thoughts on civ vi from old-timers

[Brian Boru]

I tried Civ 1-2-3 at release, but they didn't hook me. That was during the golden age of RTS, so I may try them later for interest when I get more gaming time.

Civ4 is the one which hooked me, and it is still one of the 3 big games I like to play a few times a year. I didn't know enough to fault it at launch, I just enjoyed this wonderful new gaming experience. The aggravations did stop me playing after maybe a year, until Warlords came out and improved things. Beyond the Sword nailed it, and the BUG/BAT mods rekindled my desire to play by optimizing the UI into a very impressive and enjoyable experience. No reason I won't still be playing Civ4 in another 11 years time.

Civ5 I bought early after the glowing reviews--mistake, I probably only put 100 hours into it. G&K & BNW brought me up to over 400 hours acc to Steam. I want to build a civ, not a 4-city province, so the expansion nerf killed it for me. As did the slower pace. With the positive comments from many here, I'm going to see if there are any 5 mods which might solve my main problems of pace and width, while I'm waiting for 6 to mature. I applaud the ideas and ambition of Civ5 which implemented about 7 of my top-10 wishes for the game, and I don't begrudge giving Firaxis my money at all, esp considering the value I got and get from Civ4.

For the same reason I will definitely buy Civ6 at some point. That point will be when this forum convinces me that I will get a decent ROI for my time. I don't want to experience the Civ5 let-down again, which may have biased me against a game which many clearly now rate very highly. The UI issues are my biggest concern, I'm just not interested in a chore. I want to plan a strategy, see it move along, adjust strategy to exploit developments, and move along again. Not the click-click-click... someone bemoaned earlier.

Reading a few threads, I'm quite hopeful that 6 will in time be a game to rival 4. Not so much in content, looks like 6 could easily surpass 4 in that respect, but in becoming a similarly enjoyable overall playing experience

I do not play to win anymore. Its about the struggle and journey.
...
spam about 20 quick games to get a decent layout to invest 10-20 hours of my time

That's pretty much my situation too. I've been playing Civ4 for over 10 years, and it's easily 5 years since I finished a game. The late game is relatively uninteresting, and I customize my setup to extend the interesting play [exploration, discovery, expansion, development] to late mid-game.

The metacritic of 90% is still a joke and proofs only one thing: don't listen to the press anymore.

Yep, lesson learned from Civ5 launch. Of course, I had learned that lesson earlier too, eg Command & Conquer / Red Alert 3-4, and Far Cry 2--so I'm a slow learner.

If you buy a blender, and on setting 5 it randomly starts stopping and starting, you can have every expectation of being able to return it or get it fixed within a reasonable time (weeks) by the manufacturer. If the same applied to computer games

I worked for 2 companies, one of which made blenders, the other computer hardware and software. So I can reliably inform you that 'the same' cannot apply to computer games. A million blenders ship, it's simple to take back 1,000 faulty and diagnose and fix the very limited number of possible problems.

If blenders were 'the same' as computer games, the repair shop would have to consider:
What is the wiring and layout of the user's kitchen?
What is the wiring and layout of kitchens where this problem doesn't happen?
What other appliances are being used in the user's kitchen?
What other appliances are being used in kitchens where this problem doesn't happen?
What is different about this user/kitchen/appliances combo, since many others report happy blending?
And so on.

Blender company would have to wait for a statistically significant number of each kind of failure, and then do a lot of analysis and digging to determine the root causes and what needed fixing or changing. The good news for us is Firaxis have a very good record of doing exactly that over repeated patches and expansions.

CPU manufacturers somehow magically manage to deliver a pretty much fault-free product almost every time.

No, they don't. What happens is they separate the chips into good-okay-poor grades, and sell the latter two for different less-demanding uses. Simple example: A 6-core CPU with 1-2 bad cores sells as a 4-core chip. Some chip batches have to be entirely dumped [that's hundreds of chips], and while yield rates are a trade secret, my guess is around 25-30% manufacturing failure rate over the life of a chip [higher early on, lower towards end].

You're probably thinking of the final retail CPU. There's nothing magical going on there, all the bad chips have been weeded out by an established hugely expensive testing regime before shipping from the factory. CPUs go into a known environment, the details of which are specced out the wazoo, so very low failure rates after shipment are to be expected.

