Steam Review Bombing

[ls612]

civ 6 felt a little sanitized at launch, but definitely not incomplete. this is almost the opposite. full of vibes, but extremely incomplete.

And most gamers want a complete game far more than they want any "vibes".

 

[TheGrayFox]

6 was like the most perfect looking Tonka truck. 7 is like a dusty Mona Lisa that needs to be cleaned off.

Yeah I don’t think I’d compare VII to an artistic masterpiece but maybe that’s just me

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

No computer game can be considered magisterial art, though some can come close, ie Civ 5

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The blocky rectangle Archipelago or Continents or Continents Plus that doesn't even articulate what is so different between them is an absolute travesty.
That map generator is meme.

UI that does almost everything, but give enough information or scatters it or doubles itself in many places. Lack of enough information in Pedia or linking. Lines in Tech trees don't even line correctly. Late game it creates FPS drops.

In 8 years people will say it was a solid release.

i do think one potential challenge is that the game’s philosophy limits any course corrections—civ 6 was flexible because it didn’t try reinventing much. so they were able to do easy additions like multiple civ leaders, personas, balancing districts and civs

civ 7 has way more moving parts (21,000 permutations for your playthrough st launch—21 leaders x 10 civs in each era). in many ways it’s a totally different game, more of a spiritual successor than a literal one, at least in design philosophy. this isn’t good or bad by definition, but if ages continue to be gimmicky or repetitive, there’s not much they can do beyond doing the suggestion ppl made at the beginning of the marketing cycle and introduce a game mode where there is no civ switching or era divisions (which is a tacit rejection of their own philosophy, not to mention a ton of work and practically difficult)

the Ui is the easiest fix. if that doesn’t see a response within the first 1-2 months of launch, i doubt this game will even meet the civ 6 bar within a couple of years, if at all.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

No computer game can be considered magisterial art, though some can come close, ie Civ 5

i’m of the opinion that civ 6 is considerably better than civ 5, but obviously that’s a contentious opinion.

 

[Sprenk]

Can you guys stop telling people that their subjective opinions about this legitimately terrible UI is wrong? This isn’t review bombing … The fact that you don’t think VII’s poor ui and lack of information is so bad doesn’t mean everyone else shares that opinion

also a 6-7/10 game (which is really what vii looks like to me) with an $80 price tag is still a disappointment and something many will not recommend

Because calling it a "Legitimately terrible UI" is an exaggeration. I've been playing the game for hours now, navigating it just fine and figuring out where everything I need is. And I'm a very mediocre player. Besides, isn't this the "Dark Souls--figure it out yourself" era of gaming history?

However, it's harder to argue with your second sentence. That's surely legit

 

[Thenewwwguy]

And most gamers want a complete game far more than they want any "vibes".

yeah and it can’t be understated enough that a considerable amount of civ 6’s launch state was because the cast wasn’t huge and the base game civs were rather boring to play. that was something that would’ve made the game considerably better within the first couple dlc cycles

civ 7’s civs are more interesting to play, but it does seem like a lot of ppl struggle to connect enough with them (whether they realize it or not), so that’s not a problem that will naturally go away as more options open up.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Side-stepping the semantics of what constitutes review bombing I will say this - the overwhelming majority of them appear to be focused on the AI. Which is fine if you feel that strongly about it. But what bothers me is that the way Steam works is that it requires a thumb up or down and then codes the game on the ratio. So I suppose I am conflating the aggregate reaction with the aggregate evaluation of quality, and there is no universe where the Civ 7 is a 4/10 game. It just isn't. And I would stand by that even of the UI was never improved (which we know for certain it will be, the only question is how good of a state is the UI in when the killer moders on here get a crack at it). So to circle back to the thread topic - that may be while it feels like review bombing to some people, because while the UI is definitely worthy of criticism, even judged solely by the UI, it isn't a 4/10. I have tried (and abandoned) games based on the UI in the past and will again in the future, and this one just isn't *that* bad.

It comes down to fundamental quirks of both Steam's review system and its constraints (binary, 2-hour refund limit), and just the way people mobilize to emit their opinions.

A simple fact is that people in general will far more easily go out of their way to complain than to leave a kind word. No extra effort feels necessary when things are going well, and saying something nice doesn't have the same cathartic/powerful effect as venting.

I haven't even played yet, but it's clear the UI is infuriating to the point it's driving players to make themselves heard about it. Even PotatoMcWhiskey, a YouTuber who played Civ7 extensively before launch, and was able to appreciate the good as well as the bad, was thoroughly maddened by how unhelpful the user interface is.

And yeah, 42% positive reviews (as of this post) don't mean the game is a 42/100. Just that a majority of players with negative (or just not positive enough) experiences mobilized to speak out, compared to those on the other side. I don't think it constitutes as review bombing, but rather that there's a very pressing issue (or two) immediately getting in the way of user experience. The way to the good stuff is significantly barred. Firaxis will have to deal with that ASAP, as they have clearly underestimated the issue. They're probably already on it, as I remember them acknowledging streamers' reports on it, but this wave of user negativity is bound to make the fire under them burn hotter.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Because calling it a "Legitimately terrible UI" is an exaggeration. I've been playing the game for hours now, navigating it just fine and figuring out where everything I need is. And I'm a very mediocre player. Besides, isn't this the "Dark Souls--figure it out yourself" era of gaming history?

However, it's harder to argue with your second sentence. That's surely legit

No it’s not an exaggeration.... the UI is legitimately terrible. Not to be rude but I don't care if you've been playing the game and navigating it fine, i have eyes myself and have watched plenty of material about how the UI looks and works. It's not good, I agree with the reviews and pointing to Dark Souls to justify poor UI is silly considering Dark Souls isn't a strategy/4x game...and you can't argue with my second sentence because that's also my subjective opinion.

Hilariously I actually went to the steam forum to find this topic about reviews and the only post i see talking about review bombing has 10 jester awards, followed by several people posting exactly why they gave the game a negative review or refuned...... so I don't even think this "it's being review bombed!" sentiment is shared on the steam forums.

 

[Graethyenne]

While I agree that steam review system is flawed, can we stop telling people that their subjective opinions about this legitimately terrible UI is wrong? This isn’t review bombing … The fact that you don’t think VII’s poor ui and lack of information is so bad doesn’t mean everyone else shares that opinion

also a 6-7/10 game (which is really what vii looks like to me) with an $80 price tag is still a disappointment and something many will not recommend

People who feel that it is subjectively terrible aren't wrong, that is their opinion. People claiming that it is objectively the worst UI ever, or objectively a terrible enough UI that Firaxis should be ashamed of themselves is what I take issue with.

The related issue is the artificial suppression of video game pricing which is to say, that in realty, the $80 price tag isn't really a premium price. I won't derail further except to say, look how long $60 has been the new release standard, compare that to the rest of the economies inflation over that time, and then ask a friend who makes video games for a living how the math squares out. I don't know what the "correct" price for a new release is, but it could easily be more than 80 or 90 dollars US depending on factors I am not even going to pretend to have expertise in. [End digression]

 

[Thenewwwguy]

idk if this is controversial but the UI issue is very obviously caused by the need to make the game console compatible—i don’t think console compatibility should’ve even been a major concern. imo, perhaps the game shouldn’t have even been released for console (especially at launch). some games aren’t made or designed to be console games. games like this (or cities skylines, to take another example) were designed as computer games. this game mostly because it inherits obviously computer-driven design from its predecessors. consoles are far more picky in their needs for visual design than pc. especially static-map strategy games. it’s ok to make games that are just meant for pc.

