Did Civ6 take a significant step backward?

[pietro1990]

They took a step backwards in diplomacy. they fixed major issues at civ 5 with brave new world especially the warmonger penalties it only applies to taking cities now.

But in civ 6 they returned the penalty for declaring war. Wich causes the Ai hate eachother constantly and starting wars because of wars.. it breaks diplomacy just like civ 5 vanilla but they didn't learn from it.

 

[bdemz]

It's like they started this game from scratch...could have just improved BTS with added features

 

[JollyRoger]

This is a big step back in big step back threads.

 

[Nares]

3) Load sequences: As much as I like the sound of Sean Bean's voice, do I really have to put up with his spiel EVERY time I LOAD a Saved game? I'm hoping I just missed the Mute Option.

Sean Bean did voice work for this? First reason I've had to even consider buying the game.

 

[IllustriousYou]

As I waged aggressive war for almost the entire game, just about everyone hated me. Except for Norway! Apparently he doesn't care about warmongering as much as the others do.

One of the agendas is "Social Darwinism", which gives bonuses for warmongering. Perhaps he had this?

 

[CaptainPatch]

I disagree about the graphics. They are much more vivid but it just looks too cartoonish...like an IPAD app

Have to agree with this. In Civ5, the CGI for the cut scenes and opening sequence were practically photograph quality. Here in Civ6, the the characters look a lot more like the marionette Diplo screens of Civ3. After Civ5, I was expecting the video quality of Civ6 to be nearly indistinguishable from a regular Real Life movie. If this trend continues, in Civ7 we'll be looking at Anime.

 

[Staler87]

I disagree entirely with the graphics. I liked how civ V had the ultra-realistic look but find myself having more fun just looking at the civ VI map and animations in-between turns.

I also disagree gameplay wise. Civ VI currently has some issues balance wise but most of it is just numbers. Once they get everything sorted out it will be a far deeper strategy game than civ V BNW ever was.

 

[Stalker0]

Ultimately I like a lot of Civ VI's subsystems, and I do think they are a step forward.

That said:

1) The balance issues: Prod vs Science, Military Balance, certain leaders are OP.....while some of these are so great I raise my eyebrows at the playtesters, ultimately they are simple number tweaks. No major concern here.
2) UI: It would take a lot of work to improve the UI. Ultimately I will get used to it, but I don't think we will get a big change here until an expansion, its just too much work for them.
3) AI: Ultimately this won't get fixed until modders do it. Civ 5 AI was improved a good bit....but if you have never played the Vox Populi mod you have no idea how good Civ 5 AI can actually be. It can be done, but Firaxis isn't the ones to do it.
4) Lack of "stuff". Ultimately I find the techs so lacking in just things to do. Many techs have a single building, or nothing at all. Civ 5 had a lot more stuff to do it seems in that department. This will probably take an expansion to fill in.
5) Diplomacy: Hopefully more of a numbers tweak that can give us some big gains here as opposed to any radical changes.
6) Graphics: I actually think the art style is fine, but just like in Civ 5 when it first came out, some of the art isn't functional enough. Districts aren't distinct enough from each other, pillaged tiles are way too hard to spot, hills don't contrast enough. They did a graphics pass with Civ 5 and hopefully we get the same here.

 

[van der Knivet]

On the OP

No, it's not a step backwards.

1) The lack of civ customization and city naming is a bug and will be fixed on the first update. But it is not any different than anything that we already had since Civ I. You can name your favorite units, tough. (btw.. "RACIAL"??? What the heck??? It's Civilization, not Warcraft).

2) The Diplo is a bit unbalanced yet, but the mechanics are just fine... I spent a good part of my first game directing trade routes to every single civ I could, and taking advantage of the new spy system to understand the way diplo worked. Thing is, the agenda system works nice but the numbers still need fine tuning. Now, if you don't actually invest on the diplo game people WILL hate you and declare war on you. But if you repel one invasor you gain lots of military points just for doing that, and then even those who dennounced you will be afraid of declaring war on you.

3) Seriously. You are nitpicking about THAT???

4) This is a setback, yes... but I guess it will be adressed on future DLCs or expansion. And is a minor aspect of the game, something on could even mod.


Now, on other things people talked about

1) Balancing... yeah. On my first playtrough the only three iron ore on the landmass I started (with me plus three other civs) were outside the borders of any of the civs... with two exactly side-by-side. They were never exploited, neither by me (too far away) neither by the AI. Result: noone ever built a swordsman or knight on that landmass. On the other hand maxing out science even without being a science-focused civ seemed too easy. There are other number-polishing things to unearth.

2) AI... well, that's just what one would expect on a Civ game. At each iteration of the game it looks more like a conscious design choice than a bug. Anyone modding it? I want to be on the team!!!

3) Graphics... I f...ing LOVED it. It delivers what it's meant to. Civ always was a game about history with a lot of humourous touch (anyone remembers the advisors on Civ II?). It have nothing to do with the seriousness of ultra-realist look. Civ V always looked odd to me, with that art style. Anyway, this is not about "quality of graphics", but about "art style choices". I'm all on cartoonish/humorous side, for Civ games. And it goes hand by hand with all the in-game jokes, like the quotes on techs, civics and wonders. And even some dialog lines of the leaders on diplo screen. Civ series always had that take on history, just try to remember Civ III final screen... and the dialog from Catherine from both Civ III and IV: "Is that a treaty in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?". No, the serious tone of hyper-realism is weird on that context, and I'm glad it's gone.

