This game is bad and you should feel bad for buying it

[Xyriach]

That's $2 per hour of a hopelessly broken game.

As people are playing it, and enjoying it and continuing to do so, then it hardly qualifies as "hopelessly broken"...

Personally, I have had a number of play throughs now and feel that a lot of the complaints that get posted here are largely hypercritical over issues that aren't really relevant for the most part. Room for improvement, sure, but broken? That's a little over dramatic.

 

[Nefelia]

That's $2 per hour of a hopelessly broken game.

Yadda yadda. Civ games have always have a lot of replayability, but it's always the same basic game you're playing.

So does a board game. Doesn't mean you'd buy a board game for $1000 and find that it's missing half the cards or the rules are gibberish. There just isn't any excuse for Firaxis' level of sloppiness. They could have got any one of us to come in and test the shoogle out of the game for a week and provide them with a huge long list of defects.

It is getting harder to take you seriously. Hopelessly broken? Huge long list of defects?

Yeah, the game is not polished and has AI issues, balance issues and some exploits that the player can choose to use or not as his discretion. Despite that, the game runs smoothly and offers hours of entertainment for the multitude of people who have expressed their satisfaction in these very forums.

If you have issues with the game, fine. You can express your disatisfaction with the unpolished state of the game and we can discuss that. However, when you pull out hilariously hyperbolic language like 'hopelessly broken', I start to feel that you are not worth the effort of engaging in an intelligent way.

 

[Balkans]

This game, with a nice fat patch that i expect somewhere in a month time since publishing, will be worth of the price tag, 100%.
It's not polished as it should have been, but that's the publisher's fault, if developers had a right to speak freely, they would say they needed a month or two to polish the vanilla version.
It has a lot of things that will get better as time and patches go by, but to say it's bad and it's hopelessly broken is too harsh.
That comes from incredible personal frustration, it's not realistic opinion.

 

[Stilgar08]

That's $2 per hour of a hopelessly broken game.

Yadda yadda. Civ games have always have a lot of replayability, but it's always the same basic game you're playing.

So does a board game. Doesn't mean you'd buy a board game for $1000 and find that it's missing half the cards or the rules are gibberish. There just isn't any excuse for Firaxis' level of sloppiness. They could have got any one of us to come in and test the shoogle out of the game for a week and provide them with a huge long list of defects.

Yadda Yadda - exactly. It's not broken at all. It's not balanced right and it has some flaws that's a completely different thing...
You joined 2007 as it's stated on your profile - You had CiV Vanilla? I remember the hate and bitter critique it received - Nevertheless it was a huge success of the series (not exactly my cup of tea, but who cares...). And compared to the utter badness of the CiV release this is a party!

And concerning the argument of the same basic game: I prefer CiVI anytime over Civ I, II, III, IV and V. Doesn't mean I didn't like ALL of the titles but to me it's a huge step in the right direction... the rest will get ironed out. The sooner the better...

 

[smartcanuck1988]

It is getting harder to take you seriously. Hopelessly broken? Huge long list of defects?

Yeah, the game is not polished and has AI issues, balance issues and some exploits that the player can choose to use or not as his discretion. Despite that, the game runs smoothly and offers hours of entertainment for the multitude of people who have expressed their satisfaction in these very forums.

If you have issues with the game, fine. You can express your disatisfaction with the unpolished state of the game and we can discuss that. However, when you pull out hilariously hyperbolic language like 'hopelessly broken', I start to feel that you are not worth the effort of engaging in an intelligent way.

I fully agree with this. My posts may be on the critical side regarding the game bugs/exploits and also including some design choices that I know won't be altered to my liking (*cough* religious victory *cough*), but overall I have clocked enough hours already and (more importantly) I know that I will clock several more hours on this game to more than justify the price compared to other forms of entertainment like movies, Netflix subscription, other video games..etc. Patches will make it even better but even as it is, yes there are major issues, but it's absolutely not "hopelessly broken". It's an entertaining game to me.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Idk, is it really a strong argument in favor of the game to cite how long some have played it in an unbalanced state where the core mechanics and AI do not provide a challenge yet?

