|
I really like Civ V but didn't like EL that much. Some people love it though.
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
I can't believe it's been 6 years since 5 came out. I wasn't expecting Civ6 though, I did a double take when I saw the post about it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Givin posted:Will Sean Bean die at the end of Civ VI? Probably somewhere around the Renaissance era.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:I have no doubt that just like every other Civ game since III, it'll suck at launch, be decent after one expansion, and be good after two. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Civilization VI: Just one... more... expansion
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Not really willing to spend a cent on this game until they show me the following: - proof that unit tile congestion is fixed - the ai isn't full retard (I'll accept half retard) The marketing promises look great in theory. Lets see the execution.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
I kinda prefer the more realistic look but if this art style lets them get more readable detail in then I'm all for it; seeing my little cities grow is pretty much the only reason I play Civ these days so more visual flair for that sounds great to me. They'd better have a lotta background animation or it might feel real dead though. e: I'm just realising what actually bugs me about the cartoony style- it implies the soundtrack is also gonna be chirpy and cartoony, and that would actually ruin the game for me.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Sid Meier's dick is so far up my rear end that I still play and legitimately enjoy playing Civ BE so I am excited for Civ 6.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I kinda prefer the more realistic look but if this art style lets them get more readable detail in then I'm all for it; seeing my little cities grow is pretty much the only reason I play Civ these days so more visual flair for that sounds great to me. They'd better have a lotta background animation or it might feel real dead though. SimCity 3000 was very cartoony but also had an all time great soundtrack so let's wait and see.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Yeah, the cartoony-ness has never really bothered me. In fact, I quite like that the Civ franchise has never take itself completely seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I was reading the RPS preview and I'm a little concerned with their geography->technology interplay they got going on. Seems like having a good start is more important than ever, and that means your game is a little deterministic and RNG heavy. We don't know how it'll play out obviously, and who gives a poo poo if you can't develop good naval tech without access to water (I leave it for last most of the time anyway), but I'm curious to see how they balance it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Is Endless Legend good because I played ES and it seemed interesting but really halfbaked Endless Legend is a much better game than Endless Space. ES suffers immensely from a lack of variety in how you go about winning. It's even more restrictive than Civ5 in terms of what optimum play looks like, and Civ5 is already very restrictive. Endless Legend has much more variety available at all stages of the game.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Is Endless Legend good because I played ES and it seemed interesting but really halfbaked That was basically my impression of Endless Legend. Lots of good ideas but then they wind up getting bogged down in fiddly bullshit. If you like having lots of things to fiddle with it's a chill good time though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:I was reading the RPS preview and I'm a little concerned with their geography->technology interplay they got going on. I think this system sounds fine because I got the impression that every tech will have some kind of environmental attribute. So you're not randomly rolling to see if you get the best start, you are getting an equally good start no matter where you are; you just get a different good start. I'm also assuming that the tech tree isn't as strict as it was before because if that were the case then this change would be pointless. So maybe if you start on plains you can go a little deeper in the horse line before the game makes you research iron working.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Instead of the boilerplate artistic rendering of previous games, cities will be presented in unique ways, according to the player's positional choices. This is especially true of Wonders, which are also built outside the city. There was always an element of aesthetic joy in building these things, which is now being intensified. But there is also a catch. The Pyramids must be built in the desert. Stonehenge can only be built near stone.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Sid Meier's dick is so far up my rear end that I still play and legitimately enjoy playing Civ BE so I am excited for Civ 6. Ditto. Probably gonna wait until September or early October before I get around to pre-ordering VI (I know I will, I'm a sucker), mainly because I want to wait to hear some solid(ish) details that aren't 100% marketing speak.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Welp, preordering this game as soon as they let me / I've got the cash. Will probably spring for a deluxe / collector's edition. As usual. gently caress the graphics. I want Sid Meier's sausage deeper inside of my waiting mancave.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
My reaction to the new art style was negative, but that's 90% probably because of the human instinctual reaction of "Change bad". I'll get used to it when I play it. Otherwise I can't wait to buy this game in four to six years when both the expansions are out and the game is decent. I also fully expect them to focus on the early game and not fix the late game, not do anything about the fact that AI doesn't try to win the game, and avoid fixing the multiplayer which desyncs so frequently right now as to make paradox games look like a gold standard. VerdantSquire fucked around with this message at 20:57 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
I for one can't stand the idea that my Samurai units, who are taller than the city they're standing next to, might be bright red instead of dull red. < >
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Holy poo poo the art style of the game is so far from important compared to the gameplay. You're going to be zoomed out about five times further than those screenshots in order to get any kind of playability.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:My reaction to the new art style was negative, but that's 90% probably because the human instinctual reaction of "Change bad". I'll get used to it when I play it. To be fair, I think the largest and most consistent improvement in each iteration of Civ is in the lategame; it just started from such a low point that it's taken them 4 sequels to manage to be barely mediocre.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I love the art style, it feels like a board game or an old map with token armies. Granted, I also loved war3, and this game appears to have used the same paint pallet.
