Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[user746383]

Sad that so many are jumping on the hate bandwagon, it deserves better reviews.

I’m sure some of the negative reviews are coming from people who haven’t played it or haven’t played it long enough to fully learn the new mechanics, others just wanted a remake of an earlier version and don’t like change.

Why would someone pay for the game just to not play it and leave a bad review? It seems like if anything they’d be motivated to leave a good review to feel they didn’t get scammed, at least until the point where they gave up hope.

 

[canadamufc]

I’m sure some of the negative reviews are coming from people who haven’t played it or haven’t played it long enough to fully learn the new mechanics

Don't think you can review a game without owning it on steam.

 

[CliffCo]

Don't think you can review a game without owning it on steam.

I’m not certain but you may be correct. I just know that people have been on CiV Fanatics and other social media sites complaining about it while admitting they either hadn’t played it or only played it for a minimal amount of time.

Edit. I just checked and you are correct in that you have to purchase it to leave a review, but if you played it for 2hrs or less and got a refund you are still able to leave a review. So basically any review posted after doing so can’t be relied on to provide an accurate assessment.

 

[user746383]

It’s correct, you can’t leave reviews on Steam without owning the game. So I guess that’s neither here nor there when it comes to Steam reviews.

Though it’s also a bit of a lose-lose anyway if you give feedback that you don’t like it - if you play too few hours people say your review doesn’t count because you didn’t take time to learn why it’s good, and if you play too many people say your review doesn’t count because obviously you liked it or wouldn’t have played that much. Either way you must just be hopping on a hate train.

I try to just take people at their word and not try to figure out the personal or moral failings of people who disagree with me, as you can sort of delude yourself that way.. anything inconvenient or upsetting can be written off (or even attacked) as the behaviour of undesirable minority groups within the “true fans” or a hidden conspiracy of some kind.

 

[Chiyo]

I am pretty sure you need to have the game in your steam library to review it. If you share someone else's library that is enough but you cannot leave a review without having access to the game at steam. If you just want to leave a negative review you can buy the game, play it for less than two hours, leave a negative review and then refund it. I am not sure how many people do that, though. For a game like Civ7 I think it is nearly impossible to play for less than two hours and get a picture of how good or bad the game is. I have 25 hours in it before coming to the point that the good aspects are not enough to overcome the ages system and the civ switching. I simply get bored when about 50% of the first age is over because I have nothing left to do that I feel will carry over to the next age.

I only leave reviews for games that I like very much or that I absolutely dislike because I think those are the only really helpful ones. It is either: Buy it if you like these elements in a game, or: Stay away from it if you dislike these elements. And of course sometimes this changes as with Civ5 which I disliked in the beginning but with a new team working on it became a pretty decent game.

 

[itix]

I’m not certain but you may be correct. I just know that people have been on CiV Fanatics and other social media sites complaining about it while admitting they either hadn’t played it or only played it for a minimal amount of time.

Edit. I just checked and you are correct in that you have to purchase it to leave a review, but if you played it for 2hrs or less and got a refund you are still able to leave a review. So basically any review posted after doing so can’t be relied on to provide an accurate assessment.

Refunded games are not counted toward the Steam score.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

This argument that there is some magic number of hours you need to play before your review is valid is very silly. You don't need to be waterboarded to know you don't want to be waterboarded.

How long you need to play before you know if you like it is entirely contextual to the player and their particular taste. For my tastes,.I didnt need to play a second to know I wouldn't like it.

 

[CliffCo]

It’s correct, you can’t leave reviews on Steam without owning the game. So I guess that’s neither here nor there when it comes to Steam reviews.

Though it’s also a bit of a lose-lose anyway if you give feedback that you don’t like it - if you play too few hours people say your review doesn’t count because you didn’t take time to learn why it’s good, and if you play too many people say your review doesn’t count because obviously you liked it or wouldn’t have played that much. Either way you must just be hopping on a hate train.

I try to just take people at their word and not try to figure out the personal or moral failings of people who disagree with me, as you can sort of delude yourself that way.. anything inconvenient or upsetting can be written off (or even attacked) as the behaviour of undesirable minority groups within the “true fans” or a hidden conspiracy of some kind.

Haters are going to hate especially if they were initially disappointed with the game, some may have left a review shortly after purchasing it but later it grew on them, others just don’t like that it’s not a remake of a previous version.
I can certainly imagine people believing and trusting a review by people who played it for many hrs over someone who hasn’t, I know I certainly do, but there’s always exceptions. I know with the FB group I admin, shortly after the game was released the game got an influx of hate by people who hadn’t played it enough to learn the basics, others didn’t post anything constructive, negatively constructive so those posts didn’t get approved or were removed. Both FB and Reddit has got a lot better the last couple of months though.

 

[user746383]

I guess, I don’t personally find it useful to label people as haters hating and dismiss their opinions, but I do appreciate that lots of people think differently about that. Either way it’s not like there aren’t plenty of negative reviews with lots of hours that someone else can dismiss as having played too much to not actually like it.

 

[CliffCo]

I guess, I don’t personally find it useful to label people as haters and dismiss their opinions. Either way it’s not like there aren’t plenty of negative reviews with lots of hours.

While there's plenty of people who dislike the game, a lot seems to hinge around eras changing. i wasn't keen on it originally mostly because i was used to Civ6, but after playing it for a few days they grew on me. Like i said i firmly believe a lot of the haters just wanted a remake of 6. Personally after over 4,000 hrs of playing it it felt stale and i was ready for a fresh design.
There's been more discussion here about why people dislike the game and how it should be improved than anything else. while i agree that some things could be adjusted and bugs patched, it feels like the negative side is the main topic of conversation and for me at least it gets old.

