Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?

[Aristos]

however, that the ai will still be unable to play wiht 1upt, am sad they aren't using CtP's combat model which is by far the best of all the series. I'm unimpressed by the worker change (I'd do it a la CtP2 again).

Exactly. I remember pushing for this change since before they announced Civ 5, hoping that they would learn something from the competition. I also played my fair share of CTP2, which had brilliant ideas to solve issues that still haunt the franchise, such as combat. That combat model was, and still is, the perfect solution for an empire-building game like civ. Iceberg Interactive learned the lesson and applied it to Endless Legend, and it works very well. Too bad Firaxis didn't.

Also, I must remind everyone that Shafer was bragging all over the place about his "new, powerful AI" before V's launch, and then we got... Shafer's AI.

My advice: a word of caution. Like TMIT said, to see is to believe.

 

[dexters]

Exactly. I remember pushing for this change since before they announced Civ 5, hoping that they would learn something from the competition. I also played my fair share of CTP2, which had brilliant ideas to solve issues that still haunt the franchise, such as combat. That combat model was, and still is, the perfect solution for an empire-building game like civ. Iceberg Interactive learned the lesson and applied it to Endless Legend, and it works very well. Too bad Firaxis didn't.

Also, I must remind everyone that Shafer was bragging all over the place about his "new, powerful AI" before V's launch, and then we got... Shafer's AI.

My advice: a word of caution. Like TMIT said, to see is to believe.

If LinkedIn is to be believed. Ed was the AI programmer for vanilla. I think they just bit off more than they could chew with 1uPT in Civ5. But it was a Needed change and widely popular change if unofficial polls and forum reactions are to be trusted

 

[Aristos]

If LinkedIn is to be believed. Ed was the AI programmer for vanilla. I think they just bit off more than they could chew with 1uPT in Civ5. But it was a Needed change and widely popular change if unofficial polls and forum reactions are to be trusted

I don't know for sure who really was behind it, but I clearly remember Shafer bragging about "his new AI"... later, when all went south, he was quick to remind everyone that "he was not in charge of the AI"... I clearly remember those statements, I wish I had the time to try and find them somewhere, but iirc, they were part of interviews. But I remember: 100%.

In any case, if you are right, then it's even more the case about caution. Point is, they bragged about their "new AI" in 2010, and we got... that thing. Now we hear the same bragging (which becomes a pattern if what you say is correct), so will we get that thing again? Caution.

 

[neev]

Civ II, 1997 here. Played every Civ installment since then. Mostly to death, of course.

I am one of these players who had lost interest in Civilization the last couple of years. I think my last Civ V game happened in August 2013 (BNW). I only played Beyong Earth twice. I simply had no enjoyment with V and BE, so I simply moved along.

Then came the Civ VI annoucement, the other day. My first thought was "Good, Ed Beach is leading the project. Can't be possibly worse than Vanilla Civ V, can it?" My second thought was "What the hell?!" when I saw the 3 screenshots. I didn't like the looks of the game, but then gameplay is what matters the most (by far), so I told myself to just wait and see.

And then came this week's news. And I have to admit, although it is to soon to be properly "hyped", that Firaxis DEFINITELY brought my interest back So far, I like just about everything I read/heard/saw about the game. Even the graphical aspect of the game is (somewhat) appealing to me now I saw it in motion. Everything looks clear, the UI seems particularly powerful, I love how they got rid of some (all?) poor gameplay mechanics Civ V had, and kept the good ones. I have watched Quill18's videos thrice, Marbozir's twice, read everything I could find, in particular Ed Beach interviews.

In short my interest in Civ went up from "Virtually non-existent (anymore)" to "very high", in a single week. I cannot wait to know more.

 

[m15a]

Playing since Civ I. Definitely too early to tell if the game is actually good. That will probably come around hour 50 of playing (unless it's really bad).

