching.

You'd need reviews that say "I don't mind the game being broken into ages, but I don't want to have to shift civs at that break." I think almost no one feels that way; what would be the value?

No I wouldn't. The onus is on you to show that the negative reviews which mention the Ages system also dislike the Civ-switching mechanic despite no mention of it.

But for most people, I think Ages do = civ-switching. They're effectively synonymous.

They aren't. That isn't what the negative reviews say.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You're trying to say everyone who complains about the Ages system is complaining about Civ-switching too as it fits your agenda when that isn't the case

I am not. Just that for some the words are effectively synonymous, so that if a complaint mentions ages, one can't know that what bothers them isn't the civ-switching that occurs at ages.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Well, first, you claimed that the Ages system wasn't listed in the majority of negative reviews, but now it appears that it might be in the majority of negative reviews that list some feature.

But probably the larger point is I'm not sure you can slice the issue as finely as you are trying to do. People might use any of those three terms--transitioning, being reset, or 3 mini-games--and what they're all referencing is the same basic dissatisfaction that stems from ages-and-civ-switching together. Frankly, they might use the term "ages" when what bothers them is civ-switching, or vice versa: because most dissatisfied players see those as just two sides of the same coin.

You'd need reviews that say "I don't mind the game being broken into ages, but I don't want to have to shift civs at that break." I think almost no one feels that way; what would be the value?

I think you might find a few that said "I don't mind the idea of civ-switching, but I don't want it to happen at one particular spot in the game; I want it to feel more gradual." Because there have been a few posters here who have tried to imagine a game that worked that way.

But for most people, I think Ages do = civ-switching. They're effectively synonymous.

You can’t really seperate the two.

Without the era reset you are really just changing the name of your civ for absolutly no good reason, and pointlessly pissing off all the make your own narrative roleplay people, who as Civ7 has shows is the majority of your playerbase.

 

[Gori the Grey]

One can in theory. I don't dispute that.

But I think people leaving reviews, especially negative reviews, don't necessarily phrase their comments to reflect every fine theoretical point one might make about the game.

I suspect a complaint that mentions "ages" often means (or at least includes in its meaning) the civ-switching that occurs at the ages (and is the primary reason for splitting the game into ages in the first place).

It's almost a moot point anyway, in terms of how Firaxis should develop the game to draw back lost customers. If they do away with the civ-switching that bothered some (and who called it by that name in their negative reviews), they will most likely do away with ages. And they're not likely to develop the game in such a way that it allows civ-switching without ages. (So here I'm basically agreeing with you, grunt. Can I call you grunt? I just never remember how many es are in your first name.)

They're effectively the same complaint against the present game design.

 

[Xur]

When talking about dynamics of some metric, it's always important to define a time period. It must be common for two conflicting statements, otherwise they may not relate to each other at all.

You're obviously right if we take the entire lifespan of Civ 7 as the time period. The review score has dropped drastically over the time period from release till the last 30 days.

I'm only talking about today and a few past and upcoming weeks. In fact, I'm mostly talking about possible future dynamics of the review score, while you're mostly talking about current lifetime results of Civ 7.

Which brings me to conclusion, that we're talking about different things, and one does not invalidate the other.

It feels like you've already settled on your conclusion and you are shaping the information around it. By cherry-picking specific time periods (today or a week), you create a narrative that doesn't reflect the actual trend. With a little luck I could probably find a day that has a 50+% score, but I can't use that for anything. Realistically, only two timeframes matter for evaluating reviews: the overall average and the last 30 days.

You cant cite "averages" and then suddenly lean on a single data point (today) as if it proves anything meaningful. Firaxis hasnt done anything today that would suggest a shift toward more positive reviews in the next 30 days. That makes your argument less about evidence and more about speculation. It's like reading the temperatures of August, and then predicting that December must be super warm. You need a wider set of data to make any sense of it all - I would say 30 days is the minimum. Fewer data points / less buyers during the time period the less accurate the data becomes too, which makes this current time period even more important to insist on minimum 30 day average.

It's impossible to have a productive debate about review scores if people keep bending the data to fit a predetermined story - whether that's making things look more positive or more negative than they are. Anyway, your "logic" is flawed.

