So...Civ6...How is This Fun?

[epicivfreak]

I finally broke down and bought this stinky-ship-show & I can't believe any human actually enjoyed playing this nonsense.

Literally, why? How?

Please tell me one thing about this game that is enjoyable because I sincerely don't get how anyone played this beyond the first 2 hours of buying it & playing it. It's the worst game I've played in the Civ series, by far... wtf?

Moderator Action: Edited the thread title to be more acceptable. leif

 

[Ordnael]

Districts;
Gilgamesh;
Can have more than 4/5 cities without risking total rebellion;
Playing with faith mechanics is fun;
"Winter is coming" guy is narrating;
Guitarra portuguesa;
Wampires... eh, eh, eh;
Levy troops;
Sinbad;
Acme products;

 

[Chefofrats]

"I played a massive game for 2 hours and know everything about it, and it all sucks. Also, I am not a troll. Really."

 

[SammyKhalifa]

comicbookguy.gif

 

[Ovidious]

You need to use some mods, many many mods. I too had hated it at the beginning. When it first came out and I tried it for a time, I gave up in disgust. I had been with Civ since the very first game, but I had thought that whoever designed the UI and other parts of this version had never played the game. After the first few weeks of release I shelved it for maybe 6 months. Then I hit the forums to do some reading and learned about mods that would fix (what I saw as) the horrible interface mainly, plus other things. Now I play it quite a bit.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I don't need to "know everything about it" to find it sucks. There is nothing rewarding about playing this game. The mechanics are awful, the flow of game screens is actively upsetting, multiplayer doesn't even exist outside of pretend because of exploits, and I cannot bear to even visually look at it any more. To be reminded of its gameplay, as the thought of even other players clicking the buttons, is nauseating.

The proposition of replacing any other time playing a Civ game, with this one, is a tasteless dark joke.

If you told me I could take playing this game full time as a stable, well-paying job, I'd say nfw.

To come to this subforum and say this, is trolling, but, if the mods have made this thread an arena for the two opinions to be equal, then here I am.

 

[miaasma]

watching victoria scream at you when she denounces you is more enjoyable than any FPS in my opinion

that's the most serious answer you're getting with this sort of thread

 

[Naokaukodem]

Last time I played, because i already beat it in Deity once or twice and that suffices for me (waiting for 7), I played as Rome to see what benefits could be made out of trading posts (just because there was a thread around here that asked that if England started with a trading post in its first city on each continent, would it be overpowered, I said no). Game difficulty didn't matter, so I let it in Prince. Well, I learned that trading posts would "refuel" your traders, so you can reach further. I settled a city midway from my capital and a city-State, and built a trader right after. Send it to the CS, and got only one gold more than usual (4 instead of 3). When completed, I assume the trader created a trading post in the CS, so the gold went from 4 to 5. Wao, amazing. And that would be it ! As to play the rest of the game, I quickly got bored because everything was so dull for some reason(s), I just quitted with the usual disappointment.

Now let's analysis this a little bit better. I should have quitted after seeing the misarable effects of trading posts. But I somehow was "engaged" in turn clicking. The early game can be interesting. But after I discovered my neighbours were too far away, and having disabled barbarians (that can be a pain, let's keep being honest), and not being a great fan of districts construction nor even city placing (especially in this version), nothing really engaging happened here. I got a religion but... nothing happened.

The main interest of this game is to make YouTube videos to show people how insane you can go with some civilizations uniques. And the success of it, is because social networks are in fashion and are viral. Civ6 success relies nearly exclusively on the virality of social networks. It's a great business model, but for normal people who are not constently browsing ununderstandable content makers like PotatoeMcWiskey (omg, this one speaks too fast, come on I'm just a french guy), and make normal games with their sticks & dicks (fun word for kids, moderators ), it all flattens pretty quickly. In one hand, it's not interesting to play in lower difficulty levels. (except for total noobs, but that's fair ) And in higher ones, it can be discouraging to be so backwarded. Only fools can sanely continue a game where at say turn 80 (normal speed, 500 turns) the most advanced AI has 20 techs more than you. (if you survived any early rush, I don't have anything against early rushes, but sometimes, it's just impossible to survive you know, due to AI BONUS units, which make it silly)

There's probably more to say about it, especially in the multiplayer department, but here it is anyway.

 

[CaesarCS]

I have played Civ since Civ 1. I first played that in high school around 1993-1994. My favorite version of Civ is Civ III. If you are in to city builder games, Civ VI should be up your alley. I love exploring and planning out my empire. Civ VI is by far the best game in the series when it comes to that. Diplomacy and all that sucks, I tolerate it so that I can build my empire. I'm currently in a game where I have the perfect panama canal, but to make it work I had to take a city state that has a good bonus- Anshan(sp?), previously Babylon. I had to take it because I have never had such a great spot to built Panama Canal. I play with a bigger map sized mod, and really a ton of mods that I couldn't play the game without. I tried recently, and I quit the game. So yeah, Civ VI... not much a Civ game, but it is a great game if you like planning out your empire.

