Civilization VI delay idea

[Acken]

Yes, but the point is it's not an early access model. Early access implies the game is not finished (in alpha, beta stage) and often offers a promise of features that should appear in the future.

"somewhat", yeah, I see. If they fix the problems, if it's playable. There are many more "ifs"...

Well it obviously suggest the game is at least finished. They should definetely delay if some content is missing.

My argument was more about me not really caring for the game being unpolished as long as they work on it.
It will release unpolished anyway lets be real... the release date is set, the game still seems to be missing stuff and it is in 1 month. Firaxis also has a poor track record of early versions.

I can work with unbalanced anyway if modding is available. Id luke an official balanced version but sadly it will never happen. If the dll is not avaible it will be annoying but if at least they use similar logic to civ5 then a lot of stuff can be improved from ai to balance. At least if I make a similar mod than for civ5 I ll have more time throughout the lifespan of civ6.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

D... Delay my new Civ game? Op, what are you, Hitler?

Moderator Action: Please refrain from comparing other posters with Hitler, even in jest.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[darko82]

Well it obviously suggest the game is at least finished. They should definetely delay if some content is missing.

My argument was more about me not really caring for the game being unpolished as long as they work on it.

I can work with unbalanced anyway if modding is available. Id luke an official balanced version but sadly it will never happen. If the dll is not avaible it will be annoying but if at least they use similar logic to civ5 then a lot of stuff can be improved from ai to balance. At least if I make a similar mod than for civ5 I ll have more time throughout the lifespan of civ6.

For those who buy the game no matter what, it doesn't make a difference. And you are obviously right it will take many months to polish the game, as always.

All I expect it will be playable, not as bad as Civ V in terms of working features (the AI) at release.

Good balance, however, is another story.

D... Delay my new Civ game? Op, what are you, Hitler?

Just a torturer

 

[Plus Ultra]

Good balance, however, is another story.

I'm not completely sure Civilization VI CAN be balanced, to be honest.

Should it be technically possible to win every game with any Civ, on any difficulty and map? Sure.

Can all Civs get the same/similar chances of winning, with random map generation, adjacency bonuses, random neighbours and their agendas and plenty of abilities that can be OP or irrelevant depending on the situation? Not likely. I honestly don't see how.

I say, release it and let us tear it to pieces!

 

[Acken]

Thats not really what balance is about. Why should it even be possible to win against the most horrible odds ? If you stacked everytiing against you from difficulty to the map I think you should probably have very little chance to win. Otherwise on more favorable odds you ll wipe the floor with the AI.

Balance has more to do with the toolbox at your disposition. Making sure all your tools are of good quality rather than being able to always perform the hardest task.

In civ5 terms it would be about making sure Piety gives you a similar shot at winning than tradition. At least when it is appropriate to use it, not always.

If there are too many impossible tasks then its simply about tuning it down or making sure the situation appears less frequently due to rng.

 

[Krajzen]

As a long time deep tester of a complex high class strategy game of the past year I'd wanted to say something. The complex games like this cannot be bug free on release now matter how tested for the simple reason:

Before release devs have very few testers to actually play the game in depth, in full over numerous sessions to check the game for bugs - few dozen at best - while after release the number of players is thousands to millions which means over the course of first day or even first hours there will be more "samples of game tests" than there have been across all previous months taken together. Thus, statistically speaking, many bugs that were rare enough to never be found before release (or appear rarely enough to get low priority) may appear for huge number of players. That's why even very good companies often release games with "obvious bugs, how could they miss them".

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If you want the best quality on "release day" delay the game yourself.

You can decide to delay the game for an additional 1-3 years, until You believe it is ready for release... then when it is, You can buy it

(I got civ v with all dlc, expansions and patches... just by "delaying release")

 

[Nikae]

Waiting for the perfect moment to start enjoying life leads to growing old without joy.

You can start playing it at whatever stage you decide. Why do you want to deny other people the chance to play the game, along with denying a wide base for testing and thus more opinions for improvement? The notion is stupid, timid and selfish.

 

[darko82]

Waiting for the perfect moment to start enjoying life leads to growing old without joy.

You can start playing it at whatever stage you decide. Why do you want to deny other people the chance to play the game, along with denying a wide base for testing and thus more opinions for improvement? The notion is stupid, timid and selfish.

