Its Boring

Gorbles said:
I'm a software developer
Click to expand...

Then you should really be more focussed on user experience than complaining because they aren't giving you the right response. Software development is about creating the right product based on what the user needs, and that means asking the right questions, not ranting they are raising a generic complaint

Or maybe your job is fairly irrelevant as a user yourself and your coming from a personal point of view, with an unconscious bias towards a game you enjoy? I don't know.

All I know is, I actually gave a reason in my complaint, and you disregarded it and denied any responsibility for changing the thread topic.
 
MyOtherName said:
This is true. However, as a game in the Civilization series, it is fair to expect that CiV 6 is meant to be played as long as other games in the series.
Click to expand...
OK then let Civ VI be as complete as every other game in the series, THEN check the longevity of the game.
 
True_Candyman said:
Then you should really be more focussed on user experience than complaining because they aren't giving you the right response. Software development is about creating the right product based on what the user needs, and that means asking the right questions, not ranting they are raising a generic complaint

Or maybe your job is fairly irrelevant as a user yourself and your coming from a personal point of view, with an unconscious bias towards a game you enjoy? I don't know.

All I know is, I actually gave a reason in my complaint, and you disregarded it and denied any responsibility for changing the thread topic.
Click to expand...
We're going in circles already.

You respond poorly to criticism, which is ironic given how posted a reply to me in an attempt to criticise my stance. You also apparently have very little idea what my field entails. Which is fine! You don't have my job. But you don't see me speculating on yours - I provided my own because I'm, well, me. It's my own experience.

I can ask all the questions I want, but that doesn't guarantee accurate or relevant answers. Anyone who's fielded a day of handling bug reports will tell you that. And your criticism is still woefully inaccurate - you had no point beyond attacking me as a person. Which you've attempted to continue by speculating on my biases (we all have bias. The OP's is rooted in not liking the game. In both cases, somewhat irrelevant. I'm allowed to like it, and they're allowed to not like it) and also my profession. Your personal opinion as to why the game doesn't engage you wasn't something I was ever arguing against, you having responded to me in the first instance :)
 
Gorbles said:
Well, I was told I was derailing, but that wasn't you. Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you there, either.

And this is new ground, so I'm happy to get into it. I don't cringe if someone is bored after 100 hours. I was bored after a lot less, for a lot of games. The boredom itself is something I can't fault. The issue is how it's used. If you got bored after "only" 100 hours of play, that's different from getting bored (naturally, as everyone does with any game) after a certain timespan. The way it was used, it put the blame on the game as supposed to the natural boredom that happens over time. Certainly, from a "get your money's worth" perspective, 100 hours is a lot for any game. Even at premium AAA collector's edition prices.

Nor did I say people should therefore stop complaining. There are many complaints to be made, valid complaints, that don't involve using the fact that someone played for one hundred hours as a negative statement. All that does is reduce the discussion to inferences based on playtime alone. It's not the negative statement people try to frame it as, because value on time spent is wholly subjective. It isn't the AI not being able to siege a city. It isn't the lack of modding tools. It isn't because <faction> isn't in the game, or <isn't how you wanted it to be>. It's a number.

To base your post around this qualifier makes a weak post. It's cringey, because critics could (and should) do a lot better. People expect developers to perform to a specific standard, I do and also expect critique to live up to a similar standard. Hard to fairly criticise the developers if the required effort isn't put into critique in the first place. I'm a software developer, I do a lot of frontend work. If someone didn't tell me what actually was wrong, and said "I used the program for five minutes and put it down", that's useless to me. I could spend hours performing triage and making (admittedly-useful) fixes to parts of the program that that user had no care for. Wasted effort.
Click to expand...

Ah, then. I see. So it's not even about someone playing for x time and finding it boring, at all. It's about not giving proper critique as to why one played for x amount of time and yet found it boring. If so, I see your inner gripes, but:
1. Maybe you could've (not required obviously, you owe nothing to anyone) clarified this a little, the post / part I quoted only gave the impression that you were unaccepting of someone playing for lots of hours and not enjoying it in the end, period.
2. OP did not just say I played for X of time and found it's boring, period. He made several points about the why, no? (I'll be honest with ya I didn't read the entire thing)

In any case my post was directed at people with "you played for x hours, stop complaining, you more than got your money's worth" mantra.

