Steam reviews - I kinda figured

[unholyjoe]

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.

 

yes, thus the incentive to get better, or find better weapons.

[Royal Deluxe]

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

[unholyjoe]

Workarround (i dont say that the issue should not be solved)

add 20 Skillpoints to starterquest solve that issue

 

seriously?.... thats GOD MODE at level 1.

 

btw, your ss of base looks interesting.

[Royal Deluxe]

yes, thus the incentive to get better, or find better weapons.

 

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

[JCrook1028]

That just goes to show how bad this patch really is if someone who hated A16 now remembers it fondly in comparison...

 

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?

 

You're not alone. I haven't seen one either.

[Royal Deluxe]

seriously?.... thats GOD MODE at level 1.

 

btw, your ss of base looks interesting.

 

i plan to make one more 2 blocks larger, i guess i make a prefab of it.

[Noctoras]

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 (....)

 

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.

[Ianua]

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.

 

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.

[Davy Crockett]

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 can think of a few ways to make the player character even weaker, so would that make it a better game then?

[Viktoriusiii]

Originally Posted by Ornias View Post

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.

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.

 

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.

[Kage848]

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.

 

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.

[Randomdude]

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 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.

[Randomdude]

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.

 

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.

[Royal Deluxe]

I can think of a few ways to make the player character even weaker, so would that make it a better game then?

 

A18 you start with 1/10 eyesight what set your gammavalue to 0.00001

[Kage848]

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.

 

"7d2d is a good game. Even still."

 

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

[Royal Deluxe]

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.

 

 

So you say that in A16

 

People who wanted the hordenight had a Base against Zombies and optional a Surface or Underground base.

And people who dislike the hordenight had a Underground base.

 

And now in A17

People who want the hodenight have a base against Zombies and optional a Surface or Underground base.

And people who dont like Horde play the wrong game

 

BECAUSE THIS IS A CHANGE DONE BY THE WISH FROM PEOPLE WHO DOESNT AFFECT IT , ONLY TO SCREW OTHERS

[Randomdude]

"7d2d is a good game. Even still."

 

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

 

"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."

 

As dismissive as someone with an agenda...

[Viktoriusiii]

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 to not feel they deserve a thumbs up. The wait has been way too long for what we got.

I had much fun with previous alphas, but they were also flawed, with the promise "it will get better", so when it gets worse (if you tell me A17 overall is better I'm going to laugh. potential sure... with fixes sure... but as it is right now) this is a reflection on more than just this alpha, but on the game as a whole.

 

I do not know anymore if the game is recommendable, as I now doubt if the final product is recommendable.

 

 

A kid that is sat down on the chair and beeing explained what it did wrong also "listens", they just don't see their own fault in it.

I don't think they are bad or malicious people. Just that they are childishly stubborn. And their final product may be 10x better than A16, who knows.

But we bought a game that we enjoyed and they pulled it away, gave us another one and said: "this is the game you liked now!" and when we tell them "no its not" or "I liked the old one" we are just childish, kneejerking and hateful.

 

 

 

 

Okay I'll try and say this with as little emotion as I possibly can:

There are a lot of features that people liked that were removed, changed significantly or made unviable completely.

And they had a VERY clear trend that started with A16:

"Harder, not smarter! Slow it down not more content! Remove, don't fix! Gameplay is the non plus ultra, immersion is an afterthought!"

 

I do not feel anymore like this is a selfconsistent world. Mines on top of cranes, zombies in walls/cupboards/on top of breakable stoneroofs, gps zombies, 3 block jumps, rwg beeing scrambled and more.

 

All these things ruin something that players loved in favour of what TFPs love.

 

And if this were a new game, that might be fine. But you can not make a 180° change and expect the playerbase to still like it. Yes RPG is in the description of the game. But it also says this:

"Improve – Increase your skills in a multitude of active and passive disciplines. 7 Days to Die is the only true survival RPG with over 60 multi-tiered skill and perk groups."

but there are only 45 skills now.

Or it says "strategy". So should players expect the game to now go in a top down perspective?

 

It never was an rpg. And this patch DID do a complete 180° turn. And players are unhappy.

 

This is not an opinion.

I'm not saying making an rpg is bad, but the way they went about it was.

 

And the worst thing is that gazz and sometimes roland can sound EXTREMELY dismissive of criticism. This reflects badly on TFPs.

I only know that fataal takes in criticism. The rest? No idea. unholyjoe SAID they are... but I really don't feel it.

 

 

I start rambling again. This is such a complex issue.

No I don't think they should listen to everything I say. But I wish they would listen more us... no... not listen. But actually take it into account and put their own feels on the backburner.

 

But I'm tired, I'm just rambling. I know that they made it worse, even if some ppl like it. And they try and dismiss it.

[HungryZombie]

"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."

 

As dismissive as someone with an agenda...

 

We can only speculate. Are steam reviews considered serious metrics? I really am not in tune with the Steam scene.

[Royal Deluxe]

"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."

 

As dismissive as someone with an agenda...

Sounds like these people are evil in some way. But wait is it not the whole point of Steam Reviews ?

To say what you think about a game.

 

I have no review simply because i would need to give a thumb down. And that is not what the game deserve for 99%

But i cant give a thumb up if i need a mod to make it honest.

[R0bb0b]

yes, thus the incentive to get better, or find better weapons.

 

There are no better weapons anymore. They've been balanced out.

