Civ 6

Even with the multiple movepoints in was a nightmare moving every.goddamn.unit. And in the right order, otherwise they would get stuck behind the ones in front.

Click to expand...

Yep. As much as people moaned about SODs, at least it was easy to move. The carpet of doom, not so much. The order aspect, as you pointed out, was the most frustrating.

Graphics - last thing I would be worried about in Civilization game. Overall game strategy depth and smartness of AI are most important IMO.
OTOH better AI means more waiting time between turns and more lag during turns. Interesting how will they balance this, if creating good AI plus smooth gameplay was their intention. Right now I feel like they intend to make game playable both on PC and mobile devices, which means no depth and no strong AI.

I’m with everyone who said that they will wait to see what early adopters here think of VI before making a decision.

I was very lucky, years ago, to have friends recommend Civ1 and later CivII to me. Later, a lot of people I knew on Apolyton and here gave CivIII the thumbs down, so I didn’t buy it. Reviews for Civ4 were good, so I bought that. Reviews for V were bad, so I didn’t buy. I see no reason to change my buying patterns now.

GKey said:

Right now I feel like they intend to make game playable both on PC and mobile devices, which means no depth and no strong AI.

Click to expand...

I read some other similar comments about mobile devices in the VI threads. I've not seen anything specific in that regard in the press release, so not sure where folks are getting that idea from. Graphics? Anyway, if that is really the case, then that is certainly very disheartening if true. No way they can create a true and complete version of Civ if it is designed for mobile devices..that's for sure.

It's fine if they create a mobile Civ game, but that should be a completely separate entity.

^^ Haha, yep my assumption about mobile devices born from the look of posted screenies. And this right after I stated I don't care about graphics. OTOH, why would they come with such cartoonish models otherwise? Let's hope they are going to present game with strong AI and interface smooth enough to please even TMIT (never going to happen ).

I think the assumption that it's designed for mobiles is somewhat revealing in terms of the graphics. A large share of the reason people aren't too keen on the graphics is that it looks somewhat similar to a style that's generally been more associated with mobile games, and as such is a style which is automatically associated with simpler games. That share of the disdain for the graphics is not due to the graphics themselves, but due to what it is thought those graphics say about the game. That is, a large share of the vitriol aimed at the graphics seems to actually be vitriol aimed at what is assumed to be the simplicity of the game. But there's no actual indication of that type of simplicity that we've so far seen. It's simply an assumption by association.

On the other hand, a lot of the complaints about the graphics are simply aesthetic, which I get. They're not my cup of tea either. It'll be interesting to see what it's like staring at such a lush green world for hours at a time. But complaints about aesthetics are surely pretty minor. There have always been prettier looking games than Civ. Not many people play for the graphics, or refuse to play because of the graphics. It would be intriguing to simultaneously lament the graphics themselves as a deal-breaker and say that you're really after a complex/deep game. If the concern is the latter, graphics are entirely irrelevant, except to the extent to which they suggest a simpler game, which suggestion currently has no basis.

If gameplay is good and has enough depth, I couldn't care less about the graphics. Those screenshots do indeed look like mobile games, which could mean that they plan some kind of mobile release, or they are reaching out to the huge audience who is mainly used to mobile games.

I'm a bit worried that no interface elements are shown in the screenshots. There probably will be some, but if they have designed it to be playable on a touchscreen, it might be unnecessarily complicated. As more and more laptops come equipped with touchscreens and we see a lot of hybrid devices, it might be that they have planned the interface around that, which would be bad new for those who prefer mouse+keyboard.

elitetroops said:

I'm a bit worried that no interface elements are shown in the screenshots. There probably will be some, but if they have designed it to be playable on a touchscreen, it might be unnecessarily complicated. As more and more laptops come equipped with touchscreens and we see a lot of hybrid devices, it might be that they have planned the interface around that, which would be bad new for those who prefer mouse+keyboard.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be. The initial screenshots of V that were shown had no UI either.

GKey said:

^^ Haha, yep my assumption about mobile devices born from the look of posted screenies. And this right after I stated I don't care about graphics. OTOH, why would they come with such cartoonish models otherwise? Let's hope they are going to present game with strong AI and interface smooth enough to please even TMIT (never going to happen ).

Click to expand...

Not really fair . It's not like making a UI that doesn't bother me is impossible, it's that Firaxis isn't very good at UI.

Aside from StarCraft 2, games like HOMM III and V, Warlords 3, even Madden (with major football strategy flaws) are better at UI than the Civ franchise. It stands out here because civ games are pretty darned good, and their UI/MP experience lags behind their general standards badly.

Among Civ games I've played (so not Revolution/Colonization), Civ IV still has the best UI by a margin, but even in IV you have the alt/control select bugs and buttons moving for units after you select them (IE take promotion = auto explore), among some misleading or flat out wrong tooltips. That's not some huge standard I'm holding Firaxis to; there are games that don't have lying UI, spotty input buffering, or moving UI buttons as you try to click on them . In those games the UI isn't something that has my attention.

I wouldn't be. The initial screenshots of V that were shown had no UI either.

Click to expand...

I take that as a statement lending credible evidence to worry. V has bad input buffering even now, takes double the clicks to execute basic actions compared to IV, and in vanilla release you could order a "ranged attack" and have your (siege) unit move towards the enemy and not actually attack. Civ VI UI should be considered poor if it releases in vanilla V's state, TBH even BNW state.

TheMeInTeam said:

I take that as a statement lending credible evidence to worry. V has bad input buffering even now, takes double the clicks to execute basic actions compared to IV, and in vanilla release you could order a "ranged attack" and have your (siege) unit move towards the enemy and not actually attack. Civ VI UI should be considered poor if it releases in vanilla V's state, TBH even BNW state.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was just saying I wouldn't be worried that they're heading in some sort of radical touchscreen direction with no traditional UI at all.

Yeah I doubt they'd go that route too.

HughFran said:

Regardless of the logistics of what is realistic and what is not - refusing to play Civ 5 because of 1UPT (which quite a few have stated) just seems bizarre as there are so many other elements to the game.

Click to expand...

Combat is, for me, an integral part of the civ experience. It'd be like if they released a new Elder Scrolls game where you gain XP not for doing stuff but at regular timed intervals. It'd just feel wrong.

6K Man said:

I’m with everyone who said that they will wait to see what early adopters here think of VI before making a decision.

I was very lucky, years ago, to have friends recommend Civ1 and later CivII to me. Later, a lot of people I knew on Apolyton and here gave CivIII the thumbs down, so I didn’t buy it. Reviews for Civ4 were good, so I bought that. Reviews for V were bad, so I didn’t buy. I see no reason to change my buying patterns now.

Click to expand...

You were missing out on Civ III. It improved on everything in Civ II, the only thing it took away was advisers. Though Civ IV superceded it so I would't recommend it now - way too much late game management. Still though, this is the first I've heard of Civ III having a bad rep.

ringwraith18 said:

You were missing out on Civ III. It improved on everything in Civ II, the only thing it took away was advisers. Though Civ IV superceded it so I would't recommend it now - way too much late game management. Still though, this is the first I've heard of Civ III having a bad rep.

Click to expand...

I've heard of it having a bad rep before (albeit on other forums) however I fail to see why myself. Hell I still go back and play it every couple years just to play its scenarios which are something it does better than the scenarios available for 4.

I still play III on occasion as well, especially with some of the stellar mods over there in the forums.

Lurking over in the VI forums has been rather amusing, to say the least. My biggest concern though, is that from every thing I've read, it appears that VI is beginning to appear more like a city management/OCC type of game as opposed to an empire management game.

That was one of my biggest complaints with V, any maps above large were pretty much pointless unless you were playing with a lot of mods active, or a TC.

TheMeInTeam said:

I take that as a statement lending credible evidence to worry. V has bad input buffering even now, takes double the clicks to execute basic actions compared to IV, and in vanilla release you could order a "ranged attack" and have your (siege) unit move towards the enemy and not actually attack. Civ VI UI should be considered poor if it releases in vanilla V's state, TBH even BNW state.

Click to expand...

The lack of UI on the screenshots though wouldn't be at all representative of the state of the UI in the game - it's just that the publicity screenshots are meant to have a more 'cinematic' look. I believe early Civ4 screenshots also didn't contain UI elements.

vincentz said:

Use Google Drive, Dropbox or a third cloud to back up your civ. If you want to find out exactly what changes you have made, use Winmerge http://winmerge.org/downloads/?lang=en with an unmodded civ to see the changes.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip. Now so long as Civ 4 is compatible with whatever OS is the current when this computer dies I will not have to stop playing.

Camikaze said:

The lack of UI on the screenshots though wouldn't be at all representative of the state of the UI in the game - it's just that the publicity screenshots are meant to have a more 'cinematic' look. I believe early Civ4 screenshots also didn't contain UI elements.

Click to expand...

I meant that previous title track record plus no contrary evidence to lead us to anticipate poor UI as more likely than good. Multiple poor UI games in a row and nothing said or shown to offset means we should consider track record for now.

I don't care about the graphics on a CIV game. Regarding gameplay, according to what I read there's some troop combination, and the AI should be better at war. Cities expanding to more tiles while having districts, and tech tree interacting with the map sound interesting.

Overall it looks like it shouldn't be as ridiculously simple as Civ V, but I'll wait until we can see more actual gameplay (and they clearly explain how the tech tree works, because there's a major change there) before making a proper judgement.

I'm cautiously optimistic. The way tech and infrastructure is being handled sounds promising. Embedding specialists and forming armies might go some way to resolving 1upt's issues. You'd think they'll have a half competent AI this time? If there's waypoints, a movement script that can handle nonhostile obstacles, a full multiplayer AI, and an engine that doesn't overheat even on hardware several years newer than the game (and those graphics do look very accommodating to a tablet conversion), it'll be worth my getting the complete edition for £20-odd. £70 for vanilla? Hahahahaha

I still go back to Civ 3 too. The combat in Civ III is honestly my favorite in the series. The railroad wars with huge stacks of infantry, cavalry, and artillery are some of my most fun memories of Civ.