It also doesn't hurt that chip plants cost billions of dollars to build and equip, and have large ongoing operations budgets. If Firaxis had a multi-billion budget for Civ6 engine and game design, plus an Intel-level ongoing expenses budget, they'd have a much bigger chance of delivering a polished product out the gate. Even then, they would still have no control over the environment [device config] where their product is installed.

It's more likely about market forces
...
if the devs can't handle the complexity of the product they themselves create, they should create a less complex product.

Agree on the market forces, Firaxis is owned by a public company, which means it's all a money game at the top level. So I expect there was a non-negotiable directive to ship in time for the holiday shopping period.

On the complexity, if a very successful company ~50 times the size of Firaxis' top-level owner thinks it's a good idea to forge ahead with a 25-30% product failure rate caused by complexity, why should other companies steer clear of the cutting edge?

 

[Gidoloi]

I think I've finished (Won) maybe half a dozen games since Civ1 on the Amiga, it's the journey. I'm considering my involvement with Civ6 at the moment a practice run for when the real game comes out via Patches or Mods. In a way it stresses me out and feels more like a real time strategy game in some ways. All the improvements previous posters have mentioned need doing, in the meantime I'm going back to the pièce de résistance, Civ 4 Neoteric worlds.

 

[jekke]

Sorry, but this makes no sense at all. First of all,

Face it: most of those complaining about the game not being in a perfect state
at release only have themselves to blame.

I don't think people are complaining that the game is not perfect. Many of them are complaining that the game is in much worse shape than damned civ V.

I score it:
Realists 1, Naive Head-in-the-Clouds-dreamers 0.

ProTip: Next time, wait until after the patches and bug-fixes are in before
buying a game. Any game.

I, for what it's worth, don't think I qualify as a naive stupid dreamer: I suspected it would be bad, and I did not buy the game. But my score in your book is still 0.0 because I can't buy a good game, despite being more than willing to pay for it.
You see, it's not a competition for shouting out "I told ya! I told ya!", it's about getting a good final product or not getting it. We have been promised good stuff -> there is no good stuff -> we complain.

As a final remark, I have been playing since Civ II so I suppose that's old-timer enough for this thread.

 

[Atzar]

I started with Civ II, so I suppose I'm a vet at this point.

I believe that VI has the potential to be the best game in the franchise. Most of the new systems, in theory, are terrific ideas that will make for a very fun, dynamic game. Civ flavors, AI agendas, districts, builders, traders, barbarians, the casus belli system, the amenity/housing system, the dual science/civic trees, governments; I think all of these are great ideas. I have high hopes for this game when they smooth out all of these systems into a cohesive, reasonably well-balanced experience. And I do think this is a question of 'when', not 'if'; previous iterations of Civ have established the precedent that the game is flawed upon release but becomes great over the post-release development cycle.

I also think it's full of bugs, oversights and balance issues that make me seriously question the amount of effort they put into playtesting their product. I wonder how they never caught some of the exploits, like the relic faith calculation error, the Scythian horse spam, or the fact that a little bit of fiddling with trade proposals can convince the AI to give you its ass and then thank you for your generosity. There are plenty of examples of odd AI behavior in addition to the aforementioned trade proposal exploit: forward settling on you (frequently in nonsensical locations) and then accusing you of massing troops on its borders; bipolar behavior that commonly appears to be a result of clashes between the AI's multiple agendas; declaring unwinnable wars against far superior opposition; agendas that don't appear to be flavor so much as an arbitrary system of rewards and punishments. There are some silly UI omissions, like the lack of a Restart game button and the lack of a "Play Last Game" button on the main screen (or at least a way to set my own defaults without having to dig in the LUA). There are some areas where the game lacks clarity, like border expansion, district cost, and AI trade logic - I still have no idea what my luxuries and agreements are actually worth. This isn't even touching the mountain of balance issues that will likely require a year or more of consistent patching to mend to a reasonable degree.

The good news is that all of this stuff is fixable - none of it is indicative of a fundamentally broken design IMO. So I'm looking forward to seeing the game evolve.

 

[Francis Xavier]

Member Boba Fett? Oooh Oooh I Member!

 

[bdemz]

I still cannot believe we compare this game to the 5 year old CIV V. Stop with the excuses...this game should not have been released....not playable,,,,not fun

 

[Sogno di Volare]

I still cannot believe we compare this game to the 5 year old CIV V. Stop with the excuses...this game should not have been released....not playable,,,,not fun

Good news, no excuses needed. It is fun.

