|
The White Dragon posted:Civ 6 is going to end up like 3. It's honestly pretty bad, but standing against the test of time it will simply be unremarkable. Yep, civ 6 is going to be just another Civ3 like you say. As much as people go on about us making GBS threads on every iteration of Civ there's still ones that are specifically worse for sure.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Here's a story. I have a friend who says he keeps meaning to get into a Civ game. He owns Civ 3 and never had the patience for it, but he's seen me play 5 and 6 and apparently it always looked like I was having fun (???). He asked which Civ game he should get if he decided to take the plunge and I gave him more or less the thread orthodox advice: 4 > 5~BE > 6. In the end he decided he'd stick with Civ 3 and see if he can't enjoy that one, and if he ends up getting into it enough to buy one of the other ones, it sounds like he'll go for 6. He has yet to buy a Civ game. I'm not going to push him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
I enjoyed Civ3 a lot more than Civ5 or 6, particularly because of sn00py's Watercolor graphics mod, plus you could easily edit in your own wonders and make custom maps easier (I did both). It was not as easily customized as 4 because they hardcoded a ton of poo poo, but then again in Civ4 you had to program Python IIRC to mod. I'm still miffed someone jacked up their map database descriptions by one or two entries so my maps weren't labelled as my maps when downloading from their website (what that was 16 years ago or something now? meh). They kind of did something similar in the 2D version of Civ6, but it's not the same and too excel, not enough art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 10:38
|
|
|
civ3 was the last civ with the palace so it has that going for it at least
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:but then again in Civ4 you had to program Python IIRC to mod. data editing in civ4 is easy as poo poo, you literally just edit plain xml files and put them in the custom assets folder. unnecessarily verbose and nested sure but that's xml for you. if you want to do scripting it's in python yeah, which is, well, fair enough, you can't really do scripting without a script language.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 11:17
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:I've been mulling over doing an LP for C2C because I hate myself but the lack of interaction with AIs in the Space Age even with a proper map is kind of a bummer. oh hell yeah C2C lost me when they got rid of the two fastest game speeds, taking actual irl months of playing to get to modern ages just sucks
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:Civ 6 is going to end up like 3. It's honestly pretty bad, but standing against the test of time it will simply be unremarkable. I think this is the best assessment, I've played all the series from 2 upwards and 3 is the one that gives me the closest type of feeling to 6 (not a good feeling). I put hundreds of hours into 5 and that was because I really enjoyed it - in spite of turns taking forever and having to play in strategic view as my laptop couldn't handle it. I'm close to not playing 6 again, and I can't see anything in the expansion that would keep me interested. They might get a few tens more hours out of me if they give away the DLC civs but I doubt it. Gaming is so weird these days, I've bought the game and expansion but they expect me to pay more to get all the civs and wonders? And that's normal..?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Reminder that Civ6 is cool and good and you shouldn't be scared to buy this game on a sale only because 3 vocal haters post about how much they hate Civ6 every 10 posts. You can always refund into Civ5 or 4 or 3 or BE or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Whether or not it's a garbage game, Civ 6 is easily the 2nd best game in the mainline series after 4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
Honestly, Civ6 is a better game than 5 from a purely mechanical level. 5 always struck me the wrong way because of how much it punished the player for expanding: tech costs increase with each new city, global happiness attempts to restrict expansion, your golden age/social policy buckets increase in size with each new city etc. In a 4X game, expansion becomes completely abandoned - you build 4 cities and then sit on that for the rest of the game while the entire map remains unsettled. It's especially awful because the expansion phase of civ games is my favorite part; exploring and planning and settling and growing is generally more fun which is why the games typically run out of steam from the late industrial through modern age. Civ6 brings expansion back, and actually does a decent job curbing the infinite city sprawl that you would see in 2, 3, and pre-Brave New World Civ5. I feel like I actually see the entire map settled by the late game now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Whether or not it's a garbage game, Civ 6 is easily the 2nd best game in the mainline series after 4. This is probably true if I throw away my nostalgia for 2 and 3. Districts are a genuinely interesting mechanic, as are the government cards. I probably wouldn't include either in the sequel, but it was a great experiment that really worked from the perspective of presenting the player with thought-provoking