the game lacks story and dynamism

[kornelm1978]

I believe that the design of the game lacks story completly, and by that replyability (now it lacks event playability because of AI). By that I mean it is just logical puzzle, of effective distirct placement, effective locating archers on the hill and efective movement of the carpet.

I remember that every game in civ 4 was diferent. There was so many different options of war. Sea landings to support army advance (now you can't do that because your landing army will be spread across many tiles, in shooting range of 3 other cities. Similarly paratroopers landings. I remember in IV that you had random events which add story and made the gameplay more dyanmic and diverse. I think of Paradox games where random events change every game and require you modify your actions. I can think of Stellaris where your tech tree is not lienar. I can event think of Civ v, with all it's flaws where you had Democratic counties fighting Communism and Fascism. This game lacks it completly, you need to find a math and system and follow. Move you carpet or efectively design your cities. Everything so repetitive, lacks dynamism and diversity.

I didn't think, that I will stop playing after one day. I stoped because of AI, but i do not great potential of repayability even if AI is better. There would need to be so significant changes which I do not believe will happen. But on the other hand so easy to implement: more units per tile (I believe it's not only AI whcih suffers - gameplay suffers because of lack of strategical options, and dynamism suffers due to neccesity of moving tons of units repetiviely). The second - ad randomnes: so many ways I can think, unique technologies, events, unpreditable (but wise) AI behaviours...

 

[kornelm1978]

And I wonder if developers played ever any strategic games before. There so many good ideas in civ 4, endless legend, endless space, Paradox games. If you used the best ones, apply adequatelly to civ game, with te resources which company has - it could make really grate cive game.

 

[Cuneiform]

I think part of the Civ experience is that you make your own story. But I do think there's scope available for a more dynamic map, i.e. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Floods etc.

 

[Xaviarlol]

We call this the "Beyond Earth effect". Soul-less gameplay.

 

[kornelm1978]

Cuneiform, of course you should make your own story. But not always the same. With gameplay so static it will always be the same... Right now, insted of attacking Scytia you will attack Rome first... all the rest ill be the same.

 

[orasis]

Um... you make your own story... a story has never been part of this game.

 

[kornelm1978]

By story I mean the way you played one single game. I should be different and not alway the same.

 

[orasis]

And I wonder if developers played ever any strategic games before. There so many good ideas in civ 4, endless legend, endless space, Paradox games. If you used the best ones, apply adequatelly to civ game, with te resources which company has - it could make really grate cive game.

No Firaxis just hired them, for fun. Because money and share-holders are not a thing.

VI, so far is a good game. With the framework presented it has the potential to be the best game in the entire civ library.

Why are you comparing paradox games to CIV games? They are not the same. Paradox games are grand-strategy. CIV is 4x/Action. Always has been.

I enjoy Paradox/GS games .... especially when something exciting happens after turn 900. Civ is more action oriented with things happening at most every three turns.

What I am trying to say is that comparing GS games to CIV games is re-tarded.

 

[orasis]

By story I mean the way you played one single game. I should be different and not alway the same.

Well hidden agendas change, the map changes, your civ changes, you being a troll never does ..

Moderator Action: Do not accuse other posters of being trolls; that is trolling under our rules.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[grandad1982]

It does feel like it has slightly more economic dynamism than 5 but ultimately compared to 4 where there was many different ways to play the economy it still feels like it lacks depth.

As for story dynamism Paradox games such as CK2 and Stellaris are designed to be emergent stories (even if Stellaris is a bit boring IMO) whilst EU4 tells its story via your understanding of the context of the game set up, all things that CIV doesn't have. However IMO what CIV does better than Stellaris for example, is provide you with a cast of characters (AI leaders) that exist from game to game so that with repeated play they take on a context from your previous encounters with them and the stories that emerge over more than one play through. Well thats the theory but sadly the diplomacy in CIV generally sucks so its often more a cast of villains rather than a mixed cast.

