New Civilization game currently at a 51% rating on Steam
(store.steampowered.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
I was under the impression that the only good way to play any Total War game was with Multiplayer because the AI is so shit.
And what you point out is fair, but I think it's a culture war that can be more easily won because they are funded by morons, not Blackrock
Of the dozen or so people I know who play Total War I can't think of a single one that plays multiplayer with randos. Lots of us play together but that's often not antagonistically, leaving it just against the AI. TW W3 specifically has something like less than 5% of players even touch the PVP mode, even though it made up like 90% of the balance patch notes for months on release.
The AI is shit but the point of the game, both Total War and Civ, have literally never been about challenge and anyone who says otherwise is trying to flex. Its about painting maps and power fantasies of building an army and steamrolling your enemies in various ways. Getting epic battles is part of that, but that's stand out singular moments not game long struggle sessions.
And I don't think its a war that can be won much easier than a Blackrock funded one, because most of the time its a Chinese funded one that is putting dollar signs in the eyes of Western Devs who will chase that dragon into bankruptcy.
I think that that's a bad game design then. You gotta pick one or the other.
I kind of like what's happening with some "city builders" now. The standard is obviously Cities Skylines / Sim City style managing zones, logistics, economics, and budgets. But on the other hand, people are moving the formula around to be more specific in focus. You've got some games like Banished that are basically making it a survival economy simulator. But then you've got games like Obrek which we could call a city painting & aesthetic manager.
If that's truly the case, then I think Total War need to shit-or-get-off-the-pot. Either make a good AI to build a competitive war monger simulator, or build a simplistic war mongering aesthetic builder. Don't do both.
I don't because I play the games, both happen, and I find it fun that way. Its literally working great for them and its the other aspects (usually Woke or bug infested) that are keeping their newer games imperfect, while others like TW Warhammer are their biggest hits yet by a mile.
Some games can exist to be fun without needing to fully engage your brain and be challenged constantly. Its the reason why the "comfy" genre is fucking booming right now, even if that is overdoing it in my opinion. TW is a comfy game with moments of spiking.
Literally working as intended and the target audience likes it. Why should it change for someone who has never played it (assumption) to fit their idea of how games must be?
Every single RTS has weak AI that must cheat in resources (if not just spawn their own units) to make up for its weaknesses. Blizzard once had one of the biggest IPs in existence with Starcraft and they couldn't figure that out.
TW at least separates its AI into map mode and battle mode, with their own difficulty sliders. Map mode is retarded and must cheat to stay competitive (a technique Civ pioneered for them!), battle is a fucking computer program and will outplay your APM at all times with its ability to react to every actions instantly at all times (which is why the difficulty slider there is you losing a buff at the bottom to balance them).
Either way, most people play it for X and its accomplishing X just fine. Them wanting to force PVP is treated as retarded by everyone except "content creators" who convince devs they represent the fanbase.