|
I'll definitely be waiting to see what this thread thinks for a bit, yeah.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
I've never been on the fence about a Civ expansion before. Bad job, Firaxis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
As a couple with a combined 4000+ hours in the Civilization series, myself and my fiancé will undoubtedly be corporate whores playing this on release day. If it’s bad our entertainment will come from doing our best ‘What were they thinking?!’ AVGN impersonations. To this day we find the game nigh unplayable without CQUI. They should probably just roll that mod into he base game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
so I'm still not hearing great things about this game but it's got to be worth $12 at least, right? (it's this month's humble monthly)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
I've never played any civ game in a multiplayer format, but from what I've read the game comes together quite nicely when you play with other people. It's when you play single player games that the flaws really shine through, particularly with AI that just can't play the game. If you can survive the early game rush where they start with free units and tech at higher difficulties, you should have little problems winning games if you have experience in any Civilization-esque games. e: Regarding the Governor mechanics stream that's going to happen, I was under the impression that it's .. already been explained? What more could there even be that's not incredibly minor? Bluff Buster fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
I'll be pre ordering and playing on day one because I am a whore for civ and firaxis
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:so I'm still not hearing great things about this game but it's got to be worth $12 at least, right? (it's this month's humble monthly) Personally, I'm having a blast. It's not perfect by any stretch but I think it's just about my favorite Civ game so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I'll definitely be waiting to see what this thread thinks for a bit, yeah. I can see waiting, but not for what this thread ("OMG how am I a warmonger after I ignored six peace offers???") thinks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Personally, I'm having a blast. It's not perfect by any stretch but I think it's just about my favorite Civ game so far. Same. I still think that the thread gets too caught up in circle jerking over shared negativity while conveniently ignoring the myriad problems that plague the past games they prefer, because they either got used to those problems or have forgotten that the mods they use that change nearly every single civ, tech, policy, building, and religious belief aren't part of the base game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
I can't speak for others but I'm well aware of the problems of Civ 5, it's just that Civ 6 launched with the same problems. And some new ones. If anything I'm conveniently remembering those problems and expecting the next iteration to fix them, but alas That said, Civ 5 was my first Civ game and my initial experience of it was probably as good as it was for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I can't speak for others but I'm well aware of the problems of Civ 5, it's just that Civ 6 launched with the same problems. And some new ones. If anything I'm conveniently remembering those problems and expecting the next iteration to fix them, but alas What new problems does Civ6 pose to you? All of my complaints are things held over from Civ5, and yeah it's frustrating that they still can't get it right but I find there are enough improvements in other areas that it's well worth it. Actually I take it back, I do think civ design is one area they went backwards a little bit on. But again, I think the base game is good enough that this isn't a fatal flaw, where Civ5 would absolutely have been DOA if the launch civs were this boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:That's Magnus, one of the governors, yeah. His bonuses mostly involve production and resources, though he is, in fact, good at helping you colonize the poo poo out of things too. Victor the Governor definitely wants you to go to war because he needs more mustache wax. There is no way your civ produces enough wax for that mustache, which is why you must conquer India, Russia, Japan or Rome. Or better yet: ALL of those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I can't speak for others but I'm well aware of the problems of Civ 5, it's just that Civ 6 launched with the same problems. And some new ones. If anything I'm conveniently remembering those problems and expecting the next iteration to fix them, but alas Civ VI does not have a lot of V's problems. V is, if we're going by this thread's standards, a dumpster fire of a game. VI does not have:
And other such things. VI's not perfect and still needs a lot of work, but V, even after two expansions and several years of patches, has some downright awful design choices and inexplicable issues given how long they had to fix them. (Note, I like V, and am enjoying playing it again despite all of the above, though I'm not especially interested in joining more games of it. But it has a lot of issues that this thread is oddly forgiving of given how harsh it is towards VI.) Alkydere posted:Victor the Governor definitely wants you to go to war because he needs more mustache wax. There is no way your civ produces enough wax for that mustache, which is why you must conquer India, Russia, Japan or Rome. Or better yet: ALL of those. Sacrifices must be made for the perfect facial hair. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I can't speak for others but I'm well aware of the problems of Civ 5, it's just that Civ 6 launched with the same problems. And some new ones. If anything I'm conveniently remembering those problems and expecting the next iteration to fix them, but alas That's my issue as well. The brunt of my issues were UI related and fixed by mods in V, but there were still a ton of issues in V that persisted in VI. -Navies don't matter. -Religious units blocking military units or the other way around. (Not fixed until a year after release.) -Nothing to do mid through late game. -AI promise mechanic. I could probably think up a dozen more if I fired VI up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:-Religious units blocking military units or the other way around. (Not fixed until a year after release.) I mean, if we can hold things that were fixed against a game, then V gets even worse in comparison because it was a trash fire on release and took years to be fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:I mean, if we can hold things that were fixed against a game, then V gets even worse in comparison because it was a trash fire on release and took years to be fixed. To fair the Civ5 thread did the same thing; the problems it had at launch became entrenched in the thread's consciousness so the complaints lingered long after the problem got fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Oh God, Civ V was so much worse on release than VI ever was. VI didn't have a fraction of V's problems. Lots of revisionist history going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:Oh God, Civ V was so much worse on release than VI ever was. VI didn't have a fraction of V's problems. You shouldn't really be comparing the games at launch. They shouldn't be repeating the same "Game has huge and obvious flaws at launch then gets better over a span of years" cycle every game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:You shouldn't really be comparing the games at launch. They shouldn't be repeating the same "Game has huge and obvious flaws at launch then gets better over a span of years" cycle every game. I mean, I wasn't comparing them at launch until someone else brought up one of VI's launch problems to criticize it. I was comparing current VI to current V, and the latter is far more unbalanced and has a lot of glaring problems even after years of work that VI, thankfully and for all its issues, does not have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
I'm not comparing VI's launch to V's launch. I'm comparing VI's launch issues to V's lifetime issues because they are really the same game, and I expected more from VI because it is basically a rewrite V.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:I mean, I wasn't comparing them at launch until someone else brought up one of VI's launch problems to criticize it. I was comparing current VI to current V, and the latter is far more unbalanced and has a lot of glaring problems even after years of work that VI, thankfully and for all its issues, does not have. You've repeated this opinion like it's universal truth 4-5 times, but I completely disagree. 5 is a playable, interesting game with a build que and different strategies on immortal / deity. It's actually fun to play. Civ 6 is a horrid mess with the garbage map / fog of war, no loving build que, endless leader interactions and the idiotic AI personality system, and all of those make it a worse game than Civ 5 is right now. I still go back and play Civ 5 because it's occasionally fun, Civ 6 collects dust and will almost certainly continue to do so. If I was going to play a quick Multi game I'd play 5, not 6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:You've repeated this opinion like it's universal truth 4-5 times, but I completely disagree. 5 is a playable, interesting game with a build que and different strategies on immortal / deity. It's actually fun to play. Criticizing someone for stating something as if it's "universal truth" then stating your opinions like they're facts is some major  .Anyway, nothing I stated before was wrong. Random Great Prophets that take all your Faith no matter how far over the required amount you are is bad design. The single best Social Policy path always being Tradition - as few filler policies as possible - Rationalism is bad design. The civ balance ranging from "you get a ton of free science/policies" to "you are literally worse off than a civ with no bonuses whatsoever" is bad design. Over half the religious beliefs being trash, while one is miles better than anything else you could take, is bad design. The Happiness system punishing you so hard for expanding is bad design. I mean, if you disagree, you could defend those things, instead of just saying "V is fun, VI isn't" like it's a fact. I'd love to hear how Sejong and Hiawatha sharing the same game despite the immense imbalance is a good thing, or why Tradition should be always better than the other starting options there. I wasn't saying that VI is better, just that it doesn't have the many, many stupid design decisions and balance issues that the people constantly bitching in this thread are determined to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Over half the religious beliefs being trash, while one is miles better than anything else you could take, is bad design. The Happiness system punishing you so hard for expanding is bad design. Which one is the good one, out of curiosity? I dont remember what I used to pick
