Things I hoped would be gone from Civ5

[pholtz]

Most of the negatives about VI seem to be nickpick's and very much personal preferences. There are sooo many positives about VI that imho, not playing it because you don't like a few things about it means you will miss out of lots of good things and a good game.

 

[Staler87]

Most of the negatives about VI seem to be nickpick's and very much personal preferences. There are sooo many positives about VI that imho, not playing it because you don't like a few things about it means you will miss out of lots of good things and a good game.

I think we should probably wait until the game comes out before making statements that it does so many things better than another civ. We don't know how things are going to fit together and people should really stop making statements about what kind of game it is before it comes out.

 

[SJSerio]

I really didn't like the concept of city states. I much prefer the idea that everyone starts off equally, and if given the chance, could develop into a great civilization. Civ4 had city states if you just fill the map with lots of civs, some would necessarily stay small and you could deal with them how you wanted to, albeit without the gamey bonuses.

I didn't like having two tech trees. A civilization knows what it knows, and everything you know is dependent on everything else. You can't have Rock n' Roll without electricity, you can't have organized religion without a writing system, etc. It makes sense to have a winding, diverse path, but splitting the tree in two pretends that culture can advance without science, and vice versa.

With both of these contrivances in place, I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4.

I don't mind city-States. It seems that they have improved them in VI. As far as the tech tree being split, the thing is they run in parallel and they are kinda dependent on each other. If you don't advance in one, you're not likely to get fat in the other.

1UPT is the biggest reason why Civ V couldn't become an okay game (even with the expansions) in my book.
The unstacking of cities in Civ VI is another very bad decision - these things completely ruin the scale for me.

I was against 1UPT for the same reasons... Scale. I would have much preferred limited stacks. They are bringing that to VI... Sort of. But I have gotten used to it.

My initial reaction was the same as far as "unstacking" the cities. However, I was appeased and I am now looking forward to the mechanic after it was explained that it can be viewed that the "districts" are essentially other cities and towns supporting the main city (city center).

In the end, what some people don't seem to understand is that civilization odds a game that requires a little imagination to support the concept. I am fine with that.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[LDiCesare]

So comments about "unrealistic" game mechanics have no value for anyone except poster.

The comment is not about realism but immersion.
Yes, it's about personal preference.
It does have merit, as in showing other people that they're not alone in liking or disliking the same things. This thread had great value for me because I'm happy to realise someone whose work I respect a lot has the same ideas about the game as I do.
On the other hand, when you make a generalisation such as 'no value for anyone except the poster', you're dead wrong (I'm someone and not the poster), and should really abstain from making such posts, since you're just demonstrably wrong.
You disagree with OP? Fine, say so, but don't lambast it. Between your post and his, the useless one is the demonstrably false one, not the one which states an opinion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The comment is not about realism but immersion.
Yes, it's about personal preference.
It does have merit, as in showing other people that they're not alone in liking or disliking the same things. This thread had great value for me because I'm happy to realise someone whose work I respect a lot has the same ideas about the game as I do.
On the other hand, when you make a generalisation such as 'no value for anyone except the poster', you're dead wrong (I'm someone and not the poster), and should really abstain from making such posts, since you're just demonstrably wrong.
You disagree with OP? Fine, say so, but don't lambast it. Between your post and his, the useless one is the demonstrably false one, not the one which states an opinion.

I'm ok for people to post their subjective thoughts. But subjective thoughts were followed with global conclusion "With both of these contrivances in place, I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4". And later another poster those subjective dislikes "reasoned and logical argument that highlights big flaws in Civ VI's mechanics".

So, my reply wasn't "generalization", it was a reply to generalization.

 

[LDiCesare]

I read "I can't see Civ6 surpassing Civ4" as something subjective, but I can understand you would see it differently.
Even if it was not, answering a generalisation by a generalisation isn't likely to create an interesting discussion. Pointing out it's arbitrary, pointing out he's just talking about preferences is perfectly legit and fine.
A generalisation in reply to a generalisation is still a generalisation, and it is not consistent to lambast generalisations while resorting to them.

 

[shakabrade]

I would like that AI diplo screen does not disrupt the gameplay. Instead of their personal rooms, I'd like them to be pop-up screens like they were.