Leathaface
Emperor
They know there is a certain amount of people who will be playing day 1 who'd pay $40 for GS no problem. They also know there are people who'll be waiting for Civ VI complete for 75% off.
[GS] Gathering Storm - Early Reviews
- Thread starter sonicmyst
- Start date
They know there is a certain amount of people who will be playing day 1 who'd pay $40 for GS no problem. They also know there are people who'll be waiting for Civ VI complete for 75% off.
Cedbird77
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2017
- Messages
- 139
I was hoping for a better AI by now. Civ 5 AI got a lot better by the first and second expansions.
Remember the turn 30 huge invasion forces. I can distinctly remember a horde from Boudica early game I barely survived. But I was often surprised and/or unprepared .
The AI was not perfect. But it was more dangerous. This AI Is not terrible. But I am hoping for another tweak that will perfect the game .
I loved Civ 5 at the end! Beautiful game
sonicmyst
Emperor
https://kotaku.com/civilization-vi-gathering-storm-the-kotaku-review-1832445366
At times it can be confronting, and even depressing to play through the later stages of a game in Gathering Storm. Civilization games have always felt a bit frantic and finite as you approach the modern era, like a giant doomsday clock is ticking down in the skies above you, but to now see the world eroding at its fringes as you do so makes it so much worse.
Though I do appreciate the added busywork this provides. I tend to pursue science victories in Civ, which unless the horsehockey is really going down usually involves barricading my borders with fortresses and clicking “next turn” until my spaceship launches. It’s usually a boring way to end things, but having to manage the end of the world (and its associated cleanup and civil works responsibilities) at the same time made for an interesting challenge.
Weirdly, there’s also some psychological relief to be found in taking direct action against climate change, instead of just reading depressing tweets all day and resigning yourself to the impending death of all insects and essential crops. In Gathering Storm climate change is something you can proactively fight, as you’re able to build coastal flood barriers and switch an entire Civilization to clean and renewable sources of energy, so it’s great that the game can make me feel empowered about the process, even if the sensation is fleeting and artificial.
-----
What’s new in this expansion is of course super important, but it’s also worth pointing out what hasn’t changed. The continued failure of the AI to present coherent diplomatic positions, reactions that make the barest of sense and implausible trade suggestions continue to plague Civilization VI. Anyone hoping for a magical fix in this department will be disappointed.
Which is sad, because a big part of what makes this series special is its character. I’ve criticised other 4X games for lacking Civ’s heart, since the feeling that you’re dealing with actual characters can really help elevate the experience, but in Civ VI’s case the spirit of your artificial opponents has never matched the quality of the animation and voice acting.
At times it can be confronting, and even depressing to play through the later stages of a game in Gathering Storm. Civilization games have always felt a bit frantic and finite as you approach the modern era, like a giant doomsday clock is ticking down in the skies above you, but to now see the world eroding at its fringes as you do so makes it so much worse.
Though I do appreciate the added busywork this provides. I tend to pursue science victories in Civ, which unless the horsehockey is really going down usually involves barricading my borders with fortresses and clicking “next turn” until my spaceship launches. It’s usually a boring way to end things, but having to manage the end of the world (and its associated cleanup and civil works responsibilities) at the same time made for an interesting challenge.
Weirdly, there’s also some psychological relief to be found in taking direct action against climate change, instead of just reading depressing tweets all day and resigning yourself to the impending death of all insects and essential crops. In Gathering Storm climate change is something you can proactively fight, as you’re able to build coastal flood barriers and switch an entire Civilization to clean and renewable sources of energy, so it’s great that the game can make me feel empowered about the process, even if the sensation is fleeting and artificial.
-----
What’s new in this expansion is of course super important, but it’s also worth pointing out what hasn’t changed. The continued failure of the AI to present coherent diplomatic positions, reactions that make the barest of sense and implausible trade suggestions continue to plague Civilization VI. Anyone hoping for a magical fix in this department will be disappointed.
Which is sad, because a big part of what makes this series special is its character. I’ve criticised other 4X games for lacking Civ’s heart, since the feeling that you’re dealing with actual characters can really help elevate the experience, but in Civ VI’s case the spirit of your artificial opponents has never matched the quality of the animation and voice acting.
Last edited:
sonicmyst
Emperor
Gamespot (9/10)
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/civilization-6-gathering-storm-review-the-wind-ris/1900-6417085/
Gathering Storm is overall a great expansion, ushering in two significant new systems that work hand in hand to deepen the experience. The embellished diplomatic options extend the range of interactions with other leaders, allowing you to work cooperatively towards common goals or pull the strings to your advantage behind the scenes. While the introduction of climate change delivers new strategic choices whose consequences resonate ever-more-loudly as you advance throughout the eras. It isn't simply more Civ, it's a whole new way to play Civ.
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/civilization-6-gathering-storm-review-the-wind-ris/1900-6417085/
Gathering Storm is overall a great expansion, ushering in two significant new systems that work hand in hand to deepen the experience. The embellished diplomatic options extend the range of interactions with other leaders, allowing you to work cooperatively towards common goals or pull the strings to your advantage behind the scenes. While the introduction of climate change delivers new strategic choices whose consequences resonate ever-more-loudly as you advance throughout the eras. It isn't simply more Civ, it's a whole new way to play Civ.
Last edited:
sonicmyst
Emperor
https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/11/1...g-storm-review-pc-windows-global-warming-game
Global warming turns out to be just another reason for rival AIs to get pissy, one of a long list that includes such crimes as not building enough ships, or failing to invest in military buildings. Mainly, environmental protection feels like a personal micro-challenge — much like playing as a pacifist — rather than a genuine game-changer.
There is no way to “win” as an environmentalist. Equally, so far as I can tell, human civilization will not be destroyed by human activity, no matter how grotesquely short-sighted. The risk/reward offering is too weak to be of any real consequence.
-----
Gathering Storm is a useful evolution of Civilization 6. Firaxis has made smart choices in addressing global warming, diplomacy, and its own sagging late-game. But even when it’s all added together, I don’t believe it warrants a price tag of $40. As much as I love this game, and as much as I don’t expect to be loved back, I do expect to be at least respected.
Global warming turns out to be just another reason for rival AIs to get pissy, one of a long list that includes such crimes as not building enough ships, or failing to invest in military buildings. Mainly, environmental protection feels like a personal micro-challenge — much like playing as a pacifist — rather than a genuine game-changer.
There is no way to “win” as an environmentalist. Equally, so far as I can tell, human civilization will not be destroyed by human activity, no matter how grotesquely short-sighted. The risk/reward offering is too weak to be of any real consequence.
-----
Gathering Storm is a useful evolution of Civilization 6. Firaxis has made smart choices in addressing global warming, diplomacy, and its own sagging late-game. But even when it’s all added together, I don’t believe it warrants a price tag of $40. As much as I love this game, and as much as I don’t expect to be loved back, I do expect to be at least respected.
sonicmyst
Emperor
IGN (8.5/10)
https://sea.ign.com/m/civilization-...review/civilization-vi-gathering-storm-review
Civilization VI: Gathering Storm is a bursting-at-the-seams expansion that leaves few systems without substantial improvement and new content. Its new civs and leaders are distinctive and its natural disasters are meaningful without feeling as cruel and unfair as their real-life counterparts, though they are sometimes a tad too predictable. A new emphasis on tradable resources, both tangible goods and abstract favors, is a welcome change that brings a sense of accountability to the notoriously erratic AI rivals. This is likely where Civ VI’s expansions end, which is logical because it’s hard to imagine how Firaxis could cram much more into its frame.
https://sea.ign.com/m/civilization-...review/civilization-vi-gathering-storm-review
Civilization VI: Gathering Storm is a bursting-at-the-seams expansion that leaves few systems without substantial improvement and new content. Its new civs and leaders are distinctive and its natural disasters are meaningful without feeling as cruel and unfair as their real-life counterparts, though they are sometimes a tad too predictable. A new emphasis on tradable resources, both tangible goods and abstract favors, is a welcome change that brings a sense of accountability to the notoriously erratic AI rivals. This is likely where Civ VI’s expansions end, which is logical because it’s hard to imagine how Firaxis could cram much more into its frame.
