Civ 6

[Keler]

Well if we are gonna list our 5 most played games here are mine.

1. Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction. My favorite game. Still play it. Its sequel was a horrid game for various reasons so have not gotten.
2. Civilization 4 Beyond The Sword.
3. The Elder Scrolls 5 Skyrim. On break from the game. Will one day play again. Of note I also played and loved Morrowind and got but hated and quickly stopped playing Oblivion.
4. Team Fortress 2. No longer play and will not play again. Stopped about 4 months after it became free to play because of the influx of cheaters and trolls in it.
5. Borderlands 1. Still play albeit rarely. Have never played co-op. Played sequel however 2 has a horrid loot system so no longer play. 1 Has a great loot system and slightly better combat due to enemies not being silly damage sponges and no suicide bomber enemies that insta-kill (in the base game anyway).

Hello there and others,
I posted my favorite 5 games to show that they are all PC and Only PC games. And then they all became disaster right along with Civilization series
Maybe we should open another thread about what Civ 4 players other favorite games are

Some others in this thread pretty much described very well with nice language how game industry went and goes and everything.

It is obvious other kind of games like car racing or open world games where you move a single character etc. moved to playstation for better graphics. Mainly strategy games that require so many controls can't really move on to other platforms and SHOULD NOT!. I really can't tolerate every other electronic game platform that doesn't have an alternative to mouse and its arrow.

I bought Civ 4 Vanilla when I was 13 at year 2006 and I mainly played on settler, and got myself kicked because of refusing demands of many cruel AIs on chieftain difficulty back then . But I never remember complaining about it. Even entering world builder for creating maps was fun. I was usually winning on settler difficulty.And really really enjoying it. I loved civ 4 vanilla a lot more after playing another nice game, Rome Total War. So there you go, a difficulty for kids. They even had Earth scenarios for those real world lovers.

They seem to arrange things for kids now and only for kids. No matter what company is be it Firaxis, EA w/e, you can stop complaning about Firaxis now, every single player PC game goes on downhill, where complexity and quality is not requirement anymore. They don't want some 13 year olds to buy games and then they don't understand and throw away right? increase in Usage of Internet and iPhone 1 release date seem to put off PC Games, at least that's what I think. We may used to grow up playing single player games on PC, the most complex electronic device yet anyone can use but today's trend is annoyingly about online games, showing off through internet.

And a game also adaptable to notebooks, tablets? Of course, compound some units into same tile by creating your unique combination army, move it with your fingers and there you go. Civ 6. Get connected, play with your friends. The more the better only strategy game. I guess today's tablet technology perhaps can't beat computers available 10 years ago. I still consider windows 95 PC games more complex than today's tablet games.

Also all those discussions/threads in civ 6 about what leaders people want to see? Some leaders are totally unique that they must include. I don't want to see a civ game without its classic leaders such as montezuma, tokugawa, alexander, ramesses, napoleon, shaka, elizabeth, genghis khan etc. And their unique soundtrack that has been around since Civ 1, a game I never played.
What's the word? Cumulative? How civ 1-2-3-4 proceeded and then another game was created civ5.


I guess civ 4 designers explained themselves with Engineering tech quote
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Maybe Civ 5 fans and unbiased civ4/5 fans can start a thread about what they see bad in civilization 4 and why objectively. Because so far in this thread I see civ 4 fans complaning objectively about civ 5.

And maybe this changed Liberlism quote to all single player PC game developpers out there
"Any company that would give up a little quality to gain a little profit will deserve neither and lose both."

Yeah, basically repeating is all I can do

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Lemon's handy BAT hint:
All arguments can be solved by good sex.
(i forgot your real line :b)

I think you mean:

There is no issue that cannot be resolved by deceit, treachery, bribery, good sex, or automatic weapons fire.

 

[HughFran]

Wouldn't our energy be better spent elsewhere?

