Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter user746383
  • Start date Start date
Meanwhile it looks like Steam reviews are still trending towards the negative.

Maybe it would be a good strategy at this point to stop working on the patches and try to get a more comprehensive expansion pack out the door, to add some systems and address larger concerns? The patches are sort of nice, but don’t seem to be fundamentally changing anything (and even somehow making things worse if reviews are tending worse). Though I wonder if they’d have to give it away for free to avoid another negative review surge.
 
PvP forces you to play against players. PvE forces you to play against an AI (sometimes in a co-operative manner). FPS games force you to shoot in a first-person camera mode.

That is not news to me .

The point made which I tend disagree with is "All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic."

Now if Say Valheim 2 was to copying ideas from say Fortnight and create "new" narratives , introduce a meta and a new leveling system and also turn your open world into a timer .
Your statement "
Nothing in this video game is organic." would be true.
Your building would be forcefully destroyed and you would be forcefully moved to the 2nd bio-dome within a set timer.
What would be totally against the first game's idea's would be if the new game forced you into creating a new character each and every new time you moved zone's !!...
 
What did I miss? I did leave out the second part, but just because it’s predicated on the first. But I can also say to be clear I don’t agree that thinking something is artificial is another way to say you don’t like it. There’s lots of art and food for example I would call more artificial that I like, in addition to more organic foods or approaches to art, video games, or anything really.
Food isn't the same as discussing the "forced" nature of mechanics in video games. There of course are plenty of contexts in which the word "artificial" makes sense.

Maybe it would be a good strategy at this point to stop working on the patches and try to get a more comprehensive expansion pack out the door, to add some systems and address larger concerns? The patches are sort of nice, but don’t seem to be fundamentally changing anything (and even somehow making things worse if reviews are tending worse). Though I wonder if they’d have to give it away for free to avoid another negative review surge.
Disagree completely. The better shape the game is in by the time any expansion is ready, the better for the long-term health of the game. On top of that, I would rather not they spin down existing plans and rush any expansion that might be coming. It's not a case of simply adding more devs, or moving up deadlines. Things can (and should) take time.

(not to mention that teams can work on different things at the same time - if there is an expansion on the horizon, maybe the art budget is already assigned)

The point made which I tend disagree with is "All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic."

Now if Say Valheim 2 was to copying ideas from say Fortnight and create "new" narratives , introduce a meta and a new leveling system and also turn your open world into a timer .
Your statement "
Nothing in this video game is organic." would be true.
Your building would be forcefully destroyed and you would be forcefully moved to the 2nd bio-dome within a set timer.
What would be totally against the first game's idea's would be if the new game forced you into creating a new character each and every new time you moved zone's !!...
To which I would say: so what? What does "forced" mean, exactly?

It would be the developer's choice, and you play the game the developers make. You can like or dislike this as much as you want, but the whole point about player choice is that you choose to buy the game. Now, there's certainly an argument that could be made if a game changes significantly post-release (as in your made-up Valheim 2 example).

But that was never the case with Civilisation VII. It's been very clear and upfront about what it is, and the developers so far don't really seem to be changing its core mission state r.e. Ages and Crises. Improvements are to be expected. Better UI we know for a fact is coming. But it seems to me here that we're back to "they changed it and I don't like it". Which, again, valid. But very little to do with anything being "forced".
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree that a civ game mechanic where all civs in the world simultaneously collapse offscreen is equally as artificial as any other potential choice. But to be clear to anyone who thinks I’m just ridiculing you, I do get why you’d see it that way.

Otherwise agree with you on making the game better is important, my only point was if the current patches are driving down the average reviews then maybe they at least need to try something different with the patches if their goal is to improve reviews.
 
Maybe it would be a good strategy at this point to stop working on the patches and try to get a more comprehensive expansion pack out the door, to add some systems and address larger concerns? The patches are sort of nice, but don’t seem to be fundamentally changing anything (and even somehow making things worse if reviews are tending worse). Though I wonder if they’d have to give it away for free to avoid another negative review surge.
I hope they are just focused at making the already confirmed dlc pack (right to rule) as strong as possible, including potentially adding more content than previously confirmed to increase its perceived value.

They have to continue to patch the game to tackle many of the base game issues that are the most aggravating for players. In any case, the expansion packs will have their own steam score, though I am not discounting the positive selling effect of well received dlc on the base game.

Also, as a caveat, the reviews are trending very subtly downwards. I am not suggesting anything major has happened.
 
I hope they are just focused at making the already confirmed dlc pack (right to rule) as strong as possible, including potentially adding more content than previously confirmed to increase its perceived value.

They have to continue to patch the game to tackle many of the base game issues that are the most aggravating for players. In any case, the expansion packs will have their own steam score, though I am not discounting the positive selling effect of well received dlc on the base game.

