Are negative opinions of Civ6 allowed here?

I appreciate you're frustrated...but hold back on the caps (yelling). It makes it look like anger is overriding you...
Actually not angry at all. Just trying to help people that are having trouble to understand my comments.
 
I agree that there are too many positive reviews on gaming review websites. But that's not a Civ specific problem. I was recently searching a website called Co-optimus to find a 2 Player Couch Co-op Fantasy RPG that I could play with my daughter. The vast majority of the games that turned up in my search results had ratings in the 3.5 - 4.5 out of 5 range. I then looked each game up on Wikipedia to see what the Metacritic scores were in the Reception section. Very few of the games had a favorable score from the player base. This is a gaming industry-wide problem.

Not to take this thread off topic but did you find a good one? I'd love a new Co-Op Fantasy RPG to play over the winter break!
 
I do feel it is a little questionable to reduce strategy in a strategy title. That said, this outcome in civ 6 was not intentional; the developer stated he wanted the opposite (more viable choices, less alpha strats), so perhaps that is an area Civ 6 will grow considerably, even if it is a principle complaint for many right now.
Reducing the strategy is an easy way to get more viable choices -- you've maximized the number of viable choices if you can do anything and still win.

Of course, it means none of the choices are meaningful, but I know at least some developers are far more than willing to sacrifice meaningfulness for viability.
 
It's not a mistake to define it, unless you want to assert that one definition is the only correct one or "more correct" without basis. That's why I asked if I was right with what I put; I wasn't sure. If I slapped a "Civ 6" label on a copy of Rocket League last year, copyright aside almost every civ player would agree that it deviates from the "core" civ formula. Variant physics soccer with cars in an enclosed space is pretty different from making nations to stand the test of time or some such.

So there are clearly at least some things widely accepted as core to the series, that make people choose to purchase civ over alternative options. Beyond "TBS genre with historical theme", I don't have a firm enough grasp of that to say it definitively, so I guessed...hopefully that I wasn't sure was clear at least.

I do feel it is a little questionable to reduce strategy in a strategy title. That said, this outcome in civ 6 was not intentional; the developer stated he wanted the opposite (more viable choices, less alpha strats), so perhaps that is an area Civ 6 will grow considerably, even if it is a principle complaint for many right now.

--------------------------------------------​

I agree it is more difficult in TBS than most genres, with a possible exception for RTS where while the complexity is less, the sheer speed requirement puts even more pressure on its efficiency. Maybe.

However, knowing this, the lack of prioritization it gets is somewhat baffling. There IS more information, and along with that more *important* information the player needs to make use of the game's designed choices. I really do think if Firaxis put out a self-competing title with an excellent UI or a competitor arose that did a truly excellent job of it Civ 6 would struggle to keep pace, and also push that up the priority list considerably.

--------------------------------------------​

It's not that I'm disregarding that it's harder in TBS per se', but rather that such is an inescapable reality of the genre. I don't usually talk about it because 1) previous TBS have done it regardless and 2) there's no way I know of to make information matter less without damaging the gameplay. That said, other games have other things that are harder (MP is much harder on real-time games because the margin for error in net code delays is smaller and the number of potential players is larger). Other games have heavier graphics/physics demands too, and yet they can and should be criticized if they don't meet standards of competition in their respective genres, regardless that it's harder for them than Civ.

Would I say that Call of Duty does its physics better than civ 6 its UI, given the game's respective dependence on these aspects? Yes, that is a fair conclusion, because rarely if ever does the physics engine restrict or hinder gameplay (in contrast to say the first Dark Souls PC port, where areas of the game were borderline unplayable and From Soft got done dirty by a modder trashing the base game with a performance mod. That was no doubt a black eye for the PC port...). For a game so dependent on that working well, that was an awful mistake too.

--------------------------------------------​

Anecdotally, it appears there is a pretty severe bias towards AAA titles in general wrt generous reviews. I would need to look at a large sampling of reviews and concrete reasons reviewers dock one product vs another to confirm the bias exists though.
Sorry, I should've been clearer with the "core" stuff. We agree anyhow (and of course a game as dissimilar as Rocket League doesn't count) - players define what counts as the core, which leads to something that is hard to define across a wide group of people.

Certainly historical re-enactment alone - even if it isn't realistic, is a draw by itself. How do you even weight mechanics against that? You can't! I'm more preferring of mechanics myself, and I don't usually put the effort in to playing at the higher difficulties. This puts me in the easiest demographic really, the poor AI doesn't annoy me because I prefer the spectacle of the game, and while I'm a bit of a history nerd so to speak, 1:1 accuracy isn't my thing either.

I'm not too sure where to go with the rest (to reconcile with the topic of being allowed negative opinions) - I know for a fact you believe they're allowed, and I also agree, and discussing the relative difficulties of aspects of turn-based games development while fascinating will probably not be in the best spirit of the thread, heh.

That said, anecdotally, the media portrays an awful lot of things depending on what you read and where you read it. That's probably a very important topic to discuss at some point, so here's hoping for another "omg biased review thread" or similar at some point so I can raise that bugbear, haha :D
 
I agree that there are too many positive reviews on gaming review websites. But that's not a Civ specific problem. I was recently searching a website called Co-optimus to find a 2 Player Couch Co-op Fantasy RPG that I could play with my daughter. The vast majority of the games that turned up in my search results had ratings in the 3.5 - 4.5 out of 5 range. I then looked each game up on Wikipedia to see what the Metacritic scores were in the Reception section. Very few of the games had a favorable score from the player base. This is a gaming industry-wide problem.

But as far as the "negative comments in this forum [balancing] out all the positive reviews," there aren't that many positive reviews here on Civfanatics, so there isn't any balance on these forums. Most of the opinions here are either negative or ambivalent. Which tells me that most of the people here understand that the game isn't 100% perfect by any means, but it just bothers some people more than others. So people stating negative opinions of the game isn't as much of a problem as certain people repeatedly derailing numerous threads with the same negativity over and over again is. Most of us here are aware the game isn't a 5/5, but there's not much point in stating it repeatedly. NOTE: I'm not referring to you in particular, Lewi11. Now, if people want to write an email to 2k or Firaxis, or post their disappointment on their websites, that might gain a little more traction and be more likely to garner results than it would here.
Yeah, mate. I completely see that side of the argument. I don't like threads being derailed either, negative or positive.

I don't think, in the age of social media, writing an email would gain as much traction as the presence of abundant publicly-viewable complaints. But that is debatable and writing an email is definitely a valid suggestion.
 
Reducing the strategy is an easy way to get more viable choices -- you've maximized the number of viable choices if you can do anything and still win.

Of course, it means none of the choices are meaningful, but I know at least some developers are far more than willing to sacrifice meaningfulness for viability.

I think we have different meanings of the word "viable" in this context :p. I want choices that are optimal only in some situations, and not in others.
 
Allowed? It always looked to me that negative opinions always had more sway in these boards, us being civ fanatics and thus "guardians of the true civ", but opinions, man.

Civ 6's release has many, many flaws and you can tell that it was a rushed product, but Civilization 5 was on a far, far worse state at launch and it didn't recieve as many criticisms. Still, I am on my "honeymoon phase" with Civ 6, so my opinion might veer towards negativity once I get tired of it, who knows.
 
Agreed that Civ5 was in far worse state, virtually unplayable at Immortal/Deity because of the literal carpet of doom. Units on every hex. But the ciriticism of Civ6 is nothing like it was for 5. That was a fierce reaction. The boards went crazy. And all these years later, the arguments it unleashed are still ongoing.

Civ6 is a strong base game, comparatively speaking, despite flaws.
 
But the ciriticism of Civ6 is nothing like it was for 5. That was a fierce reaction. The boards went crazy. And all these years later, the arguments it unleashed are still ongoing.
So what did Firefax do with all that fierce criticism? Did it go by on them? VI still looks more like V than IV.
 
there are too many positive reviews on gaming review websites. But that's not a Civ specific problem. I was recently searching a website called Co-optimus to find a 2 Player Couch Co-op Fantasy RPG that I could play with my daughter. The vast majority of the games that turned up in my search results had ratings in the 3.5 - 4.5 out of 5 range. I then looked each game up on Wikipedia to see what the Metacritic scores were in the Reception section. Very few of the games had a favorable score from the player base. This is a gaming industry-wide problem.

Sorry but all it shows is that critics scores aren't always aligned with players scores. But it is only a problem if you rely on those x/10 score to make an informed purchase!

Simply put there are no objective reviews nor ranking systems, these are affected by a verity of factors like audience e.g. on IMDB(movies) you can see a vote breakdown by gender\age\location\etc which often widely differs from the average score.

Overall I think that critics are more reliable for mainstream titles, are much less affected by selection bias. While player scores often skewed towards people who have an extreme opinion and bothered to make an account. And all industries Games\Movies\Books are plagued by the PR, entitled and SJW brigade voting.

Anyway, if you are long time fan of strategy and rpg games, favor playing with mods and not necessarily care about streamlining, then those scores wont be a good indicator for you. You should prefer personal recommendations, sites like Goodreads(books) where scores come with reviews, or those that you know that cater to your tastes.

/off-topic.
 
"SJW brigade voting" is a funny turn of phrase considering the only Internet factions conclusively proven to brigade votes come from the uh, less favourable areas of the Internet (channers, etc). People with similar interests voting for the same things is not "brigading", it's how popular votes work. Only channer boards and places like that have conclusive evidence of people organising vote manipulation (sometimes funny, like Boaty McBoatFace, and sometimes malicious).

Despite this being an aside, I strongly feel this kind of misinformation needs correcting wherever it's spread.
 
if you are long time fan of strategy and rpg games, favor playing with mods and not necessarily care about streamlining, then those scores wont be a good indicator for you
A plain score value never satisfied me ... (even not for simpler products like knives or chocolate :D ) ...

I read several reviews in german magazines and all mentioned the c6 vanilla state of the AI as poor or problematic. Of course they used not the strong words some people here (like our "None of you is a bigger 'fanatic' than I am.") think are appropriate, but none reading carefully could be surprised. Methinks it's a question of style.

Btw, a critic in 'diplomatic speech' can be far more devastating than using 'raw force'. Or as Confucius phrased: "He, who talks loud, will be heard - but forgotten."
 
Agreed that Civ5 was in far worse state, virtually unplayable at Immortal/Deity because of the literal carpet of doom. Units on every hex. But the ciriticism of Civ6 is nothing like it was for 5. That was a fierce reaction. The boards went crazy. And all these years later, the arguments it unleashed are still ongoing.

Civ6 is a strong base game, comparatively speaking, despite flaws.

My favorite are the people who are so knee-jerk traditionalist that they're still ranting about hexes, probably the most universally positive change in Civ5. Like I defy someone, outside of an angry Truthy Colbert-esque gut reaction, to actually explain why I should be against hexes.
 
Not to take this thread off topic but did you find a good one? I'd love a new Co-Op Fantasy RPG to play over the winter break!
Not yet. The problem is she's only 5 years old. We've been playing my old Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 for the PS2 on my PS3. We've beaten the game twice and are on are third set of characters. But I'm getting bored with it and the flickering graphics are a visual assault on my eyes. I want her to experience something newer and prettier, but most of the games I've found are rated Mature (BG: DA2 was Teen, which my wife wasn't too thrilled about). And the ones that are rated Teen are just too cartoony for me. I was considering The Lord of the Rings: War in the North or Diablo 3, but both look too violent for her. The search continues . . . /offtopic
 
My favorite are the people who are so knee-jerk traditionalist that they're still ranting about hexes, probably the most universally positive change in Civ5. Like I defy someone, outside of an angry Truthy Colbert-esque gut reaction, to actually explain why I should be against hexes.

I kinda get the negative reaction to hexes, as Civ had been squares for so long, the change almost felt wrong. Which is ironic for me to say as I'd often wondered why it wasn't hex from the start! (I have seen Sid comment on that). It always did annoy me that moving diagonally got you further haha.

So good change, but did feel weird at first.
 
I kinda get the negative reaction to hexes, as Civ had been squares for so long, the change almost felt wrong. Which is ironic for me to say as I'd often wondered why it wasn't hex from the start! (I have seen Sid comment on that). It always did annoy me that moving diagonally got you further haha.

So good change, but did feel weird at first.

Right, but being put off by it for a minute is way different than, for instance, wanting Civ6,7,etc. to go back to squares. I'm not talking about people who had an initial shock and got over it.
 
Top Bottom