To all who do not know why CIV6 is great

[kornelm1978]

Reading the forum I have caught finally why the game is great. Unfortunatelly I did not experience it on my own. So to all to understand why the game is great:

- the game is great because it is better than CIV 5 vanila (it doesn't mean that CIV6 is great, good or even medicore)
- the game is great becasue it has potential - wishfull thinking
- the game is great because deadlines by publishers are strict and make the devs to launch the unfinished game with no AI (yes that's really the argument of many)
- the game is great because knowing Firaxis apporach they will be improving it
- the game is great because it has new features which will be working one day (every game has new features by the way, what doesn't make it good)
- the game is great because it has religion and spies and civ5 vanilla didn't have
- the game is great, because we were promised to have full experience at lunch and as we do not have it we need to wait for patches and DLC's, no wories, this is great
- the game is great becasue reviewers says so (many of them were using the false arguments of above to give high marks)

 

[TruthfulCake]

If you replace every instance of "great" with "not bad", I think you will capture the sentiments of most people in this forum that you are satirizing.

Personally, this game is great because I am enjoying it, and will keep on doing so.

 

[Gorbles]

I enjoyed Beyond Earth.

The problem here is enjoyment is subjective. Personal. It isn't working out for you? That's a shame. But it doesn't invalidate the enjoyment others are experiencing, nor can you stop them from enjoying it.

 

[Katakanja]

Personally, I think the game is great because it's fun.

Shouldn't that be the only metric by which we all individually judge the game?

 

[Roller123]

i disagree, Civ5 at release was better than Civ6 and in fact better than fully patched Civ5. Reasons - the AI that actually attacked and expanded, no crippling happiness mechanics, no whack-a-mole religious mechanics.

 

[kornelm1978]

If you replace every instance of "great" with "not bad", I think you will capture the sentiments of most people in this forum that you are satirizing.

Personally, this game is great because I am enjoying it, and will keep on doing so.

Satirizing is very often based on the exaggeration. And I really read forum and there is not to much exaggeration.

Happy, that you like the game. No irony

i disagree, Civ5 at release was better than Civ6 and in fact better than fully patched Civ5. Reasons - the AI that actually attacked and expanded, no crippling happiness mechanics, no whack-a-mole religious mechanics.

I really share your view, I just compiled the arguments of many. I had syndrom of one more turn (in 5) for long time, before I discovered the game needs improving.

Personally, I think the game is great because it's fun.

Shouldn't that be the only metric by which we all individually judge the game?

And that's the argument I cannot beat. I presented those, which are very often reapeted but are just false.

Happy that you enjoy

 

[TruthfulCake]

Satirizing is very often based on the exaggeration. And I really read forum and there is not to much exaggeration.

Happy, that you like the game. No irony

I am reading the forum too. As far as I can see, every point in your OP was made in defense of the game from naysayers who say that it is "doomed" or "worst Civ ever". People cite those reasons to preach the obvious truth it's not doomed and is far from the worst.

If you actually made a thread asking why people think it's a *great* game instead of misrepresenting opinions, maybe you can compile a very different and more accurate list?

 

[kornelm1978]

I enjoyed Beyond Earth.

The problem here is enjoyment is subjective. Personal. It isn't working out for you? That's a shame. But it doesn't invalidate the enjoyment others are experiencing, nor can you stop them from enjoying it.

I am not trying to make you not to enjoy. Obviously the enjoyment is personal thing, I have no right to comment or oppose. But I really see a lot of arguments to defend the game, which are just false.

Happy you enjoy

 

[kornelm1978]

I am reading the forum too. As far as I can see, every point in your OP was made in defense of the game from naysayers who say that it is "doomed" or "worst Civ ever". People cite those reasons to preach the obvious truth it's not doomed and is far from the worst.

If you actually made a thread asking why people think it's a *great* game instead of misrepresenting opinions, maybe you can compile a very different and more accurate list?

Just to keep the logical discussion. We both agree (let me if not), that those arguments presented by me are very often repeated in the forum. Tell me please now, which of them can be logically used to say that the game is good at that moment?

 

[TruthfulCake]

Just to keep the logical discussion. We both agree (let me if not), that those arguments presented by me are very often repeated in the forum. Tell me please now, which of them can be logically used to say that the game is good at that moment?

All of them were used to say that the game is not as horrible as naysayers (like yourself) are saying it is. I doubt people were using it to claim that the game is good?

People can have very different reasons for thinking something is not bad and for thinking something is good. I hope this isn't lost on you.

 

[Cilpot]

Well as others said, the experience is subjective.

I enjoy Civ 6 a lot more than I enjoyed vanilla Civ 5 or Civ 4, and I do compare it to the previous vanilla versions. To me it makes the most sense.

 

[kornelm1978]

Well as others said, the experience is subjective.

I enjoy Civ 6 a lot more than I enjoyed vanilla Civ 5 or Civ 4, and I do compare it to the previous vanilla versions. To me it makes the most sense.

My point on that was to say that being better doesn't mean actually nothing more than being better. It doesn't mean that CIV6 is great, good or even medicore, having that argument only.

 

[kornelm1978]

All of them were used to say that the game is not as horrible as naysayers (like yourself) are saying it is. I doubt people were using it to claim that the game is good?