Hi Lemon, yeah you are probably right lol! I'm all about fairness and everybody having a voice and opinion! I do agree with you that there are people on this and many other forums that are dismissive of others if the opinion differs and people can be passive aggressive. I just feel that it happens from die hard Civ 4 fans as much as it does with Civ 5 fans and I just wanted to highlight that.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Well, I saw the first 60 turn "Let's play" video for Civ 6 and I'm very discouraged by it.

From what I saw, it's a watered down rehash of Civ 5 with a new coat of paint.

Sad really, this once great franchise reduced to rubble...

 

[Drakarska]

Saw the video as well..... *sigh* So much for Civ standing the test of time.

 

[Camikaze]

Most people seem to think the videos show a very promising game. Could you explain why you disagree?

 

[HughFran]

I haven't watched the video yet, where can I view this?

 

[Camikaze]

There are a number of videos looking at the same gameplay footage, this is probably the most popular.

 

[Windsor]

I think the footage looks interesting. TBH I think it's really hard to say much based on the little we have been shown. While I have my doubts about some of the features, it's all about execution.

 

[HughFran]

There are a number of videos looking at the same gameplay footage, this is probably the most popular.

Thanks!

 

[lymond]

Most people seem to think the videos show a very promising game. Could you explain why you disagree?

Well, I think most of those folks actually like Civ V. VI, as stated by the designers, is basically an extension of V. Also, stated by the designers actually, is getting away from micro-management. VI, like V, is clearly getting away from the strategic depth the prior versions had.

Other than fighting, the game seems to be about mainly where to best place a city and where to best put something on a tile.

With that said, I'm very glad to hear that they got rid of the horrible global happiness mechanic, returning to local happiness. The civic tech tree may be interesting, and I would think certainly better than the very limited policies of V.

I actually kinda like the visuals/graphics (Did not like V's). Some of the style reminds me of other games that I can't think of at the moment. The UI looks like it may be improved.

But still, ultimately it is about strategic depth. I was hoping Firaxis would restart things with VI and try to find a compromise between the old and the new. Instead, I see more and more stripped away from the game with the series still looking like it is heading in the wrong, and a different, direction. Some these features that are supposed to "wow" are pulled directly from other lesser 4X games. We don't have new designers, we have the V designers. Fresh blood would have been nice.

 

[vincentz]

I would have loved if they went in a completely new direction. Dont care which direction tbh, just a different direction than V.
I had hoped we would finally be able to play civ on a globe (coz the earth is actually a globe. really. it is.).
I had high hopes that there would be a stack system a bit like Call2Power II (iirc. its been awhile since I played it).
I had hoped to see little civs walking around, trade routes walking along the paths, civilian planes flying from airport to airport.
I had hoped the leaders would evolve with new clothing, backgrounds and maybe even advisors.
I really hoped that they went into more complexity. not just a bit more than V, but in a world ruler, hell even simcity IV kinda way.
I had hoped they would make combat a minigame, dont care if realtime or turnbased tbh, just not the "unit A move into unit B. bum."

I have many more hopes, but when looking at the video, not one of the hopes seem to be realized.
Thats the reason, for me atleast, to dislike civ 6, even from a couple of screenies and a bit of vid.

One thing though. The graphics doesnt look too bad in the vid. The screenies made me sick, the video not so much

 

[Rusten]

I didn't have time to watch the full vid, so I won't be too harsh. In fact, a lot of it looked promising.

But what really scared me was the automated roading system based on trading! WTH! That sounds absolutely dreadful! I hope they have a good plan regarding this. Not being in control of roading/movement terrifies me.

 

[Windsor]

I didn't have time to watch the full vid, so I won't be too harsh. In fact, a lot of it looked promising.

But what really scared me was the automated roading system based on trading! WTH! That sounds absolutely dreadful! I hope they have a good plan regarding this. Not being in control of roading/movement terrifies me.

Here's an interesting quote on roads:

There’s one major difference: trade caravans are, at least during these early turns, the only way to build roads between cities. “We thought that was a good way to go for the early game, because historically roads were built along trade routes,” says Beach. It also contributes to his larger goal of reducing tile-by-tile micromanagement, while dramatically increasing the role of both domestic and international trade until you research military engineers in the mid-game and can build your own roads.

So you'll get some control over where roads are built. The other part worth noticing is the "larger goal of reducing tile-by-tile micromanagement".

While I understand the reasons for wanting to minimize tile management it comes at a hefty price. It's chipping away at the very core part of the game. It's a fundamental rejection of Sorens idea of Civilization as a Tile Based Strategy game.

 

[Fippy]

Hmm..the graphics actually look nice (did i really say that).
But seriously, i thought in Civ5 they were all over the place and just weird and totally not fun, what we can see from 6 so far looks surprisingly clean and like a "real game".

So that gives some hope, i can at least try games if they look a bit fun.
Civ 5 i saw and said "nope, just no way"

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah see I haven't even seen this video but the phase "larger goal of reducing tile-by-tile micromanagement" makes me not even want to watch the video.

Most people seem to think the videos show a very promising game. Could you explain why you disagree?

Just check out all the threads showing why I disagree with the same people who say they like Civ V better than Civ IV.

 

[elitetroops]

That video had a lot of things that looked promising, actually. Graphics look much better than in the earlier screenshots. Kind of like the graphics. There was also quite a lot of mechanics mentioned that seemed interesting. Though at the same time I was wondering how they would manage to balance all those things so that there would be multiple possible paths to equally good results. But that is of course impossible to judge at this point. I never played Civ 5, can't tell how much it has in common with that. But it's safe to say it's entirely different from IV. And I'm fine with that also. We already have Civ IV and it's still an awesome game, VI is allowed to be different.

 

[Drakarska]

Most people seem to think the videos show a very promising game. Could you explain why you disagree?

In addition to what others have already stated, My biggest complaint is that it appears to leaning more towards a city management/city build game, as opposed to a true 4x grand empire game.

Some of the concepts are novel, even potentially interesting. But the overall impression thus far ( seriously, cards and slots for your gov? caravans = roads only?) has left me rather disappointed.

 

[OneFootInThe...]

I watched it and the following:

Excellent:
*Removal of global happiness
* Casus Belli in diplomacy - looks like a great addition

Very Good:
*Visuals, I like them, both the map and building of wanders
* New civics "card" implementation, closer to Civ IV concept, and may even be improved!?! (remains to be seen)
* tooltip has continent names = nice, but like a breadcrumb of what could be

OK:
*Religion
*Tourism (seems like an interesting new concept)
*City districts, looks like an interesting concept, remains to be seen how it is implemented
*tying tech and civic development to "doing stuff" may be good - if there are really lots of options offering varied gameplay, may be bad if it puts the game on "railroad"
*projects
*there will be UU

Meh:
*Trade units building roads
*spotting barb scouts = lame micromanagement tactic
*"unique diplomatic agenda" sounds like before, just marketing wrap
*"hidden leader agenda" is randomized - may be good, but all in all, just randomized traits
*early spy system is automated - what did they say in the other interview "automation is a sign of weak design" ehhh
*city states
*conditions for wonders

Poor:
*UI
*Units control in particular, and the city screen, don't know what looks worse, almost in "dreadful" category
*Builders which replace workers, so basically city production replaces worker management and you "produce" tile improvements now through a specialized unit which disappears as it gets used up


Dreadful:
*still essentially 1UPT

???
*builders rush production of wanders - unique to China, looks very powerful?
*How will AI handle new concepts (that one is funny - 90% certainty it will be a total failure - will have a default strategy which will be totally suboptimal), still good enough for 90% of playing population though
*civics tied to culture - do not see it as good, as opposed to tech

Overall some interesting concepts and feels like definite improvement on V, but not enough for now.

In reality not for me, the early game review looks like an improvement, so I can understand how a "V" lover would be impressed, but from my perspective it will be let down by impossible to code for AI and subpar UI, thus = pass. May be enough after a few years and last expansion is out.

 

[vincentz]

I can understand how a "V" lover would be impressed,/

This.
It does look, and sound like an improvement to 5, and they are not stripping it barenaked so they can sell some day0 dlc, which many do, so respect for that.