Wow. Postman Pat comes to Civ

[Misotu]

I have been playing Civ since Civilization (now known as Civ I). Totally love it, my best loved game ever.

Just blew a load of dosh on the base game and the expansions. *What is this*?? The graphics are terrible, the user interface is clunky and hard to use, The whole thing feels like something from the 1980s, and yet not even that good. It feels like a game I bought as an experiment from GOG for £2, so you forgive the clunky outdated UI.

But this is the latest iteration of Civ. Civ V leaves it in the dust. Civ IV was a great successor to Civ II.

But this? Immersion? Don't make me laugh. I am so disappointed. I know hate posts aren't welcome, but all I can say is that I have been a Civ fan since it first came out and this ... this is just so rubbish I could cry.

Moderator Action: Please do not use spellings that attempt to fool the autocensor, have edited some of your post. We would appreciate you not using inappropriate language as we try to maintain a family oriented site. leif

 

[iammaxhailme]

I don't like the cartoony phone game look any more than you do, but I really like the districting system and greater focus on the map itself. I only started the series at Civ 5 though (though I have played a couple of short games of 3 and 4 after I started with 5, but didn't stick to them much)

 

[Cerilis]

If you gonna judge visuals that hard, haybe you should have looked at the game before you bought it, just a thought.

Also, it still amazes me how one can blame Civ6's cartoony graphics and praise Civ4's in the same post. Ever looked at Civ4's combat?

Your post is just so rubbish I could cry. (sry mods i couldnt help it)

 

[blackcatatonic]

I will admit I didn't like the Civ VI art style at all either at first, but I really love it now. It takes some getting used to but it's vibrant and looks stunning with the day-night cycle enabled.

I remain to be convinced by the leader art style over Civ V, but idc since I hate all the AI anyway (except Trajan who is my buddy except when he's my nearest neighbour...)

 

[Misotu]

@Cerilis If you gonna judge others’ posts that hard, maybe you should have read the post before you replied, just a thought.

I didn’t praise Civ IV’s graphics. I said it was “a worthy successor to Civ II”. Subtle, I know, but nothing to do with the graphics and really not that hard to follow, even for someone like you who’s just looking for a fight.

Your reply is nasty and silly.

Civ as a series is about immersion. This game reminds me of 80s quest games and it is not a worthy successor to Civ V unless you’re playing games on your phone and have little history with the franchise.

Just FYI, I looked at the promo screen shots over time, which seemed fine. They looked different, of course, but good enough. I trusted the Civ franchise. I didn’t expect a huge backward step. This is just trashy. It may have its good points in terms of game play - the reviews indicated this which encouraged me to try it out. But the immediate immersion factor just isn't there, and that is a huge disappointment for this long-term Civ player. Clunky, retro and amateur. What a pity.

 

[LMT]

The only artwork that really bothers me are the leader portrayals. The map, wonders, units, districts, etc. I think are good.

But the leaders are bad. So cartoony that Victoria immediately makes me think of Disney’s Sophia the First. And Philip reminds me too much of Robbie Rotten from Lazytown. I could go on.

 

[Cerilis]

@Cerilis If you gonna judge others’ posts that hard, maybe you should have read the post before you replied, just a thought.

I didn’t praise Civ IV’s graphics. I said it was “a worthy successor to Civ II”. Subtle, I know, but nothing to do with the graphics and really not that hard to follow, even for someone like you who’s just looking for a fight.

Your reply is nasty and silly.

Civ as a series is about immersion. This game reminds me of 80s quest games and it is not a worthy successor to Civ V unless you’re playing games on your phone and have little history with the franchise.

Just FYI, I looked at the promo screen shots over time, which seemed fine. They looked different, of course, but good enough. I trusted the Civ franchise. I didn’t expect a huge backward step. This is just trashy. It may have its good points in terms of game play - the reviews indicated this which encouraged me to try it out. But the immediate immersion factor just isn't there, and that is a huge disappointment for this long-term Civ player. Clunky, retro and amateur. What a pity.

If I am the one looking for a fight, then what is your OP supposed to be? A subject that has been regurgitated a million times on this forum already? What is there to debate? This is nothing but flamebait and you know it. I just gave you what you wanted.

