Was there this much backlash for previous Civ games?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we should concentrate on what most reviewers complaints actually are which is not really the game itself but the money grab where players payed almost twice as much to final beta test the game and DLC for sale before the game was officially released.

This is a pattern with many big franchise titles these days where people are giving negative reviews not on the game but the money grab surrounding it.

Having said that there are some significant changes in the game play this time I think many people weren't expecting and don't like/are taking time to adjust to.

Stepping into dangerous territory i can see why the antiwoke brigade are so upset, as someone who has always liked learning some basic history from the series it seems like they deliberately went out of their way to find the most obscure and often partly mythical 'persons of interest' to be leaders whom i frequently wonder why (in the context of the game/series) they were chosen apart from to tick some boxes.
 
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.

100% this "woke" thing is nonsense and a ridiculous claim.

From steam the "back lash" is by far more concerned that this version of "civ" is just well boring , bland and in a pretty bad state

From Civ switching, three mini game's in one, under cooked, predatory pricing , full of bugs and sloppily implemented features which can not be fixed , Denuvo, tiny maps, re-set , UI barbones, Civilopedia, micro-rewards, predictable outcomes etc etc .

If people took the time to read the "woke" thing is totally negligible
 
But size is the most important element indicating if something is a factor or not? I feel like we are operating on different definitions of words here, so I’ll just say agree to disagree I guess.
Yes, you are giving a definition of the word "factor", which excludes the existence of factors of unknown size at all. So, in those terms the discussion clearly doesn't make any sense.
 
Isn’t it way more likely that the ui is kind of exceptionally bad for a game like this, and reviews are going to improve a lot and quickly when they fix it? Occam’s razor and all that. If you take the reviews at face value this is what it points to.
I think there are a few core assumptions at play here to break down, in brief:

a) Civ VII has subjective problems but, crucially, has been also constructed in discourse as "a bad game." This is a bit complicated and sociological, but what it means is that the conversation around the game has been framed, first, as negatively critical, and second around a central "problem" that needs to be "solved." The difficulty lies between the lines here: do people simply want the UI to be "fixed" (and in what way?) or do they want, even if they don't express it, simply to feel listened to? I think it's more often the latter than we might like to admit.

b) People feel that their critical reviews will lead to their desired solution—why and how? This is an open-ended question. It also suggests that people will more likely (and assertively) voice critique than praise, so in this climate more negative reviews are posted than positive. Note that people are not only critical of the existence of the problems, but also the apparent time that it takes to resolve them.

c) There will be an identifiable state in which the problems (beyond the UI) are "fixed" and the discourse changes. I'm somewhat doubtful of this cause-and-effect, because I think the discourse will outlive the solved problems but also fade out for unrelated reasons.

Generally I think the reception of Civ VII is above all about the discourse around it—"bad game / bad consumer product" put simply—and as time passes that will change, and more than any individual or collective change the developers make, this will affect the overall conversation. Certainly as more games come out the torch, as it were, of critical discussion will pass to them, by which point also the developers will have made positive changes to the game. In other words, probably in a few months we won't be having these same discussions. Above all I think our ability to affect what the developers are doing in the short term is overestimated by many people.

If you were to ask me, the best thing to do would be to get out of discussions like these, because the point has been made. Either the developers will do something about it—which they have said they are—or they won't. I generally avoid these types of discussions for this reason, but I thought I'd dive into the things that undergird why they exist in the first place. Remember that we are all historical creatures, and subject to many factors beyond the immediate: rarely are things simple and face value.
 
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.

More importantly Steam reviews didn't exist in 2010, they only started in 2015. By that time, Brave New World was already released solving many of the game problems, and the anti-1UPT fanbase had already left the boat.

As for Civ4, it wasn't released on Steam in the first place, so Steam users are only those who bought it after Civ5 and Civ6 were released.
 
More importantly Steam reviews didn't exist in 2010, they only started in 2015. By that time, Brave New World was already released solving many of the game problems, and the anti-1UPT fanbase had already left the boat.

As for Civ4, it wasn't released on Steam in the first place, so Steam users are only those who bought it after Civ5 and Civ6 were released.
Ah interesting, i didn‘t know that. Good to see i‘m not that old after all 😅

Edit: I‘m sorry @Marla_Singer for this may was a stupid comment, but it can happen sometimes.
 
Last edited:
This is certain true in the United States as compared to the past, I can't speak to other countries.
It‘s here in Germany the same. You can‘t comment something on Facebook for instance, even if you are walking on egg shells to not offend or upset someone, without having at least 10 people attacking you. It‘s just sad and i feel this could be a bit dangerous.
 
