The nature of criticism vs para social relasionships

[ColonelHess]

The interesting thing I see a lot these days is this split between two kinds of people, on one hand a group who has issues with the game and wants to share them, and on the other hand a group who want to spare the devs feelings.

Here is the thing, every defence of civ 7 here comes tainted with an acknowledgement that it is flawed and a list of things most people like about it, like its beauty, the issue is that wont help anyone. In the end only through criticism can the game get where it needs to be and the devs achieve a real feeling of success, but it seems to me that defenders are protecting the game the way a loving but bad friend might protect a someone with an eating disorder by getting them pizzia, it might make them happy in the moment, but in the long run your only hurting them you know?

I know some criticism is unfair, but in the end its up to the devs to look through it and decide what to do, even I when working on my game have had feedback that my friends disliked, but I said it was fine, and they were right in principle and I work on it and try to turn it around.

Just some thoughts that I wanted to put out there, I see issues like this in a lot of groups, these days.

Though I have no doubt that the game will be fixed, it will still forever be a black mark on civs record, remember, they asked for £120, and the more you ask for, and the more people pay, the more they have a right to say what they think, while I know you could pay less, it would still be very expensive and my point stands, they more they want, the more they must deliver.

TLDR: The Devs are not your friends, but if you care about them you owe it to them to be chill and give feedback, not cover for the issues the game has and pretend its fine. I'm not telling you to stop objecting to others, rather I think its best you leave your own criticism if you have not already.

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

As my father used to say, a satisfied customer is worth two, because next time he comes back and brings others with him. It's better to have less profit and sell more, because when the amount of demand increases, the curious also increases and they come after what makes others satisfied, because what we all want is to be satisfied with what we buy and so sales increase, profits also increase and recognition increases along with it.

[ColonelHess]

Yea I understand, but in the end it will be fine, the thing I find annoying I must admit is youtubers trying to cover for it, glazing if you will. Just watched a JumboPixel video where the guy said "Its not like im going to go back and play an older game" as if its just so unthinkable, I was not really into civ6 so I played civ5 and 4 for years, and I know lots of other people do as well. But I know why he would say that, because now that Civ7 is out, 6, 5 and 4 are competing with it- "I mean, you would never go back and play those right? That would be sooo silly" wouldn't want to lose those minor producer privileges now by suggesting otherwise :P

Myself, while they update the game and fix it up I will spend my time in Civ6, might even get some DLC if it goes on sale since I have some mods now to cover my distaste for its appearance, or I might just jump into the arms of BG3 again or hit warthunder, who knows.

But I wont give up on Civ7 just yet, despite all the grotesque amount of cover and glazing people give it, I think it will still be good, I just dont want to play the worse version of it right this second, I enjoyed a good few moments in it, when those moments add up to most of the game, that will be the day.

also, please of the love of God, they need to fix the boarder expansion lol

In the end you can also pick out a shill by how they always edge on blaming the game but always end up blaming the audience who paid for it, which is also their audience, its a fine line. I mean one of the things he does is say "Well you knew it would be like this" he said it like 2 or 3 times in the video as if that absolves it, I dont think using shills like that is doing civ7 any favours, that kind of glazing rubs the wrong way.

(Though its possible the guy is just a self-shill and 2K/Civ7 has nothing to do with it, if true thats even worse)

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

Originally posted by ColonelHess:

Yea I understand, but in the end it will be fine, the thing I find annoying I must admit is youtubers trying to cover for it, glazing if you will. Just watched a JumboPixel video where the guy said "Its not like im going to go back and play an older game" as if its just so unthinkable, I was not really into civ6 so I played civ5 and 4 for years, and I know lots of other people do as well. But I know why he would say that, because now that Civ7 is out, 6, 5 and 4 are competing with it- "I mean, you would never go back and play those right? That would be sooo silly" wouldn't want to lose those minor producer privileges now by suggesting otherwise :P

Myself, while they update the game and fix it up I will spend my time in Civ6, might even get some DLC if it goes on sale since I have some mods now to cover my distaste for its appearance, or I might just jump into the arms of BG3 again or hit warthunder, who knows.

But I wont give up on Civ7 just yet, despite all the grotesque amount of cover and glazing people give it, I think it will still be good, I just dont want to play the worse version of it right this second, I enjoyed a good few moments in it, when those moments add up to most of the game, that will be the day.

also, please of the love of God, they need to fix the boarder expansion lol

In the end you can also pick out a shill by how they always edge on blaming the game but always end up blaming the audience who paid for it, which is also their audience, its a fine line. I mean one of the things he does is say "Well you knew it would be like this" he said it like 2 or 3 times in the video as if that absolves it, I dont think using shills like that is doing civ7 any favours, that kind of glazing rubs the wrong way.

(Though its possible the guy is just a self-shill and 2K/Civ7 has nothing to do with it, if true thats even worse)

That's why I have clients who drive 200 km to buy from my business, and they can buy from their doorstep. Respect is also earned.

I also liked having it for some reason I put it on my wish list but I was frustrated to see the game as they made it, I went to see Humankind and I understood the idea of ​​CV, the Eras mechanism is similar, Humankind has 6 Eras and CV has 3, the interface has many similarities, they tried to make a cocktail... but I wouldn't play Humankind even for free, I was full of desire after 8 years to be able to play a new CV VII and I wilted right away 😆 😂
I spent around €142 on CV VI, I just didn't buy Rise and Fall because I bought the most recent scenario Gathering Storm, but I bought all the other DLCs, but there you have it, it was €142 with all the DLCs included, CV V was the same thing, I spent others more, CV IV too but it took years for the DLCs to come out, now I'm going to have to wait a year for that to happen with CV VII which is another CVKind 😅 I'm not going to pay the same amount for the game without DLCS😅? 🥴

[ColonelHess]

In a way what we're getting I guess is the leader pack from civ6 but the civ7 version of it, I do note that they put more effort then normal into each nation which does bring up the value a bit in my eyes, but it still hurts to spend so much on just nations and leaders. It would be more worth it if they gave every nation its own unit models, granted its already impressive and kind of made me like the obscure nation choice they made more because it was interesting to see what their units looked like, but still, if every nation had a full set of custom stuff then I think it would be more worth it.

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

Originally posted by ColonelHess:

In a way what we're getting I guess is the leader pack from civ6 but the civ7 version of it, I do note that they put more effort then normal into each nation which does bring up the value a bit in my eyes, but it still hurts to spend so much on just nations and leaders. It would be more worth it if they gave every nation its own unit models, granted its already impressive and kind of made me like the obscure nation choice they made more because it was interesting to see what their units looked like, but still, if every nation had a full set of custom stuff then I think it would be more worth it.

It could be worth it... the problem is that I don't see myself playing with 3 Eras, I've watched several gameplays and imagined myself playing that way and I don't see myself playing like that, it breaks the rhythm and they also say that the rounds can't be continued at the end, I like to play strategy games from start to finish without interruptions, I'm a fan of strategy games, I have Total War: EMPIRE - Definitive Edition Total War: THREE KINGDOMS CV IV CV V CV VI All football managers but everything is played in sequence without interruptions or be forced to change

[𝔓𝔲𝔰𝔥𝔶]

I even found the idea of ​​unlocking things and leveling up leaders as we play and achieve gameplay objectives wonderful, it gives us another motivation to play more and explore all the possibilities with these bonuses, perfect... the problem is the rest, if there was this option in CV V or VI wow, how wonderful

[ColonelHess]

Yea, I also dislike unlocking stuff, but not so much that it will effect my behaviour in game, as for the Eras I don't recommend you play it now because it will be everything you fear, but having been through all three myself (only once tbf) from that experience I think it would be a shame not to when its fixed, there is also this kind of curiosity at play that makes you want to see what it will be like in the future, and then you want you progress it.

The real killer is those win conditions, they boil every down to a meta game and thats really bad "Oh no! I dont have time to build 5 rail stations" is not a thought you should ever have in a civ game, well not unless you want to do a challenge run, the issue I guess is there is no "normal" run scoring system, its not about the nation, just about the side quests.

I also dont wan to come off like im happy with the era system either, I would have liked it better if it was one long run, I think worrying about people in multiplayer falling behind and making that your main focus is really silly, that said they did also say it was because people dont finish their games, but to be honest alot of those unfinished games are losses where the player knows it over so they start over.

This is why I dont really like to make choices based on stats, while the info is often true the problem is a lack of understanding of why a stat might be low and if it even matters you know? Stats only help when you have a full grasp of what they really mean which seems to not often be the case, you also get bloated stats, like when a small number of people cast a large statistical shadow due to their behaviour and vocal engagement and cause an over reaction from the company/country.

One last thought, I think the idea of the player being a "loser" when their nation is alive at the end is silly, I think it should really just show an analytics screen when you finish. My hope is I can turn off all those win conditions and just play, before finishing up looking over all my numbers, how many live in my empire, how it grew, ect

Again all this winning and losing stuff is really coming from their desire to be an esport.