I think we should let this thread die because coming to the forums and seeing this title as the top post isn't very welcoming. I'm not trying to supress anyone's opinion, it's just a crappy thing to show newcomers or people looking for information.
I’m not trying to suppress anyone’s opinion, I just don’t want anyone to see the ones I don’t like.
1984 much?
You completely missed my point, by a long shot. The point is that Civ players get so stubbornly attached to a Civ game that it will take them a long time to get used to the newest game. That's all. In the mean time, they like to complain about how the latest Civ game is awful. This is a tradition in the community.
Look at the reviews and sales, this isn’t Business As Usual.
The tantrums from the No Mutants Allowed club was pretty hilarious when Fallout 3 came out, game was a blockbuster. The tantrums from the New Vegas/NMA fanatics over Fallout 4 was even more hilarious and that game broke all records when it came to Fallout
Then they ditched the core identity of the game for Fallout 76, EVERYONE hated it, and it tanked so hard Bethesda got fire saled to Microsoft.
See the difference?
So I've heard about tradition. Well, I didn't miss your point, you just didn't say that in your first post.
Why would someone enjoy a new release that is missing something from the game they have already?
Or it has something that is poorly implemented in comparison?
Boiling things down to tradition is missing the point of why Civ fans are constantly upset by new releases.
They're constantly upset because every new release is... On release... Worse than the previous release.
So you have to wait about 6 years to actually get a game on par with the game you already had. And investing in that from the start actually costs you way more than just waiting and picking up the complete edition at the end.
Anyhow, stubborn attachment? Maybe some people. But basic logic is probably the driving force.
Boot up Civ7 as it is now. Does it have even 10% of the replayability of Civ6, Civ5 or Civ4? If you answered Yes you're lying to yourself.
Or what about the polish of the mechanics? Religion or government in Civ7 is really half baked.
This is the type of stuff they leave especially for expansions.
They've done this for 3 games straight.
Why not release the game with all the base features to a really good par and then work on improving it?
I have no idea why people buy games at launch or preorder anymore. It made sense back in the physical media days because it guarenteed you got to play on launch day, you had the fun experience of camping out in front of game stop the night before, and making Line Friends, and Corporate Enshittification had not ruined the craft of making games yet so they were generally complete and functional on launch.
All these moments have been lost, like tears in the rain.
Just wait for the Complete Edition on a Steam sale; you pay a fraction of the price, get quadruple the content, the game will be somewhat patched, and often modders have had the opportunity to do the developer’s work for them.
The point of people having opinions is that they're allowed to be different.
They did this in VI. That isn't to say it couldn't have been improved, but all the systems were a lot more fleshed out than in V.
VII suffered from being released in an obviously not ready state. Antiquity has always been what the other two Ages should've been, on release.
The base game of 6 is pretty solid, personally I feel like it’s actually better than with the expansions. The expansions had a lot of cool concepts, but they clearly were NOT playtested or refined enough (or at all).
“Hey at least the first third of the game, before the key feature of the game happens, is good” is…yikes.
