Why is there this strange complaints and negativity?

[Pepo]

There is nothing wrong with criticism as long as it is based on some facts. The same could not be said about blind trust that tries to shut down any critical thought about the game. The problem is that the second is accepted by the community , hurting the possibilities of improving the game

 

[mudblood]

I think the reason for the "strange complaints and negativity" are complicated, but here's a brief rundown on all the different factors coming into play:

First, there's the broader games marketplace. A few years ago, there was a trend toward trying to monetize what had previously been pretty niche strategic computer games. This lead to things that not only felt like a betrayal to long-time fans as companies reached out to new fans, but actually lead to bad games. The classic example here is SimCity, which has now ceded the city simulator market to Cities Skylines. This trend seems to have receded, but there is still a bit of an open question for long-term fans: to keep your franchise profitable enough for companies to invest in, it has to have new players, so the question is how do you get those new players when there is a high barrier to entry? People come down on different sides of this depending upon what they play a game for, but it requires some compromises and people are going to be more or less happy about that.

Next, the release of Civ5 was a disaster. There's no debate about that--the game was essentially unplayable because the AI was incredibly bad and there was nothing to sustain the interest of the player because most of the complexity from Civ4 had been stripped out. Lots of people have different opinions about what was going on there. Some believe that the move to hexes and single units was good but badly implemented. Some believe that Firaxis was trying to dumb the franchise down to bring newbies in, or force long-term players to pay for expansion packs to get the immersive experience they were used to from Civ. This is where you get a lot of the anxiety from--people fear a repeat.

Then, Ed Beech was put in charge of the franchise, and Firaxis put out two expansion packs that improved the complexity of the game. But there were different reactions to that. Some people liked the changes and jumped back on board. Some people felt like the changes weren't enough to make up for the bad initial release and the only-somewhat challenging AI, and kept away.

So now you have Civ6, and there's a whole range of people out there reacting from how they perceive these different events. Some feel a loyalty to and/or trust in Ed Beech, or are encouraged by what they've seen about the game in the previews. Some are worried that they've seen this script before: excitement beforehand and betrayal after. They want to make sure it's the best game possible, and feel like to do that they have to keep a fire to the developers' toes. Some of them worry that if too many other people get hyped about the game, then the developers won't feel a need to fix the things that need to get fixed before the game is released, so they get upset when they see other people getting hyped.

Having said that, I'm in the hyped camp--though I'm trying not to pay too much attention because some of the joy of a new game is figuring out the mechanics for yourself. (I watched a couple of the gameplay videos that came out this week and decided that I want that fresh-out-of-the-box feeling.) I liked Civ5 after Ed Beech's expansion packs, I like that Civ6 will be complex on release, I don't mind some of the interface changes because I know there need to be new players and the complexity is still there underneath. That some of the changes to the game are transparently to help the AI or to decrease turn times--such as the change from workers to builders--make me happy and make me feel that the developers are thinking about these issues.

But I'm not a Pollyanna. I expect there will be bugs on release--there almost always are nowadays. It sucks, but when you're building for PCs, where there are so many people playing with such different systems, it's to be expected. And I worry that the complexity might be too much for the AI to handle. (I expect it will be several months after release before the AI is a great challenge even if it does end up being one--because even the most well-thought-out system will have exploits that won't be obvious until the game gets into the hands of its players. But I'll be spending that time playing multiplayer with my friends and figuring out the systems, so I for one am ok with that.)

So let me put it this way: I'm feeling kind of relaxed about the whole thing, but if the pressure from the people freaking out makes the developers work extra hard and put out a better product than they would have otherwise, then I'm perfectly willing to let those others put in the work for me.