 

[Gorbles]

It feels like you've already settled on your conclusion and you are shaping the information around it.

A lot of that been going around for a while.

Remember: the game is doing badly. Why? Because the game has done badly, that's why.

X is proven to be bad because the game has done badly (replace X with the bugbear of your choice). This is something the developers should have known with . . . precognition, presumably.

Post-hoc rationalisations are a hoot.

I'm concerned about the review trend, personally. I still hope the developers are given the chance they need to make the game succeed.

 

[Crashdummy]

Reviews continue to be bad because the main problems have not being addressed

And the main problems are Age transitions and Civ switching. Many reviews dont name them but they name some of the consequences that come with them

Reviews will not improve above mixed without a Classic Mode, doesnt matter how much people try to rationalize the failure of Civ 7 with other reasons

 

[aieeegrunt]

Reviews continue to be bad because the main problems have not being addressed

And the main problems are Age transitions and Civ switching. Many reviews dont name them but they name some of the consequences that come with them

Reviews will not improve above mixed without a Classic Mode, doesnt matter how much people try to rationalize the failure of Civ 7 with other reasons

The more they do so, the more certain they make the failure.

 

[ColtSeavers]

The more they do so, the more certain they make the failure.

Again, the infamous "stick to their vision" claim. The definition of insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

I'm not sure how low the average player count has to drop before some people realize that Ed Beach's ideas for this game, like Civ Switching or the general lack of a sandbox feel, just to name a few, simply don't work for a large part of the community, no matter how many new leaders or balance patches Firaxis releases going forward. I predict that if Firaxis doesn't come up with fundamental changes, this game will become bargain-bin material within a couple of months.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I've think we've just had our lowest peak day yet at 6,601 concurrent players, with 3,631 concurrent at the lowest point of the day

Looks like the game is yet to find it's new post summer baseline as it's still dropping.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Again, the infamous "stick to their vision" claim. The definition of insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

I'm not sure how low the average player count has to drop before some people realize that Ed Beach's ideas for this game, like Civ Switching or the general lack of a sandbox feel, just to name a few, simply don't work for a large part of the community, no matter how many new leaders or balance patches Firaxis releases going forward. I predict that if Firaxis doesn't come up with fundamental changes, this game will become bargain-bin material within a couple of months.

Halo and Bethesda (Fallout/Elder Scrolls) were toppled by similar identity change debacles, and Civ isn’t a fraction of the size they were.

Like you saw what happened with Humankind. You saw what happened with Fallout76, and you decide the smart move is combining them?

 

[canadamufc]

Civ switching is something you hate from the moment it is announced. Ages are something you need to try out before you hate. The people who don't like civ switching never bought the game. It makes sense if the people who are reviewing were all open to civ switching.

For many (like myself), i hate them both. I bought the game, but I'm sure many who view it the same way as myself never bought it and thus never had the chance to review it.

 

[canadamufc]

I'm not sure how low the average player count has to drop before some people realize that Ed Beach's ideas for this game, like Civ Switching or the general lack of a sandbox feel, just to name a few, simply don't work for a large part of the community, no matter how many new leaders or balance patches Firaxis releases going forward. I predict that if Firaxis doesn't come up with fundamental changes, this game will become bargain-bin material within a couple of months.

I think the funniest example of this is mementos. Genuinely, who thought to themself: "The EXACT thing that Civilization needs is a meta progression system!"

Who asked for that? I thought it was common sense that everyone knew Civilization was not that type of game.

 

[King of Prussia]

Im curious if 7 ever gets to a point where most people think its in really good shape, if they will do what CA did with Rome 2 and Pharaoh. That is, they rerelease it as a "new" game. You get the "new" game and DLC that you had before, but all the reviews are gone.

 

[Crashdummy]

Im curious if 7 ever gets to a point where most people think its in really good shape, if they will do what CA did with Rome 2 and Pharaoh. That is, they rerelease it as a "new" game. You get the "new" game and DLC that you had before, but all the reviews are gone.

That cant happen without a Classic Mode. The game stagnated in the current numbers and you wont get many more without a Classic mode