PC Steam reviews - I kinda figured

The two top voted reviews on steam (since A17 launch):
*edit* none of the top voted positive reviews are for A17. Not ONE.
Click to expand...
As much time you spend on these forums trying to convince others how bad 17 is you could have mod it to what you like. TFP can't please everyone let alone every aspect of gameplay. Every version I have had things I don't like and I turned to modding to make it more like what I want to play. The latest version with modlets gives us the most control we have ever had. If you're looking for a vanilla game that pleases you with every aspect it's not going to happen.

 
A17 basically nullifies both underground mining and underground base building, and for what? What is the payoff here? I don't see it. They bottleneck players into killing zombies with poor battle mechanics. Tail wagging the dog: "A minor or secondary part of something controlling or dominating the whole or the main part"
If someone dislikes the digging aspect and dislikes being able to hide in a bunker or impenetrable fortress, and places more value into shooting zombies, then there are a ton of non-voxel zombie games which do that better than 7D.

.
Click to expand...
1) Players motivation:

All players (even surface dwellers) want to go down there and mine or have underground connection tunnels or discover caves or dig for diamonds ... , i.e. want to play with the voxel underground of a voxel game. But for most players the underground offered no dangers, no life, no events and surprises, just dead territory. Boring. Like a totally empty desert without buildings and landmarks. The solution favored by many was zombies digging, because it is dynamic, it makes it neccessary to think about stealth, defenses, escape routes...

2) TFP's motivaton (maybe, assumed):

Surely above player motivation has a part in this decision by TFP. But also the thing that even 2 blocks down already the totally safe underground begins. For a game that has (also) survival in its description a big problem. Survival needs as a rule that you can be safe, but you have to work for it. No work, no precautions => no safety. Do the right thing and you survive.

Imagine the game had a surface zone with no zombies or dangers in it. Would any player put his base anywhere else? Would that make sense in a survival game?

---------------

Now, actually in A17 experimental I have not yet had problems mining underground. What problems do you have? An underground base fit for non-horde-night seems theoretically possible too if you put forges deep enough. More than 45 below ground was safe at one time, not sure if that changed in b240. The critical bit might be the way down to the base, if a zombie spawns at the moment you are climbing down to the base he might follow you and find you even at depth 0. An underground base for horde night, ok, that might look like just as on the surface, but then I don't know if there is much advantage over a surface base.

 
As much time you spend on these forums trying to convince others how bad 17 is you could have mod it to what you like. TFP can't please everyone let alone every aspect of gameplay. Every version I have had things I don't like and I turned to modding to make it more like what I want to play. The latest version with modlets gives us the most control we have ever had. If you're looking for a vanilla game that pleases you with every aspect it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
As much time as you spend on these forums reading and defending TFPs you could have played it and reviewed it for yourself, boosting the statistik.

I can not mod. I never even played modded 7d2d before A17 hit. I always loved the game for what it was.

There were some gripes that I had with the way the devs were set on certain issues (again breaking world design/immersion for forced difficulty is bad for a sandbox where you want to spend 100s of hours), but overall it was enjoyable.

A17 is not. Even once they finetune perkcost and levelgates, traderprices, ressourceharvesting and stamina... the CORE is still one that has no (near) endless gun progression( once you have the mods/can craft them its over), perks are still way less immersive and do not give a gradual progression and can not be balanced so every perk is the same amount of useful in some way.

If they REALLY want to fix this problem, they need to let go of their fallouty vision. This game isn't fallout. It was always more a minecrafty skyrim with guns. But they act like EVERY rpg needs perks and levels and stuff.

They need to undo most of the locking of content. WE CAN SEE THAT THERE IS NOT MORE ENDGAME. Don't try to hide it behidn an extended earlygame grind.

Remove levels, give us back a more seemless progression that is less bound by levels (quality ranges 1-600 maybe add legendary stuff that can only be found) they say they will die on the "no learning by doing" hill, but this is one of the biggest disadvantages, as it focuses everything down to leveling.

I don't want to convince OTHERS of this. I want to SHOW the DEVS, that while there certainly ARE some players who enjoy the new alpha and like certain unpopular changes, but the majority does NOT like those changes.

Yes they play it... not everyone hates it THAT much that they'd rather switch back to A16 (30% of forum players is not representative and I know that) but that doesn't mean they LIKE playing it. Often times we try to power through boring grinds/ games because we hope that there is something just out of reach. Just look at Atlas.

People play it... en masse. With friends on stream or even alone with randoms... because they have hope that there will be more enjoyment lateron.

This alpha is a mess. And yes balancing can fix quite a bit of stuff... but the CORE problem is, that TFPs want this game to be more grindy and less sandboxy. Not "do whatever you want as long as you can survive" and more a "do this for 3 hours so you can do that 3 hours so that you can repeat it until you have a small base".