 

[PendragonWRB]

I am 50+ and have been playing Civ seemingly forever. Thousands of hours logged on V and I was completely enjoying it still a week before the launch. With a balance mod the game was interesting and fun from start to finish and the Enhanced UI mod totally spoiled me.

There are plenty of well documented UI and polish issues with VI and I can deal with them as long as they are patched pretty soon. I like the depth of the new systems but they certainly need some balancing. What concerns me is I am just not having much fun. I played a Prince Standard Small to learn the game and thoroughly dominated the pathetic AI. It took forever however to finish as I wanted to get a religious victory out of the way, but accidentally won with culture first. I went back to my normal Quick mode and played a game on King. This game also seemed to drag on forever, and I did manage to get a Religious victory, but never again. So boring purchasing and moving all those Apostles, and this was only a small map.

With only those two games to speak from, it seems like Wide is the ONLY way to win this game and we no longer have the luxury of puppeting captured cities. Resources are spread REALLY thin and always seemingly a continent away. The game forces you to manage far more cities and city management is now much more involved. Movement is so slow and your empire is so large it seems you are forced to maintain many armies to prevent having to slog back and forth across the world.

I want to be 'enthralled' by the game, wanting to play just one more turn, but my first two games seemed more like work. I was hoping the higher levels would change that, but my first Emperor game was a rage quit when after fending off the Scythian neighbor I had forward settled on, my buddies from Russia showed up unannounced with a horde of units at my capitol. My second game I started last night, Japan forward settled me, TWICE, and now has four cities (that I can see anyway) and it's only a matter of time before his horde shows up.

The barbarians have been boosted significantly, which is great, but dealing with them seems to take all my focus and spread my units all over. Emperor feels more like Deity so far in the early stages as the AI's bonuses are off the chart. I am afraid if I learn to survive the first 50 turns or so I am going to steamroll them as the AI seems more like a dead or near dead fish just flopping around once the game gets going.

I am concerned these more serious issues will not be addressed by the first patch.

 

[Sogno di Volare]

I am 50+ and have been playing Civ seemingly forever. Thousands of hours logged on V and I was completely enjoying it still a week before the launch. With a balance mod the game was interesting and fun from start to finish and the Enhanced UI mod totally spoiled me.

There are plenty of well documented UI and polish issues with VI and I can deal with them as long as they are patched pretty soon. I like the depth of the new systems but they certainly need some balancing. What concerns me is I am just not having much fun. I played a Prince Standard Small to learn the game and thoroughly dominated the pathetic AI. It took forever however to finish as I wanted to get a religious victory out of the way, but accidentally won with culture first. I went back to my normal Quick mode and played a game on King. This game also seemed to drag on forever, and I did manage to get a Religious victory, but never again. So boring purchasing and moving all those Apostles, and this was only a small map.

With only those two games to speak from, it seems like Wide is the ONLY way to win this game and we no longer have the luxury of puppeting captured cities. Resources are spread REALLY thin and always seemingly a continent away. The game forces you to manage far more cities and city management is now much more involved. Movement is so slow and your empire is so large it seems you are forced to maintain many armies to prevent having to slog back and forth across the world.

I want to be 'enthralled' by the game, wanting to play just one more turn, but my first two games seemed more like work. I was hoping the higher levels would change that, but my first Emperor game was a rage quit when after fending off the Scythian neighbor I had forward settled on, my buddies from Russia showed up unannounced with a horde of units at my capitol. My second game I started last night, Japan forward settled me, TWICE, and now has four cities (that I can see anyway) and it's only a matter of time before his horde shows up.

The barbarians have been boosted significantly, which is great, but dealing with them seems to take all my focus and spread my units all over. Emperor feels more like Deity so far in the early stages as the AI's bonuses are off the chart. I am afraid if I learn to survive the first 50 turns or so I am going to steamroll them as the AI seems more like a dead or near dead fish just flopping around once the game gets going.

I am concerned these more serious issues will not be addressed by the first patch.

I think getting used to a new system is a lot of work... particularly when we're all so comfortable knowing the old system.

I'm fairly sure most things won't get fixed with one patch. Civ patches haven't really done that. It takes several rounds of shotgun patches.

 

[Ferocitus]

I see now, you agree with me. Pro tip: Next time just say "I agree" and keep the conversation about the game (i.e. on topic) and not about the players/consumers (i.e. off topic).

Nah. Because if the topic includes "complaints" about the new version, then the players/consumers making them, and their possibly unrealistic expectations are fair game.

