Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by pokiehl, Mar 24, 2021.
Okay. I'll comment that Beowulf is already a hero in the Heroes and Legends game mode.
I had no idea there were mods. When I periodically replay it it's for GLaDOS.
I didn't, really. I just said I don't think Firaxis will make any major changes to Civ 6 based on what I've seen them do so far, and so if any were to come, it would be from a modpack created by others. I mentioned Vox Populi as an example of such a modpack.
Since you brought it up though, I do think the expansion packs for Civ 5 were more transformative, and that the new systems they introduced were better integrated with the rest of the game. This is what I was initially expected from the Civ 6 expansions as well, but Firaxis seems to have adopted a different design philosophy, where interactions between systems are more limited. NFP took this even further, where much of the new content can be toggled on or off.
With the source code dlls in 4 and 5, people were able to completely change the game. Something like "Fall From Heaven" (a fantasy revamp of 4 with significantly different mechanics) is basically a different game with the same engine. Things like Rhye's and Fall and Caveman2Cosmos for 4 also changed the game so significantly as to be a different game (which vox populi for 5 comes close to that). So you sort of ended up with multiple different games for free with 4, while with 6 none of the MODs can make changes that significant to be like a completely different game.
Basically - imho if you are already bored with unmodded Civ 6, the mods available (because of limitations) may not get you much more playability, but with 4 and 5 those overhaul mods could.
Yeah I absolutely vote for improvements just being part of the city build orders come Civ 7.
I have no great fondness for Civ5, but I absolutely agree that its systems felt better integrated, and that feeling of disjointedness is definitely Civ6's biggest flaw.
I agree, but it is worth remembering that the best implemented additions of Civ 5’s expansions were simply part of Civ 6 vanilla. Trade routes, pantheons and religions and great works worked so well we’ve had them since day 1.
Civ 6’s expansions had a harder task, of adding new features to a base game that was already pretty full. The New Frontier additions have just ended up being very precarious cherries on top of an already overloaded sundae. This is of course further exacerbated by Firaxis’ poor decision to make each game mode need to stand alone.
With this in mind I think an end of development is for the best, and no new expansion pass should be considered. Let the remaining developer time be applied to stamping out all the bugs NFP introduced.
I would be OK with not adding any more features or modes. I'd like another set of civilizations and leaders accompanied by improvements to the UI and AI and some bug fixes, though.
As much as I would love to have Berbers, Iroquois/Navajo, an Italian League and some alternate Leaders to Germany, Egypt, Russia and Macedon (or even better, just change that disgusting face/grin of Alex) in a NFP 2, it's highly unlikely IMO, since the Game can't handle a lot of new Assets anymore.
New Modes on the other hand are more likely, since they often don't use much new Assets (Shuffle, Dramatic Ages, Monopolies, Barbarian Clans, and Zombie defense (reused Zombies from RD2) Modes).
Which brings us back to that Civ6 has suffered problems with poor integration from Day 1.
Out of curiosity who is the alternate leader you would want for Macedon? Phillip II?
Tbh Honest I don't have a candidate for that, maybe his father Philip II would be a good choice, or Eurydice, but there is no better Leader choice for Macedon than Alexander himself. Macedon is Alex, Alex is Macedon . I just don't like the Leader Model and Agenda. If you make another Leader for Macedon then why not for Greece too?
You're right. The AI will not get fixed for example and don't get me started on the launcher.
I think you're confusing number of civs with completeness. HumanKind is offering a much better combat system, for example, and promises a better AI. I also think the culture mechanic looks pretty strong. Who cares if you have Bulgaria, etc. The HK civs are also a lot more filled out and have more unique flavor.
Some shiny new toy syndrome going on in here
Reminds me of that great Calvin & Hobbes strip in which Calvin gets his parents to order him this beanie hat with a propeller and spends days and days imagining how amazing it’s going to be and thinks it’ll let him even fly! Then he is utterly disappointed when it finally arrives. Nothing can ever live up to the sort of hype that people are putting into that game.
Oh, come on. The HK "civilizations" are far simpler than the ones in Civ VI. It's not even close. And as far as the AI, don't get your hopes up. Amplitude has yet to make a game with decent AI.
You forgetting about the fact that many played this game during OpenDevs and there is gonna be another one within 2 weeks (presumably). Many liked it and want some more. Humankind is completely different game than Civ and I don't think people on this forum are particularly crazy about it, just like the distinction and fresh approach.
Be it a shiny new toy syndrome, but every now and then one buys new things from every aspect of ones life. Don't tell me You never bought anything to fill Your attention span, just to make it wear off after some time.
Higher the hype... the harder it falls. Look at Cyberpunk for example.
Has Cyberpunk had any OpenDevs? Could people play it (even a little bit) before it released?
I think @pokiehl was referring to the over-the-top comments of @ThunderLizard2, not to Humankind in general.
Separate names with a comma.