Community-driven video game blog & discussion
What went wrong?
Besides the cartoon shit it’s honestly pretty good.
I can't stand playing this shit because of the cartoon graphics
the only fun to be had is bizarre balance exploits against an AI that can't really do much
they should probably figure out a way to make the AI take their turns more quickly instead of scaling exponentially so late game is a slog unless you kill everybody
gilgamesh doesn't even speak sumerian
Nobody speaks Sumerian
It hasn't been used as a language for over 2000 years
Peter Pringle would like to have a few words in Sumerian with you
>roughly decipher the meaning of a 3.5k year old epic
>this means that you can understand the language
As a casual, I fucking hate districts, but removing them kind of ruins the game. I get that people like them and they add some complexity, but I don't want to stress that the place I pick for my expansion has the perfect district adjacency bonus.
-things not having a consistent cost throughout the game.
-no multiplier bonuses on buildings/edicts , forcing wide gameplay
Always seemed like Civ doesn't get a lot of commentary due to being so casual and the series getting pretty old so there are few people to make a comparison.
People forget that Civ 2 was widely considered among the best games ever made, or at least when you narrowed it down to strategy and/or PC games. Civ hasn't really improved all to much since then and I'd say it has been pretty stagnant. The tech tree has become a parody of itself and not just in Civ. Frankly it is perhaps the easiest way to tell whether a dev or studio is doing something interesting. A lot rightful criticism on the civ franchise has been that it was never really about creating and experiencing the birth of a civilization. The strongest argument for that is perhaps how the history (the scroll thing that appears) window that notes down your civs great achievements. In civ 2 you could edit both your throne room and how your cities looked. These were inconsequential for optimal play, but perhaps not so much for player experience.
As with a lot of strategy games we are seeing that the Tech tree unlock --> building unlock --> build building in city is worth the effort he player is put through. Again Tech tree needs to change or removed from strategy games in general. As always the diplomacy is seriously lacking and frankly is really weird, because it's a mainstream, family friendly type of game yet the developers refuse to expand on it for decades. I guess it got some more complexities towards the end. Casus belly in particular is perhaps the most positive change overall.
As with a lot of games, there are some features of your civ that doesn't make itself felt when experiencing the game. It ultimately becomes a numbers game. That's fine for some games, but Civ isn't that though. For example, having a higher population than another civ is impactful, but it's tucked away behind production numbers. Jon schaefers failed, but brilliant at the gates concept realized this and dealt with it1/?
I think the saddest thing about Civ 6 is that it has such good underlying tech to create a rich and interesting world, but doesn't tie what happens on the world and how it looks to what define your civ. A Civ that has it's history coming up from the cold north, should be molded by that. One scarred from war should be molded by that. Instead what we get are leader and civ number bonuses, which only really appeals to min-maxers and serve only restrict a potential loose narrative about your civ. Even for min-maxers it crashes with the randomly generated stuff aspects of the game.
Social policies were more fun as passive bonuses that were always on. Theres no more dopamine rush from unlocking a new branch of the social policy tree cause odds are it's gonna be thrown to the side and forgotten like a dusty binder of sports cards.
Luxury resources being town specific instead of empire wide is lame
Losing a city because another civ has borders around it is lame. I cannot stress how retarded this one is. By this logic Alaska would be owned by Canada. God what were they thinking in this one.
Its too childish, immature and cartoony for my liking. It is aesthetically unappealing and mundane. Civ V and its expanisions plus mods still take the cake from me.
>unironic muh realism fag
I can't take anyone who doesn't use EUI seriously.
It's an amazing game, it just was balanced around single player, multiplayer is a horrible experience where shitting all your points into military is the only option. There's not enough incentive to help a player getting surprise warred, and units even 1 tier above other units absolutely decimate making the entire game favor Brazil tier griefers.
I'm very tempted to get the 2k humble bundle that includes civ 6, never played a civ game before. is the base game good or does it depend heavily on dlc?
People who host MP games give you the DLC for free if they have it. I think there's 1-2 DLC that add weather events which is important for singleplayer.
I didn't know that, how does that work?
>global warming bullshit
I didnt like how the leaders looked like. Prefered V 's style.
the art style, I fucking despise cartoon art style. It's the same reason why the new age of empires fucking sucks balls too. No idea why they do this too
Too gimmicky leaders,
AI can't play the game at all so even deity isn't a challenge past the first ancient era attack.
Among many other things.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.