Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Duuk, Jun 6, 2018.
Paradox games almost always feel like they look as though they're a generation behind to me...
2kqa_b updated a few hours ago for the second time this week. This on top of the day's earlier updates to 2kqa_c, 2kqa_g, and ltest.
... and they play like 10 generations ahead...
Patch incoming. I hope they don't break the Alert button again.
Ehh. That's more a matter of preference.
Yup. I prefer games that play better.
I don’t think one game could cover a “Civ IV” type game and a “Civ V or VI” type game - the former to me seems more like a Sim game and the later seems more like a board game. I think the two styles naturally pull indifferent directions - eg I could see a Civ 4 style game ditching the one leader model and instead having individual leaders and dynasties, whereas I don’t think that would work with a Civ V or VI board game style.
Really, I’d like the option of both styles. I’d like both types of game to exist side by side.
I want a Civ VI / board game style because it’s more accessible - not dumbed down or lacking complexity, or even more “casual” (whatever that means). It’s just more... accessible. I’m more willing to have a beer and have a go and kill a few hours here or there, getting through an entire game over a week or so.
But I would like something which was more... well, I don’t know quite the right word. I want to say more strategic, but I’m not saying a board game style isn’t strategic. I guess, maybe more “involved”. Something that is mathematically more complex, and where there is more room for real failure. That sort of game also has much more scope for frustration, which means I’d maybe not pick it up as much. But I would play it and would buy it.
I want to see how Civ VI pans out. Then I’ll have another look. I was looking at EU4, but I’m starting to look at Civ 4 more now.
Hmm. Maybe I’m rambling. I guess I’m just saying I think there’s room for both a Civ 4 style game and Civ 6 style game. Maybe Paradox is the next Civ 4, or maybe that is a whole other thing, and if it is I’d like that to be its own thing too. Maybe FXS should revisit Civ 4 and make it it’s own thing a bit separate to Civ main series, or maybe someone else needs to take Civ 4 forward. I’m fine either way. But what I don’t want is a Civ 7, or Civ VI or any other becoming some horrible mix of Sim style and board game / rpg style.
Well, I'd hoped for something like this before Civ 6 came out.
I can only speak for myself, but I'm back to playing Civ 5, and it's a far more enjoyable experience for me than Civ 6 is. Civ 6 didn't build on the strengths of Civ 5. It's a completely different game. I can understand that some people may enjoy it more, but I don't. There are things about Civ 5 that I'd like to see improved. Vox Populi seems to be tackling some of those things. The changes made by Civ 6 don't address those issues, for me. It just substitutes a bunch of different issues instead, in a package that ultimately fails to delivers to me any "one more turn" feeling.
I do understand that other people really like Civ 6, and for their sake I hope there's new content that builds on that experience for them. But the idea that Civ 6 is ever going to be a game that will be better than Civ 4 and Civ 5 for the people who really love Civ 4 and Civ 5 seems very unlikely to me.
@Trav'ling Canuck You are probably right, but it’s not quite clear to me how Civ V and VI are totally different games (it seems to me more they’re just at different points in their development cycles). Then again, I don’t own and so haven’t played Civ 5 and have only read about it. I don’t see much point buying it just at this point in time, but I’ll look at it again after the next Civ 6 expansion. I might well end up agreeing with you if I end up playing it.
The next patch and expansion will be make or break for me. I sometimes wish I hadn’t got into Vanilla, and instead waited to see what the “complete” version of this game. Although it’s been fun hanging out in this boards.
Like I said before, the development cycle on these games seems nuts. I wonder how much of this is a product of game prices being strangely fixed for so long.
It also seems so nuts to me that I bought a game a bit over a year ago, and liked it, and then through patches and an expansion it’s somehow turned into a game I’m less happy with. I’m mean, I guess it’s not quite like that, but the whole things seems crazy.
I already did. The pantheon is "greatly improved AI."
As someone who started with Civ V and later got into both Civ IV and Civ VI, I want to say: Buy Civ IV, not Civ V. In my opinion Civ V is a (very deep) low in the series because of some very annoying mechanics like global happiness and scaling culture and science costs.
This is basically what happened for Civ V for me, except it happened because I got to know Civ IV and Civ VI (around the same time, actually; I bought Civ IV only a few weeks before Civ VI release to sate my Civ scratch better).
Yeaaah! Why bother with the option to modify gameplay significantly if you can have 256 different civs with 1073 alternate leaders?
As clever it sounds, I can tell you, it is not a bowl of cherries. Especially if you hang around on the boards.
I wonder if the civ IV lovers that dislike V and VI are happy with a game like Aggressors: Ancient Rome. It's far more complex than the last two civ games, and has the civ IV feel to it (although it is different in many ways). It's not a direct competitor though, since it is limited to classical antiquity.
I can see them supporting that type of game in the medium future: they just need to release the DLL source, we'll do the rest.
And the sacred relic is the Holy Band-Aid.
As someone who started with Civ 1 and has played every game in the series, I can state with certainty that some people prefer Civ 4, some prefer Civ 5, and some prefer Civ 6.
This is part of the reason why, despite the continual improvement model being a better one in many ways for many games, I expect Firaxis will continue on to Civ 7. Each new iteration could potentially sell to the whole community. New expansions for Civ 6 can't.
This is also part of the reason I believe Firaxis needs to re-set the series with a re-boot.
Agree, but it will require an entirely new game engine and some serious thought given to implementation.
Hmmm... looks like a nice game... Honestly, the only paradox game I've played is stellaris, and I can't say I was overwhelmed by it ;-(
Have I been missing out on great games ? I've heard quite a few of you talk about EU:4, but...
How hard do you think the learning curve is going to be if I wait for Imperator:Rome to come out ? As a neo-paradox gamer, but also as a veteran of Civ games from CIV 2 onwards ?
***EDIT: I mean, should I try EU:4 to get a better understanding of how paradox's games feel and work, will it make the learning curve lower for Imperaotr:rome ? or is it too early to tell ?
Isn't every civ game already a reboot? Its not like there is a continuing storyline.
Why do Paradox games always look like they've been slapped with a heavy desaturation filter?
At least we have nice music, right?
I want my war themes back.
I love the era specific music of VI, but damn do I miss the wartime music. Being at war should inspire a different feeling than peace time.
Separate names with a comma.