Well speed-freak, the truth finally comes out. A good reason to ignore someone, IMO. Perhaps you could get a replacement for yourself on polycast and save us all (including yourself, seemingly) from your misery.
It's not like I want it to be bad, and it's not like said "truth" has been a secret. I have held Firaxis in lower regard since civ 5 came out. After 3 patches in civ 6, I don't have much respect left for their practices.
I don't play it much because of its pre-release quality, but it's not a state I want it to be in. I consider both Firaxis and the market responsible that it's in such a poor release state. Firaxis won't hold itself to competent standards, and it appears the market won't either.
So...anything contribute to this discussion? Perhaps addressing the points I made about why this game is bad?
I also didn't care whether the UI was "completely competent" because I had every expectation that
the game and all of its components would be developed over at least a year or more. IMO it was
Ok and the game was very enjoyable.
Yes, this is the stance I was referring to that contributes on the consumer side to plummeting the quality of the product. I can't only blame the consumers here, because there are many companies that manage a passing semblance of a finished software product on release day, but it's not helping.
Hahahaha. Civ5 was an absolutely hopeless mess on release. It became the best of the series in a
couple of years after a lot of development, and I expected the same pattern for Civ 6.
On the final day of civ 5 before civ 6 was released, it still lacks basic UI conventions from TBS genre games over 20 years old, still lacks basic conventions earlier titles in the same series has, and still has broken unit cycling (IE the same problem 6 has, where you will move a different unit than you selected sometimes). It is still poorly optimized with long turn times, to the point where advertising "recommended" specs on a huge map is a complete joke.
I was hopeful for a better pattern to emerge, but it would be wrong to say I was "expecting" it, given how civ 5 and BE were handled.
So after three patches do we have functional unit cycling? Nope. Guess what we do have though? DLC. The case that we should "expect" this to become a good game over time when the developers flagrantly disregarded gameplay basics such as the controls and opponents isn't logical.
"Pre-alpha quality" is just hyperbolic claptrap.
No. It is not. Instead of civ 6, I have played Rimworld over the past month+. Rimworld is an alpha game. By any objective standard you could use to evaluate UI quality (#inputs to do basic tasks, clarity of rules in-game, accessibility of information quickly, etc), Rimworld is superior to civ 6. In civ 6, I can issue an order to attack, with a damage bar displayed, only to witness the unit move and not attack at all. I can hit "next turn" and not advance to the next turn. I can look for an in-game way to determine how much WW an action will give me, and not find it despite being a gameplay rule.
But in Rimworld, an alpha title still in development, the units move in a consistent fashion with the display. Every time. Civ 6's controls really are that pathetic and there is no objective framework you can use to claim that "unit does action different from UI displays" is functional in a strategy game.
Maybe you should back off from accusing others of "white-knighting" when you clearly don't understand
the market for the game, or the mindset of those who want every development and feature as soon as
possible.
Care to point out where I accused anybody of being a white knight? Contributing to a doormat market and "white knighting" (at least as I understand that term) are different things. As far as I can tell, this is a strawman...white-knighting wouldn't be a working complaint here, the scope of this argument is different.
Why should your unreasonable expectations of release quality stop me or anyone else from buying the game
when we know it will be buggy, and probably quite unlike what it will be like in 2 years from release?
I can state my case the same as anybody else, and I can do it without name-calling others or claiming what they're doing is "tedious", even if you are dodging the measurable state of the UI an awful lot. It's not okay, and I'm not okay that many consumers are okay with it. I can only do so much, but pointing out that this game has junk turn times and a trash UI that contributes needlessly to longer turn times is pretty on-point with a thread complaining about turn times, especially knowing that other games handle both significantly better.
The self-appointed consumer paladin schtick is tedious. Complain all you like to 2K and Firaxis, but don't delude
yourself into believing that you are representing my interests (or those of many other hopeless Civ addicts).
Don't worry, I have no intention of "representing your interests". I've been actively rejecting the decision process that led to some of them for a while now after all, with points that have largely gone ignored in favor of trying to make me look less credible. I'll pass on representing THAT
.
