Buying Civ VI at launch was one of my worse decisions. Glad to be sitting this one out at least for a year or two until the game is actually finished and we can see if it’s any good.
I ended up getting the founders edition of Civ VII. I played it most of the weekend when I wasn’t busy with other stuff.
As someone that’s been playing Civ since Civ II, I don’t enjoy VII at all. Granted, I hated V and VI when they first came out too, but this one is different. I can no longer put my scouts on auto-explore. This is my biggest pain point but other than that, there’s a substantial drop off on “fun,” in this latest iteration. If the game isn’t actually done yet, that makes sense.
It sounds like this (what the article is talking about) is a good thing, but I’m pretty irritated that I spent a large sum of money on a game that’s not completed at the time of release.
Biggest sin is no more “just one more turn”. I want to nuke the entire world after I finish the game, that was half the fun
That’s on you, civ hasn’t released a good game on launch in a very long time. You need at least the first expansion to have a complete game.
Yea, you’re right. It was a mix of excitement and knowing that I’m gonna buy it eventually anyway.
It wasn’t a pre-order. I bought it and started playing it.
I think Valve should really make the current „Betas“-Feature more prominent, and rename it to „Versions“ or something. It should* be pretty easy for Firaxis to just offer an old, cross-play enabled version there, while updating the regular version more frequently on PC. That would make disabling such features unnecessary.
I’ve seen only a few developers actually making use of „Beta“s in that way, but I think it would be very useful in cases like this.
* there could, of course, be other technical issues preventing them from doing that, which only their developers know of
