3 ms·

(Almost) everything wrong with modern gaming in a neat little package. >unfinished base game >81% on metacritic, 52% user reviews on Steam >Misuse of th

(Almost) everything wrong with modern gaming in a neat little package. >unfinished base game >81% on metacritic, 52% user reviews on Steam >Misuse of the term "early access" to indicate advanced access 5 days early >5 content packs on release already >oh wait not all of them are included in the Founders Edition, some are just promises for later content packs >mobile game UI, a huge mess (maybe because Luigi wasn't there to fix 25% of the UI bugs like in 6....[0]) >mobile game artstyle, Civ4 looked better than this in *2004* >they switched from Lua to JavaScript since civ6 >horrible performance, crashes, stuttering and ridiculous system requirements >skin-focused, leader-focused pseudo-RPG "gameplay" >who needs engineers or auto-explore in a Civilization game anyway? >empire switching straight stolen from Humankind but worse >obligatory quests included >Denuvo, gimped modding "support" (just the usual) >Atomic Age stripped from the release deliberately, to be sold back to you as DLC later >AI? that doesn't sell DLCs.... >storefront disguised as a game yeah this game is a disgrace to Sid (apologies for the formatting, I'm not good at this) [0] https://preview.redd.it/thanks-for-your-contribution-to-civilization-luigi-v0-w00dkvvzyv5e1.png?auto=webp&s=7824d2068aa28485b5ccfe1ad12d0e2f9cbf7c7c https://preview.redd.it/thanks-for-your-contribution-to-civi...

BoorishBears 2y ago
I don't envy anyone trying to make games for people like this. It must be demoralizing.
- Pannoniae 2y ago
  Hey, it ain't too hard! There are many amazing games out there :) They are just usually not made by huge studios.
  - BoorishBears 2y ago
    Maybe the fact you think making a game isn't too hard is part of the problem? Making a game that people like is hard. Making a game that has the kinds of fans who will even complain because you changed your internal scripting language will love is near impossible. (and of course you're not required to like it: I'm strictly commiserating with the developers who have to deal with this type of "fan")
    - Pannoniae 2y ago
      Well, why would it imply that "making a game isn't too hard"? No, I'm implying that there's loads of good games. Of course it isn't easy to make them! But it's very much possible and there's many who have done just exactly that. I'd expect better from a big, AAA studio. I also don't think it's a best-faith assessment of my critique when you mention that I complain about the changed scripting language. It was a fairly off-hand remark and in the grand scheme of things, "let this be the biggest problem in the game". But it is surely indicative of the deeper rot. I am not alone in this view... just look at the Steam reviews. It's not that I have irresponsibly high standards - they just consistently manage to sink lower and lower.
rsynnott 2y ago
> 81% on metacritic, 52% user reviews on Steam This _always_ happens with new Civ games, though. Definitely back to Civ 4 anyway (I don't remember Civ 3, though I assume it existed); I think Civ 2 _was_ seen as kind of perfect on delivery.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The issue is not so much the user scores, but the delta between users and critics. It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Hence "everything wrong with modern gaming"
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I mean I think Civ 6 had a similarish delta in the early days. > It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Or just that critics are less temperamental than the average user. If nothing else, the critics have been here before and know how new Civ games go. Taking a Steam review at random: > A couple minutes in and it's just... so blatantly unfinished, especially by Civ standards. [...] I've got to assume from this that this person never actually played another Civ game at launch; the 'especially by Civ standards' is particularly laughable. The last one to feel 'finished' at launch was Civ 2 (or _maybe_ Civ3? I'm drawing a total blank on that one; I know I played it, but I don't remember it at all). Civ4 and on (and _especially_ Civ 6) took a while, and a bunch of patches and expansions, to get good. (Also quite a lot of the reviews just seem to be indignation that they put Harriet Tubman in it...). I'll probably pick this up at some point, and will go in with the expectation that it'll be extremely rough around the edges, and get better over the next few years, as is tradition.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      I never got the impression that Civ 6 ever caught on. At least in my circles, people still play and talk about Civ 5, but never 6.
      - 2y ago
warpspin 2y ago
>horrible performance Cannot support it has horrible performance. Civ 5 and 6 were notorious for having minutes-long turn change times in later eras. Civ 7 seems to finally have fixed that problem for me. There's some annoying things in it (and also the way they basically copied Humankind leaves a sour taste) but performance it's not, for me at least. It's finally a Civ again with acceptable performance and I hope it stays that way.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  I can support it. On my laptop it takes minutes to load and hung on turn four. I never got past that because reloading also took 5 minutes. On my desktop, it simply would not run. I requested a refund as my 5 minutes of gameplay had only measured 49 minutes in steam so I was under the magical 2 hours of frustration limit

