PC Steam reviews - I kinda figured

Moderators are to blame for the crying we now see regarding underground bases. So many people were handed bans on steam forums for “gameplay bashing” when calling out cheese tactics so it's only fair people living on bedrock thought it was OK to bypass a main mechanic.
Now the devs have fixed it we have tears from people that have spent the last 4 years playing this game on bedrock. Maybe next time let cheese tactics get called out so there is no shock when they get patched.

Ark never banned people calling out exploits or cheese tactics and when they patched those tactics no one complained because they all knew they were gamey af
Click to expand...
In A14, A15, A16 i had a very immersive bunker, no forced horde, no benefits.

Now i have that

4F4CABE898363931FE1D81A6A69E841CE7AD6668


* It feels not Immersive

* I can go afk

* Or i can make 4 Level in each hordenight without any risk

- But i cant longer build mega scyscrappers from Bedrock on

- And every Base in PVP is soon seeable by the holes in ground

What a advancement

 
You had a point until you said, still a good game. That's my point. I think a lot of the steam reviews are people using it as revenge to tfp for not making the game the way they wanted it. If its "still a good game" your words and you leave a negative review because alpha 17 was worse than a16 your doing a real disservice to potential future players. Your giving a bad review to a game you admit is good.
Now I'm not specifically accusing you of this but I bet a lot of the reviewers are.

Maybe I was a bit harsh to say to ignore steam reviews. But whenever I read them they are 90% pointless ramblings about another early access survival game, or some other crap like that. In sure there are well thought out reviews in there. But there buried by the hate.
Click to expand...
I still have a point. I'm honest. Its still a good game. It is.

But it is definatly worse than A16 in a lot of ways that even mods cant fix and the devs are reluctant to listen, because they "have a plan for the game".

It got to the point where I do not recommend any of my friends to play this game anymore. I regularly did before, even if I disliked some changes, it was still a great game at heart.

Now its a tedious sluggish mess that has removed its greatest strengths (building(might come back with new updates) ,learning by doing, good progression through 1-100 skills and 1-600 quality, and more) which also has worse performance.

Saying that people who give that a negative review after loving the game to bits in previous versions is wrong.

If a game goes down in quality, those who have played the game should NOT sit idly by and just accept it, because its still a good game. It is not spiteful, hatred,kneejerk reactions or mobmentality that drives those reviews (well maybe some) but that the game is OBJECTIVELY worse. Some might still like it better. But some people like those weird japanese rotten eggs. That doesnt mean they are on equal foodquality as lobster.

I know that there are people who don't mind the changes and even those who like them.

But those two groups are neither the majority, nor do they have best arguments.

"it feels new" "I like slower progression" and "I only played A17 but I like it" are not objective positive things that withstand scruteny.

"new" will fade.

"slow progression" is nice, but as we have been "raised" by the game to enjoy faster rising to the endgame, all you did was stall the game, as you still do not have an endgame. You didnt add anything, just made it feel slower.

And I don't think I have to say why new players liking it is not an argument.

7d2d is a good game. Even still... But that only means theey didnt manage to destroy it completely, not that A17 is good. ;)

 
How does playing at bedrock affect you? As a solo player it is nice to have a base to craft and forge in safe from the constant maintenance of an above ground base.
Click to expand...
We've been trying to communicate this simple idea to TFP for about a year and a half now. For some reason they think that eliminating bedrock base option made the game better. They are wrong, but they will never admit it.

People who want to build above ground gained nothing from the change. People who want to build below ground lost that option. The only people who gained anything are the ones who don't build below ground themselves and don't want anybody else either. In real world people like that are usually referred to as ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s.

 
same ♥♥♥♥ diffrent day.the game needs to be balanced and FUN without taking any specific perks or finding any specific loot items.

if i NEED to level up motherload for gathering to not be a complete grindfest... thats broken.

if i NEED to take the pack mule perk because as it turns out having a smaller inventory isnt fun...

if i NEED to level up melee for it not to take 5-6 hits to kill somthing...

balance these aspects of the game to be enjoyable instead of tedious at level 1 first, then go from there.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more. If it doesn't suck to begin with then there is no reason to take the perk to make it better. IMO it HAS to SUCK and SUCK HARD at first.

