Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[trev1972]

It's not a train wreck, though. It has the value that GeneralZift identifies:

There's a psychological dimension to that, too, so I'm not surprised mbbcam has found this thread interesting.

Civ VII has polarized the community, but in so doing, it has brought to the foreground the satisfactions that various kinds of players look for in these games.

Before the release of Civ VII, I thought what I liked in the game was what everyone else liked in the game. It has been eye-opening to me to learn how different are the appeals to different people. Sandbox vs victory-conditions is one of them. What percentage of games various players like to win is another. I had a debate with one poster about the unpacked cities (or whatever they call them) and I learned that some players would find it burdensome to make one single click to enter a city screen. I've grown way less confident in my own sense of what makes a Civ game.

Same here, i play civ as an alt history simulator and its all about pretending that i am building an empire against real opponents. That means i value freedom in how i play, and also value opponents that seem to have a personality. I tend to roleplay in my games (for example as a Brit i tend to play England the most and always wipe out the French first if they are in the game, and tend to kill the Canadians/Aussies last if they are in the game)

I spent a huge amount of time playing earth maps. I also love games where i go all out for a science lead - and then utilise it. I hate things that remind me i am playing a board game where its just numbers. Hence why civ 6 was a move away from what i want and civ 7 was a gigantic leap away. I really hoped that civ 7 would be the one where they invested heavily in making the AI both competent and also made an effort to make it feel more 'real' when you interact with it.

It has been an eye opener to discover that i am in a bit of a minority in how i play and that many play primarily as a strategy game with little attachment to the civ they are playing etc.

 

[mbbcam]

People appreciate a good train wreck if they're not personally and directly affected. As a professional, I'm pretty sure you'll agree with my unprofessional opinion.

I have qualifications in social psychology, too, and it is fascinating to watch people trying to make sense -- both collectively and individually -- of what has happened with regard to Civ 7 over the months since its release. There does seem to be quite a lot of effort put in to arriving at rational explanations for opinions and ideas which are really driven more by emotion than reason. But that is quite normal in my experience. Not many people are aware that they are subject to cognitive biases, automatic processes and the power of the unconscious mind -- for the obvious reason that these things operate below the level of consciousness. You need to have studied them to be aware that they exist.

Before the release of Civ VII, I thought what I liked in the game was what everyone else liked in the game.

This actually has a name in psychology: it is called the False Consensus Effect. There is a decent article about it on Wikipedia.

If you want a fun ten minutes, look at the list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia. And for a deeper dive into automatic processes, look at John Bargh's work, such as "Before You Know It".

Cheers!

 

[GeneralZift]

It's not a train wreck, though. It has the value that GeneralZift identifies:

There's a psychological dimension to that, too, so I'm not surprised mbbcam has found this thread interesting.

Civ VII has polarized the community, but in so doing, it has brought to the foreground the satisfactions that various kinds of players look for in these games.

Before the release of Civ VII, I thought what I liked in the game was what everyone else liked in the game. It has been eye-opening to me to learn how different are the appeals to different people. Sandbox vs victory-conditions is one of them. What percentage of games various players like to win is another. I had a debate with one poster about the unpacked cities (or whatever they call them) and I learned that some players would find it burdensome to make one single click to enter a city screen. I've grown way less confident in my own sense of what makes a Civ game.

I think the "Civ formula" is just how they design these games to appeal to many types of people. Maybe what is lost on Civ7 design is that it doesn't have this same widespread appeal. You can't necessarily enjoy all the same things you could've enjoyed before.

This is what leads to the widespread controversies and conversations about what people enjoy

 

[aelf]

I would add that just because a group of people misuse a term doesn't mean that term is now invalid. "Critical thinking" is a term used to denote that you self impose and welcome criticism to your perspective. It is stunning how many people use it today as an indicator of intelligence. Just like the amount of people that use the word "literally" in the figurative sense. I take issue with the ignorance of language and its importance in modern culture.

I do not think using the term "critical thinker" only ironically to mock ignorant people helps anything. Rather defining what a critical thinker actually is and educating the ignorant is a better tactic. Plus it disarms their ability to use "critical thinker" as a way to dismiss criticism if done properly. The whole point of critical thinking is to address criticism, not avoid it.

That's nice and all, but have you tried educating people who refuse to hear it?

