There ARE a few things other genres do that would automatically make civ better:
- Honest list of working features
- A UI that minimizes the number of rote inputs to do basic tasks
- Passing effort at optimizing for game performance
- UI you can trust to do what it represents will happen (serious, game-altering issue in civ 5 vanilla, but was also in 4 to lesser degree)
- Avoidance of fake difficulty (IE do *not* join the I wanna be the guy genre), particularly hiding gameplay rules or obscuring information that is nevertheless still available. Some of 4's events, quite a bit of 5's AI interactions and UI fall into this category.
- Limiting mundane tasks with little or no thought.
- Matching player incentive structures with the implemented win conditions.
Civ 6 might be a very good game, it might even surpass 4. However track record gives me no reason to trust. Even 4 had some of the above problems, including nonsense like the game "thinking" you're pressing alt when you're not causing insta-declaration of war and forced unit selection...the latter finding its way into 5 too.
No civ game needs that garbage, and removing it would make the series better, strictly better.
Lacking any need for motoric skills, Civilization games are games for the mind. There's graphics, audio and music, but the bulk of the game happens in the mind, the audio-visual elements just helping with immersion.
Mind games are, by default, based on decisions (choices). These decisions have various weights, consequences, effects. Screen-based games, like computer games, have the additional effect, just as my podcast, that the mind game itself (or the audio in my podcasts' case), isn't enough: players need to be entertained by audio-visual and other distractions to fill the void left by the moments that aren't about decision making. This is an inherent defficiency of games that require no motoric skills, because there's no movement or time-related excitement.
The course Civilization 5+ took (and by this I mean to extreme, all civilization titles suffer from this) is the worst-case scenario for anyone interested in the "mind game" aspect of it. Instead of improving (completely revamping) the decision-making aspect of the game, they are constantly shifting around the distractions and other irrelevant segments of the game. I the recording, I call this "the clicking game" - things that you click but don't have any relevant impact on gameplay.
Constantly and decidedly shifting away from it's board game and strategy game roots, the Civilization franchise is turning into a Farmville-like distraction party, with beautifully crafted scenery, screens and buildings, with little else to offer.
In the podcast, I'm covering the history and offer an explanation on why this is happening, I compare it to other games that managed to pull it off and offer insight why or how Civilization 6 could've played.
This lack of strong, decision-based game mechanics and sticking to old, irrelevant ones, is turning out to be (unrusprisingly) an uphill battle for the developers: the AI can't deal with it and thus still cheats, combat is more a drag than fun, gampelay is full of "nothing happens this turn" and the game cannot be ported to other mediums (consoles, mobiles, tablets).
If you don't feel like listening to the podcast while doing something else, Tabarnak was kind enough to remind me of a thread from six years ago in which I was - surprisingly - saying the same thing. It's worth reading through.
def going to watch these. I always love getting to hear an honest take. I mean, I hope this game will be amazing. but all the youtube people that got early access are biased.
This really doesn't need an entire forum post. To save you 45 minutes, summary is: person who hasn't played Civ 6 claims that even if a lot of people like Civ 6 like they did Civ 5, it's a bad game. Nothing (literally nothing--its the same screenshot all the way through) to see here.
I am not a professional youtuber, and it's not a clickbait. I'm actually quite surprised you think it is. I'm not into Civ games anymore, but after watching Arumba's video, I felt compelled to finally react.
Is there a transcript for people who are actually self confident of their own reading and interpretation abilities?
This really doesn't need an entire forum post. To save you 45 minutes, summary is: person who hasn't played Civ 6 claims that even if a lot of people like Civ 6 like they did Civ 5, it's a bad game. Nothing (literally nothing--its the same screenshot all the way through) to see here.
As you mentioned at the beginning, an issue with written text is that some people cannot interpret what they read very well. I don't think Civfanatics are those people, however.
A problem with an audio recording is that everyone processes at a different speed. In general, you need to speak clearly, but quickly. You do not speak quickly, but I can't process it any faster than you speak no matter how quickly I can comprehend. I can't skip ahead because I might miss something.
Instead, I am wasting a lot of time waiting for you to say the thing I have already concluded. And I have to wait just in case you dont say the thing I have already concluded.
A game is meant to be fun. That's it. If enough people find it fun, it cannot be a bad game, by definition.
A design is meant to accomplish something. If the game achieves what it was attempting to accomplish, then it was designed well. Usually that goal includes being popular, which is also often failed. But if that is the only goal and it succeeds at that, then it is a well designed game, even if you personally don't like it.
I will admit that I didn't listen all the way through. If you had made a post, I would have read the whole thing, because I can read quickly. I know that I also comprehend text just fine, but I understand your concern that many people do not.
Unfortunately, it is more important that people even see/hear your argument than that they understand it. You can always explain more in debate.
As you mentioned at the beginning, an issue with written text is that some people cannot interpret what they read very well. I don't think Civfanatics are those people, however.
A problem with an audio recording is that everyone processes at a different speed. In general, you need to speak clearly, but quickly. You do not speak quickly, but I can't process it any faster than you speak no matter how quickly I can comprehend. I can't skip ahead because I might miss something.
Instead, I am wasting a lot of time waiting for you to say the thing I have already concluded. And I have to wait just in case you dont say the thing I have already concluded.
A game is meant to be fun. That's it. If enough people find it fun, it cannot be a bad game, by definition.
A design is meant to accomplish something. If the game achieves what it was attempting to accomplish, then it was designed well. Usually that goal includes being popular, which is also often failed. But if that is the only goal and it succeeds at that, then it is a well designed game, even if you personally don't like it.
I will admit that I didn't listen all the way through. If you had made a post, I would have read the whole thing, because I can read quickly. I know that I also comprehend text just fine, but I understand your concern that many people do not.
Unfortunately, it is more important that people even see/hear your argument than that they understand it. You can always explain more in debate.
This quote alone shows how off the logic was to turn to an audio recording. I would have gladly written it, but after 5 minutes you still hadn't said anything crucial or got to your point. If people interpret your writing (or speaking) wrong; maybe you need to be more concise.
If its surprising you interpreted it because I was a little wordy, I understand. Sometimes I write poorly.
If its surprising you interpreted it because of the argument that most people don't interpret things, I disagree. I like to assume people are smart until they prove me wrong
That's why I make posts on the forums. If I thought people couldn't be reached, what would be the point? Isn't communication the reason we are all here?
As you mentioned at the beginning, an issue with written text is that some people cannot interpret what they read very well. I don't think Civfanatics are those people, however.
Each of the gameplay mechanics in Civ5 affected the whole of the game. The only problem was that some parts were so much more influential that the others were essentially meaningless. This is an issue of balance, not of the game mechanics itself. Anyone could easily fix the balance by changing some numbers in a mod.
So if it isn't the mechanics itself, but the balance, how can you possibly conclude that Civ6 is bad in this respect before experiencing the balance?
And thank you for the summary.
Edit: I responded before you edited your summary. I think we're having a more basic disagreement.
If you want to play Chess with different rules, that's fine. That is not an inherently better game than one in which you have strategic moves that ALSO look pretty. Some people find the aesthetic interesting on its own, and they enjoy the story that unfolds as their choices play out.
Why is this a problem? Its not the same game. If you want Civ1, you still have Civ1.
Clearly decision making is still a significant part of the game, making a difference as to whether you win or lose, right? So this clicking game is smoke and mirrors designed to distract and create the illusion of more decisions, it's a part of the mind game, and it's best operated when the smoke and mirrors vary from game to game, based on things like, say, terrain.
That's the principle behind civ 5+ is it not? Civ 5 did it poorly, a salt start was a win etc. Civ VI we don't know enough about in this regard, but the key to refining this element is time invested in balance. It is not fundamentally wrong, which is the impression i get from you. Gaming is not a dichotomy of Chess and Ping Pong.
Edit: I responded before you edited your summary. I think we're having a more basic disagreement.
If you want to play Chess with different rules, that's fine. That is not an inherently better game than one in which you have strategic moves that ALSO look pretty. Some people find the aesthetic interesting on its own, and they enjoy the story that unfolds as their choices play out.
Why is this a problem? Its not the same game. If you want Civ1, you still have Civ1.
No, we don't disagree on this one. I don't want chess and I don't want civ1. I want a brilliant *and* pretty game. Distractions are welcome, I want them. They make the game more fun.
Distractions aren't the problem. I have 1900 hours in Civ5, yet, I can find you perhaps 10 decisions per game that made an actual impact my every win.
Let me put it this way. Civilization is about building a house brick by brick. You can't really see if you built four windows until you laid all the bricks and finished that side of the house. And then a tank comes and wants to run over your house. Would you rather be worried about which brick goes where, or be able to tell "gimme a wall with four windows here" and then worry about where to place a bunker?
Because this is what happens.
And both the tank mechanics suffer and the house-building suffers. Oh, but you can choose to put in darkened windows now. With flowers in front.
A good idea with these sort of videos/podcasts is to listen to them at double speed. 22 minutes or so is just at the edge of doable for me. I would have nevertheless had a little script as you seemed to repeat some points and could have used a bit of tightening up. But in general, I also prefer text over video or audio, you can scan so much more easily (and you will get more responses, though not all may have read everything, I give you that).
As for your content. Going full on "decisions" would result in a game where you would sit in your throne room and then you get questions thrown at you which can result in this or that. It'd be essentially a role-playing game, no?
What you don't take up is what one may call the "settlers"-factor. If you've ever played the Settlers series (and which is also true for a lot of economic simulators) is the satisfaction you get for building a house and then watching it work, the farmers farming, the trade routes flowing and so on. This awe-inspiring empire builder is what civilization is about. Of course, war and other civs are just an interruption to that which creates the "slow turns" you speak of.
Essentially, you plead for minimizing micromanagement opportunities, and I can concur to that because that would only leave the most relevant decisions. But some people like micromanagement, I don't know for what reason though
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Read and (surprisingly i guess) interpreted.