 

[Krajzen]

I think the reason for the "strange complaints and negativity" are complicated, but here's a brief rundown on all the different factors coming into play:

First, there's the broader games marketplace. A few years ago, there was a trend toward trying to monetize what had previously been pretty niche strategic computer games. This lead to things that not only felt like a betrayal to long-time fans as companies reached out to new fans, but actually lead to bad games. The classic example here is SimCity, which has now ceded the city simulator market to Cities Skylines. This trend seems to have receded, but there is still a bit of an open question for long-term fans: to keep your franchise profitable enough for companies to invest in, it has to have new players, so the question is how do you get those new players when there is a high barrier to entry? People come down on different sides of this depending upon what they play a game for, but it requires some compromises and people are going to be more or less happy about that.

Next, the release of Civ5 was a disaster. There's no debate about that--the game was essentially unplayable because the AI was incredibly bad and there was nothing to sustain the interest of the player because most of the complexity from Civ4 had been stripped out. Lots of people have different opinions about what was going on there. Some believe that the move to hexes and single units was good but badly implemented. Some believe that Firaxis was trying to dumb the franchise down to bring newbies in, or force long-term players to pay for expansion packs to get the immersive experience they were used to from Civ. This is where you get a lot of the anxiety from--people fear a repeat.

Then, Ed Beech was put in charge of the franchise, and Firaxis put out two expansion packs that improved the complexity of the game. But there were different reactions to that. Some people liked the changes and jumped back on board. Some people felt like the changes weren't enough to make up for the bad initial release and the only-somewhat challenging AI, and kept away.

So now you have Civ6, and there's a whole range of people out there reacting from how they perceive these different events. Some feel a loyalty to and/or trust in Ed Beech, or are encouraged by what they've seen about the game in the previews. Some are worried that they've seen this script before: excitement beforehand and betrayal after. They want to make sure it's the best game possible, and feel like to do that they have to keep a fire to the developers' toes. Some of them worry that if too many other people get hyped about the game, then the developers won't feel a need to fix the things that need to get fixed before the game is released, so they get upset when they see other people getting hyped.

Having said that, I'm in the hyped camp--though I'm trying not to pay too much attention because some of the joy of a new game is figuring out the mechanics for yourself. (I watched a couple of the gameplay videos that came out this week and decided that I want that fresh-out-of-the-box feeling.) I liked Civ5 after Ed Beech's expansion packs, I like that Civ6 will be complex on release, I don't mind some of the interface changes because I know there need to be new players and the complexity is still there underneath. That some of the changes to the game are transparently to help the AI or to decrease turn times--such as the change from workers to builders--make me happy and make me feel that the developers are thinking about these issues.

But I'm not a Pollyanna. I expect there will be bugs on release--there almost always are nowadays. It sucks, but when you're building for PCs, where there are so many people playing with such different systems, it's to be expected. And I worry that the complexity might be too much for the AI to handle. (I expect it will be several months after release before the AI is a great challenge even if it does end up being one--because even the most well-thought-out system will have exploits that won't be obvious until the game gets into the hands of its players. But I'll be spending that time playing multiplayer with my friends and figuring out the systems, so I for one am ok with that.)

So let me put it this way: I'm feeling kind of relaxed about the whole thing, but if the pressure from the people freaking out makes the developers work extra hard and put out a better product than they would have otherwise, then I'm perfectly willing to let those others put in the work for me.

Awesome post, couldn't put it as well myself.


That said, I am still angry every time I check Youtube comments under civ videos - so much blind stupid anger mixed with ignorance. It has been three months since game's announcement and people still repeat those "jokes" "ohhh what a mobile game" or rage over "mobile terrible casual won't buy graphics", there are all kinds of nationalists "why cleopatra for egypt why italian for france why not portugal paradox idiots", there are people who jump to ridiculously strong conclusions basing on completely minor stuff ("won't but this ****, FDR should be american leader") and those poor souls that are enough misguided to complain ("why is this war game not on real map WTH firaxis doesn't know geography" - no, really) while being too lazy to check basic facts about the game... Youtube at its worst.
Oh and so many people I dislike - those retro gaming fanatics that think everything past 1999 is dumbed down and they still play civ2 or whatever "because dumb kids those days"...

