Its Boring

The new art style is certainly no selling point for me. Neither is (as another poster put it so well), the game board like world map.

The horrible AI, and erratic AI, these stop me from buying it.
 
why do people make threads like this? if you aren't interested in playing this game, don't play it. many others still will

edit: note that i'm not going to comment on your reasons for why you dislike the game, because those are your reasons and they reflect what you want out of a game. i'm just genuinely perplexed as to why people create thread after thread about this
 
AlanH11 said:
Don't get me wrong about my thread; I actually wanted to like Civ6, and I eagerly perused all the reviews and screenshots, hoping for gratification. But sadly, the stylized graphics have gone too far down the cartoon route. It's a personal choice, and I understand that others like it.
I'm a Brit, btw, so on the subject of US tv/films/whatever, I'm clueless.

I will happily carry on playing Civ5.
Click to expand...
I'm also British by origin, and have no objection to the graphics. But we seem to have different tastes in general: I tried Civ 5 for a short time and then abandoned it for ever, I just didn't take to it (having played every previous version of the game). I like Civ 6 a good deal better, I think it's the best version so far, despite the weak AI and the unsuccessful religion system. Perhaps both will be improved in future, but meanwhile I can still enjoy the game.
 
The appearance of a game matters to some more than others. It's about sensitivity to visuals. For me, it's a deal breaker, and it's not possible to see 'through' the art style; it's integral to the whole.

Thread after thread? Just shows how important this is. Art matters.
 
I was disappointed too with the leader animations but I've learned to live with them. I'm more bothered about having to go to strategic view to identify hills.

I hated the map colours in Civ Beyond Earth though, and after trying the demo didn't bother with it.
 
AlanH11 said:
The appearance of a game matters to some more than others. It's about sensitivity to visuals. For me, it's a deal breaker, and it's not possible to see 'through' the art style; it's integral to the whole.

Thread after thread? Just shows how important this is. Art matters.
Click to expand...
It does matter more to some than others, but by definition this makes it subjective and not a factual appraisal of the game's graphical capabilities. It's the same with anything, subjective aesthetics will please some, and displease others. This will have been focus-tested prior to release, and the market analysed to determine depth of impact.
 
AlanH11 said:
The appearance of a game matters to some more than others. It's about sensitivity to visuals. For me, it's a deal breaker, and it's not possible to see 'through' the art style; it's integral to the whole.

Thread after thread? Just shows how important this is. Art matters.
Click to expand...
you misinterpreted the "thread after thread" comment; it was not about comments on the art style, which i too was disappointed with at first, but about announcing that you won't be purchasing the game
 
The graphics are heavily dependant on your settings. The aesthetic really doesn't work with the awful lighting and shading of lower settings, and everything clashes. When the game came out I was running it on a horsehockey laptop and really disappointed with the graphics. Now I have a good PC again and running it at high and it looks phenomenal. I've since wondered if this has been a serious contributor to the sharp division in opinions about the aesthetic.

Maybe this is your problem too OP?

Anyways, for someone seemingly advocating integrity in design, you're oddly fixated on superficial aesthetic.
 
Last edited:
I have absolutely no problems with the art direction of Civ VI.

Apparently, OP, the Animation Age Ghetto got the best of you.

This whole debate is very similar to that in the Zelda community (debates about art direction splinted the Zelda community completely, especially with the endless Wind Waker vs. Twilight Princess debates).

Note my avatar (which is based on the symbol for Kirby games, which I enjoy immensely as well).
 
Olleus said:
I just dont understand how people hold such strong opinions about graphics style in a strategy game like Civ.
Click to expand...
I hold very strong opinions about graphics style -- and one that you might even agree with.

My opinion is that the graphics style needs to be such that you can see the things you need to see, distinguish between things you need to distinguish, and gloss over the things you need to gloss over.

I.e. the graphics style needs to cater to the gameplay -- the graphics style shouldn't get in the way of playing the game, and ideally should actually help.
 
im not a fan of the graphics - its too close to the civ rev, console, 5-second-attention-span-player game type. but they arent too terrible. the odd thing is the gameplay now seems a million times more complicated than civ 5 where the cities are concerned. kids friendly graphics wont draw in the console audience to a game they cant play well with a controller. and civ rev was annoying with a controller and with the limits imposed by the hardware limits of the xbox 360 for example. whatever reason they have for it, i prefer the civ 5 style, but i can tolerate this one. but thats what it is, TOLERANCE. not like, not approve. if the trend continues, go look at civ rev vids and screenshots to see what civ 7 will look like.

i think it also is down to that originally civ was a serious game for serious people. so the whole dumbing down thing comes into it. along with competing with free app games with in app purchase etc etc.
 
Last edited:
andreafin said:
im not a fan of the graphics - its too close to the civ rev, console, 5-second-attention-span-player game type. but they arent too terrible. the odd thing is the gameplay now seems a million times more complicated than civ 5 where the cities are concerned. kids friendly graphics wont draw in the console audience to a game they cant play well with a controller. and civ rev was annoying with a controller and with the limits imposed by the hardware limits of the xbox 360 for example. whatever reason they have for it, i prefer the civ 5 style, but i can tolerate this one. but thats what it is, TOLERANCE. not like, not approve. if the trend continues, go look at civ rev vids and screenshots to see what civ 7 will look like.

i think it also is down to that originally civ was a serious game for serious people. so the whole dumbing down thing comes into it. along with competing with free app games with in app purchase etc etc.
Click to expand...
So... you don't actually have a problem with the graphical style on its own merits, it's just that it happens to remind you of other games you didn't like?
 
