Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters Level of Optimism for Civ6

[Drakarska]

I have now played a good amount of time, and I think they really did a very good job on many aspects of this game. I'm enjoying almost all of it...but the incredibly stupid combat AI threatens to ruin it all. I just shouldn't be able to defend myself against an early declaration when I have two Archers and the AI has twelve Chariots (Sumeria's unique unit, pretty overpowered). But now I don't even get nervous on these occasions because I know I won't lose a single city. And I can conquer pretty much any AI just by building seven or eight units - and not because I am such a great tactician.

If some modders manage to make the AI decently competent at combat (not holding my breath for Firaxis doing that after not managing it over the years before the release), this game has a lot of potential. Diplomacy is also a mess, but that seems like it could be fixed rather easily in a patch or expansion.

The comments about paid beta-testers are not entirely fitting for the whole game, but they are true when it comes to the AI. Though I start suspecting that even with two years more development time we still wouldn't have gotten a better one, because reviewers and many players may care more for other things than challenging opponents.

Then may I politely ask what you consider "fitting" for the paid beta testers? I am not trying to start an argument, but I would actually like to know what your criteria is. Let's look at the following verified issues;

1) Atrocious AI, especially early game wars.
2) UI issues, seriously, the list is problematic.
3) Diplo, similar to CIV V, early wars within the 1st 20 turns is immersion breaking.
4) Exploits, At least 3 verifiable exploits was discovered within days of launch
5) Graphics, while the graphics themselves may look great, resource icons and tool tips are difficult to see have been reported.

These are just off the top of my head by merely perusing the the various forum threads that state the issues with facts, not hyperbole or rants. If the above list doesn't classify as a beta tester, then I would really like to know what your definition of one is please.

 

[ThERat]

And I can conquer pretty much any AI just by building seven or eight units

May I ask on what difficulty setting this is? I am currently playing an immortal game and after overpowering Norway (a swarm of chariots) and India (not much resistance) I wanted to eliminate the biggest foe on my continent, the USA. They have even managed to take Rome's capital and have 9 cities (standard sized map). I thought I can just take out their initial force and then move in. However, they have a real, never ending carpet of doom in the form of horses and catapults (some silly warriors) and my knights, bombards (catapults), pikes and many crossbows make no progress whatsoever. This war has been going on for around 50 turns and is getting nowhere. It is only due to my double shooting level 4 crossbows, that I am holding them off.

 

[georgjorge]

Then may I politely ask what you consider "fitting" for the paid beta testers? I am not trying to start an argument, but I would actually like to know what your criteria is. Let's look at the following verified issues;

1) Atrocious AI, especially early game wars.
2) UI issues, seriously, the list is problematic.
3) Diplo, similar to CIV V, early wars within the 1st 20 turns is immersion breaking.
4) Exploits, At least 3 verifiable exploits was discovered within days of launch
5) Graphics, while the graphics themselves may look great, resource icons and tool tips are difficult to see have been reported.

These are just off the top of my head by merely perusing the the various forum threads that state the issues with facts, not hyperbole or rants. If the above list doesn't classify as a beta tester, then I would really like to know what your definition of one is please.

I agree on 1) and 3) though my problem with diplomacy isn't the early wars but the fact that on the higher difficulties almost all AIs hate you as well as each other within 20 or 30 turns of meeting, so it is pretty pointless to try and please them.

I don't agree on UI (can use some tuning but not really problematic), exploits (first because I like almost everyone plays single player, second because IV had those as well on launch), and graphics (purely subjective issue, people may not like them but it's not "broken" or anything). Those are things I consider pretty acceptable for a released product.

@ThERat: I'm playing on Immortal as well. I might have to weaken my previous statement a bit - occasionally there is an AI which seems to spam units a lot and is hard to conquer. But the main point I wanted to make is that I can easily conquer AIs which have more than twice my power rating at the start of the war with hardly any casualties due to them being so bad at combat. In IV I could sometimes win wars in similar situations, but would suffer heavy casualties while doing so.

 

[ThERat]

USA had a rating of 1800 against mine of 600 at the start. Even though I managed to kill dozen of his horses, the rating is now 1400 versus 700. I wouldn't mind all that but war weariness is causing big trouble

 

[Drakarska]

I agree on 1) and 3) though my problem with diplomacy isn't the early wars but the fact that on the higher difficulties almost all AIs hate you as well as each other within 20 or 30 turns of meeting, so it is pretty pointless to try and please them.

I don't agree on UI (can use some tuning but not really problematic), exploits (first because I like almost everyone plays single player, second because IV had those as well on launch), and graphics (purely subjective issue, people may not like them but it's not "broken" or anything). Those are things I consider pretty acceptable for a released product.

@ThERat: I'm playing on Immortal as well. I might have to weaken my previous statement a bit - occasionally there is an AI which seems to spam units a lot and is hard to conquer. But the main point I wanted to make is that I can easily conquer AIs which have more than twice my power rating at the start of the war with hardly any casualties due to them being so bad at combat. In IV I could sometimes win wars in similar situations, but would suffer heavy casualties while doing so.