 

[Cornelius Scipio]

Hail to all Civ vets.
Alas, I myself am over 50 and a vet Civ player (from n. 1), which means that my youth is gone and a lot of it vanished while I was playing some Civ title, so I think I'm entitled to write here.
I do not like this game for the many new useless features, not for beacuse it is faulty. I am mad beacuse it is faulty and they made me pay a full price, but that is a different issue. A good issue, though, because I do not understand the ones who say that is normal to have a faulty software when you buy it, normal to wait months to have it fixed. Sorry, this I cannot accept. I can understand, as I understand the greed for money, not accept.
Anyway I do not want to repeat mayself and say why I personally dislike Civ VI (I already did it here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/not-the-same-old-game-worse.603642/page-2).
What I'd like to ask to fellow vets is:do you like the new features? do they add depth and new perspective? Is the overall gaming experience up to your expectations? And if not, do you think they could be fixed or ameliorated? Namely:
- Do you like the idea of districts?
- Do you agree with the new disposal-builders (like disposable razors, use'em a couple of time and throw'em)?
- In your opinion, the fact that you cannot build roads, makes sense?
- Do you appreciate the new movement mechanics? Very slow, no railways ever and almost impossible to move units by air?
- What of the infinite use of just one strategic resource?
- Agree with the removal of diplomatic victory?
- Support units?
- Wonders, are any of them worth the price and the time (and the lost tile too)?
- Raging barbarians?
- Schizofrenic AI (one turn denouncing you and the other begging for gifts)?
- Envoy system with city states?
- Double research tree, do you appreciate the need to conduct two parallel researches?
- Policies?

Well, at the moment I can't think of other possible questions, also because I stopped palying and shelved Civ VI after a couple of games and a boring space victory.

Thanks in advance for the replies.

 

[narmox]

Hail to all Civ vets.

Thanks for your balanced post, Cornelius. It's tiring to see multiple threads with the same arguments rehashed over and over again. While that's happening, I'm playing (or working).

I myself am a vet, not 50 yet, but have been playing Civ since the early 90s with Civ1. I used to smuggle it on floppies to high school and play after class. Used hacked versions that allowed multiplayer, and welcomed Civ2 and all following editions. Haven't played BE though.

- Do you like the idea of districts?

I love it. It's a first attempt at the idea, and I wonder how it'll evolve in Civ7 I like that the map gets more than just farms/cottages/mines/etc now, and that you need to protect them and place them with more thought. Adds to the idea of specializing cities.

- Do you agree with the new disposal-builders (like disposable razors, use'em a couple of time and throw'em)?

I'm used to them by now. I sure miss my automated builders, but I also like that, as the devs said, now I need to think about what I'm using them for. And that they don't clutter my map or randomly wake up when they're supposed to be automated, or step on each other's feet when trying to build roads. They're the least of my worries about the game, really. Though I'll say I like now that the map evolves more organically as needed rather than just spamming all the needed improvements as early as possible!

- In your opinion, the fact that you cannot build roads, makes sense?

The only better system in my opinion was the Public Works in Call to Power. But I do like the idea that trade build roads, and that we now end up having roads between nations!! Looks more realistic, and brings back notions of the silk road/etc. It'd be nice to have more control over them beyond the Military Engineers' 2 charges though...

- Do you appreciate the new movement mechanics? Very slow, no railways ever and almost impossible to move units by air?

I get tripped up a few times, but they make sense. They make the map matter more in terms of positioning. I miss my super fast railroads, and yeah airlifting units is now harder to achieve due to the requirements (late game aerodrome build time + hangair and airport build time). I haven't tried, but if it's not possible I'd like to see if airlifting to/from _airstrips_ would work out.

- What of the infinite use of just one strategic resource?

I'm fine with that, I always hated being limited in how many units I could build based on arbitrary resources. The only real issue is the gaps in the unit upgrade paths and the AI's handling of it.

- Agree with the removal of diplomatic victory?

You mean the economic victory? (The "who can afford paying CS constantly to keep them under control" victory)

Its replacement, the religious victory, sounds interesting but so far it has been tedious to achieve so I have yet to do so.

- Support units?

My civ5 habits not yet broken, I keep bringing bombard/ranged units instead.. But I like the concept overall. We need more modern ones though, not just siege tower + battering ram lasting all game haha

- Wonders, are any of them worth the price and the time (and the lost tile too)?

Wonders are now situational, and I love that! They give interesting bonuses, and especially the ones giving extra policy slots are useful. They are an investment for a long-term advantage, and they are beautiful...

