Steam Review Bombing

[SammyKhalifa]

Or perhaps the problems aren't bad enough to be giving the game a 4/10? (let alone a 0/10). A 7/10 sort of response, I can see. "This game is terrible"--not so much

That is my thought. Not everything needs to be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

People giving it a zero or whatever have no idea what a bad lauch is, IMO. A ten? Hardly.

Not to mention I'm going to pretty much ignore the concerns of the hyperbole reviews, personally.

 

[AD1730]

That is my thought. Not everything needs to be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

People giving it a zero or whatever have no idea what a bad lauch is, IMO. A ten? Hardly.

Not to mention I'm going to pretty much ignore the concerns of the hyperbole reviews, personally.

When there is only a binary choice on the review score that registers, players feel that they have no option but to leave a negative review to register their displeasure with the game. Perhaps Steam should use some sort of numeric score system instead.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

When there is only a binary choice on the review score that registers, players feel that they have no option but to leave a negative review to register their displeasure with the game. Perhaps Steam should use some sort of numeric score system instead.

Thanks. Honestly I have never once felt the need to do a steam review so I didn't realize this was the case. I guess I just assumed it was a 1-5 or 1-10 or whatever.

 

[Sagax]

Or perhaps the problems aren't bad enough to be giving the game a 4/10? (let alone a 0/10). A 7/10 sort of response, I can see. "This game is terrible"--not so much

Steam reviews don’t have scores, so that’s kind of a moot point.

If a Steam user’s sentiment is anything close to “the gameplay is fine, but the current UI and bugs/crashes seriously tank the experience - so wait for when they fix that”, then rating the game “Not Recommended” at this point of time is completely within reason.

 

[AD1730]

Steam reviews don’t have scores, so that’s kind of a moot point.

If a Steam user’s sentiment is anything close to “the gameplay is fine, but the current UI and bugs/crashes seriously tank the experience - so wait for when the fix that”, then rating the game as “Not Recommended” at this point of time is completely within reason.

They should probably implement some sort of tag system on their reviews. Give options for the most common features of games and allow reviewers to tag each feature with a red one for that feature (equals "UI Bad) or a blue one (equals "Gameplay Good").

 

[trev1972]

Or perhaps the problems aren't bad enough to be giving the game a 4/10? (let alone a 0/10). A 7/10 sort of response, I can see. "This game is terrible"--not so much

I can sort of understand why people get annoyed at 1/10 reviews, recently a tv show came out based on popular books. I liked the show as well as the books.
It got tonnes of 1/10 reviews and most of the complaints were about diversity in the casting which annoyed me since i felt the acting etc was what mattered, although i didnt bother writing on forums about it

However in this case, the reviews genuinely seem to be about things to do with the game functionality? and if you are unable to play at all due to instability i can see why people would vote a 4/10 or below?

Edit, just seen there are no points on steam..

 

[d4everman]

The Steam forums are really only good for entertainment. You'll find little useful information or insights there.

 

[cabelhigh12]

I think the reason Civ 6 didnt face such negative reviews at launch (for perhaps more stale/worse gsmeplay than Civ 7) is that Civ 6's gameplay problems only reveal themselves after 10+ hours of play

The UI issues are immediate, and immediatly egregious. The UI is obsensibly how you LEARN to play this new version of Civ, a version that they have changed more drastically than 6. How are you supposed to learn the new mechanics and feel accomplished if the system to teach you is broken?

 

[Ellye]

Or perhaps the problems aren't bad enough to be giving the game a 4/10? (let alone a 0/10). A 7/10 sort of response, I can see. "This game is terrible"--not so much

There's no score in Steam reviews.

Steam asks you a question: "Do you recommend this game?"

My answer is no, I do not currently recommend this game - not in this state, at this price point.

 

[AD1730]

I think the reason Civ 6 didnt face such negative reviews at launch (for perhaps more stale/worse gsmeplay than Civ 7) is that Civ 6's gameplay problems only reveal themselves after 10+ hours of play

The UI issues are immediate, and immediatly egregious. The UI is obsensibly how you LEARN to play this new version of Civ, a version that they have changed more drastically than 6. How are you supposed to learn the new mechanics and feel accomplished if the system to teach you is broken?

This is certainly true. Performance issues and UI present themselves immediately in a way gameplay issues in strategy games don't.

I will add, the overall attitude of the gaming community toward releases has changed significantly in 10 years. Gamers have been burned too many times at this point, so they're going to lash out even more quickly and dramatically at anything that is broken than they would have previously. You can say this is unfair to the developers, who might not have been involved in previous poorly launched titles, but it is the current environment.

