Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Kwami]

Some people are just absolute incapable of accepting good news.

 

[Smegger213]

Some people are just absolute incapable of accepting good news.

Just calling it as it is. Major spike in recent reviews was caused by the Steam Awards thing.
The game is still getting a good number of negative reviews.
It still has over 2200 more negative reviews overall than positive ones.

Am I playing the game? Yes I am. Nearly 160 hours now.
But am I having an enjoyable experience? Hell, no. I won another game last week, but by the end of it all, I was bored to death with it.

 

[kent77]

Am I playing the game? Yes I am. Nearly 160 hours now.
But am I having an enjoyable experience? Hell, no. I won another game last week, but by the end of it all, I was bored to death with it.

At risk of diverting this thread off-topic, I'm genuinely curious why you are spending all that time (4 weeks of work!) playing a game that you're not enjoying. Aren't there other games or pastimes you enjoy more?

 

[Gorbles]

Just calling it as it is.

No, you're indulging in a pattern of replying to any positive news about the game with your own negative perspective. Your perspective is valid for you, but the pattern is at this point very repetitively noticeable.

 

[Smegger213]

No, you're indulging in a pattern of replying to any positive news about the game with your own negative perspective. Your perspective is valid for you, but the pattern is at this point very repetitively noticeable.

There are some players in this thread that will call any up-trend a success. They will say anything to spin this game into success.
Instead of acknowledging that spikes in reviews are caused by factors that make the counts look biased. EG the Steam Awards review spike.
Call me a pessimist if you want, I don't care. I am still.playing the game in some vain hope that someday, it will actually get good.

 

[Smegger213]

At risk of diverting this thread off-topic, I'm genuinely curious why you are spending all that time (4 weeks of work!) playing a game that you're not enjoying. Aren't there other games or pastimes you enjoy more?

Yes there are other games that take up more of my time. That is why my Civ 7 time is reduced.
I paid a lot of money before release for this game, so I don't want to waste that money by giving up on it yet.
The game is slowly improving, but there's a long way to go yet, before I call it as good.

 

[Evolena]

There are some players in this thread that will call any up-trend a success. They will say anything to spin this game into success.

I mostly see people calling any up-trend an up-trend rather than a success.
But that's been told to you several times already.

 

[Kev1916]

There are some players in this thread that will call any up-trend a success. They will say anything to spin this game into success.
Instead of acknowledging that spikes in reviews are caused by factors that make the counts look biased. EG the Steam Awards review spike.
Call me a pessimist if you want, I don't care. I am still.playing the game in some vain hope that someday, it will actually get good.

Reviews overall are still flat lining and no change from months ago

Total reviews in all languages:
38,156
53% Negative

Reviews are back to a couple o dozen a day at best and more again roughly 50/50

from today

"
9 months into release and there are still some pretty glaring problems:
1. The UI is unintuitive. I often find myself having trouble finding the information I need in the game. A lot of the icons for things are too small and/or just don't look like what they are supposed to. That damn crab icon is the biggest transgressor here.
2. Cannot place map markers to plan out your empire. People have been complaining about this since release and it still has not been addressed.
3. Three of the win conditions (science, culture and domination) are basically the same: check off some stuff off the legacy path checklist then run a project to win the game. The win conditions in Civ6 I thought were very well done (besides the science condition being too long) so I just don't understand why they would change this.
4. This game doesn't force players to make strategic decisions where you have to take into account what your opponents are doing. For example: in civ6 the first technology you research usually depends on what resources are around you; where to put your envoys can depend on where others are putting their envoys; you have era score that you need to worry about which forces you to make decision based on trying to increase your era score; etc... And a lot of these decisions you have to make are lacking in civ7 which FUNDAMENTALLY makes the gameplay of this game a step backwards from civ6. The developers keep making new DLCs and adding new leaders and civilizations, but they aren't address the biggest problem of CIV7 which is the CORE GAMEPLAY LOOP. I just don't find myself getting lost playing this game like I do with Civ6.
5. The happiness system is a step backwards, not a step forwards. The amenity system didn't need to be replaced.
6. The age transitions are just bad and the legacy paths are just bad. A lot has been said on these already in the Civ7 community (reviews, reddit, Youtube, etc...) but the objective of each game you play should be to win, so fixing these conditions is critical to fixing this game.
7. Crises- Crises could have been really cool but ultimately just feel like a pain in the ass and repetitive. I feel like a different way this could have been done would be to make each one of these crises their own game modes. Or bring back the dark/normal/golden age system and make crises a dark age thing. Just an idea: what if every civilization contributed to a global "age score" and if the players as a whole don't reach a normal age then they get a dark age crisis as a punishment. And you could have some golden age rewards like all your cities stay cities during age transition or 10% more yields on everything. IDK.
8. Age Transitions are just too big of a reset. Because the tech and civic trees are continuous each age feels like its own mini-game which may be what the developers were going for, but it doesn't work.
9. I miss the civ6 government system because which government type you had determined how many of each policy card you could use at one time. This forces you to be strategic about which government you pick and the policy cards you implement. Having every policy card in civ7 just be a "social policy" takes away a lot of this strategic decision making. Where is the opportunity cost?
"

