Longtime Civ4 player, wanting to buy this game, but

[aieeegrunt]

The argument that we should just turn off the modes we don't like is mute. For every mode we turn off came at a cost because developing each mode is time the developers didn't spend on improving the base game. If u follow through this logic eventually u have to turn off so many modes it just isn't worth playing the game at all.

Civ 4, 5 and 6 are all classics in my eyes, but I solely play Civ 6 because it does many of the things best. Definately go for it.

Maybe just buy the base Civ 6 game first? It has already many mechanics and is fun, so you don't need to shell so much money immediately and dont get overwhelmed.

I honestly wonder how much better the game is if you literally just play the base version with R&F and GS and all modes (not mods) off.

This most likely doesnt undo how thoroughly they ruined the AI tho

 

[fantsu]

Nothing beats civ 4.
Stick with it if you are not bored yet.

I'd say civ 6 comes second. Sure I have nostalgia for original civ and civ 2, but 6 is better in vacuum. And 6 is definetly better than 5, closer to 4 in quality. It has problems, but so does every iteration of civ.

 

[Socrates99]

I'm not the type to shell out for the full bundle on a game I'm unsure of but there has been times I wish I would have just done it. I'd buy the base game alone and wait for the next sale if I wanted more myself. That's up to you.

The hate and dissatisfaction has spiked in the last month because April's patch may be the last thing we get from Firaxis and people frequently point out bugs that are frustrating a lot of the more long term players. For all the talk about the awful fantasy modes there are two modes that aren't fanciful and feel like something devs should start integrating into the base of future iterations. Corporations and Monopolies and Barbarian Clans. Both are buggy and need fine tuning, especially Corporations and Monopolies.

Prior to the April patch posts were much more positive aside from the standard grumblings about bad AI and gripes about 1upt. I personally prefer VI to V because VI has more approach options. In V I often felt funneled into small tall empires, rushing the national college, rushing universities, etc regardlessof my chosen VC. In VI the split tree makes Culture hugely important in the early game. I frequently let science go by the wayside early on to get better policies and governments. In other instances I may start near a +5 campus spot where going science first makes sense. Or I may spawn near a useless CS or nearby opponent that makes spamming units the best option. I didn't feel like V or even IV gave me the same variety of directions at all.

The city planning with districts, wonders and tile yields is VI's best aspect. Wrangling the best yields out of your cities/empire has always been the Civ series focus. I think VI has shifted this away from buildings in the city center to the map itself through adjacencies and different tile improvements. Humans are great at this, the AI isn't. I think that's what really gets under people's skin.

If planning and variety are your thing VI is great. If you want a challenge worth making beating Deity a feat worth bragging about I'd skip it and hope VII improves on this.

 

[SirWill90]

I started w Civ II in 1999 and have bought, played, and enjoyed all of them.

IV was, all things considered, the high water mark. VI has its faults. But with all that said... now that I am used to VI, going back and playing IV is just... painful.

If you enjoyed IV, yes, take advantage of the sale. I think you will have enough fun with it to justify the cost.

Cheers

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The hate and dissatisfaction has spiked in the last month because April's patch may be the last thing we get from Firaxis and people frequently point out bugs that are frustrating a lot of the more long term players. For all the talk about the awful fantasy modes there are two modes that aren't fanciful and feel like something devs should start integrating into the base of future iterations. Corporations and Monopolies and Barbarian Clans. Both are buggy and need fine tuning, especially Corporations and Monopolies.

What about the Civics and Tech Shuffle Mode? That seems like another Mode they could consider for future Civ iterations.

Also, to @Civ Vicious, while my opinion may be biased/skewed as Civ 6 was the first Civ game I ever played, I sincerely suggest you take advantage of the sale and get the game. I happily admit it has its faults, but I still love it with a passion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about the Civics and Tech Shuffle Mode? That seems like another Mode they could consider for future Civ iterations.

That still is something that should be a toggleable mode, unlike Corporations and Barbarian Clans that can be implemented into a base game without turning it on/off.

 

[Socrates99]

What about the Civics and Tech Shuffle Mode? That seems like another Mode they could consider for future Civ iterations.

Also, to @Civ Vicious, while my opinion may be biased/skewed as Civ 6 was the first Civ game I ever played, I sincerely suggest you take advantage of the sale and get the game. I happily admit it has its faults, but I still love it with a passion.

I was kind of thinking barb Clans and M&C could be integrated in the base game if they were better polished. I use tech shuffle all the time, love it, but I think it exists best as a mode that can be turned on or off.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

That still is something that should be a toggleable mode, unlike Corporations and Barbarian Clans that can be implemented into a base game without turning it on/off.

I was kind of thinking barb Clans and M&C could be integrated in the base game if they were better polished. I use tech shuffle all the time, love it, but I think it exists best as a mode that can be turned on or off.

Ah... I see. Yeah, I can see why some people wouldn't want this as a regular thing in Civ. Also, yeah, it should be just an option to use or not.

 

[Zaarin]

The argument that we should just turn off the modes we don't like is mute. For every mode we turn off came at a cost because developing each mode is time the developers didn't spend on improving the base game. If u follow through this logic eventually u have to turn off so many modes it just isn't worth playing the game at all.

Your argument doesn't follow. There is no "cost" to turning off a mode, given they were designed to be optional in the first place. If you like the NFP civs, turning off the modes does not disable the civs. You lose nothing except an optional mode you didn't like in the first place. That's like saying, "I don't like peanuts on my ice cream sundae, but I paid for them so I'm eating them." IMO Civ6 was in a solid state before NFP, and it's not like many of us were expecting more to come after Gathering Storm.

 

[Vargas1]

This is the first Civ game I've ever played, and I've sunk a horrifying amount of time into it (a combination of pandemic, parenting a toddler, and the ease of using a Switch). So I have no basis for comparison to prior games, but safe to say I've really enjoyed it - if you're used to the style of game you will probably get over the difficulty hump fairly early on (I find increasing the difficulty level just makes the early game harder but doesn't really address issues that make the AI weak overall), but if you're into it as more of a citybuilder/sim than looking for a hardcore challenge, I think it's a lot of fun.

 

[frutiemax]

For me, the only thing missing for Civ 6 is access to the SDK/DLL. Beside that, I really enjoy civ 6, and if I want a good challenge, I play multiplayer.

 

[PiR]

I'm a long time CIV 4 player, and I've hardly touched CIV 5, even though I have that game and all its expansions. So my question is, for those who have played CIV 5 mostly. Should I avoid this game and play CIV 5 until the issues are fixed?

I loved Civ IV and I enjoyed Civ VI. I never could enjoy V (hopefully this will change with RFC coming for V!).

There are many things you can enjoy in the game. I don't think you have to wait for any fix, specially as we are not sure to get so many.

Just don't expect the same challenges. It's totally different. For example, fighting with the AI troops is no challenge in 6 compared to 4. Capturing cities can be however.

If you need adjustments on Civ VI, many mods exist.

I use tech shuffle all the time, love it, but I think it exists best as a mode that can be turned on or off.

That is something that totally breaks immersion for me. A non predictable tech tree idea is great, but having some techs and units in the wrong order is sometimes really weird, and creates unsolvable CS quests.

Is it Civ 6 THAT bad?

No. It's too many good ideas for not enough polishing. The other titles had less concepts but more integrated together.

 

[Fippy]

Too expensive, that sale now should be a standard price not 80% discount.
180 pounds is ridiculous.

 

[Linklite]

Regards to shuffle, I hope they come up with something similar as standard, so it's not the same research order every time. Not a shuffle like now, but a semi unique tree each time where there is still a progression logic, but not fixed order either. I think they'd need to do the system but I think it's doable and could really help it from becoming stale. I feel at the moment, each game is so similar and that's why shuffle was great. However, if they could have it still have a logical progression I think that would make it good enough for a standard (so between the fixed we have now and the almost completely random in shuffle).

Too expensive, that sale now should be a standard price not 80% discount.
180 pounds is ridiculous.

Agreed. I think £40 is a good sale price (there is a lot of content, to be fair), but £180 is way overpriced, especially with the problems that comes with it. I think £30 for the base game is fair, maybe £80 for the lot. It's really not worth £180. I can get a last gen console with games for that.

 

[glider1]

Your argument doesn't follow. There is no "cost" to turning off a mode, given they were designed to be optional in the first place. If you like the NFP civs, turning off the modes does not disable the civs. You lose nothing except an optional mode you didn't like in the first place. That's like saying, "I don't like peanuts on my ice cream sundae, but I paid for them so I'm eating them." IMO Civ6 was in a solid state before NFP, and it's not like many of us were expecting more to come after Gathering Storm.

Oh it follows. for each mode there was time spent developing the mode instead of the base game. there is a reason modding is officially added to games so that developers can focus on the game not mods. civ6 modes are poorly implemented mods that took time away from improving the core. the base game is in such poor shape now for single player as a result it is not worth playing for players that have come from civ4.

 

[Zaarin]

Oh it follows. for each mode there was time spent developing the mode instead of the base game. there is a reason modding is officially added to games so that developers can focus on the game not mods. civ6 modes are poorly implemented mods that took time away from improving the core. the base game is in such poor shape now for single player as a result it is not worth playing for players that have come from civ4.

Please point out to me where I said the modes are masterpieces of game development. But the game was essentially complete when Gathering Storm was finished. Anything after that was a paycheck to keep the studio working while they develop Civ7 a bonus. You don't lose anything by leaving the modes off; playing with all the modes enabled simply because you bought NFP makes no sense whatsoever. I agree that NFP lowered the quality of Civ6, but the logical thing at that point is to, you know, not use it instead of railing against Firaxis for acceding to fan pressure to add more content.

 

[PiR]

Firaxis for acceding to fan pressure to add more content

fan pressure which they created by teasing us

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

fan pressure which they created by teasing us

I am never gonna stop using this meme.

 

[Socrates99]

Oh it follows. for each mode there was time spent developing the mode instead of the base game. there is a reason modding is officially added to games so that developers can focus on the game not mods. civ6 modes are poorly implemented mods that took time away from improving the core. the base game is in such poor shape now for single player as a result it is not worth playing for players that have come from civ4.

The modes are like scenarios, part of the paid content that keeps development going. I only like a few of the modes just like I've only played a few of the scenarios. No big deal.

The bug fix patches you're referring to are completely different. People don't pay extra for fixes. The premium content keeps devs invloved. There were a number of free updates that came out along with the various NFP releases including the April patch. The civs and modes don't take time away from bug fixes. They facilitate it. Capitalism Baby!

The modes take so much less effort than the various scenarios they've added but I've never really seen the same complaints about them. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet more players are using the modes than ever played the scenarios.

 

[Linklite]

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet more players are using the modes than ever played the scenarios.

I don't think I've even tried any of the scenarios yet. I enjoy the modes though. I imagine modes get more hate than scenarios because they're so visible. It's very rare anyone talks about them, I think most people forget they're even there most of the time. Plus, we've not had one in years, so they don't stir the pot like modes do.