Your greatest fears

I agree with a lot of the worries here, but after 25 years of playing Civ my biggest fear is that, once again, a Civ game won't be ready for release when it is, in fact, released.

2K appears to have a policy of announcing a release date and never backing off it, even when they clearly should. At least, I don't recall them ever having done so.

Civ 4 was a bugfest when it first came out (and I love that game) and Civ 5, well, it was six months shy of something Firaxis could be proud of.
 
I agree with a lot of the worries here, but after 25 years of playing Civ my biggest fear is that, once again, a Civ game won't be ready for release when it is, in fact, released.

2K appears to have a policy of announcing a release date and never backing off it, even when they clearly should. At least, I don't recall them ever having done so.

Civ 4 was a bugfest when it first came out (and I love that game) and Civ 5, well, it was six months shy of something Firaxis could be proud of.

I'm actually okay with that though. I'd rather a company release a half-finished game that they can gradually improve upon, than to be constantly be pushing back the release date to the point where we never know whether or not we are going to get any game at all.
 
The public release of a game enables a game to be play-tested far more thoroughly than the devs could ever manage themselves with their limited number of play-testers. Unless we are prepared to wait many years for a game, it's only when it is released still in a rough form (we can only hope not too rough) that the main bug-finding and balancing can be done by the public at large. Sad but inevitable. It's the price we pay for more and more complex games.
 
If they want free beta testers, they should do an ipen beta, but selling a game wich is not finished is just dishonest and probably the worst thing that can happend to a game.
And in the actual industry, this has say become pretty usual (after all why should you care about doing a good game when everybody has preordered it ?).
 
I agree with a lot of the worries here, but after 25 years of playing Civ my biggest fear is that, once again, a Civ game won't be ready for release when it is, in fact, released.

2K appears to have a policy of announcing a release date and never backing off it, even when they clearly should. At least, I don't recall them ever having done so.

Civ 4 was a bugfest when it first came out (and I love that game) and Civ 5, well, it was six months shy of something Firaxis could be proud of.

They did it with Xcom2 and that pushed it out of the Christmas Cycle
 
If they want free beta testers, they should do an ipen beta, but selling a game wich is not finished is just dishonest and probably the worst thing that can happend to a game.
And in the actual industry, this has say become pretty usual (after all why should you care about doing a good game when everybody has preordered it ?).

If you are irritated by the release of unfinished games there's a simple solution - don't consider buying it until there have been at least two big patches. By then you will not only have a game with far fewer bugs and balance issues, but you will have a good idea from the public reaction as to whether it is actually worth buying. BUT how many of us have the patience to do that?
 
If we could like each other's posts on these forums, I'd give you 38 likes for this. :goodjob:

Straight up. I want the civs to be unique from each other because of their distinctive gameplay.

I agree, those beautiful 3D screens are beautiful, but are expensive and you see them for about 2 seconds.

Also, the UI for Diplomacy now takes more screen, so It's kinda of ideal not to have them be a fully rendered individual 3D environment.

Glad I'm not alone in this. Last time I mentioned that pre BE release, poop was thrown at me from all directions.
 
- turn times are like civ 5 (which results in me playing with smaller map/less civs/maybe faster
speed then marathon. Pretty big deal for me)
- DLC milking (i will buy every dlc on day 1 do most probably. I just dont like to pay 2,50 for every
civ (I`ll rather pay for good sized expansions)
- City placement (I always hated it when the AI made unsensible decions like planting a city in your
face across a lot of space. Or putting there cities to close together so they are crap)
- launch date. I have high hopes for civ 6, but i would really loathe it if i switch back to civ 4/5 after release. (I`ve had a bad civ 5 vanilla experience)
 
People's obessions over the quality and realism of graphics in game where it's a bad priority perplexes me to be honest.

No kidding.

The best part when people complain about the graphics being prioritized over gameplay, but then proceed to complain about the inverse as well. Frankly, I think Civ 6 looks pretty good from the videos, and if they did improve the AI like they claimed, is that not what we wanted in the first place?
 
If you are irritated by the release of unfinished games there's a simple solution - don't consider buying it until there have been at least two big patches. By then you will not only have a game with far fewer bugs and balance issues, but you will have a good idea from the public reaction as to whether it is actually worth buying. BUT how many of us have the patience to do that?

Really this, though. Bemoan the process as much as you want, but if you want the game to have more time in development... it's a computer game that gets patches, DLC, and expansions. Wait to buy it.

I don't mind paying to "beta test" the thing because A.) civ is just stupid fun. Rediculously stupid fun... and B) I always get an emormous amount of content for free from Firaxis due to the nature of the game's design; I buy the initial product, and then my next purchase is usually the final expansion; which typically comes bundled with most of everything they designed before. Warlords, gods and kings, play the world... these are things I've never paid for.

Because hey, patience pays in this industry.

As far as my fears go; None. The game looks gorgeous, and I think it's taking a lot of healthy steps forward from civ5 - which tried to do too much too quick to distinguish itself from it's predecessor. I think 6 seems to marry a lot of what was great about 5, with a lot of what was lost from 4.
 
If you are irritated by the release of unfinished games there's a simple solution - don't consider buying it until there have been at least two big patches. By then you will not only have a game with far fewer bugs and balance issues, but you will have a good idea from the public reaction as to whether it is actually worth buying. BUT how many of us have the patience to do that?

I would have bought a new civ game if it was 500 euro`s. Or upgrade my whole pc to get the best experience. The fear of seeing an unfinished civilization 6 would be way worse then just paying for a crappy game. (my prediciton is it will not be) i would still pre-ordered it just because it is civ. And i have seen no indication that it is somehow dumbed down to tablet/console level.
Would not do it with any other game series do.
 
Do you have any reason for it?

A reason to fear bad games? I guess I prefer games I enjoy to ones I don't.

Just one of my quirks I guess. Although I suppose that's more disdain than fear.

Either way, my greatest apprehension about any game is that it won't be good.
 
1 UPT traffic jams.
Solid release dates being the cause of an unfinished game.
Lack of complexity.
Inability to skip animations.
Poor modability,
 
I don't know that I'd call it a "great fear", but I have some consternation that their attention to filling out TSL maps will, ironically, lead to certain civs from historically-neglected areas getting ignored all the more.

Ed Beach has said that they're keeping True-Start Location maps in mind when thinking about civ selection, implying that they're going to do a better job of making sure that certain regions are better represented than they have been. I know he's specifically mentioned South America, which would seem to indicate that they have in mind adding more South American civs than just the Inca and Brazil. If they hold true to this philosophy, then it should mean that regions that have tended to be overlooked in this franchise, like Sub-Saharan Africa or Oceania, will get more civs to represent them.

My worry is that they'll just pick one civ from these regions, decide that's sufficient to fill out a TSL map, and never revisit the area again. For example, that they'll add Mali and the Khmer (to take a Civ IV example) or Songhai and Siam (from Civ V), decide that West Africa and Southeast Asia have the civs they need for a TSL map, and not bother to add anyone else. Meanwhile, every corner of Europe keeps getting filled with more and more civs (Spain and Portugal! England and the Celts! Rome and Venice! Russia and Poland! Germany and Austria and the Netherlands and Denmark and Sweden!) just because those civs are better known to Western audiences.

The attention to TSL maps sounds promising on the surface, because it means that regions which they've never paid much attention to might actually get some attention during VI's lifespan . . . but if interesting civilizations from outside Europe get brushed aside because their region is already "represented" by someone else ("We don't need the Apache because we have the Shoshone . . . the Mapuche because we have Argentina . . . the Sumerians because we have the Babylonians . . . the Kongolese because we have the Zulu. . . .), then ultimately this policy will have been of purely superficial value. I'd rather see a true diversity of civs (culturally, chronologically, globally), than see each region get one "token" civ to represent everyone who ever lived near there just to fill in a TSL map.
 
My worry is that they'll just pick one civ from these regions, decide that's sufficient to fill out a TSL map, and never revisit the area again. For example, that they'll add Mali and the Khmer (to take a Civ IV example) or Songhai and Siam (from Civ V), decide that West Africa and Southeast Asia have the civs they need for a TSL map, and not bother to add anyone else. Meanwhile, every corner of Europe keeps getting filled with more and more civs (Spain and Portugal! England and the Celts! Rome and Venice! Russia and Poland! Germany and Austria and the Netherlands and Denmark and Sweden!) just because those civs are better known to Western audiences.

They really do seem to have an overextended focus on parceling out and emphasizing specific Western civilizations, while kind of just lumping every other part of the world under "umbrella" civs.

Why was Siam considered important enough to put in Civ 5's core roster but not in Civ 6? Why was the Khmer Empire good enough to eventually include in Civ 4 but not 5 even through expansions?

It's all so arbitrary. Civ rosters seem more like the UN Security Council, with permanent members that are guaranteed to always be there (which for some reason include the Greeks and Romans but not the Mongols), and an ever-rotating list of non-permanent members.
 
Top Bottom