Why is there this strange complaints and negativity?

[Sussemilch]

There is a wide enough market exposure for video games now that there can be groups of people who get negative about a game and it doesn't have any bearing on the game's success. We are all free to enjoy (or not) the entertainment we choose.

 

[Matthew.]

You need to look at the bigger picture. People aren't only claiming worries about dumbing down due to the graphics, but due to the entire industry within recent years. Title after title, franchise after franchise, we've seen it take place. People are certainly correct to be wary from the start.

Whether Civ 6 fits the picture or not is besides the point. It is about perception. When a large part of the gaming community is expecting to get disappointed, then that is what they look for.

 

[Abraxis]

The internet disproportionately attracts rejects to where they feel they can interact freely, shielded from whatever causes their insecurity. Neutrality is not enough though, they need affermation to find balance from rejection. The easiest source is inteligence, being the most difficult to objectively measure. This manifests in comments condemning apparent simplicity with actual depth over apparent complexity with actual simplicity. The former requires understanding to appreciate, while in the later they can just bumble around and succeed anyways, convincing themselves it was due to their greatness -mending that little void in their life.

This is of course a massive generalization, but it's what I've always figured explained this behaviour -which has always been perpetuated over the internet.

 

[Acken]

Not like înternet hate has much to do with a game success. The billion dollars franchises get a lot of heat while still racking in profit.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Let us not be too readily negative about negativity--there is a difference between hating on a game and offering constructive criticism.

Very true.

The problem with the internet and video game forums (often including this one, though the mods do a pretty good job of keeping it contained) in general is that any criticism at all, even constructive criticism, is immediately shouted down by a chorus of rabid, knee-jerk-reaction prone fans branding the poster a "hater" and a heretic. The thread then descends into an argument.

There is no point in offering any kind of counterpoint, or even a suggestion, as such heretical thought is immediately met with near religious fervor over how the poster is wrong. Nothing can be wrong with the holy game. I've seen it on many forums. The positive bandwagon is nearly as bad as the negative one. It stifles valid criticism, and it's oppressive and unfair.

I don't believe in rainbows and sunshine as far as video games go. Believe what you will, that's your right, but I reserve the right to hold an opinion that is contrary to yours. I am one of "those" people.

 

[Staler87]

If you want to read some really...great comments look up a video explaining/debunking a massive conspiracy theory. Then you realize how tame civ you-tubers actually are.

I don't get how comedy shows even survive now that we have the youtube comments section.

 

[cpm4001]

Simply: I think many of us were expecting Civ VI to look/play/do something a specific way. Thus, when Civ VI was revealed to not look/play/do something that specific way, we got disappointed and, this being the Internet, started complaining loudly.

I've gotten to the point though where I just don't care any longer - I can't get into the Civ VI hype (sorry, the graphics ARE that much of a deal-breaker for me), but it's fine that others are; as a result, I won't preorder the game or buy it at full price (I'll probably get it at its first real sale), but it's fine that others have and will. I like to think that's the best attitude to take under the circumstances.

 

[Seek]

But the graphics are, if anything, darker than civ 5, so I don't know what the fuss is about. When you're playing at a regular zoom level (ie, 3/4 to fill out) it doesn't look cartoony whatsoever. :/

 

[Thormodr]

I do hope that people will respect opinions that are different than their own. I don't want to see a repeat of Civilization 5 where any dissent was quarantined off into one thread.

Boardgamegeek is particularly bad in shouting down criticism of certain games. For example, The Voyages of Marco Polo is a game that I particularly love. It's a brilliant game in a wonderful setting that has really cool asymmetric gameplay. That being said, there are two errors on the game board. The number 47 is missing on the score track and they spelled Beijing wrong. (Bejing)
When I pointed out that the company Hans im Glück was sloppy, I was castigated for it. Even when I went out of my way to state how much I loved the game and its design.

Anyway, I would ignore the comments on the cesspit that is you tube.

