the game lacks story and dynamism

kornelm1978

Warlord
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
119
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.

I am also not militaric player, but I'd like to see at least some defensive wars when you are really threaten, in that case. And moreover - non militaristic game is fun in the beginning, the later stages are totally boring - you choose what to build and click end turn (and it takes to long by the way, because AI needs to shuffle it's units). When you stop to expand it's just brainless and it takes hours.
 

GermanSettler

Warlord
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
127
Location
Germany
I totally get most of the criticism. What I have troubles understanding is the accusations that the devs have no idea about strategy games, the older civs... that reviewers must be bought to like it and that those players who like it cannot be true civ fanatics.

I know that disappointment, just as much as excitement, is a strong feeling... but we should remain fair with each other here.
 

kornelm1978

Warlord
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
119
Civilization is a game where you write the story. That's why it lacks one: It's a blank canvas on which you paint your epic.


By lack of story I meant also lack of repetitiveness. So there is a story which is always the same. You will see that after playing few games:)
 

Morningcalm

Keeper of Records
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,116
Location
Abroad
I'm tempted to agree with the OP--it's difficult to really develop positive relationships with the AI, and when diplomacy feels arbitrary, every AI is simply the human player's next target or aggressor. That removes story from the game, and dynamicism. Civ IV, whatever its faults, had a developed diplomacy system such that a diplomatic system made sense (and wasn't just a money dump, which is what it became with the poorer Civ V AI).
 

kornelm1978

Warlord
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
119
I'm tempted to agree with the OP--it's difficult to really develop positive relationships with the AI, and when diplomacy feels arbitrary, every AI is simply the human player's next target or aggressor. That removes story from the game, and dynamicism. Civ IV, whatever its faults, had a developed diplomacy system such that a diplomatic system made sense (and wasn't just a money dump, which is what it became with the poorer Civ V AI).

Yes, civ IV diplomacy was simple but really working. Simple (and pretty realistic) rules: share religion +like, shared friend +like, shared enemy +like, shared boarders - dislike, etc. And by that simple system there where 2 or 3 groups of civs liking each other and suporting in wars. You attacked one of the group the others would support most probably, and your friends would join. And we have world war, so nice:). Now you attack one and everybody hates you, but who cares, they hated you anywhay. And their comical reaction of anger... I really liked the cartoonish graphics, but in combination with stupid AI... it is comic. Right now there is a mess, everybody hates everybody.
 

Morningcalm

Keeper of Records
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
4,116
Location
Abroad
civ 4 diplomacy was too gamey. immersion breaking, imho
Explain, please.

I genuinely am puzzled by your statement. I also fail to see how Civ V or VI's diplomacy is not "gamey" let alone "immersion breaking".
 

need my speed

Rex Omnium Imperarium
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
European Union (Magna Batavia)
It might be the changing times - the rise of 'let's plays' - but I think the various Stories & Tales subfora speak for themselves. Civilization IV had a story to tell, and that indeed came down to its diplomacy.
 

Mr.WorldWide

Smugly Inferior
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
443
Location
Central USA
So random events are positive and make a game more dynamic but random agendas don't ? I'll never get these sort of inconsistent complaints. I'm some who loved 4, barely played 5 and love 6. Shocking I know that people enjoy some things you don't. Oh and I also did a positive first impressions video on the game for my tiny channel, still haven't seen my Firaxis money.

The game has its problems but some of the complaints here on this forum are grasping at straws. Like saying 6 isn't strategy, you wot mate?
 

kornelm1978

Warlord
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
119
So random events are positive and make a game more dynamic but random agendas don't ? I'll never get these sort of inconsistent complaints. I'm some who loved 4, barely played 5 and love 6. Shocking I know that people enjoy some things you don't. Oh and I also did a positive first impressions video on the game for my tiny channel, still haven't seen my Firaxis money.

The game has its problems but some of the complaints here on this forum are grasping at straws. Like saying 6 isn't strategy, you wot mate?

Random agendas are positive as idea. But random agendas praising powerful and not liking less powerful in science, culture, etc. are wrong. The result of that is all should like you when you are powerful, at least for fulfiling agenda. This is wrong desingn as the more powerful you are, the more positive relations you should have. It's more realistic that ie. Japan, who wants to win science vicotry hates yuo becasue you compete with them in that area, not the completly opposite. From gameplay perspective if you are powerfull you should have enemies to prevent you from winning not to support you to make your game easy in the end.
 

killmeplease

Mk Z on Steam
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
2,794
Location
Samara
Explain, please.

I genuinely am puzzled by your statement. I also fail to see how Civ V or VI's diplomacy is not "gamey" let alone "immersion breaking".

opponents being 100% predictable (except catherine and some other guy who could backstab you with some little probability even being friendly) is very dull. this kind of mechanic may be nice to court city states but AIs are supposed to play against you not be played by you.
 