Also, as a caveat, the reviews are trending very subtly downwards. I am not suggesting anything major has happened.
Agreed. I think they should run on three tracks simultaneously: quick patches to improve what‘s there, a strong and complete RtR (although no one will buy it at release), and the first major expansion that tackles the larger design problems. Hopefully, a lot of the latter will be included in a free patch alongside the expansion.
 
All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic.

This is about feeling, and whether or not you like something. That's fine. Say that. I dislike how we have to phrase things in ways that make the feelings objective, when the whole point is that they're not. But that doesn't make the feelings wrong.
The way I understand it, there are exactly two transitions at exactly two close to fix time intervals. Nothing in any previous civ game was so "forced", "artificial", "unnatural". If so, usage of these words is justified.
 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree that a civ game mechanic where all civs in the world simultaneously collapse offscreen is equally as artificial as any other potential choice.
I never said anything about "equally" anything. I appreciate your perspective and see where you're coming from, but can we avoid pidgeonholing other peoples' arguments?

I get it: Crises break immersion for some players. But that doesn't make the mechanic artificial in any real, meaningful way. It's literally no different to saying "this breaks my immersion". But again - it's the phrasing. My opinion, my feeling, my immersion. You saw from GeneralZift's comment that me phrasing it like that somehow makes it be interpreted as lesser.

That's not my aim at all. I'm trying to shift the idea that these things are lesser because they're subjective. At the same time, I'm challenging the need to use language that makes them seem objective. Objective problems are (objectively :D) easier to solve than subjective ones. I have a few negative opinions on Crises myself, but I like them, and I like the transition (I've done two Antiquity transitions in the past week or two, finally stepping out of my comfort zone a bit). Making them better is at odds with casting them as "artificial" as though they don't belong (vs. "not artificial" mechanics, which presumably do belong).

The way I understand it, there are exactly two transitions at exactly two close to fix time intervals. Nothing in any previous civ game was so "forced", "artificial", "unnatural". If so, usage of these words is justified.
Plenty of things are both forced and artificial, in all Civilisation games. The difference here is, again, the immersive quality (of "so" forced, "so" artificial). The same as what I said to protocol7, above.
 
I was going by “It's not artificial, is my point. No more than anything else is.” No pigeonholing intended. As mentioned I haven’t read your other posts on the topic so probably missing some nuance (which to be clear, is on me) so the clarification is appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plenty of things are both forced and artificial, in all Civilisation games. The difference here is, again, the immersive quality (of "so" forced, "so" artificial). The same as what I said to protocol7, above.
But this does not invalidate: Nothing in any previous civ game was so "forced", "artificial", "unnatural". Or if you think otherwise give an example. And yes, it is (and always was) about the "so", in the sense: so-so-so. But it is not purely subjective, these are comparable mechanics.
 
But this does not invalidate: Nothing in any previous civ game was so "forced", "artificial", "unnatural". Or if you think otherwise give an example. And yes, it is (and always was) about the "so", in the sense: so-so-so. But it is not purely subjective, these are comparable mechanics.
It's absolutely subjective, is my point. What's wrong with it being subjective?
 
Nobody actually said it was an objective fact as far as I know, so possibly we are all just agreeing with each other. The original person who said it felt artificial and not fun specifically went out of their way to say it was in their own experience and was their own opinion.

> I get it, but planning to account for consequences of some forced "artificial" event in the future is not fun for me (according to my own experience). So I mean if this is the supposed fun factor, its not for me. But thanks for the info.
 
Nobody actually said it was an objective fact as far as I know, so possibly we are all just agreeing with each other. The original person who said it felt artificial and not fun specifically went out of their way to say it was in their own experience and was their own opinion.

> I get it, but planning to account for consequences of some forced "artificial" event in the future is not fun for me (according to my own experience). So I mean if this is the supposed fun factor, its not for me. But thanks for the info.
I read it as not fun for them in their own experience, but everyone's mileage will vary. That's why it can help to explore these things. Though I have once again caused us to drift from player stats and reception, though I think at this point both are pretty settled. I'm interested in where the game goes from here - how the game re-engages players. So on that level, I feel this is worth it for whoever's reading.
 
Yes guys it's all a video game so it doesn't matter if you don't feel immersed or anything. And when you watch a movie and the plot is awful, don't forget, the movie is fake and the plot is made by writers so you shouldn't expect it to feel organic. Those are your feelings and not objective.
I think people oversell the concept of "immersion." There are plenty of old games that wouldn't be immersive to gamers now, but they were and maybe still are to some who are willing to overlook some things. The suspension of disbelief is a choice too.

But, hey, I'm talking to a guy who compared age resets in Civ7 to being fired. We're firmly in overdramatic territory here, which is part of the landscape of modern gaming, for better or worse.
 
