Is civ6 the best civ game

[Wizard-Bob]

I played Civ V a long time but only played civ 6 for a few months
Does this make it the best civ game or have I just got less friends?

View attachment 469064
View attachment 469065

A true Civ Fanatic!

 

[Esperr]

Oh, and on the date:

Spoiler :

IDK why that was so hard to read the first time, im to used to where I work apparently. We write everything as
"10APR2017" just to avoid all confusion. I guess its been to long.

 

[Bechhold]

Not even close.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Anyone who is honest with themselves while playing will admit that some boosts they would have liked to have got, allude them. Or they sacrificed a previous priority to get the boost. That city state they really covert wants them to do 'X'. X was never part of their plans, but it is now! And it has come at the expense of something else. We have interesting strategic and tactical choices like never before in the series (for tactics, just look at the new movement rules - wonderful )

The great strategic dilemma you're describing is about...one envoy. Moreover, it's an obvious one: you either make the detour for this envoy and enjoy its benefit, or you don't. It's not a choice that will make or break your game 100 turns down the road, one that actually requires skillful consideration.

*** *** ***

For anyone wondering how that third Deity game on the new patch is going, drew France on Shuffle map. Met India, stole unescorted settler, the AI skipped the city I founded with it for a trek through rivers and jungles against my hill capital, obviously was a disaster in which it lost all its starting warriors or so. Meanwhile its second city built Stonehenge, and its capital built a settler which was promptly captured by barbarians (and recaptured by me). After taking Stonehenge city, I got 14 gpt tribute and 4 cities without ever bothering to build a settler.

 

[dojoboy]

For me, Civ4 was the best before 1UPT Civ versions. Of Civ5 and Civ6, I enjoyed Civ5 the most, but I'm hopeful further upgrades and expansions will do the trick.

 

[nzcamel]

The great strategic dilemma you're describing is about...one envoy. Moreover, it's an obvious one: you either make the detour for this envoy and enjoy its benefit, or you don't. It's not a choice that will make or break your game 100 turns down the road, one that actually requires skillful consideration.

Give me examples from previous Civ versions (IV aside) of strategic mechanics that are missing from VI, that made the earlier version a better game.

 

[agonistes]

Give me examples from previous Civ versions (IV aside) of strategic mechanics that are missing from VI, that made the earlier version a better game.

Lethal bombardment exists... keeps a smile on my face all day long.

But... nuclear subs can no longer go under ice.

Both tactical, but both strategic as well.

I'll keep thinking....

edit: here's one - I can't raze my own cities. I know, some of you are objecting to the strategic value in that. Well, in III I did a start where Russia had 40 cities and corruption was turned off, I had 1 city in the desert to start. I was forward settling on mountains for defensive posturing, then retreating and blowing my cities when things got too hot. Kept a nice buffer zone up.

Rare, sure. But valid. Probably proves your point actually.

And stacking of course.

 

[nzcamel]

Lethal bombardment exists... keeps a smile on my face all day long.

But... nuclear subs can no longer go under ice.

Both tactical, but both strategic as well.

I'll keep thinking....

I think it's nice having subs under ice; but hardly game breaking that they can't.

Edit: I would hazard a guess that this ability was removed for game balance. Did some feel that the subs had no counter in game once they were under there? (I didn't play enough V into the late game to ever have many subs).

edit: here's one - I can't raze my own cities. I know, some of you are objecting to the strategic value in that. Well, in III I did a start where Russia had 40 cities and corruption was turned off, I had 1 city in the desert to start. I was forward settling on mountains for defensive posturing, then retreating and blowing my cities when things got too hot. Kept a nice buffer zone up.

Rare, sure. But valid. Probably proves your point actually.

And stacking of course.

I noted elsewhere that I liked the mechanism in III (I think) where you could "starve" (I like to think we were encouraging them to resettle elsewhere ) a city and then unmake it by producing a settler once it was small enough. It was nice to be able to do... and I'd like it back. But I don't think that forcing the player into a more awkward choice (keep the city where it is, or raze it) removes significant strategy per say. Though good on you for channeling Stalin You can still effectively abandon a city to an enemy - if they'll take it...

Yeah stacking. Lets not go there in this thread! I do agree that there is great strategic considerations to stacks.

 

[Flatline23]

Nope.

Civ 4, then a tie between 2 and 3, then 1, then 5 and then 6.

Not to say that there is nothing redeeming about 6... some things are quite interesting. But the game as a whole is half baked and not finished, not to mention the still rampant obvious bugs after all these months. Check again after a couple of expansions.

 

[Major Tom]

I have the Civ I box in my bookshelf and sweared I will play all future versions of this game but is still sticking around with IV. Using Sid Meiers own acid test, V failed (not much of interesting choices as the game progressed). BE rather lame, too. Now VI, can it offer interesting decisions every turn (counting from finishing initially build)?
So far reports indicates this just some kind if SimCity. Convince me.

 

[Victoria]

Convince me

If you try an acid test on an unfinished project you will melt it. I suggest waiting until civ 7 comes out then play civ 6, that seems to be the case with the way people compare civ IV.

It not simcity if you play above prince, you will be dead in 40 turns quite often if you play like that. Its not perfect by any means but it is playable and enjoyable unless you are incredibly critical.

So no, I am not going to convince you, if you are a critic wait until civ 7, if you are a little forgiving then convince youself.

 

[awetzel]

You have to make your own mind up, you will find the perference will depend on who answers. Each game is different and attracts different preferences.

Civ 6 is still being developed and new things released, the chat rooms are busier and you can always find new things out no-one knows.
There is nothing wrong with playing older games, they are more well developed, they just tend to be uglier.

