[Vanilla] Under 40% of players have won a game (from Steam global achievements)

[Shawanabad]

I've played countless hours of Civ starting with Civ 1 in the early nineties. I think I didn't even finish a complete game until Civ 5. I've got 2987 hours of Civ 5 on steam. 1251 hours of Civ 6 so far with only 5 completed games. I think there are a lot of casual gamers like me who play a lot, enjoy it immensely, but never finish a game. I've tried different setting, but my sweet spot always seem to be, and I always return to and enjoy playing:
Difficulty: Emperor
Size: Large (10 civs)
Sea Level: High
Type: Continent
Speed: Epic

I usually have a role-playing scenario in mind when setting up a game. For example, a recent one I wanted to recreate the Spanish Empire. So, I pick my AI opponents using my weird internal logic.
Me: Spain

AI opponents:
European rivals: England, France
Stand in for future Habsburg possessions: Frederick Barbarossa
Stand in for Spanish/Portuguese rivalry in the New World: Brazil
Stand in for the Spice Islands/Philippines: Indonesia
Mvemba: stand in for the continent of Africa
America: because of Spanish-America War
Montezuma: The goal is to rename Tenochtitlan to Mexico City as soon as I conquer that city. Other Aztec cities to be renamed Cancun, Playa del Carmen, Veracruz etc. etc.
Arabia: stand in for the Reconquista/Ottomans/Muslims
Japan: because I saw the trailer for the movie "Silence" recently. Haven't actually seen the movie, it's on my Netflix queue, looks depressing. I don't know if they are Spanish Jesuits, they look like it, they probably aren't. But I want to send Spanish missionaries to Japan. So, Japan. It's my game, I can do whatever i want!

So, I play the game until about the end of the Renaissance. Explored the map, met everyone, did some fighting, built up my faith, got Conquistadors, Colosseum, Forbidden City, Venetial Arsenal, so got a solid empire going - now just a matter of slogging thru with conquer or convert. As it gets a bit tedious at this point, I quit. But I had a lot of fun. In this alternate really, Spain is allied with England, has conquered Philadelphia, about to take Boston and New York. Renamed conquered Salvador da Bahia as San Salvador. Philadelphia will probably be renamed San Felipe. And the Aztecs are 10 techs ahead of me, the most advanced civilization in the world.

Then I see an episode of the TV show "Vikings". Okay, gotta create my own Viking game. Quit the Spain game forever, set up a new Norway game, rinse and repeat... and so it goes. Hours of enjoyable game play, with very few completes. Also, I have played 500+ hours of various Total War games, but never finished once!

 

[Uncle_Joe]

To tell you the truth , till rennaisance era its nice to play but after it becomes kinda boring and mediocre , you know where everyone is , no more exploration , settling is no longer matter , and game kinda drags till you get whatever win you want , or worst case by rennaisence its clear who is the winner, its just the formality to finish.

This sums up my experience with Civ6 pretty much since launch. The mid-late game drags and I'm 95% confident I won't get attacked so I can just 'coast'. Whether I win or not depends on how high I cranked the AI's artificial bonuses rather than anything going on in-game.

Each patch I try again and bog down in roughly the same place. Love the early game, but there is no direct competition later in the game (and even early in the game it's often just an exercise in expansion as again, I rarely get DoW'ed).

 

[Forster]

The most exciting play in Civ games is the early exploration, expansion and warfare. From mid-game on it gets tedious, so I suspect many just quit and start another, in a continuous loop. Many do not care about achievements or necessarily playing until the game is won.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The most exciting play in Civ games is the early exploration, expansion and warfare. From mid-game on it gets tedious, so I suspect many just quit and start another, in a continuous loop. Many do not care about achievements or necessarily playing until the game is won.

The game doesn't *have* to become tedious. Firaxis just doesn't care much that it does. Certainly not enough to take time out of their busy DLC/expansion generation to fix basic gameplay interactions into something resembling the quality of well-made 90's/early 2000's titles, let alone something appropriate for a game made recently.

 

[hdbhdbvGFG541]

The game doesn't *have* to become tedious. Firaxis just doesn't care much that it does. Certainly not enough to take time out of their busy DLC/expansion generation to fix basic gameplay interactions into something resembling the quality of well-made 90's/early 2000's titles, let alone something appropriate for a game made recently.

I don't think they have it in them to make anything that isn't tedious.Just look at the live streams,minus Sarah they are devoid of any emotion.
Even if they focused all their attention at fixing the game you would still get something that isn't even 10 percent in terms of quality of games made in the the 90's or early 2000.
All the good designers left or are working on other not 4x games,Like Soren.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think they have it in them to make anything that isn't tedious.Just look at the live streams,minus Sarah they are devoid of any emotion.
Even if they focused all their attention at fixing the game you would still get something that isn't even 10 percent in terms of quality of games made in the the 90's or early 2000.
All the good designers left or are working on other not 4x games,Like Soren.

Basic UI team would go a long way. It's true they might not have the staff on hand for it.

It's sad, because some of the mechanics in civ 6 could, if tuned, offer more variability in optimal choice than civ 4. Policy cards, districts, the alliance mechanic being added, casus belli (if they actually implement a credible version of it ever) are all things that could push the game into "best civ" category if they ever actually make the game work in the first place. How's the unit cycling these days?

Even stuff like emergencies could contribute to ending a game faster, which along with a few thousand (yes, thousand) fewer inputs across a game would do a lot to cut into the tedium and actually allow for a won game without slogging hours through to a known outcome.

Early-mid 90's titles like Warlords 2 and MOO understood this. They took time to make the user interaction with the game less tedious, and to help end games that were runaway/blowouts (surrender/council victories respectively). Civ and Pdox need strong competition other than each other (and even these two make games that don't entirely overlap on genre, competitors but not as direct as possible), since this is a recurring problem for both.

 

[Disgustipated]

Especially if the target civ is Kongo.

By only enabling Religious victory (while disabling all other victory conditions) and disabling all barbs, Deity becomes trivial, even for those who never played a strategy game before, with Kongo as the opponent.

How I got my achievement, but I didn't think to disable barbs, I had barbs on. Barbs on Deity really aren't any tougher than barbs on King though. But I had to fend of barbs and an early attack by Kongo (duel sized map). So it wasn't exactly a cakewalk getting that achievement. In hind sight, choosing a larger map (so they won't attack you early) and barbs off would have been much easier.

 

[DeutschDachs]

How I got my achievement, but I didn't think to disable barbs, I had barbs on. Barbs on Deity really aren't any tougher than barbs on King though. But I had to fend of barbs and an early attack by Kongo (duel sized map). So it wasn't exactly a cakewalk getting that achievement. In hind sight, choosing a larger map (so they won't attack you early) and barbs off would have been much easier.

You can actually get it easier by playing as Rome with Score victory and custom turns set at one. Since they get a monument in their first city, they will be marginally ahead in score after one turn. Easy win for Deity and any map type

 

[God of Kings]

Civ and Pdox need strong competition other than each other (and even these two make games that don't entirely overlap on genre, competitors but not as direct as possible), since this is a recurring problem for both.

Sega's Amplitude Studios say hello.

Unfortunately, that is still not enough.

 

[ryanmusante]

They realize that Civilization VI is still in consumer-forced-beta and quit game and return to the wonderful world of Civilization V: Vox Populi.

 

[Ludvig]

Judging from how I shop for games on steam I wouldn't be surprised if half the people who bought the game barely bothered to install it.

When I started my first few games of civ 6 I wasn't doing very well and restarted several games because by the time the AI had ten cities I had two or so because I tried playing the tradition style that was the easiest in 5 and not having any info about the game except what the ingame tooltip said when I moused over stuff. Gave it up after failing and if I hadn't been a civ fan I would probably have never returned.

After letting it sit for about a year and reading a few threads here I had little trouble beating emperor but most people don't read guides for hours. They want to start a game and blunder through it without losing the first time they play and only use the ingame tips. If that first game frustrates a player there's a good chance a lot of players will never return to it.

 

[Abraxis]

The game doesn't *have* to become tedious. Firaxis just doesn't care much that it does. Certainly not enough to take time out of their busy DLC/expansion generation to fix basic gameplay interactions into something resembling the quality of well-made 90's/early 2000's titles, let alone something appropriate for a game made recently.

This post baffles me. How do you define quality that this is your conclusion? Games were simplistic as hell and AI could be reliably reverse engineered just by playing the game for a little bit, and this was with a dumb brain 30 years younger than our current less-dumb 30 years older brain. There were never any surprises, and the few games where even the taste of emergent game-play or anything unexpect could surface were revered as masterpieces for no other reason.

I think the only objective decline in the industry is the loss of the idea of permanence. Back then, they were making games with the idea that this would be something like chess, a monument of a game that could last generations. Not that people thought that, but rather, they just didn't consider the alternative -how disposable they are. Modern games on the other hand seem to be treated kind of like garbage, disposable, limited life-span, no reason to pour your soul into it -in other words.

That being said, even those few cases where souls were harvested and captured in videogame format successfully, the technology was such that they were still orders of magnitude less complex.

Civ 1 was made in '91 and the gameplay loop was found cities to found more cities until there's not more room for new cities, then conquor cities till no cities. All the other stuff we talk about on this forum all the time, did not exist. I wouldn't call that superior.