It's absolutely subjective, is my point. What's wrong with it being subjective?
I think this part: The way I understand it, there are exactly two transitions at exactly two close to fix time intervals. Is objective. The subjective part is whether this is fun or not. But this was in reaction to your "wrong usage of words" part. Btw I would be open to chrisis mechanics in general in case there were some tangible mechanics behind what triggers it, but here it simply happens at same intervals in same amount - how is this not "so" "artificial"? I mean OK, we could argue that everything is subjective, but when everyones oppinion is the same (including yourself) it is valid to use objective, or if not, lets call it "universal subjective"...
 
The point made which I tend disagree with is "All events are artificial. All events are forced. Nothing in a video game is organic."

To which I would say: so what? What does "forced" mean, exactly?
"So what ?"
Fair enough it was your statement , I disagree and my bad if you didn't understand

"Forced mean" ?
Forced in a game context would at least to me mean - against the players wishes .

In the example having your original building being destroyed under a timer system and being "forced" to move into the next biome whether you wanted to or not is certainly not subjective
 
I think this part: The way I understand it, there are exactly two transitions at exactly two close to fix time intervals. Is objective. The subjective part is whether this is fun or not. But this was in reaction to your "wrong usage of words" part. Btw I would be open to chrisis mechanics in general in case there were some tangible mechanics behind what triggers it, but here it simply happens at same intervals in same amount - how is this not "so" "artificial"? I mean OK, we could argue that everything is subjective, but when everyones oppinion is the same (including yourself) it is valid to use objective, or if not, lets call it "universal subjective"...
Why would you be open to Crises if there were some tangible mechanics behind it? So you could avoid them?

The point is that they're unavoidable. That is the design. You can dislike this, or disagree with it, but in turn so can others disagree with the concept of being able to avoid a Crisis in the first place.

In the example having your original building being destroyed under a timer system and being "forced" to move into the next biome whether you wanted to or not is certainly not subjective
See again: being forced to use guns in a FPS. Or battle royale games having timed "ring" closures that "force" players to move inwards (and closer to one another).

The mechanic is not subjective. Peoples' enjoyment of it is. None of this has any bearing on the validity of player feedback. Feedback is important.

(ironically, I often prefer FPS and TPS games with melee mechanics, but that's besides the point)

You can evaluate the subjective as an objective in the aggregate.
No, you can't.

Where is the resistance to describing things as subjective coming from? Do you think the developers won't take you as seriously? Do you believe your opinions therefore override the opinions of other demographics? I don't really understand, so I'm left with guesses.
 
I think people oversell the concept of "immersion." There are plenty of old games that wouldn't be immersive to gamers now, but they were and maybe still are to some who are willing to overlook some things. The suspension of disbelief is a choice too.

But, hey, I'm talking to a guy who compared age resets in Civ7 to being fired. We're firmly in overdramatic territory here, which is part of the landscape of modern gaming, for better or worse.
First of all, I did not 'compare' age resets to being fired. I said that approaching a forced event with mostly negative consequences with some kind of 'positive outlook' is similar to that as if you got fired (as to make a similarity to point out that the thought process is infeasible).
Of course, playing a video game and losing something is not going to make me rethink my life as being fired, that is dramatic.

I will dissect the situation in a way that I hope represents player feelings and opinions:
1746096942095.png

Here is a crude illustration. During the black parts of the playthrough, the player is in complete control - he sees everything that happens in the game,
His actions have direct consequences. Harkening back to a previous commenter's thoughts: This is the period of time where, when you get Shot, you take Damage, and you Lose.
This is where wins and losses are realised by players.

When the age reset happens, it is mandated by the narrative even if you, the player, are winning heavily, or losing heavily. Somehow, your prosperous nation has to somehow lose military and cities, change culture, and all this over a cutscene.
So the loss in immersion happens during and after the reset. As you can see, once the player regains control of the game, he is in a different state to where he left it, and it is through no control of his own, and he has no mandate over the fact that the reset has to happen.

If the game was aiming for true immersion, then this type of cultural reset would only occur once your nation was verifiably underwater - and as a consequence of your own action - and not necessarily mandatory.


As an addendum, I find many old games immersive despite their many flaws because they understood player preconceptions better at the time, since gaming was not as big, most players were pure casuals and so they had to make games understandable by their standards.
That's why many old games live the test of time, people still play old 4X games, old RTS games, old shooters and so on. While their flaws are usually in lack of complexity, their strength comes in being a well-refined product with good immersion from start to finish, generally good recognisable music, and a good understanding of their target audience.
4X and RTS are not dead genres as some people suggest, and their newest games are not flopping from a lack of player-base, OR a lack of developer resources; I believe they simply deposit the resources in the wrong place, usually for profit incentives.

As time passes, if Civ7 is to be successful, I think you will find Civ7 pivots hard towards improving player immersion, quality of life, user interface, music, because those are the things that stick and get people to stick around.
 
Back
Top Bottom