Absinthe
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 4,062
Civ V AI was absolutely braindead and retarded. It's an AI that doesn't know how to wage war and will happily walk units 1 by 1 into a squad of archers so that they can die without getting a single point of damage off for 10 turns straight. When the AI is self-defeating like that and conquest is an utter joke, you have a major problem. Not familiar with how the Vox mod shakes up AI though. Back when I played, I only played multiplayer, which also avoided the inanities of erratic AI wanting to declare war on you for every little thing ("expanding too fast", "bordering them", "waged war too many times", "someone denounced you, setting off a chain reaction of more denunciations as more civs began disliking you, so now suddenly everyone hates you", "the devs thought it'd be really cool and interesting to make me randomly backstab my allies", etc.) even though their ability to wage war was laughably pitiful, and they weren't exactly clever builders either (but at least they had cheats).
And I think the idea of playing a game with zero challenge is really just a product of the last decade of games or so being increasingly zero challenge games intended to give participation rewards, giving rise to a particularly incompetent breed of gamers (who I actually hesitate to call gamers at all, since challenge is intrinsic to a game and they seem to prefer the removal of this core element that makes a game a game).
Anyway, civac2, you're really going to have to explain what you're on about. Making nebulous statements like "The core mechanics of the game though odd also work decently that's why it's a good MP game." and "From a gameplay perspective, Civ6 is a solid game beneath the flaws and bugs. Far better than Civ5 certainly though that's a low bar. A lot of the mechanics are quite odd but ultimately work OK." is pretty useless when we can't tell which gameplay elements you are praising and why. How is Civ VI better in your book?
Actually, maybe we should start a new thread on the Civ V vs Civ VI comparison?
And I think the idea of playing a game with zero challenge is really just a product of the last decade of games or so being increasingly zero challenge games intended to give participation rewards, giving rise to a particularly incompetent breed of gamers (who I actually hesitate to call gamers at all, since challenge is intrinsic to a game and they seem to prefer the removal of this core element that makes a game a game).
Anyway, civac2, you're really going to have to explain what you're on about. Making nebulous statements like "The core mechanics of the game though odd also work decently that's why it's a good MP game." and "From a gameplay perspective, Civ6 is a solid game beneath the flaws and bugs. Far better than Civ5 certainly though that's a low bar. A lot of the mechanics are quite odd but ultimately work OK." is pretty useless when we can't tell which gameplay elements you are praising and why. How is Civ VI better in your book?
Actually, maybe we should start a new thread on the Civ V vs Civ VI comparison?