What I've heard so far makes me optimistic, though. There's a lot that feel like it is trying to improve on both the issues with Civ V (empire size for example) and long time issues (like workers).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, of course we couldn't go back to I now... although some people do. But the instant classic it was is hard to forget, and in fact, we shouldn't. That is perhaps the very signature of the series, a signature that should be the test for every new iteration: is it an instant classic? IV was, even with it's quirks in vanilla, V... not so much, even after BNW. I like it now, sure, and it's become very fun, but never an instant classic.

The question now will be: will VI be an instant classic? And remember, quirks, bugs and imbalances, especially in vanilla, do not detriment the game as an instant classic... it just is, or it isn't. Also, in all these years of being a part of the best series in gaming history, I can say this: if it is an instant classic, it is instant, or it is not. I did not see any of the iterations become one after release.

I know I might have a minority opinion here, but I don't view civs 1-3 as "instant classic" territory. They had some appeal but weren't even the best titles of their time, with markedly inferior UI to some of their competition (an issue that has plagued civ series since forever) and with 2/3 being centralized around ICS pumping it's hard to make a case they held much depth of strategy compared to competing TBS either.

Civ 2 and HOMM 2 were released the same year. Warlords 3 came out the next year (Warlords 2, with some UI conventions better than Civ IV and V, was released in 1993).

I'm excited for a new entry in the series to a degree myself, but I won't don the rose colored glasses here. Just because the Warlords franchise fell off the edge of a cliff when SSG broke up doesn't mean that they didn't crush civ blindfolded in the 90's, and HOMM was arguably better still. I realize these entries are not mirror images in terms of gameplay, but they're all still TBS and there was a TON more meaningful/non-mundane/heuristic decision making on a per turn or especially per time basis (slogging through unit movements in II was not a joy if you had heaps).

Civ IV was exceptional in that it really went the extra mile in a timeframe when TBS in general was coming apart at the seams. As their competition dwindled in quality, Firaxis instead put a strong title on the market, stronger than their previous entries by a margin. It also has the best controls in the series, though that's kind of sad .

 

[Willburn]

Played civ since civ 1 on amiga. Ed Beach knows his civ stuff. So far looking very good from the previews I have read so far.

 

[Kin]

I started with the first one and have played and loved all of them.

It started out with a few diskettes then went to a bunch of diskette and now Steam which is great. I liked it when we were able to move as an army vs an individual. And way points were great. I would like to see these again in the next edition.

 

[Aristos]

I know I might have a minority opinion here, but I don't view civs 1-3 as "instant classic" territory. They had some appeal but weren't even the best titles of their time, with markedly inferior UI to some of their competition (an issue that has plagued civ series since forever) and with 2/3 being centralized around ICS pumping it's hard to make a case they held much depth of strategy compared to competing TBS either.

Granted, Civ1 couldn't hold as instant classic based on purely technical/gameplay factors, but instead because it was a truly "unique" idea that was not done before. The grognards here will remember things like the infamous IF Human is Winning Declare War condition, but still... 1 kickstarted a story that continues to develop 25 years later, at the core still around the same basic, almost "magic" gameplay idea, and for that, yes, it is and always be an instant classic. 2 and 3 were the path towards perfection, but I agree, did not reach that sweet hotspot to truly become classics, let alone instant.

But IV, there we are in the same kingdom, Phillip. No doubt.

 

[OneFootInThe...]

Played since Civ 1, did not like V, and expectations are low. Civ IV with mods is where it's at for me, and is very likely to stay in the future.

I am just not the target audience for this game.

In principle, it is likely that those who loved V will like VI (maybe even more so, as it addresses the most obvious flaws, like pure 1UPT and global happiness), while those disappointed by V will remain to be with VI.

 

[Tirius]

Started with Civ 1, but only really got into the series with 2. I don't remember much about playing 3, but loved 4 to bits and eventually grew to like 5 though it took the expansions to really draw me in.

