Was there this much backlash for previous Civ games?

[KayAU]

As someone who has decided to wait and see a bit with Civ 7, I have been looking around to get an idea of how well it has been received by players, and well...I am a bit surprised. I know it's early days yet, and there will always be backlash to the changes made in a new entry, but I don't recall it being this bad with earlier titles. Or am I remembering it wrong? Civilization 7 currently sits at just 50% positive reviews on Steam, based on about 25k reviews. Looking at all the main civ games on Steam, these are the current standings:

1. Civilization 5 - 95% positive
2. Civilization 4 - 92% positive
3. Civilization 6 - 86% positive
4. Civilization 7 - 50% positive

Of course, this will almost certainly improve over time, as the game is improved and backlash naturally abates. But mathematically, it would take a lot for Civ 7 to not end up well below its predecessors. To get to where Civ 5 stands, we would have to add about 225k reviews, and they would all have to be positive. Civ 7 would then tie Civ 5 for the highest percentage of positive reviews, and tie Civ 6 for the highest total review count. I know people can also change their reviews, but don't know if that actually happens often enough to make a big difference.

At the same time, while the Civilization series is still king of the genre, it does have at least four competitors which are actively developed. Most of these had mixed reception on launch, but are all seeing scores improve over time:
1. Old World - 81% all time, 90% recent
2. Millennia - 69% all time, 77% recent
3. Humankind - 67% all time, 80% recent
4. Ara: History Untold - 67% all time, 79% recent

I know reviews aren't everything, and as I said, I expect that the backlash will abate over time. Still, it looks to me as if Firaxis and 2K may have slippped up a bit, and perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think the Civ series needs more serious competition, and perhaps this will inspire that, while also serving as a bit of a wake up call for for Firaxis/2K.

What do you think?

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are too many factors into play. To name a few:
1. High expectations from leading franchise
2. Age transition with age switching is a change which many people don't accept and are angry about it
3. Anti-woke movement, which potentially could include both human reviews and bots

All in all, I'm glad Firaxis had courage for revolutionary changes and I hope the game will do well despite those reviews.

 

[Earlybird]

The figures tell the truth. Next to the reviews I want to give you the actual numbers of concurrent gamers.. Sunday, 2nd of March.
Civ 6: 49331
Civ 7: 26620

 

[stealth_nsk]

The figures tell the truth. Next to the reviews I want to give you the actual numbers of concurrent gamers.. Sunday, 2nd of March.
Civ 6: 49331
Civ 7: 26620

Not this thread again.

 

[Siptah]

The figures tell the truth. Next to the reviews I want to give you the actual numbers of concurrent gamers.. Sunday, 2nd of March.
Civ 6: 49331
Civ 7: 26620

A better comparison would be civ VI on a Sunday a few weeks after release: Sunday November 21st 2016: 58821.

That said, it‘s a metric with many flaws, as are reviews.

But of course: while worse reviews and a drop below 6‘s player count was to be expected, 50% and going lower than 30k isn’t great. However, I’m more curious to see next weekend, when the first major patch has dropped.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

To be fair, i think that these days gamers will give bad reviews quicker than a few years ago and before. I believe this has something to do with the unhappiness of the people in general, and that we see that unpolite behaviour in the internet is just normal these days. I can also imagine that expectations were very high for Civ7… Then there are several more reasons i won‘t mention here, but i mentioned it in other threads here.

While all this i think is true, and must be considered, it can‘t change that i myself are also so darn disappointed in Civ7. Played it yesterday for the first time and it‘s just soulless, it feels like work you don‘t like instead of pure fun as in Civ6… but enough of that.

 

[StargazingDog]

Civ 5 most definitely had significant and vocal negativity surrounding it at release. Between the one-unit-per-tile implementation and the game's performance, it was under heavy fire. The difference is that, back then, there wasn't a social media economy (both financial and attention-seeking) thriving on negativity.

 

[protocol7]

Other times definitely had some pushback but never like this time. I think it’s mainly from it being obviously unfinished in a lot of ways, though, and eventually it will be more well received (unless they decide actually the game is great as it is and it’s just the haters being haters, but the company itself seems to be taking the complaints seriously if not a subsection of the fans).

Lots of the conversation happened on this forum, you can go back and read it all if you are genuinely curious.

 

[KayAU]

There are too many factors into play. To name a few:
1. High expectations from leading franchise
2. Age transition with age switching is a change which many people don't accept and are angry about it
3. Anti-woke movement, which potentially could include both human reviews and bots

All in all, I'm glad Firaxis had courage for revolutionary changes and I hope the game will do well despite those reviews.