In general, stop reading YT comments, all kinds of silly people are here - stick to civ fanatics and civ reddit, two main big communities that are much more positive and mature.

 

[Janskey]

Just a couple of days ago there was a short article on a Finnish gaming site about this "hater" phenomenon. http://dome.fi/peli/pelikehittaja-vihaajia-enemman/

It was mostly about this https://www.facebook.com/saltandsanctuary/posts/1044703588950048
"In my nine years of professional indie game development, I've seen attitudes go from 95% supportive/5% meh to 50% supportive/50% angry, impatient, and downright hurtful. Not only does it really turn a good mood sour fast, but I just hate to see the industry becoming such a toxic place."

Additionally, in the article they mention how the developers of No Man's Sky received death threats after the game's launch was postponed.

 

[Ryika]

In general, stop reading YT comments, all kinds of silly people are here - stick to civ fanatics and civ reddit, two main big communities that are much more positive and mature.

Youtube Comments are the greatest gift that God has bestowed (/edit: Wait, this is not the right word, is it?) on the world. A - mostly - uncensored playground where people can speak their mind and be who they are, crappost all day and flame each other for good fun. (And then be put to jail by the government if you live in Germany.)

With that said though, I think it is true for pretty much any game that has some valid concerns and not just rosy fanboyism coming with it, that the "official websites" will always end up being overrun by the most negative elements of the community.

Which is hardly surprising, because flaming and being negative is fun for many people, and defending reason and trying to get people to think neutrally about a game instead of being completely off the charts just isn't. So the negative elements enjoy their time on those websites (or in this case youtube channels) and those who are looking for reasonable debates leave them over time. Into forums like these.

Just a couple of days ago there was a short article on a Finnish gaming site about this "hater" phenomenon. http://dome.fi/peli/pelikehittaja-vihaajia-enemman/

It was mostly about this https://www.facebook.com/saltandsanctuary/posts/1044703588950048
"In my nine years of professional indie game development, I've seen attitudes go from 95% supportive/5% meh to 50% supportive/50% angry, impatient, and downright hurtful. Not only does it really turn a good mood sour fast, but I just hate to see the industry becoming such a toxic place."

Additionally, in the article they mention how the developers of No Man's Sky received death threats after the game's launch was postponed.

When Skyrim tried to introduce Paid Mods similar stuff happened. The modders who chose the wrong side of history got all kinds of harassment, completely off the charts.

 

[Makavcio]

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.

Damn, dude. You should be a politician. I almost started hating all those blind fools who don't believe that bad is good and good is bad

But seriously, it's the internet and there are many short, angry messages in here. That's the intrinsic characteristic of the medium. You, and a throng of people here, use this fact to openly vilify all people that don't agree with mainstream opinions posted here. I though I'd count out all the insults casually flung at them (us) in almost every consecutive post to sober people up, but after one page I gave up. Too many of them. And reading through so much hate before breakfast would give me indigestion, so I'll limit my reply to Mudrac's post.

I must confess, I'm one of those evil monsters who don't like graphics of Civ6. Why do I hate accessibility, puppies, sunshine, and all things good and nice? Well, first of all, it's a matter of pure aesthetics. Civilization is a game about building a civilization, as the name suggests. It's about settling, developing, fighting and surviving. Generally, mean, dreary and tough stuff. Carebears for leaders, candyland for map, and artillery from Disneyland don't really convey this feel. I'm perfectly aware that violence is now being sold to younger and younger children, and this requires age-adequate packaging, but we really shouldn't be going in this direction. Not with Civ, not with anything else.
Secondly, does the goal of making the world transparent was met? I strongly doubt it. It almost works with very big zoom, but in strategy games, you generally want to have the so called strategic view, i.e. you zoom out. Cannot really judge until I'll be able to launch the game on my own machine, but I'm pretty sure it will be impossible to play the game properly without additional icons enabled. We have already seen this problem in Civilization: Beyond Earth where it's impossible to tell at first glance even what kind of terrain we see in front of us. I had to play this game with tile yields icon enabled, and there's a good chance it will be a similar case with Civ6.
More problems stem from this approach. Let's not fool ourselves, Catherine de Medici would have never made it to the game if there was no quota of female rulers to meet. We'll have Brazil for the sake of boosting sales in Latin America, and if Poland makes it to the game, it will be a blow to the general feeling especially Civ1, and also further iterations offered, i.e. the greatest of the great put to the test of time.