So far, I'm liking a lot of the news. More diverse behavior for civs is definately one of the things I'm most interested in, and the new city and builder mechanics sound as promising as the hexagons and 1utp for shaking up the status quo without going totally overboard. One of the things I like most about civ is trying to build with the tools your map location gives you, and that will certainly become even more important now. And I do like the way the map looks in the previews - Civ 5 used rather subdued colors IMO, so it's nice to return to some more Civ 4-like colorful palettes.

My prefered play style is generally the culture game, so I'm interested in the new civics but worrying about the wonder-needs-a-tile rule that might run afoul of my usual wonder rushing. (What can I say, I'm a movie/splash screen hog.) I'm curious to see what else they have planned for that side of the game.

So it seems like 'so far, so good' - but info-wise we're still at the stage of using a warrior to find goody huts.

 

[Inexist]

Started with civ iii, but I've played all of the civs. TBH, civ isn't ever going to get back to the good old days (and boy, were they good). Civ has gone too a different, casual audience. I'll definitely play the game eventually, but I'll have to keep telling myself that this is a whole new game, maybe an awesome game it will be, but it won't be the civ I know and love.

 

[rastak]

I know I might have a minority opinion here, but I don't view civs 1-3 as "instant classic" territory. They had some appeal but weren't even the best titles of their time, with markedly inferior UI to some of their competition (an issue that has plagued civ series since forever) and with 2/3 being centralized around ICS pumping it's hard to make a case they held much depth of strategy compared to competing TBS either.

Civ 2 and HOMM 2 were released the same year. Warlords 3 came out the next year (Warlords 2, with some UI conventions better than Civ IV and V, was released in 1993).

I'm excited for a new entry in the series to a degree myself, but I won't don the rose colored glasses here. Just because the Warlords franchise fell off the edge of a cliff when SSG broke up doesn't mean that they didn't crush civ blindfolded in the 90's, and HOMM was arguably better still. I realize these entries are not mirror images in terms of gameplay, but they're all still TBS and there was a TON more meaningful/non-mundane/heuristic decision making on a per turn or especially per time basis (slogging through unit movements in II was not a joy if you had heaps).

Civ IV was exceptional in that it really went the extra mile in a timeframe when TBS in general was coming apart at the seams. As their competition dwindled in quality, Firaxis instead put a strong title on the market, stronger than their previous entries by a margin. It also has the best controls in the series, though that's kind of sad .

Are you nuts?

When Civ came out what exactly was around in the 4x world? Empire, and that didn't have all the X's. It beyond a helluva lot of fun. How can such a ground breaking game not be considered a classic? There is a reason there is civfanatics.....that design was incredibly cool.

 

[mudblood]

Been playing since 2. 4 is still my favorite. I've enjoyed 5 (once Firaxis repaired the gameplay). Thinking about it though, I've never had the "oh , it's dawn" experiences I had with 2-4.

As others have said, all the new mechanics are cool, but the AI is the most important element, and there's no way of knowing whether that's any good until the game comes out.

 

[wiggawuu]

I started with Civ 2 as a kid, I could have played 1 but didn't know about it right away (from then until now I've always been a hybrid PC/console gamer so a good portion of my elementary school days was doing stuff like trashing the local high school gamer who otherwise could beat anybody in the neighborhood at bomberman/Mario kart etc).

Back then Civ wasn't the dominant strategy game like now. Warlords 2/3 were better than their respective Civ iterations and HOMM 3 remains one of the great TBS of all times with no Civ IV to compete with it back then or blemishes like newer HOMM games made yet . I didn't really play civ in depth until IV, but I've played all of the mainline series except 1 a decent amount.

Civs 1-3 have way too much mundane unit control issues to go back tbh. I hate situations where I'm going through the motions only or waiting for the game to let me do something.

hey, loved your lets play civ4's. I wish/hope firaxis can give you early access. Quill and the rest of those guys are biased imo. I think we need to be careful because those dudes are sales men. I'm not buying into this game yet. Honestly, it just seems like civ5 except with the building out cities and new civic tree(which really isn't groundbreaking).

they should of allowed multiple units or perhaps even octagons. lol.

