Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by SCBrain, Nov 26, 2016.
We seem to live in different realitys
These replies both sound like arguments that the game is bad, and annoying, rather than challenging.
I mean there's a lot of nuance to go into about why games shouldn't have character and story logic if optimal behavior is always to go the opposite tact, but a better way to put it is that (allowances for a learning curve aside) if a game cannot be both hard and fun, it doesn't deserve this forum around it.
You are right, I am quite clueless, what you mean with "mobile and modern design" ...
Anyway, ALL I want is in principle to be able to use the "old" interface. Which btw is not only old and used to, but also has its merits based on an overwhelming amount of experience in developing the man-machine interface in general.
As for the specified monitor, I mentioned the size just as comment. For me it's completely sufficient, if the objects on the screen are distinguished for fullHD & ultraHD resolutions.
Yes, no big deal! Rebindability is nice. But in the first place I ask for providing the functionality of ANY keystrokes for the most common actions (Fortify, Sentry, Wait, UnloadTrsp ...) at all. Furthermore I'd like to see the "lecagy" values for the keys as defaults (the same used in the older versions).
Or it just needs to be fixed
"hard" is an estimation of difficulty, "fun" is an estimation of player enjoyment. For some, "hard" equates to "fun", while for others it does not. You're attempting to tie a rather established rating for how mechanically-difficult the majority of players find something, to a completely subjective rating that no two people on the planet are likely to agree with each other on 100%.
I somewhat agree but overall I think the game is damn good.
I really, really dislike how religion is flowing right now. I hate seeing dozens of religious units (from each religion) all over the map (should be a limit) and hate them going across any and all borders, and more than anything hate them clogging up the map.
The pacing does seem off to me. It takes forever to build a lot of things and while you build it you gain multiple techs. I don't think it's just the eureka thing because by mid/late game I rarely get any of those. In Civ 5 you need to push hard at science to keep up. In Civ 6 I can dominate for science without even trying and maybe building just 2-3 campuses. Sci for pop is too much, IMO, and since you're going to go wide you easily crush for sci without really doing anything.
Lastly - I despise the idea that the game needs fixed by mods. That's idiotic. The game *might* be enhanced by a few mods (IMO maybe 1 in 10 mods are anything but pure garbage, and that's being generous) but to think it needs fixed by a bunch of amateur wanna be designers/coders is beyond silly. Have people lost all patience (along with all clue) ? There isn't a complex 4X in existence that hasn't required numerous patches (and usually DLC or expansions) to fully settle in. Civ 6 has had one (pretty good) patch - I'm for giving the professional devs and designers who worked on the game for years a bit more of a chance that throwing in the towel and hoping some random forum genius is going to bail out the game.
It's not just on deity. I've only played up to immortal thus far, and I was getting carpets of missionaries back on my first game at prince. No matter the difficulty level, they migrate back and forth across my territory in herds, like flotsam in a sea of hex tiles.
Honestly, the religious game in general needs an overhaul. I didn't really care for it in IV or V either, and in VI it's basically been reduced to conga lines of missionaries and apostles that are wholly detached from the rest of the game. It feels more like a chore than gameplay.
Just like with many other Civ VI and V gameplay mechanics, I am 50-50 on land units being able to transverse on water. It definitely isn't realistic. HOWEVER for certain maps it is necessary for land units to be able to cross water due to the 1UPT mechanic. With them being defenseless and slower, I think it is a fair trade-off for their ability to retreat on water. Plus it encourages players to build navies to easily destroy those boats. One game a military rival had 10-20 boats of strong late-game units sailing in a line past my territory and I was really, really tempted to use my 5 warships on them, but I was trying to win peacefully.
As for this whole thread, I have been alternating games of Civ VI with Civ V BNW. They are both good in their own ways. Right now I like V a little better and if I had to choose only one exclusively (fortunately I don't), I would pick V over VI in VI's current state.
VI's 5 strengths over V:
-Diplomacy is much better. There is less guesswork on why a Civ likes you and why a Civ is denouncing you.