And what about strategic decisions? Why do I hate them? Why we, the "uneducated teenagers" (one of the insults that made me laugh in some other post), don't want tactics? Well, most likely for the same reasons why we don't want to make America great again. We just hate strategy and tactics like we hate America
From my experience, when such empty slogans like the ones from your post appear, it always means elimination of strategic elements. It has already happened in Civilization: Beyond Earth. Devs claimed that decisions made there don't limit us anymore. And it was true. Everyone could have everything everywhere, no matter what decisions were made. There was little to no difference between sponsors, and the greatest difference between affinities was in negligible unit stats, and as negligible late-game buildings that offered meager %bonuses to some yields. When hybrid affinities were introduced, even those dregs of flavors were eliminated, sacrificed on the altar of "accessibility and strategic decisions".

It's a strategy game. I expect from a strategy game that it will give me many hard choices that will block many paths from me. I expect a game that will ruin me if I do something exceptionally stupid. I expect to be punished for bad localization of cities, wrong policy choices, neglecting my military, lack of fortifications, and improper citizen management. I expect AI to be more capable, and to offer challenges other that +100% magical bonus to AI production, so they can send 500 zombie units against me, even though their land wouldn't support more than 50. I don't want a game that is "mastered" by gamy management of production, exploiting AI's quirks, and raiding city states for workers and unit experience.

God damn it, I know that numbers are yucky for the young generation, and kids are more interested in how number 5 feels inside than what happens when it's multiplied by another 5, but it's meant to be a strategy game. If you don't want to be bothered with numbers, go play Clash of Clans. That's why so many people compare it to freemium mobile games. The dumbing down is real, even if younger people don't realize it because their first strategy game was Angry Birds. Lots of strategic and tactical decision there, right?

There's really a lot to say in this topic, and there are e.g. hours long youtube videos that elaborate on every single issue. This has already turned into a wall of text, so I'll move to the conclusion.

People who will buy the game despite having several reservations, like the ones named above, are being called hypocrites here. The "educated adults" expect that we pull a tantrum, grab our toys and go home? I hate the graphics style, but it's a strategy game. It would really need to be disgusting to dissuade me from buying a strategy game only because of that. Same goes for civilization choices. I'll have 20+ other ones thanks to mods in less than a week since launch. Damn, I'm even a strong supporter of Poland in the game. It's my personal interest, it will hurt the game overall, but if the game is being made more "accessible" for people who play such strategy games like Candy Crush, why can't it be made more "accessible" for me?
My real interests are with game balance and AI behavior, things we won't be able to judge in any degree before the game is released. I'm really worried after Civ:BE, and everything I have to put my fears to rest are silly campaign slogans and intimidation.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

I think a strategy game is more interesting if there are a lot of possible strategies and nuances that you can take, but with every choice having very significant consequences. If you can do anything and it doesn't matter too much, there isn't a lot of strategy, it's kinda only sandbox. On the other hand if almost anything you can do is a bad choice in the end strategically and you have to play a certain few ways, that doesn't give the game better strategic depth. So I think the quality to expect is that there are a lot of ways to play that are valid with many nuances, but every choice has very significant consequences which lead you to defeat or victory in different ways. Being inefficient or making wrong assumptions lead you to defeat, being efficient and making correct assumptions lead you to victory. There can be many ways to be efficient because there can be many possible strategies in different shapes, you just need to make sure your shape beats the other players shapes and change and shift and adapt your strategic shape very efficiently to win. I think that makes a deeper strategy game.

When there are very few paths to victory and being very efficient also means playing a very specific few ways and there is very little room for adapting, shifting, switching and choosing, I think it becomes knowledge-based and there is actually rather little strategy involved, it's more about planning and managing. Management and strategy are two different things. Management is a part of strategy but it can exist without there being too much strategy going on. Strategy shouldn't be solved in advance and then applied, if it is it is not actually hard ; the room that there is for adapting shifting and choosing (the element of creativity) is what gives depth to the strategy element, imo.

In civ the main problem I see is that playing vs AI makes it easy to win unless you play with big handicaps which often severely limits the choices you can make to keep up with others. If the rules make it hard to come on top of a FFA without big handicap I think it can give more room for many choices to be viable. I wonder if changing victory conditions so that your own victory conditions are harder than AI victory conditions when you go up in difficulty would help?

Anyway in the end civ has this potential of being highly interesting as a creative strategy game, call it strategy sandbox if you will, or it can be heavily management-focused, or both. So far I think civ VI is very promising in this respect to be the best yet.

[the deepest strategy game though has to be multiplayer the AI being unintelligent limits the strategies it can itself create and thus the strategies you play to beat theirs most efficiently]

 

[Mustakrakish]

WALL OF TEXT

I wouldn't care if the graphics were straight out of "Looney Tunes" with "Looney Tunes" - like models etc. as long as the game is as deep as they're promising and has a working AI. More gritty "realistic" graphics does not a game make (a turn-based strategy game of Civilization that is). If all those new features are made moot by senile AI, no art-style will make it better.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

It might be potatos stacked on potatos for all we know, maybe they're stress testing it on trash can rigs. That would be encouraging.

But for the moment it's hard to hold optimism given the release state of previous entries in the series. They have a new team and a new engine though so maybe it will be better, I'm just not holding my breath.

I don't buy that UI argument by the way. There are aspects of 5's UI deficiency where you can say only "hardcore" players are bothered. A good example is #inputs to accomplish a task. A casual, slow player will notice that less. I do wonder how much less though. Unless they stop playing soon, unnecessary extra menu navigation gets old for most people eventually, even if they never try to optimize their play.

However I expect even casual players get annoyed when the game forcibly unselects the unit they click on and select something else (in fact, I have heard more than one such type of gamer exclaim frustration over that). I also expect that when they are told something by the UI, then get screwed because it does something else (cities with growth starving, units with "attack" moving) that such is also something a "casual" player would not find an appealing aspect of gameplay.

After all, "I wanna be the guy" is not littered with casual gamers.

The gameplay itself will come down to details. To me, developer statements on it offer a lot more promise than I see from a UI/turn time/mechanical quality perspective. It's not hard to beat out the tall v wide thing and it looks like they will take us out of that phase.

 

[Mudrac]

WALL OF TEXT

Nice post

You obviously never played a Paradox's game (the older ones more so), especially Victoria II. Their games offer far more immersion, critical decision, bad events, numbers, sliders and other stuff that a Civ game can only dream of. If you did you really would realize how bad UI, tutorials that basically don't explain anything, and that even after dozens or hell hundreds of hours you still don't get how some stuff works can really be annoying (but still fun somehow). I played even more complex and obscure games than that.

And believe me mate I am for these kind of stuff of better UI and more accessibility based on my experience and way of thinking, they come from a pretty good place. I am not defending the mainstream media, I hardly follow the mainstream media (especially in video games), and frankly I don't care about the mainstream media . If I like things I am for it, if I don't I ain't for it, pretty simple, it doesn't matter if it is mainstream of obscure stuff nobody ever heard of.

P.S. Thanks for calling me a politician I aim to be a leader in some future Civ game
Also read some of my other posts in this thread, and you will see that I am not ''anti-any other opinion than mine''. I appreciate good and mature criticism. Besides I am not that warm for modern VG industry, I do think it was better in the past, more creative and innovative.

