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.
