It appears that most games are stuck with their rating from the first month. Some games quickly recovered from a bad launch but it seems to be rare.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I started to look at Cyberpunk 2077 for an example of radically changed reviews, but it turns out despite awful launch, its reviews were positive all the time.
Anyway, yes, recovering from bad launch reviews is almost impossible, but if the game will reach mostly positive recent reviews with mixed overall, that would probably be enough to not hinder sales.
I think its quite tough to compare Civ and CP2077 together. Civ VI isnt a old game, upgrade wasnt as asked as with Cyberpunk.
Also 2077 was aimed for old fans and it did everything it really needed to, whereas VII felt like downgrade.
Sure some younger players got pissed on 2077 because it wasnt GTA game they, for some reason, hoped for?
Also Pondsmiths Cyberpunk is older IP than Civilization is, the fanbase is divided to enjoy different aspects of the world even further.
Kev1916 said:
Keep that up and in a few hundred years ‘civ” Vii will get to an over all positive review score
"if you think arguing over the reviews in general is pointless, maybe you're in the wrong thread? "
"This thread is about stats"
You may not like the fact that is would take those "Stats" a long time to make any difference , but it is what it is
Keep that up and in a few hundred years ‘civ” Vii will get to an over all positive review score
"if you think arguing over the reviews in general is pointless, maybe you're in the wrong thread? "
"This thread is about stats"
You may not like the fact that is would take those "Stats" a long time to make any difference , but it is what it is
stealth_nsk
Deity
I'm not against those points in this thread (they are totally valid, btw.), but they were irrelevant to the particular discussion it was replying to.
A lot of older Cyberpunk fans also weren't a fan? There were also reports of crunch, mismanagement, and so on that came out around the game.
But let's make excuses when it's games we like more
Smegger213
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2024
- Messages
- 200
Now that we are getting towards the end of October, we can get 4 complete weeks of reviews going by starting on a Monday to Sunday. A proper full week, as the general convention in when a week starts, is either Sunday or Monday. That rules out any stuff about we should count weeks from a Tuesday or a Thursday.
Week Monday 29th Sept = 148 positive, 208 negative, = 41.57%
Week Monday 6th Oct = 125 positive, 119 negative, = 51.23%
Week Monday 13th Oct = 93 positive, 110 negative, = 45.8%
Week Monday 20th Oct = 80 positive, 95 negative, = 45.7%
Just goes to show how wildly different the figures can be, by starting counting from a different day.
That means that the last 2 weeks have dropped back to less than 46%, and over the last 4 weeks, only one of them was above 51% positive.
Are we really expected to believe that this game is seeing a turn around in getting towards a positive review status?
Week Monday 29th Sept = 148 positive, 208 negative, = 41.57%
Week Monday 6th Oct = 125 positive, 119 negative, = 51.23%
Week Monday 13th Oct = 93 positive, 110 negative, = 45.8%
Week Monday 20th Oct = 80 positive, 95 negative, = 45.7%
Just goes to show how wildly different the figures can be, by starting counting from a different day.
That means that the last 2 weeks have dropped back to less than 46%, and over the last 4 weeks, only one of them was above 51% positive.
Are we really expected to believe that this game is seeing a turn around in getting towards a positive review status?
I don't think anyone said you should believe anything.
Some of you are taking what was said as far more than it ever was, it's weird.
To your figures, so far it's showing that 1.2.5 caused an uptick in review scores that's slowly settling back down (guesswork, obviously). This is what some folks predicted might happen. Pretty sure I did too, a bunch of pages back. Sustained growth in positive review % is important too, and it doesn't look like we're seeing that.
Of course, the community also has no real idea of what's next (where 1.2.6 is, if we're getting another minor version, etc). I think the lack of communication hurts Firaxis the longer we go without updates. But at the same time, updates seem to drive positive user responses. Simply communicating plans might not (though it would help a lot on established communities, like here on CFC). Hopefully these can be handled by different teams (post-layoff, the internal structure at Firaxis is anyone's bet).
IntelligentDisk
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2025
- Messages
- 143
That doesn't change the fact that we had the best 2 week period since launch. Nor does it change the fact that the reviews are significantly better compared to previous months and updates (6-7% better).
Also, I thought counting reviews weekly was pointless? Haven't you said that multiple times?
Smegger213
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2024
- Messages
- 200
Whatever pal. You can believe what you want as far as I am concerned. Good day to you. We will not meet again.
Listen, I get it. My last two remaining brain cells are in a fight to the death for Third Place. Seriously.
Not a fan of 2077 myself. I might be after I actually play it, who knows?A lot of older Cyberpunk fans also weren't a fan? There were also reports of crunch, mismanagement, and so on that came out around the game.
But let's make excuses when it's games we like more
I am more against what CDPR did with Cyberpunk: RED rpg, thats the reason I didnt personally support it. That way its similar as VII I have to admit, except I have played VII and didnt enjoy it much.
I just know there are a lot of people who prefer different versions of Cyberpunk and it feels 2077 serves them all different ways.
Sometimes games can be "mid". Relative popularity of AAA titles has also declined heavily in the last decade, due to access to so many tools to make your own game; indie devs aren't restrained by corporate guidelines and sensibilities (with or without quotation marks). The game being linear can also at times be an outdated approach, and maybe the existence of districts forces you to limit your playing style.
Another factor perhaps worth considering is that the Civ franchise has had a series of divisive changes, which might have only culminated with the ones in Civ7 but had carried over grievances (1upt being the most obvious case, but not the only one).
In this era of gaming, with the shift of the target audience from almost exclusively kids to a very sizable percentage of older people, there has been a quite chaotic attempt to make a gaming session last a reasonable amount of time. But we should remember that the early civ games thrived on being massive timesinks, which naturally promoted the open-endedness of strategy. If you feel that the bulk of the people buying your game are either older or young but geared towards short-session gaming, you can't maintain the aura of the earlier civ titles. Then again, if you take that away from a civ game, is it really still a civ game?
Another factor perhaps worth considering is that the Civ franchise has had a series of divisive changes, which might have only culminated with the ones in Civ7 but had carried over grievances (1upt being the most obvious case, but not the only one).
In this era of gaming, with the shift of the target audience from almost exclusively kids to a very sizable percentage of older people, there has been a quite chaotic attempt to make a gaming session last a reasonable amount of time. But we should remember that the early civ games thrived on being massive timesinks, which naturally promoted the open-endedness of strategy. If you feel that the bulk of the people buying your game are either older or young but geared towards short-session gaming, you can't maintain the aura of the earlier civ titles. Then again, if you take that away from a civ game, is it really still a civ game?
Last edited:
King Flevance
Deity
Statistics fluctuate as many have pointed out, rightfully so. "2 reviews was hyperbole to point what we are talking about here, nothing long term. Just like "what goes up must come down", what goes down eventually has to stop going down. In 30 weeks, we had "the best 2 weeks" you are discussing. If you want to celebrate those figures, that is your right to do so. I see nothing to celebrate. Just like if stock prices tick up a couple points there is no reason to get excited. I do not see this as "quite significant". It has taken negative reviews or "review bombers" 8 months to taper off. Maybe. Firaxis could announce more $30 DLC and we have a huge influx on "not recommend" reviews, and the cycle starts all over.
Yes, month to month increases would mean a trend. Then there is some positivity to celebrate or reason to think Firaxis is turning it around.Agree to disagree then. I can understand the viewpoint here. If the positive review % flattens, inverts, or increases month-on-month, maybe there'll be a difference in your opinion.
I mean, if you think arguing over the reviews in general is pointless, maybe you're in the wrong thread? There are plenty for discussing what people think the game needs to turn the metaphorical ship around. This thread is about stats, which is why folks argue over them
I don't plan to stay in this discussion long as I can see the cyclical pattern. The stats here are "incomplete" at best to the point of unreliable data. And the stats people are discussing show nothing but the game trending negative even to this day. Just because there is a small uptick, every statistic class or anything that has to do with "trends" or tracking data would dismiss this as "inevitable". It is very likely to see an uptick in a downward trend. Whoever wants to celebrate it can, but it is premature right now based on how tracking data works.
Look at 1.1.1. Then 1.2.1 to 1.2.3. It is just not a big enough jump to mean anything. It has still yet to get over launch reviews. I am obviously in the camp confused on why some are celebrating something even the naysayers who think Civ will "out of business" due to Civ 7 expected to see.
From what I've heard, from folks who've played it since release, it is genuinely a lot better now. But it was released 5 years ago. Update 2.3 (for example) was released this year, in July.
I personally hope Civ VII gets that kind of lengthy support. But that's impossible for us to determine. And the tragedy is, if support is cut short, you end up never knowing if it could've been turned around. Which then makes subsequent installments difficult to design around, because then you end up with incomplete data vs. what was originally planned.
Imagine if V had stopped before its first expansion.
Elden Ring apparently recovered from a troubled launch. Seems it had performance issues on the PC, but they could resolve them quickly, and jumped from 60% to 85% in a few months and now it is at 93%.
Cities: Skylines II, on the other hand, had similar performance issues at launch, which they could not resolve quickly, and it seems to be stuck at 53%. I dont know if it deserves that, many say it is okay now. Some players say it is still garbage.
Yeah. I have always wanted to get into Cities: Skylines II, but there is always another, better rated game I want to buy. It is always "maybe later".
At least from my perspective the CS2 comparison is the most apt - I've played both CS1 and the Civ series in general an absurd amount - one of the very rare people who made a goal of finishing a game as every leader in 6 at deity.
There was something in the initial pricing and industry as a whole that kept me from a day 1 purchase in the end, I wasn't hugely adverse to the civ switching or any of the new mechanics but with the increased asking cost and the hundreds of excellent games in the indie space there's now a lot more competition for my time and cash, thus an expensive game which is now heavily pushing expensive dlc micro-transactions with a history of less than stellar initial releases isn't high on the list of things to get round to.
I do suspect that the industry has gotten away from them a bit, 5 years ago and I'd probably be much more comfortable with jumping on civ 7 at release...
I've done about 6 run throughs of 77 at this point from release and I think a lot of the issues were a bit overstated and expectations were through the roof given the success of the Witcher 3.
After all the additional work I'd say it's an excellent game, imo they could have left it outside of performance and it still would have been 'fine', they deserve a nod for the effort they've put in to create something special, I'm not sure if civ 7 will be able to get that kind of love given the publisher though...
Honestly more than anything CP77 makes me sad we never finished out deus ex's human revolution trilogy.
PlatinumPoster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2025
- Messages
- 14
This thread is very odd, but I think its due to people not really understanding that stats nerds are interested in small changes and the larger trends they may or may not lead to.
No one is doing massive celebrations, its a conversation about factual data and factual positive changes. It might not lead to any long term change. Whether we think it will or won't is what the discusssion should be about. Not the hyperbole in here about people "celebrating".
Similar threads
