I was wrong about Civ6 - it's a reboot

[Bibor]

I consider X-com to be a strategy game. It also has "builder" elements, but it's a strat. Now compare it to civ. It's different. Civ has much more "builder" elements. It is predominantly a builder game, even if its competitive.

 

[Lucius_]

I don't care too much about labels, but I don't think Civ VI is changing the base concepts of Civ very significantly at all. Every Civ game has had an element of empire building and management. I think that it's a little more important with VI, with the districts coming out of the city's center, making more planning involved for each individual city, as well as the government and civics changes being more active.

Civ has never been primarily a war game, but it can be played as one, to an extent. I don't see that changing. The label of players being builders or warmongers isn't anything new, afaik, and the term builder, for a player who just wants to manage his empire and be left alone, exists because there are players out there who just want the empire building sim experience. I think what the OP is seeing in Civ VI is nothing new, just the certain aspects have more focus than previous games, based on the previews.

 

[Bibor]

I think what the OP is seeing in Civ VI is nothing new, just the certain aspects have more focus than previous games, based on the previews.

Civ4 diplomacy: -8 because religion.
Civ5 diplomacy: -8 because reasons.
Civ6 diplomacy: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

Civ5 city states: +8 faith per turn, resources, vote.
Civ6 city states: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

I wouldn't call these "minor changes".

I haven't seen how new combat works, but from what I've seen so far, it's pretty much the same as in Civ5. Again, builder bias

 

[happybjorn]

The various labels don't seem meaningful. It's telling that you try to define them, but never bothered to look up reboot.

 

[Lucius_]

Civ4 diplomacy: -8 because religion.
Civ5 diplomacy: -8 because reasons.
Civ6 diplomacy: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

Civ5 city states: +8 faith per turn.
Civ6 city states: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

I wouldn't call these "minor changes".

I haven't seen how new combat works, but from what I've seen so far, it's pretty much the same as in Civ5. Again, builder bias

"Minor changes"? What are you quoting? I never said that.

Edit: I should add, like I said in my original post, I speaking of the base concepts of what makes Civ, Civ, not the specific gameplay mechanics. I do think there are significant changes there but I do not think the base concept of the game has changed, since at least Civ II or III, if not since the beginning, including now with VI. The focus has changed quite a bit here and there but all the same elements exist, just with different weights. Civ I was very heavily a war game, with some empire management. IIRC, there was only science and domination victories back then. Civ VI appears to be heavy with empire management, even if you are primarily playing as a war game.

 

[Bibor]

"Minor changes"? What are you quoting? I never said that.

My apologies, I misread your post.

The various labels don't seem meaningful. It's telling that you try to define them, but never bothered to look up reboot.

Reboot:
Civ4 offered fully fledged strategy game mechanics.
Civ5 moving toward Panzer-General-style strategy game mechanics. Failed. Builder stuff also suffered, got much better through expansions.
Civ6 emphasis on vastly expanding combat mechanics dropped, strong emphasis on empire building.

Reboot to the "Build a civilization that will stand the test of time".

EDIT:

Edit: I should add, like I said in my original post, I speaking of the base concepts of what makes Civ, Civ, not the specific gameplay mechanics. I do think there are significant changes there but I do not think the base concept of the game has changed, since at least Civ II or III, if not since the beginning, including now with VI. The focus has changed quite a bit here and there but all the same elements exist, just with different weights. Civ I was very heavily a war game, with some empire management. IIRC, there was only science and domination victories back then. Civ VI appears to be heavy with empire management, even if you are primarily playing as a war game.

I think (might be wrong, obviously) that Sid's primary focus even in Civ 1 was to make a builder game, like RRT and later Colonization. In any case, I do think that Civ 6 is taking a different direction from 4 and 5 in this regard, as you said it youself, towards being heavy with empire management and (finally) diplomacy.

 

[shaglio]

You can call the Civilization series a strategy game or a simulation or a CSM or CSI: Miami or a steaming pile of dog crap. I don't care. Whatever it is, I like it and I enjoy playing it. Civ 6 looks like I will like it and enjoy playing it as well. That's all that matters to me.

 

[Zaarin]

Of course Fallout 4 isn't a sequel to Fallout: New Vegas. FNV was made by Obsidian, a company that knows how to make good games with good stories and good characters, whereas FO4 was made by Bethesda, a company that hasn't made a good game in 15 years.

I personally don't see any genre-blending in Civ6; it looks like a very well-made 4x game to me. An innovative one, to be sure, but I don't see it resembling a godgame or city-builder at all.

 

[apocalypse105]

I just thinx you are cautious because civ 5 at release was awefull and a big joke..
thats why a lot of peole are scapitcal about civ 6.

I recently played civ 5 vanilla and it is really bad its until gods and king and brave new world the game got interesting and good

dont want that to see at civ 6

 

[cazaderonus]

I watched several civ 6 videos, but the latest one, showing off religion was quite a revelation.

I don't think Civ 6 is an upgrade to 5. Yes, there are hexes, city states and other similarities, but I don't think its actually a polish of Civ5, Brave New World was a polish.

Even now, before launch in its pre-vanilla state, it looks much more detailed than civ5, with many more meaningful "levers" that can be pulled. Civ 6 truly feels more a reboot than an upgrade.

On one hand, it makes sense. They are introducing many, many new mechanics that will be polished through expansions. Interconnectedness of various game mechanics/levers will also make - if not for a better - at least for a more interesting AI. From a general gameplay perspective, this game even now looks like 10 times more fun than was CiV

I ll agree up to here.

On the change toward what you call god games, instead of a strategy game, i dont. And weirdly enough, i thin what i quoted from you is exactly what emphasize this. More mecanics, more levers equals to more strategy in my opinion, not less. I think you re misreading the city unstacking there. It s not just building stuff, it acts as a natural barrier to city spam, and as another layer of planning ahead and adaptingn to the situation.

And again, this feels like strategy to me. And really, a god game is a strategy game. So i just dont see it.

 

[trendy]

Civ VI has a lot of promise to be sure but at its core it's pretty much a refined Civ V. You still ally CS but in a slightly different way, and they still give you bonuses and luxes that are a little more varied. Civics is a customizable social policy tree. Religion spread isn't any different, and religious "combat" is just an extra spread mechanic. Let's not forget world congress and diploV was completely gutted out to be put in an expansion. Casus belli is nice, but in some ways it's just there to nullify extra penalties added in later eras. It's not like if you conquer half the known world other civs will hate you any less.

I'm looking forward to VI, but I expect it'll play a lot like V.

 

[Staler87]

I ll agree up to here.

On the change toward what you call god games, instead of a strategy game, i dont. And weirdly enough, i thin what i quoted from you is exactly what emphasize this. More mecanics, more levers equals to more strategy in my opinion, not less. I think you re misreading the city unstacking there. It s not just building stuff, it acts as a natural barrier to city spam, and as another layer of planning ahead and adaptingn to the situation.

And again, this feels like strategy to me. And really, a god game is a strategy game. So i just dont see it.

To be honest I didn't even realize there was a difference between these genres. I'm really just hoping it will be fun to play whatever kind of game it is.

 

[Herakleides]

My apologies, I misread your post.




Reboot:
Civ4 offered fully fledged strategy game mechanics.
Civ5 moving toward Panzer-General-style strategy game mechanics. Failed. Builder stuff also suffered, got much better through expansions.
Civ6 emphasis on vastly expanding combat mechanics dropped, strong emphasis on empire building.

Reboot to the "Build a civilization that will stand the test of time".

EDIT:


I think (might be wrong, obviously) that Sid's primary focus even in Civ 1 was to make a builder game, like RRT and later Colonization. In any case, I do think that Civ 6 is taking a different direction from 4 and 5 in this regard, as you said it youself, towards being heavy with empire management and (finally) diplomacy.

Civilization V(base game) was a beautiful game but it lacked depth of the previous game. Many aspects of Empire management were stripped out. I enjoy playing CIV V but I find much older games much more satisfying and interesting because they give you more to do than just press turn while moving units around. I know some people on this fourm may say that about the other games but Civilization V(the base game without expansions) did not give much for the player to do if he was not moving troops around.

Bibor, I support your assertion though I wouldn't exactly call it a reboot. It's more like the integration of Empire management of the older Civ games with the war style of Civ V. It's closer to a redesign.

