Anyone else quit playing?

[skodkim]

I have never EVER since the release of civ1 not bought a civ release (base game or dlc) before our on release date.

Civ6 broke that track record for me. I'm not going to buy the the new dlcs unless I see some real change in the base game. It has potential but OMG it is in a bad state, unbalanced and boring. Not to mention the AI (or AUI as it should be called in this case).

Oh well, a patch per month and we're good to go in a half year, maybe one year.

\Skodkim

 

[wiggawuu]

sigh. This game sucks man. Not sure what else to say. Not going to sugar coat it anymore. I don't care if they ever make it better blah blah years down the road. They got paid, who gives a hoot anymore. I wish some other company would make civ games. Firaxis has lost its mojo.

 

[Big J Money]

I get this gnawing feeling that Firaxis is losing control of the series, in the sense of good and balanced game design.

Civ VI has so much complexity but it isn't deliberately controlled complexity. And it's not balanced, and the AI can't make use of it. So playing this game feels tedious or boring to me right now and I'm not sure that's fixable. I wish they'd go back to Civ II or III and rebuild from there. Without losing the solid foundation of simple fun. I don't think 1UPT is itself a part of the problem, although I have to admit that AI not competitively playing 1UPT combat is a serious part of it.

 

[WorldWarIV]

I played again yesterday to test out the patch but the feeling is still the same. It's a good builder game with some nice concepts, but it's a boring strategy game. And I wanted a strategy game.

 

[Moriarte]

Does anyone have an example of a sequel with transition to cartoony graphics, which was at least as successful and popular as the predecessor? I am not saying there is a solid connection, just curious.

 

[Lekdevil.NL]

Does anyone have an example of a sequel with transition to cartoony graphics, which was at least as successful and popular as the predecessor? I am not saying there is a solid connection, just curious.

Team Fortress 2?

 

[Ovidious]

I did not quit playing for good...yet. I to have played every Civ since the first one, but this one is ...meh.. This one I quit after three weeks or so of release. I was hoping that version 6 would be a better upgrade to 5, but instead I see silly cartoony leaders and I just did not like the way it plays. Hard to explain, this game also has a learning curve to figure it out.

I guess one point is every time I did the advanced setup and reduced the number of players on the largest map, it kept dropping the AI players right next to me. What the heck?, a large map, hoping to go at least five turns before bumping into someone, but no. I created a big map for growing room. And since every capital seems to be close to me, I either have to go way out for my second city or build close to a potential enemy. "Hey Mr. Human, how dare you build a second city, time to DOW you."

Now maybe I just had bad luck five or six times in a row, but it was enough to irk me and make me not want to play any more. I play on standard, not diety or anything really extreme, but I want a game I enjoy.

Every Civ game since No. 1 I have had the "I can't wait to play it again" feeling, but this one I have not missed in about two months of not playing it.

But I 'll give this another shot over the holidays. I do not want to give up on Civ yet. Maybe one of the patches will make it more enjoyable for me.

 

[Krajzen]

sigh. This game sucks man. Not sure what else to say. Not going to sugar coat it anymore. I don't care if they ever make it better blah blah years down the road. They got paid, who gives a hoot anymore. I wish some other company would make civ games. Firaxis has lost its mojo.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I would love if somehow Paradox started doing civ games. I really like those guys (despite hoi4 fail ), they have very good communication with the fanbase - every week dev diary, often and great patches, constant and dramatic development of their games...

I don't give **** at this point about "give them time to develop the game", no, come on, this is not the first case, for six years people were complaining non stop on the same things, and after six years we get almost no improvements (I'm mainly talking about AI, but also for example diplomacy). They are either cynically unwilling to improve those very important aspects, or criminally incompetent in doing so.

Firaxis way of doing civ games in recent times:
- Ignore major complaints and community's voice
- Introduce new features nobody asked for (or rather: good and cool features, but still less important than fixing the above)
- No communication of any kind with people, whatsoever
- Occasionally, suddenly drop patches (without communication, preview, dev diaries etc like Paradox)... Which avoid all most important, basic problems
- Occasionally drop overpaid DLCs (yeah Paradox also wants a lot of money for them, but most of those expansions are also very good and substantial - also they release gamechanging huge patches for free to balance that)

 

[Zuizgond]

I played again yesterday to test out the patch but the feeling is still the same. It's a good builder game with some nice concepts, but it's a boring strategy game. And I wanted a strategy game.

