|
I though CK2 would have a lot more In any case, is quite a feat for a game as old as Civ 5, who didint got any new DLC or expansion for years, to have so many active players Im one of them, I still fire it up every now and them to play some. I have Civ 6 but never played, Im waiting for the expansion to get cheap and for the AI to reach at least Civ 5 levels of bad
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
turboraton posted:Dont play SMAC, watch the cinematic videos instead B) 200 IQ tip play the civ 4 mod planetfall
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I though CK2 would have a lot more You're going to be waiting forever. Civ5 having so many active players still shows that Civ6 hasn't really succeeded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
Taear posted:You're going to be waiting forever. Agreed, but also shows that civ 5 is a great game
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Agreed, but also shows that civ 5 is a great game Nobody said otherwise! Although I still think I prefer 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
5 likely also got a huge boost in sales because it was the first to do the 1UPT system. Then 6 failed to actually improve the biggest weakness of the system (AI) and word got out. 5's presentation was also amazing, gently caress look at the UI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:5 likely also got a huge boost in sales because it was the first to do the 1UPT system. Then 6 failed to actually improve the biggest weakness of the system (AI) and word got out. 5's presentation was also amazing, gently caress look at the UI. Still kinda bitter about people not giving the art deco stylings of Civ V props. It was clean and stylish, and mods could easily adapt the aesthetic through "realistic" 3d models but art deco 2d icons and whatnot. Civ 6 becoming more cartoony is nice because civ leaders got a lot more expressive and unique, but man did Civ V have style.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 13:55
|
|
|
Civ IV and V are the best Civs to date by far. If VI gets as much development as V, it will be better than IV. SMAC is trash garbage without the quotes. Making and upgrading units in SMAC is a special hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
homullus posted:Making and upgrading units in SMAC is a special hell. In what way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:In what way? A hundred small upgrades provide very long lists of boring options. Every new iteration you actually make creates a new thing you have to scroll past forever after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
Huh. Can't say I remember it bothering me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
Civ 5 also has the better mods (and I feel the reason you can't re-play BE: they broke mods)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:Huh. Can't say I remember it bothering me. Me either. You've got a rover and a planething and you just upgrade them to the most modern stuff you've got. Doesn't seem that problematic!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
You people! I remember when Civ5 received as much hate compared to Civ4 as Civ6 does now compared to Civ5. Literally nobody liked the art-deco art style back then, 1UPT was dumbed down, AI was moronic, etc etc .... I guess when Civ7 comes out, Civ6 will be an instant classic, right? Anyway, as someone that bought Civilization 1 the month it came out back then, I prefer Civ6 above every other Civ. It's really the same thing every decade. The one constant is that people like to complain. John F Bennett fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:You people! 1UPT is pretty bad but at least it felt like the AI could play the game. Also Civ4 was loved a lot after the absolute travesty of Civ3. Different people complain about different things. Having played from Civ2 onwards 6 feels quite a bit like 3 - where I play it a bit then it gets too annoying and the expansions don't fix it. Taear fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
The AI being what it is sucks, but I love the district system and want it moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
I liked Civ V because it had a bunch of really unique civ options that played radically differently other than having tweaks to numbers, and mods which were even more of that (MSF is so loving good holy poo poo) Civ VI doesn't really have that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:You people! Civ4 is still better than 5, I still don't like the Civ5 art style and think the UI sucks (though not as much as 6), 1UPT is garbage, and the AI still can't handle it at all. To be fair though the Civ6 implementation of 1UPT is apparently pretty decent in MP. Plus the sale/player numbers don't lie. I'm almost certain that nearly two years and an expansion after launch 5's player base dwarfed 4's, yet now 5 has over 50% more people playing it than 6. You're seeing a pattern where none exists. And like Taear said, Civ4 was well received. Not sure what the reaction to 3 and 2 was, though. toasterwarrior posted:The AI being what it is sucks, but I love the district system and want it moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
I know it's really stupid but I liked in Civ4 the map eventually being covered entirely in borders and also playing continents and being able to trade maps with the other side so I can see what's going on. Civ5 not having that disappointed me and multiplayer in 5 wasn't quite as good either. It's even worse in 6. I still can't believe it shipped without teams and with no production queue!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
I was pretty excited when 6 launched and it had multiplayer functionality like scenarios and AI that was no different in multiplayer than it is in single-player (unlike Civ 5's which cannot propose deals in MP).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
Gort posted:I was pretty excited when 6 launched and it had multiplayer functionality like scenarios and AI that was no different in multiplayer than it is in single-player (unlike Civ 5's which cannot propose deals in MP). I only ever play in teams so when it didn't exist it pretty much meant I couldn't play multiplayer - or at least every game ended with no winner. Civ6 is also the first Civ game where I tend to win by conquest because it's just so much less BOTHER than the other ways to win. Civ5 made war a bit annoying but Civ6 makes every other method annoying. And as someone who is really poo poo at Civ games being able to fight off every single AI at once is just...insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
It was really dumb when they ditched the "own X percent of the world to win" victory condition in favour of "Conquer all capitals".
