Civ VI is SO close to greatness - A call to the developers

[Archon_Wing]

F.... that. If the feeling is that another expansion is needed before diplomacy and balancing issues are adressed I won't be buying GS. So far, I've been waiting for GS to go on sales since I already have put out ~100€ for this game with R&F. I'm not buying another inclomplete expansion pack with the excuse of creating a new one to "fix" current issues.
Maybe it's just time to boykot Civ. I have a handful of friends, who I play civ V with in MP and I have adviced them not to buy Civ 6 yet as the game still feels incomplete. The current business model from FXS is apparently to crab all over its loyal community.
Seriously, we need to start admitting Civ VI is a massive fudge up. And worse, its quite possible it was done intentionally in order to pump out more expansion packs.

*Shrugs* Suit yourself; though I have a feeling it's probably not going to work for you.

We'll see what happens with Civ 7; if that turns out to be a mess, then I'll skip. Then it'll just be like Star Trek where I skip over the odd ones.

 

[bitula]

I don't agree. The AI doesn't work in war AT ALL.

It’s not that it DOES work, but actually sometimes it works almost PERFECTLY. I’ve seen it make almost perfect decisions during early conquest of my cities. Not a single unit of its could have done better in those situations. The case is however that the game has bugs, quite a lot and major ones which gives the impression of an overall inept AI, everyone experiences this and it is a sad reality. However statements as yours, don’t make any sense. I mean I really don’t get it what you want to say. Note, FX wont fix bugs like „AI is braindead”, because that is not true. But last time for example I posted a bug about Hwacha being inactive during defense. It was instantly recognized and will be fixed! I really recommend posting the so perceived AI bugs (btw AI in games is not something what many people think here) in smaller doses, with screenshot/save game and more specific cases. There will be more chance this way that it gets fixed. Btw, I have the assumption that the passiveness of units may be due to neglecting the opportunity to gain promotions on your units with low hits. So sometimes it is better to be passive than to hit. Just an idea, I didn’t look in the code.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

@DJ_Tanner "Steam reviews are more positive than not, so, even if all the negativity was due to AI, then the community at large is still OK with the AI."

This is a wrong statement. The reviews are mixed. Besides, many people do not bother with Steam reviews. They just leave the game or do not buy it. Others hope it will get improved, so they wait (endlessly).

The statement was completely correct. Yes, the Steam reviews are listed as "Mixed", but if you actually looked at them you would see that roughly 25,000 positive to 12,500 negative, and for those of you playing at home 25,000 > 12,500. So, as I said, on Steam reviews are more positive than not. Further, I did discuss that Steam reviews were not a pristine metric due to their selection bias, so even though there are more reviews that are positive than negative (once again a very right statement) it must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[darko82]

The statement was completely correct. Yes, the Steam reviews are listed as "Mixed", but if you actually looked at them you would see that roughly 25,000 positive to 12,500 negative, and for those of you playing at home 25,000 > 12,500. So, as I said, on Steam reviews are more positive than not. Further, I did discuss that Steam reviews were not a pristine metric due to their selection bias, so even though there are more reviews that are positive than negative (once again a very right statement) it must be taken with a grain of salt.

True. But 25,000 reviews is a big minority of the people who actually bought the game. At least two milions of copies were sold untill 2017. Thus, basing anything on the Steam reviews so hugely inaccurate.

 

[Bradypus]

True. But 25,000 reviews is a big minority of the people who actually bought the game. At least two milions of copies were sold untill 2017. Thus, basing anything on the Steam reviews so hugely inaccurate.

Also, I believe people are more inclined to write reviews about games they feel strongly about. There are many negative reviews for CIV VI in which the reviewer has put in hundreds if not thousands of hours into the game. If the game was that bad, you wouldn't be sinking thousands of hours into it. And then there's a lot of negative reviews that are not based on critique of the game itself but instead on EULA changes (review bombs).

All in all Steam Reviews can indeed be hugely inaccurate.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . Of course that doesn't mean that you're objectively wrong, because nothing is objective.

This statement is only correct in respect to arguments and statements made by People, who are emotional critters. But I cannot let it go by, because in fact a great deal is Objective: gravity specifically and Mother Nature in general (who, as I used to tell my soldiers, is a Homicidal B---h who is Always trying to kill you, and, sooner or later, Always Succeeds). The physical world is not subject to your or my opinions: a bullet (again, a professional soldier's 'argument') doesn't care what you think, only whether you are in its way or not. If Yes, it stops you from thinking anything. End of all arguments.