It's 2025, and lots of things have happened in the world in the past few years. And it's precisely the use of language in modern culture that's salient here. To self-label as a "critical thinker" and then dunk on others as "senseless consumers" in almost the same breath speaks to a certain kind of perspective in gaming culture, which has its roots in Gamergate among other things. Plus it's highly ironic that some people who basically regurgitate content they see from elsewhere think of themselves as critical thinkers. It almost seems as if "senseless consumers" is a psychological projection.

I think it's no coincidence that people who have a problem with seeing Civ7 as a Civ game would naturally adopt reactionary language and labels. That segment of gaming culture is reactionary, and one of the hallmarks of that perspective is the inability to separate the good from the bad within a piece of media. Something is either trash and made by corporations for 'consoomers' or it's authentic and (still made by corporations) for 'critical/independent thinkers.' Just take a gander at the rhetoric about the devs and controversial design choices in this thread. For example, civ-switching must be made to sell DLCs, not primarily because the devs and the company historian are interested in simulating the rise and fall or civilizations throughout the ages as a new direction in the franchise. And the fact that certain execution of design choices can be bad without the choices themselves being inherently bad or evil is a notion that many here can't seem to entertain.

Some people who have been losing interest in participating in this community have repeatedly pointed out that criticism isn't a bad thing, but bad criticism is a bad thing. Now the excuse is all the bad criticism is contained in threads like this one, but seeing this kind of thing alive and well in this community leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And the hate mob repeating the same talking points and dogpiling on pushback against un-nuanced discourse just because they feel they own certain threads gives a really bad impression on people who don't want to just hate on the game 24/7.

 

[King Flevance]

That's nice and all, but have you tried educating people who refuse to hear it?

It's 2025, and lots of things have happened in the world in the past few years. And it's precisely the use of language in modern culture that's salient here. To self-label as a "critical thinker" and then dunk on others as "senseless consumers" in almost the same breath speaks to a certain kind of perspective in gaming culture, which has its roots in Gamergate among other things. Plus it's highly ironic that some people who basically regurgitate content they see from elsewhere think of themselves as critical thinkers. It almost seems as if "senseless consumers" is a psychological projection.

I think it's no coincidence that people who have a problem with seeing Civ7 as a Civ game would naturally adopt reactionary language and labels. That segment of gaming culture is reactionary, and one of the hallmarks of that perspective is the inability to separate the good from the bad within a piece of media. Something is either trash and made by corporations for 'consoomers' or it's authentic and (still made by corporations) for 'critical/independent thinkers.' Just take a gander at the rhetoric about the devs and controversial design choices in this thread. For example, civ-switching must be made to sell DLCs, not primarily because the devs and the company historian are interested in simulating the rise and fall or civilizations throughout the ages as a new direction in the franchise. And the fact that certain execution of design choices can be bad without the choices themselves being inherently bad or evil is a notion that many here can't seem to entertain.

Some people who have been losing interest in participating in this community have repeatedly pointed out that criticism isn't a bad thing, but bad criticism is a bad thing. Now the excuse is all the bad criticism is contained in threads like this one, but seeing this kind of thing alive and well in this community leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And the hate mob repeating the same talking points and dogpiling on pushback against un-nuanced discourse just because they feel they own certain threads gives a really bad impression on people who don't want to just hate on the game 24/7.

The problem is that the community is polarized. There are also people who will show reactionary behavior to reject all criticism of the game to champion it as the best version of civ that is already practically fully realized. It is not a consumer's duty to coddle the ego of developers, nor to crush it. Some on both sides take up this mantle. Both show reactionary behavior of hostility to protect their perceived 'validity' of their own views. This is the exact behavior in the world, only here it is over a video game, not political morality.

I followed the whole discussion and even laughed at the original "birthed a spokesperson" comment, as it was pretty accurate due to the name and how precise the figures were. Then "independent thinker" was used (more accurate to your point) and Gori the Grey was swift on correcting the term to critic before you replied by referencing the common association of deniers to the term independent thinker. However, that is an association fallacy as many people use the terms critical and independent thinker correctly, but many do not which causes it to be a sort of white noise in society currently.