 

[Thormodr]

hey, loved your lets play civ4's. I wish/hope firaxis can give you early access. Quill and the rest of those guys are biased imo. I think we need to be careful because those dudes are sales men. I'm not buying into this game yet. Honestly, it just seems like civ5 except with the building out cities and new civic tree(which really isn't groundbreaking).

they should of allowed multiple units or perhaps even octagons. lol.

I think it would be a good idea to let TMIT get some early access since he doesn't pull any punches.

I do think that Marbozir did a nice job in his video describing in a manner of fact way what the changes were and how they might impact play styles. I didn't see him as biased or a sales man, TBTH.

 

[ferros]

I've played since Civ I. CivI to Civ4 are some of my favorite games of all time (maybe not CivIII, but the others for sure).

I think Civ6 looks quite good, I don't like that it seems to be based on Civ5 instead of the classic Civ-style though. I feel quite excited but I'm also prepared to, once again, be let down.

 

[Stilgar08]

Been with the series since Civ I. Enjoyed III and IV and SMAC the most, stayed away from CiV for a long time then got it gifted after BNW came out. I enjoyed CiV afterwards although 1UPT felt a bit awkward to me. Nevertheless I dumped 500hrs+x into it, with CBP it revived but I stopped playing it at all a few moths ago (Witcher 3 - not enough time)... Played a demo of BE and wasn't impressed so I left that out...

I've been lurking all the time to find out about the next iteration and here it is. After telling you that I became somewhat cautious concerning the newer franchise-entries I was now ready to get hyped again. It worked!

To me the game looks beautiful, I like a lot of the ideas mentioned and a lot of the mechanics introduced. My favourites so far are the new culture-tree and civics/government system, the greater need to play with the map, the diversification of cities encouraging specialisation and placement-puzzles, tech boosts, religion and espionage from the start, GP-handling, diverging going-to-war-types.

Immersion is important and I think they can do it. Drawn map-graphics for FOW, UI so far are great and I love the look of Roosevelt, too. And it's the 25th anniversary so they better deliver a topnotch - iteration.

I believe in better diplomacy when I see it (YES, PLEASE!!! ) and I'm not at all convinced about the AI delivering a decent job challenging the Human Player... But I'm hopeful! Preordered yesterday.

 

[comatosedragon]

disclaimer:

Spoiler :

what makes me an 'old timer'? Having been playing since Civ I, or being 40 years old? . . .

Well, my thoughts as an old timer are twofold:

a) An apostrophe is used before an s to indicate possessiveness. Therefore, Old Timer's in the thread title is wrong, and makes the community look bad.

b) What I know about Civilization VI has me eagerly anticipating the game, much more so than V, maybe on par with my expectations when IV released. If I could find a way to hibernate for five months, I would.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you nuts?

When Civ came out what exactly was around in the 4x world? Empire, and that didn't have all the X's. It beyond a helluva lot of fun. How can such a ground breaking game not be considered a classic? There is a reason there is civfanatics.....that design was incredibly cool.

MOO 1, Warlords 2 were both 1993 releases. If wiki is to be believed (^_^) it is MOO 1 where the 4x term was coined.

I don't deny Civ 1's importance in shaping the 4x world in general when it was released in 1991. That was a big step for gaming. However, despite that Civ 2 was pretty good for its time it could not compete in terms of depth, UI, or even graphics with contemporary competition.

I don't identify a 1st/formative entry in a series as necessarily "instant classic" though. Was the first MOBA an "instant classic"? Does anyone here even know which MOBA custom maps are technically the oldest? First MMO as instant classic?

You can make a real case for Civ 1 based on the 1991 TBS standards, but the civ series quickly got surpassed and didn't take its lead title back until the 2000's. I hope Firaxis does not rest on the laurels of recent success in a relatively weak gaming genre; great competitors can come out of nowhere and above all else I want civ VI to be good on release for a change .