The hate for Civ7 will end the series, if not soon then eventually

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I bought Civ 5, and for at least one year thereafter, it was the only thing in my Steam library. In contrast, I don't even fully know what is in my Steam library nowadays.
I think that whatever happened in 2010 with Civ 5 is mostly irrelevant to Civ 7 now.
 
Sir, please locate me posts detailing how hate for the game will lead to the immediate cancellation of the series.
You probably misunderstand the content of my OP. I agree with the post above that the landscape when previous Civs were launched is not comparable to what we have today.
 
The hate for Civ V/VI didn't end series. Why would it now?

(If you think about it, the backslash for previous iterations was mild.)
 
Last edited:
I will quote the post I just made.
I agree with the post above that the landscape when previous Civs were launched is not comparable to what we have today.
 
The hate for Civ V/VI didn't end series. Why would it now?

(If you think about it, the backslash for previous iterations was mild.)
That’s my point. The backlash to the last two iterations were indeed mild in comparison to what we are seeing here.

Nobody is even talking about Civ 7 anymore on YT or on social media (outside of us, the die hard 2%)
 
The backlash is literally identical in tenor, as I proved above. What’s different is the particulars, but that’s extremely self-evident anyway. Civ 5’s controversies are not Civ 6’s or Civ 7’s by definition.

So sure, the backlash is different, except in all the ways it’s exactly the same.

The particulars is that Civ 7 reduces the entire game into a shallow formula that repeats three times amid changing, boring to outright oppressively frustrating quest objectives (I dread starting exploration just because of religion - and only three beliefs are even worth it). Not to mention offensively unfinished systems. Not just the terrible phoned in duct taped UI. Stuff like how on larger maps the wonder culture victory doesn’t work. How the distant lands was too crowded. How the game unexpectedly hit score victory during their live play through. How they needed the first patch to fix having over half the missionary relic quests even be doable. No one configuration of the game works with the balances they’ve implemented. Small maps on fast play time out too quickly. Large maps make completing wonders too hard and sometimes trade impossible. Medium maps are just big enough to make exploration and missionary work tedious, and just cramped enough so that they’re full before half the game is over.

They brought in interesting map shapes and it broke the game.

There is no parallel to past launches. You’re talking about the quality of rhetoric. The actual substantive criticism is worse than it’s ever been because this was a failed development and a catastrophic launch.

The HMD Revenge? I’d love to hear why that happened. It couldn’t have taken more than an hour for some modeler to clip in the Mikasa’s turrets.
 
The backlash is literally identical in tenor, as I proved above. What’s different is the particulars, but that’s extremely self-evident anyway. Civ 5’s controversies are not Civ 6’s or Civ 7’s by definition.

So sure, the backlash is different, except in all the ways it’s exactly the same.
This, so much this. Don't count old Civ down just yet folks. :)
 
VII reception is in my eyes still more positive here than V was.
It is at least whole game. It starts up and you can actually finish games. It has multiplayer included and much better AI. It looks better and sounds better than V.
Eras divide players just like 1upt did in V. Thats one major negative towards VII.
Both had really bad UI. V had better lineup of leaders from the start.

VI critique was often made just by its graphical style by new players who started from late V themselves.

Rough starts are nothing new, but then again at some point Civ might not get so lucky.
 
Civ V since it's release on "Steam"has never went below 90% - ( game version on steam was not the initial one )
Civ 6 first month of user reviews was 75% positive ( many negative was due to spyware ) , anyone claiming Civ 6 review at launch is similar to Civ 7 is just lying

After just 11 hours Civ Vii came in at 41% and as off today sits at 42%.

Facts and data that aren't laced with bias, conjecture, and opinion Clearly show this version of "civ" aint doing to well.

In terms of "The hate will end the series " - Dont think so, using Aye but it will get better over the years aint going cut it this time as the core design is rotten

 
Last edited:
The HMD Revenge? I’d love to hear why that happened.
I´d love to hear that, too - and even why they had chosen that class of battleships, that is considered even minor to the British Queen Elizabeth class in WW 1 cause of its slower speed, despite of being next to obsolete compared to the US Iowa class of WW 2, that is used for the other Civ 7 battleships.

This is one more looking super-hurried part, why I have the suspicion, that the real work at the current Civ 7 started somewhere last year - and the only real work of the current Civ 7 that was started several years ago, was the work on the graphics used in Civ 7, which in my eyes are really a big positive progress compared to the Civ 5 and especially the Civ 6 graphics.
 