 

[AD1730]

idk if this is controversial but the UI issue is very obviously caused by the need to make the game console compatible—i don’t think console compatibility should’ve even been a major concern. imo, perhaps the game shouldn’t have even been released for console (especially at launch). some games aren’t made or designed to be console games. games like this (or cities skylines, to take another example) were designed as computer games. this game mostly because it inherits obviously computer-driven design from its predecessors. consoles are far more picky in their needs for visual design than pc. especially static-map strategy games. it’s ok to make games that are just meant for pc.

Agree 1000%. The decision to release on console simultaneously was clearly one made for business reasons. Releasing on console 6-12 months later with a console-specific UI would have been a better choice for the game’s quality, rather than hamstringing the PC version with a poor UI.

 

[TheGrayFox]

People who feel that it is subjectively terrible aren't wrong, that is their opinion. People claiming that it is objectively the worst UI ever, or objectively a terrible enough UI that Firaxis should be ashamed of themselves is what I take issue with.

Why? Even if it's hyperbolic, It's also their opinion that the UI is "legitimately terrible" or that it's the "worst UI ever and Firaxis should be ashamed. " Surely we're not going to discount these reviews because they tried to pass off a subjective opinion as "objective" right?

The related issue is the artificial suppression of video game pricing which is to say, that in realty, the $80 price tag isn't really a premium price. I won't derail further except to say, look how long $60 has been the new release standard, compare that to the rest of the economies inflation over that time, and then ask a friend who makes video games for a living how the math squares out. I don't know what the "correct" price for a new release is, but it could easily be more than 80 or 90 dollars US depending on factors I am not even going to pretend to have expertise in. [End digression]

Regardless of what the industry standard is. Most people don't want to buy mediocre games at $70-80

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Why? Even if it's hyperbolic, It's also their opinion that the UI is "legitimately terrible" or that it's the "worst UI ever and Firaxis should be ashamed. " Surely we're not going to discount these reviews because they tried to pass off a subjective opinion as "objective" right?



Regardless of what the industry standard is. Most people don't want to buy mediocre games at $70-80

to connect these two threads: a lot of reviews, on steam, but also on reddit, here, on youtube, mention this idea of it feeling like “mobile game ui”—it’s not just that it’s bad and therefore not worth the price. people feel like it feels cheap/flimsy and not matching the price tag ALONGSIDE the fact that it’s expensive ALONGSIDE the fact that the UI is ineffectual.

it’s not just “they’re actually mad bcs of the price tag” like some of the ppl replying to you are, it’s that, the actual terribleness of the UI and the intersection of both (it feels flimsy, kitschy, meant for commercial slop churning)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Agree 1000%. The decision to release on console simultaneously was clearly one made for business reasons. Releasing on console 6-12 months later with a console-specific UI would have been a better choice for the game’s quality, rather than hamstringing the PC version with a poor UI.

Well, it's a strong disagree from me because I play on console and I want it.

Don't see why I have to miss out - they should just do a better job of optimising for each platform. What's weird is that they do have a console specific UI, it has the radial menu thing, so they've recognised this and just done a poor job.

 

[TreVor_ish]

i do think one potential challenge is that the game’s philosophy limits any course corrections—civ 6 was flexible because it didn’t try reinventing much. so they were able to do easy additions like multiple civ leaders, personas, balancing districts and civs

civ 7 has way more moving parts. in many ways it’s a totally different game, more of a spiritual successor than a literal one, at least in design philosophy. this isn’t good or bad by definition, but if ages continue to be gimmicky or repetitive, there’s not much they can do beyond doing the suggestion ppl made at the beginning of the marketing cycle and introduce a game mode where there is no civ switching or era divisions (which is a tacit rejection of their own philosophy, not to mention a ton of work and practically difficult)

the Ui is the easiest fix. if that doesn’t see a response within the first 1-2 months of launch, i doubt this game will even meet the civ 6 bar within a couple of years, if at all.

