Why is there this strange complaints and negativity?

[thecrazyscot]

Yeah, V was objectively not a disaster. You can not like the gameplay, but to call it a disaster is objectively wrong.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Some of these comments boggle me. "Civ V was a disaster!" Meanwhile, the game is still sitting in the top 10 games on Steam, six years after release, which is virtually unheard of.

I think some posters need to take a hard look and admit something to themselves: the game has moved on without them.

That's a hard realization to swallow, so I understand why they are defensive about it. But I also think they need to inject just a little of objectivity into their claims that Civ V was "disastrous." I wish my failed projects could be that kind of disaster.

You put Way too much stock in Steam. And it's importance to gaming. This is a problem and a narrow way of thinking. Many former Civ players don't base their judgements or requirements for a good game off what Steam does.

Most (But not all)of the posters in all these Civ VI threads are CiV players who never played Civ, II, Test of Time, CTP (I&II), III, or even IV. So their history perspective of the franchise is stunted by their lack of series exposure, play, and development.

If you only started playing Civ with CiV, Revolutions, or BE then Yes this VI looks great. But if you have more series experience then you are a bit more skeptical and critical.

And some of these comments are hysterical when it come to series perspective.

JosEPh

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The beauty of it is the old games still work. I had never realized there was a Civ I forum here to be honest. There's not only the old games to play if the new ones have alienated a person but even an old forum to chat about them good old days with like minded souls. It's a win win.

It's great to go backwards and participate in the forums for the older iterations of Civ, especially if you are playing an older version. However, a number of times in recent memory some posters come onto the Civ 4 forum and beat us up for not playing Civ 5.

I'm not saying that everyone does it, but how is that constructive?

 

[rastak]

It's great to go backwards and participate in the forums for the older iterations of Civ, especially if you are playing an older version. However, a number of times in recent memory some posters come onto the Civ 4 forum and beat us up for not playing Civ 5.

I'm not saying that everyone does it, but how is that constructive?

It's not. Why would anyone do that? I guess that's what moderators are for.

 

[Thormodr]

Yeah, V was objectively not a disaster. You can not like the gameplay, but to call it a disaster is objectively wrong.

When the designer of the game admits he made some critical mistakes and leaves the company a few months after launch with the game still in an awful state, disaster describes it very well.

Ed Beach did the best he could putting lipstick on a pig but let's face it, most of what he added was just fluff. He didn't change the core of the game and I don't blame him for that.

Now, reviewer after reviewer is subtly and not so subtly criticizing the previous iteration when playing Civ VI. I often wonder why they didn't speak up beforehand but I suppose it's a herd mentality and they know which side of the bread the butter is on.

 

[stealth_nsk]

When the designer of the game admits he made some critical mistakes and leaves the company a few months after launch with the game still in an awful state, disaster describes it very well.

When company fires a lead designer to satisfy a whining crowd, it's not called disaster, it's called marketing.

 

[Thormodr]

When company fires a lead designer to satisfy a whining crowd, it's not called disaster, it's called marketing.

Whining? Lol.

It was a disastrous launch and the game designer admitted that the game was deeply flawed and simply not ready.

I also believe that marketing told us that Civilization 5 was a "big sloppy kiss to hard core fans" and was "the most moddable Civ yet."

 

[jjkrause84]

You realize it was the top selling Civ of all time?

They lost a minor subgroup with 5. If it loses more it has nothing to do with Civ 5 but because it sucks in its own right.

Yes, but context matters. Civ 5 came out at a time when digital distribution and marketing were/are a real force. Civ 4 had nothing like that.

That said, I'm not sure Civ 4 would have sold as well, even without the severe disadvantages of time and space it laboured under. Civ 5 was a very gentle game for Civ newcomers. Civ 4 was not. This, in many ways, is where the fault-line has split among Civ fans since Civ 5 came out (a fault line that is now a chasm, with Civ 4 a distant memory).

Why is there more hate on Youtube than here? Because this particular subforum is really for people who like Civ 6, want to read about it and want to talk about it. People like myself who were appalled by 5 and will not be buying 6 don't come around much anymore, because why bother? People like me will still sometimes cave to curiousity however, watch a newly released clip, and then realise how much they hate what Civ has become and then post bile in the YT comments section (which I don't do, in case you're wondering! I can just put myself in the shoes of those that do).

I'll be honest, the only reason I come around here anymore is out of a morbid desire to wallow in the death of my favourite games franchise, and check out the world history subforum (which itself is basically dead as well). Before you say it, yes I know...I could just go play a Paradox game (and I do). I just miss the sweet spot 'medium-core' strategy game that Civ was, and also the nostalgia of what Civ meant to me growing up.

 

[jjkrause84]

The other part of the post should also not be ignored:


What do you even mean by "come back"? CiV is still one of the most-played games on Steam. It's a success through and through, no matter how much you try to justify for yourself that it isn't because you personally didn't like it.

Financial success is the lowest assessment of art imaginable. At least according to the stats I could find Mariah Carey has moved more units than Pink Floyd or Queen. Who made better art?