 

[kornelm1978]

Oviously I would not like Civ to be like EU IV. It must be different, but what I am saying that there are ideas which could be implemented to make the game better. I gave the example of events form EUIV, which anywhay existed in Civ IV.

 

[Staal]

No Civ previously has ever had more/less story dynamism than Civ 6. The thread makes no sense. Maybe focus on what exactly they should be adding to the game to make it more "dynamic".

Stellaris is one of the more boring games out there. Crusader Kings 2 is amazing BUT it is not comparable to the Civ series in that way. In CK2 you are a mortal (usually) character with traits and personality that specifically drive game play. Your goal is just to reach the end date, anything else is a goal you set for yourself.

In Civ you are a omnipotent God-Emperor that has to effectively manage your resources in order to get to a win condition as quickly as possible.

Please give examples of what would create story dynamism?

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

- events. civ4 had a good basic set that could easily be adapted and expand upon. City state quests are a terribly mundane substitute.
- less polarised and static diplomacy (notice how alliances in eu4 change with the balance of power?). Civ6 diplomatic relations have absolutely no consideration toward the balance of power in the world, just some asinine agendas that have no relevance to the goals/victory conditions of the game.

As a result of the atrocious AI, consequent bonuses they need, and the effect this has upon the diplomacy model (all the AI focus on you), there becomes very little interaction between the AIs.
This means there's no opportunity for political meddling and intrigue.
When was the last time you fed iron, horses or oil to a neighbouring AI so they could better impede an aggressive neighbour? It happened (occasionally) in civ4, but while technically possible in civ5/6, the diplomatic model is so clumsy it doesn't create these opportunities.

I absolutely understand what the OP is talking about; the mechanics are there, but they don't interact with each other in a way that creates stories.
1) Random events to spice up the world
2) AI competent enough to compete with the player without bonuses so massive that they distort the diplomatic relationships model

 

[kornelm1978]

Jawa, fully agree with you. And to add to that - what a wrong idea to have the agendas that civs like you becasue you are strong, cultured and scientifically advanced. So unrealistic and so gameplay spoiling. Imagine that diplomatic AI is somehow improved, you are very advanced in all areas - and all cis like you becasue you are so great... It should be completly other way around. And that why I have doubts that devs played strategic games. They have been thinking of that, but I knew when it was announced, it will never work (current agendas of loving strong).

One more "story" whcih come to my mind from civ IV. Imagine that you had just one land neighbour, let's say Egypt. You have very long border with them but you are very friendly with them. But there are, ie Vikings with huge army and navy. You are wise and have your costal cities well defended and progress slowly to scientific vicory. But suddenly Egypt becomes vassal of Vikings and the game completly changes. I am not saying that vasalization is neccessary, I am saying that such dynamics is not nearly possible in that game.

 

[killmeplease]

It does feel like it has slightly more economic dynamism than 5 but ultimately compared to 4 where there was many different ways to play the economy

how many? cottage spam and pyramids representation?

 

[VirtualMark]

I believe that the design of the game lacks story completly, and by that replyability (now it lacks event playability because of AI). By that I mean it is just logical puzzle, of effective distirct placement, effective locating archers on the hill and efective movement of the carpet.

I remember that every game in civ 4 was diferent. There was so many different options of war. Sea landings to support army advance (now you can't do that because your landing army will be spread across many tiles, in shooting range of 3 other cities. Similarly paratroopers landings. I remember in IV that you had random events which add story and made the gameplay more dyanmic and diverse. I think of Paradox games where random events change every game and require you modify your actions. I can think of Stellaris where your tech tree is not lienar. I can event think of Civ v, with all it's flaws where you had Democratic counties fighting Communism and Fascism. This game lacks it completly, you need to find a math and system and follow. Move you carpet or efectively design your cities. Everything so repetitive, lacks dynamism and diversity.