 

[andrewlt]

Because plenty of gamers now are graphics obsessed idiots who want everything ultra-detailed and ultra-realistic when they zoom in completely. I started playing Civ in the 90s and I love the direction of Civ 6's graphics. Give me easily understood and distinguishable art when I zoom out so I can see more of the map at the same time.

 

[Olleus]

You should have heard the complaints that the big fans of Civ4 had before Civ5 was released.

Not that they were all entirely wrong... It took a few patches (and probably an expansion pack) for the game to really hit maturity

 

[Acken]

Because plenty of gamers now are graphics obsessed idiots who want everything ultra-detailed and ultra-realistic when they zoom in completely. I started playing Civ in the 90s and I love the direction of Civ 6's graphics. Give me easily understood and distinguishable art when I zoom out so I can see more of the map at the same time.

And everything in shades of brown or grey.

 

[Mudrac]

Simply: I think many of us were expecting Civ VI to look/play/do something a specific way. Thus, when Civ VI was revealed to not look/play/do something that specific way, we got disappointed and, this being the Internet, started complaining loudly.

I've gotten to the point though where I just don't care any longer - I can't get into the Civ VI hype (sorry, the graphics ARE that much of a deal-breaker for me), but it's fine that others are; as a result, I won't preorder the game or buy it at full price (I'll probably get it at its first real sale), but it's fine that others have and will. I like to think that's the best attitude to take under the circumstances.

Moral of the story: Never expect anything hehehe

 

[Martin Alvito]

Civ 6 can do better, but will it do better? It has a long way to go before release, given the apparent turn times

Are we sure that we aren't seeing it being played on potatoes? Is this DirectX 11 or 12 that we're looking at? I haven't paid enough attention to the recent batch of videos to know, but the answers to those questions are going to matter to the end user experience. I can tell you that going from DirectX 11 to DirectX 12 made a huge difference in the ability of my pair of GTX 970s to push Mirror's Edge Catalyst in 5760x1080.

In any event, if I wanted this game to sell as many copies as possible then I'd do what the devs appear to be doing - focus on making the gameplay more engaging than CiV was at release. The reason we don't get proper UI updates boils down to economics; the more hardcore players like us that bad UI drives insane are a small segment of the market, and the devs can't easily DLC in UI updates that would enable them to capture what we'd be willing to pay.

As far as the OP goes: people are complaining largely because they don't know what good game design looks like when they see it, but rather only when they actually get to sit down and play it. Most of the changes to gameplay look pretty promising.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I don't see it that much here on the forums, but I noticed in YouTube comments and other places that there is very often this negative stance to Civ 6. Most of the comments come from the place that the game looks too user-friendly and approachable and thus it is android dumbed down game. I never understood these comments coming from people. It's like good interface, and the fact that there aren't a bunch of numbers to read, that the relies rather on critical decision, strategy and tactics automatically mean that the game is for stupid people, kids and wider dumb audience.

The same talk was when HOI 4 came out and people were like how the game is dumbed down only because it did lack some features from HOI 3 true, but because the game is more accessible now and understandable. While in fact it is a pretty deep and complex game where you have to make critical decisions because you can't have everything. I mean HOI 3 had a terrible UI that was bad design from developers and was broken in some segments.

I mean I just want to know where does this come from? I am not angry or anything just curious. It seems as some things become more popular, more user friendly and more strategic with less sliders and numbers the game is becoming stupid. So what's up with that kind people? Do they like feeling special and above everyone else because they sat for millions of hours trying to understand some overly-complicated things and looking and numbers. Really what is it? I am just interested does anyone know?

P.S. : Sorry for bad grammar and wording I wrote it in a hurry.

Because people outside cfc and especially on youtube, are not hardcore fans who read and absorb every tidbit of information about the game and most of them simply watched a couple of videos without having a deeper knowledge of mechanics etc., so all they see is art style (which I myself like) that is questionable for many people and has a bad first impression (I disliked it at first).