 

[Misotu]

Nope. I haven’t read any other posts on the forum. I just posted here as a knee-jerk because I was so disappointed, really disappointed, after sticking with Civ for so many decades. I just fired up the game, was looking forward to it. Can’t believe the state of it. But I will persevere and maybe LMT and blackcatatonic are right to say that you adjust.

Of course, if I had read the historic posts here, I would have read them carefully. I wasn’t looking for insults. I am really sad about the way this game has gone.

I’m not surprised to encounter someone like you. You are just hanging around for fights. You won’t find one here

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please return this thread to civility.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cerilis]

Why, I'm just sick of the general hater attitude you see among gamers these days (not only here). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you really are genuine, which I still do not believe, then you might want to control your knee-jerk better (and yes, I am aware of the irony). You also might want to try out the civ5 landscape mod or whatever it was called.

 

[Kwami]

You say that you aren't looking for a fight, but your post suggests otherwise. What's the point of this thread?

 

[Depravo]

I'd encourage the OP to stick with it. I haven't given reinstalling Civ 5 a second thought since 6 came out.

The one thing I really don't like about the physical appearance of the game are the rigidly hexagonal borders. I'd love it if they'd smooth them out, and add back in that feature of Civ 4 where if the border coincided with a river, it followed the bank.

Personally, I'd get rid of the concept of city borders growing hex-by-hex over water tiles as well. Control over the water should grow in full rings.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

@Cerilis

Civ as a series is about immersion. This game reminds me of 80s quest games and it is not a worthy successor to Civ V unless you’re playing games on your phone and have little history with the franchise.

Just FYI, I looked at the promo screen shots over time, which seemed fine. They looked different, of course, but good enough. I trusted the Civ franchise. I didn’t expect a huge backward step. This is just trashy. It may have its good points in terms of game play - the reviews indicated this which encouraged me to try it out. But the immediate immersion factor just isn't there, and that is a huge disappointment for this long-term Civ player. Clunky, retro and amateur. What a pity.

I have plenty of history with the franchise (my Civ II tech tree is framed and hanging as wall art in my office) and don't play games on my phone, and I find the game to be a vast improvement from Civ V.

You keep claiming that the immersion isn't there, but you don't seem to have even tried to immerse yourself in the game at all. You don't like the art style, fine, but there is nothing to be done about it. To come in (3 years late to the party) and rally against the game without giving it a fair shake isn't going to buy you much in the way of credibility. You yourself stated that CIV was about immersion, and that it had terrible graphics, so it appear as the graphics aren't the end all for immersion, otherwise the series would have never gotten off the ground. As for Civ VI, you may not like the style they have chosen, but the quality is very high, items are polished and assets are easy to see/understand. But the art style is the art style and even if you hate it, it isn't a problem (or at least not a significant problem) for most players. The game is still going strong 3 years on with 2 xpacs (that clearly sold well enough to suggest a 3rd on the way), and many of those players are longtime fans of the series. If that is a deal-breaker for you, so be it, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Ownsya]

I never thought of myself as someone who enjoys watching people fight, but I have to admit this thread has been entertaining, the caution from @leif erikson definitely being the highlight.


Anyway, you're not the first to hate the graphics, or the UI for that matter. There are mods that try to improve both. Many people do like it and imo it was a marketing move from the dev's considering a lot of the games out there these days and their style, and they probably intended to take this game mobile from the get go. I think the entire game design has in mind bringing in new (and younger) players to this game and make it as approachable as possible but that's just my opinion.

There is a mod that puts a civ V skin over the game's terrain but it doesn't affect the units and buildings. Maybe there's another model for that, I dont know. There are also plenty of UI mods to pick from. My favorites are Sukritact's Simple UI, Better Civilopedia, and Better Reports Screen.

 

[Patine]

I have been playing Civ since Civilization (now known as Civ I). Totally love it, my best loved game ever.

Just blew a load of dosh on the base game and the expansions. *What is this*?? The graphics are terrible, the user interface is clunky and hard to use, The whole thing feels like something from the 1980s, and yet not even that good. It feels like a game I bought as an experiment from GOG for £2, so you forgive the clunky outdated UI.

But this is the latest iteration of Civ. Civ V leaves it in the dust. Civ IV was a great successor to Civ II.

But this? Immersion? Don't make me laugh. I am so disappointed. I know hate posts aren't welcome, but all I can say is that I have been a Civ fan since it first came out and this ... this is just so rubbish I could cry.

Moderator Action: Please do not use spellings that attempt to fool the autocensor, have edited some of your post. We would appreciate you not using inappropriate language as we try to maintain a family oriented site. leif

Who is Postman Pat?

 

[Gedemon]

I have plenty of history with the franchise (my Civ II tech tree is framed and hanging as wall art in my office) and don't play games on my phone, and I find the game to be a vast improvement from Civ V.

You keep claiming that the immersion isn't there, but you don't seem to have even tried to immerse yourself in the game at all. You don't like the art style, fine, but there is nothing to be done about it. To come in (3 years late to the party) and rally against the game without giving it a fair shake isn't going to buy you much in the way of credibility. You yourself stated that CIV was about immersion, and that it had terrible graphics, so it appear as the graphics aren't the end all for immersion, otherwise the series would have never gotten off the ground. As for Civ VI, you may not like the style they have chosen, but the quality is very high, items are polished and assets are easy to see/understand. But the art style is the art style and even if you hate it, it isn't a problem (or at least not a significant problem) for most players. The game is still going strong 3 years on with 2 xpacs (that clearly sold well enough to suggest a 3rd on the way), and many of those players are longtime fans of the series. If that is a deal-breaker for you, so be it, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

There is two sides for immersion : visual and gameplay.

The artstyle fits well the gameplay (what I call "naked boardgame", without any layers of immersion), but as you've said, the appearance is not primordial, what's more important is the gameplay (And to be fair, I'm fine the visual, I wasn't convinced by the pre-release screenshots, but I love the details they've put in, the day/night cycle and the VFX. When I look back at civ5 screenshots now, I really find them ugly)

But here is the catch for civ6, and sorry, here is my usual rant: you can mod the visual (see the Environment Skin, which is kind of a free DLC as it was made by one of Firaxis employee, and you can use my R.E.D. Modpack to reduce the units size, making the cartoon style less apparent, now I just miss a "R.E.D." for districts/wonders), but you can't mod the core gameplay.

And on that part I have to agree with the OP, immersion is not there, and I don't see how a third expansion could bring it in, neither do I think that they will try to bring civ4 spirit back with civ7, seeing how well civ5 and civ6 have sold.

There is still hope for people like me, maybe civ6 modding will be more open after the third expansion, or maybe Humankind will manage to be the true successor of civ4.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Who is Postman Pat?

British children's animated TV series. He has a black and white cat. (Also now I have the theme tune stuck in my head...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postman_Pat

 

[Victoria]

This game reminds me of 80s quest games and it is not a worthy successor to Civ V

Graphics are ugh but you get used to them. Many think it is a great successor. I have no idea why you posted this after liking this post Returning to CIV VI after two year hiatus... my thoughts. It seems clear you need to start living it.

Why, I'm just sick of the general hater attitude you see among gamers

this is a great forum but does make is more susceptible to these. I have ignored a good few, all of them seem to talk civ IV, you will always get diehards. I’m giving them the chance because they are giving VI a chance.

 

[montalaar]

i do not like cartoonish graphics too. but i like game. and i play civ since civ 2. then played civ 1. today both games to me are NOT good at all. they are far too simple. loved civ 4. loved even more civ 5. now... to me civ 6 is the best. but again, AI combat is better, but still weak and my main problem with civ 6 is not graphics, but with features crammed to the teeth map. often i have cities with tundra, grass and desert, mountains and its coastal, plus nearby wonder. and that all in one city`s borders. absurdly crammed maps with everything. otherwise civ 6 to me is best so far. can not imagine boredom, playing civ1/2 anymore.

and author - just give it a try! despite graphics.

 

[bitula]

I have been playing Civ since Civilization (now known as Civ I)....

But did you actually play the game (Civ 6)? One would think that Civ6 is a streamlined/simplified mobile version of Civ 1, since older games tend to be more complex (because of less incline to be trendy and comparably much smaller effort on visuals). But no, Civ 6 is the most complex and feature rich game in the series, although initially this was not evident because of the many bugs and balance issues. I think graphics are not as repulsive as to make one stop playing. Try out gameplay instead, just consider the 3D models as symbolic pawns. Imagine your own graphic into it. If you like complexity, you’ll like it. Oh, and ignore the tech quotes… Usually games are dumbed down to put more effort into trend and visuals, and though Civ6 unfortunately does put great effort into being trendy, it seems the game-play complexity and variety is maintained and being even further improved despite all of this.