You haven't really answered my question, other than simply agreeing with a couple of my points. So let's try again ( and I actually do appreciate your responses),

Where, in your opinion, is the line being crossed in order for you to consider yourself a beta tester after paying a AAA game company your hard earned money, for it to be a quality game and not wait for continuous patches?

And while we're at it;

UI. You state that it isn't problematic, but that implies you wouldn't mind it being cleaner or more intuitive. Which begs the question, have you had issues with the UI before making yourself adjust to it?
Exploits. The top 3 exploits mentioned are all from SP. That statement really doesn't address my example.
Graphics. I didn't state that the graphics were broken, quite the opposite in fact. I stated that the resource icons and tool tips ( especially when hovering) are an issue in conjunction with the graphics, specifically in hills terrain.

 

[georgjorge]

I don't know what metric you want me to use to answer your question of "a line being crossed". I don't play many contemporary games, so I can't give you examples of released games which I would consider beta versions. My only answer can be that when it comes to VI, the released game is neither buggy enough nor bad enough to speak of only a beta version, though I would very much speak of a beta AI.

As for the three points where we disagree - every UI could be cleaner or more intuitive, but the VI UI is fine for me (and was pretty much from the beginning, with the exception of trade routes). Maybe slightly worse than vanilla IV without BUG, maybe equal. I mentioned single player with regard to exploits because exploits are a wholly different issue in human-against-human, where the game becomes unplayable with big enough exploits, whereas in single player you can easily ignore them if the AI doesn't do them (and they don't). And if you think of elements that exist in IV like bankrupting an AI through resource deals (prohibited in Hall of Fame and still there after 10 years), wall overflow whips etc. then the mere existence of an exploit in a single-player game doesn't hold as much weight for my gaming experience. And as for graphics, I don't like the new "fog of war" style either from a functional point of view, but it clearly works (a bit worse than it would otherwise) and doesn't hinder me playing the game as I want to.

Bottom line: Something being only a beta version or not is not wholly objective. If you care A LOT about having a great UI and having a game without any exploits, it might enrage you that they released such a game for the full price. It's just that I like playing VI enough for my enjoyment to consider it a somewhat finished product, and the points you mentioned are either irrelevant or small enough to not matter much to me.

Bottom bottom line: I know where you're coming from with concerns that companies will more and more take to releasing half-finished games which are all but unplayable and charge fully for it, especially through pre-ordering. I just don't think that is the case here for the most part.

 

[Fippy]

In Civ VI, after a very unfocused start and poorly grasping the mechanics, I leisurely rolled over not one but two deities without encountering much more than warriors. And it wasn't like they've achieved a technological edge on me during this time to be back with a vengeance, what was left were just wrecks to mop up on a later date.

 

[Riflin'Joe]

How could we possibly hope for a great game called "Civilization" anymore when there's increasingly little sign of any such thing in the real world?

 

[ThERat]

Games are meant to provide entertainment, escape and fun from the real world stress and madness.

 

[Staler87]

Games are meant to provide entertainment, escape and fun from the real world stress and madness.

So what your saying is: watching Donald Trump speak is a game?

 

[elmurcis]

Oh, thats why so many loves alcohol (escape), weapons (entertainment) and Trump (fun)

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: If you wish to discuss current events and/or politics, then please take it to Other Topics. Do not derail this thread into a political discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lemon Merchant]

As a side note, at least with Civ 5, the blind and rabid commentary came at both extremes -- the number of people who exaggerated or outright lied about the game's flaws was roughly equal to the number of who thought it could do no wrong and had done no wrong.

I have to agree with you there. The amount of stupidity on both sides was legendary at times. There were, however, a number of people (including me, IMHO) who offered reasonable criticism or even suggestions to improve the game and were shouted down. I asked a couple of questions regarding modding, and pointed out that at the time, we didn't know how moddable Civ 5 would really be. I was accused of wearing a tinfoil hat and practically chased from the forums. Other people did not fare as well, and some were not seen here again. After all, who wants to get into an argument with children (or those with the mentality of children) about a stupid video game? Whatever happened to sensible, reasonable discussion? I have no problem debating an issue as long as it doesn't devolve into childishness and name calling, and I will even admit when I am wrong when someone can validate their view point. The hyperbole and fanaticism (on both sides) really makes these forums an ugly place to be sometimes.

The comments about paid beta-testers are not entirely fitting for the whole game, but they are true when it comes to the AI. Though I start suspecting that even with two years more development time we still wouldn't have gotten a better one, because reviewers and many players may care more for other things than challenging opponents.