Civ is a different game than many AAA titles and can easily have 50 hours before rendered good or bad. But as I think we agree on, that is not the measure of ones personal "moneys worth". There are however standards that are expected of certain games. I can for example totally get behind a notion of "this game is bad for me as I only could bare it (or indeed enjoy) for 50ish hours" when such a game is expected to give much more, and so should you as long as it comes with valid criticism, no? Other AAA titles delivering less hours is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if they were delivering same kind of content. That's my inner gripe.
 
I'm beginning to wonder if those kind of posts are actually trolling us. They rant, rant and rant, only to never respond again. Meanwhile, many people get inflamed.

I'd move them all in just one megathread if the OP never responds again. If he responds back, then it's a sign that he actually cares for his opinion.

Edit: Maybe I'll have to put it in my sig...
 
RNG with barbs can be brutal especially with an isolated or semi-isolated start. Having 3 camps nearby with horses and you will get over run regardless of your build order. You simply cannot keep up with the camp/scout spawns.

I suspect that they are also bugged if Sythia is in game. I have seen double spawns with 2 horse per turn for 4 turns followed by a 2 turn break then 2 horse archers and 2 horse. A mob of 40 strength horse is hard to fight off.

My usual build order is slinger/slinger/builder/slinger/slinger, with little variation depending on any number of factors. So by turn 30 I'll usually have 2-3 slingers and be close to archery. Even with that I have been completely crushed (rarely admittedly) with 12 horse and a couple of horse archers on my screen at the same time. Does make me scratch my head.

Just something to live with. Having played Sirian's diety challange "Rome vs the Barbarians" in Civ 2,3 and 4, I guess I'm just used to them. Does make the game tricky.
 
I hope the upcoming patch would nerf the barbarian harassment a bit. The very early horsemen really force you to build many units to defend with early, making other types of build unattractive. Early aggression is already quite good as it is, anyway.
 
The game is not fine. That why I refuse to but DLC's until its fixed.

However the game is playable if you can find a way to adjust your play style to make you happy. If you cannot then stop playing for a while and come back later. Some people are positive and suggest options that may help you find happiness, some people just want to agree and say the game is rubbish. Its not a right or wrong discussion, its opinions and they should be respected not rubbished.
 
Mustakrakish said:
Ah, then. I see. So it's not even about someone playing for x time and finding it boring, at all. It's about not giving proper critique as to why one played for x amount of time and yet found it boring. If so, I see your inner gripes, but:
1. Maybe you could've (not required obviously, you owe nothing to anyone) clarified this a little, the post / part I quoted only gave the impression that you were unaccepting of someone playing for lots of hours and not enjoying it in the end, period.
2. OP did not just say I played for X of time and found it's boring, period. He made several points about the why, no? (I'll be honest with ya I didn't read the entire thing)

In any case my post was directed at people with "you played for x hours, stop complaining, you more than got your money's worth" mantra.

Civ is a different game than many AAA titles and can easily have 50 hours before rendered good or bad. But as I think we agree on, that is not the measure of ones personal "moneys worth". There are however standards that are expected of certain games. I can for example totally get behind a notion of "this game is bad for me as I only could bare it (or indeed enjoy) for 50ish hours" when such a game is expected to give much more, and so should you as long as it comes with valid criticism, no? Other AAA titles delivering less hours is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if they were delivering same kind of content. That's my inner gripe.
Click to expand...
I clarified my first post, at least, to my mind. It's why I wrote more than the statement about cringe itself (which I stand by).

I mean, good faith arguments are increasingly hard to come by on the Internet, I get it. But it always puts me into a more combative state of mind when people explicitly quote only a section of my post and then later claim I should've clarified my point. Especially given the average quality of reply on the first page (there are literal one word replies) :p Why take issue with my post? Rhetorical question, I'm not assuming bad intentions. Just explaining why it sets me on edge slightly.

With regards to the amount of content, my questionable taste in games (I prefer Borderlands 2 to Borderlands, Dawn of War II to Dawn of War. In both communities this is often the less popular view, hah) has taught me that even accounting for genre people will still like different things, and have different thresholds for immersion and the like. I could play a single game of Civilisation for 20 hours (with the right settings) and consider that my investment for the year. Or for the next six months. Measuring playtime purely in hours is a flawed metric for so many reasons, not least because Civilisation as a franchise both defines "standing the test of time" and as a game (I still boot up SMAC) - your playtime for 2012 won't be the same as for 2013, and so on.

Certainly, 100 hours of Civ 6 since release is a lot of Civ 6.
 
Victoria said:
The game is not fine. That why I refuse to but DLC's until its fixed.
Click to expand...

I won't buy the new DLC, either, until I see what the patch does. The way the game is now, I'm not playing it so much - nor will be in the future - that I need new content. But if the AI is improved then I can see this becoming one of my favorite games and will then buy the DLC's.
 
Art Morte said:
I won't buy the new DLC, either, until I see what the patch does. The way the game is now, I'm not playing it so much - nor will be in the future - that I need new content. But if the AI is improved then I can see this becoming one of my favorite games and will then buy the DLC's.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Civ 6 has a lot of potential, but I won't be buying any DLC until the base game is enjoyable and a challenge.

Like many peeps have said, I've stopped playing Civ 6 for now until AI is improved and/or modding tools are released. I'm trying Gal Civ 3 for my 4X fix. It's quite good, it reminds me of Birth of the Federation.
 
Poczwar said:
So if u got bored go play deity. U r playing on low diffilcuty so probably u r not good player so deity will be challange for you and in chalange I think u will find this game interesting. Go try it.
Click to expand...

It's easy enough to steam roll Deity, even with mods.
 
Gorbles said:
Certainly, 100 hours of Civ 6 since release is a lot of Civ 6.
Click to expand...

Not in a strategy game with so much replayability potential, not for people on forum called CivFanatics, at least not for me. :)

I agree with OP, game is boring atm; we'll see after expansions.
 
Gorbles said:
I rarely play 100 hours of anything in three months. Some people simply don't have that kind of time for gaming.

So yes, that's on you. As you said. So . . . what's your point?
Click to expand...

Read again this thread and you will see that's not only for me.

My point is that 100 hours of Civ 6 since release is not a lot of Civ 6 for everyone, so don't suggest that someone can't be disappointed if played so much time.
 
Last edited:
IronfighterXXX said:
Read again this thread and you will see that's not only for me.

My point is that 100 hours of Civ 6 since release is not a lot of Civ 6 for anyone, so don't suggest that someone can't be disappointed if played so much time.
Click to expand...
1. * not a lot of Civ. for certain people including yourself.
2. Never said someone can't be disappointed.
3. Very, very tired of people not reading my posts.

If you're going to not put effort into it, neither will I.
 
Imo VI is the best version to date, weighing all values (imo again, of course) of all vanillas - excepting I, which I have yet to experience.

WileyWilson said:
It's easy enough to steam roll Deity, even with mods.
Click to expand...

Its easy to steamroll any version on difficulties beyond deity. Civ is not a challenging game unless you play with self-imposed handicaps. Civ is simply meant to be an enjoyable experience that includes a decent potential for game-to-game variance.

Please forgive me, but if you (not the op, just a general 'you') are mostly complaining the lack of difficulty makes the game too boring... you just aren't getting the intended point of the game.

Fine.

But the complaint boils down to "this game isn't what I want it to be, and that is not okay. It should be what I want."

At what point did objectivity cease to be something to aspire to? It seems to have fallen into the same Pacific vortex as humility.
 
agonistes said:
At what point did objectivity cease to be something to aspire to? It seems to have fallen into the same Pacific vortex as humility.
Click to expand...

agonistes said:
Civ is simply meant to be an enjoyable experience that includes a decent potential for game-to-game variance.
Click to expand...

At what point indeed...
 
Barbs are poorly balanced (you can have vastly disparate damage even if building only units at first on RNG alone, thanks to turn 3-5 scout from opposite direction of your scout) but they're a few rungs down on this game's list of problems. Barb camp range and how early they hit need tuning, but they're not broken-by-design or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom