However, I'll give it a 5 for ideological reasons: the price is just way too high for the quality of the product and rather sparse content. As stated above, it has great potential, but is ruined by the moronic AI. All things considered, I give the game a 6.5. In addition, there is the art style, that I'm not very fond of. So, the game has some good ideas, good mechanics, but the awful AI ruins the experience for me.
Civilization vi awards upgrade#
Also, it is extremely reluctant to upgrade military units and is virtually useless when it comes to waging wars. What strikes me as most odd is that the AI seems not to upgrade tiles and builds not so many districts. Despite the patches, other leaders will still behave in an unpredictable manner (in the negative sense). If you thought that AI in Civ V was bad, think again. The AI either poses little or no challenge, or competes with you on extremely unfair terms. But, I might try to do just that because, on the other hand, when you're over with enjoying the empire-building aspect and think about the international relations in the game you'll be greatly disappointed. I sometimes wonder whether I'd be able to get back to Civ V. Overall, the aspects of the game related to building your empire are well-though-out and well-executed. To list just a few pros, the city development is great (though, you will often find yourself with "nothing to build", apart from military units) the game is as addicting as ever the split tech and culture trees is exceptionally well implemented the mini-quest boosts are nice (though, can be often a hit-or-miss) the turn-processing times are rather good the policy cards are amazing. On the one hand, there is much to like here. On the one hand, there is much RE: Civilization VI including the Spring Patch, with all DLCs up to Macedonia. RE: Civilization VI including the Spring Patch, with all DLCs up to Macedonia. there are just too many little things that didn't mention that just looks and feels cheap. I only read user scores anyway, and even the high user scores are given from brain dead people or "bots", because there is no way that this game now worth 10. Also, one big "-" for all this great scores that game received, it's a joke as always. I hope that they will add more civs soon. Nice features like districts, various bonuses etc. Gameplay is just boring, idk tbh, too much barbarians and no city bombardment, i really don't think that is realistic scenario. I also don't like the map, mini map and fow. Graphic is just bad, colors are not good at all, very low texture resolution, not very well drown if you ask me. Graphic is just bad, colors are not good at all, very low texture resolution, not very well drown if you I tried it, and i don't like it. * The Mongols seem to be the most popular choice by far, with all the other Asian civs in that catergory struggling for regular votes.I tried it, and i don't like it. *2nd place Carthage (4.5 votes) -(5.5 votes if you include Phoencia as same civ) *2nd TIE: Isreal (2 votes) & North Korea (2 votes)Ĩ) NEXT Africa civ:- Zulu (7.5 votes!!!) *3rd TIE - Venice (3 votes) & Hungary (3 votes)ħ) NEXT Asia civ: The Mongols (11 votes!!!) -(THE MOST POPULAR choice of ALL sectors!) *If you count all north american indians as 1 (Sioux,ShoShone,Redfoot etc) - 6 votes.Ħ) NEXT Europe civ: -Portugal (4 votes)
(**note - 2 people voted Denmark put think they got confused & meant Norway)ĥ) NEXT New world civ: The Inca (8 votes!!!) *If Persia & Macedon count as one DLC would have 9 votes (Persia 4 Macedon 5)Ĥ) Worst civ in the game: - Norway (8 votes) *Second place - 5 Civs TIE - Rome (2) Sumeria (2) India (2) France (2) & Arabia (2)ģ) Best DLC: - Australlia (12 votes) 2) Fave Civ to play as: TIE- Australlia (3 votes) & Poland (3 votes)
0 kommentar(er)