It's not even a good builder game...

 

[WorldWarIV]

- Occasionally, suddenly drop patches (without communication, preview, dev diaries etc like Paradox)

This one is weird. They didn't do that a couple years ago if I remember correctly. I understand that you don't want to give too much information so you don't have a horde of angry nerds tearing you to shreds when you have to postpone a patch or something but there must be a middle ground.

 

[katanaD]

im getting close... almost 200 hours according to steam

right off the bat.. the game changed the hotkeys from civ 5 for no good reason i can discover. i got over 2000+ hours in civ 5 so it felt like a slap in the face for long time civ fans

i do like the new city system

I also now only start on diety.. but im not sure the diff level actually matters with the AI as it is.

one post i read a few weeks back made me laugh cause it was point on... for a game about history, they sure dont seem to learn from it themselves...

and that could not be truer here.

one thing that was a major request in civ 5 was restart a game with a new map, same settings. it took until the 3rd expansion to get. people loved it. but is not present in their new version???

its almost like they did not allow anyone working on civ 6 to play or know of civ 5. and it almost makes me laugh/cry when i see the tech saying here in civ 6...dont reinvent the wheel, just realign it.. why could they have not listened to their own advice quote??

i love bringing in new features and such, but WHY do we have to start all over again from scratch with UI and gameplay enhancements that existed previously

 

[defected]

https://steamdb.info/app/289070/graphs/

Scroll down to the graphs

So despite the fact there selling thousands of copies each week and ownership numbers are going up about the same rate, as player numbers are going down.

Do you think they realise they've released a complete turkey of a game and do they care?

 

[wiggawuu]

So despite the fact there selling thousands of copies each week and ownership numbers are going up about the same rate, as player numbers are going down.

Do you think they realise they've released a complete turkey of a game and do they care?

They will keep working on it no doubt. There going to release expansion packs at some point. Its pretty formulaic.

I mean, I don't know how many sequels you can keep making to a game. Its like movies now, they've all run out of fresh new ideas so they rehash the same poop over and over. I'm certainly done buying Firaxis games at this point. They used to be such an amazing company back in the day. The civil war games to the simulation games. Sounds like Paradox has surpassed them at this point, but they don't have the capital to expand as a company.

 

[c4c6]

Do you think they realise they've released a complete turkey of a game and do they care?

No, I'm sure, they are absolutely clueless, that you ordered two boxes of game chicken wings ...

 

[idjit]

i love bringing in new features and such, but WHY do we have to start all over again from scratch with UI and gameplay enhancements that existed previously

This. For the love of all that is good, clean and holy, THIS.

 

[Stringer1313]

When people compare with Paradox I get shivers down my spine because I hate EU and all those horrendously complicated spreadsheet games that take a math degree to figure out.

 

[God of Kings]

When people compare with Paradox I get shivers down my spine because I hate EU and all those horrendously complicated spreadsheet games that take a math degree to figure out.

Paradox also made Cities: Skylines, which became much more popular than SimCity (2013), despite the former being a new IP and the latter being a well established IP since 1989 (that EA promptly screwed up in search of finding ways to decapitate the goose that laid golden eggs).

 

[Funababbitt]

I'm getting close to the point of "futility." I want to love the game. There's much about it I really like - districts, and district bonuses are a welcome new addition. I think, for the most part, the great people changes improve the game.

There are however many bugs.
In one of my first games - as all my units were out exploring - I was attacked by Kongo and was defeated. I thought, "this is going to be great." I was wrong. There is a likelihood of one or two Civs DOW early in the game. I loved that. For the most part however, I found the AI becomes very tame. By the mid to late game - nothing.

The "Warmonger" thing has become ridiculous. Even retaliation for a DOW earns universal condemnation. I've simply had to ignore it if I want to enjoy the game at all.

I thought Archaeology was mindless in Civ 5. I think it's mindless in Civ 6. The name of that game is spamming. Culture and propaganda should be capable of being fashioned into a strong strategic concept. When the concept boils down to "tourism" it feels like a weak imitation of Tropico.