Myself at least needs to be swayed by someone who has faith in VI's outlook after patches, but not the self-proclaimed willingness to play an unfinished game for 60 hours …

If you concede it is not done, but still are playing it, I for one don't trust your optimism

 

[Nefelia]

Idk, is it really a strong argument in favor of the game to cite how long some have played it in an unbalanced state where the core mechanics and AI do not provide a challenge yet?

Myself at least needs to be swayed by someone who has faith in VI's outlook after patches, but not the self-proclaimed willingness to play an unfinished game for 60 hours …

If you concede it is not done, but still are playing it, I for one don't trust your optimism

No optimism needed, quite frankly. Firaxis has historically delivered quality patches and expansions to greatly improve their products. Both Civ IV and Civ V were in a significantly worse state upon their initial release, and both games received patches to fix the issues and later on expansions to introduce new content and mechanics.

I don't see why Firaxis would suddenly change their development strategy and leave Civ VI to hang.

As for those who are enjoying the game in its current state: we are very well aware that the current crop of issues will be resolved in upcoming patches (in fact, some of them have already been resolved via mods) and are having fun exploring the new mechanics and experimenting with various strategies. The game is by no means broken, and is still quite enjoyable for those who can deal with the wonky AI.

 

[CornPlanter]

It's not as polished as i.e. Blizzard games tend to be on release, but it's nowhere near "hopelessly broken" either. It's a good and enjoyable game that still has some bugs and some other problems. But it is definitely worth it it's price to me, especially so when factoring in upcomming free patches. I am a grown up person capable of judging the value myself, but thank you for your concern.

 

[Zuizgond]

This game, with a nice fat patch that i expect somewhere in a month time since publishing, will be worth of the price tag, 100%.

So 10 days left before the patch then. Can't wait!

 

[anandus]

With Civ 5 the large patch came some three months later, so I'm expecting something like that, probably when the Aztecs are released.

But to get back at the topic on hand.
The game does have some flaws, especially balancing/exploits and the lacking UI. And if you play singleplayer also the AI.
But apart from the it's a very solid game with a very good foundation to build on.
The engine itself is incredibly stable for an unpatched game, even in multiplayer it's rock solid.
The game itself is quite polished and feature packed, with good variation.

So no, I don't feel bad and I shouldn't feel bad that I bought a very good game.
Even though I hardly have the time, I've racked up 58 hours and had lots of fun doing so.
I've been playing Civ since the first game and this is one of the best releases yet, on par with the Civ 3 release .
And I expect it to outshine Civ 4 when all the DLC and expansions are out.

I have absolutely no regrets.

 

[orasis]

Nope. I'm having fun.

Game needs improvements but compared to the vanilla release of five? Come off it.

 

[CultureManiac]

At 167 hours, I've paid about 40 cents an hour to play the game so far. By the time the first expansion comes out, it will probably have cost me more per hour for the electricity to run my computer.

It's a good game and I feel good for buying it.

Time to put a bullet in this thread.

 

[tmarcl]

I have a policy with trolls. Reply only with a random comment unrelated to what they are posting. Keeps them chasing their tails for hours!

So:



I agree. And the fact that the squids are completely incapable of running a chip shop that opens at 4pm on a Tuesday is completely immersion breaking too.

You're welcome

You have to have open borders with them, and then assign a trade route.

 

[Horizons]

Yadda Yadda - exactly. It's not broken at all. It's not balanced right and it has some flaws that's a completely different thing...
You joined 2007 as it's stated on your profile - You had CiV Vanilla? I remember the hate and bitter critique it received - Nevertheless it was a huge success of the series (not exactly my cup of tea, but who cares...). And compared to the utter badness of the CiV release this is a party!