I´d love to hear that, too - and even why they had chosen that class of battleships, that is considered even minor to the British Queen Elizabeth class in WW 1 cause of its slower speed, despite of being next to obsolete compared to the US Iowa class of WW 2, that is used for the other Civ 7 battleships.

This is one more looking super-hurried part, why I have the suspicion, that the real work at the current Civ 7 started somewhere last year - and the only real work of the current Civ 7 that was started several years ago, was the work on the graphics used in Civ 7, which in my eyes are really a big positive progress compared to the Civ 5 and especially the Civ 6 graphics.

My guess is they were lacking in military history specialism amongst their staff. The main historian that's been floating about is a specialist on cultural history and south east Asia, so I could see stuff assumptions being made that a Dreadnaught is a Dreadnaught, so whatever we find when we Google "British Dreadnaught" must be their Dreadnaught and therefore the best one and unique.

Could also just be a mad scramble to put anything together to release the DLC in minimal time meant research just got massively deprioritised. Probably some combination of both
 
The backlash is literally identical in tenor, as I proved above. What’s different is the particulars, but that’s extremely self-evident anyway. Civ 5’s controversies are not Civ 6’s or Civ 7’s by definition.

So sure, the backlash is different, except in all the ways it’s exactly the same.

Yeah, I mean obviously there's differences in the world today, especially how social media spreads things. But I definitely remember being hyped for the civ 5 launch, and then shortly after, it was so bad that i put it away for months at a time. The 1upt vs SOD debate was just as strong as the whole age break/civ switching debates from this year.

I think the controversy on the forums here is higher than it was for 5 or 6 at launch, but overall, I would say they're on similar orders of magnitude. Why the Steam reviews come in so terribly worse, that is harder to say. Were the controversial elements of past games more of a "if you liked the previous game you don't like the changes" whereas some of the civ 7 problems are also problems to newbies in the series without 30 years of civ history? Or is it more of an element of the times and something in the current landscape of things?
 
I was there for the releases of previous iterations of Civ, and while there will always be some friction when a new one is released, I do think Civ 7 stands out in how negatively it has been received. You can always find posts of people criticising any of the more recent games, but I think it's hard to draw any conclusions about the overall reception of a game just from individual opinions on CFC. Looking at player counts and customer reviews though, I think the observable facts support my overall impression.

This is my interpretation of how the three most recent Civ games have been received:
Civ 5
As I remember it, Civ 5 was heavily criticised on these forums when it was launched. I actually liked it from the start, but it definitely felt like I was in the minority back then. It was a rough launch, and it was probably a blessing for the game that it was not exposed to Steam reviews in its initial state. Still to this day, the game has its vocal detractors who consider it either the worst game in the series, or the point where the series started to go wrong. That said, in the years since, Civ 5 has objectively been incredibly well received. Whatever you personally may think about it, it sits at a 95% positive rating on Steam, with almost 124k reviews, and still retains a large active player base almost 15 years after release, and more than a decade after support from Firaxis stopped. Civ 5 was a great success, which grew the player base of the series.

Civ 6
Civ 6 was in my estimation, well received on launch. It seemed like after the rough launch of Civ 5, Firaxis was determined not to make the same mistakes, and I think they largely succeeded. It had its detractors as always, but the criticisms were not so much for the state of the game or any major design choices, and more about things which were either quite surface level, or even outside the game itself, like the Redshell spyware thing. The most common complaint about the game itself I think was about the art style, especially for the leaders, whom some thought were too cartoony. People will have different preferences when it comes to visuals, but I hardly think that is deal breaker for most. Some of us grew a bit disillusioned with the game's design as time went on, but again, objectively it's hard to argue Civ 6 was not a success, with solid reviews on Steam, and a player base which has kept growing up until recently.

Civ 7
And then we have the latest one, which seems to be just the perfect storm of everything which could go wrong with a launch. There was plenty of negative buzz before release, for a variety of different reasons: controversial major design changes like civ switching, third party DRM, pricing, and worries about the UI, to mention the more prominent issues. After the release, the concensus seems to be that a lot of the initial negativity was warranted. Despite the premium price point, the game appears to have been released a bit prematurely, and while some appreciate the major changes, many seem not to. Again, I have not bought the game myself, and reserve judgement on civ switching and such until I have tried it, but looking at objective data, it has not been well received. Steam reviews are terrible. Out of more than 31k reviews, only 48% are positive. From a purely mathematical perspective, this is going to be a heavy drag on all time reviews. Just getting into the green is going to take a lot, and reaching the levels of Civ 5 and 6, which are at 95% and 87% respectively, seems unrealistic at this point. It's not just user reviews though. If you look at the Metacritic scores for all three games, you will see a clear trend:
Civ 5 - Review Average: 90%, User Score 8.1
Civ 6 - Review Average: 88%, User Score: 7.2
Civ 7 - Review Average: 79%, User Score: 3.9
Finally, you have player stats. As mentioned on the other thread, while Civ 6 also had a dip after launch, Civ 7's total player numbers are far, far worse. I don't want to repeat too much about what I posted there, but the big picture is that far fewer people are playing Civ 7 than was ever the case for Civ 5 and 6, and with Civ 6's numbers also dropping significantly around the release of 7, the overall number of people playing a Civ game has decreased significantly.