 

[isau]

Neither Civ V or Civ VI is that significantly different than Civ IV. I realize some people like one or the other better but seriously, there is no objective answer here.

You can draw a nearly linear map of nearly every concept in Civ IV to how it eventually translated into something in Civ V, with the possible exception of corporations, which made themselves known in the Community Balance Patch. On top of that Civ V added additional concepts: city states, tall cities, faith as a resource. Civ V's big crime was actually poor balance and nothing to do with overall concept. The overall concept between IV V and VI is virtually identical.

Some people just don't like 1UPT but 1UPT was an extension of the previous combat model. You can like it or not but in the end it's just a different model of the same basic idea, mobile units used to take cities or defend them by force.

The policies in Civ V were a bit of a let down, I'd agree to that. There are actually more of them than in IV. The implementation wasn't the best.

However, totally different genres of game? No. Definitely not. The same basic concepts carry on through all three of them, just in different ways.

 

[sonicmyst]

To me, as long as there are different ways to win in this game (Domination, Culture, Science or Religion), I feel this game is more strategic than CMS. In a sim game, there is only one goal: make your city / character successful (e.g. not become bankrupt) In Civ, there are always different approaches in winning. I may play passive and just focus on science or culture, or go aggressive and be a warmonger, or a manipulator (via espionage and playing with enemies' agenda)

 

[Miravlix]

Not sure where you get your definition of reboot, but no matter how wide a definition I can think of, it just doesn't seem to fit.

It's a surprisingly small evolution upgrade from Civ V. They seem to cover every single shortcoming of Civ V BNW and the only thing new is unstacked cities.

 

[X_nemesis_X]

Civ4 diplomacy: -8 because religion.
Civ5 diplomacy: -8 because reasons.
Civ6 diplomacy: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

Civ5 city states: +8 faith per turn, resources, vote.
Civ6 city states: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

I wouldn't call these "minor changes".

I haven't seen how new combat works, but from what I've seen so far, it's pretty much the same as in Civ5. Again, builder bias

They changed the movement System in civ 6 which will change the way you fight. You need all your movement points to cross a river and you need a certain amount of movement points to enter a tile depending of the terrain. Besides the opportunity to pillage districts is why faster units will probably become more important in civ 6.

To my point if view mixing game mechanics from different genres can be pretty interesting and I'd say it is very common nowadays. Just look at all the role play mechanics they implemented in civ before to make your civ more individual (units getting experience and promotions, having bonuses because of the social policies or religion traits).

To me civ 6 doesn't feel like a reboot. Why would it? ciV was a success therefore you don't reboot, but evolve. Watching the let's plays feels very familiar. I think you're going to make a lot more meaningful decisions in civ 6. I'm definitely looking forward to playing it.

Gesendet von meinem LG-H850 mit Tapatalk

 

[Martinus]

I am not sure I understand the idea behind threads such as this, except perhaps boredom.

 

[bbbt]

Civ4 diplomacy: -8 because religion.
Civ5 diplomacy: -8 because reasons.
Civ6 diplomacy: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

Civ5 city states: +8 faith per turn, resources, vote.
Civ6 city states: several dozen meaningful connected mechanics.

That's an odd way to support your argument - diplomacy is a hallmark of strategy games, not 'sim' games. The fact that they are making more complicated makes the strategy more complicated.

The city states as well, you are competing with other empires for their favor. These are hallmarks of strategy games.

Most of the challenge from CIV comes from external competition. If you had no other empires and could build all the cities/all the wonders/befriend all the city states/etc., there would be very little stopping you from balancing your empire.

Civ has always been, at its core, a worker placement game - where are you spending your resources. It's actually become LESS of a 'builder'/SIM game - the more you go back, the more you were able to essentially build the majority of buildings, have the giant 'stacks of doom' armies.

From what they've said in videos about CIV 6, it seems like you'll have increasingly limited resources in compared to what options you can build - every city won't be able to have every district. You'll be hard pressed to get a majority of the wonders, etc.

In a builder/sim game, your goal is essentially to build everything, and balance your resources/citizens to do so. In CIV 6, it looks like it will be the opposite - you have to choose what to build to race towards your victory condition. That's very much a strategy game.

 

[GauntZero]

This is not worth my time.