The AI is the whole game, isn't it? How can you have a good game of Civ if the AI can't keep up? If the AI can't play the game, it sort of defeats the purpose of it as an opponent, does it not? Two years of development would not have made a difference in my mind. Companies just don't seem to care about releasing a good game anymore. Firaxis had six years and a title released in between Civ 5 and Civ 6, plus the benefit of modders improving the AI for Civ 5 (which is very similar to Civ 6 from everything I've seen), and they still can't release a game in playable shape, according to people on the Civ 6 forum. It's really a slap in the face to the fans of Civ, and the people who have purchased the game. They seem to have gone from "Just one more turn..." to "We just don't care..." At least that's what it seems like to an outside view. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm hoping, for the sake of the many who have purchased the game, that Firaxis releases a big patch and fixes everything that is wrong. Heck, I might even play it then.

As for the comments about paying to beta test, I stand by what I said. Civ 6 is not the only recent game to have this problem. No Man's Sky got scathing reviews on Steam for it's state on release. And you only have to look at past posts on the Paradox forums to see the unhappy people about the recently released Stellaris (which, btw, I preordered and had to stop playing because I was waiting for a patch to fix the semi-broken game - for 2 1/2 months!)

My bottom line, for those who have kept up this far, is that people pay good money for games. They should receive a finished product at the prices we have to pay for games these days. There will always be bugs that have to be patched, but some of these things are way beyond bugs. There are things fundamentally wrong that have to be totally reworked and then patched. That to me suggests that the developers are using the audience to beta test their product at the audience's expense. Literally.

 

[Fippy]

Chris (Absolute Zero) now has his first Civ6 videos, for anyone interested:

About his opinion, he thinks it's tedious and needs macromanagement controls badly.

The AI is the whole game, isn't it? How can you have a good game of Civ if the AI can't keep up?

Yup no arguing about that, but i can enjoy some games even without much challenge.
If they have great Atmo combined with charming graphics, and if i can see they tried to deliver something nice & fun here.

On Civ6 videos..while bad AIs are ofc a huge problem, it's even worse for me how little i actually want to experience this world (with or without strong AIs, i was just playing around happily in previous Civs up to 4 during the first weeks).

 

[Bandobras Took]

The AI is the whole game, isn't it? How can you have a good game of Civ if the AI can't keep up?

There is a counterexample in Alpha Centauri; the AI wasn't spectacular in terms of gameplay, but diplomacy felt (at least for me) like I was interacting with the actual character rather than just a trade table. A good game of Civ can be had if the empire-building and diplomacy are engaging in their own right.

This, incidentally, is why I've always regretted the loss of the Unit Workshop from Alpha Centauri; I didn't particularly care that the AI was incapable of using it because I, the player, was having so much fun doing so.

 

[georgjorge]

The AI is the whole game, isn't it? How can you have a good game of Civ if the AI can't keep up?

I did say that bad AI, if not improved through mods or patches, is the one thing that will break this game. But there's still a difference between a game that has incredibly stupid concepts, is unplayable due to bugs, and has a bad AI - and one which has many good things but also a bad AI. The former will still be bad and unplayable even with better AI, while the latter might actually become a pretty good game if the AI is improved.

Contrary to Fippy, I really like the game world a lot, but that point is rather hard to argue (on both sides).

 

[Chinese American]

5 and 6 turned the series into a bunch of mini games. Lots of minor things to do, but none of which are particularly fun, compelling, or satisfying. Such as unstacking armies and cities were supposed to make the game seem more "strategic". But in reality just adds more tedium and makes warfare and city management more shallow.

Even if previous games didn't have the best AI, they were still great fun as solitaire simulator. unfortunately, 5 & 6 aren't attractive as empire builder. Thus they must rely heavily on AI to be smart in order to distract from the weakness of the core game. So when the AI sucks this much, the tedium and flaws of the core game bubble to the surface.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I did say that bad AI, if not improved through mods or patches, is the one thing that will break this game.

Yes, you did and I fully agree, but you seemed to have missed my point.

 

[intutama]

It all boils down to 1UPT. It just breaks the "immersion" when you see the AI pointlessly moving their 15 units around, embarking them in boats and not dealing any worrying damage to your units. When I see this I just think what's the point of playing this game to the end, whatever kind of victory I'm going for it's going to take another 150 turns in zombie mode against the cardboard AI. If they approach a win condition I'll just have to attack them with range units and they can't win.

The biggest insult from Fireaxis is that even after 3 1UPT games they didn't bother improving the AI a bit. My guess is that most Civ V / VI players want a relaxed game and aren't bothered by the handicapped AI because it makes a "hard enough" game to keep it fun. But for players who want a bigger challenge you end up with hundreds of extremely boring turns where you have to move aaaallll your units one by one through the map to end up fighting a bunch of randomly moving ragdolls.

I do play CIV V a few times a year, but everytime I play the game becomes boring mid-game when it switches from "just one more turn" to "oh god yet another turn"

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I do play CIV V a few times a year, but everytime I play the game becomes boring mid-game when it switches from "just one more turn" to "oh god yet another turn"

Have you tried playing with mods? I can recommend Vox Populi.