 

[cabelhigh12]

Another interesting thing to consider: official reviews HAD to play the game for 100+ hours before reviewing it. So they had more time to perhaps understand the ins and outs of the UI. Steam has no such restrictions

 

[AD1730]

Another interesting thing to consider: official reviews HAD to play the game for 100+ hours before reviewing it. So they had more time to perhaps understand the ins and outs of the UI. Steam has no such restrictions

The important restriction is the two hour limit on refunds. If you hate the game, you're likely going to refund and leave a review with less than two hours of playtime. Official reviewers didn't have to pay, your average person does.

 

[Acken]

I would also put a negative recommendation at the moment to be honest. Just recommending to wait until they fix this UI and other breaking problems like Marathon speed for players interested in that. That at the moment it feels more like a Beta than a finished product.
There's not much room for nuance on steam and I cannot reasonably recommend the game in good conscience as of today.

 

[Kev1916]

When 60% of people who went out of there way to pay an inflate price are giving negative reviews - then you've released a half finished product which is in a terrible state .

That's not bombing that's IMHO a lack of care by the developer's who in all intensive purposes seem more interested in flogging a "DLC" In what a few weeks than actually releasing a game in a semi decent state .
People do pay attention to steam reviews you reap what you sow 2K - let's see were we are in two weeks

Another positive example is Kingdom Come: Deliverance II sitting at 92% not to shabby
also there DLC policy is clear and you get a massive bonus by buying there gold edition

 

[universecreep]

Agreed.

I'm disgusted at some of the people over at Steam.

It's one thing to dislike the game or have legitimate critiques but many of the reviews are just whining about the price or the fact there is DLC. There is no comment on the game play itself or there are repetitions of comments made by some online game reviewer (UI sucks, made for mobile gaming, unfinished game) without offering specifics on why they think that.

Am I having fun? Yes. Is it as good as V or VI? I have no idea. I've only played 2 hours. Is the US bad? No. I don't know what people are complaining about. It seems like a graphical change from VI. That's it. Is it made for the mobile market or for Switch? I don't even know what that means. Is it unfinished? No it runs fine and the gameplay systems so far work.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Agreed.

I'm disgusted at some of the people over at Steam.

It's one thing to dislike the game or have legitimate critiques but many of the reviews are just whining about the price or the fact there is DLC. There is no comment on the game play itself or there are repetitions of comments made by some online game reviewer (UI sucks, made for mobile gaming, unfinished game) without offering specifics on why they think that.

Am I having fun? Yes. Is it as good as V or VI? I have no idea. I've only played 2 hours. Is the US bad? No. I don't know what people are complaining about. It seems like a graphical change from VI. That's it. Is it made for the mobile market or for Switch? I don't even know what that means. Is it unfinished? No it runs fine and the gameplay systems so far work.

Pretty sure Firaxis deeply desires to destroy the childhood's of all those negative Steam reviewers. There can be no other explanation.

 

[AD1730]

Pretty sure Firaxis deeply desires to destroy the childhood's of all those negative Steam reviewers. There can be no other explanation.

You're going to discount all of the negative reviews? Sure, some of them are unreasonable (and that's on both sides, not just the negative ones), but you're always going to get that. I've spent well over an hour since the game released scanning Steam reviews. The majority of them (yes, even the negative ones) have completely valid justifications for giving it a positive or negative review.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

You're going to discount all of the negative reviews? Sure, some of them are unreasonable (and that's on both sides, not just the negative ones), but you're always going to get that. I've spent well over an hour since the game released scanning Steam reviews. The majority of them (yes, even the negative ones) have completely valid justifications for giving it a positive or negative review.

I'm not sure about any of the reviews at this point, considering nobody "reviewing" there could possibly have been playing more than a few hours.

 

[AD1730]

I'm not sure about any of the reviews at this point, considering nobody "reviewing" there could possibly have been playing more than a few hours.

UI and performance/bug issues are completely valid reasons to leave a negative review in a very short amount of time in my view.

 

[ombak]

You're going to discount all of the negative reviews? Sure, some of them are unreasonable (and that's on both sides, not just the negative ones), but you're always going to get that. I've spent well over an hour since the game released scanning Steam reviews. The majority of them (yes, even the negative ones) have completely valid justifications for giving it a positive or negative review.

They're not really "reviews" when the game has been available for only hours. Review bombing is a more concerted effort than this, so I wouldn't call it that, but most of the people leaving reviews early are relying on watching others play or expressing their distaste for the DLC approach, rather than experiencing it for themselves and actually reviewing.

As far as the UI goes, those are indeed valid reasons. But that info is out there in major reviews. If someone loaded it up and encountered a crash or game breaking bug, then that's a different story. Although, in those cases knowing the specs and what happened and whether that player was able to play eventually and what the solution was is far more valuable than a yes or no recommendation.

It's not so much about discounting negative reviews as it is understanding context and whether the reviews are presenting new or useful information or not.