When, if at all, will you purchase Civ VII based on what you have seen so far?

[ColtSeavers]

I assume to him it's more so question of how, to what extent and when. EA will mandate that you explore in specific way (colonies to extract Treasure Fleets from rather than just finding goodie huts) to specific extent (overwhelming enough that you can collect victory points from it) and at specific time. But thats just my interpretation.

Correct, that's exactly what I mean!

 

[pokiehl]

I am being misrepresented here though. They haven't said anything about the AI being better. They have said what they have done to try, and as I said, trying is not evidence of success.

This is an internet forum, not an academic journal. I know what I mean and I do my best to convey it. That I don't always succeed in conveying my meaning exactly to everyones suitable understanding doesn't mean I'm twisting my argument or lying or misrepresenting things, it can just mean I have a life outside of the forum and post quickly to get a point across

End of the day, I'm not satisfied from what's been said so far that there has been improvement, and I don't know how anyone could be as we have not had any evidence of improvement. Only token indications of some effort being spent. I'm am deeply cynical of anyone trying to sell me anything, so I don't take that as evidence of anything. This is the English common law approach to standards of evidence if you like

For me personally that's not a dealbrsaker though. I've never been concerned about the AI. I'm just chipping in on what evidence we have about AI - and making a point about a weighted probability from absence of evidence

My own guess for Civ 7 is that the AI probably won't be that much better than what we got in Civ 6, so I'm not taking issue with the conclusion.

I don't think anything you've said is being misrepresented. You're "deeply cynical of anyone trying to sell you anything" but your entire point was that they're not using the AI as a selling point so it must be bad; when it was pointed out they are, you dismissed that, and you dismissed it not on the substance of what they said, but by casting doubt into listening to what they have to say at all. I'm not twisting your words or being pedantic and nitpicky with semantics; what you wrote was all pretty straightforward English I think.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

My own guess for Civ 7 is that the AI probably won't be that much better than what we got in Civ 6, so I'm not taking issue with the conclusion.

I don't think anything you've said is being misrepresented. You're "deeply cynical of anyone trying to sell you anything" but your entire point was that they're not using the AI as a selling point so it must be bad; when it was pointed out they are, you dismissed that, and you dismissed it not on the substance of what they said, but by casting doubt into listening to what they have to say at all. I'm not twisting your words or being pedantic and nitpicky with semantics; what you wrote was all pretty straightforward English I think.

You are insisting you know my own point better than I do, and you keep missing the quality aspect, so you are misrepresenting what I say by misunderstanding me and arguing against a position I haven't taken. I understand how you got that from what I posted, by the context of my post about AI was the what they've said about it's quality. You've extrapolated that to be that I meant they haven't said anything about it, understandably from what I originally posted, but you are now nitpicking by holding me to that original misunderstanding of my words.

 

[Sherlock]

Denuvo is a hard line. If CivII has it I will not buy until it's removed. If it's never removed I'll never buy. I have lots of games to play.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

I still don't like having to get a 2k acct either.

Really? That's a non-starter.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Really? That's a non-starter.

I'm pretty sure it's non-mandatory, because Napoleon is a bonus for getting one.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

The 2k acct, it says is req, but it's odd.

"Requires 3rd-Party Account: 2K Account for Online Interactions (Not Required for Offline Play) (Supports Linking to Steam Account)"

 

[pokiehl]

The 2K account is required for online multiplayer only. They also use the 2K account link to grant free bonuses to players, like Napoleon. If you exclusively play single player and you don't care about the freebies, then you don't need to care.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The 2k acct, it says is req, but it's odd.

"Requires 3rd-Party Account: 2K Account for Online Interactions (Not Required for Offline Play) (Supports Linking to Steam Account)"

@FXS_Sar explained this before. You only need the 2K account to do online stuff like multiplayer. You don't need to be online for singleplayer.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

@FXS_Sar explained this before. You only need the 2K account to do online stuff like multiplayer. You don't need to be online for singleplayer.

Needing a 2k acct to do MP is stupid for Civ, so NO!

 

[fantsu]

Firaxis is handling ports themselves this time.

It seems that Firaxis is working with Behaviour Interactive with the ports. Still a good chance that the port is much better than with Aspyr. I might bite.

How Nintendo Switch has changed Firaxis' approach to making Civilization

Firaxis was not prepared for the success of Civilization 6 on Nintendo Switch.

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[Citron]

It seems that Firaxis is working with Behaviour Interactive with the ports. Still a good chance that the port is much better than with Aspyr. I might bite.

How Nintendo Switch has changed Firaxis' approach to making Civilization

Firaxis was not prepared for the success of Civilization 6 on Nintendo Switch.

www.gamesindustry.biz

So no immortals not being able to use their melee attack this time?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Needing a 2k acct to do MP is stupid for Civ, so NO!

Agreed, consumers perspective all that's needed is the connection. It's always a more difficult experience when there's layers of log in, and they are almost always poorly designed and break experiences. Looking at you Microsoft.

 

[Kyriakos]

I only recently played CIV6 (for a couple of hours).
Maybe the Civ series is slowly marching to its death? Though I am certainly not the intended audience, given the last Civ title I spent hundreds of hours playing was... CivIII.

 

[Sagax]

I only recently played CIV6 (for a couple of hours).
Maybe the Civ series is slowly marching to its death? Though I am certainly not the intended audience, given the last Civ title I spent hundreds of hours playing was... CivIII.

If the number of sold copies is any indication - no, not even close. For a franchise to march to its death, it needs to start that trajectory to begin with. Could happen with Civ 7 - the odds are never zero - but at present it would be just wild speculation with no supporting evidence.

 

[Disgustipated]

For those opposed to civ switching, do you want the game to remain the same forever? Yes it's gamey, but so was Civ 6 mechanics like the adjacency bonus. It was ridiculous putting universities next to mountains, but we all did it.

 

[Sherlock]

I only recently played CIV6 (for a couple of hours).
Maybe the Civ series is slowly marching to its death? Though I am certainly not the intended audience, given the last Civ title I spent hundreds of hours playing was... CivIII.

I spent 1100 hours on CiV and 200 hours on CiVI. And CivII is probably not on my list.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

1: Scenarios at launch included. Quality and scope.
2: Difficulty settings and balance. Deity should be next to impossible to win and Sumeria or Babylon should not have Airplanes by 400BC...
3: AI ability to build up defences, to develop different strategies, like world domination, and then accomplish them...
4: Different playstyles. I don't want to be forced to build a civ with just four cities. I don't want to be forced to do any diplomacy if I don't want to.
5: Price and Mac performance.
6: How many turns it takes for a city to build units. 30 turns to build a settler in any city is ok. 5 turns for a warrior is ok. 300 turns for a settler is not ok.
7: City limits and scenarios: a TSL Earth map with 300 cities will do. 30 civs and 10 cities per civ. Then we know the game can put up with older versions at least.

 

[ColtSeavers]

For those opposed to civ switching, do you want the game to remain the same forever?

I guess that is a rhetorical question?

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

On one hand I'm really hyped about the game and like the absolute majority of what I'm seeing. On the other, I despise the predatory DLC policy and the fact that we do not have an option to pre-order the complete game.

The right thing, would be to wait several years till all the expansions are released and then buy the complete edition. Not sure whether I'll manage to do it. Most realistic scenario that I'll get the base game, and then ignore all the expansions, till the release of the complete edition.