 

[Smegger213]

Reviews overall are still flat lining and no change from months ago

Total reviews in all languages:
38,156
53% Negative

Reviews are back to a couple o dozen a day at best and more again roughly 50/50

from today

"
9 months into release and there are still some pretty glaring problems:
1. The UI is unintuitive. I often find myself having trouble finding the information I need in the game. A lot of the icons for things are too small and/or just don't look like what they are supposed to. That damn crab icon is the biggest transgressor here.
2. Cannot place map markers to plan out your empire. People have been complaining about this since release and it still has not been addressed.
3. Three of the win conditions (science, culture and domination) are basically the same: check off some stuff off the legacy path checklist then run a project to win the game. The win conditions in Civ6 I thought were very well done (besides the science condition being too long) so I just don't understand why they would change this.
4. This game doesn't force players to make strategic decisions where you have to take into account what your opponents are doing. For example: in civ6 the first technology you research usually depends on what resources are around you; where to put your envoys can depend on where others are putting their envoys; you have era score that you need to worry about which forces you to make decision based on trying to increase your era score; etc... And a lot of these decisions you have to make are lacking in civ7 which FUNDAMENTALLY makes the gameplay of this game a step backwards from civ6. The developers keep making new DLCs and adding new leaders and civilizations, but they aren't address the biggest problem of CIV7 which is the CORE GAMEPLAY LOOP. I just don't find myself getting lost playing this game like I do with Civ6.
5. The happiness system is a step backwards, not a step forwards. The amenity system didn't need to be replaced.
6. The age transitions are just bad and the legacy paths are just bad. A lot has been said on these already in the Civ7 community (reviews, reddit, Youtube, etc...) but the objective of each game you play should be to win, so fixing these conditions is critical to fixing this game.
7. Crises- Crises could have been really cool but ultimately just feel like a pain in the ass and repetitive. I feel like a different way this could have been done would be to make each one of these crises their own game modes. Or bring back the dark/normal/golden age system and make crises a dark age thing. Just an idea: what if every civilization contributed to a global "age score" and if the players as a whole don't reach a normal age then they get a dark age crisis as a punishment. And you could have some golden age rewards like all your cities stay cities during age transition or 10% more yields on everything. IDK.
8. Age Transitions are just too big of a reset. Because the tech and civic trees are continuous each age feels like its own mini-game which may be what the developers were going for, but it doesn't work.
9. I miss the civ6 government system because which government type you had determined how many of each policy card you could use at one time. This forces you to be strategic about which government you pick and the policy cards you implement. Having every policy card in civ7 just be a "social policy" takes away a lot of this strategic decision making. Where is the opportunity cost?
"

Glad there are some players that agree with me.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

With a false spike towards the end of November because of the Steam awards thing.
If you discounted the reviews during that Steam awards week, then it would look a lot different.

Plus the player counts have now dropped back to around the same levels as pre November patch.
This game has far more to go before it can get anywhere near the popularity of previous versions.

Not really a false spike. The reviews wouldn't have been as good as they were if the game itself hadn't improved substantially. You can look at other games with a similar overall rating to Civ VII and see they weren't as positively reviewed as Civ VII during that week. They weren't required to give a positive review. They chose to give positive reviews. If the game was still in the state it was in 3, 6, 9 months ago it wouldn't have received a 76% positive rating during that week.