 
I couldn't disagree more. If it doesn't suck to begin with then there is no reason to take the perk to make it better. IMO it HAS to SUCK and SUCK HARD at first.
Click to expand...
yes, thus the incentive to get better, or find better weapons. :)

 
yes, thus the incentive to get better, or find better weapons. :)
Click to expand...
If you start with 90% and by perks and stuff you can reach 150% in 300 Levels you will do it.

If you start with 20% and by perks and stuff you can reach 300% in 300 Levels you will do it.

For me the only differenze is that i do the first hundrets of times with fun.

and the second i allready stoped doing it

 
That just goes to show how bad this patch really is if someone who hated A16 now remembers it fondly in comparison...
Click to expand...
Or maybe, just maybe, it shows that some people just like to moan.....

- - - Updated - - -

Am I the only one who hasn't seen a floating poi like, at all since experimental was released?
Click to expand...
You're not alone. I haven't seen one either.

 
There comes a moment when you have to decide between having a full on sandbox game or having an actual survival game. This game is a survival game (....)
Click to expand...
Maybe, but just for mere survival instruments and especially physics, weapon handling and more there are better games out there. What made 7D2D so outstanding was the combination of the sandbox and survival genres. To me it's a pity that it currently is heavily leaning towards one side of the coin. I do accept, that different people have different opinions, so maybe it's just not my cup of tea.

I got many times my money's worth from the game anyway, so you won't hear any real complaint from me.

 
Why are underground bases inconvenient now? Shouldn't it be possible to make them quite safe?
1) Built near to bedrock

2) Invest in stealth

3) Add a field of spikes and in later game shotgun turrets directly above on the surface to get rid of screamers.

4) Optional: Put forges somewhere else if you have too many.

Has anyone tried that yet and failed? Stealth alone should make you exeptionally safe down there except for horde nights.
Click to expand...
Hubby and I tried it and ended up with a HUGE zombie hole filled with zombies, which we then had to climb down into to deal with. They dig outrageously fast.

 
I couldn't disagree more. If it doesn't suck to begin with then there is no reason to take the perk to make it better. IMO it HAS to SUCK and SUCK HARD at first.
Click to expand...
I can think of a few ways to make the player character even weaker, so would that make it a better game then?

 
Originally Posted by Ornias View PostHow does playing at bedrock affect you? As a solo player it is nice to have a base to craft and forge in safe from the constant maintenance of an above ground base.
Click to expand...
We've been trying to communicate this simple idea to TFP for about a year and a half now. For some reason they think that eliminating bedrock base option made the game better. They are wrong, but they will never admit it.
People who want to build above ground gained nothing from the change. People who want to build below ground lost that option. The only people who gained anything are the ones who don't build below ground themselves and don't want anybody else either. In real world people like that are usually referred to as ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s.
Click to expand...
I tell you why.

Think of Skyrim. Now think that the first shout you get is a powerful "kill every enemy you meet instantly" shout.

Now enemies are worthless, nearly every other shout is worthless and basically 1/3rd of the game is basically gone.

"You don't have to use it! Why do you want to remove that shout? People enjoy that shout! How are people that dislike that shout negatively impacted?"

This is basically underground building.

You completely ignore the main incentive of the game. Namely: hordenight.

If you dislike the hordenight, disable it.

A survival game where survival is optional is not a good game.

And no its not less of a sandbox because of this.

You can still build underground that is safe 6.5 days of the week, but then you will need a base above ground to fight off the zombies on hordenight.

That is all.

It is rare that I agree with TFPs, but this is certainly one point that I agree with them.

 
I still have a point. I'm honest. Its still a good game. It is.But it is definatly worse than A16 in a lot of ways that even mods cant fix and the devs are reluctant to listen, because they "have a plan for the game".

It got to the point where I do not recommend any of my friends to play this game anymore. I regularly did before, even if I disliked some changes, it was still a great game at heart.

Now its a tedious sluggish mess that has removed its greatest strengths (building(might come back with new updates) ,learning by doing, good progression through 1-100 skills and 1-600 quality, and more) which also has worse performance.

Saying that people who give that a negative review after loving the game to bits in previous versions is wrong.

If a game goes down in quality, those who have played the game should NOT sit idly by and just accept it, because its still a good game. It is not spiteful, hatred,kneejerk reactions or mobmentality that drives those reviews (well maybe some) but that the game is OBJECTIVELY worse. Some might still like it better. But some people like those weird japanese rotten eggs. That doesnt mean they are on equal foodquality as lobster.

I know that there are people who don't mind the changes and even those who like them.

But those two groups are neither the majority, nor do they have best arguments.

"it feels new" "I like slower progression" and "I only played A17 but I like it" are not objective positive things that withstand scruteny.

"new" will fade.

"slow progression" is nice, but as we have been "raised" by the game to enjoy faster rising to the endgame, all you did was stall the game, as you still do not have an endgame. You didnt add anything, just made it feel slower.

And I don't think I have to say why new players liking it is not an argument.

7d2d is a good game. Even still... But that only means theey didnt manage to destroy it completely, not that A17 is good. ;)
Click to expand...
Hey, your well within your right to tell people not to play it. But let's be honest here, what's a review for? To tell people if the game is good or not, thats a review in its simplest form. You have said multiple times you think the game is good. You think A17 is worse than A16 and because of that you think it's ok with give a bad review? Do you see what I'm saying here.

Person comes to you and asks, hey whats that 7 Days to Die game all about? You say it's a good game but the last update was worse than the one before it? Or do you justy say stay away? I think the former is much more honest. If you don't tell you friends its a good game then your being dishonest. You said it's still a good game.

"But it is definatly worse than A16 in a lot of ways that even mods cant fix and the devs are reluctant to listen, because they "have a plan for the game"

Purely subjective. And the devs do listen, you just don't like what they have to say. That's two different things and you saying the devs dont listen is simply a lie. Unless by listen you mean just do whatever you say. But that's not how this thing works.

Im truly sorry the game has changed for the worse for you, I really am.

 
I couldn't disagree more. If it doesn't suck to begin with then there is no reason to take the perk to make it better. IMO it HAS to SUCK and SUCK HARD at first.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. If you're making a "fun game" that gives you a horribly gimped character and your job is to grind all day to gain "perks" to make him "normal", that's just horrible design right there.

 
Person comes to you and asks, hey whats that 7 Days to Die game all about? You say it's a good game but the last update was worse than the one before it? Or do you justy say stay away? I think the former is much more honest. If you don't tell you friends its a good game then your being dishonest.
Click to expand...
OMG i couldn't disagree more with this cause I just can't!!!

You go to a stake house.

You eat a very nice steak and go home and tell your lovely wife about it. (why you didn't take her, I don't know, that's not the point)

(Review was positive)

You go again in a couple of weeks.

Your steak is covered in ketchup and is super well done.

Do you go back to your wife and recommend the steak or are you honest with her and tell her you don't recommend the stake anymore.

(Review changed to negative)

Some kids get their $20 from grandma on Christmas.

They have a chance to spend on a Steam game.

Options are limited.

Are you gonna tell him to spend their only $20 on a game that you don't "really like right now" or an overwhelmingly positive acclaimed game.

Would you tell him that because of loyalty or faith in a company, "thing should/might get better".

If the point of the story is HONESTY, you should change your review with each patch and change from the game.

 
OMG i couldn't disagree more with this cause I just can't!!!
You go to a stake house.

You eat a very nice steak and go home and tell your lovely wife about it. (why you didn't take her, I don't know, that's not the point)

(Review was positive)

You go again in a couple of weeks.

Your steak is covered in ketchup and is super well done.

Do you go back to your wife and recommend the steak or are you honest with her and tell her you don't recommend the stake anymore.

(Review changed to negative)

Some kids get their $20 from grandma on Christmas.

They have a chance to spend on a Steam game.

Options are limited.

Are you gonna tell him to spend their only $20 on a game that you don't "really like right now" or an overwhelmingly positive acclaimed game.

Would you tell him that because of loyalty or faith in a company, "thing should/might get better".

If the point of the story is HONESTY, you should change your review with each patch and change from the game.
Click to expand...
"7d2d is a good game. Even still."

That's a direct quote from the person I was talking to.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top