- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
yep well I tried to explain but it got deleted while leaving troll comments in place. I have no regrets, most was out of date.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
Hopefully we’ll get a Patch in the next few months. If we do, it might give some sense to where the next expansion - and the game overall - are heading.
The last substantive patch was fairly chunky, and took a real stab at fixing some persistent issues in the game, albeit with a few backward steps (England specifically, but also allowing building obsolete units if you lack resources).
FXS have had a lot of time to work on another patch. If this really tackles some of the issues in the game, well, I’d remain fairly positive about the game’s direction.
But if the next patch is another muddle. Well. I don’t know. There is a really great game here, but the balance and gameplay issues, plus persistent bugs, really cruel the experience. RnF has not been a positive experience on that front. Loyalty was a good move, but everything else has been very mixed or shallow. Take for examples Governors - basically a good idea, but kind of tone deaf to the logic and feel of the rest of the game. And then there's just all the stuff that has taken ages to fix (Oligarchy applying to Anti-Cav) or that just really hasn't been addressed at all (cost of Anti-Cav, IZ etc). I get that some stuff - like AI using planes - must be hard to fix, but why has so much balance taken so so long to fix?
I’m hoping if Ed gets more involved in the game might finally pull all the strands together. But I’m getting somewhat less confident as time goes on. It is just taking FXS so long to sort this game out. And the reality is, unless FXS are going to keep producing dlc after the next expansion (a sort of EU4 type model), they’re going to run out of time to actually sort the game out.
The last substantive patch was fairly chunky, and took a real stab at fixing some persistent issues in the game, albeit with a few backward steps (England specifically, but also allowing building obsolete units if you lack resources).
FXS have had a lot of time to work on another patch. If this really tackles some of the issues in the game, well, I’d remain fairly positive about the game’s direction.
But if the next patch is another muddle. Well. I don’t know. There is a really great game here, but the balance and gameplay issues, plus persistent bugs, really cruel the experience. RnF has not been a positive experience on that front. Loyalty was a good move, but everything else has been very mixed or shallow. Take for examples Governors - basically a good idea, but kind of tone deaf to the logic and feel of the rest of the game. And then there's just all the stuff that has taken ages to fix (Oligarchy applying to Anti-Cav) or that just really hasn't been addressed at all (cost of Anti-Cav, IZ etc). I get that some stuff - like AI using planes - must be hard to fix, but why has so much balance taken so so long to fix?
I’m hoping if Ed gets more involved in the game might finally pull all the strands together. But I’m getting somewhat less confident as time goes on. It is just taking FXS so long to sort this game out. And the reality is, unless FXS are going to keep producing dlc after the next expansion (a sort of EU4 type model), they’re going to run out of time to actually sort the game out.
Last edited:
Chefofrats
Prince
I don't get or share all this negativity. Sure, the game is not perfect, but I'm having a blast playing it time after time, in part due to the R&F changes like loyalty which stopped the forward-settling ridiculousness. Governors are a bit underwhelming, sure, but if you don't go anal with them by micromanaging to the max, they add features which are actually useful. The new civs are fun, except for horrible Georgia. Eras work quite well, the historical moments are a nice touch. And this thread is like the news on tv, overly focusing on the negatives and ignoring the positives.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
You know, I was reading some comments on Steam, and had much the same thought. I don't understand a lot of the flak Civ gets - particularly criticisms around Warmongering and Diplomacy, which I actually think work "okay", and AI which is sort of fine*.
But at the same time... yeah, I don't really want to play Civ VI any more. I think it's just that there are so many parts of the game that I'm super excited to play with ... that just don't work ... and, really, haven't work since Vanilla. A lot of the stuff where the game does work - domination (sort of), religion / faith, science victory - yeah, I'm just not that into.
I mean. I'm a guy that when he plays Rome thinks the most fun thing about them is the Roman Baths.
I was happy playing Civ before England got nerfed, because England sort of let me play at naval and colonialism (but not in an OP way) and a sort of industrial revolution (via trade routes and shipyards). But once England got nerfed... well, I've struggled to find something l like about the game.
I think Civ VI is "good" overall. But it's really come up short for me. One good patch, and I'd probably be okay with the game again.
I'm a bit stuck really***. I don't want to play something else, because I don't want to spend time learning another game if Civ is finally going to click, and I don't really want to spend more time on games anyway (I've got enough going on). ** So, I'm really just killing time, waiting to see if Civ VI finally clicks. If it does, then happy days. If not, well, ... maybe I'll move onto something else. Maybe I'll go for a few more bike rides. It's not really a big deal either way I guess.
* Footnote: my thoughts on the AI have definitely evolved thanks to the insightful posts of Mr @Trav'ling Canuck . I wasn't actually all that bothered about the AI not being a good pace car, or not being good at planes. But the more I think about it, the more I think these problems are actually critical to the late game malaise of Civ. Basically, I think the design was that by the late game your existing military (which you'd been dutifully upgrading since Warriors and Chariots) become obsolete, and it becomes all about Air Force and Navy (which, by that point, you'll need to build from scratch). Worse, by the late game, the idea is you'd be scrambling trying to stop the AI achieving victory. But that's just it. Currently, neither happen. So once you lock in your empire from the Classical Era, Civ really has nothing else to offer you...