choices that require planning. It's just a shame how poorly the game's UI/UX is. Years later and you still have to use mods just to make the goddamn thing playable. The expansion will finally fix that (apparently) but it is unacceptable for a game to require like 3 years and 2 expansion packs just to become playable (and before anyone talks about civ3/civ4/civ5 needing two expansion packs - the base game for those three was playable, even if it wasn't balanced or fleshed out. Lacking very basic information and build queue etc makes it extremely tough for me to want to play this). Civ3 was basically a kind of urban sprawl simulator. Spam as many cities as possible as mindlessly as possible and exploit the holy hell out of the AI through ROP abuse, infinite transport chaining, tech trading, great library rush, etc. to win. It was still a fun game to solve but it never felt like it produced very interesting challenges due to how broken it all was (and conquests made it infinitely worse). It's tough to be too hard on Civ2 though, given it's where the series really took traction. It's probably more broken than 3, but I think its easier to forgive, given when it came out. I think I'm mostly harder on 5 and 6 because I keep seeing them repeat bad design decisions that they should've learned from by now (I am NOT excited for whack-a-mole type crap to pop up again in the new expansion pack for Civ6, given that this was one of the mechanics (pollution) they wanted to explicitly remove from 3 when they were making Civ4. No one found it fun, and there's no reason to bring it back).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I appreciate that Civ 6 isn't "Build Four Cities That Stand The Test of Time, One of Which Has Every Wonder"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
homullus posted:Yeah, I appreciate that Civ 6 isn't "Build Four Cities That Stand The Test of Time, One of Which Has Every Wonder*" *that is possible for the player to build. every Civ game is guilty of that sin though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Civ 3 was the worst, but I give it credit for adding new features like strategic resources and culture, and probably some other things I'm forgetting about. It actually added some great features to the series, and made IV one of the best iterations. 6 just copied 5, made everything good about it slightly worse, and stopped caring. It's sad because the game doesn't need much tweaking to make it go from poo poo to fantastic, but instead of doing that they added storms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:Civ 3 was the worst, but I give it credit for adding new features like strategic resources and culture, and probably some other things I'm forgetting about. It actually added some great features to the series, and made IV one of the best iterations. I wouldn't say 6 just copied 5, they play extremely difference. But yeah it's really aggravating when their focus seems to be on this trite little micro game bullshit (archaeologists, rock stars, city states, religion as a whole) rather than a bigger picture strategic game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Cuchulain posted:*that is possible for the player to build. every Civ game is guilty of that sin though. well, no. It's simply not possible in 6 to build every wonder in one city
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Civ 6 has a lot of really cool innovations in the way the game plays and is a very different experience from 5. I play it a bunch in bursts (as I have all Civ games), and I love the way that Civ 6 makes use of terrain more than any other game. Building out districts makes the map feel much more "full" (at least within your own borders) than towns/cities from Civ 4 or, god forbid, all the trading post spam in Civ 5. I do wish they would pull back from the "purple hexagon here" board game style aesthetic of Civ 6 though and use the fact that it's computer based to make the growth and expansion of cities more pleasant. Make transition points between districts, such as showing infrastructure moving goods from an industrial zone to the adjacent harbor district. Blend neighborhoods into farms by showing the city area sloping off, and make the neighborhood area bordering a city center denser. The biggest offender to this is wonders, which could be solved so easily by having the districts "grow" to envelop the wonder if it must be built next to a district, and have it appear in closer scale rather than 10x bigger than everything else. This would have no gameplay effect but would make cities FEEL so much better. If i build a commerce district to the southwest of my city center, have it get denser as I build markets or as income increases. Then, if I build Big Ben to the southwest next to the city center and commerce district, make the commerce district "grow" into the Big Ben tile (although make the center tile still the "commerce district" for adjacency bonuses), and have Big Ben just be a large and notable part of an otherwise commercial district! This would take a lot of artwork and programming so I get why they don't do it but having giant stonehenges as large as huge cities drives me nuts. Other good things about Civ 6 were added in the latest patch which makes me hopeful the next patch will "complete" the game, as the last expansion did for Civ V: -The golden age / dark age system. Relatively easy to min/max if you're winning, but the