The thing is, going with a change is good. Gameplay ideas in CIVII are rather solid.
However, first thing I notice when starting up the game, is how little it has options to customize my gameplay or how little information it gives me about those, when setting up.
Then, if I decide I want to reroll - something rather common I'd say, I can't just restart. I have to go to main menu and start my customization from the beginning, because it doesn't even remember my previous setup.
Then while in the game, map is just a connected or placed on top of each other, rectangles with little to none variety in shaping - there are no mounting ranges for instance.
When I try to look up my chosen or met civ in a Pedia there is no info about it. When I want to check how far my trade routes can go, there is no info about it. Heck, before I have a trader I don't know where I can send him.
The city banner has those little numbers for turns to next pop and finished build that looks like it just have a background set to black with 75% opacity. Banners are also not clickable for some reason, have to click on a city tile for some reason.
Not every hostile unit has the red outline.
When trying to reconfigure build queue, I don't have a drag and drop, have to click the arrows manually on every build separately. Same thing when trying to rearrange resource in settlements.
There is plenty I forgot.
How a UI is not a priority in a strategy game is beyond me.
For a game with a pricetag of 60-120$ this is unacceptable state and not recommended to buy.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well, it's a strong disagree from me because I play on console and I want it.

Don't see why I have to miss out - they should just do a better job of optimising for each platform. What's weird is that they do have a console specific UI, it has the radial menu thing, so they've recognised this and just done a poor job.

yeah it isn’t that the game shouldn’t be accessible on console, but for me, civ is a pc game first and foremost. in fact, it’s probably one of the most famous pc game series of all time. the issue is that they seem to have only considered the pc AFTER everything else

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The thing is, going with a change is good. Gameplay ideas in CIVII are rather solid.
However, first thing I notice when starting up the game, is how little it has options to customize my gameplay or how little information it gives me about those, when setting up.
Then, if I decide I want to reroll - something rather common I'd say, I can't just restart. I have to go to main menu and start my customization from the beginning, because it doesn't even remember my previous setup.
Then while in the game, map is just a connected or placed on top of each other, rectangles with little to none variety in shaping - there are no mounting ranges for instance.
When I try to look up my chosen or met civ in a Pedia there is no info about it. When I want to check how far my trade routes can go, there is no info about it. Heck, before I have a trader I don't know where I can send him.
The city banner has those little numbers for turns to next pop and finished build that looks like it just have a background set to black with 75% opacity. Banners are also not clickable for some reason, have to click on a city tile for some reason.
Not every hostile unit has the red outline.
When trying to reconfigure build queue, I don't have a drag and drop, have to click the arrows manually on every build separately. Same thing when trying to rearrange resource in settlements.
There is plenty I forgot.
How a UI is not a priority in a strategy game is beyond me.
For a game with a pricetag of 60-120$ this is unacceptable state and not recommended to buy.

yeah—the first part is my point. it’s a great idea, but those have to be backed up by good execution, and if you can’t fix execution, you’re screwed.

 

[King Jason]

I've been singing this tune for a while; but Firaxis is going to make millions of dollars and have a wildly successful product run of Civilization 7 even though they're charging everyone $100 to beta test the game.

Nothing is ever going to change, because people will still keep giving them money until the end of time because "it's civilization" and we always want shiny new toys.

In all the conversations I've had about this leading up to release, the main argument I've heard, too, come down to "quality" and "production values".

It's painstakingly obvious that civ7 is unfinished and unpolished. Quite possibly more than any previous release; and I'm being totally sincere here.

I have no desire to see the civilization franchise fail - I just want them to make good games rather than pocket people's cash and slap them with a "we're working on that!" When someone complains.

It's a AAA title from a studio with 20+ years experience with industry vets on staff and more money than half of the studios making games in this genre combined.

They can afford to be slapped around a bit in the review section.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Agree 1000%. The decision to release on console simultaneously was clearly one made for business reasons. Releasing on console 6-12 months later with a console-specific UI would have been a better choice for the game’s quality, rather than hamstringing the PC version with a poor UI.

I'm not sure the UI is good on the console version, either.