42% is mixed reviews?

[Azure]

Was considering buying the game until I saw the actual reviews. Now I definitely won't buy after seeing Steam try to protect the game. How many of you got a 42% on you school finals and told your parents, "I got mixed results"?

Steam, Let them have the Negative status they deserve. Maybe it will motivate them to fix their problems. Why even have (Negative) and (Mostly Negative) when you constantly do whatever is possible to protect deserving games from that rating?

[AHTF´184]

Escrito originalmente por Tikigod:

Escrito originalmente por Silverlight:

It keeps going up, not down.

Of course it will, because people who actually paid a incredibly high price for a pay walled release due to company greed are going to feel the need to defend and justify their expense.

For every 10 negative reviews talking about all the UI problems and how the new systems are bland or uninspired is a positive review which pretty goes along the lines of:

"Yes the UI sucks and really needs work but in 3-5 years this game could be better and less broken then Civ 6 and I can't wait to see what the game looks like then. Until then it's fun enough to put up with the issues".


That's not a positive review of the game, nor a actual recommendation to buy it in its current state. It's posting a positive review to try manipulate the review rating out of fear that if the game doesn't do well it won't get those 3-5 years of additional development work.

And why is that a worrying thought to the positive reviewer? Because they also don't think the game as it stands now is really solid or good enough to be sold at the price asked but they've already paid the money so now they're invested in trying to encourage other people to make the same mistake so they can wait for the dream future they see for the game where it actually becomes something good.

I have only one thing in mind when I put thumbs up or down, is it fun to play.

Civ 7 is fun so it gets a thumbs up and in the text of the review I write about the game especially things that could annoy others. So no it has nothing to do with manipulating the score.


I am of the opinion that putting negative because of prize is manipulating. Since the prize is open information and the review is then saying the game is bad even if the buyer enjoyed it…

[ST Ry]

Escrito originalmente por Central:

it got a lot of bad reviews minutes after its initial launch, that should tell you enough to take it with a grain of salt.
i remember about 11 hours ago it was still at 33%, so now that real reviews are coming in from people who actually play the game it seems to be climbing a lot.
and quite a lot of fans of the series believe you cannot judge the game untill you put quite a lot of hours in it, so they wont review for a while.

It tells you even whales and simps don't like the game which is the biggest red flag a game could have.

You're delusional if you think most the negative reviews are from people abusing steam's refund policy.

[Grapes]

Isn't it, "Recommend" or "Not Recommend"? My "Not Recommend" was up 15 minutes after playing. I would not recommend someone pay $130 to play what I saw. The opening cinematic looked terrible. The largest map setting was Standard. When I first downloaded it you couldn't even change what Civs you were playing against. So no, I posted a "Not Recommend" based off that and the UI (it made my eyes bleed and told me no information at all). My "Not Recommend" review is only more confirmed. Maybe if it goes on sale for like $7, but I wouldn't tell even my worst enemy to burn their money on this. Mine's already lost, so I just have to hope they can fix it somewhat over the course of $200 of DLC.

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

Escrito originalmente por ST Ry:

Escrito originalmente por Central:

it got a lot of bad reviews minutes after its initial launch, that should tell you enough to take it with a grain of salt.
i remember about 11 hours ago it was still at 33%, so now that real reviews are coming in from people who actually play the game it seems to be climbing a lot.
and quite a lot of fans of the series believe you cannot judge the game untill you put quite a lot of hours in it, so they wont review for a while.

It tells you even whales and simps don't like the game which is the biggest red flag a game could have.

You're delusional if you think most the negative reviews are from people abusing steam's refund policy.

I have never asked for a refund for any game on Steam, I just want to have fun with the games I buy. I just won't buy CV VII because after what I saw, I know I'll be disappointed after having played 3 previous editions. I can't see myself starting a campaign with a leader being forced to start all over again in the next ERA and being forced to choose other cultures. I think that's absurd. It's like starting something and then, due to changes, breaking what I started playing because they decided to make a CV that, in addition to the bugs breaking the game, also has fixed culture rules that break the gameplay we chose at the beginning. That's why I'm disappointed with this CV VII, in addition to the prices being ridiculous, based on experience with CV that I've already spent on previous editions, which are increasingly expensive and have less content. CV V I spent the debut price plus DLCs, which was over €100.
, CV VI with the debut price plus DLCs was close to €200 and now they want us to buy a game, whether basic or Founders for €70 or €130 without DLCs and incomplete, they dream on

[Tikigod]

Escrito originalmente por Grapes:

Isn't it, "Recommend" or "Not Recommend"? My "Not Recommend" was up 15 minutes after playing. I would not recommend someone pay $130 to play what I saw. The opening cinematic looked terrible. The largest map setting was Standard. When I first downloaded it you couldn't even change what Civs you were playing against. So no, I posted a "Not Recommend" based off that and the UI (it made my eyes bleed and told me no information at all). My "Not Recommend" review is only more confirmed. Maybe if it goes on sale for like $7, but I wouldn't tell even my worst enemy to burn their money on this. Mine's already lost, so I just have to hope they can fix it somewhat over the course of $200 of DLC.

Indeed, it's a player review of if the game is something you feel you can recommend to others.

So a factor is going to be price of entry against perceived value of the product when it comes to such recommendations for a lot of people.

And it's also a factor that matters to me personally also.

A good example of this recently was Dragon Age Veilguard. A game I never bought nor played in the end because of the asking price weighed up against the perceived quality of enjoyment I suspect I would have got from the game.

Would I have enjoyed the game? Sure I likely would have enjoyed some aspects of it, but at a £50 asking price I had to factor that against the fact there are many other games out there I know I would enjoy even more that cost half that price or even less, and so I instead went with buying multiple games that were individually cheaper that I enjoyed much more fully than I suspect I would have enjoyed Dragon Age Veilguard.

I still spent £50 (In fact I think it ended up being more like £85), but I did so across multiple titles. Not one.


And I think that's a problem a lot of big development studios are finding themselves in now, in the early to mid 2010's there was a significant shift in the perceived acceptable quality of releases big studios found they could get away with whilst still attaching a 'premium entry price' because the alternative offerings from smaller studios were either few and far between or of a much lower overall quality to what a larger studio would eventually make of their game over the years after release.

However, in more recent years the situation has drastically changed.

Small flexible development studios with much smaller operational overhead now have access to a range of tools that allow a handful of talented individuals to do what it used to take a entire team of a two dozen or more people in a large studio to do, and also in a fraction of the time because the smaller studios are able to be much more agile in their focuses and pivot their efforts much more easily based on what's going on both internally and with their player base then a large cumbersome studio.

And because of the lower overhead costs during development involved with smaller studios (and in connection, potential publisher advance monetary investment that the studio will need to make good on paying back through sales targets), the milestone for a "Successful project" is so much less allowing the studio to feel a bit more comfortable with just focusing their game design more on what achieves the internal vision of a few developers of what makes for a enjoyable game on day 1.

Where as a studio like Firaxis almost certainly has considerably more overhead, a lot more internal voices all with their own view on what makes for the most enjoyable experience for what they personally consider is the key audience, and most importantly a significantly higher publisher investment they will have to secure paying back through not just initial sales but also spending a significant amount of pre-release development effort not just making a solid functional and enjoyable game but ensuring before the game releases they have a firm 'Projected post-release revenue stream' for the next 14-16 months in order to appease investments made on the studio they now have to repay.




The old studio structure bloat that has been building up momentum since the mid-2000s and the reduced perceived acceptable release standards that set itself up some years later are now really starting to show their age and lack of relevancy in the industry.

And it's going to lead to a lot of the "Old school big boy" companies either having to make drastic and rapid changes to how they exist and operate (Something you can see Paradox attempting to do in the last year or so), or stubbornly stand firm and carry on as they have been hoping to survive on industry recognition, eventually just losing all good faith they built up over multiple decades until they eventually shed off everything good that made the studio what it was and end up just being absorbed into another company that guts them for whatever IP worth remains and casts the rest out onto the street.

Because at the end of the day, the industry has changed.

A studio made up of 10-15 people (or sometimes less) CAN and ARE making a more solid core release state of a game then it seems a 40-50+ person studio can manage in the same amount of time for a fraction of the operational costs, which means less need to attach high cost of entry, and instead allowing lower price for better release quality to work as a strong selling point for people to take a perceived risk on buying something from a completely unknown studio or a IP they have no familiarity to.

As such player standards of releases are shifting, and customers have much more options and a more updated perception of value to price because of it.

And if studios like Firaxis don't adapt to these things, they are going to burn what remains of the last few bridges they built over the years when it comes to IPs like Civilisation.

[dcbobo]

Escrito originalmente por 𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶:

Escrito originalmente por ST Ry:

It tells you even whales and simps don't like the game which is the biggest red flag a game could have.

You're delusional if you think most the negative reviews are from people abusing steam's refund policy.

I have never asked for a refund for any game on Steam, I just want to have fun with the games I buy. I just won't buy CV VII because after what I saw, I know I'll be disappointed after having played 3 previous editions. I can't see myself starting a campaign with a leader being forced to start all over again in the next ERA and being forced to choose other cultures. I think that's absurd. It's like starting something and then, due to changes, breaking what I started playing because they decided to make a CV that, in addition to the bugs breaking the game, also has fixed culture rules that break the gameplay we chose at the beginning. That's why I'm disappointed with this CV VII, in addition to the prices being ridiculous, based on experience with CV that I've already spent on previous editions, which are increasingly expensive and have less content. CV V I spent the debut price plus DLCs, which was over €100.
, CV VI with the debut price plus DLCs was close to €200 and now they want us to buy a game, whether basic or Founders for €70 or €130 without DLCs and incomplete, they dream on

start all over?