I'm a little bit disappointed :(

MyOtherName's view of content decline has been resoundingly disproven in other threads too. I don't know why this nonsensical myth persists so well?
  • This is an impression people really have. I'm irrelevant. Whether or not it's disproven is irrelevant.
  • The impression of the model is at least partly based on how all games have handled it, not Civ 6 specifically.
 
  • This is an impression people really have. I'm irrelevant. Whether or not it's disproven is irrelevant.
  • The impression of the model is at least partly based on how all games have handled it, not Civ 6 specifically.

I do have to Agree that it seems, a some companies are taking advantage of Micro Transactions, in the fact they release games with almost no content. Make money from DLC and then seem to
not do anything else. these companies are just in it to make a fast buck. They are not "Usually" the well known established Gaming Companies, like Firaxis.
 
OP has a point that it would be nice if cities kept some remnant of their previous culture to show that Greeks don't turn into Kongolese overnight with a peace treaty.

Civ 5 did a really good job of making players incur domestic costs for expansion, making you actually have to weigh doing it. The international costs for expansion were horribly unfair, but at least they got the domestic side right. Civ 6 has the problem that military expansion is just a bit too easy, citizens from other empires should put up some resistance, not just let you stomp on them because their leader gave them up in a peace treaty.
 
1. I don't see the appeal of bringing that back, it sounds annoying.

It's a nice idea in principle, but essentially wasted in Civ games as the mechanics don't really allow it to be any more distinct than simple occupation unhappiness and Civ has never had an immigration system that takes advantage of, say, giving different nationalities different traits (which most 4xes that distinguish citizens by race, such as Stellaris, Master of Orion and Distant Worlds, do).

5. It's a new game and the vanilla version.

That said, I agree with the OP in one specific context: these things are called Wonders, yet in Civs IV through VI the base game has only had four of the original seven Wonders (not counting the Ishtar Gate, which has never been in a Civ game but was on the list before the Lighthouse of Alexandria was built), missing the Temple of Artemis, the Temple of Zeus and the Mausoleum. Civ VI added the Mausoleum in the Persia DLC, but the others still appear to be missing.

6. It was like this in Civ V, Firaxis has never given out a Civ for free to my knowledge
edit: Mongolia was free in Civ V

So eventually was Spain, as Conquest of the New World was a free patch update and I think Spain came along with that rather than BNW, after being paid content for a long time.
 
I'm not sold on the anti-DLC argument.

DLC is optional. The choice isn't between getting a game with 24 civs versus one with 19. You were going to get 19 civs for the price they charged period. The real choice is whether people who love the game and want more have the option of picking up 5 more DLC civs. If you don't like the extra civs, pretend they don't exist, because that is realistically what the alternative option is--them existing versus not.
 
  • Paying full price for an incomplete game sucks.
...
Why do I say 'incomplete' game? There is the impression that under the DLC model, the base games contain less content than they would have in the past. This impression is probably even more accurate than not.

You stated that this impression was even more accurate than not...

  • This is an impression people really have. I'm irrelevant. Whether or not it's disproven is irrelevant.
  • The impression of the model is at least partly based on how all games have handled it, not Civ 6 specifically.

...and now you're so happy to find out that this negative view on one of your favourite games is wrong you can go out into the fan community and help spread the good news! :woohoo:
 
... Aaaaaand we just derailed the thread into a To-DLC-Or-Not-To-DLC. Really, I should update my signature to add another trigger.

The difficulties setting is also kinda disappointing. Instead of making the AI smarter, more aggressive, they just cheat. I played on Emperor and keep getting beat on wonders because all AI players get +50% production and research or something like that :sad:

Wonders are a race, so if you don't invest on them, don't complain you don't get them. Especially the early ones. It's part of the strategic consideration you need to take.

If you want a pure empire-building game, then maybe Civ isn't the game for you. It's a strategic, competitive empire-building game, not a purely sandbox empire-building game.
 
The difficulties setting is also kinda disappointing. Instead of making the AI smarter, more aggressive, they just cheat. I played on Emperor and keep getting beat on wonders because all AI players get +50% production and research or something like that :sad:

It amazes me that people complain about this so much (and the DLC but not going to get into that one). If you want all the wonders then play on Prince or Warlord. You should expect to be beaten to wonders on high difficulty otherwise it's not difficult - you have to develop a strategy to prioritize the ones you really want. The developers know that the AI can't compete with an experienced player on equal footing and these handicaps have existing since the early days. If you don't want to be handicapped then DON'T play on higher difficulty because you don't have to. It's that simple. If you were playing against human opponents on equal footing would you expect to build all the wonders?
 
Well, I dig the Hansa so I play as Germany. Since Mr Red Beard is Emperor, it would sound bad to pick the difficulty named "Prince" :p
 
Back
Top Bottom