Gathering Storm Over-hyped?

[Disgustipated]

I could disagree more.

After GS, we'll have a great mix of Civs, ranging from weak but fun to OP and fun, Civs that play to existing mechanics and meta and those that "break" the meta and play uniquely, and Civs that a good for all victories and those that are specialised.

Agreed, the design of the civs is probably the strongest part of this expansion. Maybe he was missing some of the big name civs from past games, but we did get a few mainstays like Incas, Ottomans, and Carthage/Phoenicia. The civs are what I'm most excited about. Disasters look pretty fun as well, though I think it will take modding to really make them you know, an actual disaster.

 

[acluewithout]

I’m starting to wonder if Civ VI GS is under hyped. Check this out from paper rock shotgun.

Honestly. I haven’t played GS yet (of course). But a lot of the press seems kinda negative, and I think totally unjustified. The internet - and gaming - is a very odd beast.

My expectation is GS is likely to be a bit of a turning point for Civ VI, which hopefully starts generating some much better press, reviews and posts (not to mention sales).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Beyond that, personally I think the games biggest problem is most of the civs are completely uninteresting, with a few OP standouts. I mostly fault the special snowflake abilities for this, as firaxis really has to reach to come up with something and it gets worse as they shovel more civs in. Though at least they aren't repeating the R&F standard of If X, you can War of <Blank> for 10 turns for Y bonuses. But still, most of the abilities don't feel representative of the cultures they're attached to in any way at all, just a pure gameplay gimmick, and I'd happily see the immortal god-king leaders and their abilities burned in a fire- I'd rather the focus be on the civilization as a whole rather than one or two individuals, many of whom had minimal impact on their society (or were legends with no substance).

Yeah, I think they've kind of painted themselves into a corner with the "uniqueness" factor--they set out to make the civs more individual than any game, and the abilities are; but with 40+ civs and only so many rules to work with, you're going to start repeating or getting bland.

I also wish they would do away with the "leader" traits and focus on the civ itself instead--that does more for me. But that was the choice they made for this release so whatever.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Agreed, the design of the civs is probably the strongest part of this expansion. Maybe he was missing some of the big name civs from past games, but we did get a few mainstays like Incas, Ottomans, and Carthage/Phoenicia. The civs are what I'm most excited about.

Not missing any. I just feel like they could be blanket replaced with civs like 'Red,' 'Green,' 'Pony' and 'Griffon,' and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference

 

[Gali]

Its like any and all civ expansions ever; if you like the game it will improve it but its unlikely to convert that many people. The expansion that was the biggest gamechanger was probably Gods and Kings, but that was compared to vanilla civ 5 which even as a civ 5 fan was the weakest in the franchise. Especially since a lot of people coming back probably compared it to release civ 5 which was a disaster. One reason the AI in civ 6 is worse is what makes it more fun than civ 5; they massively expanded and complicated the economy of the game. Such complexity is what makes the new strategy games fun to play but it has doomed the AI. Name me a modern strategy game with unmodded AI that is at all competent. I have to play with gladius to make my stellaris AI not sub civ 6 level and the endless ai are always awful. its not cost effective for game companies to make great AIs. the only time it happened in civ was civ 4 and there they incorporated a modders work for BTS anyway. What companies need to do is release the tools to allow the modders to fix it and that is almost certainly a publisher decision.

 

[pgm123]

I’m starting to wonder if Civ VI GS is under hyped. Check this out from paper rock shotgun.

Honestly. I haven’t played GS yet (of course). But a lot of the press seems kinda negative, and I think totally unjustified. The internet - and gaming - is a very odd beast.

My expectation is GS is likely to be a bit of a turning point for Civ VI, which hopefully starts generating some much better press, reviews and posts (not to mention sales).

It grates on me when people call expansions DLC. I know it is technically DLC, but people treat it like a micro-transaction, which it definitely isn't. Would people feel more justified in spending $32 on an expansion if they got a physical copy?

 

[DWilson]

I’m starting to wonder if Civ VI GS is under hyped. Check this out from paper rock shotgun.

Honestly. I haven’t played GS yet (of course). But a lot of the press seems kinda negative, and I think totally unjustified. The internet - and gaming - is a very odd beast.

My expectation is GS is likely to be a bit of a turning point for Civ VI, which hopefully starts generating some much better press, reviews and posts (not to mention sales).

That author just seems to be angrily grumbling. Is he by chance in a mid-life crisis?

And I completely agree with @pgm123 . This is a very different item than a more standard modern DLC. I much prefer it to IAP of actual game content or content access, which I think is what most gamers are bitter about anyway.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That author just seems to be angrily grumbling. Is he by chance in a mid-life crisis?

And I completely agree with @pgm123 . This is a very different item than a more standard modern DLC. I much prefer it to IAP of actual game content or content access, which I think is what most gamers are bitter about anyway.

I'd be interested in knowing what the author thinks about subscription online games . . .

 

[Disgustipated]

But a lot of the press seems kinda negative, and I think totally unjustified.

Yeah I don't get this. I absolutely love Civ6. But we can't ignore that the AI is weak as a kitten. It looks a little stronger on certain map types in GS, but that remains to be seen. They are still extremely weak on archipelago maps.

I see this as everyone is a hater now days. And I even got into that at the release of Civ5 (I went back to Civ4). But at a certain point, it's just dumb to just hate everything new (though I still hate almost all new movies and tv shows ). This isn't Mass effect Andromeda or Fallout 76 bad. This is a damn good game. It has its flaws for sure, but still damn good.

but people treat it like a micro-transaction, which it definitely isn't

this bothers me immensely. Expansions have been around since the 90's. Not all are great, but many are. I never bought the Diablo expansion (I believe it was called Hellfire) for example. But gladly bought Civ2 expansions. Though I never cared for Test of Time, and I was bored of the game by then.

 

[DWilson]

Someone posted a fair collection of reviews in the other thread, and they all seem fairly positive, if not perfect. I would say appropriate hype.