|
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
People have mentioned that the art style reminds them of mobile game but to me the first thing I thought of was The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom or whatever the gently caress it was called. Not exact but still pretty whimsical in design. I'm also pretty sure it predates Clash of Clans. Would it be nice if it was moee stylized like Civ5? Sure. But I'll get used to the look here and I don't quite get the immediate revulsion other people are displaying.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Gort posted:Holy poo poo the art style of the game is so far from important compared to the gameplay. You're going to be zoomed out about five times further than those screenshots in order to get any kind of playability. disagree
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
The art reminds me of Civ Rev, which was A Good Game
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Make Haiti a civilization in the game. It's time for Toussaint Louverture to shine. And don't make Teddy Roosevelt the American leader. (Too early to argue about this?) gently caress yooooooooooooou. They'd better not include TR in the announce video and not let me play as him, I will be supremely pissed. I don't care if there's multiple leaders per civ or something, so he's not the default US leader. I just better get to play as him.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
The description of the AIs and diplo stuff makes it sound like they're going to go into the simulation AI theory rather than the play like players playing to win AI theory Whether that's good enough or bad is up to you.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:The description of the AIs and diplo stuff makes it sound like they're going to go into the simulation AI theory rather than the play like players playing to win AI theory It is good. With a game like Civ, making a competent plays-to-win AI is the kind of thing that would require multiple people with Ph.Ds in expert systems and so on to implement. There's no way that Firaxis is going to devote that kind of effort; they'd get much better returns by just making the PvP systems more robust (which they probably won't do either, of course). Simulationist AIs are hard enough as it is, but they're still much, much easier than "fellow board game player" AIs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Also the most surprising thing about that trailer to me is that the obligatory Apollo animation featured the Skylab launch instead of the launch of one of the lunar missions.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
You know when people bitched about Diablo 3 being Too Colorful? I imagine it was like this. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:It is good. With a game like Civ, making a competent plays-to-win AI is the kind of thing that would require multiple people with Ph.Ds in expert systems and so on to implement. There's no way that Firaxis is going to devote that kind of effort; they'd get much better returns by just making the PvP systems more robust (which they probably won't do either, of course). Simulationist AIs are hard enough as it is, but they're still much, much easier than "fellow board game player" AIs. I agree, when they try to implement the latter system it just results in frustrating stuff like somebody you've been buds with since the dawn of time getting angry at you because you're building the space shuttle
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
The stuff about getting a research boost for Masonry after building a quarry and only being able to build Pyramids on desert tiles is insane to me.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:The stuff about getting a research boost for Masonry after building a quarry and only being able to build Pyramids on desert tiles is insane to me. The former seems fine to me, the latter is a little disappointing just because all the strange places the Pyramids wonder could end up being built was always a charming icon of the Civ series.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I'm gonna say they will hopefully get it balanced decently, but we all know that some thing is gonna be barely stronger, so it becomes the thing that everyone does on diety and then complains about the lack of balance and diversity in play styles.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Geight posted:The former seems fine to me, the latter is a little disappointing just because all the strange places the Pyramids wonder could end up being built was always a charming icon of the Civ series. The masonry makes no sense. You're already incentivized to build a quarry on stone to use the resource and get the extra production. You're already incentivized to research Masonry to take advantage of buildings that get a bonus from stone, like Pyramids or whatever. Why do you need an extra boost? Its putting emphasis on things that are already emphasized.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:The masonry makes no sense. You're already incentivized to build a quarry on stone to use the resource and get the extra production. You're already incentivized to research Masonry to take advantage of buildings that get a bonus from stone, like Pyramids or whatever. Why do you need an extra boost? Its putting emphasis on things that are already emphasized. On the other hand, we don't really know enough to say how those other benefits have been changed. I do think the concept of having faster research for things you actually do is a very good idea, from a thematic stand point at least. A ton is going to be in the implementation
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:The masonry makes no sense. You're already incentivized to build a quarry on stone to use the resource and get the extra production. You're already incentivized to research Masonry to take advantage of buildings that get a bonus from stone, like Pyramids or whatever. Why do you need an extra boost? Its putting emphasis on things that are already emphasized. Masonry (or quarries, even!) might not have the same effects as it does in Civ V, though. If this system were implemented in Civ V as it stands you might have a point, but as it stands I just see it as a fun flavor thing to incentivize people following different research paths from game to game.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:On the other hand, we don't really know enough to say how those other benefits have been changed. I do think the concept of having faster research for things you actually do is a very good idea, from a thematic stand point at least. A ton is going to be in the implementation Geight posted:Masonry (or quarries, even!) might not have the same effects as it does in Civ V, though. If this system were implemented in Civ V as it stands you might have a point, but as it stands I just see it as a fun flavor thing to incentivize people following different research paths from game to game. Those are both fair points, but I think the underlying philosophy doesn't make much sense. You already get a reward from the map gen by starting next to stone, or gold, or whatever, in the form of that resources yield and bonuses (whatever they may be). To give the player another free bonus on top of that makes the snowball a little too big. Especially when the bonus doesn't feel earned. They're example has you getting a bonus to Masonry for putting a quarry on a stone, but you were already going to put a quarry on the stone anyway because presumably that is a useful resource. It's a false choice, where you basically get a bonus for doing nothing. Of course, they can perfectly balance the system so those that get bonuses to water stuff, or masonry, or whatever, are all basically equal, but its a weird design decision to include the bonuses when the base mechanics are already fairly equal. You're just giving yourself more stuff to balance, for extra flavor that already kind of exists in the game. I also am not a huge fan of the fact that the whole thing seems like it can narrow your tech path too much, where the bonuses are big enough to where you now have one right path based on the map you rolled. The map should dictate what you do (and I think it already does) but not to the extent that I feel like these bonuses can force.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Borsche69 posted:The masonry makes no sense. You're already incentivized to build a quarry on stone to use the resource and get the extra production. You're already incentivized to research Masonry to take advantage of buildings that get a bonus from stone, like Pyramids or whatever. Why do you need an extra boost? Its putting emphasis on things that are already emphasized. To reduce the opportunity cost of using a different build order and therefore more strongly differentiate civs in a given game (and games for a given player). I mean, everyone beelines Writing in Civ 5, right? As soon as you get the absolute most basic fundamental techs done, you're going Pottery -> Writing so you can slam out some libraries. And that's dumb; Writing shouldn't be such a dominant tech compared to the others. So the goal is to make it which techs are "dominant" depends on your location, to tempt you into using different techs, and thus different buildings, units, and improvements.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:To reduce the opportunity cost of using a different build order and therefore more strongly differentiate civs in a given game (and games for a given player). I mean, everyone beelines Writing in Civ 5, right? As soon as you get the absolute most basic fundamental techs done, you're going Pottery -> Writing so you can slam out some libraries. And that's dumb; Writing shouldn't be such a dominant tech compared to the others. So the goal is to make it which techs are "dominant" depends on your location, to tempt you into using different techs, and thus different buildings, units, and improvements. But that's a problem with the balance of the tech tree, and something that should be fixed by making techs more equally useful, either by lowering their cost, or making the things that they unlock more useful. Incentivizing certain paths through free map bonuses doesn't make something like Writing any less useful.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
I don't have a hugely strong opinion on the art style, but I never understand why they screenshot these games with no icons/grid on. My concern is being able to functionally identify the strategic elements so I can play what is fundamentally a video-boardgame. I don't care how pretty the knights are in a chess game, so long as they are immediately identifiable as knights. That's actually harder than it sounds when you have 100 units and 15 terrain types. It may have had slightly less options but imo Civ1 actually handled this aspect the best. You didn't need tooltips and icons on everything because it was quite obvious when there was Wheat on a tile. Pakistani Brad Pitt fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 00:19
|
|