This is the problem. It is still being developed. They need to try finishing the developing phase before selling it. Only the game has such a huge dedicated fan base including me that just loves throwing our money at the next civ that comes out. We know it will be only half done but somehow convince ourselves this time it will be different. I suppose i shouldn't speak for everyone but I know this is the case for me. I understand that games need to be tweaked that is what spring patches are for, but the AI on this is so underdeveloped that it transcends the area of tweaking or possibly even fixability, and jumps straight into the "we are lazy and you will still buy/play it so why bother the effort" I'm really tired of these guys spitting in my face. And that's my rant.

P.S. I can't wait to buy Civ 7 I just know it will finally come together and be the best civ yet. :}

 

[Victoria]

They need to try finishing the developing phase before selling it.

Its a different world now with shareholders wanting a slice of money and more demands on graphics it just is not cost justifiable unless you are an indie with no shareholders. In which case when your game gets successful the big companies will offer you millions to sell it to them. Every one has their price... even Notch (I loved his Bethesda challenge, clearly a great non corporate mind)

Both my teenage sons expect this as standard. That the new game is worth getting because they can talk about it, Not because it plays well is their take. They will play the crappiest games on their phones if others are chatting about it. The game itself is less important and the length of the game being shorter and more lively is much more what they are after. A change that has been recognized and milked.

 

[Abraxis]

I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm totally hip to the new crappy phone games

I am not so sure gaming is changing, if it seems that way I think it's really just our tastes that are changing, or that we're paying attention to a sub-market we never looked at before. The gaming industry on the whole is just expanding, and our focus tends to be on the new ground it covers rather than the old ground it's developing. I've gone back to play many of the games I played growing up and they weren't so different than all of this junk content being pushed out to appeal to all these new markets being drawn in by the ubiquity of gaming devices. I see a lot of similarities actually, particularly in the games created during the arcade era designed for exploiting micro-transactions or pockets full of change. That was a time when gaming surged to expand and exploit a new market in response to technology expanding the accessibility of gaming to reach a new market. And one of the most popular arcade games, Mortal Kombat, wasn't popular because it was any deeper or more complex than Street Fighter, rather because the unprecedented violence got the kids talking about it. No different than these crappy phone games today.

All the more dedicated gamers back then who'd been playing Rogue for the last ten years thought gaming was changing, but it didn't really. Dwarf Fortress, Tales of Maj'Eyal and plenty of other games still came along to satisfy what could now be considered a niche. That particular market wasn't obscured, gaming just grew around it so much as to put it in relative obscurity. It has since pretty well continued to grow in a pretty linear way.

Big companies are changing things, but I don't think it's in buying things up. You mention Notch being bought, but crafting and survival games are a dime a dozen in the wake of Minecraft's success. That market will be well looked after with or without Notch. Nothing was really disrupted or changed there.
I think the one way it is changing is when companies take existing intellectual property and convert it over to try and penetrate a new market with the lingering support from the old one as insurance against a flop. This really burns my bacon. The Sims 4, for example. Which has basically abandoned the simulation market in favour of capitalizing on young girls wanting to play digital dress up on their parent's hand-me down laptops. Which in itself would still be okay, the problem is in the fact that if anyone else comes along to try and make a new life simulator to appeal to the abandoned simulation market, you can be sure EA would sue them into oblivion. That there is how these super-massive businesses have fundamentally altered the nature of the industry, and it is an awful change if you ask me.

Where once we had crappy knockoffs of questionable legality to identify, quantify and satisfy every sub-market within the industry, paving the way for larger products, ultimately driving the industry's natural growth based on the desires of its markets and the consumers within. Now, the parts of the industry being monopolized by these giants effectively hijack the natural growth, disempowering the consumers by depriving them of any real choice, to instead dictate their own path forward for the industry.

 

[Victoria]

Just the first example I googled - I am not going to go into a long length discussion over our opinions because that is what they are. Life is changing though

http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-a...digital-technology-3-ways-stay-focused-333474

 

[Abraxis]

You would like to prove that our generation didn't have a short attention span, but that would take too long?

I don't disagree with that article, and I was never really disagreeing with you either. I was fleshing out the idea with some of my own observations. I'm sure the actual reality of the situation is much greater still, and there are important factors neither of us touched on.

I don't think that article applies here though since it blames technology for the lower attention span, that is a non-factor so far as judging any change within the gaming industry since we've always been exposed to this kind of technology. The reason for the lower attention span discussed in that article is technology abusing our brain's reward system, which is quintessentially gaming to its most simplistic definition, and it has always been about exploiting that.

 

[Victoria]

Sure, you make some good points

My first comment I believe is generally accepted that much computer software is released early due to monetary limitations... and time,/budget overrun.

My second was just an example with my own children how they feel about computer games, they seem to use them as another social media tool

Not wanting to prove anything, just give an opinion and food for thought.

 

[gettingfat]

No, it's not even top 3.

 

[Major Tom]

Its a different world now with shareholders wanting a slice of money and more demands on graphics it just is not cost justifiable unless you are an indie with no shareholders. In which case when your game gets successful the big companies will offer you millions to sell it to them. Every one has their price... even Notch (I loved his Bethesda challenge, clearly a great non corporate mind)

Both my teenage sons expect this as standard. That the new game is worth getting because they can talk about it, Not because it plays well is their take. They will play the crappiest games on their phones if others are chatting about it. The game itself is less important and the length of the game being shorter and more lively is much more what they are after. A change that has been recognized and milked.

Actually, this convinced me (not to buy civ 6). It must be the age. Want quality straight out of the box. Using valueable time on crap UI , AI and gamedesign is not happening.

 

[Victoria]

Actually, this convinced me (not to buy civ 6). It must be the age. Want quality straight out of the box. Using valueable time on crap UI , AI and gamedesign is not happening.

So what are you doing on a Civilization forum