Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Smegger213]

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'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.

I looked at the recent reviews on Steam. This was a paragraph from only the 2nd bad review on the list:

"ALSO YOU DON'T PLAY AS THE CIV BASED THE PERSON YOU PICK. I know that sounds confusing but essentially if I wanted to play Himiko of wei (from japan) I would assume I'm playing as a japanese civiliation the whole time. BUT NOW- so building up a great empire doesn't even matter because you'll be playing as THREE different civilizations.".

That was only the 2nd bad review on the list.
Then it didn't take me long to scroll down and see other reviews mentioning Civ switching.
Lots also mention the any leader can play any Civ crap too.

But I never said that every negative review mentioned Civ switching or the age system. It was you that said a minority of reviews mention those points.
I am saying you are wrong on those points. Yes a lot of bad reviews just say the game is bad without going into great detail.
But if you scroll down the list and read the reviews, plenty of them do mention Civ switching and the age system.

Also I have noted that the game has now been listed as Mostly Negative on Steam.

 

[Civinator]

Also I have noted that the game has now been listed as Mostly Negative on Steam.

Yes, indeed the current reviews on steam now are listed as mostly negative again.

It seems the patches and the last sale made no big changes in the mind of the customers, who bought the game. In addition to those mostly negative rewiews comes the big number of civers who have not bought the game yet, because they are not convinced by Civ 7.

 

[ThERat]

Has Civ7 hit such low numbers before? I see the daily low as low as 3.6k and the daily high as low as 6.7k....it seems nothing Firaxis is trying, is working.

I want a Civ4 with better graphics and stuff

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

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

This.
I haven't bought the game because I think it looks trash game design wise, and if I could give it a negative review, I would do it on the basis of civ switching (with no true connection between the civs) and the legacy points/victory system and all the bad things that follow from it (such as map generation).

 

[kotpeter]

I believe we'll reach above 40% positive reviews again soon. A significant portion of negative reviews arrived during the sale, and Civ 7 is still not easy for casual players to get going and enjoy.

In fact, I just started a series of posts on reddit to explain civ 7's mechanics in order to help new and learning players understand the game better. The first post is about expansion and happiness.

 

[Leucarum]

I believe we'll reach above 40% positive reviews again soon. A significant portion of negative reviews arrived during the sale, and Civ 7 is still not easy for casual players to get going and enjoy.

In fact, I just started a series of posts on reddit to explain civ 7's mechanics in order to help new and learning players understand the game better. The first post is about expansion and happiness.

40% isn't exactly a happy milestone...

 

[queenpea]

40% isn't exactly a happy milestone...

Recent reviews are below 40% positive?

I would think that sale = price reduction = increased value for money perception = better satisfaction = better reviews?

 

[Leucarum]

Recent reviews are below 40% positive?

I would think that sale = price reduction = increased value for money perception = better satisfaction = better reviews?

39% according to steam...

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

So it would follow that the general audience is skewed less in favour of the game than the hardcore Civ fanbase that bought at full price.

 

[Civinator]

I believe we'll reach above 40% positive reviews again soon. A significant portion of negative reviews arrived during the sale, and Civ 7 is still not easy for casual players to get going and enjoy.

What is this for a kind of logic ?? Non casual players who are not looking for sales, have still bought Civ 7 and are included in the "mostly negative" existing reviews before the sale. Non casual players, who are looking for sales of Civ 7, can of course be among the customers who made these new negative reviews after the sale.

This kind of logic looks like the hope, that most future customers are so annoyed by Civ 7, that they are thinking, it is not worth the time to write a negative review about that game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So it would follow that the general audience is skewed less in favour of the game than the hardcore Civ fanbase that bought at full price.

I think it's more complex. Many people had Civ7 in wishlist and purchased it on discounts. This includes significant amount of old timers, who for some reason didn't like Civ7 announcement enough to preorder the game. It's pretty understandable that this part of the audience left negative reviews.

P.S. I played more with chatgpt data analysis, but was unable to get reliable analysis of the last reviews yet.

 

[UWHabs]

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.

My hope with the 3 act structure was finally we were going to get a competitive modern timeframe. I do think the exploration age is almost there in giving you some of the same feel that you get from a fresh game, since you have that initial run of exploring the new world, fighting for settlement spots, and that. But it does tend to fall too far into the same-same, and since the focus is so heavy on the new world, it can just make you feel bad when/if you ignore it.

 

[kotpeter]

What is this for a kind of logic ?? Non casual players who are not looking for sales, have still bought Civ 7 and are included in the "mostly negative" existing reviews before the sale. Non casual players, who are looking for sales of Civ 7, can of course be among the customers who made these new negative reviews after the sale.

This kind of logic looks like the hope, that most future customers are so annoyed by Civ 7, that they are thinking, it is not worth the time to write a negative review about that game.