That said, the game seems way too unfinished for a build that is supposed to be 4 months away from release. The AI is senile and I for one am not as optimistic as many users here and don't believe in miracles, in it improving much if at all. It has all these awesome features and changes, which will have zero meaning with the AI it will be released with.

I will buy it anyway, but unfortunately it's once again back to the old formula, that is waiting for at least first expansion and the first truly decent fixing mod.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I will buy it anyway, but unfortunately it's once again back to the old formula, that is waiting for at least first expansion and the first truly decent fixing mod.

Then why buy it at release? Why reward a game company for this kind of behavior? Years ago, most games were released in a finished state and did not require a series of patches to work properly, or give the experience that was promised. Why should we as paying consumers allow companies to treat us like this?

If we vote with dollars as a group, maybe marketing and the publishers in general might realize that they have an obligation to release a finished game if they are going to want our money.

I'm tired of buying a new game and having issues playing it right away because it needs a patch or two. There's no excuse for it. If I fork out $80 for a game, I should get a playable, working title, and not have to have it sit on my hard drive for two months waiting for it to be fixed so I can finish it.

It's unacceptable, and we're stupid for letting it happen.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Where did I say I'll buy it on release? I'll buy it, that's a given, but I've definitely not decided whether it will be on release (pre-order a day before because Aztecs) or later.
As of right now, I'm definitely not happy with the state it's in right now, watching all those videos. And as I said, I don't expect any miracles, but I will be following it closely, watching just how polished or not it will be and make my decision a few weeks before release.

 

[redwings1340]

When Starcraft 2 came out, there were a lot of people upset that you could select 255 units at a time instead of just twelve, that you could select multiple buildings at a time, and that you could rally your workers directly to mineral patches. Why? Well, they thought it dumbed down the game and made it too easy to play. In reality, these changes are probably the best changes that have ever taken place in the starcraft franchise, because they're changes to an artificial limit made from the program itself, rather than any real limits from the game. Making the game easier to play is never a bad change. It reminds me of a game called Othello that I have, the tagline on the box is, "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master." That should be the goal of civilization, and I think the changes to the UI is making the game easier to learn, but the changes to the game itself is making it harder to master, which I'm excited about!

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Civ VI. The turn times looked somewhat long, the edge of what you've explored was a bit too similar in color to the unknown territories, it could maybe use a few more units, and there will probably be balance issues for a while. However, there will always be some people who just hate change for the sake of change, and its best to make your own judgements about what is good criticism and what is bad criticism. Sometimes people just think all change is bad, when in fact, it can be great!

 

[Mudrac]

When Starcraft 2 came out, there were a lot of people upset that you could select 255 units at a time instead of just twelve, that you could select multiple buildings at a time, and that you could rally your workers directly to mineral patches. Why? Well, they thought it dumbed down the game and made it too easy to play. In reality, these changes are probably the best changes that have ever taken place in the starcraft franchise, because they're changes to an artificial limit made from the program itself, rather than any real limits from the game. Making the game easier to play is never a bad change. It reminds me of a game called Othello that I have, the tagline on the box is, "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master." That should be the goal of civilization, and I think the changes to the UI is making the game easier to learn, but the changes to the game itself is making it harder to master, which I'm excited about!

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Civ VI. The turn times looked somewhat long, the edge of what you've explored was a bit too similar in color to the unknown territories, it could maybe use a few more units, and there will probably be balance issues for a while. However, there will always be some people who just hate change for the sake of change, and its best to make your own judgements about what is good criticism and what is bad criticism. Sometimes people just think all change is bad, when in fact, it can be great!

Yeah I suppose so. But in Starcraft you could select only 12 units and only one building simply because of the limitations of hardware and engine back in the day, since the game came out in 1998.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Where did I say I'll buy it on release?

I didn't mean you, per se. I was speaking generally, though the wording of your post did give the impression that you were going to buy it on release.