By the way, this woke argument is nonsense. In the first place, the second era and it's colonization theme itself is so anti-woke....so Firaxis is woke and non woke at the same time?
It's just a distraction from the real issues this game has.
 
100% this "woke" thing is nonsense and a ridiculous claim.

From steam the "back lash" is by far more concerned that this version of "civ" is just well boring , bland and in a pretty bad state

From Civ switching, three mini game's in one, under cooked, predatory pricing , full of bugs and sloppily implemented features which can not be fixed , Denuvo, tiny maps, re-set , UI barbones, Civilopedia, micro-rewards, predictable outcomes etc etc .

If people took the time to read the "woke" thing is totally negligible
It's fascinating how quickly otherwise rational people will jump on the conspiracy bandwagon when their favourite game receives substantial criticism. Rather than just admit many folks think the game plain sucks, they'll desperately blame trolls, the right/left wing, MAGA, bots, Trump, Zelensky, Covid or any other boogieman they can grasp.

The game has mediocre reviews because it's a mediocre game. A small section of the game's fanbase come out with disgusting comments but it is pure fantasy to think this is the driving force behind the game's poor reception. There are many, many well-founded and constructive criticisms of the game. There are "woker" games on the market than Civ VII that haven't received nearly as severe a backlash.
 
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

Oh damn, a full 331 hits on the entire discussion forum that mention "woke", an unknown percentage of which is complaining about the anti-woke crowd like you are?

That sure sounds like it's a super prevalent topic!

Just to compare, the first page of discussion in this thread, including my in-progress post, has only thirteen mentions of the word, so the Steam forums have more than 25 times that many mentions!

(I'd compare it to the search on these forums but it appears the search function here is rather poor)

EDIT: 21 mentions of the term on page 2 btw. So this thread by itself is up to what, one-tenth of the total number of mentions over on the Steam forums? And how many people in this thread are actually complaining about the game being woke? Oh, right. Zero.
 
Last edited:
Oh damn, a full 331 hits on the entire discussion forum that mention "woke", an unknown percentage of which is complaining about the anti-woke crowd like you are?
I answered this point already. Number of discussions has nothing to do with number of reviews. That's just the demonstration that the discourse exists (which was doubted in the post I replied to).
 
I think a more interesting question might instead be, "would there be this much backlash for previous Civ games were they released today?" And I would say: yes, almost certainly. In my estimation it's less a matter of objective quality-on-release, and more a matter of how video games, as consumer culture, are subjective to the current historical moment and broader discourse. There are a few factors going into this, and forgive the following essay; I'll give a summary at the end.

The first is socioeconomic, and it ultimately all stems from this in some way or another. This goes beyond the price tag of the game itself: while we can point out that this game is priced relative to inflation, we must also point out that incomes have not kept up with the same inflation—to say nothing of the price still being essentially pegged to the US dollar, which has further knock-on effects for people around the world trying to afford it. People will be more critical and more discerning the relatively bigger of a slice something takes out of their income. This is a doubled problem because the cost of making games has concomitantly increased—whether the publisher decides to make the consumer foot the bill for these rising costs or not, as they have with Civ VII.

The second follows naturally from the socioeconomic factor, and it's about uncertainty: basically, things are more expensive and politics in previously steady-state Western countries are more volatile and partisan. These two things act on one another to make social discourse as a whole more fraught, whether we're on a video game forum or on the street. People broadly feel both unable to improve their socioeconomic status and stability, and following that unable to affect politics in such a way as to ameliorate these problems. We recognise the connection between economics and politics—you could make the argument that, more than ever before, democratic politics is consciously about economics and the rest is secondary. Certainly every politician understands this. So, we end up in a situation where people not only feel economically insecure, but simultaneously unable to prepare for the future: broadly feeling demoralised about the capacity for political systems to change this and their own capacity to affect those political systems.

The third factor is a bigger one, and admittedly more theoretical, but bear with me. What the above points converge on is consumer culture, the form of political and economic expression that largely became dominant worldwide in the late 20th century. People express themselves and identify themselves through their consumer choices. At the same time, and particularly in the modern internet age, people feel more able than ever to affect their consumption at the site of its production: to influence game developers, film producers, food manufacturers, various brands, and so on. Normally this isn't an area of great contention, because people either have bigger problems and ways to deal with them, or they're more or less content. Today, people do have bigger problems—the first factor—but are hindered in their expression by their perceived inability to do anything about them—the second factor. So, political and socioeconomic expression converge on consumer culture, both directly to affect change with regards to consumption itself—things like food safety and game release quality, for example—and indirectly, to express frustration about problems beyond sites and items of consumer culture but indelibly tied to them. This is nothing especially new: the US National Consumers League was formed in 1899 and agitated for various social reforms from the angle that individual citizen-consumers deserved a right to determine the ethics and standards of their purchasing options. We aren't too different—though the Chicago meatpacking industry of the early 1900s was maybe a bit more awful than game development.

