civ 6 is a good game with issues.

[Kupe Navigator]

with recent negativity I think I should share my thoughts on civ 6 as someone who plays thie game almost daily. ( GASP shocker I know)

I think it is a good game and entertaining game with bit of issues here and there... notably in the way of presentation.

I like how they represent each of civs and I think they had love in researching history of the civs.
yes AI is terrible and agenda system is the worst but seriously when has non-modded civ AI been NOT terrible.
( and no vox populi dose NOT count since it is fan made and isn't created by fraxisis.)
I think people need to give all the negativity a bit of rest.
Companies will ALWAYS look in favor for large "casual" players over few "hardcore" players.. and even few hardcore players here are somewhat happy with civ 6.

overall is civ 6 a perfect game? Oh heck no. Dose it not have issues? no it has plenty of issues. But for the love of goodness don't act like what transformer fans call genwunner and say "civ 6 has terrible AI it is RUINED FOEVER!!!!!"

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Sometimes, the greatest critics of a particular... thing, are those who love it the most. Including me. I love the game, despite its flaws.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Here, here.

Dog knows I've posted plenty of complaints about how Civ VI does things, either in comparison to other games or in comparison to the history it purports to be loosely based on but isn't. And some of the complaints about Firaxis' apparent inabilty to fix bugs or get systems to work together or even notice massive Imbalances in game play and the leaders and civs themselves deserves to be pointed out, loudly and repeatedly.

BUT Between Civ V and VI I've put in almost 10,000 hours playing the Civ games (I don't have the hour figures for the time I put into Civs II, III, and IV, but I suspect it at least equals the time spent on the last two games, which is a little disturbing, to be frank) so either they are doing something right or I'm a flaming Idiot (don't nobody comment on that, thankyouverymuch).

Mind you, the tenor of my complaints might be a little different from most, because I have never been very interested in winning the game as much as in playing the game. I could care less about 'paths to victory' or people complaining that "X Civ is broken because you can always win by doing YZW with it." - then don't do YZW: problem solved (at least for me).

Does the game have a 'good' AI? Define your terms. An AI that can consistently beat most Human Players is A: Not much fun to play against, and B: probably not possible given the current state of AI in general, at least not in a game budget (and, given the little problems they are having just getting an AI to move a vehicle from Point A to Point B without running over curbs, people, animals, other vehicles, I suspect we are a long way from getting an in-game available AI that can do human-type path-finding over a 15,000 tile map).

Is the game balanced? Not by a long shot, but for the most part the Imbalance is in the Civs and Leaders. Then you don't play with those Civs and Leaders, and let the designers know that they've wasted a lot of time and money putting together Civs and Leaders that will Never See The Light of Day.

Is the game Fun To Play. That's an individual question, with a different answer from every single gamer, and probably a different answer from the same gamer at different moments. But, this is the most fundamental question, as long as we are talking about a recreational game and not a masochistic exercise. And even here, for almost everybody the Fun part is in different aspects of the game, and in anything with as many components as a 4x game, some parts are Funner than others, and in the end you balance the parts you enjoy in the game versus the parts that make you want to heave your computer out the nearest window (which, since I play on a large desktop machine, takes real effort, but at times it has been close . . . )

So far, Civ VI is still Fun to Play. For me. Some of the time. I submit that that is the best any game company can legitimately expect and the best we can expect from any game company.

That doesn't exempt the company from being beaten like the proverbial rug in these forums for things in the game we don't like, but Get Real: the only way I or anyone else will get a game we are 100% satisfied with is if we design, program, finance, test, and then play the game entirely by and for our individual selves. Unfortunately, I left my several million dollars and years of programming experience in game software in my other pants, so I'll keep harassing Firaxis with suggestions to bend the game in the direction I'd like to play it.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Here, here.

Dog knows I've posted plenty of complaints about how Civ VI does things, either in comparison to other games or in comparison to the history it purports to be loosely based on but isn't. And some of the complaints about Firaxis' apparent inabilty to fix bugs or get systems to work together or even notice massive Imbalances in game play and the leaders and civs themselves deserves to be pointed out, loudly and repeatedly.

BUT Between Civ V and VI I've put in almost 10,000 hours playing the Civ games (I don't have the hour figures for the time I put into Civs II, III, and IV, but I suspect it at least equals the time spent on the last two games, which is a little disturbing, to be frank) so either they are doing something right or I'm a flaming Idiot (don't nobody comment on that, thankyouverymuch).

Mind you, the tenor of my complaints might be a little different from most, because I have never been very interested in winning the game as much as in playing the game. I could care less about 'paths to victory' or people complaining that "X Civ is broken because you can always win by doing YZW with it." - then don't do YZW: problem solved (at least for me).

Does the game have a 'good' AI? Define your terms. An AI that can consistently beat most Human Players is A: Not much fun to play against, and B: probably not possible given the current state of AI in general, at least not in a game budget (and, given the little problems they are having just getting an AI to move a vehicle from Point A to Point B without running over curbs, people, animals, other vehicles, I suspect we are a long way from getting an in-game available AI that can do human-type path-finding over a 15,000 tile map).

Is the game balanced? Not by a long shot, but for the most part the Imbalance is in the Civs and Leaders. Then you don't play with those Civs and Leaders, and let the designers know that they've wasted a lot of time and money putting together Civs and Leaders that will Never See The Light of Day.

Is the game Fun To Play. That's an individual question, with a different answer from every single gamer, and probably a different answer from the same gamer at different moments. But, this is the most fundamental question, as long as we are talking about a recreational game and not a masochistic exercise. And even here, for almost everybody the Fun part is in different aspects of the game, and in anything with as many components as a 4x game, some parts are Funner than others, and in the end you balance the parts you enjoy in the game versus the parts that make you want to heave your computer out the nearest window (which, since I play on a large desktop machine, takes real effort, but at times it has been close . . . )

So far, Civ VI is still Fun to Play. For me. Some of the time. I submit that that is the best any game company can legitimately expect and the best we can expect from any game company.

That doesn't exempt the company from being beaten like the proverbial rug in these forums for things in the game we don't like, but Get Real: the only way I or anyone else will get a game we are 100% satisfied with is if we design, program, finance, test, and then play the game entirely by and for our individual selves. Unfortunately, I left my several million dollars and years of programming experience in game software in my other pants, so I'll keep harassing Firaxis with suggestions to bend the game in the direction I'd like to play it.

now that's fair and logical criticism of the game.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

yes AI is terrible and agenda system is the worst but seriously when has non-modded civ AI been NOT terrible.

Civ 4.
Civ 3.
Civ 2.

(I can't vouch for Civ 1, someone else will have to do that )

I'm not sure I understand the argument about having an AI that can beat a human not being "fun" -- that's what the levels are all about. The fun game is to find what level you are at and then play one level above that (for me, others may want to play one level below, it's all about choices). Personally, if I am playing against an AI that is so bad that none of my choices matter (because I'll win anyway), well, that's not much fun either. This isn't EU4, it's Civ.

 

[Heyesey]

I'm not sure I understand the argument about having an AI that can beat a human not being "fun" -- that's what the levels are all about. The fun game is to find what level you are at and then play one level above that (for me, others may want to play one level below, it's all about choices). Personally, if I am playing against an AI that is so bad that none of my choices matter (because I'll win anyway), well, that's not much fun either. This isn't EU4, it's Civ.

The problem is that as soon as you develop an AI capable of beating the human *at all*, chances are it will beat the human every single time without fail, unless the human is given the sort of advantages that, currently, the AI gets on higher difficulty levels.
An AI that is unbeatable, or an AI that is unloseable? Difficult choice.

 

[Alaindor]

Thank you for this thread, let's hope it attracts good, constructive discussions and criticism (good start) and doesn't degrade again like others seem to, lately.

 

[Linklite]

I'm not sure I understand the argument about having an AI that can beat a human not being "fun"

I have yet to read a post that implied that AI shouldn't be able to beat a human. People just don't want an AI that always will, because that's not fun for anyone outside of fairly small niche. You want an AI that can range from merely being present upto being able to beat you the majority of the time to suit the needs of builders upto competitive min maxxers.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I have yet to read a post that implied that AI shouldn't be able to beat a human. People just don't want an AI that always will, because that's not fun for anyone outside of fairly small niche. You want an AI that can range from merely being present upto being able to beat you the majority of the time to suit the needs of builders upto competitive min maxxers.

This is why video games have difficulty levels. Your core game has to work first though

 

[Xur]

Thank you for this thread, let's hope it attracts good, constructive discussions and criticism (good start) and doesn't degrade again like others seem to, lately.

Why do you assume a thread, that is positive towards the game, is going to be more constructive or have a more valid criticism? If anything, there are too many people making excuses for Firaxis on these forums. It seems like fans of civ6 live in an echo chamber at times. Some, if not most, of the best criticism is negative - and that goes for all aspects of life (and gaming).

 

[Alaindor]

Why do you assume a thread, that is positive towards the game, is going to be more constructive or have a more valid criticism? If anything, there are too many people making excuses for Firaxis on these forums. It seems like fans of civ6 live in an echo chamber at times. Some, if not most, of the best criticism is negative - and that goes for all aspects of life (and gaming).

Read my post again. I'm all in for constructive criticism, and I try to do so also. What I'm up against is constant flaming, insulting the devs and so on, which will fail short of getting their attention since they are also normal human beings, and people posting in each and every thread the same offensive comments every time. I call that trolling.

I might live in an echo chamber but I sure don't come here to read constant whining. If civ6 became so horrible and lame to me, I would simply move on and stop coming here.

 

[Linklite]

Some, if not most, of the best criticism is negative - and that goes for all aspects of life (and gaming).

Sure, but if my wife (hypothetically) whinged about me every time we talked, made every comment a criticism of me, turned every conversation, even innocuous ones in which I'm asking what she wants for dinner, into rants about how disappointed she was in me and how much of a failure I was, well, that would be a fast track to a divorce. That relationship would be toxic.

Constructive criticism (and a fair amount of what is being said isn't) is fine and healthy. When you're trying to turn every thread into attacking the object of your hate, then that's not. I don't come here to hear how the game is horrible, I come to learn more about how to play, more about the historical aspects, and to just socialise with other players. Constructive criticism has its place, a bit like McDonalds, but you don't eat McDonalds every day and it's not healthy to go even close to that.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Some, if not most, of the best criticism is negative - and that goes for all aspects of life (and gaming).

your post is too negative.

 

[Alaindor]

Sure, but if my wife (hypothetically) whinged about me every time we talked, made every comment a criticism of me, turned every conversation, even innocuous ones in which I'm asking what she wants for dinner, into rants about how disappointed she was in me and how much of a failure I was, well, that would be a fast track to a divorce. That relationship would be toxic.

Constructive criticism (and a fair amount of what is being said isn't) is fine and healthy. When you're trying to turn every thread into attacking the object of your hate, then that's not. I don't come here to hear how the game is horrible, I come to learn more about how to play, more about the historical aspects, and to just socialise with other players. Constructive criticism has its place, a bit like McDonalds, but you don't eat McDonalds every day and it's not healthy to go even close to that.

I couldn't agree more and could not have said better

 

[Heyesey]

Bland unstinting negativity, or bland unstinting positivity, as bad as each other to be honest. Too many threads on forums everywhere (I can't speak for here, I only joined a week ago, but I'd lay heavy odds it's true here as well!) consist of not criticism so much as "this game sucks, the developers suck, and you suck for disagreeing with me."

Constructive criticism leads to discussion; negative criticism usually just leads to squabbles.

 

[uhu]

Bland unstinting negativity, or bland unstinting positivity, as bad as each other to be honest.[...] Constructive criticism leads to discussion

In general I agree wholeheartedly!

Still Firaxis insists in only discussing here historical aspects of civilisations.
No "Constructive criticism leads to discussion".
Sneaking through the forums and making private notes is no dialogue; even less as fruitful as e.g. the cooperation with the Frankenstein Team (cf. to civ4 credits!)

This leads to enormous frustration. Good modders with initial pure positive motivation just disappear in resignation as Fearsunn or turn to "negativity" like Aristos ... you have to be nearly a saint to keep positive like Gedemon or Infixo ...

Firaxis' behaviour generates self a lot of the energy propelling the observed negativity.
It is their game and their decision. If their expected marketing hype and entertainment / platform strategy can outperform the losses due to missing moddability and quality (stability with bigger maps and assets, balance inbetween mechanics, bugginess), the company owners of future Civ releases will be satisfied - so what?

Too many threads on forums everywhere (I can't speak for here, I only joined a week ago, but I'd lay heavy odds it's true here as well!) consist of not criticism

I'd say, the amount of angriness depends on the treatment of players and modders, which are quite different e.g. in this subforum:

my experience now seems to mirror the previous games. Cities produce everything super-slowly, and it seems I'm out-teched, out-settled, and out-muscled pretty quickly. Rome declares war, and by the time I can march two warriors over, they're mowed down in one move by a slinger+chariot combo

Firstly, this isn't Civ. Two warrior army will have you dead quick. You need many units to defend. At easy levels if they dow don't go to them. Hide ranged in a forest and use warriors as mop up. Terrain is important. Occupy hills and forest with ranged. [...]

 

[Evie]

Civ 4.
Civ 3.
Civ 2.

(I can't vouch for Civ 1, someone else will have to do that )

Civ II, the game of the famous Great Wall of Antarctica, had non-terrible AI now? That's...*news* to me...

In general I agree wholeheartedly!

Still Firaxis insists in only discussing here historical aspects of civilisations.
No "Constructive criticism leads to discussion".
Sneaking through the forums and making private notes is no dialogue; even less as fruitful as e.g. the cooperation with the Frankenstein Team (cf. to civ4 credits!)

While that's true, there is zero legitimate expectation that developpers (or any other team members) will participate in the discussions on an unofficial fan site. All those who chose to do (and aren't driven away by the hostility) are going beyond their job description for us. Those who do not are well within their rights.

It's not "insists on only discussing here historical aspects". It's "the person handling the historical side of the game is willing to go above and behond anything they owe us to interact with us on a fan forum."

We are not entitled to any of them spending time interacting with us here.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Civ II, the game of the famous Great Wall of Antarctica, had non-terrible AI now? That's...*news* to me...

That was *still* better than Civ 6 non-adjusted AI. And that was like almost before I had children (my oldest is 26 now).

 

[Aristos]

A true friend is not who tells you what you want to hear, but the one who tells you what you need to hear.

 

[Evie]

That was *still* better than Civ 6 non-adjusted AI. And that was like almost before I had children (my oldest is 26 now).

Not so much "better" as playing a completely different (and simpler) game with its own rules for production, terrain improvements, spies success rate and bribe abilities, FOW and so forth.

Civ 2 might have been more difficult, but claiming it had good - or better- ai is risible.