 

[Fromage10x]

Never did I mention that games are getting better. In fact I hardly play any other video games aside from strategy games, because I feel that the industry these days is over-saturated with similar titles and ideas, and strategy games on the other hand at least offer a lot of room for improvement and innovation. I don't see which mechanics are you talking about getting removed and never used to the their full potential? But I suppose there are some as always, but at the same time you are forgetting that the new ones are being introduced as well. And yes generally I like it when things are streamlined a little bit it makes for a more fluid experience. But I don't see how older games were more complex (they were harder true, and developers at least made more finished products). The thing is they looked more complex because of the worse UI and some bad design choices, which is ok, back in the day a lot of the developers were new and young and the industry as a whole was younger so certain mistakes were expected. The industry is evolving in some interesting directions today, not all of it is good, but at least streamlining some stuff is a good direction for me.

I did not say that all new games are less complex than old games. Just that when complexity is removed instead of expanded upon, people who saw the potential of the original game will feel a bit betrayed. It can feel like the game is just treading water, squandering what made it cool to begin with.

I know for myself I was disappointed with the direction ciV took, and how it pared down a lot of what cIV had done and made design choices (specifically 1UPT) that forced fundamental changes to the game that meant that things that I'd hoped for, like expanded ages, or more political options, were curtailed.

So to be clear, not all older games were more complex, I agree, but when they are more complex and lose features, that's can lead to the kinds of feelings of betrayal that lead people to dread new versions of games.

 

[Staler87]

Nice post

You obviously never played a Paradox's game (the older ones more so), especially Victoria II. Their games offer far more immersion, critical decision, bad events, numbers, sliders and other stuff that a Civ game can only dream of. If you did you really would realize how bad UI, tutorials that basically don't explain anything, and that even after dozens or hell hundreds of hours you still don't get how some stuff works can really be annoying (but still fun somehow). I played even more complex and obscure games than that.

And believe me mate I am for these kind of stuff of better UI and more accessibility based on my experience and way of thinking, they come from a pretty good place. I am not defending the mainstream media, I hardly follow the mainstream media (especially in video games), and frankly I don't care about the mainstream media . If I like things I am for it, if I don't I ain't for it, pretty simple, it doesn't matter if it is mainstream of obscure stuff nobody ever heard of.

P.S. Thanks for calling me a politician I aim to be a leader in some future Civ game
Also read some of my other posts in this thread, and you will see that I am not ''anti-any other opinion than mine''. I appreciate good and mature criticism. Besides I am not that warm for modern VG industry, I do think it was better in the past, more creative and innovative.

I play paradox games and I like civ better. Yes civ has less 'rules' but it has more strategic depth. In crusader kings, for example, you can domestically improve but the main, and only really, strategy is to manage internal affairs while expanding. It can be fun but it doesn't have the same series of interesting decisions feel as civ IV, and to a lesser extent, civ V. It is a fun game but I can't sink hours into because it often becomes, a series of repetitive decisions. I can't speak of Victoria II because I've never played it but I hear it is better.

 

[Mudrac]

I play paradox games and I like civ better. Yes civ has less 'rules' but it has more strategic depth. In crusader kings, for example, you can domestically improve but the main, and only really, strategy is to manage internal affairs while expanding. It can be fun but it doesn't have the same series of interesting decisions feel as civ IV, and to a lesser extent, civ V. It is a fun game but I can't sink hours into because it often becomes, a series of repetitive decisions. I can't speak of Victoria II because I've never played it but I hear it is better.