It is tedious, it is bad gamedesign and worst of all:

they do not care what players think is best. Yes they listen to balancing feedback... but if THEY want something a certain way *cough*forge*cough*levelgates*cough* they will brute force it down players throats... and they have noticed.

THIS is at the core of this alphas issues. I can overlook balancing fixes... I can easily edit the xml to my liking until its fixed.

But I can't edit TFPs.

 
What nerf? I doubled the amount of stone you get before initial release. I seriously doubt its nerfed compared to A16 in terms of how much or how fast you can get resources. If it is, we'll fix that for sure. .
Click to expand...
Not sure about Stone but Iron and Lead is nerfed to hell in A17. You get 36 to 46 raw Iron per boulder (depending on tools, mods and perks), which is a huge nerf from what it was.

 
My impression is that A17 certainly hasn't been bad enough on its own to warrant negative reviews from new players. New players don't know what changed, just like I didn't know anything before A15/A16..
Click to expand...
You don't have to know what changed to know that the first 10 days of the game are super-tedious. First impressions last forever. And when a persistent new player actually wades through the tedium and actually manages to survive to day 7, only to have his little box base destroyed in 10 seconds, his impression of the game is not going to be positive.

 
Brother, I have been here a few years, and I have seen with my own eyes and experiences the reaction each Experimental and each Alpha received. And yes there have been moments, extended moments where people were upset about changes and were vocal but the overall feeling was NEVER this negative before.
Click to expand...
I too have been here a long time and seen many alphas. I am not too sure about whether this is more negative than usual for a new version, though my gut-feeling is this is much more negative. What is definitely true however, is that this is the first ever alpha that I personally felt the game took a huge step backwards in terms of playability and fun. First time ever.

 
The two top voted reviews on steam (since A17 launch):snip
Click to expand...
Steam really needs to rename the "review" sections to "Opinions and Random Thoughts of the Playerbase" with a disclaimer stating that the boards may be used in front-line attacks against any perceived injustice.

For example the first review is not a review but rather a hit piece which should have been posted on the forums instead.

The second review makes sweeping statements and leaves out many very important details - I mean is it actually the ultimate "most helpful" review for the the average player? Even though it's mostly just personal opinion and contains almost no basic details about the game? They make statements based on issues which the devs have already stated they are working to fix but fail to mention this anywhere. The review doesn't even mention graphics, performance or detail any of the basic game-play elements. Some people might find some use from the review but come on - out of tens thousands of reviews this is the best you can do?

That it's been rated "most helpful" is more an indicator of how the steam review system is often used by disgruntled gamers to prove their point rather actually write a truly comprehensive and helpful reviews. Which is fair enough as long as you call it what it is.

 
Well TFP is making changes based on the feedback so perhaps I can too. It IS time for New Year’s Resolutions.

 
Steam really needs to rename the "review" sections to "Opinions and Random Thoughts of the Playerbase" with a disclaimer stating that the boards may be used in front-line attacks against any perceived injustice.
this is not ign. I don't care if the graphics are improved. I don't care if the SI is something incredibly well done (mostly). I don't care that they still develop the game. I want to know if players feel its fun and if its a game still in development, how the dev is percieved to see how likely a good rdevelopment is.


A dev in EA that changes a major part of the game (flyers in ark) and when fans are unhappy shouts "WE DON'T CARE DEAL WITH IT!" Is not someone I trust with continuing to develop the game with the customers best interest in mind.


Same with BF V. If the devs do not listen to players saying "this is not WW2" by doubling down and doing a slandercampaign against those players, I do not buy that game, as they obviously don'T care about the players, but only their wallet.

 


So the review about... the mentioned moderator... is actually something that plays a factor in my buying descicion.

For example the first review is not a review but rather a hit piece which should have been posted on the forums instead.

See previous

The second review makes sweeping statements and leaves out many very important details - I mean is it actually the ultimate "most helpful" review for the the average player? Even though it's mostly just personal opinion and contains almost no basic details about the game? They make statements based on issues which the devs have already stated they are working to fix but fail to mention this anywhere. The review doesn't even mention graphics, performance or detail any of the basic game-play elements. Some people might find some use from the review but come on - out of tens thousands of reviews this is the best you can do?


And yet, nearly 400 players that have read reviews found this review helpful. Have some done that, just to spite TFPs? Surely. Are they the majority? Certainly not.


I love how everyone says "its just an opinion" as if that means there are no good or bad things.


A restaurant sells ♥♥♥♥, unflavoured tofu and hummer.


♥♥♥♥: smells bad, tastes like ♥♥♥♥, is not nutritious and might cause you to get sick


tofu: smells neutral, tastes neutral/weird, is at least not harmful for you


Hummer: smells awesome, tastes awesome, not harmful/maybe beneficial, (animal was killed :D )

 


To say that ♥♥♥♥ "isn't bad because at least no animal died for it" is ridicoulus.


Yes you can like different things. You have the right to. That doesn't mean it is a good product.


In movies its called "a guilty pleasure". A movie that is overall either not well received or is overall a bad movie (the room/birdemic) but you still enjoy it for your personal reasons.

 


OPINIONS DON'T MEAN THERE ARE NO FACTS.


The game IS more tedious. You may like it because you feel its more rewarding. I like Ark on x1 while most others play on x10 or higher. Does that mean x1 is totally okay or do I simply like the achievement of finally grinding 10000 iron for my base?


Just in case you were wondering: x1 is way too slow for the general public, but for PvP it is needed, that is why it is the "standart". But you can easily change this with a slider. You do not need to edit xmls or even mod it!

 


Again:


IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION THAT IS NICE. THAT DOESNT MEAN THERE ARE NO FACTS AND EVERYTHING IS AN OPINION WITHOUT FACTS BACKING THEM UP!!!!

That it's been rated "most helpful" is more an indicator of how the steam review system is often used by disgruntled gamers to prove their point rather actually write a truly comprehensive and helpful reviews. Which is fair enough as long as you call it what it is.

And there is something wrong with showing other consumers that the dev has done something they dislike strongly? I haven't seen a massive campaign saying "lets go review bomb steam!" as it was the case with Ark.


Just because you do not understand, doesn't mean its baseless rumbling for the sake of complaining.
Click to expand...
Done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing is going to be proved one way or another until at least February.

Alpha 17 probably won’t be viewed as beloved until Alpha 18 is released ;)

 
When you have a build A16 for over a year and a half , it become the norm, in fact it becomes what people think 7d2d is. For me it was the only version I new, wouldn't be surprised if that is the case for so many too. You then cant expect to move it in another direction and say years ago we had different plan and A16 wasn't it.

A certain % of the player base especially the builder types wont accept it. So saying oh people have it in for 7d2d is like saying its fake news! Sure some people may be upset because they had to wait so long for the A17 to happen, expectation was actually fairly high, because a lot of people liked where the game was in A16 so when it changed its not hard to see people getting upset.

People mostly only leave bad reviews when they stop playing the game. They stop playing the game when its not fun. So even if 20k people are playing atm a lot of people have stop playing enough to share there unhappiness.

A lot of time energy and thought was put into A17 its not hard to see and if I was one of the team at TFP I would be a bit shocked by the response too. But please don't shoot the messenger! I have been playing PC games since the early 70's (before most even had a PC, or even new what a computer was) I have seen games rise and fall some very big games with massive numbers only to loose their player base because those choose not to listen, made big sweaping changes only to see the player base leave it.

There is nothing wrong with the game at present for those that like it, it will keep on going but you cant expect not to get some fallout (haha) from the ones that don't...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you have a build A16 for over a year and a half , it become the norm, in fact it becomes what people think 7d2d is. For me it was the only version I new, wouldn't be surprised if that is the case for so many too. You then cant expect to move it in another direction and say years ago we had different plan and A16 wasn't it. A certain % of the player base especially the builder types wont accept it. So saying oh people have it in for 7d2d is like saying its fake news! Sure some people may be upset because they had to wait so long for the A17 to happen, expectation was actually fairly high, because a lot of people liked where the game was in A16 so when it changed its not hard to see people getting upset. People mostly only leave bad reviews when they stop playing the game. They stop playing the game when its not fun. So even if 20k people are playing atm a lot of people have stop playing enough to share there unhappiness. A lot of time energy and thought was put into A17 its not hard to see and if I was one of the team at TFP I would be a bit shocked by the response too. Please don't shoot the messenger! I have been playing PC games since the early 70's (before most even had a PC, or even new what a computer was) I have seen games rise and fall some very big games with massive numbers only to loose their player base because those choose not to listen, made big sweaping changes only to see the player base leave it. There is nothing wrong with the game at present for those that like it, it will keep on going but you cant expect not to get some fallout (haha) from the ones that don't...
Click to expand...
The problem is there is more that have been around a lot longer with support of this great game. Every version I have seen the forums go nuts then the next one comes out and the last one is all of a sudden the best ever. The real problem here is most don't like change and if you don't like change then EA games is not a good investment of your money.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing is going to be proved one way or another until at least February.
Alpha 17 probably won’t be viewed as beloved until Alpha 18 is released ;)
Click to expand...
It's funny is 17 is the first time I have loved the new version from the get-go that goes back to version 9 when I started.

 
I don't subscribe to the notion that longtime players have been supporting the game for a long time. At best we gave some friends some copies or talked them into buying it. In the grand scheme of things, our value to the pimps is not too much greater, if at all, than that of a brand new player.

 
I don't subscribe to the notion that longtime players have been supporting the game for a long time. At best we gave some friends some copies or talked them into buying it. In the grand scheme of things, our value to the pimps is not too much greater, if at all, than that of a brand new player.
Click to expand...
Huh, that would be something interesting data. I know that I've gotten 5 people to buy copies over the years based on my recommendation. I wonder what the average is.

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