sonicmyst
Emperor
PCGamer (81/100)
https://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-gathering-storm-review/
Civilization 6: Gathering Storm bites off a lot, but it proves more than capable of juggling big concepts like climate change and global diplomacy. It turns them into coherent but still complex systems that you'll constantly be interacting with, even before you start noticing that the beaches are vanishing. The climax doesn't live up to the build-up, but Civilization 6 is still a richer game for all the expansion brings.
https://www.pcgamer.com/civilization-6-gathering-storm-review/
Civilization 6: Gathering Storm bites off a lot, but it proves more than capable of juggling big concepts like climate change and global diplomacy. It turns them into coherent but still complex systems that you'll constantly be interacting with, even before you start noticing that the beaches are vanishing. The climax doesn't live up to the build-up, but Civilization 6 is still a richer game for all the expansion brings.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,496
Marb’s video review “Should I buy Gathering Storm” seems very fair, and seems consistent with what I’ve seen so far.
Basically, lots and lots of great new stuff, and fixes and improvements to existing mechanics, but the AI is still terrible and a lot of the new mechanics don’t have much impact on the game (climate change and future eras in particular).
I really really hope we get a Third Expansion, as I think there’s room mechanically and still work to do, but I do wonder if the game’s weak AI and lack of challenge overalls going to really hurt the game series at some point and discourage further expansion. New players might not pay this much for what they perceive as an “easy” game, and perhaps diehards will buy regardless but they’re less likely to spruik / talk up the game which also helps drive sales.
Basically, lots and lots of great new stuff, and fixes and improvements to existing mechanics, but the AI is still terrible and a lot of the new mechanics don’t have much impact on the game (climate change and future eras in particular).
I really really hope we get a Third Expansion, as I think there’s room mechanically and still work to do, but I do wonder if the game’s weak AI and lack of challenge overalls going to really hurt the game series at some point and discourage further expansion. New players might not pay this much for what they perceive as an “easy” game, and perhaps diehards will buy regardless but they’re less likely to spruik / talk up the game which also helps drive sales.
sonicmyst
Emperor
The Digital Fix (9/10)
https://www.thedigitalfix.com/gaming/content/12605/civilization-6-gathering-storm/
Gathering Storm enhances Civilization VI to such a degree that it is hard to think of this as anything other than the best possible Civ game. The array of new features make every match more interesting, and will keep you coming back for more time and time again.
https://www.thedigitalfix.com/gaming/content/12605/civilization-6-gathering-storm/
Gathering Storm enhances Civilization VI to such a degree that it is hard to think of this as anything other than the best possible Civ game. The array of new features make every match more interesting, and will keep you coming back for more time and time again.
ChocolateShake
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 525
I just watched it, I agree with you it's a step up for them. They do mention that the AI needs improvement and he made a good argument for the world congress including a system to set the agenda.
The polygon article came up in my google feed today, I still can't make any sense out of it though. With all the new content GS introduces, $40 is a fair price especially considered discounts as was mentioned earlier. The 8 news civs and Eleanor alone are worth $20-25. In addition it includes:
- Natural disasters and climate change
- Strategic resources and the power system
- The world congress returning
- Diplomacy changes and the diplomatic victory
- Canals, mountain tunnels, a whole new terrain system
- More natural wonders and wonders in general, more units, a future era
I think Civ's setting and accessibility will always keep attracting new players. It has its own style of play, and I'd say the newer players are probably going for multiplayer or are just learning the game, so they won't really be concerned about the level of challenge. I do think Firaxis needs to ensure the AI is decisive and willing to take more risks. It's important that the AI takes cities when it can in most cases, I think this has improved a lot in Rise and Fall, looking to see the upcoming changes too. The way I play the AI does have more chances at doing damage than if I was purely focused on winning, so play style has a big effect on the level of challenge.
Mods will always be around to help increase the level of challenge, though as far as I know no one has looked into improving the AI's ability to secure a non-military win. I might take a look at that to see how much of a problem it would be, last time I checked there was a discussion about using lua scripts to control the AI.