-The ability to combine a few units into Corps and Armies - great to save space, and it forces you to decide if you prefer multiple units or fewer, but stronger, units. I wish this is available earlier in the game, though.
-Districts force you to plan your cities and future expansions.
-Housing and Amenities are more realistic than V's nationwide Happiness.
-I like the Civics tree and government policies cards. Late game governments are now much better than V.
VI's 5 weaknesses compared to V
-Less appealing victory conditions. I prefer diplomatic and peaceful victories over conquest and religious victories. So, I have 3 victory choices in V BNW, but only 2 that I like in VI. I know next to nothing about VI's religious victory, but judging from the posts in this site I am fortunately not missing out on anything.
-The graphics miss the mark. V had beautiful graphics all over. VI has cartoonish world leaders and the fog of war/out of visibility areas of the map are confusing and unpleasant to look at. I'll concede that the art style is there to stay, but they really need to fix the look of the maps so it is more clear which is a fog of war and which is explored areas.
-Terrible AI. After trying easier difficulty levels, I have just won Prince in VI and its AI is helpless, and I can believe the posts from others here that they don't feel challenged even in Deity once they get the game mechanics and strategies down.
-I can see the point of AI leaders having historical traits, but it makes them too predictable if you play them over multiple games. That and the game is new, so there are fewer available civilizations. I prefer V, as the AI still uses the special abilities and unique units, but adjusts based on their own geographical placement (like we do).
-Various interfaces really needs work. VI needs to save high scores and give you analyses of why you won or lost. It looks like the interface was done last by the developers and done in a hurry. However this is still a strategy game, and analysis needs to play a bigger role.
Games don't have to live in the 100%. Guitar Hero obviously could have said from the beginning, "let's just use a literal guitar for the controller, after all that's hard." People already had guitars. The game's job was to be fun at entry and fun at master level. They miraculously believed there was an interface and system design that could do this. There is a percentage out there, it's not 100% but it's higher than the 5 or so Civ has seemed to be living in with both BE and VI…
Sadly I prefer V but just so tired of playing it.
I have noticed that I've stopped really playing VI for fun anymore, mostly just to test my modding. It's just too static at this point. I mean, I'm sure there are really some dynamic differences in there to be found (based on terrain differences/districts/etc), but the game is basically not challenging you at any point past the early rush so it feels largely irrelevant.
I actually think most of the systems in place are better than they were in V (which isn't a high bar to clear, honestly), I don't want to go back to "food is everything". There are some nice mods that make things more interesting in city development too, but production is still just really too slow to be healthy for the lightning-fast tech pace the game has. Thankfully that's being worked on too (by modders, who seem to be doing a much better job of improving the game than Firaxis). Ultimately though it's going to be an empty experience as long as the AI is incapable of both playing the game and being an interesting diplomatic partner. Hopefully they'll soon open up the .dll to modders so that, too, can be fixed.
So many good games right now. Back log is filling up. Buying Shadows or Mordor and Dishonored Definitive on a PS4 Black Friday sale didn't help. Nor did Sleeping Dogs Definitive coming out on Xbox One games with gold. Just hard to make time for a 4X where most of the X's just aren't that enticing.
Your example about Guitar Hero is funny, because I know more than a few musicians that dislike what it's done to perception of music wrt. to difficulty and practise. Anecdotal, of course.
I'm not saying that the interface can't be improved, at all. I was picking apart your tying together of two very different metrics.
Really mis-matched design, yes — and oh remember how we were supposedly served this look to make the game more readable, but once the district and religious visions were fully woven to life on the map, it was all a busy mess, worst of all the FOW… A hodgepodge of conflicting design goals, most of which were not even realized at the end. Old news by now
But YES, the music. It is so out of place, even if it's much more frilly, and calm, than the death wails of V. God I love playing V and just feeing like my citizens are somewhere down there just glaring at a cow in the heat and thinking about murdering a love rival. It all matched. There were cheaper ways to do leader drops but what they went with hit the mark. It all absorbed you.
But they shouldn't be picked apart. back to Guitar Hero, the fun for players at entry to mid to master comes from the knowledge that every single next action can destroy success.
So, it's fun because it is hard.
Civ is far too open to impart that much literal significance into every decision, but my instinct is that the success came from creating the constant illusion that it would, and (really crudely) tuning that same illusion to fit different levels of system mastery. Before and as of V, I would say that the overlap between any two given player's ideas of what made V fun was 50%. That's why you get so many of us here in the V forum seemingly speaking a different language about why we like the game, but really interested in discussing the concrete aspects of it with each other forever. That's why almost everyone always reported feeling that there was a certain point in most plays where the game was "decided," and they start a new play - the illusion of constant meaningful decisions is the same thing keeping all these different players going. (And then a lot of posters that just hate it, because the illusion doesn't work for them. I mean I never liked Guitar Hero, obviously you're just practicing something a machine could do.)
In BE and VI There have been defenders of the difficulty-by-tedium model, but mostly a consensus that game decisions feel meaningless from turn 1. Which, again, is a matter of failing to be made to feel that decisions mean something.
The devs I think took an approach both times that "there was no magic in the previous versions of Civ," and further that it could not be improved upon (raise the meaningfulness of decisions). They did not build the game around a core new survival-vs-failure mechanism. They took a fragile old one, and added their pretty little ideas to it and broke it :[
I was really disappointed when I realized it was going to be a cartoon. I was willing to overlook it in the name of fresh, quality game play though. Hopefully they'll eventually get it cleaned up enough to deliver on that; the jury is still out. None of that changes the fact that I don't want my leaders to look cute, I want them to look regal and imposing the way they did in V. I'm also actually insulted by the quotes. Many of them are flat out wrong or irrelevant and the cheesy attempts at humor completely clash with the tone of the game. That one really gets to me because it has nothing to do with programming or game balance; it's something any reasonably educated person could have done at their local library with the help of the librarian. They just didn't bother to take them seriously.
Those are stylistic gripes though, and ultimately a matter of taste (although the number of errors in the quotes is inexcusable regardless) but how do you defend the brown-on-brown color scheme of the map? Why does everything on the map that I can't see have to look like a coffee stain? The patch improved a few things but the UI is still clumsy, and the AI is still atrocious. I realize the AI always going to be limited but this is flat out broken. At least in V the AI knew how to smash a carpet of doom into your cities if you let it get a clear advantage. I laughed my way to victory on my first attempt on Immortal after playing only four previous games. I don't even completely understand the game mechanics or the tech/civic trees yet. The only reason that's possible is that the AI seems almost incapable of winning.
I have been (and will continue to outside this thread) keeping my comments positive but after the first patch and having played a number of games I'm disappointed in VI. It isn't fair to compare it to V because V had years of support, DLCs and expansions to flesh it out but this game has serious issues. It has the kind of issues that kill the replay value of a game that is built on its replayability. I haven't given up but I have fired up V a couple of times instead. I see a lot of potential in the new game mechanics but they have a lot of work ahead of them if they're going to make this into a worthy entry in the Civ series.
Except that missing a note doesn't actually lose you anything other than a multiplier or streak bonus and missing sequential notes only actually loses you the gig on the highest difficulties. See: difficulty scaling. The core enjoyment is replicating a song by hitting vague approximations of guitar chords, which is aided by not muting the whole track at lower difficulties when you miss the odd button press. On higher difficulties it trends to not only being disharmonic, but the dead silence that accompanies not hitting a streak of keys correctly is more marring to the general feedback loop than it is on easier difficulties.
It's fun because it's a multiplayer game. It's fun because it's a multiplayer game that you can all play in the same room. It's fun because you don't have to play multiplayer. It's fun because there's an instant recogniseable link between <hitting keys> and <playing music> (definitions of "playing" up for grabs, here). I preferred Rock Band myself, but only because drunken singing was more fun than drunkenly breaking a pseudo-guitar controller by accident.
Which is completely dissimilar to Civilisation, a turn-based game with primarily a single-player audience (by Steam metrics) and a small but dedicated MP crowd. Civilisation is fun for a number of different metrics, which will vary massively depending on the challenge the player sets for themselves.
I mean, you're welcome to your criticism of the tedium in BE, I get it (as much as I didn't suffer from it, because I set myself goals that didn't result in much tedium). But that was present in CiV too, given the sheer mechanical similarities and presence of slingshot strategies that exposed glaring faults in the AI throughout the game. If anything IV and V are where the "different languages" set in; BE was simply where people stopped paying as much attention to Firaxis' promises (for better or worse).
I think the issue here is you're speaking in vaguaries and only tangentially illustrated your point with (dissimilar) examples. What are you debating here? That Civilisation 6 is more boring than previous (main franchise) titles? That the AI is lacking? To call back an earlier statement, any computer game is practising something a computer could do, so that's a rather amusing reductive statement there. Which I feel underpins your entire attempt at a thesis, here. You're insistent on why certain specific games fall short of your (undefined) metric of playability and / or success, but you apply this insistence in a very selective manner. It's almost as if you simply prefer some games to others, just like the rest of us, and are implementing a back-to-front approach of using mechanics you don't like to justify your emotional dislike of the game.
It's fine to not click with a game. There's absolutely no shame in it and it's not a reflection on your person or the other games (in the same genre) that you enjoy. I love Burnout on the PS2, but I couldn't "click" with it on the PC (Burnout: Paradise) for the longest time, despite the popularity of the title and the longstanding love of the franchise. But there's no need to tie yourself in circles just because you find yourself in the odd position (comparatively, for CFC) of liking CiV and not liking Civilisation 6.
Wow... Probably why I think... I don't understand... hyper realism??? Did you just come up with that, cause I mentioned it nowhere.
No I just pointed out the fact that they wasted a perfectly good composers work on an infantile cartoon. I hate when dumb people think they are being clever, it's dumb with dumb on top.
Oof, no one got good at rhythm games only playing it in multi, and no one played for hours by themselves because there was a feeling of "playing" the music that could be divorced between a goal of perfection.
Anyway hey, haha, you got me again! I'm going in circles. I'm being vague and circly
Look Gorbles, the evolution of my understanding of why I and others like Civ has nothing to do with you. I find your posts interesting so i reply to them.
The fact is I don't fully know why I like Civ and I'm trying to figure it out. I don't know why others like it and I'm trying to figure it out. Why did I spend 1000s of hours on this? Why did I change how I think about problems many times over as I played it more? Any poster on here who is passionate about one issue contradicts themselves with half of what they say in the next issue they're upset about. We're all literally overwhelmed by art it's just a fact.
Vague: I used to think 1-upt was really one of the most important elements to why V was exciting, now I could box it up and leave it for the franchise, because I see V differently after meeting and being bored by VI. I like V for different reasons. This is how emotional attachment works I'm really sorry it's vague. I'm really sorry. I'll just focus on posts telling people they haven't proven anything instead
Circly: I'm listening to others and evolving my stance on this mess all the time. Gotcha posts about lack of point aren't interesting to me. Of course I'm debating something subjective, duh. I have to engage with it somehow to ever get anywhere in my own head.
Concluding Circly Vague Statement: Subjective enjoyment as a universal mechanism (that some things can be universally appealing for certain concrete reasons) is totally unprovable. That it doesn't exist: also totally unprovable. Some people approach media believing real qualitative stantards should not be argued because no one can prove they exist, some approach it believing they should be argued because no one can prove they can't. I'd rather read a post from the latter, even a really close-minded one, and most of the time I wonder why the former even wades into posts such as this, but hey it's all good
The fact. Infantile cartoon.
Cartoonish, childish, smartphonesk grafic style ... I hear the same keywords over and over again. Despite that I like the graphical representation of civ6. For me it is nice, often even funny. And the important details can easily be recognized from far zoomed out level.
I don't take the art style of CIV (_games_ in general) too serious. I'm grown up long enough to take myself not too serious, too.
We have the privilege to not having to work all day long just to survive. Look for another game or something what fascinates you. Don't waste your precious time with a thing you do not like.
Separate names with a comma.