 

[Kev1916]

Sad that so many are jumping on the hate bandwagon, it deserves better reviews.

I’m sure some of the negative reviews are coming from people who haven’t played it or haven’t played it long enough to fully learn the new mechanics, others just wanted a remake of an earlier version and don’t like change.

Eh No, steam reviews don't work that way

 

[user746383]

While there's plenty of people who dislike the game, a lot seems to hinge around eras changing. i wasn't keen on it originally mostly because i was used to Civ6, but after playing it for a few days they grew on me. Like i said i firmly believe a lot of the haters just wanted a remake of 6. Personally after over 4,000 hrs of playing it it felt stale and i was ready for a fresh design.
There's been more discussion here about why people dislike the game and how it should be improved than anything else. while i agree that some things could be adjusted and bugs patched, it feels like the negative side is the main topic of conversation and for me at least it gets old.

I think our conversation is going a bit in circles because it's predicated on the existence of people who can be labeled as haters whose criticism is therefore invalid and/or intolerable, which I fundamentally disagree with. I also believe it was possible to innovate on the game in a way that the majority of people liked, and they failed to do so, rather than believe that so-called haters would have hated anything they came out with except a clone of a previous game.

In general I empathise and get where you're coming from, but don't agree with the premise so not really sure what else to say.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

While there's plenty of people who dislike the game, a lot seems to hinge around eras changing. i wasn't keen on it originally mostly because i was used to Civ6, but after playing it for a few days they grew on me. Like i said i firmly believe a lot of the haters just wanted a remake of 6. Personally after over 4,000 hrs of playing it it felt stale and i was ready for a fresh design.
There's been more discussion here about why people dislike the game and how it should be improved than anything else. while i agree that some things could be adjusted and bugs patched, it feels like the negative side is the main topic of conversation and for me at least it gets old.

Have you considered why a lot of people that don't like the game in your opinion are simple minded people who can't cope with change, rather than enlightened like yourself? Isn't that perhaps a tad convenient as an explanation?

You are in danger of being just as toxic as those you criticise you realise. What your displaying is bigotry, and it is as uninformed and presumptive as those you're so frustrated to keep hearing from.

 

[Xur]

If a game requires more than 2 hours to convince anyone that the game is good, then it deserves a negative review to be honest. It's so toxic to call critics "haters", or trying to invalidate bad experiences people have within the first 2 hours. It's strange that this behaviour is promoted or at least ignored on this site.

 

[UWHabs]

If a game requires more than 2 hours to convince anyone that the game is good, then it deserves a negative review to be honest. It's so toxic to call critics "haters", or trying to invalidate bad experiences people have within the first 2 hours. It's strange that this behaviour is promoted or at least ignored on this site.

Some games, sure. But civ games are measured in days more often that not. 2 hours isn't even enough to get through one era to fully experience the era transition and decide that you hate it.

Have you considered why a lot of people that don't like the game in your opinion are simple minded people who can't cope with change, rather than enlightened like yourself? Isn't that perhaps a tad convenient as an explanation?

You are in danger of being just as toxic as those you criticise you realise. What your displaying is bigotry, and it is as uninformed and presumptive as those you're so frustrated to keep hearing from.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. And they will differ. I mean, some people on the forums here hold up civ 5 as their favorite version, to me it was the worst of the series by far.

And I mean, I'm pretty sure you can find a post of mine on the forums saying I would be happy if the new version was just "Civ 6.5", since I liked the core of 6, even after all these years. I was a little resistant to change, wasn't initially too excited about the era switching and stuff. But in the end, I've come around. It's a bit bigger departure from the series of the past, and I've definitely mentioned a few things that I would have done different, or would like to see changed, even within the core of the current system.

 

[user746383]

It's tough these days if you make a game that you can't tell that you like it until after after the refund window.

 

[Xur]

Some games, sure. But civ games are measured in days more often that not. 2 hours isn't even enough to get through one era to fully experience the era transition and decide that you hate it.

You are implying that the only obstacle for civ7 is era transitions and that you have to play it to form an opinion. Observing via videos or articles isn't enough to form an opinion. That is an incredibly arrogant statement.

Have you eaten dirt before? If not, then why not? You might like it. Observing isn't enough to form an opinion, you have to eat dirt before you are allowed to have an opinion.

 

[trev1972]

Haters are going to hate especially if they were initially disappointed with the game, some may have left a review shortly after purchasing it but later it grew on them, others just don’t like that it’s not a remake of a previous version.
I can certainly imagine people believing and trusting a review by people who played it for many hrs over someone who hasn’t, I know I certainly do, but there’s always exceptions. I know with the FB group I admin, shortly after the game was released the game got an influx of hate by people who hadn’t played it enough to learn the basics, others didn’t post anything constructive, negatively constructive so those posts didn’t get approved or were removed. Both FB and Reddit has got a lot better the last couple of months though.

I didn't play long but it was enough time to know the game is not for me.

If a person doesn't like a game, it doesn't automatically make them a hater or mean that they didn't understand the game.

 

[aelf]

Recent reviews are now mostly negative for the first time. it doesn’t seem that people agree that the patches have fixed anything (if anything they seem to somehow be making things worse).

I'm not sure how the patches have made things worse.

 

[user746383]

I'm not sure how the patches have made things worse.

I'm not sure either, I'm just seeing the trend that they are releasing patches and the % of recommended is going down the more patches they release so it's one possibility. It's also possible it's something else like the more people play it the more they don't like it, but not sure really. Something is driving people to significantly dislike it even more now than at launch (37% positive recently vs 49% positive at launch)