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Which one is the good one, out of curiosity? I dont remember what I used to pick Tithe. +1 Gold per four followers, in a game where cities grow so much, is really, really strong. It doesn't even need a city to have your religion as a majority, all followers count. Compare that to things like +2 Gold per city following the religion, +1 Happiness for every two cities following it, +2 Faith per foreign city following it, Science when you have a Missionary trying to spread to a city already following another religion (and they have to be following one; spreading to a city with no religion gets you nothing), and so on, and it's not a contest; the mountains of free gold Tithe gives you puts everything else to shame. Especially compared to the ones only count cities and followers outside your empire, not your own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Criticizing someone for stating something as if it's "universal truth" then stating your opinions like they're facts is some major I explained the reasons I prefer Civ 5 and play it over Civ 6. quote:Anyway, nothing I stated before was wrong. Random Great Prophets that take all your Faith no matter how far over the required amount you are is bad design. The single best Social Policy path always being Tradition - as few filler policies as possible - Rationalism is bad design. The civ balance ranging from "you get a ton of free science/policies" to "you are literally worse off than a civ with no bonuses whatsoever" is bad design. Over half the religious beliefs being trash, while one is miles better than anything else you could take, is bad design. The Happiness system punishing you so hard for expanding is bad design. Yeah but different people assign those things different weights. For me, these are far better things to deal with than an AI that literally can't attack a city, which is the case in Civ 6. The religion mechanics are a side issue for me at best, you seem to feel strongly about the implementation of religious units and religious warfare. I don't care about it because I can mostly ignore that system and still play the game and enjoy it. quote:I mean, if you disagree, you could defend those things, instead of just saying "V is fun, VI isn't" like it's a fact. I'd love to hear how Sejong and Hiawatha sharing the same game despite the immense imbalance is a good thing, or why Tradition should be always better than the other starting options there. I wasn't saying that VI is better, just that it doesn't have the many, many stupid design decisions and balance issues that the people constantly bitching in this thread are determined to ignore. My opinions are in fact representative of how I feel when I play the game. I was offering them as a counter example to your opinions, so I thought the context was clear - I guess not. For my tastes and preferences, Civ 6 is an objectively worse game. Both Civ 5 and Civ 6 have jank, but Civ 6's jank is in all the spots I hate, and Civ 5's jank is tolerable for my gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
They had eight years to come up with something better than Civ 5. If they spent that time and ended up with something that fewer people want to play I think it's indisputable that that's a failure on some level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:I explained the reasons I prefer Civ 5 and play it over Civ 6. Fair enough. Your post did read to me as you stating facts rather than opinions, but if that's what you meant, that's fair really. I wasn't trying to talk opinions myself or claim that VI is objectively better, just bring up examples of issues and design problems with V in response to posts claiming that VI has all of V's problems when in fact it fixed a lot, even if it also has a lot of work to do and definitely has issues, both new and that it inherited from V. I prefer VI, myself. I like V, even despite the stuff I described, but I enjoy VI more. The city-building with districts and such, Housing, more interesting (to me) civs and Great People and stuff, localized happiness that doesn't artificially limit growth or punish new cities, it's just a lot more fun for me. I really appreciate how crazy they go with some civs, and how despite that they wind up being more or less balanced against each other because they're all powerful; the worst civs in the game are the ones that stuck the closest to V and gave rather underwhelming and undynamic bonuses. VI France could be a V civ, and that's why it's probably the worst civ in the game. (And even then, it's more mediocre than an outright disaster like V's Iroquois.) I also only play MP outside of when I want to test something, so I don't have to deal with the janky AI unless someone quit a game I'm in or I'm teaching a friend the game with a team vs AI game, so that helps admittedly. Not that V has great AI either, mind, and I think people still ignore that too much when comparing the two or exaggerate the badness of VI's AI (in the cases I have played against it and wasn't warmongering, keeping them happy was never really an issue outside the ones that are meant to be assholes), but, whatever. I just find the constant complaining here tiresome at this point. So many posts where someone's pissed that they can't commit genocide against a civ because they were the ones who declared war and stuff. The thread gets so negative sometimes, and frequently the complaints are that person's own fault. It feels like people are just circle-jerking or complaining for its own sake when someone posts about a new thing being revealed for Rise and Fall or whatever and others come out of the woodwork to go "yeah but VI's still bad". No one has to like VI, but man, things get ridiculous occasionally. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
If you exclusively play multiplayer but feel the AI is fine, maybe you just need to accept that you're not a typical player and that's why your experience is different? Other players play against the AI much more than you do, and that's why they feel that the AI being bad is a bigger deal than you do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Gort posted:If you exclusively play multiplayer but feel the AI is fine, maybe you just need to accept that you're not a typical player and that's why your experience is different? Other players play against the AI much more than you do, and that's why they feel that the AI being bad is a bigger deal than you do. I said that in that last post, yes. And in other posts I've made on the subject in the past. That doesn't negate the stuff I said about V, though; the balance and such there really is awful, and its AI is also a mess. Heck, I was looking around elsewhere and just read a post today complaining about being denounced for no discernible reason in V and appreciating VI telling you why the AI hates you, even if it's just "they just plain don't like you".
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:I think part of the disconnect is that if the AI feels it has a good enough reason to go to war, it can decide to go to war regardless of its attitude. Which feels bad because you can get targeted by someone with a million positive modifiers if they really want to. This is why I like EU4's take on the same thing, where declaring war on somebody you have good relations takes a point of stability (a global rating that adds +/- 10% at a time to a bunch of things). If you're in an average or poor situation you want to avoid this, but if you've been lucky or careful enough you can stockpile stability to declare a surprise war on someone who's been friends with you up until that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:You shouldn't really be comparing the games at launch. They shouldn't be repeating Maybe I did misunderstand the complaints, but I still have basically no reason to have V installed now that VI exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I've never been on the fence about a Civ expansion before. Bad job, Firaxis. i skipped rising tide, so i have no problem waiting to see if RF is any good or if it's garbo (it'll be poo poo) homullus posted:I can see waiting, but not for what this thread ("OMG how am I a warmonger after I ignored six peace offers???") thinks. i'm not going to accept a peace offer where they demand my cities even though they have no units left and every single tile in their borders has been pillaged Roland Jones posted:[*]A Great Person system where getting any one of a Great Scientist, Merchant, or Engineer makes it harder to get all of those going forward and pushes you to only focus on one until the lategame and you can buy them with Faith. Also entirely awful categories of Great People; you never want a Great Merchant, ever, in V, while in VI the worst is some particular Great People of a type being bad. And you can skip those ones. but this is how GPs worked in 4 too  just because all gpp generated get rolled into one total doesn't mean that the price doesn't go up. in fact, i'd say 5 handles it way better because that 1%gpp your holy city wonder gives can screw you out of a scientist or engineer in the later game by nature of the RNG. in 5, it takes micromanagement, but you have total control over which great people you spawn. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Jan 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:i skipped rising tide, so i have no problem waiting to see if RF is any good or if it's garbo (it'll be poo poo) Rising Tide was good if you already basically liked Beyond Earth (tall order in this thread, I know). Didn't fix anything, but added a lot of neat stuff. Sad that CBE looks like it won't get another expansion to try fixing things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Rising Tide was good if you already basically liked Beyond Earth (tall order in this thread, I know). Didn't fix anything, but added a lot of neat stuff. Given that Beyond Earth apparently has fewer players on Steam than Civ loving 3 (  ), that seems unlikely.
Caustic Soda fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jan 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:but this is how GPs worked in 4 too I will give V some credit, I earnestly think that they did generating Great People better than IV. It's one of the very few things I prefer in V. I'd say VI does it even better but while I do like most parts of the Great Person system in VI there are a few annoyances for me, including how Great Prophets are handled and the dissociation of Great People points from specialists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:but this is how GPs worked in 4 too I don't know much about IV. Didn't play it; outside of me getting Civ II for free as a kid with the computer my mom bought (and being really bad at it because I had no idea what I was supposed to be doing), my Civ experience started with V. Magil Zeal posted:I will give V some credit, I earnestly think that they did generating Great People better than IV. It's one of the very few things I prefer in V. Great Prophets are, well, not great, yeah. That definitely needs work. Specialists generating GPP again could be interesting too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
and if we're talking about Great People Problems in civ 6, why do they run out? civ 6 is the first civ game with gps ever where there's a hard cap to how many will spawn. it's supremely idiotic
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Well, they made each one unique, which is pretty cool and let them make some really interesting abilities for some. However, that also makes it so that, barring them repeating or something or becoming generic after a while, a sort of Future Tech/Civic equivalent of Great People, or them making a lot more unique Great People, they will run out by nature at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
repeating them would be better than not repeating them
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
I’m a Civ VI player that plays MP, mostly against the AI, and I’ll be buying expansion day one to play coop with a RL buddy while we shoot the poo poo, and dunk some AI. I only just recently started my first MP-players-only games with some fellow posters, and highly recommend it to everyone. I do, however, think the thread’s consistent cycle of ‘worst game ever’ vs ‘slightly better, but still worse game ever’ argument is (still) hilariously overplayed. Start a PYDT game! If you despise the AI in this game so much that posting about how bad of a game it is seems more fun than playing it, maybe start a MP game with goons to see if you like that instead! Hate the AI? Good, we don’t play against them with Goon games. There are legitimate fun ways to enjoy VI before it gets the +2 expansion release cycle that V required before people considered it the staple of Civ style games. If you just flat out don’t like the game, well, maybe stop posting about how bad it is and how much you don’t want to play it? I don’t know. I love you guys but can’t we just get along and agree, MP Civ VI is good, so we need more active Goon games?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 23:57
|
|
