Confession re: playing VI vs. reading about VII

[I was NC]

Seems odd that I'm spending more time and having more fun reading about VII than playing VI. Thought I see if anyone else is in the same boat.

 

[AriochIV]

Sure, but that shouldn't be surprising. Been playing Civ VI for 8 years now.

 

[greenOak]

Yes, 2500 hours of gameplay will burn you out.

 

[moondog385]

I’ve usually stopped playing games by the time we start seeing gameplay of the sequel.

 

[Quintillus]

Not me, but I branched out my strategy gameplay a lot over the past 10 years. Although I am seeing this phenomenon when it comes to EU4, which along with EU3 stole my heart after Civ V's release, and "Project Caesar".

I've been instead playing at least one game of III to VI (and maybe II) in the six months prior to VII's release, so I have fresh points of comparison on release. Had been playing VI throughout the summer, last game technically was finished just prior to the six month mark (August 11th), so I'll come back to it again. Just finished the game of V and have plans for my IV and III games, just have to decide in which order I'll do them (probably in parallel).

 

[I was NC]

I've been instead playing at least one game of III to VI (and maybe II) in the six months prior to VII's release....

You're still able to play II? Very cool!

To the other replies, appreciate knowing I'm not alone.

 

[Quintillus]

You're still able to play II? Very cool!

To the other replies, appreciate knowing I'm not alone.

To be determined on my Windows 10 laptop. But I have older computers running 8.1, XP, and Windows 98, so I'm sure at least one of them will still stand the Test of Time!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

But I have older computers running 8.1, XP, and Windows 98 ...

You know you're a Civfanatic when ...

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I’m not going to burn myself out on Civ with VII mere months away and Ara: History Untold coming out in less than two weeks

 

[Siddorm]

With playing IV and V, and reading these forums: the more I learned, the more I enjoyed them.
With playing VI: the more I learned, the less I enjoyed it.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes, 2500 hours of gameplay will burn you out.

amateur numbers.

I'm probably around 4000, some were offline, so I don't know my accurate total. I'm playing a RPG at the moment, but I'll probably check out this month's challenge at some point.

 

[Ornen]

I tried playing one last game but (as per usual) got bogged down in the midgame & gave it a rest

 

[Elhoim]

With playing IV and V, and reading these forums: the more I learned, the more I enjoyed them.
With playing VI: the more I learned, the less I enjoyed it.

Heh, I feel the same. There's a lot of micro meta in 6 that gets annoying. Not wasting age points, not completing techs until you can boost the eureka, etc. All things that get in the way of playing normally.

 

[Takfloyd]

Heh, I feel the same. There's a lot of micro meta in 6 that gets annoying. Not wasting age points, not completing techs until you can boost the eureka, etc. All things that get in the way of playing normally.

This. Civ VI was a hit with casual players who don't pay attention very closely and just click things. For people trying to play optimally, it's a nightmare. Every 2-3 turns you need to look at 30+ policy cards and find the 10 or so that will be most efficient for the next 2-3 turns. Then you do it again, and again. It never ends. And the game is full of systems like that. Many people, even the developers, claim that a game of Civ VI takes like 10 hours. This shows they don't know what they're talking about. It takes at least five times as long, unless you play poorly.

I'm delighted to see that Civ VII is being designed to be less of a chore to play, but at the same time I'm mortified that policy cards still exist, and with an even less user-friendly UI too, with even more scrolling required. Hopefully we won't have as many policy slots or policy options this time, thanks to the resets on age transition.

 

[AriochIV]

I noticed in the most recent livestream that Carl seemed to be spending about 75% of his time every turn on manually placing new population. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but if they were trying to reduce micromanagement by eliminating workers and builders, I'm not sure that was successful.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've played a few games of Civ VI in the past few months for the first time in over two years, more or less to get back into "Civ Thinking" after years of concentrating on other games.

ARA doesn't excite me after playing a couple of their Pre-Release versions but I will doubtless buy it for comparison purposes if nothing else.

I have a bunch of new Mods and material for Anno 1800 I want to try, so that will probably 'tide me over' until February 2025.

Next year promises to be a Gaming Marathon, since not only does Civ VII come out early in the year, but Anno 117 - The Roman Anno - is due out later in the year and I love that series, and Farthest Frontier is approaching Release - and I've already played over 500 hours of that game in Pre-Release, so I'm sure it will take up a chunk of my time in between Swapping Civs in Civ VII . . .

 

[Disgustipated]

I noticed in the most recent livestream that Carl seemed to be spending about 75% of his time every turn on manually placing new population. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, but if they were trying to reduce micromanagement by eliminating workers and builders, I'm not sure that was successful.

Yeah I noticed that as well. It's less tedious than moving around builders perhaps (though I usually liked the builder game until near the end of the game). Assigning population is the new builder spam.

 

[greenOak]

This. Civ VI was a hit with casual players who don't pay attention very closely and just click things. For people trying to play optimally, it's a nightmare. Every 2-3 turns you need to look at 30+ policy cards and find the 10 or so that will be most efficient for the next 2-3 turns. Then you do it again, and again. It never ends. And the game is full of systems like that. Many people, even the developers, claim that a game of Civ VI takes like 10 hours. This shows they don't know what they're talking about. It takes at least five times as long, unless you play poorly.

I'm delighted to see that Civ VII is being designed to be less of a chore to play, but at the same time I'm mortified that policy cards still exist, and with an even less user-friendly UI too, with even more scrolling required. Hopefully we won't have as many policy slots or policy options this time, thanks to the resets on age transition.

As someone who enjoys trying to play optimally, I strongly disagree with this take. IMO one of the best things about civ 6 is that is very difficult to play optimally or even close to optimally. Civ 6 has a lot of micro, but it's good micro in the sense that most of it actually involves difficult decisions. The majority of players (myself included), even when paying attention to all the micro, are not very good it. Granted the AI is so bad that you can make egregious mistakes and still win on deity, but for fast victories and/or competitive mp, it takes a lot of skill to master.

 

[Futumch]

Burnout is a thing. It's fairly normal to set something aside if you have been going through the motions for some time. I haven't played any Civ since maybe March this year, and I might go back to it when I get a couple of weeks off in November.
I have been enjoying skirmish matches of Dawn of War: Soulstorm. Fine RTS, that game.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I do most of my civ playing in the winter months.