[GS] CIV VI thoughts from a CIV IV player

It's much more standard to let beta players (official and those who buy release titles) test the game then ignore their feedback. You can find long lists of bug reports and known issues with the game that last > year after release. Sometimes multiple years. It's not like the official or unofficial beta testers didn't find them. They were not priority fixes, however.

I think we know what the higher priorities were.

 

And then you have apologists that say it's perfectly to release a broken game.

Of course, come to think about it they left a bunch of crap in BTS never fixed either. (Vassals, AP, etc...) It's always the modders that have to clean up the mess. So when people the above, I don't believe it at all.

 

And therein lies the core of the problem.

 

Last week I went to a restaurant where my meal was served cold and uncooked. The manager apologized profusely, made everything right, and even gave me a coupon. I greatly respected the establishment for owing up to their mistakes

Yesterday I went again, and my meal was again served cold and uncooked, but it's perfectly fine. They got it right eventually.

Today the same thing happened again, however, I was told by an eater nearby that I should not complain at all, since it's only my subjective opinion that food should have to be served hot and they think it's perfectly fine. After all, I could just go somewhere else, which means only I can be wrong.

 

And you didn't know that? Expectations of Quality is yet another social construct from the patriarchal, oppressive system...

 

I didn't suggest, allude to, or otherwise reference an "optimal meta". Optimal play is situational. If the game were better-developed, it would be more situational.

That's still not what "false choice" means.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful in conveying your message if you provided examples that are not entirely abstract. Try to give an example of a real choice in CIV IV and then how that choice is handled in CIV VI.

 

Sure... too easy. From the top of my head without even thinking too much:

1. Science infrastructure: in 4, you have to consider where you want to build up your science city, where to put your Academy (ies), libraries, etc... city specialization matters. In 6, you can spam SDs and their buildings, it does not matter where... yeah yeah, adjacency bonus yadayadyada, but in the end even that does not matter, you still catch up and surpass the AIs. Fake choice.

2. Civics, Policies, Cards: in 4, you have to carefully consider which civic to run according to the game situation at any time, the diplo relations, your plan, your VC, etcetcetc... in 6, you run cards. Any. It does not affect the end result. It affects the short term somewhat, but the end result is the same. You win. Fake, but cool, choices.

3. Gold: in 4, the economy is a struggle, especially in the beginning, but also during the entire game. The "dreaded" sliders (Oh the horror) make you consider your investment mix at all times, and you have to consider where to get the commerce from in the first place, and at all times. In 6, you spam CDs, and swim in gold. It does not matter where you put the CDs. Fake choice.

4. Diplomacy: in 4, there is no "befriend everyone", too many factors come into play making pleasing everyone an utopia (real life anyone?). You have to consider multiple factors at any time depending on the game situation: religion, vicinity, trading, leader personality, resources, technologies, etcetcetc. In 6, you can be everyone's ally, or make everyone hate you, or anything in between, it does not affect the end result. Fake choice.

5. Golden Age: in 4, getting a GA is something influential, and timing it even more so. It affects the gameplay, and if timed correctly, the end result. In 6, you get a bucket to fill with the obvious. Then you get a less-golden age, or a golden age, or a little-more-golden age, which mean nothing in the gameplay (well, some loyalty here and there, but easy to compensate). GAs mean nothing in the end result. Fake pseudo-choice.

And on and on. What do you want me to do? To write a PhD thesis explaining the obvious to some? Maybe they should just go and test both games and compare.

 

This is true. Civ 6's implementation of Science is really bad compared to 4 and 5.

I'm not really sure if adjacency bonus doesn't matter though. Why else are civs like Korea considered too strong? I think that argument rings louder in vanilla, but it isn't the case past that; pop 10/+3 does matter a lot. But the lack of specialists really destroyed the nuance possible.

Eh, not really. There really weren't that many choices. Some were situational (sometimes you would take draft), and State Property vs Free Market was a pretty good debate. But slavery dominated the ancient era, fascism was w/e, and the late game civics were just a meme as they are in 6. Honestly, I acutally hand this to 5 where government mattered a lot. I mean sure Caste System is fun too, but I don't think the difference is that massive.

In Civ 4, you just reach currency and build wealth. *shrugs* Most cities build wealth because markets and banks were terrible investments thanks to how the slider works. Granted, you needed to balance your economy until you could get currency, which was a big challenge. And upgrades were costly. (Of course, the AI basically ignored them, but that's another topic)

This is outright false, even if Civ 4's diplomacy was superior but with proper manipulation you could become the friend of most people-- unlike 5 and 6, diplomatic victory is legit. But even considering that, Civ 4's tension was artificial. It was based on predefined weights that make civs autohate each other, and religion was pretty binary. The strength of Civ 4 over Civ 6 is is the ability to form blocs which makes it more organic. But you don't have to.

Well, I mean you can lose cities if you go down an age; that's sort of a big deal....

I mean, I think this argument holds true if you were stuck in 6 vanilla, but I don't think it is that true as of now. If you ask me, the main strength of Civ 4 is that the game doesn't really force you to do anything; while 5 and 6 constantly railroad you onto a certain playstyle. That is where the lack of choice comes in. And yes, in 4 I felt like wins were earned, while in the later games it was more like everyone else failed, more than anything exceptional I did.

 

Civ 6 has a lot of real strategy choices. It suffers from odd balancing, awful UI, and if you're an experienced player minimal threat to lose the game if you don't die early.

Timing policy card switching to optimize rings similarly to good worker micro in Civ 4 for example. It's not a bad system, and in a more competitively designed/implemented game your choices there would matter to the outcome.

In terms of strategy/agency, the GS events were mostly a fail.