In the context of a game the statement is correct in that no two of us in the Forum, this Thread, or the gaming community as a whole have exactly the same idea of what a Good/Perfect game should be. As I see it, the purpose of these Threads and this forum is to come to some kind of consensus of what is so desirable to the majority (or at least, enough to make it economically worthwhile to Firaxis) of gamers to make it worth adding to the game, or producing in the next Expansion/iteration of the Civ franchise.

Good luck with any conclusions, but the process is always worthwhile. . .

 

[DJ_Tanner]

True. But 25,000 reviews is a big minority of the people who actually bought the game. At least two milions of copies were sold untill 2017. Thus, basing anything on the Steam reviews so hugely inaccurate.

Which is why I also stated:
On top of that, you have all the issues with selection bias that would go into understanding the reviews, which, while I would be interested by a deep dive into, need to be considered as well. For instance the average age of the Civ playerbase and how that impacts reviews and level of player, etc, etc. In a nutshell, as was mentioned before, Steam reviews are by no means a useless metric, but they are a far cry from being this pristine encapsulation of the majority or even the core playerbase. And while we are on the topic of selection bias, the AI is one of the biggest problems HERE. I don't know how many times it must be said, but the opinions on this forum do not speak to the majority of Civ players. This is a group that when the tile yields were first announced about 9 months out of release had no less than 10 separate threads dedicated to min maxing. A group that spent countless hours pouring over an out of focus blurry picture to guess at possible leaders for the game. This group is not normal, this is not who butters their bread. A group I am sure Friaxis loves to have, and would love nothing more than to please, but are most defiantly not their priority as their size nowhere near matches their fanaticism.

and:

Further, I did discuss that Steam reviews were not a pristine metric due to their selection bias, so even though there are more reviews that are positive than negative (once again a very right statement) it must be taken with a grain of salt.


I was only discussing the Steam reviews as another person brought it up. I stated that, to their point, there were more positive than negative reviews on Steam. You claimed that to be false, it was not. It was accurate. The level of insight the Steam reviews offers is surely debatable, but the fact that there are more positive than negative is not.

Although, that being said, to your point that that there are only 37K (25 + 12.5) reviews and there at at least 2M copies does not, by itself invalidate the data, if the sample is representative than its representative but that is a whole different ball of wax.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To be fair once you've beaten the main army in a MP game it's just steamrolling from there on. The same applies to SP, just even worse since the AI handles first encounters badly. There's just no way of coming back once your army is wiped out. The flaw lies in how the game denies a player for any comeback. Being a human or computer player.

Is that the flaw? I'd argue that one of the biggest issues in every civ title is that games are over before they end.

Rather than introducing some extra rubber banding, it *is* possible to instead end games that are over.

I also still grade UI as an equally large factor as AI, and a *much* easier one to "fix", evidenced by it not being a glaring problem in other games compared to Civ 5/6. 10000's of extra inputs per game/2+ hours added per game doesn't help with the "end games that are over". That's partially a design problem, but also a basic implementation problem. Both could use work.

 

[Duuk]

The Steam review process is NOT a representative sample. It's not. Unhappy people are 4 times more likely to leave a review. Steam reviews are the Yelp of Gaming. They're where the internet gaming version of blond middle aged women with bob-haircuts, all of whom are named Karen, go to tell the manager that the soup wasn't hot and had too much salt.

It's also where die-hard communists go to tell the world that DLC SHOULD BE FREE, MAN every single time a game releases a DLC. Every. single. time.

If Steam offered rewards for people reviewing games so that more people would do it, it might become more representative (I think I might actually suggest this). Until then, I scan the reviews for code-words that I filter out that let me know the reviewer is just complaining to complain.

 

[Aristos]

F.... that. If the feeling is that another expansion is needed before diplomacy and balancing issues are adressed I won't be buying GS. So far, I've been waiting for GS to go on sales since I already have put out ~100€ for this game with R&F. I'm not buying another inclomplete expansion pack with the excuse of creating a new one to "fix" current issues.
Maybe it's just time to boykot Civ. I have a handful of friends, who I play civ V with in MP and I have adviced them not to buy Civ 6 yet as the game still feels incomplete. The current business model from FXS is apparently to crab all over its loyal community.
Seriously, we need to start admitting Civ VI is a massive fudge up. And worse, its quite possible it was done intentionally in order to pump out more expansion packs.

One of the smartest strong opinions I have seen in a while. You are right, as much as many don't want to acknowledge it.

If Steam offered rewards for people reviewing games so that more people would do it, it might become more representative (I think I might actually suggest this).

How would that be different from what is happening with the MSM reviews? That's how we get "11/10" reviews for civ 6...