I think you're being way too hard on Firaxis, too. They're an excellent studio with a whole lot more integrity than most others, and I don't doubt they sacrifice to keep their product more to our taste than pandering to wider markets. Give this series to EA, for example, and that would be the end of it, bastardized and turned into a scheme to milk as much money from a much wider audience.

Firaxis, on the other hand, has -with a few stumbles- nurtured their ideas successfully and sustainably from iteration to iteration for nearly 30 years.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Civ5 is such a tougher game than Civ6...

Really? I started my first Civ game in V while I always find VI more challenging to me.... Maybe I have just played too much V

 

[seankhan]

the game is boring.im not surprised,4 science districts and game is over by turn 172,all cities conquered.

 

[Ferocitus]

the game is boring.im not surprised,4 science districts and game is over by turn 172,all cities conquered.

Yawn. Come back when you have actually played it. Swanning in and
trolling in your first post is pretty pathetic.

 

[ryanmusante]

Yawn. Come back when you have actually played it. Swanning in and
trolling in your first post is pretty pathetic.

Zinger!

 

[rastak]

This post baffles me. How do you define quality that this is your conclusion? Games were simplistic as hell and AI could be reliably reverse engineered just by playing the game for a little bit, and this was with a dumb brain 30 years younger than our current less-dumb 30 years older brain. There were never any surprises, and the few games where even the taste of emergent game-play or anything unexpect could surface were revered as masterpieces for no other reason.

I think the only objective decline in the industry is the loss of the idea of permanence. Back then, they were making games with the idea that this would be something like chess, a monument of a game that could last generations. Not that people thought that, but rather, they just didn't consider the alternative -how disposable they are. Modern games on the other hand seem to be treated kind of like garbage, disposable, limited life-span, no reason to pour your soul into it -in other words.

That being said, even those few cases where souls were harvested and captured in videogame format successfully, the technology was such that they were still orders of magnitude less complex.

Civ 1 was made in '91 and the gameplay loop was found cities to found more cities until there's not more room for new cities, then conquor cities till no cities. All the other stuff we talk about on this forum all the time, did not exist. I wouldn't call that superior.

I think you're being way too hard on Firaxis, too. They're an excellent studio with a whole lot more integrity than most others, and I don't doubt they sacrifice to keep their product more to our taste than pandering to wider markets. Give this series to EA, for example, and that would be the end of it, bastardized and turned into a scheme to milk as much money from a much wider audience.

Firaxis, on the other hand, has -with a few stumbles- nurtured their ideas successfully and sustainably from iteration to iteration for nearly 30 years.

Well stated. Sometimes people are not happy unless they are unhappy. Games are simply a way to pass leisure time. If a game bothers you far more than you enjoy it/have fun with it why on earth would you spend any amount of time even thinking or writing about it let alone playing it?

I absolutely loved Civ I but it was as you said, a one trick pony. I still boot it up every once in a while. It's fun ( although I admit the nostalgia factors plays in ).

 

[God of Kings]

Well stated. Sometimes people are not happy unless they are unhappy. Games are simply a way to pass leisure time. If a game bothers you far more than you enjoy it/have fun with it why on earth would you spend any amount of time even thinking or writing about it let alone playing it?

I absolutely loved Civ I but it was as you said, a one trick pony. I still boot it up every once in a while. It's fun ( although I admit the nostalgia factors plays in ).

I am a Civ fan, though I do play other games as well, primarily on the Switch.

Video games are also known as entertainment software for a reason. They are first and foremost, entertainment, something to pass time. If any of us don't like a game, there's no one forcing any of us to continue playing.

 

[ryanmusante]

Video games are also known as entertainment software for a reason. They are first and foremost, entertainment, something to pass time. If any of us don't like a game, there's no one forcing any of us to continue playing.

These metrics about 40% or whatever is conjured up don't only pertain to civilization. They are the basic assessment for any game on steam. People buy a game or get something with a pack and play and drop. Few actually finish a game to completion anymore. Same with consoles.

Edit: If you're in the minority and you complete a Civilization game, any version..Be proud, your attention span is long enough to appreciate good strategy.

 

[kb27787]

Really? I started my first Civ game in V while I always find VI more challenging to me.... Maybe I have just played too much V

Same here... CivV so much easier, but that was because of the terrain dependancy of the game... Usually the human eye knows a great city spot (and will wander for 10 turns with their starting settler if need be) whereas the AI settles in place at t1 and has a horrible game. That, and war bribes as well as severe warmonger penalties make aggressive AIs self-destruct so you can get by the whole game without building a single military unit (scouts not included... But they can become archers with ruins)