https://www.ign.com/articles/civilization-7-review
"And, peculiarly, Civ 7 only really covers history up to about 1950. You get planes and tanks, but there are no home computers or helicopters in this tech tree at launch. The final science victory condition is launching the first manned spaceflight – quite a step back from setting up an exoplanet colony"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Welp. Back to Civ 5 I go
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If you want a new Civ experience just try the older versions. The AI was better at warfare back before the single unit per tile rule.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I am always fascinated by how video game franchises manage to release future games with worse features and not even in a trying a different feature way but just missing things they have figured out how to do in the previous game.
How does that happen? Missing technological knowledge within a game sequel.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
because we don't reward the fricking people who made the fricking game great, we reward the fricking people who funded the fricking game, who then inevitably trivialize the fricking people who actually made the fricking game great.
in companies where the fricking OG devs stay in control, usually the fricking quality stays high
capitalism sucks. markets between consumers and actual producers have limits, but can take us a fricking lot farther than capitalism.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wrong. Capitalism sucks at respecting a peak in time. Capitalism is great at raising the average bar.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
cope more r-slur
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It really was just trying a different feature, people criticized the stack of doom plenty. Their AI has always been dumb, but putting your entire army on a single stack was simple enough for it to handle.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Now justify assassin's creed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ubisoft is a shitty company full of middle managers that design games to appeal to the stock market
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Explain why it did not work this time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
These questions make me feel like chat gpt
Sales data seem to have peaked with AC 3 and 4; 5 was super buggy and then the later ones are kind of budget dark souls at a time where the novelty of that style of game is waning.
Unisoft is also notorious for cannibalizing from itself; every year we have new far cry, watchdog and assassin's creed game that feel like cluttered collectathons. Their star wars game last year bombed because of this + especially boring gameplay
AC shadows is not yet out but I think fatigue with the company is the real hype killer. DEI stuff doesn't really register with normies, but boring games do
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My conclusion was that ubisoft didn't actually get worse necessarily but that other studios already surpassed them in doing what they are trying to do but better.
Assassin's creed Japan failed the moment they couldn't create gameplay and story better than Ghosts of Tsushima.
Watch dogs failed because Legion set in the UK sucked.
Far cry should still be fine in my opinion and a sequel in that category should be a success as they have no other competition in that type of game.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Can't justify it, but the explanation is that they no longer have the talent on staff
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thank you for your honesty.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm still schocked and disgusted how much peole praise (and praised) the move from clunky doomstacks to a worse system.
It's so incredibly restrictive and limiting, it doesn't feel like civilizations clashing but like children fighting in a sandbox. And worst of all it made fighting AI trivial.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Civ always felt like a boardgame, if you want convincing simulations play eu4
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't know about 1-3, but 4 had doom-stacks, and the newer ones went with UTP chaning the formula.
Anyway, my preferred system is from Amplitude games, where your army is in a stack and deploys one unit per tile during battle creating a battlefield on the map. Which ironically enough looks to be somewhat implemented in Civ 7 with generals.
Also, EU4 combat is boring as shit. Worst out of all 4x games I ever played.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
convincing simulation of what?
being a wizard that stares at a map waiting for his mana to regenerate so he can click the "increment number" button and cycle through casus belli?
EU4 is cookie clicker with a map
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Civ VI is good though
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
same but did you know when CIV 5 launched there was no religion in the game?!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Also the combat was so wonky that battles would have completely different results than the expected outcome
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context