BoorishBears 2y ago

I don't envy anyone trying to make games for people like this. It must be demoralizing.

Pannoniae 2y ago
Hey, it ain't too hard! There are many amazing games out there :) They are just usually not made by huge studios.
- BoorishBears 2y ago
  Maybe the fact you think making a game isn't too hard is part of the problem? Making a game that people like is hard. Making a game that has the kinds of fans who will even complain because you changed your internal scripting language will love is near impossible. (and of course you're not required to like it: I'm strictly commiserating with the developers who have to deal with this type of "fan")
  - Pannoniae 2y ago
    Well, why would it imply that "making a game isn't too hard"? No, I'm implying that there's loads of good games. Of course it isn't easy to make them! But it's very much possible and there's many who have done just exactly that. I'd expect better from a big, AAA studio. I also don't think it's a best-faith assessment of my critique when you mention that I complain about the changed scripting language. It was a fairly off-hand remark and in the grand scheme of things, "let this be the biggest problem in the game". But it is surely indicative of the deeper rot. I am not alone in this view... just look at the Steam reviews. It's not that I have irresponsibly high standards - they just consistently manage to sink lower and lower.

rsynnott 2y ago

> 81% on metacritic, 52% user reviews on Steam This _always_ happens with new Civ games, though. Definitely back to Civ 4 anyway (I don't remember Civ 3, though I assume it existed); I think Civ 2 _was_ seen as kind of perfect on delivery.

lupusreal 2y ago
The issue is not so much the user scores, but the delta between users and critics. It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Hence "everything wrong with modern gaming"
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I mean I think Civ 6 had a similarish delta in the early days. > It strongly indicates the publisher is paying off critics (for instance, with access if not cash.) Or just that critics are less temperamental than the average user. If nothing else, the critics have been here before and know how new Civ games go. Taking a Steam review at random: > A couple minutes in and it's just... so blatantly unfinished, especially by Civ standards. [...] I've got to assume from this that this person never actually played another Civ game at launch; the 'especially by Civ standards' is particularly laughable. The last one to feel 'finished' at launch was Civ 2 (or _maybe_ Civ3? I'm drawing a total blank on that one; I know I played it, but I don't remember it at all). Civ4 and on (and _especially_ Civ 6) took a while, and a bunch of patches and expansions, to get good. (Also quite a lot of the reviews just seem to be indignation that they put Harriet Tubman in it...). I'll probably pick this up at some point, and will go in with the expectation that it'll be extremely rough around the edges, and get better over the next few years, as is tradition.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I never got the impression that Civ 6 ever caught on. At least in my circles, people still play and talk about Civ 5, but never 6.
    - 2y ago

warpspin 2y ago

>horrible performance Cannot support it has horrible performance. Civ 5 and 6 were notorious for having minutes-long turn change times in later eras. Civ 7 seems to finally have fixed that problem for me. There's some annoying things in it (and also the way they basically copied Humankind leaves a sour taste) but performance it's not, for me at least. It's finally a Civ again with acceptable performance and I hope it stays that way.

readthenotes1 2y ago
I can support it. On my laptop it takes minutes to load and hung on turn four. I never got past that because reloading also took 5 minutes. On my desktop, it simply would not run. I requested a refund as my 5 minutes of gameplay had only measured 49 minutes in steam so I was under the magical 2 hours of frustration limit