Educating the ignorant is tricky and can't be achieved with "sick burns", especially 1 liners. It can't be achieved in 1 or 2 conversations. It requires they have multiple new experiences (out of your control) and dialogs as with anyone. You can only make a single impression each interaction with them, and you must be willing to accept that they have the right to refuse a new perspective no matter the circumstances. Good ol' traditional patience and understanding.

That said, I do get your point, it is frustrating when people go on a crusade against something that either doesn't affect them or just to ruin the experience of others. But I also want to clarify that I don't think that is what GeneralZift and many others are doing. They are hanging around the forums in the hopes that this game becomes more to their liking. It is actually a good thing for the game and the community. They haven't given up on the game yet but are currently unsatisfied - and - just like you are tired of seeing their posts that make you feel as though they invalidate your views, they are tired of seeing posts invalidating their views. A polarized game release almost always has "haters" and "corporate shills" there are no "true fans" or everyone on both sides is a "true fan". People start measuring their... earliest game they started with. (Who has played longest)

This will continue until either Civ 7 meets the disappointed playerbase's desires, or until another 4x game comes out that does. Alternatively, until the first expansion when they have to buy in to keep their discussion relevant.

 

[DennisCastro]

>That segment of gaming culture is reactionary, and one of the hallmarks of that perspective is the inability to separate the good from the bad within a piece of media

I don’t understand why people keep calling things reactionary? I thought “reactionary” was a slur and a label that revolutionary communists used for counterrevolutionary thinking and action. It was a label for the “right” that is opposite of left wing revolutionary politics. How can “separating good from bad in media” be reactionary? Other than the fact that some gamergate people are right wing, so you’ve adopted Leninist and Maoist slurs for right wing people?

Honest question.

Edit: Wikipedia seems to confirm my understanding, but makes it more broad than communism and labels it as “anti liberal or social reforms”. So I guess it’s either my first guess, or the people labeling others as reactionary are suggesting that civ 7 has some political valence and had introduced left wing ideas that result in some reaction.

 

[Siptah]

>That segment of gaming culture is reactionary, and one of the hallmarks of that perspective is the inability to separate the good from the bad within a piece of media

I don’t understand why people keep calling things reactionary? I thought “reactionary” was a slur and a label that revolutionary communists used for counterrevolutionary thinking and action. It was a label for the “right” that is opposite of left wing revolutionary politics. How can “separating good from bad in media” be reactionary? Other than the fact that some gamergate people are right wing, so you’ve adopted Leninist and Maoist slurs for right wing people?

Honest question.

Reactionary is much older than communism or real socialism. I‘m not sure when it first came up, but it was already in use during the French Revolution for people that wanted to go back to any of the old beliefs, government, calendar, laws, institutions, etc.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I already stated this for some time, but the biggest problem of Civ7 is the distant land feature.

If we'd have minimal changes to the current game - classic map ganeration and exploration age legacy paths based on continents instead of distant lands, that would be much better game.

I can still taste the sheer disbelief when I saw the terrible map generation of “two continent blocks seperated by vertical island chain” clearly done to completely railroad gameplay down the “colonization of North America” route.

Was there no adult in the room when this was first proposed?

I personally hate being pidgeonholed into the Science victory I chose to pursue

Jokes aside, I have to choose a victory condition. I can't not. This applies to any iteration of Civ.

The whole sandbox vs. design goal thing has generated a lot of discussion. And it's valid - we all like what we like. People who genuinely like a sandbox aren't going to like strictly-defined conditions the game needs to end with.

I’ve been playing Civ since the first one came on actially floppy discs and not once have I paid attention to the victory conditions, so you couldn’t be more wrong about your attempt to normalize Civ7’s railroad by saying “they’re all like that”

Clearly they are not, and Civ7’s ignominious failure shows it.

Previous Civ’s allowed you to craft your own experience, it was the biggest key to the franchise’s success. If you wanted to minmax you could. If you wanted to see how fast you could achieve X victory you could. If you wanted to Roleplay Rome you could.

Civ7 abandoned that to force us all to be Ed Beach, and clearly that did not go well.

I think the "Civ formula" is just how they design these games to appeal to many types of people. Maybe what is lost on Civ7 design is that it doesn't have this same widespread appeal. You can't necessarily enjoy all the same things you could've enjoyed before.