This logic is based on the fact that most negative reviews for the past 30 days came during sales. As seen on the picture below. The entire period has 39% positive reviews. The period that I highlighted (past 7 days or so) has 43% positive reviews. So unless Firaxis screw up the game in the upcoming weeks, the review score should improve.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I looked at the recent reviews on Steam. This was a paragraph from only the 2nd bad review on the list:

"ALSO YOU DON'T PLAY AS THE CIV BASED THE PERSON YOU PICK. I know that sounds confusing but essentially if I wanted to play Himiko of wei (from japan) I would assume I'm playing as a japanese civiliation the whole time. BUT NOW- so building up a great empire doesn't even matter because you'll be playing as THREE different civilizations.".

That was only the 2nd bad review on the list.
Then it didn't take me long to scroll down and see other reviews mentioning Civ switching.
Lots also mention the any leader can play any Civ crap too.

But I never said that every negative review mentioned Civ switching or the age system. It was you that said a minority of reviews mention those points.
I am saying you are wrong on those points. Yes a lot of bad reviews just say the game is bad without going into great detail.
But if you scroll down the list and read the reviews, plenty of them do mention Civ switching and the age system.

Also I have noted that the game has now been listed as Mostly Negative on Steam.

You scrolling through some recent reviews isn't going to give as accurate of a picture that summaries of 1,000 to 15,000 negative reviews will give, which I've seen. Civ-switching and the Ages system (they aren't the same!) are major issues but they're still a minority of the negative reviews.

 

[ThERat]

This logic is based on the fact that most negative reviews for the past 30 days came during sales. As seen on the picture below. The entire period has 39% positive reviews. The period that I highlighted (past 7 days or so) has 43% positive reviews. So unless Firaxis screw up the game in the upcoming weeks, the review score should improve.

View attachment 742167

goodness me, from 39% to 43% is called a marked improvement? as it looks, Civ7 review scores will (if ever at all) have a hard time, to climb even back to 50%. 50% is a disaster. If I am looking for a new game to buy and I see reviews of less than 75%, I would most likely not buy it. 50%, 43%, never

 

[Gori the Grey]

but they're still a minority of the negative reviews.

Are they a minority of negative reviews that mention some specific feature of the game?

In other words, a review like "Game sucks" doesn't tell us that the person hated civ-switching, but it also doesn't tell us that the person didn't.

So a first thing that should be done, for such a tabulation to be meaningful, is to filter out negative reviews that don't mention any particular game feature, and then take account of what gets mentioned most.

 

[Xandinho]

My hope with the 3 act structure was finally we were going to get a competitive modern timeframe. I do think the exploration age is almost there in giving you some of the same feel that you get from a fresh game, since you have that initial run of exploring the new world, fighting for settlement spots, and that. But it does tend to fall too far into the same-same, and since the focus is so heavy on the new world, it can just make you feel bad when/if you ignore it.

Yes, the scripting that forces the player to play in a certain way is the biggest problem with the Exploration. Adding alternative legacy paths that allow the player to remain in their homeland, if they choose to, would be a way to fix this. A cultural path focused on producing great works of art. An economic path centered around medieval guilds...

 

[reyaik]

Civ-switching, Ages: I think the reviews are picking up on the wrong aspects, really. By the time the civ-olution mechanism is more fleshed out for staying within a given meta-civilisation (like "America", "Britain", "France", etc.) for the player (and necessarily also AI), a large part of the negative reviews would be addressed, in my opinion. Of course, this would still leave the cost aspects (DLCs) as a valid point of criticism for some. The criticism towards the ages implementation is probably harder to fix. It seems mostly about the late-age slog (preparing for the next age, clicking through the past few turns) and railroading (legacy win conditions that are just the same for every playthrough). I am personally not completely convinced that chapters are a bad idea per se, but those two aspects would need a deeper redesign that seems unlikely with CIV7.

 

[Civinator]

This logic is based on the fact that most negative reviews for the past 30 days came during sales. As seen on the picture below. The entire period has 39% positive reviews. The period that I highlighted (past 7 days or so) has 43% positive reviews. So unless Firaxis screw up the game in the upcoming weeks, the review score should improve.

Sorry, but this says nothing about "casual players".

 

[IntelligentDisk]

Are they a minority of negative reviews that mention some specific feature of the game?

In other words, a review like "Game sucks" doesn't tell us that the person hated civ-switching, but it also doesn't tell us that the person didn't.

So a first thing that should be done, for such a tabulation to be meaningful, is to filter out negative reviews that don't mention any particular game feature, and then take account of what gets mentioned most.

Yes, Civ-switching is also a minority of the reviews which have any substance.

The Ages system is more prevalent in the reviews, but Ages system ≠ Civ-switching. Most complaints around the Ages system are to do with transitioning, the feeling of being reset & "3 mini-games".