I use a time mod to stretch out the eras, and combined with modding the units to be cheaper, the AI builds a ton of units, including huge navies. That adds a good amount to the challenge of the game when I'm looking for it.
Last edited:
anandus
Errorist
Is it me or is this really weird?
Stilgar08
Emperor
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-vi-gathering-storm
17 reviews, 85% average. Not exactly what I would call a backlash...
17 reviews, 85% average. Not exactly what I would call a backlash...
That's not my problem..
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Jon of Cheam
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,358
Getting good reviews but there does seem to be more explicit criticism of the AI this time around, it might be enough to make 2k/FXS take notice and give the dev team more resources to focus on fixing it. I wouldn't count on it but it's possible.
Not that I mind too much, I have great fun with it regardless, but I can't deny it would be great to get a better AI.
Not that I mind too much, I have great fun with it regardless, but I can't deny it would be great to get a better AI.
https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-vi-gathering-storm
17 reviews, 85% average. Not exactly what I would call a backlash...
Civ games never have a backlash and always review well. Partly because reviewers don’t have enough time to test them fully, partly because they simply don’t play the games enough to notice the huge flaws. There hasn’t been a Firaxis 4x game that has gotten below 80% in a long long time, no matter how terrible they are. Heck, Beyond Earth got above 80%. Launch Civ 6 got above 80%.
Reviewers tend to focus on how many new systems an expansion has rather than if any of it actually works or is a fun addition to the game.
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
To be fair, you can subscribe through farming enough gold for tokens, which only leaves the expansions. I was no good at that so stopped playing once the tokens started to cost more than I could easily make in a month.
I have the same position. I'd like the AI to be better, but I don't really play Civ with the goal of winning it, so I don't much care how much or how effectively the AI gets in my way. At King it's enough for me that it's a nuisance I occasionally have to go to war with, and it can often defend its cities reasonably well (though not always). I can live with it not being a dastardly mastermind.
sonicmyst
Emperor
I see that sentence (in the review) as a form of self entitlement. Which leaves a bad taste.
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
To me it just read like a bad attempt to use the language of human relationships as a metaphor for his "love/hate" relationship with the game. Maybe troubling for other reasons. But then release is Valentine's Day
Stilgar08
Emperor
oh, absolutely. People were just saying it's a backlash which I doubt. The polygon guy had a bad day and I wouldn't base the impression of the public awareness based on one mediocre review (it wasn't even entirely bad - He even started with "game is better with GS" but just too expensive...) that's why I posted metacritic to get things into perspective.
ChocolateShake
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 525
I think the polygon review's mention of the iPad was also pretty irrelevant. I recently bought up a regular iPad and while I'd like to see GS come out for it (I think they should just skip Rise and Fall), nobody forced them to buy the iPad version which won't naturally won't be as up to date as the PC.
They, or Aspyr (who makes that decision, can they both?) recently gave away all the vanilla DLC for free too. But all of this shouldn't factor in to a review of GS, and I'm getting the impression it did since they opened up with an iPad mention. And Firaxis have a lot of sales going on leading up to GS...
They, or Aspyr (who makes that decision, can they both?) recently gave away all the vanilla DLC for free too. But all of this shouldn't factor in to a review of GS, and I'm getting the impression it did since they opened up with an iPad mention. And Firaxis have a lot of sales going on leading up to GS...
I think it is justified to lament the high price tag and mention it in a review.
First off, GS for me personally seems pretty much worth what I paid for it, yet I think it is overpriced and Firaxis didn't even try to justify the extra $10.
Worth is something subjective and a lot of factors lead to how we evaluate the worth of a product. I paid for GS around the same amount as I would pay for a one course dinner without drinks around here, so I certainly get more mileage out GS. Since a one course dinner without drinks can be something to remember (as well as the company) and the food might taste good (I won't get something fancy for ~$35 though), comparing quality is harder to asses than the quantity of entertainment. But I heavily lean into playing GS is worth more to me than said dinner experience (if I spend the money on a book, however, this might be different since some books turned out to be substantially important for my thinking and life, a video game so far hasn't).
