PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
I know that players tend to play at the upper edge of their competence, but they needn't be "unhappy losers": in single player the game can be ABSOLUTELY tailored to their wishes & liking (& abilities). In heavy contrast to multiplayer.
True, but I also expect that a multiplayer experience would have generally more streamlined features and a much shorter skill curve (since the ability of the other players would determine difficulty--something which can be handicapped or self-moderated by good gamesmanship--as opposed to hopelessly incompetent AI).
Now that is the point, where in a perfect world we would receive the band aid sources and could try making a perfect civ6. But they wont want us to waste our time with such and even more playing that game (and prefer to chase us away) ...
No idea what you're talking about here. As far as I'm concerned, the lack of challenge in the game is due to a lack of real interactivity and choice the further along you go. A player can only play against a clunky, soulless, machine for so long before they get bored from one-sidedness. But adding features which incentivize multiplayer would create interactivity and challenge at every scale; social adaptability would shore up most of the game's problems.
I view the game as "single winner" play. ymmv. Divide et impera!
Also real time management is difficult enough in single player --
Well time management wouldn't be an issue in a faster-paced multiplayer game designed to end in half an hour, an hour.
And I'm sure you do view the game as a single player game, as do many civ fans, because that's how the game has generally been designed for over two decades. That doesn't mean that game still should or will always be with the times. Certain genres, like text-based adventures and collect-a-thons, are generally extinct because they waste players' time in ways that many feel are unnecessary.