Civ6 June Update Video

[The Civs 6]

of course it is, but that doesn't mean it can't dip its toes into other material. I'd hope people would embrace a little experimenting even if they don't like the final result.

There's probably a reason why so few of us even remember that it exists. It does kind of blow my mind that some consumers want aliens or zombies, but are fine with every Civ being pigeonholed into having a Medieval and Renaissance era... what does that say about creativity?

Anyway, I agree with others who said the AI has improved their military tactics. Big step forward, but I don't think it has addressed the underlying problems with AI being unable to play the other parts of the game well or to hone in on a victory condition. And if they indeed do make the AI better, I hope they take away some of their starting advantages.

I look forward to seeing the patch that comes out. That's tomorrow in Pacific time, right? Of course, this is the same thing I felt before the FP first came out, until discovering that they had made no core gameplay changes.

 

[UWHabs]

of course it is, but that doesn't mean it can't dip its toes into other material. I'd hope people would embrace a little experimenting even if they don't like the final result.

My problems come when the fantasy elements get a little too close to the core game. I'm willing to accept some fantasy-based leaders (Gilgamesh), or wonders that we're not totally convinced existed (Hanging Gardens), and even some natural wonders who are a little mystical in nature (fountain of youth, el dorado). Soothsayers causing natural disasters to me gets a little outside that realm, which is why apocalypse mode being a little too tied to the regular game does annoy me ever so slightly. But at least it's optional and defaults off, so I don't mind too too much. If the apocalypse mode could only be disabled in the advanced menu, or if one of the natural disasters was a Godzilla attack, then I'd be much more concerned.

And Red Death? It's a fantasy add-on scenario. That you can go wild with. I mean, if you want to ship the game with a "Middle Earth" scenario and have elves and dwarves and trolls as races you can play, be my guest. But I don't want to meet Sauron on turn 5 of a standard game.

 

[Kwami]

Oh shut it dude, all I was saying is that civ is based on history. That isn't complaining.

Attitude.

In any case, I was simply pointing out that the fantasy elements were kept out of the historical main game. I wasn't arguing that Civ wasn't historically themed.

 

[oSiyeza]

Dear anonymous player that vehemently opposes to the new content:

Honestly aliens and zombies are more based on reality that the religious combat. Which is in the main game, and not in a separate optional free game mode that is explicitly not based on historicity.

That said, I also think that anything the developers add for free to the game by definition does not devaluate it. And if they decide to release paid optional content I don’t like, I will just not buy it.

I think you may be criticizing more what Fxs has not done in the updates, instead of what they have done. Since the RDS2 is not detrimental to any player by any definition of the word. But criticism should be framed correctly and we should be rational about it.

"I don't like this thing therefore I refuse to have it, even if cost me nothing" / "the game should be what I think it should be and nothing else" is not a valid complain or a reasonable position for that matter.

Let’s imagine I like the Red Death content. What kind of special right you think you have to oppose this thing I like that cost you nothing? Is this not the same thing as demanding that only your playstyle is supported, that only your vision of the game should be accepted?

I'm a player too, If and if you like something that does not interfere with my way of playing the game, I will not oppose to it. And I expect the same attitude from you.

Regards, Another Civ player.

 

[FedorWin]

Steam announcement gives update time as 10 am PT.
Plus some flavor text for the new RD factions

 

[leandrombraz]

I'll just point out that they are adding aliens and zombies to a post-apocalyptic MP scenario that already has mutants and other typical post-apocalyptic factions, that started as an April fool's joke, and that was announced with this over the top trailer. They aren't doing anything that they didn't do already, they are merely giving some love to a mode that, even though the majority don't seem to care about, got enough attention to deserve an update. They jumped the shark in last September, now they're are just giving the sharks some much needed lasers and setting them to fight with flying nuclear velociraptors. Red Death is just a fun MP scenario that doesn't take itself seriously. It doesn't mean anything to the historical theme of Civ, which remains intact. It takes up resources, sure, but it's not like they stopped developing Civ VI to focus on Red Death. It's hard to complain about just one update, when we will get 12 updates to a 4 years old game that usually gets 4 to 6 updates a year and that was expected to stop getting new updates 3 years after launch.

Even though my main interest in Civ VI is the historical main mode, I had fun playing Red Death and I'm planning to have some more.

 

[oSiyeza]

or if one of the natural disasters was a Godzilla attack, then I'd be much more concerned.

Would you be concerned if the apocalypse mode had a Godzilla attack as a new optional type of disaster? Why in the universe would anyone be opposed to that? I would change the stupid soothsayer for a giant ancient lizard God any day of the year.

 

[Kwami]

Would you be concerned if the apocalypse mode had a Godzilla attack as a new optional type of disaster? Why in the universe would anyone be opposed to that?

I demand historical realism in my apocalyptic fantasy settings!

 

[WillowBrook]

Let’s imagine I like the Red Death content. What kind of special right you think you have to oppose this thing I like that cost nothing to you? Is this not the same thing as demanding that only your playstyle is supported that only your vision of the game should be accepted?

No, saying that I don't like how they spend company resources is not the same as demanding they make the game exactly how I want. I can say I want them to provide one sort of free content, you can say you want another sort, and that's just fine. I'm not insulting you if I want the company to produce different free content than you want. Yes, they are not charging for the free content, but the people working on it are not working on other things that I might like better. Every person on this board can say how they would like Firaxis to allocate resources. Firaxis can choose to take these preferences into account or not. Nobody is disrespecting another person by expressing what new Civ VI content they want to see or not see.

 

[oSiyeza]

No, saying that I don't like how they spend company resources is not the same as demanding they make the game exactly how I want. I can say I want them to provide one sort of free content, you can say you want another sort, and that's just fine. I'm not insulting you if I want the company to produce different free content than you want. Yes, they are not charging for the free content, but the people working on it are not working on other things that I might like better. Every person on this board can say how they would like Firaxis to allocate resources. Firaxis can choose to take these preferences into account or not. Nobody is disrespecting another person by expressing what new Civ VI content they want to see or not see.

It is the same in this situation though. It is not a cero sum game. You getting what you want does not prevent me from getting what I want. Neither of us decides how big the updates are going to be or how much content is needed.

I will put as an example precisely the Red Death mode, it was an extra added in addition to a regular update content. Me not geting that content will give you no other content as a result. Your entire position is framed wrong.

Nobody may be working in a think you like even if nobody was working in the thing i like. To assume that is simply a logical fallacy.

And I did not claim to be disrespected, I claim that opposing something that cost you nothing is not a valid position and is a bit of a selfish one.

 

[WillowBrook]

It is the same in this situation though. It is not a cero sum game. You getting what you want does not prevent me from getting what I want. Neither of us decides how big the updates are going to be or how much content is needed.

Firaxis has limited resources. Someone working on the new red death factions is spending less time on something I might like better. *Especially* with free content, they are not increasing sales to enable them to hire more people. I'm glad you like the free stuff. Some people don't, and they have every right to complain.

 

[oSiyeza]

Firaxis has limited resources. Someone working on the new red death factions is spending less time on something I might like better. *Especially* with free content, they are not increasing sales to enable them to hire more people. I'm glad you like the free stuff. Some people don't, and they have every right to complain.

They have decided to add the RD game mode, there is no reason to asume they would use those resources to give other players anything more of their taste if they didnt decide to add it. Also there is no reason to asume they would not use other resources to implement other things if they think those things would bring more players to the game. You are simply not arguing correctly.

See, your arguments can be used to get the exact opposite conclussion. Imagine that the RD mode brings more players to the game, as a result they have extra money and decide to add more content for other players. Is this not another perfectly reasonable outcome?

And this is why this way or arguing is simply incorrect.

 

[WillowBrook]

They have decided to add the RD game mode, there is no reason to asume they would use those resources to give other players anything more of their taste if they didnt decide to add it. Also there is no reason to asume they would not use other resources to implement other things if they think those things would bring more players to the game. You are simply not arguing correctly.

See, your arguments can be used to get the exact opposite conclussion. Imagine the RD mode bring more players to the game, as a result, they have extra money and decide to add more content for other players. Is this not another perfectly reasonable outcome?

You're right we have no idea how they would have allocated resources if they didn't make RD. But that doesn't change the fact that a person is not insulting you by saying they don't like that Firaxis made it. Everyone has the right to express their opinion on what Firaxis makes or doesn't make, and disagreeing with your opinion is not disrespect.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

SOOOO... when will we actually get it?

 

[oSiyeza]

You're right we have no idea how they would have allocated resources if they didn't make RD. But that doesn't change the fact that a person is not insulting you by saying they don't like that Firaxis made it. Everyone has the right to express their opinion on what Firaxis makes or doesn't make, and disagreeing with your opinion is not disrespect.