I agree, I support innovation in general, and am usually willing to give the gameplay changes a fair chance. I got the impression that the most controversial change was the civ switching, but as far as I'm concerned, that was a mixed bag in Humankind, and could very well be good in Civ, which has more recognizable and fleshed out leaders.

As for the other two points, you may be right. Point 3 I suspect is going to hit just about every major strategy game wih female leaders, or RPG with a character editor these days. Some people are very easily offended it seems. Still, I think Baldur's Gate 3 was hit by this too, and it sits at a very comfortable 96% posiive, with almost 650k reviews. I suppose it's a combination of many factors, and for a game like BG3, there were a lot of positives to counter any backlash.

Just for the record, my own decision to not buy the game yet has nothing to do with any particular gameplay changes. I was disappointed by lack of core improvement and refinement in Civ 6 in favor of more monetisable content development, and concerned that this would be an even stronger focus this time around. I'm hoping to be proven wrong.

 

[Siptah]

There‘s also this fun to watch video based on CFC comments, if you don‘t want to read it yourself.

 

[protocol7]

It’s a funny video but doesn’t really speak to scale of backlash. You can always find anyone saying anything on the internet, really. There are even people who post things like the launch UI is totally great and doesn’t need any fixes. It would be pretty easy actually to make a similar video showing comments where every Civ is the best one ever and the new one is always the best version.

 

[pietro1990]

Civ 5 backlash

I remember civ 5 having a lot of hate at the beginning because of the one unit per tile mechanic. And especially because it was so unbalanced it he beginning , a awful AI who doesn't know how to use combat and didn't do any diplomacy.In vanilla civ 5 you could just spam horseman and take cities like it was nothing even pikeman where outmatched because of the flanking bonuses horses got and the move after atack.

The warmonger penalty you got just for declaring war was broken . But if the Ai declared war on you then you would receive zero warmonger penalty you could basically kill a entire civilization if they declared war on you. But if you declare war 2 times even not taking a city you are a evil person.. They changed this so you get a warmonger penalty for taking cities the more cities a civ has the less warmonger penalty you get for capturing one. Capturing one city from a empire who has 10 cities isn’t a big deal but taking one city from a empire who has only 3 thats bigger also whipping out a civ is a big warmonger penalty.

They changed it during patches and expansions in my opinion civ 5 became great at gods and kings expansions and brave new world made it a perfect game.

Civ 7 is different

However civ 7 situation is a little bit different. In my opinion civ 7 is in a worst state then civ 5 at release. Because the game feels unfinished. The UI is a big example civ 5 had issue's but the UI looked decend and the game felt finished the balance and AI was just awful.
in civ 7 the UI is a big mess even the civiliopedia isn't finished plus the general AI problems and balance issue's.
On top of that they tried a complete new mechanic with changing civilization and leaders and ending era's.You know this will cause a lot of backlash so you might as well make sure you the game is finished and all the new mechanic’s are explained fully!


Thats the big problem with civ 7 there are things happening new mechanic’s and the player doesn’t know why its happening the game sure won’t tell you. On top of that it are mechanic’s wich are complete new of the civ franchise something out of he box and i applauded the developer’s for trying it but they should have gave us a finished game.

And the last big conern of civ 7 is the DLC money grab system they have. Basic civilization like England are not in the game they are in a expansion! Basic leaders like ghenghis khan, Ghandi , Elizabeth the leaders who where always in civ games are not present. I bet they will all come with expansions this is outrages!Civ 5 had DLC’s but it was only months after release a first expansion came and it was for crucial civ’s who always have been in the franchise. It took some time before a new DLC came out now it seems like a money grab i wouldn’t be surprised if a new era would also be a DLC in civ 7.


So there you have my opinion on it civ 7 is way worse then civ 5 at release.

Do i have hope absolutely because ed beach fixed civ 5 and even listened to complains of he fans! I remember that i posted a hotfix issue of civ 5 and it was fixed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree, I support innovation in general, and am usually willing to give the gameplay changes a fair chance. I got the impression that the most controversial change was the civ switching, but as far as I'm concerned, that was a mixed bag in Humankind, and could very well be good in Civ, which has more recognizable and fleshed out leaders.

As for the other two points, you may be right. Point 3 I suspect is going to hit just about every major strategy game wih female leaders, or RPG with a character editor these days. Some people are very easily offended it seems. Still, I think Baldur's Gate 3 was hit by this too, and it sits at a very comfortable 96% posiive, with almost 650k reviews. I suppose it's a combination of many factors, and for a game like BG3, there were a lot of positives to counter any backlash.

Just for the record, my own decision to not buy the game yet has nothing to do with any particular gameplay changes. I was disappointed by lack of core improvement and refinement in Civ 6 in favor of more monetisable content development, and concerned that this would be an even stronger focus this time around. I'm hoping to be proven wrong.