- Raging barbarians?

Loving them, I always played with Raging barbs in previous editions.

- Schizofrenic AI (one turn denouncing you and the other begging for gifts)?

I've barely encountered these behaviours from the AIs. So far they mostly make sense to me. Then again that behaviour happens in real life too, lately the pacific asian countries keep denouncing each other yet still trading heavily with each other.

- Envoy system with city states?

Much more predictable than the economic version in Civ5. I somehow wish I could withdraw envoys, but that would probably be too easily exploitable. It's just enough management that I pay attention to it, and that unless I'm in a really good position, I have to carefully choose my CS allies and focus on them, rather than just buy all of them mindlessly "just because"

- Double research tree, do you appreciate the need to conduct two parallel researches?

Yes!! It makes me think about balancing my science and my culture all the time, which means I rarely end up in the situation where I develop space techs but it takes 200 turns to get a space victory. I like a balanced, interesting empire... I like that there's a clear distinction between the two concepts yet they are very similar. I hope they can flesh them out more and make them more interesting in the modern age, too.

- Policies?

The best of Civ4's civics + Civ5's policies? I'm all into it! Now you aren't stuck in a single path, you aren't stuck with changing governments all the time to fit your agenda. You have policies with are about immediate/medium term agendas, governments which are about long-term bonuses and ideology (yes the AIs do care about your govt, which replaces the ideology from civ5, a little bit). So not everyone with the same govt has the same abilities (civ1-3), not everyone has the same amount of policies in place (civ4), not everyone is forced down the same optimal path of policies (civ5). It's fluid, I so far have found a use for nearly every policy depending on goals I was pursuing, despite having my go-to favourites.

Whew.

My gripes are mostly about UI/UX and AI issues.

 

[Bad_Viceroy]

Thanks for your balanced post, Cornelius. It's tiring to see multiple threads with the same arguments rehashed over and over again. While that's happening, I'm playing (or working).

I myself am a vet, not 50 yet, but have been playing Civ since the early 90s with Civ1. I used to smuggle it on floppies to high school and play after class. Used hacked versions that allowed multiplayer, and welcomed Civ2 and all following editions. Haven't played BE though.



I love it. It's a first attempt at the idea, and I wonder how it'll evolve in Civ7 I like that the map gets more than just farms/cottages/mines/etc now, and that you need to protect them and place them with more thought. Adds to the idea of specializing cities.



I'm used to them by now. I sure miss my automated builders, but I also like that, as the devs said, now I need to think about what I'm using them for. And that they don't clutter my map or randomly wake up when they're supposed to be automated, or step on each other's feet when trying to build roads. They're the least of my worries about the game, really. Though I'll say I like now that the map evolves more organically as needed rather than just spamming all the needed improvements as early as possible!



The only better system in my opinion was the Public Works in Call to Power. But I do like the idea that trade build roads, and that we now end up having roads between nations!! Looks more realistic, and brings back notions of the silk road/etc. It'd be nice to have more control over them beyond the Military Engineers' 2 charges though...



I get tripped up a few times, but they make sense. They make the map matter more in terms of positioning. I miss my super fast railroads, and yeah airlifting units is now harder to achieve due to the requirements (late game aerodrome build time + hangair and airport build time). I haven't tried, but if it's not possible I'd like to see if airlifting to/from _airstrips_ would work out.



I'm fine with that, I always hated being limited in how many units I could build based on arbitrary resources. The only real issue is the gaps in the unit upgrade paths and the AI's handling of it.



You mean the economic victory? (The "who can afford paying CS constantly to keep them under control" victory)

Its replacement, the religious victory, sounds interesting but so far it has been tedious to achieve so I have yet to do so.



My civ5 habits not yet broken, I keep bringing bombard/ranged units instead.. But I like the concept overall. We need more modern ones though, not just siege tower + battering ram lasting all game haha



Wonders are now situational, and I love that! They give interesting bonuses, and especially the ones giving extra policy slots are useful. They are an investment for a long-term advantage, and they are beautiful...



Loving them, I always played with Raging barbs in previous editions.



I've barely encountered these behaviours from the AIs. So far they mostly make sense to me. Then again that behaviour happens in real life too, lately the pacific asian countries keep denouncing each other yet still trading heavily with each other.