[HungryZombie]

Sounds like these people are evil in some way. But wait is it not the whole point of Steam Reviews ?

To say what you think about a game.

 

I have no review simply because i would need to give a thumb down. And that is not what the game deserve for 99%

But i cant give a thumb up if i need a mod to make it honest.

 

He's not impugning the integrity of Steam Reviews per-see. It's more an internet thing. People are much more apt to be loud about what they don't like. It often does not mean they are any kind of majority. It does not mean they aren't either but we can only really speculate.

 

I've seen people give a 1 star review because a company would not take back an item after the 90 day warranty has expired and really have the perspective they are not crazy.

[Viktoriusiii]

So you say that in A16

 

People who wanted the hordenight had a Base against Zombies and optional a Surface or Underground base.

And people who dislike the hordenight had a Underground base.

 

This is what I'm talking about and you do not get it, no matter how big bright red your text is:

SURVIVAL SHOULDN'T BE OPTIONAL. IF YOU WANT THAT, MOD IT.

Yes its a bad argument to "simply mod it". But the BASE GAME should not offer you an easy, 100% safe way to avoid survival.

THIS DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF A SURVIVALGAME!!!

If you want to sandbox, there are a plethera of options to do so, but the base game should not give you an out of your problems.

Skyrim has the console to make you invulnerable. But this is not the same as a shout to make you invulnerable.

One is the basegame, one is an option that is outside the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One more try:

why do you think not everyone would try speedrunning glitches to defeat alduin?

Because it is not a mechanic advertised by the game.

You aren't meant to clip through walls.

You ARE meant to use shouts.

 

And in 7d2d you ARE meant to dig. If that makes your base invulnerable, the WHOLE purpose of survival, towerdefense, hordenight gameplay is completely stripped.

 

If I wanted to build underground in A16, I would have to have a huge entrance, stand there and lure them inside.

I like to build huge complexes underground and like to defend them. I couldn'T do that in A16.

 

You can still build underground and as long as you fight the horde above ground, your underground base will not be touched.

 

Or to say this in your words:

 

IT DOES EFFECT MY GAMEPLAY GREATLY!!!

[Royal Deluxe]

IT DOES EFFECT MY GAMEPLAY GREATLY!!!

 

So you builded a bunker in A17 you used in a hordenight ?

 

 

Btw.

Survival is not optional.

Every time you left your base in A16 you could die by zombies.

 

And as i proofed, in A17 you can build passive surface bases that are so safe as a bunker in A16

[Kage848]

I to not feel they deserve a thumbs up. The wait has been way too long for what we got.

I had much fun with previous alphas, but they were also flawed, with the promise "it will get better", so when it gets worse (if you tell me A17 overall is better I'm going to laugh. potential sure... with fixes sure... but as it is right now) this is a reflection on more than just this alpha, but on the game as a whole.

 

I do not know anymore if the game is recommendable, as I now doubt if the final product is recommendable.

 

 

A kid that is sat down on the chair and beeing explained what it did wrong also "listens", they just don't see their own fault in it.

I don't think they are bad or malicious people. Just that they are childishly stubborn. And their final product may be 10x better than A16, who knows.

But we bought a game that we enjoyed and they pulled it away, gave us another one and said: "this is the game you liked now!" and when we tell them "no its not" or "I liked the old one" we are just childish, kneejerking and hateful.

 

 

 

 

Okay I'll try and say this with as little emotion as I possibly can:

There are a lot of features that people liked that were removed, changed significantly or made unviable completely.

And they had a VERY clear trend that started with A16:

"Harder, not smarter! Slow it down not more content! Remove, don't fix! Gameplay is the non plus ultra, immersion is an afterthought!"

 

I do not feel anymore like this is a selfconsistent world. Mines on top of cranes, zombies in walls/cupboards/on top of breakable stoneroofs, gps zombies, 3 block jumps, rwg beeing scrambled and more.

 

All these things ruin something that players loved in favour of what TFPs love.

 

And if this were a new game, that might be fine. But you can not make a 180° change and expect the playerbase to still like it. Yes RPG is in the description of the game. But it also says this:

"Improve – Increase your skills in a multitude of active and passive disciplines. 7 Days to Die is the only true survival RPG with over 60 multi-tiered skill and perk groups."

but there are only 45 skills now.

Or it says "strategy". So should players expect the game to now go in a top down perspective?

 

It never was an rpg. And this patch DID do a complete 180° turn. And players are unhappy.

 

This is not an opinion.

I'm not saying making an rpg is bad, but the way they went about it was.

 

And the worst thing is that gazz and sometimes roland can sound EXTREMELY dismissive of criticism. This reflects badly on TFPs.

I only know that fataal takes in criticism. The rest? No idea. unholyjoe SAID they are... but I really don't feel it.

 

 

I start rambling again. This is such a complex issue.

No I don't think they should listen to everything I say. But I wish they would listen more us... no... not listen. But actually take it into account and put their own feels on the backburner.

 

But I'm tired, I'm just rambling. I know that they made it worse, even if some ppl like it. And they try and dismiss it.

 

I admire your passion that's for sure. You are passionate cause you care. I admire that. I just think TFP want the game to go in a direction you don't.

 

My only issue is someone that thinks the game is good but leave a bad review because they don't like the direction. I just think steam reviews should be, is this game good or not. If you think its still a good game I think it deserves a thumbs up. But that's up to the reviewer, i'm just calling it out as being unfair. I guess that a subjective argument too. Just how I feel.