And concerning the argument of the same basic game: I prefer CiVI anytime over Civ I, II, III, IV and V. Doesn't mean I didn't like ALL of the titles but to me it's a huge step in the right direction... the rest will get ironed out. The sooner the better...

I bought it knowing (hoping) that Firaxis would make it right with patches and expansions ... at the moment I've stopped playing vs. AI until the next patch because it's too broken. Agreed not as bad as previous titles, but things like the AI not building cities or upgrading units could have easily been spotted during the most routine pre-release testing.

 

[Ramez Hachicho]

Well honestly I'm a little from column A a little from Column B.

Are games today more complex and therefore almost impossible to release bug/issue free? Yes .. absolutely.

Do companies use this as an excuse to slack on testing and withhold key features for dlc or later patches And did Firaxis/2k Do this? Yes .. absolutely.

People are really keen on the new civ .. the sales figures show it. How Firaxis/2K responds to this will determine how well the next civ game does. In my opinion they goofed on a lot of things.

NO excuse for lack of quality of life features (Rename City, Restart Button, Production Queuing)

NO excuse for extremely obvious exploits that the even the AI finds and exploits not being picked up in testing .. cmon firaxis if your braindead AI could find the exploits why couldn't your testers?

I'm looking at you agoge/conscription/god of the forge.

That being said NO ai in civ is ever gonna match a human period. There are just too many factors. The AI in civ is always going to have to cheat. We gotta deal with that. The problem is when it cheats and is STILL no contest. The AI can't be a match for a human but this AI couldn't beat a weevil on crack.

 

[Nefelia]

I bought it knowing (hoping) that Firaxis would make it right with patches and expansions ... at the moment I've stopped playing vs. AI until the next patch because it's too broken. Agreed not as bad as previous titles, but things like the AI not building cities or upgrading units could have easily been spotted during the most routine pre-release testing.

Both issues have been fixed in both Delnar's Ai Clean-UP and the AI+ mod, alongside improvements in the AI's build order and the way in which it handles combat. Modders are just ******* awesome.

 

[Magil]

Both issues have been fixed in both Delnar's Ai Clean-UP and the AI+ mod, alongside improvements in the AI's build order and the way in which it handles combat. Modders are just ******* awesome.

While I'd say it's improved it's hardly great even with the AI mods. They can only do so much with the AI currently because they don't have access to all of the files. If anything, in some areas, the mods are even worse in my opinion because the AI continues to declare its nonsensical Joint Wars (the ones where it offers you peace along with significant concessions) late in the game instead of only early game.

 

[Underseer]

That's $2 per hour of a hopelessly broken game.

Yadda yadda. Civ games have always have a lot of replayability, but it's always the same basic game you're playing.

So does a board game. Doesn't mean you'd buy a board game for $1000 and find that it's missing half the cards or the rules are gibberish. There just isn't any excuse for Firaxis' level of sloppiness. They could have got any one of us to come in and test the shoogle out of the game for a week and provide them with a huge long list of defects.

Hi!

I'm so happy for you that you have finally decided to start playing Civilization. I can see that this is your first Civilization game. Had you been an experienced player, you would no doubt have noticed that most recent Civilization games were much worse (more incomplete, more buggy) on day one.

Welcome to the Civilization community!

 

[Horizons]

Hi!

I'm so happy for you that you have finally decided to start playing Civilization. I can see that this is your first Civilization game. Had you been an experienced player, you would no doubt have noticed that most recent Civilization games were much worse (more incomplete, more buggy) on day one.

Welcome to the Civilization community!

Of course it was more polished, it based itself on a polished and complete game (Civ5). A lot of the work was already done for them.

But they still managed to rush out a buggy and incomplete mess. Congratulations.

 

[Ricci]

Fortunately for you, someone has already produced a mod that allows one to increase the maximum amount of units per stack: http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/multiple-unit-per-tile.604487/

Thanks man, I know you mean good. Seriously, this shouldn't be the solution though.