Steam Review Bombing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Must have sold well enough, otherwise they wouldn't be bothering with a multiplatform launch right?
Must have sold well enough for what it was - I consider it testing the waters to check if you want to dive in later. They already had the product, just not perfectly suited for this market, they needed to check if it makes sense to go all the way in the future.

No, I would not.
I had the game on both PC and PS: the UI and QoL were better on PC, that was the best way to play the game, but it worked perfectly well on PS.
That's just it. I think you as a 4x fan were having fun despite lesser experience. Now civ 7 is aiming for making it equal across different platforms hurting core PC fanbase in the process.
 
That's just it. I think you as a 4x fan were having fun despite lesser experience. Now civ 7 is aiming for making it equal across different platforms hurting core PC fanbase in the process.
I don't see how that is relevant. Civ VII will be a lesser experience on console too. You said "I think there is no way to make civ a good game on both PC (to satisfy core fans) and console just by making separate UI's." But they already did. 🤷‍♂️
 
Civ VII will be a lesser experience on console too.
To appeal to broader audience than just 4X fans owning a console and wanting to play from couch from time to time.
But they already did.
Steam reviews, controversial changes discussed in long threads on fanatics, strongly divided fanbase, and for me personally (player since civ4 with 1k+ hours in each of them so far - I know, rookie numbers) disappointment in what I hear so far, which is causing me to not consider buying the game - says otherwise. That is not how satisfied community looks. It was showed in this thread earlier, that first month of civ 6 release was having much higher percentage of positive reviews. I recall my opinion on civ 6 release was something along "a bit bare bones for now, but a lot of various things is already there. Much more complete than 5 vanilla was on release".
 
Last edited:
Right, I agree that portraying Early Acess as advantage is silly, but you're making it sound like people paid 20 - 60 € more just for Early Access. That's heavyly unfair. Did they not recieve 4 personas? Will they not recieve about 8 Civs, 4 Leaders and bunch of NWs and WWs? We're literally disregarding all that and making it unfair price tag? Well okay then.
agree here: early access when not advertised is a con because its not advertised. it’s not a con because people willingly paid more for bonus content that isn’t actually the problem.
 
Steam reviews, controversial changes discussed in long threads on fanatics, strongly divided fanbase, and for me personally disappointment in what I hear so far, which is causing me to not consider buying the game - says otherwise.
I was referring to Civ VI.

You must see that it's rather frustrating to be told that I am to blame for the general decline of the Civ franchise? Because whether that is what you intend to say or not, that is the implication: if people like me didn't buy the game on console, there wouldn't be a market for it, and FXS wouldn't bother. Naturally, I reject that. I find it offensive, and I don't see any need for it.
 
I was referring to Civ VI.

You must see that it's rather frustrating to be told that I am to blame for the general decline of the Civ franchise? Because whether that is what you intend to say or not, that is the implication: if people like me didn't buy the game on console, there wouldn't be a market for it, and FXS wouldn't bother. Naturally, I reject that. I find it offensive, and I don't see any need for it.
I really don't think you should feel like that and I hope there was not a single comment in this discussion to suggest that. I blame my disappointment on Firaxis and probably 2K the most. For simplifying something I loved spending time with for last 20 years just to get better sale numbers.
I would compare this to what is going on with Sony and live services that robbed PS fans from great single player games in this generation. In this case it's nothing wrong to like Concord etc. and no single player games fan should put his anger towards people liking live services games.
In case of civ I would just love to see branch of this franchise dedicated to consoles and 2K making more bucks this way. Then two branches living along side could even steal good ideas (and sometimes bad too unfortunately ;) ) from each other if successful implementation in one world might be considered as generally good for both audiences.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but a lot of people are upset because they paid a premium price, for a premium product, and got delivered an inferior product.

You're trying to say it's like buying a $20 stove off Temu and receiving a poster of a stove, when in fact it's like buying a $70 stove from Bosch and receiving a poster of a stove. With Temu, you say, "yeah, I half expected that". Whilst with Bosch, you get furious.
Hi Dale, not directly related to this topic, but since you follow this thread I'd like to ask whether Mohawk Studios ever thought about making another "Civilization like" game in the future? I think, Civ 4 was such an amazing game, and with Soren Johnson on board, I'm sure you would be able to develop a great alternative to Civ 7!
Certainly there are quiet a few old timers like me, who don't like the direction this franchise is going, and would be very interested in a Civ game without Civ Swichting and which feels more like a sandbox again! I guess Crowdfunding could be an option too! I'd happily invest some money in such a development and I'm pretty sure others would do so, too!
 