This is what leads to the widespread controversies and conversations about what people enjoy

This is absolutly what happened. The psychology here is interesting, Civ7 apologists argument is essentially rooted in “I enjoy this, therefor everyone else has to”

Which resulted in “everyone else” voting with their wallets

The magnitude of the own goal is staggering.

 

[firadin]

Does anyone remember that one guy with the Civ2 game that had stalemated between 3 nuclear powered nations constantly trading blows and unable to shift territorial lines?

Try doing that in Civ7

 

[stealth_nsk]

I can still taste the sheer disbelief when I saw the terrible map generation of “two continent blocks seperated by vertical island chain” clearly done to completely railroad gameplay down the “colonization of North America” route.

Was there no adult in the room when this was first proposed?

I understand your emotional reaction, but this situation doesn't actually show any flows in the process. Nobody actually thought the maps will have rectangular zones on release, it's just map generation done pretty late in the development lifecycle to incorporate all the game features and suddenly developers realized that to guarantee distant lands gameplay, they have to make maps like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if later we'll get improved map scripts with non-rectangular zones, but it's really a huge amount of work.

P.S. Previous civ installments also have issues with map generation. For example, Civ6 is actually a rectangle and often have ugly juncture when making cylinder, like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1mr6fxz/wtf_is_this_map_shape_bruh

 

[King Flevance]

>That segment of gaming culture is reactionary, and one of the hallmarks of that perspective is the inability to separate the good from the bad within a piece of media

I don’t understand why people keep calling things reactionary? I thought “reactionary” was a slur and a label that revolutionary communists used for counterrevolutionary thinking and action. It was a label for the “right” that is opposite of left wing revolutionary politics. How can “separating good from bad in media” be reactionary? Other than the fact that some gamergate people are right wing, so you’ve adopted Leninist and Maoist slurs for right wing people?

Honest question.

Edit: Wikipedia seems to confirm my understanding, but makes it more broad than communism and labels it as “anti liberal or social reforms”. So I guess it’s either my first guess, or the people labeling others as reactionary are suggesting that civ 7 has some political valence and had introduced left wing ideas that result in some reaction.

Reactionary as a basic principle usually is used to refer to the human characteristic of impulsive emotional response to something without logical considerations.
The basic principle of the word is not political, culture has created an association that robs the word of its full meaning by pigeonholing the meaning too strictly solely for political posturing.

"Separating the good from the bad" is a statement I believe aelf used to illustrate the lack of logical/reasonable considerations and instead - a compliance to emotional attachment to one's own view. (This is a behavior people can exhibit) I want to clarify that "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, not objective terms so even though I understand aelfs intended message, we should acknowledge that the expectations of those perameters is not realistic or even properly measurable as it is based entirely on perspective. Anyone who does not agree with you, you can claim they lack the ability to do it properly.

The comment refers to "that section of the gaming community" but it is used to make association fallacies in multiple contexts in the world today. "There are only 2 types of people... ones that X, and ones that Y"

 

[queenpea]

I understand your emotional reaction, but this situation doesn't actually show any flows in the process. Nobody actually thought the maps will have rectangular zones on release, it's just map generation done pretty late in the development lifecycle to incorporate all the game features and suddenly developers realized that to guarantee distant lands gameplay, they have to make maps like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if later we'll get improved map scripts with non-rectangular zones, but it's really a huge amount of work.

P.S. Previous civ installments also have issues with map generation. For example, Civ6 is actually a rectangle and often have ugly juncture when making cylinder, like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1mr6fxz/wtf_is_this_map_shape_bruh

I think the frustration with maps might be because we have already dealt with these issues in previous installments. If map generation was an issue in VI, then why can’t it have been tuned for VII?

Another issue which has already been discussed to death is that the map, and the formation of continents becomes even more important for VII because of the homelands/distant lands structure. So the issues with the map are all the more frustrating in VII because the structure of continents and distribution of resources has never held this much weight.

 

[Civinator]

Does anyone remember that one guy with the Civ2 game that had stalemated between 3 nuclear powered nations constantly trading blows and unable to shift territorial lines?

Here is a link to the CFC thread about a Reddit member playing a single Civ2 game for over 10 years with a link to Reddit: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-a-single-civ2-game-for-over-10-years.464142/

 

[aelf]

It is actually a good thing for the game and the community. They haven't given up on the game yet but are currently unsatisfied - and - just like you are tired of seeing their posts that make you feel as though they invalidate your views, they are tired of seeing posts invalidating their views.