 

[Ryika]

Financial success is the lowest assessment of art imaginable. At least according to the stats I could find Mariah Carey has moved more units than Pink Floyd or Queen. Who made better art?

Who cares? The topic was not art, the topic was success. Not only financial success, but also success at keeping a big playerbase that sees Civilization as part of their life and talks about it in Forums and Subreddits. There's no reason to believe that the people who liked Civ 5 would suddenly leave the boat and that Firaxis would be better of getting "back to the roots" and making a Civ 4.2 instead of a Civ 6.

So even if you manage to convince yourself that Civ IV is the "greater work of art" by taking your subjective standards and somehow turning them into what you think of as objective truth his original argument still does not hold up.

Not that "artfulness" is a good measurement for games anyway. What's a game worth if the only ones playing it are wannabe hipsters who snort their cocaine and then babble on about how much of an artsy experience that was while nobody else wants to play the game because it's boring and tedious?

 

[rastak]

Financial success is the lowest assessment of art imaginable. At least according to the stats I could find Mariah Carey has moved more units than Pink Floyd or Queen. Who made better art?

Civ is art now?

It's a bloody game, a diversion and Firaxis is in the business of selling games. If the game sucks it doesn't sell after the initial burst. Civ V had real staying power. I know of nobody I've talked to face to face, non internet communication, that thought it sucked.

I get you and some others hate it. My daughter, son-in-law, a few coworkers and a buddy of mine I game with (also myself) loved it.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Yes, but context matters. Civ 5 came out at a time when digital distribution and marketing were/are a real force. Civ 4 had nothing like that.

That said, I'm not sure Civ 4 would have sold as well, even without the severe disadvantages of time and space it laboured under. Civ 5 was a very gentle game for Civ newcomers. Civ 4 was not. This, in many ways, is where the fault-line has split among Civ fans since Civ 5 came out (a fault line that is now a chasm, with Civ 4 a distant memory).

Why is there more hate on Youtube than here? Because this particular subforum is really for people who like Civ 6, want to read about it and want to talk about it. People like myself who were appalled by 5 and will not be buying 6 don't come around much anymore, because why bother? People like me will still sometimes cave to curiousity however, watch a newly released clip, and then realise how much they hate what Civ has become and then post bile in the YT comments section (which I don't do, in case you're wondering! I can just put myself in the shoes of those that do).

I'll be honest, the only reason I come around here anymore is out of a morbid desire to wallow in the death of my favourite games franchise, and check out the world history subforum (which itself is basically dead as well). Before you say it, yes I know...I could just go play a Paradox game (and I do). I just miss the sweet spot 'medium-core' strategy game that Civ was, and also the nostalgia of what Civ meant to me growing up.

So why do you think Civ 6 won't be good enough? I heard the arguments for 5 and they make sense to me, I played it really little myself (maybe 3 games) because I didn't like it enough (I guess global happiness and turn wait and things I cant remember). But to me Civ 6 looks really strong. The two main flaws I see would be turn wait time (that could be bad enough that I end up playing very little too), and the tactical combat possibly being too much a terrain for super-owning AI which then have to rely on greater advantages on higher difficulties making these less interesting (though I haven't seen that it is so bad). I see a lot of qualities that feel like improvement and build over the previous best civ though, like the amount of choices you can make and how significant they are with the cities spreading out on tiles, pantheons eurekas civics depending on culture support units AI agendas the details of the system in general like settlers/builder/district cost increase amenities housing etc.

 

[jjkrause84]

Civ is art now?

It's a bloody game, a diversion and Firaxis is in the business of selling games. If the game sucks it doesn't sell after the initial burst. Civ V had real staying power. I know of nobody I've talked to face to face, non internet communication, that thought it sucked.

I get you and some others hate it. My daughter, son-in-law, a few coworkers and a buddy of mine I game with (also myself) loved it.

Games are absolutely art! What else would they be?

 

[georgjorge]

What's a game worth if the only ones playing it are wannabe hipsters who snort their cocaine and then babble on about how much of an artsy experience that was while nobody else wants to play the game because it's boring and tedious?

Cocaine-snorting hipsters have come a long way. In the 80s they would gamble with stocks worth millions of dollars and have more sex partners than you could count. Today they just play a quit game of Civilization IV when they're high.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Games are absolutely art! What else would they be?

Well games are part art and part something else (fun, skills, mechanics, tool for learning, obviously game). Some games are less about art and some are more about art. No game is purely art (or maybe some could be argued to be, like adventure games such as Final fantasy? definitely not civ games anyway).

It's a bit like architecture, architecture is never only art. Almost all construction that we would call architecture is part art and part other things.

 

[johnnybaseball]

Can I just say that some variant of this thread has appeared, usually on multiple occasions, on every single forum I've ever read or participated in? Message boards are magnets for critical viewpoints.