 

[reddishrecue]

Idk tbh.. other versions are good enough to go against civ 6 such as civ 4 or 5.

 

[Ordnael]

To be reminded of its gameplay, as the thought of even other players clicking the buttons, is nauseating.

The proposition of replacing any other time playing a Civ game, with this one, is a tasteless dark joke.

To come to this subforum and say this, is trolling, but, if the mods have made this thread an arena for the two opinions to be equal, then here I am.

1. Not sorry for nauseating the likes of u "Shhh Let people enjoy stuff";
2. Played civ1, still play civ1, 6 is better...it's just that civ 1 is way way quicker for little sessions;
3. Not sorry my untermensch taste disturbs you ubermensh.

Moderator Action: Please be civil to one another. Directing comments at another member is trolling, please do not do so. leif

watching victoria scream at you when she denounces you is more enjoyable than any FPS in my opinion

Gilgamesh laugh and animation is the best!

Last time I played, because i already beat it in Deity once or twice and that suffices for me (waiting for 7), I played as Rome to see what benefits could be made out of trading posts (just because there was a thread around here that asked that if England started with a trading post in its first city on each continent, would it be overpowered, I said no). Game difficulty didn't matter, so I let it in Prince. Well, I learned that trading posts would "refuel" your traders, so you can reach further. I settled a city midway from my capital and a city-State, and built a trader right after. Send it to the CS, and got only one gold more than usual (4 instead of 3). When completed, I assume the trader created a trading post in the CS, so the gold went from 4 to 5. Wao, amazing. And that would be it ! As to play the rest of the game, I quickly got bored because everything was so dull for some reason(s), I just quitted with the usual disappointment.

Now let's analysis this a little bit better. I should have quitted after seeing the misarable effects of trading posts. But I somehow was "engaged" in turn clicking. The early game can be interesting. But after I discovered my neighbours were too far away, and having disabled barbarians (that can be a pain, let's keep being honest), and not being a great fan of districts construction nor even city placing (especially in this version), nothing really engaging happened here. I got a religion but... nothing happened.

The main interest of this game is to make YouTube videos to show people how insane you can go with some civilizations uniques. And the success of it, is because social networks are in fashion and are viral. Civ6 success relies nearly exclusively on the virality of social networks. It's a great business model, but for normal people who are not constently browsing ununderstandable content makers like PotatoeMcWiskey (omg, this one speaks too fast, come on I'm just a french guy), and make normal games with their sticks & dicks (fun word for kids, moderators ), it all flattens pretty quickly. In one hand, it's not interesting to play in lower difficulty levels. (except for total noobs, but that's fair ) And in higher ones, it can be discouraging to be so backwarded. Only fools can sanely continue a game where at say turn 80 (normal speed, 500 turns) the most advanced AI has 20 techs more than you. (if you survived any early rush, I don't have anything against early rushes, but sometimes, it's just impossible to survive you know, due to AI BONUS units, which make it silly)

There's probably more to say about it, especially in the multiplayer department, but here it is anyway.

Never disabled barbarians...they add...flavour to the game;
Barely watched more than 10 minutes of you tube content of this game;

 

[Patine]

Idk tbh.. other versions are good enough to go against civ 6 such as civ 4 or 5.

And especially my personal favourite, the neglected Civ2 (as a LOT of discussions of iterations of Civ speak almost as if the series begins with Civ4, or sometimes Civ3, and all discussion and comparison begins there). You know, the Civ2 your avatar image happens to come from?

 

[Zegangani]

Well, instead of talking down on Civ6 Fans and being in unbelief of things like "Subjective Opinion", you could at least try to explain your POV, why you don't like the Game, what exacty you don't like about it, why those things make it a bad game (the most important question that you need to answer before making such claims), what do you find in earlier titles better...etc.

You can call Civ6 many things, but unenjoyable is not one of those terms, or being the worst in the Series. Most People here can tell you all the things that make Civ6 a good/great Game, things that it has done better than any of its predecessors, but OP seems only to serve one purpose, which is to tell us about how bad you find the Game and speaking low of any who think otherwise. You know, there is something called "Subjective Opinion", and just because you don't like the Game that doesn't mean you're right, and that everybody shouldn't as well.

 

[epicivfreak]

I clearly should have stuck to my rule of never paying more than $10 for a Civilization game again...

 

[Patine]

Edit: <delete>

 

[reddishrecue]

And especially my personal favourite, the neglected Civ2 (as a LOT of discussions of iterations of Civ speak almost as if the series begins with Civ4, or sometimes Civ3, and all discussion and comparison begins there). You know, the Civ2 your avatar image happens to come from?

Yeah, thanks for mentioning my chopper avatar image. I also appreciate civ 2 and combined arms was one of my favorite technologies that allowed the choppers to fly over land and water in exchange for a small amount of health, but it was worth it. I think this is probably why the choppers in the future series couldn't fly on water but I'm not complaining. I also liked the chopper on civ 6, it looks neat too.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread has run its course. Closed.