My point here is that no, I don't think this is just the usual backlash you get with every release. I think Civilization is in serious trouble, and if we're honest, a lot of the backlash is probably deserved. Maybe you can blame some things on external factors, but let's at least be open to the idea that there are real issues here, and that the situation is genuinely worse than it was been before.

Just to be clear, I don't want Civ 7 to fail. What I want is for Take Two to take responsibility. I know Firaxis are doing their best to improve the game, and that will take time and effort. Where are Take Two, though? They contributed significantly to these problems, and if they wanted to, they could do much to improve relations with customers, quite quickly. Some suggestions:
* Announce the removal of third party DRM. I know opinions are split as to how bad the Denuvo variant included with Civ 7 is, but removing it would be a show of good will anyway.
* Lower the price. To prevent those who paid the premium at launch from getting upset, improve their value by giving them a certain amount of future DLC for free.
* Announce some free content updates, and give these priority over paid DLC.
I know that this would cost money in the short term. I also know this would mean admitting error. At this point though, I think they need to regain some goodwill. Not doing something substantial to turn things around has a cost as well.
 
What I want is for Take Two to take responsibility

Thank you Academician, I think that sums things up rather well. As to what I've quoted, I would like to see that too, as it looks to me like Take 2 have abandoned CivVII (I'm seeing ads for Borderlands 4, and getting marketing mails from them for the new Mafia game, so they seem to have moved on from promoting CivVII)
But's lets see what Take 2's quarterly reporting is like, I think it's due today?
 
I was there for the releases of previous iterations of Civ, and while there will always be some friction when a new one is released, I do think Civ 7 stands out in how negatively it has been received. You can always find posts of people criticising any of the more recent games, but I think it's hard to draw any conclusions about the overall reception of a game just from individual opinions on CFC. Looking at player counts and customer reviews though, I think the observable facts support my overall impression.

This is my interpretation of how the three most recent Civ games have been received:
Civ 5
As I remember it, Civ 5 was heavily criticised on these forums when it was launched. I actually liked it from the start, but it definitely felt like I was in the minority back then. It was a rough launch, and it was probably a blessing for the game that it was not exposed to Steam reviews in its initial state. Still to this day, the game has its vocal detractors who consider it either the worst game in the series, or the point where the series started to go wrong. That said, in the years since, Civ 5 has objectively been incredibly well received. Whatever you personally may think about it, it sits at a 95% positive rating on Steam, with almost 124k reviews, and still retains a large active player base almost 15 years after release, and more than a decade after support from Firaxis stopped. Civ 5 was a great success, which grew the player base of the series.

Civ 6
Civ 6 was in my estimation, well received on launch. It seemed like after the rough launch of Civ 5, Firaxis was determined not to make the same mistakes, and I think they largely succeeded. It had its detractors as always, but the criticisms were not so much for the state of the game or any major design choices, and more about things which were either quite surface level, or even outside the game itself, like the Redshell spyware thing. The most common complaint about the game itself I think was about the art style, especially for the leaders, whom some thought were too cartoony. People will have different preferences when it comes to visuals, but I hardly think that is deal breaker for most. Some of us grew a bit disillusioned with the game's design as time went on, but again, objectively it's hard to argue Civ 6 was not a success, with solid reviews on Steam, and a player base which has kept growing up until recently.