Then there are the bugs. The much welcomed, and newly acquired "Alert" button - which should be a critical addition, doesn't work.

I thought with Civ 6 - at long last - England was going to be interesting with its bonuses. The English Sea Dogs are bugged and don't work. I also grow weary of starting game after game, and finding England on a coast with no fresh water in sight. There are too many bonuses that are lost when there are no rivers. This is exacerbated by the missing restart button.

Religion, however, just about spiked it for me. I've never liked the religious element - but in Civ 6, the devs seem to have lost all perspective.
It looked, "on paper" like religion may have come of age in Civ 6 but it - seems to take spamming to new heights. I find it a drag playing a game with Tomyris, spamming more than a dozen religious types onto my territory at a time. I've never attacked one but what I read about the combat bonuses they get and the extra the bonuses to the particular religion made it more unappealing. When I decided to incorporate religion into my strategy, my cities were all converted soon after encountering Tomyris. I unchecked the religious victory condition.

Then however, I found myself trailing in Science - to Civs heavy on Religion even though I have a campus in every city, and mountain bonuses wherever they are applicable. The game offers so many Science bonuses to Religion that the devs have virtually made it an essential element, practically turning Civ into a "different game." I would compare it to Civ 3 where I was astonished to see the AI Civs stacking cities along my borders - only to find that my cities were switching alliance. It was the only Civ game that I abandoned without every completign a game.

My interests are in Domination and Science (where spamming is at a minimum). I'm really just not that interested in playing a game that puts so much emphasis on elements that are either about spamming useless units (archaeologists) to unearth uninteresting relics, or religious units for which the AI has an overwhelming advantage.

So, I am trying to find "the way," to keep playing and engaged - but hope is fading.

 

[ToothedBomb]

I tried out the Poland DLC (I have the Deluxe version, ugh) but quickly found the game annoying and aimless again. I never really know what to do, whether I'm progressing in the right way, and a bunch of the mechanics just annoy me to no end.

I see everyone loves districts, but I don't. I really don't like how Civ VI forces you to build stuff just to open up the ability to do something. It's like they don't want you to actually be effective at anything. Want anything to do with religion? Well you have a chance at one if you sacrifice one of your tiles to the gods! Oh, you find your production lacking? Get to work on that industrial zone! It'll only take 20 turns, and then you can build the workshops and factories you've always wanted! The actual city center must be a ghost town. There's no houses so people don't live there, there's no church, no market, just a water wheel and granary surrounded by some walls. I thought the idea of growing cities outside its original tile would be fun, but it isn't to me. It just means you're limited in what you can do. It's the exact opposite from the new government system. You can always change your cards if you want to go with another strategy. You can pay to unlock them, or wait 10 turns till your next civic. You can't do that with districts. If you make one mistake, you're stuck with them forever, taking up a valuable district slot. I find that awful game design.

I don't like the whole positioning mini-game fun either. Every Wonder has its own placement rules, there's benefits to settling on certain tiles, and you have tot hink of where to place districts. Now, Civ V had quite a bit of this as well, but I feel Civ VI just goes way overboard with that kinda stuff. I don't want to spend 5 minutes figuring out what the best place to put a thing is, considering the stuff I'm gonna build 200 turns from now. I just don't find that fun.

The movement rules suck too. Civ V was already plenty slow, so the devs decided everything should be slowed down even more. Makes perfect sense to me. These new rules buff ranged and cavalry units as well. Those unit types were already plenty powerful in the previous game, but strategy!

I only started playing Civilization games with Civ V (vanilla), so I'm no veteran. I'm starting to feel now that, perhaps, Civ V was just the one single game in this series, or even genre that I'm ever gonna like. I didn't like Beyond Earth either, so who knows, it's possible. Maybe the rules and mechanics in Civ V just clicked with me, and any change they're gonna make to that I won't like. Maybe that's the case. I feel disappointed anyway. Not sure if it's my own fault or that of the developers though.

 

[tnick777]

This game really is just "boring" - I completely agree. I can't seem to get into it. I think one of the BIG things they can do is somehow fix the tech tree so (1) you have a chance to actually use the units you're researching and (2) it eliminates the weird non-synchronicities.