Well Crusader Kings II is more of a RPG/strategy hybrid. Not a really good comparison to Civ games. You should try Europa Universalis IV, Victoria II, Hearts of Iron 4 or Stellaris they are a much better representation of empire/nation building/management.
It is true they can get a little repetitive with decisions you make and even feel a little bit like a chore, but so can civ games generally speaking especially in late game. I don't know for me their games offer far more immersion and critical choices than civ games.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I play paradox games and I like civ better. Yes civ has less 'rules' but it has more strategic depth. In crusader kings, for example, you can domestically improve but the main, and only really, strategy is to manage internal affairs while expanding. It can be fun but it doesn't have the same series of interesting decisions feel as civ IV, and to a lesser extent, civ V. It is a fun game but I can't sink hours into because it often becomes, a series of repetitive decisions. I can't speak of Victoria II because I've never played it but I hear it is better.

Yes, Paradox games (at least CK and EU) are more historical simulators than games. They have a lot of features, but very small share of strategy.

 

[Sobornost]

There are some things I'm a little nervous about too, 1UPT being a slog still and the AI not handling it well being the most prominent, but I think the biggest problem and risk to 'success' is the expectations.

Civ has become so great in our minds that it's impossible for it to satisfy everything we demand. We don't give them much room with which to experiment, to make mistakes, to (gasp) fail from time to time. Poor devs are going to get criticized deeply and taken to the torture chamber for being incompetent, insensitive, lazy, ignorant morons no matter what they do. Fan expectations are a great burden - too much of them and it's like a great primeval forest, so thick and dense that hardly any light can get in to the choked forest floor. Nothing fresh can grow.

I'm glad to see there are people that are willing to let them go out there, get some new ideas going, build something that looks fun, and take risks as well. Games should be enjoyed for what they are - if not everything is quite to your taste, that's okay, it's okay to try something a bit out of the ordinary, right? And if it's just not fun for you, then what's the problem, it's just a game, go on with life and enjoy something else. People get too internally-focused, too tight, too perfectionist. The biggest impediments to our enjoyment of a game are ourselves.

 

[Healz]

Part of my concern for Civilization VI was whether we can actually fully modify the game or not. Civilization V was originally announced as being the most modifiable Civ but this never eventuated. Also the game stepped far away from what Civ was like until that time. I for one will be awaiting release as CiV burnt too much good will and felt like Heroes Of Might And Magic in its last release to me. I think this release will show how many prerelease buyers felt burnt by what was released. I ended up skipping CiV but depending on what I read will pick this up later. Not CiV but CiV VI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, Paradox games (at least CK and EU) are more historical simulators than games. They have a lot of features, but very small share of strategy.

EU devs are certainly not shy about cutting strategy, but calling it a "historical simulator" to a greater extent than civ is one is misleading. They actively deviate from history instantly and frequently in base mechanics, to the point of intentionally trampling on historical causality in the name of "gameplay" or even just to close "exploits" like building ships.

Is a leader living 6000 years realistic? Obviously not. Are not knowing you have more than one child, giant coalitions against nations smaller than several of the coalition, incapability of settlers to reach areas of the world you can safely send 20000 soldiers, and multi-year sieges actually more realistic?

A 1550 army dragging 20 regiments of cannons across Siberia in under a year, all over-land and not depending on rivers at all, is in similar fantasy land as a 6k year old ruler. That was a period where it was easier to ship such things over the Atlantic than march it 100 miles over land, and don't even get me started on the buggy & broken by design stuff.

Let's not play pretend here, these are both games first, even if the cutoff line for "historical representation" is a moving target/arbitrary in one case.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Let's not play pretend here, these are both games first, even if the cutoff line for "historical representation" is a moving target/arbitrary in one case.

Yes, it's not that radical difference. Of course both are games. I meant in EU you could see a lot of features added just because something like this was in history. In Civilization gameplay always highest priority.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I saw a youtube comment that called civ6 "a cartoon version of total war". This comment makes me think that this person maybe does not really understand what civ is, if they are comparing it to the total war series. This person was obviously expecting civ to look like total war. So I do think the negative comments are a product of people's expectations. When something does not meet our expectations, it is normal to have a negative reaction.

 

[civvver]

Because it looks like a civ5 mod more than a brand new game.