This is not the aim. They've stated their intent to improve the range of options available, post-release.
Then I'm circling back to my first comment in this topic. Issue is deeper than UI. Micro cut-off and no big/huge maps for starters. There goes my usual way of playing epic 1-2 weeks long campaigns where I end up with dozens of cities and spending 10 minutes tinkering with all the mechanics on a single turn in endgame. They won't bring those things as options. Because then it's two different games.

I might be wrong, because as I said I didn't bought the game, and 2 hours return policy is not enough to make a decision if it's a product worth of my 1k+ hours again. That's why I'm lurking here and unfortunately learning mostly about bad things considering what I like.
 
From the perspective of being involved with developing websites, I can assuredly say that designing for multiple platforms involves compromise in your decision making around optimisation for each in order to find an approach that works comfortably enough for all.

It is unquestionable to me that if civ was released only on PC they would have their ducks more in a row and the experience would be better on PC. Ditto in reverse for console.

Saying that, I'd much rather there is flexibility in how people can play than optimisation for a smaller crowd on a single platform.
 
Then I'm circling back to my first comment in this topic. Issue is deeper than UI. Micro cut-off, no big/huge maps. There goes my usual way of playing epic 1-2 weeks long sessions where I end up with dozens of cities and spending 10 minutes tinkering with all the mechanics on a single turn in endgame. They won't bring those things as options. Because then it's two different games.

I might be wrong, because as I said I didn't bought the game, and 2 hours return policy is not enough to make a decision if it's a product worth of my 1k+ hours again. That's why I'm lurking here and unfortunately learning mostly about bad things considering what I like.
Were dozens of cities viable in VI? To be fair I was always more of a "tall" player (not intentionally, just . . . generally how I tend to optimise), going wide effectively always seemed to challenge me more so I never really pushed myself in that way.

Regardless, if the game doesn't do what you want it to, that's absolutely fair feedback for Firaxis.

From the perspective of being involved with developing websites, I can assuredly say that designing for multiple platforms involves compromise in your decision making around optimisation for each in order to find an approach that works comfortably enough for all.

It is unquestionable to me that if civ was released only on PC they would have their ducks more in a row and the experience would be better on PC. Ditto in reverse for console.

Saying that, I'd much rather there is flexibility in how people can play than optimisation for a smaller crowd on a single platform.
In what way are compromises required?

In the mobile space, the big problem (other than screen real-estate) used to be bandwidth. That's less of a concern (in developed countries at least), but still worth bearing in mind (good luck selling to the educational sectors - in any country - without robust offline support).

But we're not discussing those kinds of screens. We're discussing consoles, which are overwhelmingly linked to TVs. The only lack of screen real estate is on the handheld Switch display, and even that dwarfs even the biggest phones (speaking as the owner of a Samsung S23 Ultra).

Admittedly, this is probably too much of a tangent for the thread. But I'm involved in developing websites as well (well, more specifically, cross-platform frameworks, single page applications, microservices, etc).
 
Were dozens of cities viable in VI?
I wasn't taking screenshots recently, but there are couple of examples in my screenshot folder (take a look at map in all those).
 

Attachments

  • 20230528134653_1.jpg
    20230528134653_1.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 30
  • 20201024203453_1.jpg
    20201024203453_1.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 30
  • 20200512110540_1.jpg
    20200512110540_1.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 27
  • 20200502213439_1.jpg
    20200502213439_1.jpg
    893.1 KB · Views: 33
  • 20200215222210_1.jpg
    20200215222210_1.jpg
    989.4 KB · Views: 34
I wasn't taking screenshots recently, but there are couple of examples in my screenshot folder (take a look at map in all those).
I reckon that kind of spread might be possible, but it does depend on game length. I'm still messing about in Antiquity so it's hard to say for sure. Probably need at least Exploration, which means you're going to want the Age start / end options Firaxis said they'd be prioritising (no ETA). Maybe keep tabs on community feedback from that point on. Based on what I've read, Age transitions tend to still give you a big advantage over something like an Advanced Start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VGT
Doesn't work though, because at no point will you see me suggesting that my experience has been hampered by their decision to release the game on PC.