Much more predictable than the economic version in Civ5. I somehow wish I could withdraw envoys, but that would probably be too easily exploitable. It's just enough management that I pay attention to it, and that unless I'm in a really good position, I have to carefully choose my CS allies and focus on them, rather than just buy all of them mindlessly "just because"



Yes!! It makes me think about balancing my science and my culture all the time, which means I rarely end up in the situation where I develop space techs but it takes 200 turns to get a space victory. I like a balanced, interesting empire... I like that there's a clear distinction between the two concepts yet they are very similar. I hope they can flesh them out more and make them more interesting in the modern age, too.



The best of Civ4's civics + Civ5's policies? I'm all into it! Now you aren't stuck in a single path, you aren't stuck with changing governments all the time to fit your agenda. You have policies with are about immediate/medium term agendas, governments which are about long-term bonuses and ideology (yes the AIs do care about your govt, which replaces the ideology from civ5, a little bit). So not everyone with the same govt has the same abilities (civ1-3), not everyone has the same amount of policies in place (civ4), not everyone is forced down the same optimal path of policies (civ5). It's fluid, I so far have found a use for nearly every policy depending on goals I was pursuing, despite having my go-to favourites.

Whew.

My gripes are mostly about UI/UX and AI issues.

Fantastic summation of the positives

 

[pod123]

Hey, I'll briefly share my impressions if they matter. I'm not an addict to the whole Civ series, just played 1 and 2 quite a lot, and spent about 3 years overhauling Civ5. And of course have decent experience in other strategic games.

I've played just a single game in Civ6 (epic speed, small map, 4 civs, normal difficulty), and stopped after building the first plane. Just got bored and clearly realised how incomplete the game is. Beginning of the game was quite fun btw.

So I'll give my answers to the list, assume I have no opinion or indifferent with topics that are not mentioned:

- Do you like the idea of districts?

probably yes, but it feels like something is still has to be tweaked. At least it is something new and it does not ruin the game, so why not.

- What of the infinite use of just one strategic resource?

probably fine with it. But I expected there will be lategame buildings/units that require 2 or 3 certain resource to be built (apparently it does not work this way). Like modern ships require 2 iron. Not sure if the idea is implementable though.

- Wonders, are any of them worth the price and the time (and the lost tile too)?

yes I have a feeling wonders have lost some value, and I don't think it's good. Not sure what can be done about that.

- Schizofrenic AI (one turn denouncing you and the other begging for gifts)?

the AI is awful, but I think something can be fixed.

- Envoy system with city states?

not sure, but in the second half of the game was annoyed by reminders to allocate envoys, they were constantly popping up. The UI is awkward.

- Double research tree, do you appreciate the need to conduct two parallel researches?

I don't like it, I think the main thing is those researches have to look differently.

- Policies?

a heap of those cards look like a mess, and many of them are not attractive enough. Maybe it's just a balance issue, not sure.

 

[Ferocitus]

I don't think people are complaining that the game is not perfect.

Some hyper-perfectionists in other threads have.
They want that games not be released until they are bug free. Of course, they're also not willing to pay 100 times more.

I, for what it's worth, don't think I qualify as a naive stupid dreamer: I suspected it would be bad, and I did not buy the game. But my score in your book is still 0.0 because I can't buy a good game...

No, you got that completely wrong.
You did the "research" and thought about the risk, knowing what you're willing to put up with, and you chose not to buy the game yet. That sounds perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. Have 2.0 points!

... despite being more than willing to pay for it.

In effect, you aren't willing to pay for it, in its present state. That's your informed judgement.
If you do decide to get it later, it will likely be in a much better state, more in line with you think is "value for money" .

You see, it's not a competition for shouting out "I told ya! I told ya!", it's about getting a good final product or not getting it. We have been promised good stuff -> there is no good stuff -> we complain.

As a rough estimate (and I'm happy to be corrected) there are at most 20% who seem to think there is no good stuff. That's a sizeable minority.
It is also just ludicrous hyperbole, along with the predictions by clairvoyants announcing the doom of the franchise after less than a week.
In any case, they should have held off buying, following your sterling example. It's not as if the far worse state of Civ5 at release was top secret.

 

[Divi Filus]

Interesting to find this thread, myself playing since initial release of Civ1 on a 386, been eons since I posted anything here, but still read frequently.
So far I have quit every Civ 6 game in the Information Age... frankly because I am bored, Civ 1-5 never did that, I don't know why...

 

[Quasar1011]

No sentry, no early roads, no railroads, can't rename cities; builders used up quickly. Civ is going downhill; 2-4 were awesome, 5 was a major step backwards.