Pricing on the other hand is far less subjective. There is an expectation of what to pay for an old-fashioned expansion: $30, or $20 if it is a cheaper/smaller one. I don't think it is sensible to say "I just paid a little over $30 because of discounts so it isn't overpriced", since discounts are also available for cheaper DLC, and a $30 expansion might cost you something like $25. Now, Firaxis could have easily made an argument why it is more expensive than expected. But they didn't, not even try. On the other hand, a higher price tag leads me to think that there needs to be justification - either by content or by an explanation. Some say the amount of features is justification enough. But I disagree, the amount of features doesn't seem to be exceptionally larger than those for R&F, G&K or BNW. Inflation, higher wages etc.? Sure, those are valid reasons, but no one mentions them. Charging $40 for something that isn't a full game violates my expectation, as it crosses into a field where I find newly released full games (like Imperator: Rome. Of course, I probably will invest a lot in its expansions if I commit, but it is a full standalone game and not an enhancement of an experience I already "own"). Don't tell me that developing GS was as expensive as a developing a full game. That's not talking about the overall quality of the expansion, mind you.
If R&F lowered its standard price to $20 now, I could see a kind of balance since it is reduced to a mere leader/civ pack with GS which will include all of R&F's mechanics. Doesn't seem to happen.
So, similarly to Polygon, I expected something that makes me understand why it is more costly than other expansions/my expectation. Firaxis didn't deliver a reason, thus I have to label it "overpriced".
I fear that for the future, GS will be a reference for what to expect to pay for a full civ expansion, and something like a 8-leader pack or a mini-expansion would be thus justified to cost more as well.
So yes, GS seems worth what I paid for it (although I can't be sure, R&F wasn't for example). But I consider it overpriced (contrary to R&F despite me only playing like 20 hours with it enabled).
First off, GS for me personally seems pretty much worth what I paid for it, yet I think it is overpriced and Firaxis didn't even try to justify the extra $10.
Worth is something subjective and a lot of factors lead to how we evaluate the worth of a product. I paid for GS around the same amount as I would pay for a one course dinner without drinks around here, so I certainly get more mileage out GS. Since a one course dinner without drinks can be something to remember (as well as the company) and the food might taste good (I won't get something fancy for ~$35 though), comparing quality is harder to asses than the quantity of entertainment. But I heavily lean into playing GS is worth more to me than said dinner experience (if I spend the money on a book, however, this might be different since some books turned out to be substantially important for my thinking and life, a video game so far hasn't).
Pricing on the other hand is far less subjective. There is an expectation of what to pay for an old-fashioned expansion: $30, or $20 if it is a cheaper/smaller one. I don't think it is sensible to say "I just paid a little over $30 because of discounts so it isn't overpriced", since discounts are also available for cheaper DLC, and a $30 expansion might cost you something like $25. Now, Firaxis could have easily made an argument why it is more expensive than expected. But they didn't, not even try. On the other hand, a higher price tag leads me to think that there needs to be justification - either by content or by an explanation. Some say the amount of features is justification enough. But I disagree, the amount of features doesn't seem to be exceptionally larger than those for R&F, G&K or BNW. Inflation, higher wages etc.? Sure, those are valid reasons, but no one mentions them. Charging $40 for something that isn't a full game violates my expectation, as it crosses into a field where I find newly released full games (like Imperator: Rome. Of course, I probably will invest a lot in its expansions if I commit, but it is a full standalone game and not an enhancement of an experience I already "own"). Don't tell me that developing GS was as expensive as a developing a full game. That's not talking about the overall quality of the expansion, mind you.
If R&F lowered its standard price to $20 now, I could see a kind of balance since it is reduced to a mere leader/civ pack with GS which will include all of R&F's mechanics. Doesn't seem to happen.
So, similarly to Polygon, I expected something that makes me understand why it is more costly than other expansions/my expectation. Firaxis didn't deliver a reason, thus I have to label it "overpriced".
I fear that for the future, GS will be a reference for what to expect to pay for a full civ expansion, and something like a 8-leader pack or a mini-expansion would be thus justified to cost more as well.
So yes, GS seems worth what I paid for it (although I can't be sure, R&F wasn't for example). But I consider it overpriced (contrary to R&F despite me only playing like 20 hours with it enabled).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