4) Lack of stuff... yeah, that's my major complain, because it's less about tweaking numbers and more about actually adding content. It will be adressed on future DLCs and Expansions, but I prefer to mod it. Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn for Civ VI, anyone?

 

[GhostSalsa]

I think the game is a promising start as far as most problems (reasons play is not really dynamic or addictive yet), which we can be optimistic about, as only being balance issues,

but worrying for the problem of confined space, and cities not really being easy or fun to grow. This was the cornerstone concept for the biggest change of the game (districts), and so far it doesn't actually bring anything to the game, except a feeling of constraint and confusion. Before release we wondered, how would you be able to settle most spots - after release we can see the answer is, "awuhhh?"

Step backward? It was obviously intended as a big hop forward, but who knows if VI ended up close to dry land..

 

[Agent327]

I'm still playing my first full Marathon game of Civ6, but I must say there are a couple major letdowns for me. It may be that I have simply missed a couple features, so my perceptions may very well be erroneous.

1) Racial customization

Seeing as you're new to Civ: there are no 'races' in Civilization. As the name already suggests, you play a civilization.

2) Warmongers everywhere I look: I prefer to play a much more diplomatic game. Given a menu of 20-30 races, it HAD been possible to find 5-8 races that did not seem determined to Declare War at every turn. Instead, as with many/most of the Civ5 races, I have even distant leaders doing DoWs for literally no reason whatsoever. I even have empires on the far side of intervening empires complaining that my Settlers are encroaching on "their" territory. Throughout the Civ series, it has always bugged me that empires would declare war for NO REASON whatsoever. Now it seems that EVERY AI empire behaves that way.

Actually, they don't. And what you're mentioning is nothing new either.

Admittedly, I've only been playing the game for 9 hours so far, but this is certainly feeling like Beyond Earth. Which is to say, unlike Civ4 and Civ5 which I played many,many, many times, I will instead play through a time or two and then move on to play something -- ANYTHING else.

OK, now you're just being silly. Pretty much any Civ release had some features missing that players deemed necessary. So it seems there is indeed something off with your perception. (Seriously, comparing Civ 6 to BE? If you want to play something else, that's your choice. No need to whine about it here.)

 

[MooFreaky]

Civ6 is, by far, the deepest opening entry of a new series. People love to fawn over Civ4 (and now there is a lot of love for Civ5 too), but both were blasted on their release for being "too shallow". It was only after their expansions that they really blossomed.
People forget that Warolds really kicked Civ4 off, but it didn't become the gem it was until Beyond the Sword really completed it. Similarly 5 was solid, yet still lacking on release, came good with G&K, then truly shone with BNW. It is a process.
Having too many different concepts too quickly can also be bad (and is often criticised in other games) as it is too confusing or doesn't mesh properly. Introducing them over time allows Firaxis to really understand the game and see it played and abused by hardcore players, as well as enjoyed by casual gamers. Then really make changes and whole new systems that work with that.

I have played every entry of Civilization and the complaints that we are hearing a lot of currently are totally normal. It takes time to get used to new interfaces (at least they can fix them now) and graphic styles. There were heaps of complaints about Civ5's art style early on, but people got attached to it over time.

It will also take time to get used to the new systems. There are already people posting how it is possible to wage regular wars (without being a domination warmonger) and keep friends, we just need to learn to understand the new diplomatic system properly. People need to get used to the way that units are vital early in the game, you can't simply power level your capitol and then build units later. Instead you need a steady stream of them to protect your Capitol, protect your expansions, protect your builders, districts and improvements. And that makes A LOT of sense, but it is different and people will take time to get used to it.

Personally, I think it's great they they haven't just tried to re-skin Civ5. Each new iteration needs a new art style and way of playing. A unique feel that defines it from the rest of the series. Otherwise it will fail to draw people back, instead just keeping with what they already have, which is basically the same game anyway.

 

[Truronian]

Civ6 is, by far, the deepest opening entry of a new series. People love to fawn over Civ4 (and now there is a lot of love for Civ5 too), but both were blasted on their release for being "too shallow". It was only after their expansions that they really blossomed.

This is why I'm really excited for Civ6. It feels like a game that's already had two expansion packs (bar the low number of Civs); I can't wait to see what it's like when it actually has.

 

[CaptainPatch]

On the OP

(btw.. "RACIAL"??? What the heck??? It's Civilization, not Warcraft).

This is directed to everyone that objected to my use of the word "race":

African. Asian. Latino. Native American. Eskimo. Norse. Mongols. Celts. Semites. Caucasian/Aryan. Etc. Those are all races of Mankind. DNA testing can even show racial markers in EVERYONE's genes. More similar to each other than say "dogs", which come in umpty-ump breeds that don't look much like each other beyond having four legs, a head, and a tail. As it happened in History, many races _also_ established empires under their own names. But as it happened, many races splintered into multiple empires. (E.g. Asian split into Chinese, Laotian, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc.)