Think of it this way: people are more likely to write a complaint or praise for a video game where they think a developer or publisher will see it, than to do the same for their local elected political representative. Posting about the problems surrounding Civ VII, people generally—consciously or unconsciously—feel like they have a right to consumption of a certain quality standard, and that they can directly affect, through social discourse, the quality and content of consumer products. So, they post on forums and social media in the desire to persuade or dissuade game developers and publishers about issues that simultaneously involve the game directly, yet indirectly are tied one way or another to surrounding political and economic factors. On top of this, there are year by year more and more people taking part on social media, so the number of conversations and conversants in this discourse increases, thereby becoming more visible, thereby seeming bigger in absolute terms. Part of all of this comes down to: there really were just fewer people talking about past games in this same franchise. Consider the fact that on these very forums the General Discussion for Civ VII, released one month ago, has 257,000 posts, while Civ VI, released almost a decade ago, has 424,000.

In summary: we want to enjoy playing a game, but it becomes harder to just enjoy a game because the world is uncertain, polarised, and difficult. Games are expensive and we have less money with which to buy them. Games cost more and publishers control the process of development and publication in order to (subjectively) maximise profits against these costs. We identify with our articles of consumption, feeling an increasingly personal investment in them and a relatively high degree of agency in defining their content and quality. This leads to greater criticism and consciousness of perceived flaws in a game, and resulting discourse which frames discussion about it. There are more people talking about games on social media, which means that the number of participants in this discourse is larger, its inertia greater, and polarisation—reflecting external political and economic polarisation—increases in step.

This isn't to say that this or any game is flawless, or that there is nothing to complain about or no reason to lodge complaints. Instead I think it's a good idea to consider the why of why we go online to spend a great deal of time in heated discussions about an article of consumer culture, what we expect our goals and outcomes to be, and more broadly how certain game flaws (considering all games ship with bugs, questionable design choices, etc.) become discursively framed as fundamental "problems" while others are positively excluded from this same discourse.
This is an excellent post, and I commend the care and eloquence with which you typed all this (and your subsequent post) up. It likely won't receive as much attention (as the current trajectory of the discussion seems to indicate), but I'm sure those who care to read and have the capacity to understand will all appreciate this.

I have also commented elsewhere that the discourse around games reflect the larger socio-cultural discourse and that, despite the vociferousness of it, it seems not to improve conditions much. I think we are facing a general crisis in discourse, one symptom of which is how specific terms serve as lightning rods that people can't help but react to in ways that degrade discourse. We can see it happening in this thread. I don't know if the solution is never to use these 'trigger words,' if you will. It would be better if people are better at processing context and meaning, for one, but it may be that such actors (or, more accurately, reactors) need a safe space created for them for the sake of the discourse.
 
I answered this point already. Number of discussions has nothing to do with number of reviews. That's just the demonstration that the discourse exists (which was doubted in the post I replied to).

Demonstration it exists? Yeah, I guess.

Demonstration that it's relevant and worth mentioning? Absolutely not.

As other people in the thread argued, I'm sure you can find at least one review that's negative because of the game being "colonialist" or "imperialist". I'm sure you can find at least one review that's negative because it glorifies evil/imperialist people (the reasoning being that if they're in the game, they're being glorified). I'm sure you can find at least one review that's negative because they removed builders. I'm sure you can find at least one hundred reviews that are negative because there are too few leaders in the game (there's more than in any previous Civ game at release). I'm sure you can find at least one negative review because the graphics are too cartoony/too realistic/too bright/too grim. I'm sure you can find at least one negative review because the tech tree is wrong in one way or another.

That doesn't mean that any of these points are worth mentioning.

And most of all, I'm sure you can find at least one thousand reviews that are negative because the UI sucks. Now that is a point worth mentioning, if you make a post like this:
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.

Why do you mention the anti-woke movement as a factor, but not the UI?

Usually, the implication when people make a summary like this, is that they're naming what they think are the most important factors.
 
It's fascinating how quickly otherwise rational people will jump on the conspiracy bandwagon when their favourite game receives substantial criticism. Rather than just admit many folks think the game plain sucks, they'll desperately blame trolls, the right/left wing, MAGA, bots, Trump, Zelensky, Covid or any other boogieman they can grasp.

The game has mediocre reviews because it's a mediocre game. A small section of the game's fanbase come out with disgusting comments but it is pure fantasy to think this is the driving force behind the game's poor reception. There are many, many well-founded and constructive criticisms of the game. There are "woker" games on the market than Civ VII that haven't received nearly as severe a backlash.
And it's fascinating how quickly otherwise rational people will jump on the "all criticism of the criticism of the game is wrong" bandwagon when they agree with the criticism. You're looking for evidence that validate your personal view as hard as anyone else.

Pot, kettle.
 
Why do you mention the anti-woke movement as a factor, but not the UI?
Because the thread is about comparing Civ7 with other junk releases - old ones like Civ5 and recent ones like Ara.

Civ7 has clear UI problems (and not only them) and they caused a lot of negativity, it's just being discussed in many other threads and is out of scope here.

(I don't answer the rest of your post, because I answered it already and I don't want another "walking in circles" thread)
 
And it's fascinating how quickly otherwise rational people will jump on the "all criticism of the criticism of the game is wrong" bandwagon when they agree with the criticism. You're looking for evidence that validate your personal view as hard as anyone else.

Pot, kettle.

He is very clearly not saying all criticism of the game is wrong. He literally says it's a mediocre game.

Because the thread is about comparing Civ7 with other junk releases - old ones like Civ5 and recent ones like Ara.

Civ7 has clear UI problems (and not only them) and they caused a lot of negativity, it's just being discussed in many other threads and is out of scope here.

(I don't answer the rest of your post, because I answered it already and I don't want another "walking in circles" thread)

I am at a complete loss how you interpreted the OP as asking about anything other than a general "what causes Civ VII's mixed reviews?". And frankly, I think the UI is at least 50% of the entire answer.
 
I seem to recall that the complaints over Civ 5 on release were much more vociferous -- partly with good reason, as Civ 5 released in a less playable state than Civ 7 -- but the change to one-unit-per-tile was just as controversial as civ-switching or the Age reset system. There are still those who can't stand 1UPT and haven't returned to the series.

While I have problems with the Age reset system, I think the most pressing concern is that Civ 7 feels unfinished, and that seems like the consensus. So if they finish it, of course review scores will improve over time.

edit: And it's true that gamers like to complain, and that their complaints can be perhaps unnecessarily dramatic... but that doesn't mean that their complaints have no merit.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of valid points made, it is true that backlash online is more powerful than ever nowadays. Its always existed but didn't have the audience that it does now. And it is also true that good money can be made from negativity. I am a fan of a fantasy tv show and when i look for reviews of it on youtube i occasionally see a channel that is purely devoted to raging about how 'woke hollywood is' and he has hundreds of thousands of views on every video despite their repetitive nature (i watched bits of a couple to see what they were and it was just raging)

However i also think it is true that civ 7 has underwhelmed or alienated a significant chunk of veteran players who are expressing their dislike. I think even among critics this is one of the lowest rated iterations at launch?
The only thing that doesnt ring true to me is the idea that culture wars feature significantly in the reasons for negative reviews.

I don't suppose it matters, firaxis have shown how they intend to respond to feedback, and people will have to decide for themselves if the speed of fixes is good or bad, and if it bothers them that DLC is being released at this point alongside the fixes. I think reviews will improve as fixes come along, i couldnt guess how much they will improve however.
 
I seem to recall that the complaints over Civ 5 on release were much more vociferous -- partly with good reason, as Civ 5 released in a less playable state than Civ 7 -- but the change to one-unit-per-tile was just as controversial as civ-switching or the Age reset system. There are still those who can't stand 1UPT and haven't returned to the series.

While I have problems with the Age reset system, I think the most pressing concern is that Civ 7 feels unfinished, and that seems like the consensus. So if they finish it, of course review scores will improve over time.

I agree.

And most importantly, "it's unfinished" is a supremely fixable issue. This is why I consider Civ VII to be on the path to become the best title in the series. It's already a lot of fun, if there's two years worth of QoL improvements, I think it's going to be so far ahead of the previous releases that it's not even going to be a contest. And I'm saying this as someone who enjoys both Civ IV and Civ VI a lot (not V though, V can take a long walk off a short pier as far as I'm concerned).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom