Steam Review Bombing

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It matters less why the UI is bad and more that it is bad.

The next bit that matters is how it is bad though. And it is bad from a graphical design POV.

The concerning thing for people wanting it fixed is that it says to me there has been a bottleneck in the graphical design space, and with the hammering pace of DLC coming, that department is likely going to be focused on delivering new civs.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the most egregious errors in the UI will get fixed to try to stem the bad review tide, but some of the bugs we're seeing now will still be present this time next year.

But what do I know, I'm just a cynical product manager that has to prioritise development in IT releases like this all the time

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think exactly like with map sizes and multiplayer, the UI is as simplistic, unititive, and uninformative as it is here because Firaxis aimed for a multi-platform, crossplay, and controller support enabled VII at launch instead of giving us the best product possible on PC first and foremost.

I hate this argument. It implies that people on console are somehow "unworthy" of Civ, that the people who dare to play their games on console and have an interest in strategy games are somehow responsible for a general decline in the quality of Civ, that people with PCs "deserve" Civ and those without do not, that somehow the franchise has been ruined simply because people without PCs are interested in it, that somehow people who play games on anything other than a PC are stupid, childish fools, only capable of engaging with "casual" "mobile" games. Rubbish. Elitist, hateful rubbish.

No. People with PCs don't have a divine right to Civ games just because it was originally a PC game.

It is perfectly possible to release a decent game on multiple platforms simultaneously. It is perfectly possible to optimise a game's interface for different platforms. It is perfectly possible to release a game with different settings that are tailored towards different platforms. Heck, even Blizzard managed to do it with D2R.

The reason the UI is below what you expect is not because they chose to release the game on multiple platforms simultaneously, it's because they chose to do this but failed to invest sufficient time and resource to do it properly.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I hate this argument. It implies that people on console are somehow "unworthy" of Civ, that the people who dare to play their games on console and have an interest in strategy games are somehow responsible for a general decline in the quality of Civ, that people with PCs "deserve" Civ and those without do not, that somehow the franchise has been ruined simply because people without PCs are interested in it, that somehow people who play games on anything other than a PC are stupid, childish fools, only capable of engaging with "casual" "mobile" games. Rubbish. Elitist, hateful rubbish.

No. People with PCs don't have a divine right to Civ games just because it was originally a PC game.

It is perfectly possible to release a decent game on multiple platforms simultaneously. It is perfectly possible to optimise a game's interface for different platforms. It is perfectly possible to release a game with different settings that are tailored towards different platforms. Heck, even Blizzard managed to do it with D2R.

The reason the UI is below what you expect is not because they chose to release the game on multiple platforms simultaneously, it's because they chose to do this but failed to invest sufficient time and resource to do it properly.

I'm sorry but it has nothing to do with you being "unworthy" of Civ and has everything to do with Civilization being a PC series first and foremost with VII being the exception to that rule. The PC is where the series roots are. You can't get upset at me for pointing out as a long term fan that I would much rather see resources dedicated to making the game the best it can be on PC before 2k moneybags tries to peddle an inferior product to all of us just to get the game running on the switch's inferior specs and with controllers.

I don't know what is with the inferiority complex but I don't think you're inferior or stupid for owning a console (I own consoles as well)... but the reality which is that you're coming into a long established PC series and getting mad at PC owners for wanting the series to remain the same quality it has always been and to not get a shafted or inferior produce because Firaxis also wants the game to sell on the Switch.

Also by your same logic, you don't have a divine right to Civilization games just because you're a console player and all that time/resources Firaxis spent on making the game console compatable could've been spent refining the UI specficially for PCs and giving us the same level of detail and access to informations we've come to expect from the series.

 

[Core Imposter]

Everything seems to be rather ordinary, release wise. All the reasons I never buy early seem to be present and accounted for. People should step back and remind themselves that they intentionally bought a product in development to beta test. If you look at it like that, what's to complain about?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

You can't get upset at me for pointing out as a long term fan that I would much rather see resources dedicated to making the game the best it can be on PC

Sure I can.

As I said:

It is perfectly possible to release a decent game on multiple platforms simultaneously. It is perfectly possible to optimise a game's interface for different platforms. It is perfectly possible to release a game with different settings that are tailored towards different platforms. Heck, even Blizzard managed to do it with D2R.

The reason the UI is below what you expect is not because they chose to release the game on multiple platforms simultaneously, it's because they chose to do this but failed to invest sufficient time and resource to do it properly.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Sure I can.

Sure and I can point out that your anger at me is misguided and turn your argument right back at you. You have no divine right to recieving Civ games on launch just because you play on consoles and VI was eventually ported to the Switch.

As I said:

It is perfectly possible to release a decent game on multiple platforms simultaneously. It is perfectly possible to optimise a game's interface for different platforms. It is perfectly possible to release a game with different settings that are tailored towards different platforms. Heck, even Blizzard managed to do it with D2R.

Oh it absolutely is possible to release a decent game on multiple platforms simultaneously, just incredible less likely when we're talking about a mechanically and informationally dense strategy game that has been historically designed for PC's first and foremost. Diablo is not Civilization, The fact that Blizzard could create a servicable UI for an a port/remaster of a 25 year old action RPG hardly translates to that being as easy or simple to do with a simutaenous and cross play enabled Civilization/4x release.

The reason the UI is below what you expect is not because they chose to release the game on multiple platforms simultaneously, it's because they chose to do this but failed to invest sufficient time and resource to do it properly.

You say this and I respectfully disagree, I don't think this argument holds up because again all the resources spent making this game compatible for a multi-console and crossplay capable launch and all the sacrifices that needed to be made to allow for a simultaneous release on underpowered platform like the Switch could've been spent towards giving PC playerbase everything they've come to expect from this series like larger maps, more players in multiplayer, a more informative and keyboard/mouse friendly UI.

 

[AD1730]

People should step back and remind themselves that they intentionally bought a product in development to beta test. If you look at it like that, what's to complain about?

They don’t advertise it as Early Access or Beta.

 

[Dale]

People should step back and remind themselves that they intentionally bought a product in development to beta test. If you look at it like that, what's to complain about?

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.

 

[Niallism]

Sure and I can point out that your anger at me is misguided and turn your argument right back at you. You have no divine right to recieving Civ games on launch just because you play on consoles and VI was eventually ported to the Switch.



Oh it absolutely is possible to release a decent game on multiple platforms simultaneously, just incredible less likely when we're talking about a mechanically and informationally dense strategy game that has been historically designed for PC's first and foremost. Diablo is not Civilization, The fact that Blizzard could create a servicable UI for an a port/remaster of a 25 year old action RPG hardly translates to that being as easy or simple to do with a simutaenous and cross play enabled Civilization/4x release.



You say this and I respectfully disagree, I don't think this argument holds up because again all the resources spent making this game compatible for a multi-console and crossplay capable launch and all the sacrifices that needed to be made to allow for a simultaneous release on underpowered platform like the Switch could've been spent towards giving PC playerbase everything they've come to expect from this series like larger maps, more players in multiplayer, a more informative and keyboard/mouse friendly UI.

They have time and money. They have A LOT of money. The bosses decided to not allocate resources to the UI. If they had allocated a lot of resources to a multi-platform UI, we would have a very different one, that was limited in PC functionality, but worked well and consistently. It wouldn't just not explain what crisis is happening, or describe things differently in different parts, or be missing nested tooltips.

This is a bad UI for all situations, not a well-made cut-down controller-accessible UI.

Have you ever played a strategy game on console? The good UI's are nothing like this.

 

[Niallism]

I think exactly like with map sizes and multiplayer, the UI is as simplistic, unititive, and uninformative as it is here because Firaxis aimed for a multi-platform, crossplay, and controller support enabled VII at launch instead of giving us the best product possible on PC first and foremost.

The only other alternative is pure incompetence

This is the kind of idea that drives me crazy. Do you think that console players like simplistic, unintuitive, uninformative UIs?

And the other alternative to incompetence - which is perfectly possible, btw - is corporate greed.

Good UI and QA costs money and time. The project managers and executives did not allocate that money and time.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Sure and I can point out that your anger at me is misguided and turn your argument right back at you. You have no divine right to recieving Civ games on launch just because you play on consoles and VI was eventually ported to the Switch.

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.

 

[bladex1200]

Everything seems to be rather ordinary, release wise. All the reasons I never buy early seem to be present and accounted for. People should step back and remind themselves that they intentionally bought a product in development to beta test. If you look at it like that, what's to complain about?

I had friends who got into Civ 6 who genuinely didn't know about the whole "buying early is beta testing" bit for strategy games because they primarily played shooters and open-world exploration games where poor quality would be seen as poor quality out-the-gate. They loved Civ 6 and preordered Civ 7 on that basis, despite my repeated warnings to them that the game would likely be very rough before DLCs were released.

They and I are enjoying our time playing the game, but they definitely were shocked at the state the UI was in and how unintuitive the game was. They've learned their lesson but I would hardly call this "ordinary", unless you think the expectation for successful developers is that they release half-baked betas as full-priced games.

 

[Methos]

Moderator Action: Drop the personal attacks, please. The discussion can be had without insulting other users.

 

[DukeSammael]

UI is indeed awful.

My 2 big problems right now in addition to the UI:

1) There's just too much going on at the same time. They got rid of the workers, but in addition to normal stuff (city and army management) now I have to manage other civ relations every turn, respond to narrative events, work on quests, deal with neutral cities, natural disasters, track progression paths, leader XP... it's giving me ADHD. And it's not something that can be patched, though it will get better with time played.

2) Everything feels super slow and non-responsive, especially unit movement, various screens opening, etc. This is something I expect to get better with patches.

 

[VGT]

@TheGrayFox and @Mr Jon of Cheam I think issue is deeper than UI itself. 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. It's two different games to develop. Like happened with civ rev in the past. I didn't buy the game so I have only pieces of information, but from what I hear - much less micro (might be great for some, but I like micro in my epic 4x game), simplified mechanics, no big/huge maps (wide play with dozens of cities is dead at this point? Trying to find out). This all sounds to me like core elements limited by console release. And to not offend you. I agree that this can be totally ok as a console chillout game, it's just not something that long time PC players got used to.

 

[AntSou]

Their tone is the problem. It's not at all thoughtful in most cases. I posted a thread saying I liked the game and I got called a "****"

That's just the standard steam experience. But good games still always succeed in getting good reviews, despite that.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

@TheGrayFox and @Mr Jon of Cheam I think issue is deeper than UI itself. 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. It's two different games to develop. Like happened with civ rev in the past. I didn't buy the game so I have only pieces of information, but from what I hear - much less micro (might be great for some, but I like micro in my epic 4x game), simplified mechanics, no big/huge maps (wide play with dozen of cities is dead at this point? Trying to find out). This all sounds to me like core elements limited by console release. And to not offend you. I agree that this can be totally ok as a console chillout game, it's just not something that long time PC players got used to.

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.

 

[Jeppetto]

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.

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.

 

[VGT]

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.

Question is would you consider yourself a casual console player, which 7 tries to aim towards more than 6, since its console release was just a side effect of game existing already and 2K/Firaxis trying to find new markets. Maybe you're more on the "fan of 4X" side and because of that 6 on consoles already appealed to you, but not yet to broader casual player. On that "sold very well" also source would be nice to have. Tried googling for a while, but can't find any solid numbers beyond "exceeded expectations" articles, but who knows what those were.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Question is would you consider yourself a casual console player

No, I would not. Must have sold well enough, otherwise they wouldn't be bothering with a multiplatform launch right? There is a market for strategy games on console. A smaller one than PC, sure, but it's there.