At no point will you make that suggestion because you can't.... because again Civilization is a PC series first and foremost and we all know that devoloping for PC isn't the reason why the UI is so simple/awful and why we can't play maps larger than standard at launch.....

Well I disagree, and I present as evidence: Civ VI. This was designed as a PC game, and later ported. It was stacked full of micro. I had the game on both PC and PS: the UI and QoL were better on PC, that was the best way to play the game, but it worked perfectly well on PS. It was the same game but with a different UI, and it sold very well. So, I do not buy the argument that reduced micro and simplified mechanics in VII are the result of some desire to appeal to a casual console audience. I will accept that current map sizes are limited by Switch hardware; I don't know why they did this though, there is no need. It is perfectly ok to have a reduced version of the game specifically for Switch.

Your evidence here is kind of making my original point for me. VI was designed as a PC game and later ported, they had 2-3 years to work on that port and its UI specifically and the difference between that and a sloppy multiplatform launch are obvious. While I don't nessecarily agree with @VGT's conclusion that you cannot have micro intensive strategy game on consoles, I do stand by his conclusion that alot of the streamlining and limitations in VII have console players in mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VGT
Which console players are you referring to exactly? Because you're talking to one right now, and I didn't need the game to be simplified and streamlined for me, thank you very much.

I say again: it's frustrating to be told that I am to blame for the general decline of the Civ franchise. Because whether that is what you intend to say or not, that is the implication: if people like me didn't buy the game on console, there wouldn't be a market for it, and FXS wouldn't bother. Naturally, I reject that. I find it offensive, and I don't see any need for it.
 
Which console players are you referring to exactly? Because you're talking to one right now, and I didn't need the game to be simplified and streamlined for me, thank you very much.
I think you're needlessly taking it very personal when you admitted yourself in discussion with me, that you're not considering yourself casual console player. Every argument targeted towards "all console players" is most likely targeting most console players that fit into "casual player" meaning.Maybe indeed wording could be better by at least adding "most", or "usual", but from discussion so far I'm gathering, that you're type of player which would be in minority in console world. Liking stuff, that most of casual players would consider to intensive/time consuming.
 
I think you're needlessly taking it very personal when you admitted yourself in discussion with me, that you're not considering yourself casual console player. Every argument targeted towards "all console players" is most likely targeting most console players that fit into "casual player" meaning.Maybe indeed wording could be better by at least adding "most", or "usual", but from discussion so far I'm gathering, that you're type of player which would be in minority in console world. Liking stuff, that most of casual players would consider to intensive/time consuming.
There are casual players on all platforms. If they are seeking to attract a more casual audience, it has nothing to do with consoles.
 
Which console players are you referring to exactly? Because you're talking to one right now, and I didn't need the game to be simplified and streamlined for me, thank you very much.

I say again: it's frustrating to be told that I am to blame for the general decline of the Civ franchise. Because whether that is what you intend to say or not, that is the implication: if people like me didn't buy the game on console, there wouldn't be a market for it, and FXS wouldn't bother. Naturally, I reject that. I find it offensive, and I don't see any need for it.

No one is blaming you though, the blame rests solely with Firaxis. Not sure why you are taking offense on their behalf. You might not need a game to be simplified or streamlined but Firaxis and their publisher do because they want the game to reach the broadest audience possible, which in this case would be a much more casual console markets. At the end of the day, I'm not trying to stop you from being able to enjoy this series on consoles, all I'm doing is arguing that we on PC should not get shafted buying a historically PC first series at the expense of consoles as we have been.
 
Like others said, the issue will be if 1 year from now the reviews are still mainly negative.
Which isn't impossible, but we will have to wait and see.
Yeah, I don't think the success/failure of this game will be determined at launch. The success/failure will be determined by DLC sales. But, launch can certainly have an impact on that.

If publishers and developers haven't figured out that having a smooth launch is more critical now than it has been any time in the past 15 years or so, they need to. Gamers are ready to lash out at anything that they feel is unfinished and exploitative. They have been burned too many times at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom