civ 6 is a good game with issues.

[Aristos]

I haven't preordered anything at all in the past, and yet, I've already learned my lesson.

Well yeah, blind trust, and wanting to support the devs of my favorite franchise bar none...

Not anymore.

 

[Zaarin]

Well yeah, blind trust, and wanting to support the devs of my favorite franchise bar none...

Not anymore.

Yeah, trust is the key. I would preorder from a company that I trusted enough, but there is no longer such a company. Obsidian was the last one, but they lost my trust with The Outer Worlds. I do still preorder sometimes, but it takes more convincing than brand confidence.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yeah, trust is the key. I would preorder from a company that I trusted enough, but there is no longer such a company. Obsidian was the last one, but they lost my trust with The Outer Worlds. I do still preorder sometimes, but it takes more convincing than brand confidence.

This is just up my alley! I'm always paranoid and trust NO ONE, so this is just a natural thing for me.

Although, I can't help but be hyped by one Manor Lords...

 

[Kupe Navigator]

which is why I haven't pre-ordered Humankind yet despite nearly 90% of praises it gets. I will wait till August to find out if it is worth the hype and then think if I should buy it.

 

[Linklite]

Yeah, trust is the key. I would preorder from a company that I trusted enough, but there is no longer such a company. Obsidian was the last one, but they lost my trust with The Outer Worlds. I do still preorder sometimes, but it takes more convincing than brand confidence.

You didn't like The Outer Worlds? I quite enjoyed it. Very short though, glad I got it in a sale.

Yeap. The problem is, how do you get trustworthy reviews or assessments? I mean, how do you know which ones are trustworthy? Are gaming sites' reviews believable? All of them? Some, and which ones? Are opinions in forums like this trustworthy? How much, and which ones?

Bottom line: hard to evaluate without trying, but also hard to know when to trust an opinion, especially the ones that are "highly positive" (given the history of the industry in general, and the franchise in particular).

Still, lesson learned.

I would have said go with the gamers, but CFC got so carried away with each and every NFP that I don't think that's a solid option either. On the other hand, wait too long and the vibe gets too negative and even a decent game can be made to look like crap. In short, I'm in the middle of trying to figure out the answer to that question myself.

 

[Aristos]

which is why I haven't pre-ordered Humankind yet despite nearly 90% of praises it gets. I will wait till August to find out if it is worth the hype and then think if I should buy it.

Me neither, despite liking what I experienced in all open devs... talk about lesson learned. Thanks Firaxis!

I would have said go with the gamers, but CFC got so carried away with each and every NFP that I don't think that's a solid option either.

Exactly. Not anymore, at least. I guess "excessive positivity" can also have not-so-positive consequences.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think apologism is probably the worst thing for a game. It would be one thing if one wanted people to play the game, but in reality it never does that.

Excessive criticism is annoying but inevitable and can be memed away as long as the product can stand out for themselves which will naturally make these criticisms look silly. It's usually easy to prove the complaints are just a matter of taste, or more likely, just the player being bad or ignorant.

But there are issues that cannot be solved by the player "gittin gud", because the developers need to.

As I've always said, it's absurd to worry about companies having "feelings". First off, pretty sure they can't hear it over that pile of cash, and secondly this a'int no charitable cause. If you do things that people would get annoyed over in a $10 indie game, then you must expect much more expectations when you're charging 10x as much.

 

[Zaarin]

You didn't like The Outer Worlds? I quite enjoyed it. Very short though, glad I got it in a sale.

I might have liked it better if it weren't by Obsidian; I expect an Obsidian game to have solid worldbuilding and a story that makes me think. TOW was fun enough, but it was just a generic sci-fi setting (the Nouveau veneer notwithstanding) with a generic story and no real moral or philosophical dimension--it was practically a pastiche of a BioWare game. So if some indie studio had made it, I might have really enjoyed it, the way I did GreedFall, but when I compare it to The Sith Lords, Fallout: New Vegas, or the Pillars of Eternity games...Obsidian should be embarrassed at its comparative shallowness.

I would have said go with the gamers, but CFC got so carried away with each and every NFP that I don't think that's a solid option either. On the other hand, wait too long and the vibe gets too negative and even a decent game can be made to look like crap. In short, I'm in the middle of trying to figure out the answer to that question myself.

I thought there was a mix of excitement and criticism during NFP. I know I wasn't alone in being disenchanted with it. Not nearly the level of negativity that developed after NFP, but there was certainly a fair amount of criticism directed at it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think apologism is probably the worst thing for a game. It would be one thing if one wanted people to play the game, but in reality it never does that.

Excessive criticism is annoying but inevitable and can be memed away as long as the product can stand out for themselves which will naturally make these criticisms look silly. It's usually easy to prove the complaints are just a matter of taste, or more likely, just the player being bad or ignorant.

But there are issues that cannot be solved by the player "gittin gud", because the developers need to.

As I've always said, it's absurd to worry about companies having "feelings". First off, pretty sure they can't hear it over that pile of cash, and secondly this a'int no charitable cause. If you do things that people would get annoyed over in a $10 indie game, then you must expect much more expectations when you're charging 10x as much.

Companies are not people, or sentient - like a mob, the IQ of a corporation is the IQ of the dumbest executive divided by the number of executives. So, you can trust a company to act like a company. Nothing else and nothing more.
When I was heavily into miniatures gaming it was easy to know where to spend my money: I knew many of the good rules writers personally, and I trusted their individual talents and could safely buy anything they put out knowing they would do a good job on any project.
I've never felt that way about any computer game designer, or design team, or company, which means I'm at the mercy of the 'reviewers' and gamers' comments on the game.
Luckily, I spent time as a military intelligence NCO and have spent a lot of years as a military historian, and both professions teach you to sift for BS: the information that is false, incoherent, unbelievable, or inconsistent with other information. That makes it easy to eliminate 99.9% of the 'reviews' of computer games and make a reasonable decision on what's in the game that I might like.

 

[youngsteve]

Yeap. The problem is, how do you get trustworthy reviews or assessments? I mean, how do you know which ones are trustworthy? Are gaming sites' reviews believable? All of them? Some, and which ones? Are opinions in forums like this trustworthy? How much, and which ones?

Bottom line: hard to evaluate without trying, but also hard to know when to trust an opinion, especially the ones that are "highly positive" (given the history of the industry in general, and the franchise in particular).

Still, lesson learned.

I come from the old 8 bit days, & over the years have got very cynical about reviews, for a variety of reasons. This probably hardened after the disastrous launch of Sim City 2013, which must have been one of the worst games & rip off in gaming history, yet was fawned all over by gaming sites & tubers, who seriously damaged their reputations. Make what you may from their motives. Never trust any of them now, & pick up information from various sources to obtain an idea of a game. This seems to work, & cannot remember the last time I bought a complete fiasco.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The only problem I have with Civ6 currently is that I can't beat it in Deity. So it's a good problem to have. (if only Districts and a couple more things were not annoying to me)

I'll post here a record of another topic about AI that has been closed, hope it doesn't mess this one, and if so, please moderators moderate me.

----------

Just because you or I couldn't beat the game doesn't mean the game was unbeatable and I've been playing video games for 42 years now, starting with pong.

He didn't say the game (which game ?) was unbeatable, just that an unbeatable game would not be fun. Now there's unbeatable and unbeatable. There's "considered unbeatable" by a majority (or not), or difficult to beat. And there's the true "unbeatable", when nobody never win against it.
Example : Street Fighter. Since the AI can read your inputs instantly, it can parade all your attacks if it wants to. Fortunately, the programmers did it so that it makes "mistakes". AFAIK, there are only few ways the AI can't counter you, like being cornered in an edge of the level for example, or if there are hits that can't be countered, or if the developers didn't anticipate some move as a counter for a specific attack between two specific characters. AI can program this easily (based on what I learned about deep learning in this topic), if the highest difficulty level is not high enough for some people, so that they will never win again.

The true question is : can losing be enjoyable ? The answer is, let aside Dark Souls masochism, yes : you can learn from you errors for competitive gaming or multiplayer. Provided there's a game. For example, if AI launches the exoplanet rocket on turn 2 due to massive science and production boosts, it is not fun. If it's 5 tiles away from your capital and launches all its bonus units at you on turn 3, it's not fun. That's usually what Civ AI does : having advantages that you can't reproduce in multiplayer. But having artificial advantages let aside "true" unbeatable ones, can still be enjoyable if it's "reasonable" and let you improve your play. What are "reasonable" advantages ? Probably adapting to all kinds of players, from the beginner to the pro. So, the problem here is that the game might missing a couple high difficulty levels. Like Sid and above. But I believe that if the devs didn't do them, it's because they feel Deity is as hard as is already for the majority of the players, that can feel proud to beat Deity, the High End goal for single player. A solution to this, would be a mode of couple difficulty levels ahead of Deity that would be seen as "insane". There's already the Apocalypse mode. I think some players would need an Insane mode. Obviously, there is the AIs that doesn't need artificial advantages, but that's just for specific games, not really Civ. So we have to do with what we have.

Now, don't forget multiplayer. I'm not talking about the multiplayer lobby, which is terrible, and the multiple false errors it displays. People will kick you except if the game is called "welcome all" or if you creates one alike. And even then, the stability is terrible. Not talking about balance. (there is the NEED to have blank civs ; starting positions are unbalancing enough, although it exists some symetrical maps)
No, i'm talking about a multiplayer game with patient friends. Like, and I never experienced it, friends that could wait for their turn, because silmutaneous turns can be a disaster for a couple clicks, and a click fest. It's not fair, and a completely different experience than solo, which Civ6 is made for, hence broken in multiplayer.
I know, this is a hassle. But once you get your inhabits and enough friends, it must be way way better. Easier said than done. Maybe that with some more work from the developers, it could be easier. For example, adding a friend list in the game itself, not relying on the online shops it is in. (most of those friends wouldn't play Civ) I'm sure there are things to do. If multiplayer was more easy and conform to solo, I'm sure a lot of players complaining about AI would gain some humility.

----------

 

[Linklite]

I thought there was a mix of excitement and criticism during NFP. I know I wasn't alone in being disenchanted with it. Not nearly the level of negativity that developed after NFP, but there was certainly a fair amount of criticism directed at it.

There was some, but the pattern was that a new pack unveiled, a couple of people would voice concerns but the vast majority would wet their pants with excitement and big it all up, saying that it'sexactly what Civ 6 needs. The pack would release and everyone would be praising it. Then a while later, mostly if it was one with a game mode, the grumbles would come back as the faults came through, only be swept away as the next pack was announced and everyone got excited about that. As time went on and it started to sink in with some that NFP was actually pretty mediocre, the pattern became more muted, but certainly for the first while, the praise was way overdone.

I actually bought NFP on the strength of two things, the promise of a new "game mode" with each paid pack, and the positive reception of the packs at the beginning. Unfortunately, both were misleading. Had I known how it really was, I'd have waited until a sale. NFP isn't terrible (even if I sometimes give that impression), but when I consider that I paid £23 for both R+F and GS together, the £33 I paid for NFP by itself leaves a bit of a bitter taste.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yeah, trust is the key. I would preorder from a company that I trusted enough, but there is no longer such a company. Obsidian was the last one, but they lost my trust with The Outer Worlds. I do still preorder sometimes, but it takes more convincing than brand confidence.

I think the last thing left I’s preorder is Elder Scrolls VI, provided they didn’t 76 it.

Except I’ll probably get it with Gamepass

 

[Kyuss]

Fix the *&%$^#@ crashes please. I know the AI in civ6 is, and will be, dumb.

Moderator Action: Post changed to conform with forum language rules. Please use appropriate language in future. leif

 

[Linklite]

I think the last thing left I’s preorder is Elder Scrolls VI, provided they didn’t 76 it.

Except I’ll probably get it with Gamepass

TES has been making major shifts in direction. I'm going to wait and see with that one too - the series is too volatile at the moment to be confident that I'll enjoy it enough.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please return to topic please.

 

[Victoria]

I do not really bother to turn up to the forum much anymore, too many civ4 is better, bitter people.
When there is more neagtive threads than positive you have just pushed the online world darker.
It is a game, and it is not a serious game, Sid never intended it to be such.
I was zooming with some old mates the other day and 3 out of 4 play civ 6 but never visit this forum
Now seems the best headspace to be in, online views are becoming too polarised.

 

[Linklite]

True.

The negativity seems to be dying down a bit now. However, probably mostly due to the lack of further development for the game, a lot of the regulars that made the positive threads have more or less left the forum, so it's dying. Before when I checked General Discussions after a few hours, there'd be quite a few threads that would interest me enough to read that had new content and a lot more that wasn't what I was after but had new content as well. Last week I didn't check for nearly two days and there wasn't any new content at all when I came back. It's sad, but inevitable I suppose.

 

[Heyesey]

True.

The negativity seems to be dying down a bit now. However, probably mostly due to the lack of further development for the game, a lot of the regulars that made the positive threads have more or less left the forum, so it's dying. Before when I checked General Discussions after a few hours, there'd be quite a few threads that would interest me enough to read that had new content and a lot more that wasn't what I was after but had new content as well. Last week I didn't check for nearly two days and there wasn't any new content at all when I came back. It's sad, but inevitable I suppose.

Yes, I think inevitable. I only joined here because I had a question about Portugal, but there's not going to be any new stuff to discuss. So anyone who discussed it all ad nauseam two or three years ago, has almost no reason to still be around. The odd one like me - well, there's probably nobody else out there as odd as me but you know what I mean! - will still find the discussions interesting, but I doubt there's enough of us to keep a forum vibrant.

 

[Alaindor]

I do not really bother to turn up to the forum much anymore, too many civ4 is better, bitter people.
When there is more neagtive threads than positive you have just pushed the online world darker.
It is a game, and it is not a serious game, Sid never intended it to be such.
I was zooming with some old mates the other day and 3 out of 4 play civ 6 but never visit this forum
Now seems the best headspace to be in, online views are becoming too polarised.

Yes it is a shame I think, I only joined recently and believe it or not @Victoria, you're the main reason why I joined, you've posted such good stuff and advice, invaluable to a relatively new player like me, and I thought I was going to find many others to discuss strategy of the game with, and learn more about it. Alas, so much negativity and agressivity recently from the few same people (probably toned down lately by the mods) take all the fun away. As you say it's only a game and I'm here to enjoy myself, not read constant whining and criticism. Oh well, that's probably a sign of times (sigh)...