Is the game good now? Didn't see any threads about this. (Most of them are for the older games)
buy an ad faggot
>>2285600no, still shit
they are working on a "no civ switching" mode. that's all I know
>>2285600damn the game looks so good tho
>>2285600Its been good from the start, the complaints are from the same faggots that cried when civ 5 removed unit stacking aka cancerous trash. The Ages mechanic acts as a soft reset, which helps mitigate the number one problem with 4x games, which is that wins tend to snowball into inevitable victories that you play out for 150 turns. Switching civs at age ups allow you to adapt to changing circumstances which also helps balance. The only real complaint is that certain civ leaders are gay and woke - which is true, but minor.
>>2286357
>>2285600this time no dlc will save this dumpster fire they made.
>>2286357>game too easy, guys!>well, should we add more difficulty settings, work on the AI, or figure out some endgame mechanics?>No, fuck that gay shit. We will utterly break the gamplay flow, completely undercutting the satisfaction of even getting the snowball rolling. That will show the tryhard faggots who have been playing the game wrong.>uhh, I don't kn->you're fired>*game flops*>directed by robert weide
>>2285653They're finally backtracking on their civ-switching autism?
>>2285600Maybe I'll buy it when it's cheaper and the expansion adds more stuff. For now, meh. At least the civ switching is more reasonable than in Womankind
>>2286898It absolutely isn’t. In HK it doesn’t soft reset the game, interrupting wars and destroying any production towards military units.
I gave it my first real try last night and was starting to legitimately enjoy it until the age ended and I was forced into another civ. Probably one of the most bizarre and dumb choices they could have made in a game about building A FUCKING CIVILIZATION from the ground up. I want to play Rome and win or lose as Rome.
>>2286971Really? I still haven't played Civ 7, that's bad. I was talking more about which civs you can change into
>>2287025That really doesn’t bother me in HI because HK sets out to be even less connected to actual history than Civ in the first place. Speaking from a purely gameplay perspective it’s actually pretty cool that you can choose whatever best suits your needs in that moment.Civ7 however is like playing 3 short games in one session rather than one long one. When an era ends everything gets reset from your armies to your cities/towns. It’s jarring and annoying and makes the turns before the era change worthless. What’s the point in continuing to wage a war if you know it’s arbitrarily over in 2 turns and you can’t take that city? Also the civs which you can transition to might be tangentially related to the one you had previously but a lot of the connections are still a stretch. That’s another reason why when people bitch about HK in that regard I just roll my eyes.
New Dev update. Are we back?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_rI5Fm_WGY
>>2286357quality bait
I can't stand their inability to grasp what scale this game is supposed to be at>it's a civilization building game>but you also need to worry about where this heckin school goes>look at how big these cities are!>ignore that the entire map is taken over with sprawl
>>2286995> I want to play Rome and win or lose as Rome.which is weird because it feels like Rome just mostly stopped being Rome after a certain point. like sure wow roman legionnaires, and then what did they do in the next 'age' or 'era'? I don't even know what Rome became after that. pizza, pasta, or whatever?
>>2287962me personally (and I'm NTA) I like the concept of switching civs...at least on paper when it's more "realistically railroaded. for example you start as Rome and become either HRE or Normandy then modern France or whatever. so it's more historically grounded and ain't woke
>>2287913It’s because they ran out of innovative ideas especially after the backwards step that hexs turned out to be and it’s insane reduction of the map size
>>2287913The worst part it isn't even the right kind of sprawl.>real life>wilderness replaced with farms and villages, then city sprawl>Civ 7>wilderness replaced with random shitAt least 6 understood this basic concept.
>>2286357switching civs doesn't matter for animalistic retards with no imagination, which devs also happen to be
>>2286357buy an ad you retard
>>2288153>At least 6 understood this basic conceptDid it though? I mean I see what you’re saying but the world just felt completely out of proportion to me between hex’s, maps sizes, etc. I feel like unique terrain regions were actually better captured in a square grid. Also fucking ridiculous that civs like Canada just put hockey rinks on every other tile, which looks and feels worse than what 7 is doing. Yield porn coomers are just coping about the weird unique improvements some civs get.
>>2288248It did on at least some level. You were 'supposed to' replace farms with neighborhoods in the late game. I do think there were some unnecessary districts in 6 (airport), but there was at least this idea of "you should have more improvements than districts". Now it's all just districts, thus the city sprawl in the early game.
>>2285600It's dead, Jim. It will never be good. You need to let it go.
>>2285600People doomed about V when it's released, And then VI. It's just a cycle at this point.
>>2285600>Is the game good now?kek
>>2288330Yeah but 5 eventually became a decent game and 6 did enough interesting new stuff that didn’t completely wreck the formula. If you’re implying 7 will eventually get to that point without all of its “innovations” being ripped out then you’re on drugs. Although I wouldn’t mind if they did that, because it would essentially be 6 that I can look at for longer than an hour.
>>2288632>Yeah but 5 eventually became a decent gameNaeh, it was as fine a game at launch as it was with BNW.Civ4 players hated it at launch, and then civ5 apologists tried to tell the civ4 players that it was good once bnw was out, while it never actually fixed the issue civ4 players had.
>>2288634nta but I played both 4 and 5 on their launches and in all honesty they both benefited greatly from their expansions. I did, and still do dislike 5 and 6 for the same reason and that's because while the hex system is fine and 1upt isn't horrible either the AI is still shitbrick utter retard drowning in puddle tier at using it. Definitely not a fan of not humankind 7 but it's barely a civ game anyway. My shitty 2c at least.
>>2288641>shitbrick utter retard drowning in puddle tier at using it.I think in civ6 the problem might be more that the AI just won't project force, it can move good enough in 1upt, but unless they're at war and an enemy is exactly at their border, they just try to move their units as close to their opponents capitol as possible to declare war which means you can just delay the war by herding them away.If they just declared war, and when at war produced units to attack your units and cities they'd manage so much better.I say that because there isn't the same type of gridlock you saw in civ5 due to 1upt.I'm not sure if corps and generals helped mitigate that, or if the AI just too bad at making units.
>>2288632>but 5 eventually became a decent gameActually got worse with bnw.> did enough interesting new stuffAll 6 did was add boring and mindless micro stuff that doesn't work well with the core systems.Both 5 and 6 got worse over time.Ironically that is the one thing they have in common with 4.