I think we need to be real here. It's hard and maybe impossible to tell what everyone's intentions are. Some might genuinely "have not given up on the game yet" (for whatever values of "give up" and "not"), but there has even been tacit acknowledgement here that participation in negativity fills some kind of need, and that's not the need to see the game get 'better.'

As things are, it's pretty clear that the devs have gotten the message wrt age transitions and civ-switching. They've been making more and more concessions, and that's the direction the game is clearly going in. At this point, I think it's fair to say that someone would either be on the road to being mollified or, chances are, they will never be convinced. I'm not sure what continuing to dunk on those design decisions will achieve anymore.

I want to clarify that "good" and "bad" are subjective terms, not objective terms so even though I understand aelfs intended message, we should acknowledge that the expectations of those perameters is not realistic or even properly measurable as it is based entirely on perspective. Anyone who does not agree with you, you can claim they lack the ability to do it properly.

This sounds true but it obfuscates things. It might be true that "good" and "bad" are subjective, but they are by-and-large parameters with reasonable limits. Corporations milking customers for money is only "good" in the eyes of those with a very warped set of values or those who are selfishly advocating for their own interests. Likewise, a bunch of creatives trying something new to try and reinvigorate a genre is only "bad" if someone is unable to look beyond the narrow confines of their tastes. Moreover, trying to judge everything only by outcome would also lead to absurdities that lead to no meaningful conclusions. So if a corporation milking customers somehow results in something good, it would be nonsensical to consider the milking of customers good. Likewise if creatives trying something new results in something flawed, it would be absurd to consider trying something new to be bad in itself.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Does anyone remember that one guy with the Civ2 game that had stalemated between 3 nuclear powered nations constantly trading blows and unable to shift territorial lines?

Try doing that in Civ7

This is exactly the kind of wacky emergent gameplay you lose if you put a sandbox on rails

Surprise, you lose half (or more) of the playerbase

I understand your emotional reaction, but this situation doesn't actually show any flows in the process. Nobody actually thought the maps will have rectangular zones on release, it's just map generation done pretty late in the development lifecycle to incorporate all the game features and suddenly developers realized that to guarantee distant lands gameplay, they have to make maps like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if later we'll get improved map scripts with non-rectangular zones, but it's really a huge amount of work.

P.S. Previous civ installments also have issues with map generation. For example, Civ6 is actually a rectangle and often have ugly juncture when making cylinder, like this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1mr6fxz/wtf_is_this_map_shape_bruh

Interesting how the go to dismissal of feedback has now shifted to “emotional”, in an attempt to paint it as irrational, instead of trying to answer the point.

I’ve played a LOT of 6, it is probably my most played one after 2 and 3, and sny map script can sometimes give you results you don’t like, but you at least are not locked into a map that is clearly railroading you towards a specific mechanic.

I think the frustration with maps might be because we have already dealt with these issues in previous installments. If map generation was an issue in VI, then why can’t it have been tuned for VII?

Another issue which has already been discussed to death is that the map, and the formation of continents becomes even more important for VII because of the homelands/distant lands structure. So the issues with the map are all the more frustrating in VII because the structure of continents and distribution of resources has never held this much weight.

These are all issues because of the game being on rails

 

[Core Imposter]

I had to look up Gamergate. Never heard of it. I would rather have not heard of it.

I am here to object to 1UPT and encourage Firaxis to eliminate it forever with the next patch so that we can get back to playing Civ.

 

[Nikolai II]

I had to look up Gamergate. Never heard of it. I would rather have not heard of it.

I am here to object to 1UPT and encourage Firaxis to eliminate it forever with the next patch so that we can get back to playing Civ.

I believe it might have ruined the Steam and GOG competitor Gamersgate slightly, as it was just in its growing phase when Gamergate hit. It was a Paradox funded competitor to Steam and GOG way back then.

 

[itix]

This sounds true but it obfuscates things. It might be true that "good" and "bad" are subjective, but they are by-and-large parameters with reasonable limits. Corporations milking customers for money is only "good" in the eyes of those with a very warped set of values or those who are selfishly advocating for their own interests.

Nope. That is a personal opinion. Is Firaxis milking customers?

Answer: See, it depends on whom you are asking.

 

[socratic]

>That segment of gaming culture is reactionary, and one of the hallmarks of that perspective is the inability to separate the good from the bad within a piece of media

I don’t understand why people keep calling things reactionary? I thought “reactionary” was a slur and a label that revolutionary communists used for counterrevolutionary thinking and action. It was a label for the “right” that is opposite of left wing revolutionary politics. How can “separating good from bad in media” be reactionary? Other than the fact that some gamergate people are right wing, so you’ve adopted Leninist and Maoist slurs for right wing people?

Honest question.

Edit: Wikipedia seems to confirm my understanding, but makes it more broad than communism and labels it as “anti liberal or social reforms”. So I guess it’s either my first guess, or the people labeling others as reactionary are suggesting that civ 7 has some political valence and had introduced left wing ideas that result in some reaction.

I never expected to see the sentence “reactionary is a slur” on a civ fansite of all things.

On a serious note, there is no substance to thinking someone is a reactionary or boot-licker or whatever over their personal preference on a video game. No one is reactionary because they prefer Civ 5 over Civ 7 or 7 over 8. It’s a game

 

[King Flevance]

I think we need to be real here. It's hard and maybe impossible to tell what everyone's intentions are. Some might genuinely "have not given up on the game yet" (for whatever values of "give up" and "not"), but there has even been tacit acknowledgement here that participation in negativity fills some kind of need, and that's not the need to see the game get 'better.'

I referenced this acknowledgement when I said "I do get your point, it is frustrating when people go on a crusade against something that either doesn't affect them or just to ruin the experience of others." So I do actually understand what you are communicating from your perspective.

As things are, it's pretty clear that the devs have gotten the message wrt age transitions and civ-switching. They've been making more and more concessions, and that's the direction the game is clearly going in. At this point, I think it's fair to say that someone would either be on the road to being mollified or, chances are, they will never be convinced. I'm not sure what continuing to dunk on those design decisions will achieve anymore.

I think that is too presumptuous considering we are talking about millions of opinions or thousands if just referencing this particular forum. Even if we ignore your very black and white perspective on people's ability to quickly adjust what you have already defined as "purely emotional" (reactionary) responses to completely logical ones - we still have the largest question on everyone's mind right now of "What direction is Civ 7 headed in?" which the main talking point right now in that discussion is that it is all pure speculation because we have now entered a phase where there is no road map. Plus, sometimes it is as simple as people just like to express themselves to others that will care in some way about their opinion. They simply want to feel heard.

This sounds true but it obfuscates things. It might be true that "good" and "bad" are subjective, but they are by-and-large parameters with reasonable limits. Corporations milking customers for money is only "good" in the eyes of those with a very warped set of values or those who are selfishly advocating for their own interests. Likewise, a bunch of creatives trying something new to try and reinvigorate a genre is only "bad" if someone is unable to look beyond the narrow confines of their tastes. Moreover, trying to judge everything only by outcome would also lead to absurdities that lead to no meaningful conclusions. So if a corporation milking customers somehow results in something good, it would be nonsensical to consider the milking of customers good. Likewise if creatives trying something new results in something flawed, it would be absurd to consider trying something new to be bad in itself.

It is true, and I mostly disagree with your assessment mostly because those parameters have varying impacts on different peoples view. A sort of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" kind of thing. Some people will look at Civ 7 as a "whole" but your previous expression you used was that they should dissect the parts to be "fair" in their discussion. But they are not required to if the "whole" better communicates their perspective. Some will totally break down what they dislike into the parts. Some will take the "good" for granted within the industry today. Is that fair? By what standard? A message board of casual conversation? I would say that's fair under those standards.

We cannot assume to know why the game was designed the way it was. (For DLC or innovation) But both are plausible suggestions. Both could be true, those are not 2 ends of a single scale, those are 2 totally separate layers of design. Even the assignment of "good" or "bad" as you vaguely infer needs clarification. Good for what? Good for who? Good how? Just "good" or "bad" is too vague. I often like to make the joke "I only like things that are cool and hate things that suck" to parody this mentality. I do see your point but making sweeping generalizations has become something of a kryptonite in society. And usually people justify it by saying "they do it too" or "well it is probably true".