Since the game speculates on ONE nomadic tribe that grows and expands across six millenia, it is likely that its origin would breed a distinctly unique -- but still Human race. Over time, there would undoubtedly be extensive intermingling with other races. But there at the beginning, "race" definitely applies.

Seeing as you're new to Civ: there are no 'races' in Civilization.

Just as a clarification, I have played EVERY version of Civ going back to Civ 1. I also, incidentally, have played all of the Civilization board games (both Trefoil and Avalon Hill editions) that inspired Sid to make Civ in the first place. So I am familiar with EVERYTHING that has come before Civ6. So it bewilders me that with EVERY new release, Firaxis effectively takes "three steps back" by dumping numerous successful features from those earlier versions. Unless, of course, it is a matter that Firaxis is entirely cognizant of what they are doing by initial releasing only 60% of what they manifestly could be putting in the package, but are deliberately setting aside to spoon feed us in the form of DLCs and expansions. (Would Firaxis be so pointedly mercenary about the way they Market their products? They are, after all, a business, and businesses exist to maximize Profits every way they can.)

 

[faberGe]

I disagree about the graphics. They are much more vivid but it just looks too cartoonish...like an IPAD app

i sincerely thought so watching previews and screenshot.
I totally changed ideas once i saw it on my pc, love it, very stilish and not cartoonish as i tought.
Only bad thing for me is that it's very hard to distinguish between hills and plains when they have wood/jungle (have to wait for the slow tooltip).

 

[Ford]

Just as a clarification, I have played EVERY version of Civ going back to Civ 1. I also, incidentally, have played all of the Civilization board games (both Trefoil and Avalon Hill editions) that inspired Sid to make Civ in the first place. So I am familiar with EVERYTHING that has come before Civ6. So it it bewilders me that with EVERY new release, Firaxis effectively takes "three steps back" by dumping numerous successful features from those earlier versions.

Hmm. I've played since Civ 2, and am also old. Maybe, just maybe, this is a case of, ahem, maturing and no longer being as willing to change one's ways as one was back in the day. I wasn't as excited about this release as I was for the others, because I like BNW and was still playing regularly. A new game would mean learning a new way of playing (as it has with every iteration) and why change a winning team?


Glad I did though, there's nothing I like more than something as basically good as a new Civ game, and trying to figure it out. Beats crosswords every time.

 

[Gordon Brittas]

The game is brilliant, however, the UI is horrific. It takes quite a while to get used to it, and even then it's still pitiful.

 

[Truronian]

So it it bewilders me that with EVERY new release, Firaxis effectively takes "three steps back" by dumping numerous successful features from those earlier versions.

Civ5 was definitely guilty of this, but Civ6 is arguably better than any of the past iterations in this regard. I can't think of anything from Vanilla Civ5 that is missing, and nearly everything from the expansions remains as well. You evidently think that Civ6 marks a dramatic regression; are the minor issues you raised in the OP the only thing making you think this? What features do you think are missing?

 

[Ranbir]

Still a few steps back in parts, thanks to perpetuating the designs of V. But in other places it is a step forward from IV.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Civ5 was definitely guilty of this, but Civ6 is arguably better than any of the past iterations in this regard. I can't think of anything from Vanilla Civ5 that is missing, and nearly everything from the expansions remains as well. You evidently think that Civ6 marks a dramatic regression; are the minor issues you raised in the OP the only thing making you think this? What features do you think are missing?

You shouldn't be comparing vanilla Civ6 to vanilla Civ5. That would be ignoring the improvements that were introduced with Gods & Kings and Brave New World. That's why I suggest that it was "three steps back" rather than just a "back step". Yes, in comparing the vanillas, Civ 6 is better than Civ5... but NOT better than Civ5 + G&K + BNW + the several Civ5 DLCs. Plus if you looked at the myriad of Mods that were made, many of which added some VERY worthwhile game features, Civ6 is a pale shadow of what it could have been. But just as Firaxis ignored most of the expansion + DLC improvements of Civ4 when they released vanilla Civ5, they did the same thing in the way they released Civ6.

What I miss most is the Customization. Not just being able to rename cities, civs, and leaders. But also in being able to vary how many City-States there will be and the score or so gameplay options. (Such as Raging Barbarians and No Barbarians, etc.) I also miss the way CS Diplo used to work, compared to the way it is now. Now it seems rather .... passive. I mean that instead of trying to woo and bribe the CS's like in Civ5, now I sit around waiting for a CS to give me a Quest so I can earn an additional Envoy. And if those Quests aren't given, how am I supposed to make them an Ally?

So overall, what I am seeing is something like three steps back, two steps forward.... for a net loss in my evaluation. Like everyone else, I am absolutely certain that Civ6 WILL become a mighty fine game... once the expansions and DLCs have appeared. So right now I'm thinking that it may have been wise to hold off until all of those DID appear. And even better, bundled into a GOTY edition that includes all of that supplemental material. (For about the same price as what I paid for the intial release vanilla game.)