VirtualMark

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
54
Was Sid Meier involved with the production of Civ 6? I know Civ 5 had someone else lead it, but haven't read much about 6.
 

Raider

Warlord
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
165
Hey, guys, the front page says almost every professional review rated this game 90%+. That's, like, flawless. If you think you see flaws in this game, be that poor AI, pointless leader agendas, weak diplomacy, a step back in interface, lack of depth, you are either making them up or imagining them. Reviews are in, and this game is near perfect.
 

bcaiko

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
1,412
Location
Washington, DC
We call this the "Beyond Earth effect". Soul-less gameplay.

My thoughts exactly. The AIs seem to be set up as big personality characters, but they hardly ever speak. The game drastically lacks flavor - which is what helps carry the gameplay.
 

need my speed

Rex Omnium Imperarium
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
European Union (Magna Batavia)
opponents being 100% predictable (except catherine and some other guy who could backstab you with some little probability even being friendly) is very dull. this kind of mechanic may be nice to court city states but AIs are supposed to play against you not be played by you.
That is not at all true on both fronts. Have you played Civilization IV during its heyday?
 

HeliosDisciple

Warlord
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
169
Both 5 and 6 are way more fun to play than 4. Which isn't to say 4 is bad, I just didn't enjoy it as much.

Doomstacks are the heart of that, really. I never got the hang of being able to do anything besides building a bunch of crappy units that evaporated when the AI's juggernauts came charging through.


Also the religion systems in 5/6 are awesome and completely trash 4's low-effort junk.
 

Takfloyd

Prince
Joined
Apr 17, 2005
Messages
413
Location
Bergen
Anyone who doesn't understand or agree with OP's point should just get out.

He may not communicate it very efficiently, but his argument is at the core of the problem with the Civilization series ever since V.

Civ 3 and 4 lead themselves to emergent storytelling exceptionally well. The complex web of alliances and schemes resulting in spectacular world wars is one of the high points of the franchise. That's completely lacking in V, VI and assumedly Beyond Earth because of the moronic AI and lack of diplomacy options.
 

dexters

Gods & Emperors
Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
4,182
Location
Canada
I'm tempted to agree with the OP--it's difficult to really develop positive relationships with the AI, and when diplomacy feels arbitrary, every AI is simply the human player's next target or aggressor. That removes story from the game, and dynamicism. Civ IV, whatever its faults, had a developed diplomacy system such that a diplomatic system made sense (and wasn't just a money dump, which is what it became with the poorer Civ V AI).

The current issue is, Civ6 needs to build on Civ5's diplomacy system which was different from Civ4 but worked. AI had clear agendas and victory paths and sore points you could tease out from interacting with them. The advertised feature of a transparent agenda in Civ6 seems like it was building on top of that, and hey there's even a 2nd hidden randomized agenda. Great!

Right now though, the warmonger penalty is too strong, and is actually probably not related to the AI at all, but more that the casus belli system is not working very well as it relies entirely on warmonger penalty. They need to rebalance casus belli to provide for a malus and a bonus modifier so casus belli will actually bring a positive modifier to some Civs who may have the same casus belli/grudge as you. Further, they need to bring back the friend of a friend, positive modifiers in Civ5 as well as denounced by my friend negative modifiers to bring back stability into the AI system. As well as others like denounced by a friend, enemy of my enemy etc.

I have a feeling these are all going in at some point anyways.
 

TruthfulCake

Prince
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
363
It has been said before, but the agendas are not very well-conceived considering they are currently checklists for adding/removing numbers on the diplomacy meter. I agree that the AI should make agendas secondary and focus more on favorable alliances, because that is how real-world alliances work too. You may not agree with another civilization's leadership, but sometimes alliance is the only way to survive against greater threats.

Right now, there aren't really any blocs and it feels like a hatred-filled free-for-all among AI players. Very predictably, and more often than not, the AI would war or denounce each other, and skip out on opportunities for joint wars against potential runaways. The way it is currently designed, the AI favors runaways, because their agendas probably agree with huge military, strong culture/science generation, supremacy in espionage, etc. Realistically, the AI should favor WEAKER players, because if the little civs get swallowed up by the strongest player then they would get a real runaway on their hands.

However, this will again cause a degree of predictability in the "story and dynamism", since the weaker AIs would always team up to stop the players with the highest score. But I am okay with this predictability. History often repeats itself in terms of the pattern in which civilizations form alliances, and I don't see why we should make alliances "unpredictable" for the nebulous purposes of "storytelling". After all, each other aspect of the game is very different every time you replay it that no game is the same, even though the way alliances form may be predictable.

Basically, I am fine with a pattern, as long as it is a good pattern. Fix the agendas and I will be happy.
 
Top Bottom