You did not understand at all. Games get delayed. Sometimes it is a good idea because who wants to play broken/unfinished product?

And one more thing. I do not deny anyone. I just asked if it would be a good idea and what would be your reaction. That's it.

 

[Nikae]

Of course I do understand. On some basis you assume the game is going to be unavoidably broken and unfinished. I really wonder why, since every bit of information insofar has given an impression of a well-designed and well-executed game.

If it does not please you in any way, you can choose not to buy it. The whole 'delay' idea does not benefit anyone, except the people who want to buy a perfect game, not that such exists anyway. By delaying, the sample audience for improvement disappears, and everything availed is a disappointed large group of people. If you are afraid that the game will not live up to your standards, a perfect advice is to wait, read reviews, watch videos, and so on, but do not advocate a solution that benefits only the thin layer of players who can accept nothing but perfection.

The wonder of delayed releases is that we cannot know what would have happened. Take civ5 for example. Many people argued that the release should have been postponed and then the game would not have been so awful at start. However, civ6 release is going to be feature-rich exactly because developers want to avoid an empty start again. I wonder if that were the case if the release of civ5 had been postponed to a more acceptable state of the game.

Delaying a game is only a good idea when much is at risk, especially in a financial sense. I do not think 2K is at the mercy of a single release and I'd rather play a game that is evolving than one that is due to arrive 5 years from now, with the same probability of problems.

And please do not say you do not think it should be delayed. You would not have created the post other way. It will not be perfect at release, so what? It will neither be unfinished and broken...

 

[darko82]

Of course I do understand. On some basis you assume the game is going to be unavoidably broken and unfinished. I really wonder why, since every bit of information insofar has given an impression of a well-designed and well-executed game.

If it does not please you in any way, you can choose not to buy it. The whole 'delay' idea does not benefit anyone, except the people who want to buy a perfect game, not that such exists anyway. By delaying, the sample audience for improvement disappears, and everything availed is a disappointed large group of people. If you are afraid that the game will not live up to your standards, a perfect advice is to wait, read reviews, watch videos, and so on, but do not advocate a solution that benefits only the thin layer of players who can accept nothing but perfection.

The wonder of delayed releases is that we cannot know what would have happened. Take civ5 for example. Many people argued that the release should have been postponed and then the game would not have been so awful at start. However, civ6 release is going to be feature-rich exactly because developers want to avoid an empty start again. I wonder if that were the case if the release of civ5 had been postponed to a more acceptable state of the game.

Delaying a game is only a good idea when much is at risk, especially in a financial sense. I do not think 2K is at the mercy of a single release and I'd rather play a game that is evolving than one that is due to arrive 5 years from now, with the same probability of problems.

And please do not say you do not think it should be delayed. You would not have created the post other way. It will not be perfect at release, so what? It will neither be unfinished and broken...

I don't want the game to be delayed, but I also do not want the game to be unplayable at release. If a game gets delayed, then it means things are not going as planned before, and a company cannot deal with deadlines. Sometimes, however, a company pushes a broken product out and the game gets bashed - it has worse reviews, the company loses trust and gain worse reputation etc. And yes, it does also effect finances.

My concern is based on the first reviews that said the game may not be finished in around 3 months because too many things are missing. Also, Civ V launch was terrible, so it's another concern that it can be repeated again.

Hopefully, everything is all right, and the game releases as planned.

 

[Nikae]

Many people who make reviews want to be the special snowflakes, that is why I choose to watch only the ones where their reputation matters as well, for example IGN or any other magazine.

A reviewer cannot know which stage of the development he encounters, and cannot estimate how much the done part is in proportion to the undone part, andd the time needed so to say to finish it. Civ 5 was terrible to those who played the previous entries, my girlfriend never had never played civ before, and she liked it - it led to some heated conversations . And as I said that bad start -which was not unplayable at all, just poor- in a way led to higher expectations among the developers themselves.

From what I gathered insofar, it is largely the tooltip, button function and quantities department that is need of development, the large and heavier bricks are in place. It might end up goofy, some overpowered things may be dominant for a short while, or minor UI difficulties may be present, but it does not in any way seem unplayable.