Are the Devs responding somewhere?

[Stilgar08]

People sure got vicious defending the game fast. Hopefully people can relax their reflexive defense of the Dev/Game/Series and realize it clearly had VERY LITTLE QA before it was released or so many of these bugs would have been noticed/fixed. The game is quite fun at first, until you realize how easy it is to win because of bugs/glitches and a failed AI, even on Deity.

Maybe a mod or someone can set up a master bug list thread which can be forwarded to the devs at some point. At the very least it would help minimize threads like this where people want to report bugs.

Thanx for enlightening me , I'm impressed by your insights.
May I ask where you found these 'clear' proof that QA was poor? I'm sorry if you encountered harsh CTD Bugs, dead ends stopping you from finishing the game, utterly broken mechanics (not exploits, broken stuff. Exploits generally are relatively easy to fix later on) .

I'm sure my reflexive behaviour has it's source in all the other lesser minded posts in this forum so please bear with me!

To me many people don't appreciate the effort and contribution this game clearly received.

Care to check the devastating, hateful posts and threads from the first weeks after CiV Vanilla release, where clearly many many bigger issues and problems occured? No? Thought so. . .

Compared to CiV Vanilla we are having a big party here and Ingame!

P. S.: The Buglist on this Forum has been set up in the first days after release and is very alive, I contributed quite some Bugs there myself. How about doing some constructive thing and report there instead making some accusations pretty easy to turn down as ridiculous!

 

[Mustakrakish]

And anyways, so much of what you read in these forums is extremely vague. Superficialities, such as "it could be better" or "I like it," really does not generate the sort of conversation or lead to the sort of insight that improves the game. The best thing for you non-devs to do is describe issues you see in concrete terms; elaborate on your ideas; and describe well the changes, additions or subtractions that you think would make the game better.

There are plenty of threads describing all possible issues and their sisters from all possible angles... Don't see um... an issue here.

^^ Musta, I have been posting something similar to that effect. The idea is that forums get intelligent and savvy gamers like you and many of the good folks over in the 'I am a programmer' thread. However it stands that if one is unhappy they will tend to come here or another forum (2K) and write up a complaint. My statement was just ment to infer that lots of folks who are 'not unhappy' (double negative i know) are not here posting how bad the game is.

I like several of the folks here on these forums and I try to keep my posts civil and on topic which can be hard as we are all passionate about things we like or dislike.

Cheers!

Um, cheers to you too!

And it's true, agreed that most people enjoying the game don't post. Because they don't post altogether in addition to there nothing being to post about... and same is true about people not enjoying the game. I can think of 5 people in my circles whom I know play the game and whom I know won't post if they are unhappy with the game. All 5 of them won't care nearly enough to complain about the game on the forums or any forums. Because to all 5 of them it (civ) is not even nearly important enough to care that much. Only if I specifically engage them in conversation about civ will they tell their problems and ideas with the game. What they'll do is play regardless (like me) for a while and then move onto other things if things won't start improving.

Not sure where we're going with this though.

 

[Hellegennes]

argumentum ad populum

This is a fallacy only when talking about something factual. When you're talking about what constitutes an enjoyable piece of art, the opinion of the audience is the only real measure. By definition, if the audience enjoys the product, it is a good product because its purpose is to make the audience happy.

 

[Atwork]

There are plenty of threads describing all possible issues and their sisters from all possible angles... Don't see um... an issue here.

You may be missing the point a bit. This thread is about devs not responding. My response was to point out the waste of time it would be for devs to respond to posts, especially given people's tendency to voice vague outrage without providing anything useful / helpful to devs. That said, the sorts of threads you're talking about (the ones describing all possible issues, etc), those are exactly the sort of threads that are useful and helpful to devs. And, such threads are useful and helpful without any need for devs to respond.

 

[liv]

I don't get why a dev can't take 2 minutes to post or tweet "hey, we're glad the game is being well received overall, we're working on fixing some exploits and issues, we hope to have a patch out in about two weeks (or whatever it is)." That would be really helpful to the community.

Civilization VI ‏@CivGame 16m16 minutes ago

THANK YOU to our more than ONE MILLION Civilization VI players. Your support means everything to us. Stay civilized!

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Civilization VI ‏@CivGame 16m16 minutes ago

THANK YOU to our more than ONE MILLION Civilization VI players. Your support means everything to us. Stay civilized!

Haha, well, almost!

 

[salty mud]

This is a fallacy only when talking about something factual. When you're talking about what constitutes an enjoyable piece of art, the opinion of the audience is the only real measure. By definition, if the audience enjoys the product, it is a good product because its purpose is to make the audience happy.

Nonsense. Pretty obvious you didn't even read the link and see for yourself. It actually gives some examples of what the fallacy is.

 

[Ferocitus]

And it's true, agreed that most people enjoying the game don't post.

There are also thousands of others who hate the new version who aren't posting because they're still rocking to and fro like they do when Jeopardy doesn't start exactly on time.

Moderator Action: Please do not refer to those who may disagree as haters. It is trolling.
I meant haters as in those who hate the new release. Point taken, though: original edited.

 

[Jarms48]

I'm hoping they fix the cross comparability for PC and MAC users in the first patch, can't even play with my girlfriend when she's at home.

The game exploits, whilst game-breaking, can be worked around in multiplayer with good players and the honour system.

 

[Victoria]

I really cannot see what everyone's problem is.
If you want to start wars all the time then sure you will be hated by a fair amount of Civ's.

Last game I took a settler early then got attacked by a few Civ's but kept my cool and by mid game half were my friend which is what you want in a Civ game. The other half its about coping with them and you can use their hate anyway

Early expansion too much will cause hate and to be honest in those days it was fight fight fight.
But being a little defensive while expanding early and making those political connections like bad deals, trade routes and trading away amenities can give you what you want. Hell I even have changed government to please people, no skin off my nose.
Someone then annoys me or I need to take someone, then its easier to go with a "friend"... I mean it is a stupid friend after all.
More importantly, if you can get that embassy in there you can get an idea what annoys them and make them declare war on you.
The cost of a settler right next to them or a denunciation is less warmongering points.

Building one galley so Norway can be impressed at the size of my navy is a little extreme granted.

 

[Hellegennes]

Nonsense. Pretty obvious you didn't even read the link and see for yourself. It actually gives some examples of what the fallacy is.

I don't need to read a wikipedia article about it, I am quite aware of what it is about. You seem to no be able to grasp the fact that when something is subjective, the opinion of the majority is the only valid criterion. Perhaps you are confusing subjective enjoyment with the objective aesthetical criteria used in art. This is not about whether people think Mona Lisa is a good painting; there are objective criteria to judge that. But if something is about people having fun, then the only real measure of its success is... people having fun. A good game is a game that is enjoyed by the majority.

 

[salty mud]

I don't need to read a wikipedia article about it, I am quite aware of what it is about. You seem to no be able to grasp the fact that when something is subjective, the opinion of the majority is the only valid criterion. Perhaps you are confusing subjective enjoyment with the objective aesthetical criteria used in art. This is not about whether people think Mona Lisa is a good painting; there are objective criteria to judge that. But if something is about people having fun, then the only real measure of its success is... people having fun. A good game is a game that is enjoyed by the majority.

Please read the article and realise why you're wrong.
You're literally using the "everyone is doing (or playing in this case) it so it must be good" fallacy outlined as an example.

 

[Takfloyd]

Every time I see someone actually attempt to defend the current state of the game, not by arguing that it will soon be fixed, but by claiming that the game is fine as it is, I start to wonder what goes on in the heads of these people.

Are they getting paid by Firaxis to shill the game on forums? Or are they just so delusional that they don't see the issues? It's one thing to enjoy the game for what it is, but ignoring its extremely obvious and blatant, MAJOR flaws is something else entirely.

 

[dexters]

No Civ game has launched without problems though. And Civ 6 is very well regarded as launching better than recent entries 3-5.

So by your own metric no one should defend any of them. to be honest, this isn't our first rodeo. we know the process and know most if the issues we have now will get fixed.

 

[Trias]

Please read the article and realise why you're wrong.
You're literally using the "everyone is doing (or playing in this case) it so it must be good" fallacy outlined as an example.

Damn you are thick. Quite obviously the "everyone is doing it so it must be good" example on the wikipedia page refers to "good" in an ethical sense. As in "everbody is stealing, so it is OK to steal."

Moderator Action: "Damn you are thick" is a personal attack and trolling. Please do not troll the forums. It is much better to report the post that angers you and let the staff handle it. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[salty mud]

Damn you are thick. Quite obviously the "everyone is doing it so it must be good" example on the wikipedia page refers to "good" in an ethical sense. As in "everbody is stealing, so it is OK to steal."

Uh oh.

Moderator Action: Graphic removed, it was totally unacceptable and trolling. Please get back to the topic and stop the personal attacks. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

It's not "quite obvious" at all. But even if you're right, we still have the "Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong!" example. Replace Elvis with Civ VI and there you go.

I guess fifty million Elvis fans have impeccable ethics.

 

[StittsvileJamie]

Theres a lot of anger in here.


Goodbye thread.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

it's a decent half-assed game

This is an insult to decent half-asses everywhere. I think a general play stoppage for 1 day would send a strong message to the devs.

 

[Atwork]

I think a general play stoppage for 1 day would send a strong message to the devs

Lol, count me out. I'm in the middle of some really fun gaming. Have fun trying to form a picket line!

 

[Hellegennes]

Please read the article and realise why you're wrong.
You're literally using the "everyone is doing (or playing in this case) it so it must be good" fallacy outlined as an example.

I am not. The example you are referrring to is about something factual. For instance, you would be wrong to say "everyone is doing this exercise, so it must be good" or "everyone cooks this food that way, so it must be good". If the thing in question is something about taste, then by definition if the majority likes it is good. There's no other definition of good when you are talking about subjective things. If everyone is playing a game, then it is good. You may not personally like it, but by definition it's good because it satisfies a lot of people. That's its purpose. You would have a point if there were other major reasons to play a game other than enjoyment, but threre aren't.