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Gort posted:It was really dumb when they ditched the "own X percent of the world to win" victory condition in favour of "Conquer all capitals". Did anyone ever mod that back in? Seems like it would be a simple mod (says me, experience mod non-maker)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Taear posted:
I dunno, when I started playing I just won out of the middle of nowhere by culture, admittedly not on a high difficulty, in Civ 5 I'd have had to fiddle around with "theming bonuses" for hours to get there...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:You people! civ 5 was a diamond in the rough at release, and the subsequent expansions substantially improved on it. i probably played at least a dozen games of vanilla civ 5 before i put it down until g&k. like yeah i thought it was inferior to its predecessor at launch but i didn't think it was bad, i just preferred 4 at that time. it was good enough for me to buy gods and kings on launch day, and it was obvious that i was gonna buy brave new world on day one, too. civ 6? i played two games. just two before i decided it was the same brand of trash as beyond earth. my opinion of the base product is so negative that i refuse to waste my money on the expansions. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:You people! V was at least a lot different from IV. 1UPT was a huge change in gameplay. It took awhile for V to iron out issues but it always felt like you were buying a new game. VI still feels like an update more than a new game. The graphics didn't get better, just different. The AI got worse. And it seemed like they spent most of their time coming up with obnoxious quotes for Sean Bean to read which removed one of the charming aspects of Civilization games. VI isn't a bad game. It's just that once the bells and whistles wear off, you realize V has better AI and thus a more enjoyable game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Nah, I'll have to disagree and say that launch Civ V was a real trash heap of a game and was the first one to put me off pre-orders. It took me until the tail-end of BNW until I thought, hell, let's see what's up with this and it was awesome. Civ 6 at least got me to finish three games with it, and that's just vanilla.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:VI isn't a bad game. It's just that once the bells and whistles wear off, you realize V has better AI and thus a more enjoyable game. I disagree. When I'm playing a single player game I'd rather play an interesting and engaging game with an incompetent AI than a boring game with a half-competent AI. The Civ 6 AI isn't even as dire as it looks like; a few high-level tweaks are sufficient to at least let higher levels provide some kind of challenge through brute force, which is about the level of the Civ 5 AI. They almost got there with the yield bug fixes, but unfortunately one of the mistakes was actually beneficial to the AI so by fixing both of them Firaxis sort of shot themselves in the foot. But it would have been exceedingly simple to just go "oh, we should probably tweak these numbers while we're here anyhow."
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Civ 5's AI is bad too, it's just they didn't make such a terribly unbalanced game that time. It wasn't good either, but it was less bad than the AI in 6. It sounds like they made things worse with the expansion by doing the Firaxis move of "add more unbalanced poo poo, don't tell the AI about it". The AI in 5 was literally "This leader has a culture bias so let's give them a bigger chance to randomly select technology we've marked as cultural" and 6 didn't manage to even top that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:VI isn't a bad game. It's just that once the bells and whistles wear off, you realize V has better AI and thus a more enjoyable game. The map is unclear when zoomed out, the AI is egregiously bad, yields don't matter when production costs are tied to tech and hugely modified by your governing traits, and the balance is SMAX levels of bad, but without SMAC's interesting story to stop you wanting to play as optimally as possible so you can enjoy the overall tone the game is striving to create.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
In 5 it's like, "Here are three ways you can take your civilisation and two are poo poo" Just play Warfarame instead
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:In 5 it's like, "Here are three ways you can take your civilisation and two are poo poo" in 6 it's like "here are three ways you can take your civ and all have such marginal percentage bonuses it doesn't matter which one you choose"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:You people! You might be surprised to find that a lot of "you people!" don't post in this thread and have probably dropped this series entirely. I enjoyed Civ V from launch, in spite of its flaws, most of which still exist 10 years later in this game. V also had a lot of ideas which completely changed the Civilization base game and took a while to iron out, while VI added, what, districts and smart barbarians? V was also very much felt like a labor of love. The civpedia was well researched, written and easy to navigate, the leader intros and tech quote would be a joy even without Morgan Sheppard's raw gravitas, the UI had an extremely pleasant and thorough art deco style, and the leader screens were all lovingly rendered and laid out. VI has a good graphic style, but the UI is an unbelievable step back from its predecessor and it's much easier to google the information you need than to actually find it in the civpedia. All the writing reads as if it was done by a handful of interns under time crunch, the tech quotes are almost universally awful, and no one thought to coach Sean Bean on how to pronounce anything not in English.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
6 still doesn't have Byzantium, so I haven't moved on yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:no one thought to coach Sean Bean on how to pronounce anything not in English.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Honestly, Civilization: Call to Power was the best Civ game ever. You could build undersea colonies and space colonies and spaceships and bombard land cities from space and build hover tanks and all sorts of cool stuff, and this was a game released in 1999. Why the hell has the main Civilization series never had any of the cool stuff that Call to Power implemented?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:Honestly, Civilization: Call to Power was the best Civ game ever. You could build undersea colonies and space colonies and spaceships and bombard land cities from space and build hover tanks and all sorts of cool stuff, and this was a game released in 1999. Because Call to Power wasn't made by Firaxis, probably. My favorite bit of CtP was the tile improvement system. You have a resource for your empire called Public Works, and spend that resource to build tile improvements anywhere in your empire rather than relying on a unit to do it. Cities passively generated a small amount of Public Works, but you could also have them Build Infrastructure to turn their production output into Public Works. Was also the first Civilization game to include sea tile improvements (fisheries, then undersea mines and whatnot in the future era). It also had by far the longest list of civs to play in Civilization. Canada? Yup. Jamaica? Yep. Nicaragua? That's there. New Zealand? You betcha. Chile? Sure. Kenya? They wouldn't miss this party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:My favorite bit of CtP was the tile improvement system. You have a resource for your empire called Public Works, and spend that resource to build tile improvements anywhere in your empire rather than relying on a unit to do it. Cities passively generated a small amount of Public Works, but you could also have them Build Infrastructure to turn their production output into Public Works. I can't believe that Activision of all studios solved the fiddliness of Settlers/Workers making tile improvements, and also how Firaxis completely ignored it for multiple games. Taking ideas from other studios is totally fine!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:I can't believe that Activision of all studios solved the fiddliness of Settlers/Workers making tile improvements, and also how Firaxis completely ignored it for multiple games. Taking ideas from other studios is totally fine!!! yeah but they'd gently caress it up hard some how, like they'd make the cost scale exponentially with the number of improvements you have in your empire im the farm that costs more hammers to build than the space elevator
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
The White Dragon posted:im the farm that costs more hammers to build than the space elevator I laughed Then I cried Strategy games are a real mess sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 22:56
|
|