It's totally ok not to buy games on release, they are expensive and unpolished, Civ7 is no exception here. But core changes this time are clearly much bigger, so I don't think that's the right concern.

 

[KayAU]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I think every point made has merit, and it is indeed true that there was pushback with previous releases. I remember well the negativity surrounding Civ 5, for things like 1 UPT, not having all the features of a fully expanded Civ 4, and also being in a bit of a rough state. I also remember Civ 6 getting a lot of criticism for things like "cartoony graphics" and whatnot.

Still, it feels a bit more this time. Perhaps it's times being different, as some of you mentioned. Perhaps it's because civ switching is a bigger and more controversial change than what previous games did. And perhaps there are genuinely some issues with the overall quality and how finished the game is.

Perhaps it's all of the above.

 

[Siptah]

It’s a funny video but doesn’t really speak to scale of backlash. You can always find anyone saying anything on the internet, really. There are even people who post things like the launch UI is totally great and doesn’t need any fixes. It would be pretty easy actually to make a similar video showing comments where every Civ is the best one ever and the new one is always the best version.

Yeah, of course, it’s just a selection, and in no way representative. Still, it gives some insights into how earlier civ launches have been received very critical by at least some civ fans. And since IV, I have been following launches here and know that it wasn‘t just a few critical voices each time.

Still, 7 is the worst launch when it comes to reception, and rightfully so: it‘s the least finished product in many ways, even if I personally consider it to be the most fun (especially antiquity). The right call would have been delaying release by at least 2 months, which would have spared at least some of the critique.

 

[protocol7]

I think it just needed another six months before launch really, and it will be hard to overcome a certain amount or backlash until the game is actually in a good state. IMHO they would have been better off calling it early access, so people could play now, without the expectation that it was done and in a good state. But that ship has sailed. Like I said I’m pretty confident it will be good after a while.

 

[AD1730]

3. Anti-woke movement, which potentially could include both human reviews and bots

Again, I haven't seen a single Civ 7 review mentioning this, and I've read hundreds on Steam at this point.

Until you come forward with some evidence on this, I think it's fair to consider this argument a straw man.

 

[KayAU]

It's totally ok not to buy games on release, they are expensive and unpolished, Civ7 is no exception here. But core changes this time are clearly much bigger, so I don't think that's the right concern.

I am generally open minded towards the changes so far as I've heard about them, but my disappointment with Civ 6 was that they never really refined things beyond what seemed to me like minor tweaks, some points more here, and some points less there. Instead of meaningful refinement there was ever more civilizations, more modes, more things you could pay for. Looking at the Steam page for Civ 7 before launch, I was worried that this would get even worse with Civ 7. The game is expensive, especially the more premium editions, and with more content locked away as DLC. Then there are things like holding the game hostage for 5 days extra unless you pay more. Then you have the third-party DRM, which you can be worried about or not, but fact is that far from every game sees the need to have it. All of these things, I suspect, have much more to do with 2K than Firaxis, and I think the publisher may hold too much control, also when it comes to the creative side of things.

I know not everyone sees it that way, and are very happy about how Civ 6 ended up. I respect that. For me though, I feel like it ended up as a bit of a mess, with a lot of content, but little cohesion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Again, I haven't seen a single Civ 7 review mentioning this, and I've read hundreds on Steam at this point.

Until you come forward with some evidence on this, I think it's fair to consider this argument a straw man.

People don't like calling themselves racists or anti-woke, whatever, so they often write reviews about other things (especially bots). But you could search steam forum and see how discussion is going https://steamcommunity.com/app/1295...idforum=4337609376658501369&include_deleted=1

However, there are many reviews, especially non-english, which are more direct. For example this one - https://steamcommunity.com/id/Iabober/recommended/1295660/

 

[Melkus]

I feel like it ended up as a bit of a mess, with a lot of content, but little cohesion

I feel the same about the last years of Civ6 development. Not a big complainer, but the way they experimented with game modes and never really polished them to playability (not to mention develop adequate AI for it) was almost disrespectful to players who bought these late extensions.

They have built a very solid base for Civ7 however and it has the potential to be much better, if they concentrate on improving existing systems, tweak the AI, do sensible things in general. The balance and pacing works, they've put more thought into adjusting for slower speeds and difficulty bonuses. There's a slight worry for me that some of the clever fundamentals may get lost in the shuffle (by succumbing to yield inflation and flashy DLC effects).

You'd have to look into their heads though to know if they perceive the way Civ6 developed as a problem they want to improve. If not, if might turn out similarly, who knows.