Civ 7
And then we have the latest one, which seems to be just the perfect storm of everything which could go wrong with a launch. There was plenty of negative buzz before release, for a variety of different reasons: controversial major design changes like civ switching, third party DRM, pricing, and worries about the UI, to mention the more prominent issues. After the release, the concensus seems to be that a lot of the initial negativity was warranted. Despite the premium price point, the game appears to have been released a bit prematurely, and while some appreciate the major changes, many seem not to. Again, I have not bought the game myself, and reserve judgement on civ switching and such until I have tried it, but looking at objective data, it has not been well received. Steam reviews are terrible. Out of more than 31k reviews, only 48% are positive. From a purely mathematical perspective, this is going to be a heavy drag on all time reviews. Just getting into the green is going to take a lot, and reaching the levels of Civ 5 and 6, which are at 95% and 87% respectively, seems unrealistic at this point. It's not just user reviews though. If you look at the Metacritic scores for all three games, you will see a clear trend:
Civ 5 - Review Average: 90%, User Score 8.1
Civ 6 - Review Average: 88%, User Score: 7.2
Civ 7 - Review Average: 79%, User Score: 3.9
Finally, you have player stats. As mentioned on the other thread, while Civ 6 also had a dip after launch, Civ 7's total player numbers are far, far worse. I don't want to repeat too much about what I posted there, but the big picture is that far fewer people are playing Civ 7 than was ever the case for Civ 5 and 6, and with Civ 6's numbers also dropping significantly around the release of 7, the overall number of people playing a Civ game has decreased significantly.


My point here is that no, I don't think this is just the usual backlash you get with every release. I think Civilization is in serious trouble, and if we're honest, a lot of the backlash is probably deserved. Maybe you can blame some things on external factors, but let's at least be open to the idea that there are real issues here, and that the situation is genuinely worse than it was been before.

Just to be clear, I don't want Civ 7 to fail. What I want is for Take Two to take responsibility. I know Firaxis are doing their best to improve the game, and that will take time and effort. Where are Take Two, though? They contributed significantly to these problems, and if they wanted to, they could do much to improve relations with customers, quite quickly. Some suggestions:
* Announce the removal of third party DRM. I know opinions are split as to how bad the Denuvo variant included with Civ 7 is, but removing it would be a show of good will anyway.
* Lower the price. To prevent those who paid the premium at launch from getting upset, improve their value by giving them a certain amount of future DLC for free.
* Announce some free content updates, and give these priority over paid DLC.
I know that this would cost money in the short term. I also know this would mean admitting error. At this point though, I think they need to regain some goodwill. Not doing something substantial to turn things around has a cost as well.

5 was my least favorite of the series, it's the only game in the series where other than life taking precedence, I put it away well before the next iteration came out because I was just tired of the game. It was rough at launch - took a good 6+ months for them to work through the bugs.
6 I think was fairly decent at launch. Obviously had its detractors.
But yeah, I think in both cases, the biggest "flaws" at launch were either features that people didn't like (1upt, districts, art style), things that were missing (religion, world congress), or game balance problems (horse economy, factory stacking, etc...).
7 I think still has some of those (although I think the game balance has been pretty solid for a launch version, and there's not as many missing features seemingly as other iterations), but I do think overall the combination of the Day 1 DLC/pricing model, plus the fact that so many of the interface elements just seemed substantially sub-par for a premium release, sits pretty badly among the user-base. I don't know if it was rushed, or if somehow like 2 weeks before release they had to scrap a whole bunch of stuff because of something, it's hard to say.

Since launch I haven't really heard about Denuvo. I'm guessing people had their say, and there's enough to complain about beyond that.
I doubt they can realistically lower the price without annoying people who pre-ordered. They could add more stuff for free - like with the last couple packs, they give a free natural wonder to all people, they could add in say a free playable civ every 2 months for the next year. And/Or add in another couple civs to the Deluxe/Founders buyers who paid a premium.
 
I've had Civ since Civ I in the early 90s; and I play a LOT. I've loved Civ VI, and the franchise has been hugely improved over time with hex tiles, 1UPT, and districts.

I haven't bought Civ 7, and at the moment don't plan to.

Nuff said.
 
quindi ti lasci semplicemente influenzare dalle recensioni?
Moderator Action: This is an English language forum. Please use an English translation for your post.
 
I've had Civ since Civ I in the early 90s; and I play a LOT. I've loved Civ VI, and the franchise has been hugely improved over time with hex tiles, 1UPT, and districts.

I haven't bought Civ 7, and at the moment don't plan to.

Nuff said.
so you just let yourself be influenced by the reviews?
 
I've also had Civ since Civ I in the early 90s; and I also play a LOT. I've loved Civ VI too,

I also have not bought Civ VII yet; because so many posters have flamed it, but also because it looks horrifyingly close Kin to Humankind, which I gave up on after about 20 hours.

For all the same reasons I haven't got Civ VII yet. All documented at length by other posters, and certainly enough for me not to buy it, the first iteration in 33 years of playing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom