Impact of Play Time on Reviews

[Rasinon]

I decided to filter the reviews for this game based on the number of hours played. This is what I came up with:
0-1 hrs: 19% Positive (Overwhelmingly negative)
1-5 hrs: 59% Positive (Mixed)
5-10 hrs: 71% Positive (Mostly Positive)
10+ hrs: 73% Positive (Mostly Positive)

There are two possible explanations for this:
1) People are review bombing the game before they've had a chance to properly experience it.
2) People are so disgusted with what they are seeing with the game that they stop playing.

Honestly both scenarios are probably going on simultaneously. I don't get to play until next week so I don't have a dog in this fight but I just thought the numbers were interesting.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by Rasinon:

I decided to filter the reviews for this game based on the number of hours played. This is what I came up with:
0-1 hrs: 19% Positive (Overwhelmingly negative)
1-5 hrs: 59% Positive (Mixed)
5-10 hrs: 71% Positive (Mostly Positive)
10+ hrs: 73% Positive (Mostly Positive)

There are two possible explanations for this:
1) People are review bombing the game before they've had a chance to properly experience it.
2) People are so disgusted with what they are seeing with the game that they stop playing.

Honestly both scenarios are probably going on simultaneously. I don't get to play until next week so I don't have a dog in this fight but I just thought the numbers were interesting.

The tough part with this is it's all based on whether or not I would recommend it. And the reality is (as with any game), the answer is yes and no. There's just too many factors that play into it.

That being said, have I personally enjoyed it? Yes, despite the flaws. Would I recommend it in its current state to everyone? No.

[Literally Me]

Most of the positive reviews I've looked at are also riddled with all the cons. Regardless, it's pretty clear game was not ready to launch in its current state.

[Jinshushei]

Review bomb? Hardly, these are actually some of the best descriptive reviews I've seen. I was excited about this game, but I knew with the disaster that was Civ 6...the future was looking bleak and here we are. I'll come around and buy it when it's $20 in a couple months and IF they return all the missing features.

[misesfan]

Given the fact that only the most rabid fans are willing to pay $100+ for advanced access, and they have a 2 hour window in which to refund that purchase - negative reviews are going to be played in shorter time spans.

[strategic_panda]

That’s what you call survivorship bias.
A good game should be able to show its appeal within the first two hours.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Rasinon:

I decided to filter the reviews for this game based on the number of hours played. This is what I came up with:
0-1 hrs: 19% Positive (Overwhelmingly negative)
1-5 hrs: 59% Positive (Mixed)
5-10 hrs: 71% Positive (Mostly Positive)
10+ hrs: 73% Positive (Mostly Positive)

There are two possible explanations for this:
1) People are review bombing the game before they've had a chance to properly experience it.
2) People are so disgusted with what they are seeing with the game that they stop playing.

Honestly both scenarios are probably going on simultaneously. I don't get to play until next week so I don't have a dog in this fight but I just thought the numbers were interesting.

There's Option 3 as well. The game doesn't load or crashes almost immediately for many players. So I wouldn't chalk it up to review bombing. More like the game bombed and people can't play it.

[Wolfier]

I'd like to point out that there is tales of crashes. Generally speaking people who are less tolerant of crashes are going to end up in that first category while those who are more tolerant are going to land in groups 3 and 4.

[skunkno1]

I have about 7 hours in and at this point if I had to write a review I would not recommend it, but really I'm waiting to see how things pan out before making a final verdict.

Edit...I've played almost 7 hours, not 4 as originally posted.

[Fluke]

Humankind has all 69% positive all languages at 2+ hours.
Saying Civ 7 is liked as much as Humankind is not good praise.

Review bombing is when something gets reviewed for reasons other than gameplay.
Read the reviews, they are all about gameplay and UI.

I just don't understand why they don't give people options. Why not give the option to keep your civ but still pick bonuses of another civ? That would have made everyone happy and been very easy to program.

They let you keep your leader so it makes no sense. Shouldn't you have to swap your leader as well? Is Hatshepsut leading an army of tanks and helicopters realistic?

[Estwing]

I was so excited to play this, seen mcwhiskey's live stream and asked for a refund instantly, why so unfinished? :( telling us its going gold and ready to launch on all platforms from day 1... how can they say that? This is like when your parents are not angry, they are disappointed.

[J4MESOX4D]

My tolerance levels are not as good as they once were in this industry and with this being a £90 game from a longstanding and highly established series, any shortcomings are less forgiving. I can see why a lot of users may duck out quickly, leave a negative review, obtain a refund and move on. They could easily come back a year down the line and get the game and any expansion(s) for cheaper than the early access price is now and come back to a better product overall.

Even if someone has an hour on record, that doesn't mean they didn't have a torrid experience with things like the UI and a clear lack of content. Someone with 20 hours on record may be seen as easily pleased and rating the game under the games future 'potential' and whatnot so their review could be deemed less credible than someone who has barely played.

Either way, a series of this nature should not be releasing a game in such a poor state especially of the back of a very successful game. It's staggering how games like this can't build upon predecessors success and it's always two steps back and two years of them trying to get back to square one.

[micdy]

game is ton of fun, i cannot stop playing.

[ReMaKc]

I feel like the core game of civ 7 has gameplay issues, it just doesnt feel like normal civ. Just a different version of civ 6 with wierd mix combinations of leaders and civs. There are some good things too but alot of stuff doesnt make sense and it feels like if someone tried to bake a cake just throwing random ingredients into a bowl.

[bshock]

The game is great. It has some issues, like most new releases, but it's overall core mission succeeds.

Some people may not like the game and that's fine but I honestly believe there was a gross overreaction with the initial reviews and people acting like Firaxis set out to destroy their family. Par for the course on Steam unfortunately.

[Glimmer]

Game's fun. It has promise.

But the issue is, it feels like they released it as incomplete. We don't have Teams in multiplayer, the icons for units when purchasing/creating is a simple white icon that looks like the free clipart you would use back in grade school for your projects, etc.

I mean, look at Civ V. Every unit had a unique detailed bit of art. It's clearly a HUGE step back in VII to make them so simplistic.