Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gori the Grey]

It stands the test of time, one might say.

 

[aelf]

It has the same phrasing, but it is not, substantively, the same complaint.*

His emphasis falls on the word "empire," by which he means "territorially expansive polity." In the knock on 7, the emphasis falls on "stand the test of time."

It's an absolutely fair criticism of 5. In that iteration, the designers went very far in the direction of making "wide" and "tall" equally viable (and erred in the direction of making tall actually more viable for at least two of the victory types). So there was** the four-city strategy and turtling for science and culture victories. The designers seeking to strike that balance was, I think, a function of wanting to make each of the victory conditions equally viable.

It's almost as if the franchise shifted away from its old 'identity' (though that identity had been subject to significant evolution already) with V.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Aside from the overpriced mess and insidious micro transaction, the core identity was most definitely lost in "Civ" Vii with the loss of immersion .
Good summary below .

I found a great quote "Civ needs to get back to building an empire that stands the test of time instead finding artificial ways to limit it". It's about... oh, wait, it's actually about Civ5

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/2c4ti3/an_empire_to_stand_the_test_of_time

This is a joke right?

The major criticism of Civ5 (aside from 1 UPT) was the fact that it favoured tall over wide gameplay.

This didn’t even remotely come close to Civ7 abandoning the core identity of the game

Which is probably why Civ5’s playerbase is Standing The Test Of Time

And 7 is not.

Yeah. As someone who dropped out of the franchise for Civ V that comment reads more like, "and thankfully they did."

I tried V again recently and still the pacing just feels so off. I prefer VII by a long margin even though I complain about it a lot.

Ya I’ve tried it too, just doesn’t grab me at all

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is a joke right?

Partially. I understand the difference of context, but I wanted to point out that all this talk about Civ7 losing core identity is pretty subjective and there are very different opinions on this. I believe the thread with poll does this better than me, though.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

This didn’t even remotely come close to Civ7 abandoning the core identity of the game

Which is probably why Civ5’s playerbase is Standing The Test Of Time

And 7 is not.

In your opinion. You're wrong to put Civ VIIs underperformance on your belief that they abandoned the core identity of the game, because that isn't what the majority of negative reviews talk about.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

In your opinion. You're wrong to put Civ VIIs underperformance on your belief that they abandoned the core identity of the game, because that isn't what the majority of negative reviews talk about.

To review the game you have to buy it, and a lot of people that bought prior titles haven't bought it. Reviews have an audience skewed towards those willing to entertain Civ switching in the first place

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's almost as if the franchise shifted away from its old 'identity' (though that identity had been subject to significant evolution already) with V.

I think that's where many long-timers place the most significant watershed, yes.

That's where it went from being a "computer game" to a "board game," in the language they sometimes use.

That's when it went from grand strategy to including a tactical-level dimension.

That's when they started "dumbing it down."

The AI was even "better" in 1-4 (because the things that contributed to game success were simpler, and something you could program an AI to do). Could give human players a more challenging game.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

To review the game you have to buy it, and a lot of people that bought prior titles haven't bought it. Reviews have an audience skewed towards those willing to entertain Civ switching in the first place

There are many reasons as to why someone hasn't bought the game yet. We can say this about other Civs too: many people who owned Civ V didn't buy Civ VI within the first 7 months, many people who owned Civ IV didn't buy Civ V within the first 7 months, etc.

 

[Smegger213]

Reviews have an audience skewed towards those willing to entertain Civ switching in the first place

How can you say that? I suspect that a good few people bought the game, not knowing about the Civ switching. Not everybody watches previews on Youtube etc. I suspect many bad reviews cite Civ switching as one of the negative points. Also, some people may have bought it, knowing full well that it had Civ switching. But then when they played the game, they found they didn't like Civ switching after all.