People can have very different reasons for thinking something is not bad and for thinking something is good. I hope this isn't lost on you.

My judgement on the game seems to be pretty obvious. But it maybe opposite, I can still (in theory) enjoy the game, but I can satirize on the arguments which should not be used in discussion. But I do not enjoy, sadly;(.

I believe none of the arguments above does not defend the game from saying it's bad at this stage (instead of saying it's great, as you wish). Is there any logical? And really I am not satirizing on people who enjoy the game, I am satirizing on some arguments saying why it is good (or why it is not bad).

 

[inthesomeday]

Allow me to offer the other end:

Civ 6 is bad because
- 1 UPT sucks! Bring back stacks of doom and terrible, non-tactical combat mechanics
- If you spend hours actively seeking out bugs in the game you actually FIND them
- There are easy exploits in the game. How did the developers not find these extremely specific exploits? They are GAME BREAKING when I choose to exploit them
- The AI sucks! In my games on prince they don't expand to garbage cities or challenge me on the victory, even though there are harder difficulties
- The AI sucks! In my games on King they attack me early and it ruins the game
- The aesthetic is ugly, and considering Civ 6 is an art-based world exploring game, this ruins the game for me
- The developers and the company are clearly just wanting money. This large corporation with thousands of employees and that works with harsh deadlines to create a whole new game engine because I complained about the last one just wants my money because the game they released was only good and not perfect!
- It's not like the Civ games I like, the best of which is OBVIOUSLY Civ 4 for reasons no one ever mentions, and I'm afraid of change!
- It's just not better from Civ 5 and I hated Civ 5!!! The dozens of new mechanics which completely change the way the game works and enhance gameplay do nothing for me
- The new mechanics are hard to learn!
- The new mechanics make the game too easy!

Both sides of this argument have some tenuous logical points but overall the game has sold very well and has excellent reception on average. On the forums and on the subreddit it's unpopular because people on these media like to complain about the game simply because it's different from the installments before 5, same thing they did with 5 too.

 

[manim]

this is what? forth thread you opened after game lunched to complain about the game two of wich are still in the first page. about your argument the best way to rate a game is to compare it to other games with the same promises so comparing civ 6 vanila to civ5 or civ 4 vanila is a pretty good argument

 

[kornelm1978]

Allow me to offer the other end:

Civ 6 is bad because
- 1 UPT sucks! Bring back stacks of doom and terrible, non-tactical combat mechanics
- If you spend hours actively seeking out bugs in the game you actually FIND them
- There are easy exploits in the game. How did the developers not find these extremely specific exploits? They are GAME BREAKING when I choose to exploit them
- The AI sucks! In my games on prince they don't expand to garbage cities or challenge me on the victory, even though there are harder difficulties
- The AI sucks! In my games on King they attack me early and it ruins the game
- The aesthetic is ugly, and considering Civ 6 is an art-based world exploring game, this ruins the game for me
- The developers and the company are clearly just wanting money. This large corporation with thousands of employees and that works with harsh deadlines to create a whole new game engine because I complained about the last one just wants my money because the game they released was only good and not perfect!
- It's not like the Civ games I like, the best of which is OBVIOUSLY Civ 4 for reasons no one ever mentions, and I'm afraid of change!
- It's just not better from Civ 5 and I hated Civ 5!!! The dozens of new mechanics which completely change the way the game works and enhance gameplay do nothing for me
- The new mechanics are hard to learn!
- The new mechanics make the game too easy!

Both sides of this argument have some tenuous logical points but overall the game has sold very well and has excellent reception on average. On the forums and on the subreddit it's unpopular because people on these media like to complain about the game simply because it's different from the installments before 5, same thing they did with 5 too.

I presented my list to satirize the arguments which are not logical in the discusion. You on the other hand, tried to present the "list of hate" to, I believe, to contrast my list. I agree, the the criticizing sometimes uses the arguments not up to the point as well. But only sometimes, because you can find a lot of valid arguments. Let me choose some of your points which are really points which can be discussed, and weaken your message:

- 1upt can be deffended or citicised (not going to side here, but that is the point in discussing the game).
- bugs can be found easily, there is no need to dig for them
- AI sucks, try to defend
- aestetic is ugly or nice (this is preference which can be criticised or defended)
- CIV 4 can be preffered game, not because the afraid of change

etc.

 

[Nathair]

Shouldn't that be the only metric by which we all individually judge the game?

Hello! Welcome to the internet, I hope you enjoy your first day here!

 

[tobapuw]

I find this game highly interactive and fun to play. I'm so sucked in that I end up in a situation when time flies by and it's just couple of hours devoted to sleep before I need to head to work. Yeah, like most of people on these forums I have spotted some bugs, which may drive someone insane but for me it doesn't ruin overall great experience. So, as someone mentioned before it purely depends on individual tastes. I can and do enjoy CiVI in its' current form and shape.

 

[KidHorn]

I'm not a huge fan of 6. I really liked 5. I understand they have to change things up from version to version, but I think they changed too much. Much of what they changed addressed things that weren't broken IMO. I want to sit back and enjoy. Not struggle figuring out how all the new stuff works. I get that eventually i'll figure it out.

Does every opponent have to insult me every turn? Your pathetic. Your military is weak.

 

[Stringer1313]

You can definitely enjoy the game while severely criticizing it. I am one of those people.