Where did you get the impresion I felt insulted or disrespected?. I'm not. Im simply pointing out, that this line of reasoning is logically incorrect and detrimental for both of us. This is not a competition, so there is no need to opopose one specific content you dislike in favor of another hipothethic specific content you think you may like. Arguing this way does not help anybody.

 

[WillowBrook]

Let’s imagine I like the Red Death content. What kind of special right you think you have to oppose this thing I like that cost you nothing? Is this not the same thing as demanding that only your playstyle is supported, that only your vision of the game should be accepted?

Where did you get the impresion I felt insulted or disrespected?. I'm not. Im simply pointing out, that this line of reasoning is logically incorrect and that this is not a competition, so there is no need to opopose one specific content you dislike in favor of another hipothethic specific content you think you may like. Arguing this way does not help anybody.

I'm sorry I must have misinterpreted your "special right" comment - it sounds like you feel insulted.

We have no idea what people at Firaxis would have made if they didn't make RD. It might be something I would like better. It might be something I like less. It might be nothing at all. Regardless, anyone who doesn't like the free content has every right to complain - no "special rights" needed.

If you like RD, you can keep saying how you prefer it to other things people suggest, but others will have different options and that's just fine.

 

[oSiyeza]

if one of the natural disasters was a Godzilla attack, then I'd be much more concerned.

I demand historical realism in my apocalyptic fantasy settings!

And here for your delight, I felt the urgency to rescue from the history the first Sim City game, an indeed very realistic (with one exception) city builder simulator that was the direct inspiration for the first Civ Game according to Meier himself. And of course the idea of civ disasters was taken directly from Sim city.

How cute is the baby Godzilla destroying my city? A lot.

I'm sorry I must have misinterpreted your "special right" comment - it sounds like you feel insulted.

We have no idea what people at Firaxis would have made if they didn't make RD. It might be something I would like better. It might be something I like less. It might be nothing at all. Regardless, anyone who doesn't like the free content has every right to complain - no "special rights" needed.

If you like RD, you can keep saying how you prefer it to other things people suggest, but others will have different options and that's just fine.

No need to apology, I posted that directed to no one, and that is why I framed it as an open letter. And I may have used a bit of a rhetorical device there. The main point of what I mean is that we don’t need to compete with each other or oppose the mere Idea of a specific type of content.

Also RD is already here, the RD season2 has been implemented even if we have not seen it. What I don’t think is useful is to use a "I did not pay with this in mind and I feel betrayed", argument that has been used in some posts.

Also you may have noticed that I also very harshly criticized the things I think FXS should have being prioritized for a long time regarding the content on the main game that is not working as I think it should. To say what I want and why is a much more valid way of addressing the developers instead of criticizing other features of the game that I don’t have a problem with.

 

[bbbt]

for those who say civ isn't a history-based game... what is it?

I'd call it a 'history-themed' 4x strategy game. I.e. the 'historical' aspect is basically window dressing, something to give graphics and names to game mechanics.

History doesn't inform how the mechanics work (which often don't resemble their 'real world' equivalents at all) or the game plays out.

I think when people hear 'history game' they think of something that's more of a historical simulation, and then point all the ways Civ is not that.

 

[RealHuhn]

Where did you get the impresion I felt insulted or disrespected?. I'm not. Im simply pointing out, that this line of reasoning is logically incorrect and detrimental for both of us. This is not a competition, so there is no need to opopose one specific content you dislike in favor of another hipothethic specific content you think you may like. Arguing this way does not help anybody.

Why can't you acknowledge that the people who paid for the Frontier Pass are essentially funding another year of content and have the right to express their opinion about these game updates? The "free" patches as you call them were even included as a feature directly on the road map of the season pass. In big golden letters !!! It's all just clever marketing. If nobody would buy the pass, Firaxis wouldn't work on further "free" updates.

 

[oSiyeza]

Why can't you acknowledge that the people who paid for the Frontier Pass are essentially funding another year of content and have the right to express their opinion about these game updates? The "free" patches as you call them were even included as a feature directly on the road map of the season pass. In big golden letters !!! It's all just clever marketing. If nobody would buy the pass, Firaxis wouldn't work on further "free" updates.

Because is not true. If you feel like supporting the dev you dont go and critisize then the dev for developing.

The NFP is a product you buy that is not tied to the free updates you dont pay for. We got the DLC we paid for, to complain saying that FXs deceived you and took your money in an extra update you did not pay for is not a valid complain. As simple as that.