 

[aieeegrunt]

To review the game you have to buy it, and a lot of people that bought prior titles haven't bought it. Reviews have an audience skewed towards those willing to entertain Civ switching in the first place

And half of those that tried it didn’t like it

Civ7 was launching off the shoulders if 6, which I believe had the highest sales and player numbers of the series

It should have performed at least as well. Instead it face planted.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

And half of those that tried it didn’t like it

Once again, a minority of the negative reviews mention Civ switching.

 

[queenpea]

Once again, a minority of the negative reviews mention Civ switching.

I tend to think that the Age transitions and civ switching are so intertwined in terms of player experience that to criticize one is to implicate the other.

 

[Smegger213]

Once again, a minority of the negative reviews mention Civ switching.

Read every review? You cannot possible say that a minority of negative reviews mentioned Civ switching.

 

[Xur]

Once again, a minority of the negative reviews mention Civ switching.

I didn't buy it and lost interest the second they mentioned civ switching. I read the same story as mine on steam forums, here, reddit, youtube etc.

The absence of a negative review about civ switching does not mean everyone loves civ switching. A lot of civ5 and civ6 players obviously didn't buy civ7. You can also see positive reviews that hate civ switching.

What if the game only sold 1 copy and you were the buyer? The game would have 100% positive ranking and you love civ switching. Does this mean that everyone loves civ switching, or that there's a giant untapped market of previous players that are waiting for another version or a patch?

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I tend to think that the Age transitions and civ switching are so intertwined in terms of player experience that to criticize one is to implicate the other.

They're related (pretty much everything is related to Age transitions?) but they aren't so intertwined that if you dislike one you must dislike the other. I've always liked Civ switching but I wasn't a huge fan of Age transitions on launch, I do believe they've been improved but I think the implementation could've been better.

Read every review? You cannot possible say that a minority of negative reviews mentioned Civ switching.

I don't need to read every review. I've seen multiple Steam review summarisers that do not list it as the main or majority issue. It's one of common complaints but not every single negative review is because of Civ-switching and/or the Ages system, it's still a minority of reviews.

I didn't buy it and lost interest the second they mentioned civ switching. I read the same story as mine on steam forums, here, reddit, youtube etc.

The absence of a negative review about civ switching does not mean everyone loves civ switching. A lot of civ5 and civ6 players obviously didn't buy civ7. You can also see positive reviews that hate civ switching.

What if the game only sold 1 copy and you were the buyer? The game would have 100% positive ranking and you love civ switching. Does this mean that everyone loves civ switching, or that there's a giant untapped market of previous players that are waiting for another version or a patch?

I've ready many different reasons as to why people have said they haven't bought Civ VII.

I never said everyone loves Civ switching. A lot of Civ IV & Civ V players didn't buy Civ V & Civ VI respectively after 7 months. You can also see negative reviews which like Civ switching.

 

[Skojardu]

And half of those that tried it didn’t like it

Civ7 was launching off the shoulders if 6, which I believe had the highest sales and player numbers of the series

It should have performed at least as well. Instead it face planted.

Comparing it to music, you could say that it is a predictable sophomore flop for the dev team that made 6

 

[The Civs 6]

How about civ 2 but with civ 4 UI. Lfg

 

[The Civs 6]

I think it is totally fair to say that 5 was the start of the rot. It just happened to hit with me once both expansions were in. As I mentioned before perhaps a problem is that 7 isnt just a problem in itself but the third that has missed the mark- and indeed gone even further in some of the bad directions.

 

[Leucarum]

6 hit the mark for me. And the first 1/3 of 7 hits the mark too. Until the first age transition hits its an amazing game.

 

[Xandinho]

6 hit the mark for me. And the first 1/3 of 7 hits the mark too. Until the first age transition hits its an amazing game.

I have to agree. Antiquity in Civ7 is the best ancient era in the entire franchise. I'd still make a few small adjustments here and there, but overall it’s great. The Exploration is average, not exactly bad, but far too scripted, and the religion mechanic is the worst we’ve ever had. The Modern is genuinely bad: it feels rushed, and there’s hardly any time to enjoy each civ’s uniques. I barely even feel like I’m playing any particular civ in this era, because it ends far too quickly.