It still has over 2200 more negative reviews overall than positive ones.

Does that really matter when most reviews are out of date? 94% of reviews are before 1.2.5 over 2 months ago and 96% are before 1.3 over 1 month ago. There's a reason why Steam now displays recent reviews instead of overall reviews on the front page of each game.

Reviews overall are still flat lining and no change from months ago

I've never seen a flat line look like this.

 

[queenpea]

Not really a false spike. The reviews wouldn't have been as good as they were if the game itself hadn't improved substantially. You can look at other games with a similar overall rating to Civ VII and see they weren't as positively reviewed as Civ VII during that week. They weren't required to give a positive review. They chose to give positive reviews. If the game was still in the state it was in 3, 6, 9 months ago it wouldn't have received a 76% positive rating during that week.

I guess I'm a little confused by this Steam Awards thing. Aren't you rewarded with a Steam badge for reviewing a game you have nominated for an award?

My understanding is that you get a badge for nominating a game, and then a bonus for leaving a review of a game you are nominating. In this sense, because you would not nominate a game you don't like for an award, you similarly wouldn't tend to leave a negative review for a game you are nominating for an award.

Previously, you mentioned that (essentially) reviews for Steam games were all spiking positive during the Steam Award nominations process. EU5 and other games were listed. In this sense, reviews are tending more positively than they would normally if the nomination process was not ongoing. I think this is what Smegger is referring to.

 

[Smegger213]

Not really a false spike. The reviews wouldn't have been as good as they were if the game itself hadn't improved substantially. You can look at other games with a similar overall rating to Civ VII and see they weren't as positively reviewed as Civ VII during that week. They weren't required to give a positive review. They chose to give positive reviews. If the game was still in the state it was in 3, 6, 9 months ago it wouldn't have received a 76% positive rating during that week.

Does that really matter when most reviews are out of date? 94% of reviews are before 1.2.5 over 2 months ago and 96% are before 1.3 over 1 month ago. There's a reason why Steam now displays recent reviews instead of overall reviews on the front page of each game.


I've never seen a flat line look like this.

View attachment 749989

See what I mean by saying some people will say anything to spin this game into a success.
There was an obvious spike in reviews during the Steam award week thing.
Yet you will turn it around and still insist that this game is a success because we got 64% reviews in one patch month and a bit.

Plus if you list the reviews by most recent, then scroll through the reviews, you will still see plenty of negative reviews.

 

[Smegger213]

I guess I'm a little confused by this Steam Awards thing. Aren't you rewarded with a Steam badge for reviewing a game you have nominated for an award?

My understanding is that you get a badge for nominating a game, and then a bonus for leaving a review of a game you are nominating. In this sense, because you would not nominate a game you don't like for an award, you similarly wouldn't tend to leave a negative review for a game you are nominating for an award.

Previously, you mentioned that (essentially) reviews for Steam games were all spiking positive during the Steam Award nominations process. EU5 and other games were listed. In this sense, reviews are tending more positively than they would normally if the nomination process was not ongoing. I think this is what Smegger is referring to.

Which is why I said that we should really discount the review spike during that week.
Would it have got the same number of reviews, had there been no Steam event going on? I highly doubt it.

 

[Leucarum]

Something can be an improvement without making the entire thing into a success. Shade of gray are good here. Civ7 has a long way to go, but it is moving in the right direction and I am glad to see Firaxis reap some benefits from that.

Also, what even is a False Spike? External events (new patches/DLCs/sales etc...) cause almost every fluctuation in review numbers.

 

[Smegger213]

Something can be an improvement without making the entire thing into a success. Shade of gray are good here. Civ7 has a long way to go, but it is moving in the right direction and I am glad to see Firaxis reap some benefits from that.

Also, what even is a False Spike? External events (new patches/DLCs/sales etc...) cause almost every fluctuation in review numbers.

It was a false spike in my mind because you got a Steam Badge for nominating and reviewing a game.
So, isn't it obvious that there were more reviews that week because of that Steam event?
The question is, do you take that into account, or do you ignore it?

 

[Leucarum]

It was a false spike in my mind because you got a Steam Badge for nominating and reviewing a game.
So, isn't it obvious that there were more reviews that week because of that Steam event?
The question is, do you take that into account, or do you ignore it?