timeline gives a good impression of what's going on, and rewards you for a broader array of things. -Loyalty was a great change, not necessarily because of leaders and other mechanics surrounding it, which were pretty weak, but because it made conquest decisions more difficult as opposed to no-brainers, prevented or punished the AI pushing too hard at your territory, and interacts in a cool way with the golden age system to make eras really dangerous. -The emergency mechanic was a great idea but needs a full overhaul to make it work. For the next expo the elements they have shown, including natural disasters, the "fuel choice" and warming mechanic complicating the endgame, all seem like very cool changes, but I'm worried they are less game-defining than those introduced in the last Civ 5 patch. Either way I still prefer it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:Civ players: this version of civ sucks! The old one was better! I have 11 hours in Civ6, but hundreds upon hundreds in Civ4 and Civ5. I haven't actually played any Civ since 6 came out. My friend I recently returned to the series, and looked at getting into 6, figuring it might have improved enough to be playable, but I kinda went "ungggghhhh" at laying down another $30 for R&F when the next expansion is about to come out, and because I got burned at buying Civ6 blindly at launch based on the strength of the name. So, we just went back to Civ5 instead. I still want to play Civ6, but GS doesn't give me much hope considering that I had to mod out warming from Civ4, along with nuclear meltdowns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:No, I genuinely think Civ 4 is the best Civ game. I think I liked the final complete version of 5 the best, but I am burned out on it so am playing 6. But I play for fun, don't min-max, exploit known bugs or other spurge-lord tactics and just play for fun as a goofy role playing chill game. So probably ignore my preference. Plus I turn off religious victories in every game so I am some sort of godless heathen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
highmodulus posted:I think I liked the final complete version of 5 the best, but I am burned out on it so am playing 6. But I play for fun, don't min-max, exploit known bugs or other spurge-lord tactics and just play for fun as a goofy role playing chill game. So probably ignore my preference. Plus I turn off religious victories in every game so I am some sort of godless heathen. This is the only correct choice at higher difficulties when it's impossible to get a religion and one civ can steamroll their continent then swarm the other one while you can literally do nothing to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Tom Tucker posted:-The golden age / dark age system. Relatively easy to min/max if you're winning, but the timeline gives a good impression of what's going on, and rewards you for a broader array of things. The problem with all three of these systems though is that (just like with the rest of the game) the AI just haven't got a loving clue how they work. So it's another load of stuff a player can do and the AI can't. Also Firaxis is pricing their expansions so much higher than any other company. When the game isn't very good anyway spending another £35 on the expansion seems absolutely loving unreal, no other company charges like that. Hell most brand new games aren't even that much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
I don't know if I should pity or envy people who preorder /day one games, paying full whack for something that's going to be incomplete or just not work is nuts. (Pity because that's a waste of money, envy cos they got money to burn)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Taear posted:The problem with all three of these systems though is that (just like with the rest of the game) the AI just haven't got a loving clue how they work. So it's another load of stuff a player can do and the AI can't. The loyalty system works independent of AI competence. I see a few AI cities falling into disorder every game, and some flip. If I expand a little further than I could really support, sometimes it happens to me. I enjoy the city-state liberation emergencies quite a bit, though the AI rarely joins me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
homullus posted:The loyalty system works independent of AI competence. I see a few AI cities falling into disorder every game, and some flip. If I expand a little further than I could really support, sometimes it happens to me. Yes, it happens because the AI doesn't know how the system works so founds cities in loving ridiculous places that instantly flip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Taear posted:Yes, it happens because the AI doesn't know how the system works so founds cities in loving ridiculous places that instantly flip. Are we sure about that? Are we sure it isn't "players enjoy seeing cities flip to them, so the AI will sometimes forward settle too much"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Same way they'll send settlers out on their lonesome, a nice freebie every now and then. But I wish the AI was programmed to not do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
homullus posted:Are we sure about that? Are we sure it isn't "players enjoy seeing cities flip to them, so the AI will sometimes forward settle too much"? I'd say yes if they hadn't always done this, regardless of the new system or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
turboraton posted:Reminder that Civ6 is cool and good and you shouldn't be scared to buy this game on a sale only because 3 vocal haters post about how much they hate Civ6 every 10 posts. You can always refund into Civ5 or 4 or 3 or BE or whatever. There's a reason Civ 6 has only just started to get as many players as Civ 5 has (or really, people are finally getting tired of Civ 5, so those numbers have just declined), and it's not because you think Civ 6 "is cool and good".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Beamed posted:There's a reason Civ 6 has only just started to get as many players as Civ 5 has (or really, people are finally getting tired of Civ 5, so those numbers have just declined), and it's not because you think Civ 6 "is cool and good". Turboraton is the only real civ6 cheerleader in the whole thread and genuinely seems to love the game. I'd at least say Civ6 is better than 3, I really didn't like 3 at all. I think that partly came out of coming from SMAC and suddenly finding the combat had gone back to how it was in Civ1 and my tanks genuinely and actually would sometimes lose to warriors and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Yeah, Civ6 is better than Civ3. And really, Civ 1, though it's not fair to compare any to Civ 1.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Beamed posted:There's a reason Civ 6 has only just started to get as many players as Civ 5 has (or really, people are finally getting tired of Civ 5, so those numbers have just declined), and it's not because you think Civ 6 "is cool and good". Its because Civ 6 is $59 and a lot of people (stares you directly in the face) can't justify spending for a better game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Luceo posted:I still want to play Civ6, but GS doesn't give me much hope considering that I had to mod out warming from Civ4, along with nuclear meltdowns. I played a game of Civ 4 about a year ago where my map just didn't have any good rivers and the continents were tiny as hell and Hoover Dam didn't power very much, so I built Coal Plants in every city. Imagine my surprise when, for the first time ever, I learned that they actually contribute to the global warming track if there are like 70 of them in the world
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I played a game of Civ 4 about a year ago where my map just didn't have any good rivers and the continents were tiny as hell and Hoover Dam didn't power very much, so I built Coal Plants in every city. Imagine my surprise when, for the first time ever, I learned that they actually contribute to the global warming track if there are like 70 of them in the world I'm not a Civ 4 player - is this in base Civ 4 or with expacs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I played a game of Civ 4 about a year ago where my map just didn't have any good rivers and the continents were tiny as hell and Hoover Dam didn't power very much, so I built Coal Plants in every city. Imagine my surprise when, for the first time ever, I learned that they actually contribute to the global warming track if there are like 70 of them in the world I also played the game without global warming because genuinely it was loving poo poo and I don't want my game to simulate how we're all going to die, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Its because Civ 6 is $59 and a lot of people (stares you directly in the face) can't justify spending for a better game. Yes, much like the newest Battlefields, Call of Duty games, EU3, Victoria 1, CK1, etc. all held more players active than their sequel counterparts years after the sequel's release.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Pewdiepie posted:Its because Civ 6 is $59 and a lot of people (stares you directly in the face) can't justify spending for a better game. Lol at someone making this post, holy moly Please keep enjoying the masterpiece that is Civ 6 dude I'm glad you know the 1 weird tip to find the fun in it, unlike all the other h8rs
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Yes, much like the newest Battlefields, Call of Duty games, EU3, Victoria 1, CK1, etc. all held more players active than their sequel counterparts years after the sequel's release. Yea your sequel has to be pretty loving poo poo to not take people away from the first. Victoria 1 is probably a bad example there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Taear posted:Yea your sequel has to be pretty loving poo poo to not take people away from the first. I'm not gonna get into Ricky vs. Vicky 2 in the Civ6 thread 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I'm not gonna get into Ricky vs. Vicky 2 in the Civ6 thread Yea I'm saying that people didn't leave Vicky 1 though! It's probably a good example of what's happened with Civ5/6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'm not a Civ 4 player - is this in base Civ 4 or with expacs? global warming is in all versions of the game, but coal plants just contribute such a tiny sliver of a fraction compared to nuclear explosions that you need a huge amount of them to get the GW effects of dropping a single nuke (or one nuclear power plant meltdown) of course the way it simulates it is lazy, it just converts random tiles to deserts, there's no flooding or anything
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:41
|
|