/v/ - Video Games

>Receive advertisement

>Proceed to share advertisement

OP you are a fucking useful idiot.

>>13655826

I'm getting that feeling too with how many sales they've had for the game. Has it shit the bed that hard?

just to develop it further on the topic

I've have brought civ since 2 throughout 4, hard copies in that,

I brought five way later until they managed to have all extensions together and with a big hefty sale

6 managed to be even worse than 5,

problem is… what went wrong? how could they recover from that mess?

and inb4

> its that shit new graphs

> dumb new systems

I for one loved the stylished graphics, smooth animations and all, the game looks beautiful

the new neighborhood system, is actually pretty interesting and adds a new layer of planning that there wasn't there before

>>13655867

if they had gone back to 1upt with 6 and made the ai more competent i would have bought it in a heart beat. they're just interested in the mobile audience.

>>13655845

>shit the bed

fuck the bed….

I don't actually know numbers, it would be nice if someone could actually provide them

but I do hope they hit rock bottom, is about time they try and switch it up to make an actual good game

>>13655882

>if they had gone back to 1upt with 6 and made the ai more competent

it is still technically 1upt, and it was a mistake

sorry but I can see you're a 5 fanboy, though I agree they should fucking focus on AI by now

>>13655920

My first Civ game was 5, but I've played a few other games when I was younger, namely HOMM and that other medieval one whose name escapes me, but I was too young to appreciate them.

Anyways, I always go for economic strategies in these sorts of games, and 1UPT is what I prefer. Making a deathball of 9600 Power Liches just seems silly to me

>>13655882

I'd rather the compromise like Endless legend did by allowing small armies to occupy each tile but not stacks of hundreds of tanks.

>>13656337

>that other medieval one whose name escapes me

Stronghold?

>>13656950

No, it was a 4X game as well and had magic and shit. Not Wizardry, that's a different game entirely

>>13655843

shhhhhhh

civ is for brainlets

play eu or ck

>>13655887

Civ VI is about 2.2M http://steamspy.com/app/289070

Civ V is about 10.6M http://steamspy.com/app/8930

Civ IV 1.6m http://steamspy.com/app/3900 (was released without steam)

Honestly, i don't think it did shit the bed.

>>13657017

If the UI was like Master of orion, but the general graphic like Civ1, then it was masters of magic.

>>13657291

I suspect it will do around Civ V numbers once the inevitable expansions come out.

Every Civ has been lambasted on release only for it to be THE 1 TRU CIV once the next one comes out, except for shit like revolutions and beyond earth

>>13656341

>>13656337

both are stupid,

either having a death stack of dozens of units, but have only one fight at a time

or the other having a single unit per tile and having a carpet of units on the map, and barely being able to move them because of the limitation

there are two games I can think of that work this out very well, besides Endless legends, that is kinda reasonable but plays out a tactical battle that is not that good

there are also Total war, in which battles playing tactically in detailed map, (pretty awesome)

or CK2, in which battles are played with depth but without much interaction of the player (and thus quicker), but but you could also affect it by having a proper composition

but what really ruins Civ5 and 6, is that they took the game into a more gamey and less detailed fashion, it feels like a board game more than anything else, the 1upt makes it a lot more obvious

is not that it really wasn't as much gamey as before, but its that they took the newer games o lot more in that direction, and in a lot of times, making it dumber and more boring

>>13657457

>Every Civ has been lambasted on release only for it to be THE 1 TRU CIV

false, because….

>>13657519

>actually fixing the game or giving it depth

they were actually improving with each release and eventually giving it depth, UNTIL the disaster that was civ5 came along

and I can't state this enough, most of the fans of the franchise nearly gave up when that shit was release

it was the first game not designed by Sid Meier himself, and he even had to come to rescue the game with later expansions, but it never even came close to surpassing its ancestor

and the reason for all that hate was exactly that, they went in the gamey direction instead of trying to give it more depth, and even then they couldn't make a proper balanced game with good AI for that

civ 5 took health out and made happiness global, and basically took out all info screens, because now there weren't any more info to look at, a complex civic system, forget about that have traditions instead

and basically 6 came out with a lot of the features of 4 re-branded, which is just plain stupidity and an insult to old time fans of the franchise

>>13657457

Hmmm, beyond earth didn't do that badly if compare to Civ 6 being worth keeping. Don't get me wrong, if i was a exec i'd be worried, but not that worried.

It did 1.6m in sales which is about 0.6m shy Civ 6. http://steamspy.com/app/65980

I wounder why didn't they do a expansion? Play time seems to be about 7 hours. User rating is below 50%

>>13657529

>it feels like a board game more than anything else,

I'd say all firaxis games are like that since Civ5. I know that's not saying much since they've only released about 3 unique games: Civ, Xcom, Civ starship.

I know with Xcom, Sid was instructing the deisgner or director to use a method where you make the game as a board game first.

>>13657592

I was being sardonic with the 1 TRU CIV statement.

It will still sell well because the vast majority of people who play civ now didnt play anything before 5.

I look at it like "strategy game skyrim"

>>13657676

>sardonic

that is not even a word, stop making up stuff

>>13657593

>I'd say all firaxis games are like that since Civ5

that is basically what I have said in that exactly same line

>>13655843

pure coincidence, goy!

If I had to guess they're probably trying to drum up as much of a playerbase as they can before they announce the first big expansion. Doing so would follow with V's release of Gods and Kings.

>>13655826

Fore!

>>13664131

> As to how Beach was able to salvage 5 so adeptly while dropping the ball on 6, I can't begin to guess.

Blame the publisher. It's what i do whenever i don't have anyone else to blame.

Is civ5 with mods good already? (or at least as good as modded 4)

>>13664131

>As to how Beach was able to salvage 5 so adeptly while dropping the ball on 6, I can't begin to guess

but it wasn't able to salvage, it only made it less worse, but 5 is still shit

The more I learn about history, the less satisfying the Civ games become. Kinda wish they'd reboot the franchise at this point. As a long time fan of 2 & 4, why would I buy/play 6?

>>13670215

go for civ4, forget there were any others later

>>13670178

yeah, I came to that realization too,

and after playing a lot of CK2, EL, and even TW, I get very sad to the where strategic element is going in civ

heck, my best bet would be paradox, with stellaris being the first 4x sandboxy alike title of the series,

maybe they will be able to deliver something interesting in the openworld side of historical grand strategy genre

What is the best mod for any CIV game? I'm really into Caveman2Cosmos despite how unstable it is. I really wished 64bit games happened earlier. There are a lot of big mods for older games that are fucked because of memory limitations.

>>13662837

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sardonic?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic

Allow me to interject…

>>13670133

Planetfall didn't have the unit workshop nor variable land elevation from SMAC. That's all that I recall to be different.

>>13668089

It's playable and fun, but not as good as IV.

>>13684218

*assuming you have the expansions, because otherwise it's boring