 

[Gorbles]

How would that be different from what is happening with the MSM reviews? That's how we get "11/10" reviews for civ 6...

You're describing what said media do by framing it as a bad thing. Surely you don't want more bad things, by your own logic?

I mean you're wrong anyhow (and some of the largest publications didn't seemingly grade it with a score), but still. More unfair reviews is surely a bad thing, nomatter where you stand on the game itself.

 

[Aristos]

Disagree on the review topic though. This would blast up review numbers and completely kill review quality, which is much more important. People would do quick trash reviews for the achievement or present on mass.

Exactly. Like some of the "official" game reviewers are already doing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The Steam review process is NOT a representative sample. It's not. Unhappy people are 4 times more likely to leave a review. Steam reviews are the Yelp of Gaming. They're where the internet gaming version of blond middle aged women with bob-haircuts, all of whom are named Karen, go to tell the manager that the soup wasn't hot and had too much salt.

It's also where die-hard communists go to tell the world that DLC SHOULD BE FREE, MAN every single time a game releases a DLC. Every. single. time.

If Steam offered rewards for people reviewing games so that more people would do it, it might become more representative (I think I might actually suggest this). Until then, I scan the reviews for code-words that I filter out that let me know the reviewer is just complaining to complain.

Steam reviews are not representative of entire player bases, but games tend to have the same type of reviewer. They will be low compared to other sources, but if you compare steam ratings to steam ratings between games I expect more *predictive value* from a relatively higher steam score than from a relatively higher "journalist" score.

Similarly, if you have two products rated 500+ times on Yelp, and one averages a score roughly double that of its competitor, the higher score is still probably better. Even if both scores are unfairly deflated by dissatisfied customers.

The initial magazine reviews for Civ 5 gave it a glowing score (> 9.5 out of 10) and didn't care to mention the fact that at its release, multiplayer (an advertised feature) objectively didn't work. I'm not talking about being a little laggy, or de-sync then rejoin. I mean that if you started a game with 4 people in it you were not going to finish that game, ever. You wouldn't even get many turns before it was impossible to progress. Yet that was a 9.5 out of 10...and such a rating is allegedly provides *more* predictive value than Steam reviews?

Multiplayer not though, as long as you don't play boring competitive tryhard rules. In a good multiplayer game everything is open until the end because of the most fun and most important part in a multiplayer game of CIV: Diplomacy.
In our multiplayer games the player who was most ahead never won because people teamed up against him as soon as he was close to winning. That's how CIV is balanced in this regard and i love it.

What do you mean by "boring competitive tryhard" rules? You say that, then go on to describe sensible behavior in a game where everyone is attempting to win (dogpiling the leader). To me, it seems like if this is restricted in other games, it is your rule set that is "competitive" and the other that is using some arbitrary set of house rules.

Even in this scenario, however, how many iterations of "stomp the leader" would the game ideally have? It's certainly better than contrived rubber banding, but I'd argue this is also indicative of someone not separating themselves sufficiently. That could be a design flaw, or just that people playing are close enough in ability.

 

[Gorbles]

By assuming that different games have both an equal volume (and weighting) of detractors, you simplify what is actually a very complex equation.

If folks really want to drag this down the well of professional journalism vs. user reviews, you first have to understand the evolution of games journalism and its relevance to review scores, in addition to how various user rating systems work and their historical (and varied) exploits. Even unrelated examples like Boaty McBoatface are a handy reference here (and that's a completely apolitical example that I chose precisely on purpose to that end). As a general frame of reference, an overwhelming amount of user reviews are based in an emotional response (see the recent reviews of Civ 6 relating to the Gold Edition not having an upgrade path for base game owners - this is completely irrelevant to anyone looking to buy the game, it's based purely on personal anger at people who even in some cases say they enjoy the game! Hardly representative of the game's quality in that case). Professional reviews, while reflective of the writer's own likes and dislikes to an extent, are typically far more balanced because it being a profession, the people involved tend to have to balance their analysis better.

It's like professional anything vs. hobbyist anything. Certain hobbyists can indeed be excellent, but on the whole will reflect a completely different process to professional equivalents. Much like how there are very few modding teams that are run like a professional software development team (and how personal issues often break teams up, whereas in the professional world if you want to keep your job you often don't have a choice regardless of who you like or not), the metrics involved are completely different.

Like I said earlier in the thread, this isn't to say user reviews aren't useful. Emotional feedback is incredibly important when making games. It just so happens that so is a more balanced (and often technical) appraisal depending on what you're looking for in a game recommendation. Some folks don't care about technical aspects. Others do. I know if I want technical details about a game, Steam's user reviews are not where I look to go for it.