The game sucks. Don't buy it and waste your money like I did.
 
I purchased this game after many, many hours of enjoyment playing civ 5. In spite of the bugs I have already spent many fun hours playing civ 6. It has already saved me a small fortune as when spending hours playing - I am not spending cash on other social activities! I use several mods and look forward to the next patch.
I guess I'm simply hooked on this game!
 
That still makes it a pretty good game and one I will play for hours, but for what it is worth here are my gripes with the game. Bear in mind that I am not a good player, which (possibly?) marks me as a mainstream target customer for the game.

1. Terrain generation is still an issue on the 6th game of the series. Too many maps are still boring, or starved of what you need, to get a start worthy of playing. As it takes (seemingly) forever to start up, this is a real issue. If you are unlucky you might never really get started.

2. The AI, particularly early in the game, doesn't seem to play to win, it seems to be doing its best to be as irritating as possible. Ive had up to 3 civs march 30 hexes across the map to plant a city so close to my territory that two of them didn't have a clear hex around it. In occasional games, even on lower difficulty levels, for no apparent reason, civs attack you aggressively en mass, with surprising co-ordination with the barbarians, who will hurl themselves to death on your city walls, rather than capture a worker or pillage an AI civ much closer to them. While this does increase the difficulty, I have the difficulty slider for that.

3. Ridiculous trade agreements keep being offered to me, turn after turn. The diplomacy screen is slow, even if you escape out of it. I don't need to keep seeing offers for me to trade all my luxuries and gold, for open borders 20 turns in a row, from 3 civs. How difficult is it for the AI to stop offering stupid one-sided deals?

4. The game in general is hideously imbalanced everywhere. While this does create variety, I don't understand why it cant be balanced as well. Some of the abilities the civs have are so difficult to use, that they make the game frustrating. China's great wall is a case in point; there are so many restrictions on building it that finding 3 hexes in a row worth building the damn thing on, is a daunting challenge. The natural wonders, and great wonders are just as bad. I just can't see how it is difficult to balance these up, or at least get them closer. Even the basic unit types and their rock/paper/scissors effect on each other are not equal; ranged units are still obligatory, whereas you can easily go a whole game without cavalry or spear-men.

5. Religious warfare; surely a case of the emperor's new clothes, no one willing to tell Ed how much it sucks. I am not opposed to the idea of a religious victory, but not only does the system not begin to give a respectable representation of religion (not essential I know), but religious combat is just another version of military combat, with all the fun, complexity and interest taken out. The question isn't whether it is enjoyable, but how could anyone think it is enjoyable.

6. Spying. I've never really been a fan of spying, but it seems that that the designers can't make up heir minds about it. There is no doubt that spying can make a big difference in the game, but the spying game itself is so weak and tedious that it is just no fun to play. They had an opportunity to create a mini game sneaking spy units around the map avoiding military units and other spies, stealing technology or sabotaging stuff or assassinating great people, but instead we get a bunch of menus and text-boxes; Lazy work! Not only that, but there is no option to disable it any more.

7. Programming is not good; The game runs very slow, and there are still some ugly bugs. Units disappear, I cant promote units, with a promotion waiting, unless I move them, and basic stuff like clicking still taking effect even when the game is not responding. Note to all developers everywhere: You have a fast PC so you can develop games, but you still have to test it on the sort of machines your customers will use.

8. The start screen and main menu has features removed even from Civ5. The high scores table, and the ability to change the default create settings are gone, for no other reason than they were too lazy to include them. So you start a game and suddenly realize you forgot to set the speed to quick, so back out; start it up again; crap, I forgot to change it from random civ; start it again; lousy start, restart; start it again, oh crap, speed setting again! Give up!

So that is about it for me. I'll keep on playing, but I used to recommend civ to parents as a "good" game for kids. I just don't think these days it is enough fun to hold a child's attention. Most of my enjoyment is remembered I think. Can't help feeling that the game is going backwards in enjoyment, even as it grows in complexity.
 
MyOtherName said:
So... you don't actually have a problem with the graphical style on its own merits, it's just that it happens to remind you of other games you didn't like?
Click to expand...
i would have preferred more going the other way from civ 5. i was very worried from some early teaser vids i saw that this game was going the whole clash of clans route. im not entirely convinced they arent hoping to go that direction, dropping proper civ games for the more lucrative civ rev smartphone app with in app purchases to fleece...sorry i mean milk... sorry i actually mean more profitable but currently legal (even if it seems like snake oil sellers) financial model for maximising profits from players. ;)
 
I'll give Civ 6 time to mature before I start playing it again. I tried recreating the British Empire on the 'ludicrous' earth map but my cities just feel way too slow to get going while I was flying through tech like every other civ on the map, at that rate I would've been colonising Australia with helicopters and modern armour. I'm sure it'll improve but right now, Civ 6 doesn't feel like the progress I saw from Civ 4 ---> Civ 5.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom