News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Civilization VII

Started by Syt, June 07, 2024, 08:26:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jacob

Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2024, 11:58:12 AMAnd that's your preference.

For sure, but this subthread of the conversation is in response to "what didn't you like about districts?"

crazy canuck

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2024, 04:23:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2024, 11:58:12 AMAnd that's your preference.

For sure, but this subthread of the conversation is in response to "what didn't you like about districts?"

Districts add more for the player to think about so I wondered what the down side is.

garbon

Quote from: Jacob on June 12, 2024, 04:23:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2024, 11:58:12 AMAnd that's your preference.

For sure, but this subthread of the conversation is in response to "what didn't you like about districts?"

And I'd argue someone posting that the point of games should be to be the best at it or why bother playing doesn't shed much light.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Valmy

Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2024, 08:45:19 AMDo you "have to"?  No, of course not, you don't have to play the game either, no one is forcing you.  However, if I'm playing a strategy game, I need to know that I'm playing it the best I know how (excepting marginal improvements that cost a lot of QOL). 

I know that a juicy district/adjacency bonus synergy can smash the game, so voluntarily giving up on finding them would mean voluntarily accepting a substantial penalty.  I've never been a fan of self-imposed limitations on strategy in strategy games, I think it's on game designer to create a game where me trying to do the best I can aligns with getting the best enjoyment out of the game.

Seems like he was only talking about himself to me. I don't think he was saying that the point of games should be to be the best for everybody.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Tonitrus

In my preference, I would sometimes limit development/tile improvements if it made the map less pretty.  :P

*But Civ 5 was my last-played Civ, and even then not much...mostly a lot of 4.

garbon

Quote from: Valmy on June 12, 2024, 06:39:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 12, 2024, 08:45:19 AMDo you "have to"?  No, of course not, you don't have to play the game either, no one is forcing you.  However, if I'm playing a strategy game, I need to know that I'm playing it the best I know how (excepting marginal improvements that cost a lot of QOL). 

I know that a juicy district/adjacency bonus synergy can smash the game, so voluntarily giving up on finding them would mean voluntarily accepting a substantial penalty.  I've never been a fan of self-imposed limitations on strategy in strategy games, I think it's on game designer to create a game where me trying to do the best I can aligns with getting the best enjoyment out of the game.

Seems like he was only talking about himself to me. I don't think he was saying that the point of games should be to be the best for everybody.

Area where disdained seemed to be expressed: Do you "have to"?  No, of course not, you don't have to play the game either, no one is forcing you.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

DGuller

 :wacko: I think you're reading into the post something that isn't there.  I was just offering my own explanation for why the district system killed the enjoyment of the game for me.  If you enjoy Civ VI, by all means continue enjoying it, who am I to judge your shockingly poor taste in strategy games?

This discussion did remind me of a related point of why the district system was not enjoyable to me, which I didn't originally remember because I literally haven't played a game in over three years.  The district system forced you to plan everything out the moment you founded your city, so much so that I recall there were even mods that let you drop pins to mark locations where you would eventually place the districts. 

I found that it made the game very rigid, because instead of dynamically developing as you go, possibly in response to changing needs and priorities, you have to in great detail plan out exactly what each city will do even a few eras from now.  It was just too static for my tastes, you made all the decisions once at the founding of the city and then the rest of the game you just mechanically followed through on them like a bureaucrat.

Tamas

IDK... most strategy games you need to be intimately familiar with the systems at the start of a new game to be able to min-max to the maximum potential.

It is far from impossible to win a game without placing every district to the most optimal hex imaginable on the game map.

So while DG you are free to dislike Civ6 for not having systems that you find fun, the district system is no broken or failed or anything of the sort.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Tamas on June 13, 2024, 08:45:25 AMIDK... most strategy games you need to be intimately familiar with the systems at the start of a new game to be able to min-max to the maximum potential.

It is far from impossible to win a game without placing every district to the most optimal hex imaginable on the game map.

So while DG you are free to dislike Civ6 for not having systems that you find fun, the district system is no broken or failed or anything of the sort.

Yeah, I want strategy games that have challenging strategic elements. That increases the number of consequential decisions which increases my enjoyment of the game.


Zanza

I agree with the views that the Civ6 system is too static and that to minmax you had to plan ahead a lot.

In general a more dynamic map that changes or needs different minmax strategies in different ages over time would be good.

But the mechanic still had more of a strategic element than placing cities in earlier Civs. Unless I forgot about the mechanics there.

barkdreg

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2024, 04:20:32 PMWhat didn't you like about districts?

I've always liked the civ series for it's story telling potential.
Civ 7 and the districts turned the game into some kind of pre-planning simulator.

Jacob

I haven't analyzed the possible reasons, but personally I found the district mechanics tedious. I didn't play VI very much, and I don't know if I'll even get VII.

crazy canuck

Quote from: barkdreg on June 13, 2024, 03:14:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 11, 2024, 04:20:32 PMWhat didn't you like about districts?

I've always liked the civ series for it's story telling potential.
Civ 7 and the districts turned the game into some kind of pre-planning simulator.

Yeah, I can see that.  Have you tried Old World?  And if so, what do you think about how that game approaches adjacency bonuses?

Syt

I like how AOW4 handles it. It uses a similar concept, but upgrades are per province instead of tiles, making it much more manageable. Also, replacing improvements (or upgrading them when you unlock something better) is straightforward.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

Crazy_Ivan80

#44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK_JrrP9m2U

gameplay reveal trailer.

I think I'll wait this one out for a bit


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc3_EO6Bj2M
this is the showcase stream (at time of writing it yet needs to begin)