Are you pre-ordering?

[DSveno]

Deciding what you "want" based on what some marketing people let you see is a foolish endeavour. It is much more wise to wait for opinions and advice from someone who isn't paid to try and sell the game to you. You are much more likely to get objective facts from them regarding bugs, balance issues and general gameplay foibles. As such, the experience is not entirely your own. Bugs and gameplay weaknesses affect everyone equally.

You're telling the very same people who are going to give you their opinion and advice, that they are wasting money.

Sorry but I don't think their value of money is the same as you. What they consider good could be not good for you and vice versa. It's very childish to condemn others for how they are spending their money. We're all adult and we know better what to do with our earning.

 

[homan1983]

Look guys, here's the deal:

I am one of the most vocal people when it comes to AI, I was the guy who made topics about the AI being inadequate, and I was inundated by replies ranging from "it's early builds it will be better on release" to "you have no idea how hard it is to make an ai".

I was the person in the stream who repeatedly asked if the AI had ever won a domination victory until they answered.

I was the person who said that two of the 4 traits of Russia seemed extremely weak to negligible to the replies of people saying they're fine, they're good or they're OP. And as it turned out the Russian unique district is actually much much better than we thought.

Having said all this I strongly recommend buying the game.

For starters, the game design is improved in pretty much every way possible. Districts allow specialization, natural wonders are now a feature in the game (as opposed to civ5 where they all spawned in tundra next to city states), units are much more balanced (heavy cav ignores ZOD, archers dont apply ZOC, melee are strong but not fast or ranged).

The civs are far more flavourful, their playstyles are more dynamic and interesting. Their bonuses make the imagination run wild on what's possible.

Tile yields are now more dynamic (hills vs flatland) allowing cities to be varied whilst still balanced. Now a desert or tundra start would be amazing for religious play with adjecency bonuses whilst the useless tiles can be covered with districts.

Eurekas and the civic trees are an interesting and very well designed changes.

The government systems are very interesting in their three layer nuanced bonuses: card policy combination provided + legacy bonus advantage + static bonus advantage

I will make a separate post regarding the AI, and make no mistake it leaves a LOT to be desired. But I would still say this game is definitively worth a purchase.

 

[Nefelia]

But I would still say this game is definitively worth a purchase.

Yeah, it looks like a lot of development time was focused on making sure these new features worked well, and the AI got the short end of the stick.

The development team likely ran out of time, and had to prioritize. After all, it is the publishers and not the developers that set the release date, and marketing considerations are usually at the forefront of the publishers' calculations.

So those who pre-ordered or purchase on the release date will esentially get a not-quite-yet-finished product. I can't really say I am surprised or disappointed, since this has largely become the norm during the last decade. Judging by the commentary in some topics, however, it seems many Civ Fanatics were caught off guard.

Get with the times, people.

I will make a separate post regarding the AI

And I'll likely contribute once I get some play time in. The better the feedback and suggestions, the sooner the developers can make some meaningful improvements, either to the AI itself, or the game design that hampers the AI (like the inability to upgrade warriors without certain resources).

 

[homan1983]

Let me clear though, even though I think the game is incredible design wise, I think its:

• unacceptable that on king (or any prince+) level settlers are ever sent around unescorted
• Civs are having less units than single city states
• Not a single city swapped hands in 350 turns

and so on...

It's just that in spite of it, in this situation I still think civ6 is definitely worth it. I'm just flabbergasted as to how little competence the AI is created with. And let's face it, >80% of the work was done by simply porting the civ5 AI.

Yeah, it looks like a lot of development time was focused on making sure these new features worked well

But even if they had 1 AI developer, it still should have been better than it is now.

 

[Toulouse]

Funny, I think what so much of the pre-order psychology is about creating a group of fans with sunk costs, who have invested in a project as an early adopter visionary. In this role, the pre-orderers will evangelise and defend the game (or its future) with vigor and passion. Brilliant marketing. Kind of reminds me of the console wars.

 

[Oleary]

Funny, I think what so much of the pre-order psychology is about creating a group of fans with sunk costs, who have invested in a project as an early adopter visionary. In this role, the pre-orderers will evangelise and defend the game (or its future) with vigor and passion. Brilliant marketing. Kind of reminds me of the console wars.

Or maybe we just like the game. No hidden agendas on either side.

 

[Toulouse]

Or maybe we just like the game. No hidden agendas on either side.

You mean you are invested in the way it looks? The adverts and game streams of You Tube entrepreneurs? The older Civ games? By definition, when you pre-order, you haven't played the game yet.

 

[KVS]

Having played since Civ 2, I have preordered via GMG for one very simple reason: I'm nearly 52 years old and at that age you never know how many days you have left! So the sooner I can fire up the game, the better!

 

[Toulouse]

Having played since Civ 2, I have preordered via GMG for one very simple reason: I'm nearly 52 years old and at that age you never know how many days you have left! So the sooner I can fire up the game, the better!

Heh, I'm older than you and I treasure my remaining days so much. That's why I want to know if the game is any good before I sink any precious time into it. And I know if you and I and a 1/2 million other souls pre-order, there's less of a chance the game will be a decent play at release.

 

[Oleary]

You mean you are invested in the way it looks? The adverts and game streams of You Tube entrepreneurs? The older Civ games? By definition, when you pre-order, you haven't played the game yet.

That goes both ways though.

I'm 56 and back in the 80's we purchased games without any knowledge of what was inside. Maybe an article in a game mag if you were lucky. You did learn who to trust though and Firaxis (then MicroProse) earned my trust.
Today y'all have it easy on making purchase decisions...

And yes, it was uphill both ways, in the snow, on crutches...

 

[Xyriach]

And I know if you and I and a 1/2 million other souls pre-order, there's less of a chance the game will be a decent play at release.

You think there's a chance that they're going to sabotage the game in the next 10 hours?

There's no incentive to release a poor product based on meeting pre-sale targets. A negative outcome from those sales harms future sales. It's not a risk that a company trading on it's reputation takes. Friaxis have a loyal fan base. Providing them with an inferior product just to close out and deliver the project doesn't make any commercial sense if you plan on releasing other games.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That goes both ways though.

I'm 56 and back in the 80's we purchased games without any knowledge of what was inside. Maybe an article in a game mag if you were lucky. You did learn who to trust though and Firaxis (then MicroProse) earned my trust.
Today y'all have it easy on making purchase decisions...

And yes, it was uphill both ways, in the snow, on crutches...

Yeah, MicroProse was awesome. I can't imagine many of the same people are there today, but still, a company develops a culture and its own standards over time. It can lose those things too, of course, but I'm willing to give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt. Even after Beyond Earth, which I thought was kind of a dud.

 

[Toulouse]

Yes I love Civ and Firaxis, yet the twin release disasters of Civ V and BE should make us all cautious. That Firaxis is able to coast despite these problems is in my opinion due to goodwill expressed in the pre-order volume, which is partly based on a 2K pre-order incentive bribe. Still it seems to represent some kind of bargain or perhaps amnesia from the fan base. People forget how bad Civ 5 was in 2010-11, or they buy into the premise that down the road, Firaxis will fix the game.

Judging from the streams -- we may be in for an equally disappointing release with Civ 6. Looks bad, but hey you never know.

 

[Plus Ultra]

People forget how bad Civ 5 was in 2010-11, or they buy into the premise that down the road, Firaxis will fix the game.

There is a third option:

Some Civfanatics such as myself respect Ed Beach for his work with BNW, and are happy to see the Vanilla game full of new and interesting features that might be a nightmare to balance. Even if the AI or UI might need some serious tweaking, Firaxis have been ambitious with Civ VI, and therefore have our support for the coming years.

 

[Oleary]

Yeah, MicroProse was awesome. I can't imagine many of the same people are there today, but still, a company develops a culture and its own standards over time. It can lose those things too, of course, but I'm willing to give Firaxis the benefit of the doubt. Even after Beyond Earth, which I thought was kind of a dud.

One guy is still there and I think he does his best to give us a good experience. I still played a lot of BE despite it's problems. In the end, we each have to decide what we like and what we're willing to spend our money on.
Glad someone else remembers MP. I can't even imagine how many hours I've 'wasted' on their games.

 

[Toulouse]

There is a third option:

Some Civfanatics such as myself respect Ed Beach for his work with BNW, and are happy to see the Vanilla game full of new and interesting features that might be a nightmare to balance. Even if the AI or UI might need some serious tweaking, Firaxis have been ambitious with Civ VI, and therefore have our support for the coming years.

That's nice, even noble sentiment, but it's not a third option unless you are willing to support a turd of a game -- no matter what. Rather I think you are saying you will buy into the pitch concept now and have faith they will make it a good game at some point down the road. I believe that when you buy in early and express that faith without proof of concept, you encourage them to de-prioritize the fundamental "balancing" and "tweaking" and to prioritize the raking in of the cash.

Face it, the game is being marketed as a complete experience, and therefore to avoid deceptive adverts, etc., it assumes they've done the basic blocking and tackling get it right before asking for my money and putting me though the disappointment of playing a bad game. At the very least if the game isn't working well, they should go early access, so there's no confusion. Honestly the reason they don't do early access is likely publisher greed.

 

[Nefelia]

Yes I love Civ and Firaxis, yet the twin release disasters of Civ V and BE should make us all cautious. That Firaxis is able to coast despite these problems is in my opinion due to goodwill expressed in the pre-order volume, which is partly based on a 2K pre-order incentive bribe. Still it seems to represent some kind of bargain or perhaps amnesia from the fan base. People forget how bad Civ 5 was in 2010-11, or they buy into the premise that down the road, Firaxis will fix the game.

Judging from the streams -- we may be in for an equally disappointing release with Civ 6. Looks bad, but hey you never know.

Set your own expectations, and either be pleased or disappointed by the results. As I mentioned elsewhere, the expectation of a fully polished game at release is rather dated.

I had a great time with vanilla Civ V. I was busy exploring the differences between Civ IV and Civ V, puttering around until I found a map type & size, difficulty, and speed that worked for me... all the while wondering what the huge fuss in the forums was about.

After years of playing Civ IV to death, I was more than ready for a change of pace. And by the time I will make a separate post regarding the vanilla Civ V got old, the first expansion was being released.

Of course, it does help that the average game on a huge/giant map at marathon speed takes over a month to complete. So I guess I'm just lucky that my map/speed preferences lend more longevity to the game.

I expect that Civ VI will be much the same for me. However, if the product is a dud, do expect me to make my opinions known once or twice in the forums before I move on. I've sunk cash into more than one game that I've walked away from at the end of an hour.

 

[Nefelia]

Rather I think you are saying you will buy into the pitch concept now and have faith they will make it a good game at some point down the road.

From what I have seen of the game thus far, it is far from a 'turd of a game'. The Battle Royale was atrocious, but I've seen competent AI behaviour in other videos. We will see how it pans out tomorrow, but I find it hard to imagine that options such as higher difficulties, larger maps, and raging barbarians won't make up for initial defects in the AI.

Worked for Civ V.

Face it, the game is being marketed as a complete experience

Lol. Yeah. Marketing. Keep in mind that the marketers are not the developers. This is true for all computer games, and it is better to judge by what you see than what you are told by the marketers.

 

[Toulouse]

Fully, end-state, polished is not what I'm talking about? But a game at release should be a complete, well balanced experience, and a reasonable facsimile of a finished product. Otherwise it should be in early access, which is not a "rather dated" concept.

It's great that you enjoyed Civ V at release. You were in the minority, as I recall? In any event, I am pleased to avoid early access games by definition, even while appreciating that others may enjoy their rough edges.

This isn't that -- and the confusion is regrettable and completely avoidable. The experience of playing day one is being held hostage by AAA pre-order culture, and we should make common cause to put it down.

 

[dturtle1]

Civ 5 Release was fine, not great but okay, i enjoyed playing it at release, even when with its flaws. Just because a game has got flaws doesn't mean it is not fun to play. Hell, I played 500hrs of Rome 2 before 1.07 and well before EE. Enjoyed every minute of it regardless of the terrible A.I. Now that was game that the A.I literally just couldn't play at release, couldnt even manage a build queue(Most A.I cities revolted, the campaign map was littered with rebels and burning A.I Cities). It was still fun to play(Autoresolved the sieges ). That Release was a Disaster, Simcity Release was a Disaster, Diablo 3 was a Disaster(for different reasons, Error 37 anyone , i was part of the 3million people trying to login at the same time..., it was glorious i tell ya , LMAO) Point is Civ 5 Release was tame compared to this, anyone remember Rage's release . At least with todays games you know they will be improved down the line. back in the day if a Gme was buggy at launch it was likely going to be buggy forever, thank god for post releease support these days