Do you take into account a bad patch? An expensive DLC? Those things would could cause a nosedive - would they be false? Separating trends into things you like and don't like seems disengenious.

 

[Smegger213]

Do you take into account a bad patch? An expensive DLC? Those things would could cause a nosedive - would they be false? Separating trends into things you like and don't like seems disengenious.

Yes, I would take those things into account. I am not on about the large number of positive reviews during that week. But the number of reviews overall.
If the Steam event hadn't taken place, there would have been far fewer reviews overall in that week.
Have a look on Steam for the game. Go to reviews and click on 25th November in the blue positive bar on the graph. That will list all the positive reviews for that day.
Now scroll down and read some of the reviews. Quite a few of those reviews are very short. One person just puts "GOOD" as his review lol.
They are clearly just writing a very short review just to get the Steam badge.
If you do the same thing for negative reviews, not many of those are 1 or 2 word reviews.

 

[Leucarum]

Yes, I would take those things into account. I am not on about the large number of positive reviews during that week. But the number of reviews overall.
If the Steam event hadn't taken place, there would have been far fewer reviews overall in that week.

There would be more reviews in a patch week too.

Have a look on Steam for the game. Go to reviews and click on 25th November in the blue positive bar on the graph. That will list all the positive reviews for that day.
Now scroll down and read some of the reviews. Quite a few of those reviews are very short. One person just puts "GOOD" as his review lol.
They are clearly just writing a very short review just to get the Steam badge.
If you do the same thing for negative reviews, not many of those are 1 or 2 word reviews.

And this is just cherrypicking.

I agree with you that Civ7 needs a lot of work and is not a good game yet, but I think you are fishing for anything to justify the answer you want regarding reviews and ignoring the data at hand.

Reviews are improving. They aren't good yet, and getting them to be good is a huge mountain for Firaxis to climb... But they are still improving and denying that requires some serious mental gymnastics TBH.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I guess I'm a little confused by this Steam Awards thing. Aren't you rewarded with a Steam badge for reviewing a game you have nominated for an award?

My understanding is that you get a badge for nominating a game, and then a bonus for leaving a review of a game you are nominating. In this sense, because you would not nominate a game you don't like for an award, you similarly wouldn't tend to leave a negative review for a game you are nominating for an award.

You only got a badge if you did all of the following: nominated at least 1 game, nominate a game in each category, played a game you nominated & left or updated a review for game you nominated. They weren't required to leave a positive review nor update to a positive review for Civ VII. They decided to do that themselves. They could've left or update a review for a different nominated game but they chose Civ VII.

Previously, you mentioned that (essentially) reviews for Steam games were all spiking positive during the Steam Award nominations process. EU5 and other games were listed. In this sense, reviews are tending more positively than they would normally if the nomination process was not ongoing. I think this is what Smegger is referring to.

Spiking more positive, not spiking positive. Many new games had increased reviews & increased positive reviews that week but still were below 70% positive. As I said, if the state of the game hadn't improved so much to the point that the 30 day rolling average before the Steam Award nomination week was already close to 60% positive then the game wouldn't have been reviewed so positively during that week. That week would not have been 76% positive for Civ VII had that week came 3, 4, 5, 6 months ago when Civ VII was in a worse state and averaging under 40% positive.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

See what I mean by saying some people will say anything to spin this game into a success.
There was an obvious spike in reviews during the Steam award week thing.
Yet you will turn it around and still insist that this game is a success because we got 64% reviews in one patch month and a bit.

Plus if you list the reviews by most recent, then scroll through the reviews, you will still see plenty of negative reviews.

You realise I'm the one that drew attention to that week and discovered the reasoning in the first place? Anyone who has been keeping tabs on this thread is aware of that week. I don't think I've ever called the game a success. There are plenty of negative reviews and now there are plenty more positive reviews, especially in comparison to the rest of Civ VIIs life.

My quote in a different reply:

As I said, if the state of the game hadn't improved so much to the point that the 30 day rolling average before the Steam Award nomination week was already close to 60% positive then the game wouldn't have been reviewed so positively during that week. That week would not have been 76% positive for Civ VII had that week came 3, 4, 5, 6 months ago when Civ VII was in a worse state and averaging under 40% positive.