I didn't think, that I will stop playing after one day. I stoped because of AI, but i do not great potential of repayability even if AI is better. There would need to be so significant changes which I do not believe will happen. But on the other hand so easy to implement: more units per tile (I believe it's not only AI whcih suffers - gameplay suffers because of lack of strategical options, and dynamism suffers due to neccesity of moving tons of units repetiviely). The second - ad randomnes: so many ways I can think, unique technologies, events, unpreditable (but wise) AI behaviours...

Totally agree. I'm bored of 6 already, and it only took a couple of games. The game drags on right from the start, turn times aren't fast at all. The interface is cluttered and it's unclear what's going on. So many bugs that require clicking 4-5 times to get it to register, such as city production. So many small annoyances, like not being able to use the arrow keys to switch between cities quickly. The interface is a flow killer, and it feels like nobody even tested it. I can't even use edge scrolling properly, as the top of the screen doesn't work. You need to move the cursor to just below the top, what a joke.

The actual game has changed so much since 4, and has made me realise that I will never see the likes of 4 again. It was a true classic, and still the peak of Civ imo. I've spent countless hours on that game. I wasn't a fan of 5, as it was simply less fun to me. Same goes for 6. That "just one more turn" isn't there for me, and I've played the Civ games for decades.

So many bad decisions in this game, it's painful to see all the paid for reviews that give it 9/10. Have these people even played the older Civ games?

 

[Jabulani]

I believe that the design of the game lacks story completly, and by that replyability (now it lacks event playability because of AI). By that I mean it is just logical puzzle, of effective distirct placement, effective locating archers on the hill and efective movement of the carpet.

I remember that every game in civ 4 was diferent. There was so many different options of war. Sea landings to support army advance (now you can't do that because your landing army will be spread across many tiles, in shooting range of 3 other cities. Similarly paratroopers landings. I remember in IV that you had random events which add story and made the gameplay more dyanmic and diverse. I think of Paradox games where random events change every game and require you modify your actions. I can think of Stellaris where your tech tree is not lienar. I can event think of Civ v, with all it's flaws where you had Democratic counties fighting Communism and Fascism. This game lacks it completly, you need to find a math and system and follow. Move you carpet or efectively design your cities. Everything so repetitive, lacks dynamism and diversity.

I didn't think, that I will stop playing after one day. I stoped because of AI, but i do not great potential of repayability even if AI is better. There would need to be so significant changes which I do not believe will happen. But on the other hand so easy to implement: more units per tile (I believe it's not only AI whcih suffers - gameplay suffers because of lack of strategical options, and dynamism suffers due to neccesity of moving tons of units repetiviely). The second - ad randomnes: so many ways I can think, unique technologies, events, unpreditable (but wise) AI behaviours...

That happens when the ego of the devs is greater than their talent.

 

[beorn]

Wow, I react totally differently to this game. Lots of places where the user interface doesn't give me the information I want. Lots of need for the AI to do straight-forward things better (like upgrade units!). But I find the gameplay very, very compelling. The AI personalities infuriate me -- which is good, because I care about beating them. The map is different each time, and as a result the game plays out differently each time. Maybe we are looking for different things, or maybe we just have different play styles (I'm more of a builder than a quick military expander). But for me, story and replay-ability are pluses in this game.

 

[kornelm1978]

And that's sad, that instead of taking good things from civ 5, good things from IV and previous, tweak them add some new good things, they chose to write a game from the beginning. If they would just read community, experience from modders and previous civs - the game could be easilly great.

 

[Siptah]

I really don't get the complaint. I've only played 4 games to the end so far. All were rather peacefully, I haven't tried a rush or domination game yet. So far all 4 games felt more diverse than expected.
Maybe I'm playing the game wrong when it comes to civfanatics (as in: most effective way), but I feel I'm playing it as intended by the devs - otherwise, why would it be such a good game for me despite some smaller issues and the big AI issue?
I agree that random events might bring some more diversity and I hope they are coming back. Maybe they can be tied to the agendas as well and interfere heavily with diplomacy (if you don't wage war a lot, diplomacy really is too easy right now on King. On a six player map it's easy to have four allies without really trying.)