Notably, if I were wanting CiV multiplayer, then the professional reviews of the time wouldn't have prepared me for that either. However, similarly, if I didn't care about MP, then all of those negative reviews and their impact on the overall Steam rating of the game (however visible it was back in Steam's relative infancy) is completely useless for me, and obscures what I actually get out of the game.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please get back to the topic of the potential of Civ6. We do not need a detour into world of game journalists or game reviewers. Thanks.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's like professional anything vs. hobbyist anything. Certain hobbyists can indeed be excellent, but on the whole will reflect a completely different process to professional equivalents. Much like how there are very few modding teams that are run like a professional software development team (and how personal issues often break teams up, whereas in the professional world if you want to keep your job you often don't have a choice regardless of who you like or not), the metrics involved are completely different.

Sorry, but systematic dishonesty earns distrust, and includes specifically reviews of Civ 5 and yes, Civ 6. When "professionals" lie and/or routinely get answers wrong at a rate worse than "hobbyists", one questions their professionalism. Even if one doesn't, there is still a need downgrade them as a model for anticipating reality even if you somehow still accept them as professionals...at least if your beliefs are to constrain anticipation. Note that this also counts for the development team. I don't *believe* they will improve AI or UI significantly, because if they valued those things with any significance Civ 6 would not be in the state it's in. I was and remain unhappy about the reality, but I won't pretend it's not there.

Civ 6 has a 93 score from PC gamer, and an article that mentions nothing about the UI (good luck to casual players on vanilla release determining how to win tourism, or dozens of other game rules). Notably, it also lacks any information about THE big complaint in the OP - the AI. If you go to Steam's reviews, AI crops up quickly, in both recommended and not recommended reviews, which from what I see are a more accurate take on the game, match better the opinions written here, and are more consistent to the actual experience of playing Civ 6. PC gamer is, to the best I can interpret from the evidence, worse than useless in this example. It's not an isolated case.

I actually disagree to some extent with the OP on "potential". Starting with Civ 5, we've had a promise of potential for nearly a decade, and only modders have come close to fixing either his issue (AI) or mine (both AI and UI). At some point, beliefs need to be followed by anticipated experience. What we got is a rehash of the Civ 4 random events with slightly more meaningful choices. Whatever potential Civ 6 might have, most of it will be realized by the modding community, apparently.

 

[Gedemon]

Like TheMeInTeam and many others said, AI is one of the biggest problems of CIV VI.
Like also many others said, it is factually fixable.
Those are facts. That's all, there is no arguing against that. So let's finally stop this unnecessary discussion and talk about what this thread was originally for: What can the developers do with the next update?

Very simple: release the DLL source code.

Yet, when they'll do it, I'm not going to work on the AI, as there are a lot of other things that take priority for my enjoyment of a Civilization game, like diplomacy, combat mechanisms, more units per tile, etc... No point in starting by the AI when all those changes will affect it.

 

[ashendashin]

No point in starting by the AI when all those changes will affect it.

Y'know I'd be interested in what Gazebo would say to that if he ever bothered with these threads, if he'd say anything at all. One time when someone was proposing some feature for VP it went something along:
"I'm sure the AI will handle it"
"G: That's the type of thinking Firaxis uses"
And VP certainly isn't lacking in features. That said, I'm no modder, and in the case Gazebo does read these threads I hope I'm not annoying him with this

 

[Gedemon]

Y'know I'd be interested in what Gazebo would say to that if he ever bothered with these threads, if he'd say anything at all. One time when someone was proposing some feature for VP it went something along:
"I'm sure the AI will handle it"
"G: That's the type of thinking Firaxis uses"
And VP certainly isn't lacking in features. That said, I'm no modder, and in the case Gazebo does read these threads I hope I'm not annoying him with this

He's right, those are my first thoughts when designing something in my mods, "how will it affect the AI ?".

Yes, you miss a lot of features that would please your players, but it's much easier to handle later in development.

 

[bitula]

???

You said something like AI doesn't work at ALL. Now:
Existence of bugs in a code doesn’t mean the code is not working. If it works in certain circumstances you can’t say „not working at ALL”. The only thing you mentioned, which can be potentially discussed in a meaningful way - without endless simplistic statements about philosophical interpretations of perceived reality in the context of strategy games – is that you claim something in the lines of like the AI does not amass an army. But that is not true as well. Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn’t. That is an objective fact (both philosophically, mathematically, statistically, phenomenologically and scientifically ). So what’s next?