Is Civilization forever dead?

[TheMeInTeam]

I wish people who don't like Civ5 would cut down with the hyperbole.

4 city tradition builds is a legitimate strategy and was very popular pre-Nerf, but I play exclusively on huge maps and there are more like 50-60 on the map. I routinely get 10-15 plus cities in total including my core. If I'm not going for culture and just want to play the good ole' osccilation war where I take a bite out of everyone.
'
You can't expect to keep posting unfounded comments like that and not expect to be called out on it.

Huge maps are not standard, it's easy to forget about game modes where you spend more time waiting than playing.

And no, if you play quickly that is not hyperbole. I've demonstrated examples of waiting time > playing on video in the past, on sizes smaller than huge.

 

[dexters]

Huge maps are not standard, it's easy to forget about game modes where you spend more time waiting than playing.

And no, if you play quickly that is not hyperbole. I've demonstrated examples of waiting time > playing on video in the past, on sizes smaller than huge.

Which is why I made my specifics known. I could have easily left that detail out.

And frankly, I have no stats on what the playerbase as a whole plays on. I know large/huge map only play is fairly common for people who love their long epic games. So when complaints about small empire sizes crop up, I default to that map size as what people who like those things play on. And on huge, it's fairly easy to get to 15+ cities.

As a further datapoint check, Checking Steam achievements (though the % don't make completely sense to me) the variance between those who have completed a game on standard vs. huge is not very big so it's likely the same people playing both map sizes.

As for your note on playing quickly, I don't follow, so you can clarify that point further. The discussion is about the hyperbole of 3 city empires as somehow being the norm not whether you feel its fast enough or not. Heck i'm playing on a 7 year old gen1 i7 CPU and it runs fine on huge maps with max city states in the late game.

 

[crazyewok]

<<<<< Thormodr,

you nailed my very concern here. If the engine is NOT 64 bit then we will be stuck with the very same map sizes that restrict 'grand empires' down to 5 cities.

I doubt 32bit is even on the table.

This is 2016 not 2006.

Civ 5 was pushing it in 2010 being on 32bit.

Today releasing on 32bit would be about as dumb as releasing on flopy discs.

 

[daft]

What sort of a silly question is that?
Of course it's not dead, as long as one Civ fanatic still lives...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And on huge, it's fairly easy to get to 15+ cities.

You can get 15+ on standard maps with commerce finisher or ideologies. But is that going to optimize finish times in most cases?

For domination, maybe. Otherwise, no. But maybe it will in VI.

 

[dexters]

You can get 15+ on standard maps with commerce finisher or ideologies. But is that going to optimize finish times in most cases?

For domination, maybe. Otherwise, no. But maybe it will in VI.

I think we are in agreement.

The point is, throwing around me '3 city empires lolz' was hyperbole, I called that out. There's no talk of difficulty, play settings or any of that ancillary detail, though I'm sure that will be the excuse now that you've given them that out.

The parameters of the discussion is assumed to about normal/regular play. A gamer setting up a map to play at a difficulty level they are comfortable with and trying to win that game.
That's AFAIK how a lot of the community plays this game. So yes, you can get empires in many different sizes,

Now if we're talking about HOF games, counting turns, or posting in a subforum specifically about that, then I would assume different things. This is Civ6 general forums in a thread asking if Civ is dead because Civ6 has 1UPT and hexes and because they're still bitter about a six year old game.

 

[gcm4738]

and because they're still bitter

not.

bitter.

(tries to unclench teeth)

really.


not.

 

[noto2]

Whatever they (Firaxis) do, they need to remember they are professionals, as in, they are getting paid good money to do a job, and they should do it professionally. I can't do a sloppy job at work without getting in trouble. My boss expects me to do a proper job for my pay.

The UI in Civ5 was just unacceptable. TMIT has pointed this out and articulated and demonstrated it better than I can. This isn't a matter of opinion and flavour, such as with subjects like the combat system or health vs global happiness. There is just no excuse for a poorly designed UI, and it really does detract from the game.

There have been many times in 5 when I'm going for a late game domination victory and I know I have only about 20 or so turns to finish, and I'm looking at the clock and thinking "hmm... I have only two hours or so to play, can I actually fire up the game, load my mods, load my saved game, and then actually complete 20 turns where I need to individually move 30 or so units and then wait between turns and get it all done in 2 hours? I'm not sure".

And sometimes I'll let a game sit for a week or two before finishing it, just because I don't really look forward to spending 2 hours to get through the last 20 turns. It's just not acceptable these days for a game to fail in that regard. Whatever they do, they need to design good UI. And we should be going on whatever forums and making that known to Firaxis, they really need to hear that message.

 

[m15a]

Whatever they (Firaxis) do, they need to remember they are professionals, as in, they are getting paid good money to do a job, and they should do it professionally. I can't do a sloppy job at work without getting in trouble. My boss expects me to do a proper job for my pay.

We're not Firaxis's boss. And we're certainly not the boss of individual Firaxis employees, so we have no ability to judge whether they're work is done professionally. (Yes, since we are consumers, we can judge their product, but product and work are not the same thing.)

 

[Thormodr]

not.

bitter.

(tries to unclench teeth)

really.


not.

Not bitter, either.

Civilization 5 was a substandard game, to say the least, but I still have hope for Civ VI.

 

[labellavienna]

Sorry but a lot of people saying that CIv v sold so well because it was "dumbed down" forget that beyond earth never had the same success that CIv v had, and it used the same engine! Not to mention Rome 2 or whatever was also dumbed down and it didn't have much success either.

I personally tried to get into CIv 4 because everyone said it was a superior game, I don't why but I never got into it. Perhaps I am a dumb person and part of the problem but CIv 5 had a very hypnotic and immersive feeling to it. I actually felt like I was a total ruler of my people. I never got that feeling with CIv 4. I really really tried to force myself to like CIv 4 but it was impossible.


My only worry with CIv 6 is that it will be too short. Honestly all that talk with games finishing under 2 hours really scared me. I'd rather have 6 days worth of content then 2 hours! Please say it isn't so!

 

[m15a]

My only worry with CIv 6 is that it will be too short. Honestly all that talk with games finishing under 2 hours really scared me. I'd rather have 6 days worth of content then 2 hours! Please say it isn't so!

The talk about two-hour games is referring to multiplayer games, right? If so, the official website states that those modes are in addition to the standard modes:

In addition to traditional multiplayer modes, cooperate and compete with your friends in a wide variety of situations all designed to be easily completed in a single session.

I don't know how long the standard game will be, but it's at least more than is expected to fit in a single session.

 

[labellavienna]

Oh thank goodness.

 

[Haig]

Oh thank goodness.

The reason you love Civ V (and I do too!) is probably because of the brilliant expansions, included if you have the Complete version.

And the mastermind of those is behind Civ 6 as well, and has also award-winning boardgames under his belt too. I don't think there's anything worrying about.
(Producer and art director same as in Civ V too)

Civ 6 also has pretty much all the features that Civ 5 has, plus all the new stuff.

I'm pumped.

 

[labellavienna]

Well OK I'm just soooo nervous about CIv 6, history is my life and I love this game! It's super late here in Peru and I read the announcement and I cannot sleep! I'm going to be a zombie on my flight back to the united states tomorrow lol

 

[Westwall]

Me too lol

Let's be excited together xD

 

[labellavienna]

If Vietnam makes it on their CIv list I'm going to scream lol

 

[Hail]

So, they emphasized the beauty of small empires and pushed it as a feature. *Ugh* Thankfully, Mr. Beach isn't a fan of these 3-4 city empires.

Mr. Beach is responsible for the "+5% increase per city of all tech costs" in the BNW expansion.

 

[Oerdin]

Not bitter, either.

Civilization 5 was a substandard game, to say the least, but I still have hope for Civ VI.

I agree that Civ 5 was a massive disappointment but it looks like Firaxis is doubling down on the stupid when it comes to Civ 6. Maybe I am wrong but so far I see little to be hopeful about.

 

[Aristos]

Mr. Beach is responsible for the "+5% increase per city of all tech costs" in the BNW expansion.

Yes, but that has to be put into context. Mr. Beach is also responsible for the core theme of BNW, a vivid and still open late game. A standard runaway AI from G&K, at higher levels, would have just prevented the main theme of BNW from happening for the average player, which defeats the whole purpose of the expansion. Thus, the per-city penalty for science. Without it, more often than not, the majority of the players would have not seen much of the new, enriched late game, and rightfully bash the expansion.

I am OK with the penalty. Runaways, be it the player or the AI, have many more advantages for their size.

As for the "optimized shorter finishing times", I don't know how that can be a measure of anything but personal preference. This is not a race, apart from the late game space race. I couldn't care less if somebody wins Immortal in less than 300 turns, as long as it is not one of my AI contenders ... no matter what some say or try to argue, I don't take finishing times as a sample of optimized or "perfect" play, sorry.