 

[jjkrause84]

So why do you think Civ 6 won't be good enough? I heard the arguments for 5 and they make sense to me, I played it really little myself (maybe 3 games) because I didn't like it enough (I guess global happiness and turn wait and things I cant remember). But to me Civ 6 looks really strong. The two main flaws I see would be turn wait time (that could be bad enough that I end up playing very little too), and the tactical combat possibly being too much a terrain for super-owning AI which then have to rely on greater advantages on higher difficulties making these less interesting (though I haven't seen that it is so bad). I see a lot of qualities that feel like improvement and build over the previous best civ though, like the amount of choices you can make and how significant they are with the cities spreading out on tiles, pantheons eurekas civics depending on culture support units AI agendas the details of the system in general like settlers/builder/district cost increase amenities housing etc.

1UPT, even slightly modified 1UPT like Civ 6 seems to have, forces the game to stay small and messes up the scale of the map. As long as it stays the entire rest of the game will suffer (for all of the reasons Shafer pointed out a few months after it was way, way too late). The game still appears to be about managing a small handful of cities rather than an empire (cities with three hex borders are large, and based on the gameplay I've seen there doesn't appear to be any real rush to found new cities).

The game appears to be designed to take as many decisions away from the player as possible. Eureka moments are emblematic of that. You don't so much research things as the game magically gifts you with tech (or at least beakers) just for playing the game. The district system seems to imply that you will build far fewer buildings per city, which combined with 1UPT suggests that build times will be painfully slow (although I maybe wrong about that). Based on interviews I have grave doubts about Ed Beach's knowledge of and appreciation for history.

In short, everything I've seen suggests that the game will continue to be 'small' in scope and focused on a small handful of decisions, rather than the vast scope of earlier games.

I could be wrong of course (and I've not been keeping perfectly up on developments, releases, leaks, etc.). In fact, I really hope I am! I'm still not going to buy it until I'm absolutely sure it will be worth buying.

 

[jjkrause84]

Well games are part art and part something else (fun, skills, mechanics, tool for learning, obviously game). Some games are less about art and some are more about art. No game is purely art (or maybe some could be argued to be, like adventure games such as Final fantasy? definitely not civ games anyway).

It's a bit like architecture, architecture is never only art. Almost all construction that we would call architecture is part art and part other things.

I think we have to be careful with classifying things in too many parts. Even 'pure' art then becomes physics, chemistry and engineering as well as 'art'.

We can say that a movie is art, knowing that there is a whole lot of 'science' that goes behind making it. I think it comes down to its primary function. I would argue that the aesthetic and interactive elements of gaming make them a form of art (I suppose 'functional art'?) more than anything else.

 

[Ryika]

I think we have to be careful with classifying things in too many parts. Even 'pure' art then becomes physics, chemistry and engineering as well as 'art'.

We can say that a movie is art, knowing that there is a whole lot of 'science' that goes behind making it. I think it comes down to its primary function. I would argue that the aesthetic and interactive elements of gaming make them a form of art (I suppose 'functional art'?) more than anything else.

All games have elements of art, but how much that art matters in the end depends on the game, doesn't it?

A roleplaying game will focus much more on its artful experience, because the fun comes from the art itself - immersion, storytelling and other aspects of the game are direct results of it. Hell, many lovers of roleplaying games see the combat mechanics as vessels to lead the player from one scenario to the next, and not as the actual content of the game.

A competitive multiplayer game on the other hand does not need much of what we'd traditionally name as art (although making such a game fun, difficult and accessible at the same time can be an artform in itself if we're less strict ). It has much more to do with sports, and in fact, many non-competitive games actually mix the "goal to achieve something" that is inherent in sports with art.

But in the end it is clear that in general most games don't succeed on art alone. So I still don't see why we would see "art" as more important of a measurement than overall success. In genres where art is an important factor of the game the ones whose art resonates best with majority are already the ones that get the most success as well.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

1UPT, even slightly modified 1UPT like Civ 6 seems to have, forces the game to stay small and messes up the scale of the map. As long as it stays the entire rest of the game will suffer (for all of the reasons Shafer pointed out a few months after it was way, way too late). The game still appears to be about managing a small handful of cities rather than an empire (cities with three hex borders are large, and based on the gameplay I've seen there doesn't appear to be any real rush to found new cities).

The game appears to be designed to take as many decisions away from the player as possible. Eureka moments are emblematic of that. You don't so much research things as the game magically gifts you with tech (or at least beakers) just for playing the game. The district system seems to imply that you will build far fewer buildings per city, which combined with 1UPT suggests that build times will be painfully slow (although I maybe wrong about that). Based on interviews I have grave doubts about Ed Beach's knowledge of and appreciation for history.

In short, everything I've seen suggests that the game will continue to be 'small' in scope and focused on a small handful of decisions, rather than the vast scope of earlier games.

I could be wrong of course (and I've not been keeping perfectly up on developments, releases, leaks, etc.). In fact, I really hope I am! I'm still not going to buy it until I'm absolutely sure it will be worth buying.

Global happiness is gone, and the devs have stated that small 'fishing town' type of cities are again a viable addition to the empire. They've also said that a 'small' empire (on a Standard sized map, one would assume) will be 6-8 cities. There were fears of a science penalty per city based on an early preview, but from the latest videos it doesn't seem to be the case. There are escalating costs of Settlers, Builders and Districts based on the number that you've already built, which does worry me a bit, but there's still great hope for large empires (imo).