** Footnote: Man, if I actually had any of that thing people call "Free Time", I'd be all over EU4 (that game seems to do England and Colonialism right), BattleTech (turn based mecha ... yes please), and like maybe Pillars of Eternity (isometric dungeon crawling, yes please... I mean, other than Diablo 3, which is just so, so, so disappointing....)
*** Footnote: well, except these forums are still good value. My God there are some clever, funny, knowledgeable people here. I mean, I'm sorry @Victoria is currently just a special guess star, and @Lily_Lancer seems to be totally AWOL. But there are still some very good people here (@Boyan_Sun @Ferocitus , @Sostratus @Trav'ling Canuck @Archon_Wing amongst others). So, it's not all bad.
I had reached that way with 5. Played it, enjoyed it some, gave it a chance, but eventually, even after all the patches and expansions, got bored. Unfortunately for me, that was after all the expansions, so I just set it aside and stopped. Ended up with 700 hours in it.
VI, while I still agree that it's in need of more fixes, still at least has me coming back to play, although not quite to the same level that I was last year. Still have almost 900 hours in it, so it's surpassed 5 for me, and I still do load it up, although i will go weeks at a time without playing, and have had some trouble actually wanting to finish games of late.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,115
I don't think Civilization VI is a bad game, and have had some good fun with it. It is, however, a deeply flawed one. I think part of the problem is that it occupies a space where there is practically no direct competition. Yes, there are other turn based 4X games, but they fall into different sub-genres. Games like Fallen Enchantress and Endless Legend are fantasy themed, and include things like magic. Galactic Civilizations, Endless Space and Master of Orion are sci-fi/space games. Both these sub-genres have more options available. But for a historical turn based strategy game in the style and setting of Civilization, I don't think there has been any large scale effort since Call to Power 2. And that was a direct offshoot of the Civilization series itself.
Again, I don't think Civilization VI is bad, but I do suspect that the lack of competition is making the developers more complacent than they should be. Civilization VI is the rated significantly worse than any of the older Civ games on Steam, and almost 2 years after release, Civilization V still has more concurrent players day by day. I think if there was more competition, Firaxis would be more on the ball when it came to fixing bugs, improving gameplay, and providing content.
Again, I don't think Civilization VI is bad, but I do suspect that the lack of competition is making the developers more complacent than they should be. Civilization VI is the rated significantly worse than any of the older Civ games on Steam, and almost 2 years after release, Civilization V still has more concurrent players day by day. I think if there was more competition, Firaxis would be more on the ball when it came to fixing bugs, improving gameplay, and providing content.
Last edited:
Tech Osen
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,941
My other main genre is MMOs (currently Elder Scrolls Online) and while those games also have their flaws they do get updated on a very regular basis, sometimes weekly. Simple bug fixes like Alert not working wouldn't take months to fix there, and I guess I'm kindda used to that and it really grinds my gear that things take so freaking long to get fixed in Civ6.
Aristos
Lightseeker
It's not bitterness, that's unfair to her. She is clearly disappointed, a feeling I can understand and even relate to in this case. Implying that she is "bitter" removes the responsibility of her disappointment from the real source, and puts it on her shoulders: not fair.
Acken
Deity
I'm actually trying to find if it's worth it for my girlfriend. Is it worth 20$ from a very casual player perspective ? The steam forums seem to say there is very little content in the expansion.
Chefofrats
Prince
In my opinion it is well worth it. I paid the full price on release and I'm satisfied. My experience over more than 20 years on the Internet has taught me that forum posts are not representative of the general player base - they seem to be biased towards criticism. The majority of players - the casuals - are happy with what they get and they keep quiet.
acluewithout
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 3,470
I don't think Civ VI is deeply flawed. Indeed, I think Civ VI has got most of the big things right - importance of the map, getting rid of tall v wide, policy flexibility.
I mean, even the AI, while still not quite strong enough... well, I'm not sure I'd say it's flawed?
But Oh My God, does it need some serious polish and balancing.
That's why I am so very frustrated with this game. It feels so close to being perfect, yet there are so many little things holding it back.
Last edited:
Aristos
Lightseeker
.... and hence the "direction" the franchise has taken...
Tech Osen
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,941
Maybe a language barrier, I'm Dutch, but what you're implying certainly wasn't my intent.
For me bitterness is just a more severe form of disappointment and had nothing to do with shifting responsibility.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
Well of the 10 people I know who play civ... 9 have bought civ6 and I am the only one that played it for any length... One plays EU and said 6 was like a joke xmas present he played on himself.
My eldest son holds the most common Mantra... 6 is too complicated an 5 plays OK and all my gaming friends know how to play it.
I would guess from that that
1. The busy lives of youth today and their reduced concentration possible has something to do with it.
2. Civ 5 has such nice graphics that it just does not feel out of date and the rule set had ironed out a lot of the very bad old ways so is still quite playable
Quiet can be content but can also be ambivalent, neutral, uncaring or seething
Similar threads
