Sid Meier’s Civilisation VI: The Kotaku Re-Review

[The_J]

Luke Plunkett from Kotaku posted a new article: His Civ6 Re-Review.
He reviewed Civ6 for the initial release, and now he went back to have a look at it again.
While he still likes Civ6, in his opinion it's the worst of the main games (not counting expansions). He likes the happiness system, as well as controling archeologists and rockbands, but his main gripe is that the game gets in some way too board-gamey with the district system. He would like Civ to be more abstract, farer away from the numbers, to not micromanage the in his opinion to complicated system.

2 excerpts:

Civilisation VI takes a similar approach. It burdens the game with numbers, numbers everywhere, expressed in their rawest and least immersive form, and after seven years those numbers have buried many of the things I enjoy the most about Civilisation.

The defining aspect of Civilisation VI, the thing we will remember it for the most, is its district system. It’s a huge part of the game, based around the idea that after you build a city — which occupies a single one of the world’s tiles — you can then strategically expand it across the map, placing “districts” based on things like science or entertainment or the military, and these provide adjacency bonuses based on things like their proximity to other districts, or which natural resources they contain. It’s a system that is absolutely essential to getting the most out of your empire, and you can’t play Civilisation VI without at least trying to master it.

I love the way Civilisation VI — again, in contrast to a lot of other its other, less successful ideas — makes the game’s culture such a tangible force. Watching your borders spread like a virus in earlier games was one thing, but manually controlling archaeologists and artists and rock bands in the field is a blast. It’s these areas, where the game asks you to get down on the ground and shape your Civilisation directly, that it’s at its strongest. Where the numbers — which are always there, in every video game, I know — fade into the background.

You can read the whole article here.

 

[pokiehl]

Thanks for posting this. Unfortunately, there's not much more to it than what you summarized above, despite it being ~2300 words long.

The first 8-and-a-half paragraphs are a preamble to why he's re-reviewing it, and there are ~11 paragraphs spent on the core complaint of it being "too gamey" without much more insight beyond "too many numbers." Given his initial favorable review, I think calling it "the worst mainline game" in the series without incisive analysis to back that up (beyond "I don't play it anymore") is quite melodramatic and took me out of the review. Overall, it comes off as aimless and repetitive.

Don't get me wrong: I think there's a lot to criticize about this game, and I do agree with most of the few specific criticisms that are included in this review. I just think that this person's thoughts could have been organized better, or at least the point could have been made much more concisely (and therefore been more impactful).

 

[Sephi]

To be honest, if you asked Chatgpt for a civ6 review you would get one that makes more sense. This "review" which reads more like an opinion is full of cognitive dissonance. He complains about civ being too gamey but praises 1unit per tile and giant death robots. He complains about too many numbers but thinks that the overcomplicated happiness mechanic in civ6 is somehow better than what civ1-4 had.

It kinda sounds like he was forced to write a review or produce some kind of content about civ6, but didn't really play the game much. Not a single word about the braindead military AI, no dll modding, lack of macro strategies or suboptimal implementations like the world council. And only a single paragraph about the success of civ6 which is far more incredible than the reviewer thinks. The game has 45k concurrent players on steam. 12 Month ago it was "only" 35k. That's 7 years after release. Humankind went in the same timeframe from 2k concurrent players to 1k.

 

[Chiss5618]

The goal of like 95% of game journalism is to drive clicks and make money. Negative reviews and criticisms of relatively well received games help drive clicks, which is why sites like Kotaku tend to focus on the negative aspects of games (unless it's a AAA game that the they get early access to). While Plunkett's criticisms are mostly valid, the article isn't insightful (it's the same complaints people have had since launch), and it has a lot of filler, probably intended to drive search engine optimization. It's quite clear he doesn't actually care about the game; he spends half the article talking about himself or other games, so I'm guessing some editor at Kotaku saw that 6 was popular and wanted an article written on it.

 

[pokiehl]

and it has a lot of filler, probably intended to drive search engine optimization

It felt like reading a paper by a student who was desperate to get the word count up.

 

[iammaxhailme]

The district system + loyalty system are some of my favorite parts of Civ VI, tbh. My main complaints are

1: Everything just costs way too much to produce, so I always feel like I only get to develop my cities about 25% as much as I plan to
2: AI bad
3: Games last too long and get boring after the first ~5 eras, although that's a series-wide problem and I don't think it's any worse in 6 than 5 or Beyond Earth (I haven't played the games before 5 very much)

 

[Askia Muhammad]

The district system + loyalty system are some of my favorite parts of Civ VI, tbh. My main complaints are

1: Everything just costs way too much to produce, so I always feel like I only get to develop my cities about 25% as much as I plan to
2: AI bad
3: Games last too long and get boring after the first ~5 eras, although that's a series-wide problem and I don't think it's any worse in 6 than 5 or Beyond Earth (I haven't played the games before 5 very much)

I’m going to come in and play the contrarian here to some extent, we are on the Civ fanatics forums it’s obvious we all love the game very much and don’t want to see it criticized but I have to admit after reflecting on some of the things he said I have to agree with a handful of them.

Yes, we all know the AI is dog water - I personally feel like it’s actually pretty serviceable in terms of pursuing a science win but it seems incapable of doing anything but that and even then there seems to be some behind the scenes coding that forces it to stall the final step (I’ve witnessed civs having the tech but not even building the final step, let alone speeding it up for 30+ turns).

Aside from that - while I enjoy districts to some extent - they have started to blur the line regarding what the games genre is - Civ 6 does in some ways remind me more of a SimCity game than an empire builder because of the excessive micro development of each city. I do particularly enjoy district placement early game but when I’ve got twenty cities it just slows the game down and hinders my enjoyment.

As for loyalty, I love it but it needs to be fleshed out more and connected with things like culture more cleanly.

 

[Chiss5618]

Aside from that - while I enjoy districts to some extent - they have started to blur the line regarding what the games genre is - Civ 6 does in some ways remind me more of a SimCity game than an empire builder because of the excessive micro development of each city. I do particularly enjoy district placement early game but when I’ve got twenty cities it just slows the game down and hinders my enjoyment.

Imo districts should be more powerful with more buildings with the tradeoff of fewer districts per city. You shouldn't be able to build every district you want in a city in the mid and late game, they should help specialize a city towards a specific set of yields. There's also weak districts like the encampment and spaceport that also need a rework; it's hard to justify spending production and a district slot on them in many cases. I'm also surprised that you aren't able to tear down districts. Having to tack out every district in your city or risk making a permanent mistake is quite annoying.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

While he still likes Civ6, in his opinion it's the worst of the main games

He never played Civ V then

 

[dwcole78]

How do we make sure firaxis doesn't remake the game on this?...what a terrible viewpoint

 

[DeutschDachs]

He never played Civ V then

Civ V is his favorite in the series. He ranked the Civ games and said of V, "It’s a game so good I reviewed it twice."

Let’s Rank The Civilization Games, Worst To Best

How do you separate greatness? You can only try. And remember that hexes > grids.

kotaku.com

Which is odd since he seems to dislike VI and has now also reviewed that twice lol.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I personally feel like it’s actually pretty serviceable in terms of pursuing a science win but it seems incapable of doing anything but that and even then there seems to be some behind the scenes coding that forces it to stall the final step (I’ve witnessed civs having the tech but not even building the final step, let alone speeding it up for 30+ turns).

I'm still learning to play well, so I tend to end up with games ending after 350, 380 turns. Yes, the AI are building the items for a Science victory. Yes, another AI has been spamming its religion all over the other continent and sent a flock of more than 12 apostles to my continent to convert me, the last holdout to its Religion victory. While I was not paying attention to their progress, one of them sneaked into a diplo victory... meaning that yes, I *lost*

My point being that the AI will catch you out with a non-military victory condition if the human player is not on the same land mass or gets distracted building too many wonders.

 

[universecreep]

In my opinion, the review raised a lot of good points.

The reviewer never said Civ VI wasn't good. They actually stated it was a very good game; however, in their opinion, they felt it was the weakest entry of the main games in the series. If I think about it, I probably would agree. This is the first game in the series I felt certain systems were just not enjoyable or poorly implemented. The religious victory was awful and I always turned it off a an option so I wouldn't have to worry about it. The global congress is also boring, mostly irrelevant and the UI for it is terrible; it's another system I basically ignore when playing.

That being said, it still is a great game but I agree, it was probably the weakest of the group.

 

[vorlon_mi]

OK, I read the re-review article.

I was struck by the distinction between a strong/weak game in the 4X genre, as opposed to a game that the reviewer enjoys playing. This distinction is also reflected in my attitudes towards each of the games in the franchise.

Looking at two polar opposites in my experience: Civ3 Conquests and Civ6, with NFP and the Leader Packs.
Civ3 has fewer systems, with less complexity in those systems, as one would expect from a game initially released in 2001 and that received its final expansion in 2005. Those systems are integrated with one another; the links between gold, science, and culture are direct. All land tiles are accessible to units (including mountains), so path-finding is simplified. Land units must be loaded onto transports to move over water. Nearly every military unit in the game upgrades into something better. Cities occupy a single tile and units may stack as deep as the player desires. Road and railroad building are mostly manual operations, though they can be sped up using multiple workers. Possible governments are few, with fixed attributes.

Civ6 has many more systems, with additional linkages and interactions from the optional game modes added during NFP. Not only must one plan for the placements of districts for one city, but one must allow space for Wonders, farms to keep citizens fed, improvements to provide resources, and think of the interactions with districts in a neighboring city. Does the player choose to found a religion, or accept one from the AI? Purchases may be made with faith, gold, or raw production. Moving lots of units around terrain obstacles is not trivial. The player can tweak aspects of the government through policy cards, every time a new culture item is unlocked.

I agree with the reviewer, in that Civ6 has a LOT going on. That can be fun, especially if one is trying to play each game and each civ differently. Civ6 has so many more leaders -- and leader personas -- to choose from. The replay-ability of Civ6 is enhanced by this variety. In Civ3, the replay-ability is centered in the map and the random choice of AI traits. With the large number of moving parts in 6, it's harder to realize which aspects matter most, where to focus one's attention. Having many systems doesn't necessarily make a strong game, though it can be a fun game. IMHO, a strong game has good integration among the systems.

I have a lot of fun playing both C3C and Civ6, for different reasons.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I too share the sentiment that Civ 6 is like an ocean of content and an inch deep.
I used to go whole games just not caring about any new content. World Congress? Policies? I don't know, I just click on stuff to get it over with...

 

[MrRadar]

Whatever is the reasoning, I tend to agree to the bottom line:
>It just also happens to be the weakest entry in that series, the one least equipped to endure this long of a wait between games.<

And I would stress that it is rock-bottom weakest Civilization title, weaker even than Civ V, regardless of what I may have said before. Because even Civ V had more UI, more reasonable diplomacy and general AI capability. We're well into the 7th year of the game release, no more licence for 'oh, they will fix it in the future'.

Well into the 7th year, among gazillion of other issues, there are those couple of random things, chosen in no particular order, but just because they've caught my eye during the latest game:

Spoiler :

The above puts this right into the 'Labour of love' category, does it? No?

Spoiler :

AI is out there, isn't it?... Or is it really? Even two bits of it?

 

[Bibor]

While I appreciate everyone's opionion on everything, including this journalist at Kotaku, the world has become a truly massive and confusing place... and any game (or product, for that matter) that achieves the "nailed it" status is very, very rare. We live in a world of computer game abundance, thus yolo-ing a new game onto the market has become the norm. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

What civ6 is – it's a really solid game. What it isn't ... is a surefire satisfactory chill after a long day that I simply can't wait to get back to. And that should be the aim of Civ7. As Paradox and Blizzard have proven over and over again, people are willing to pay significant amounts of money for a game that provides.

 

[j51]

I'd say I'd half agree with the article. The game was pretty well formed when it released (as much as a modern game can be on release). It just needed more civs, leaders, units, and some balance to its systems. The expansions were especially confounding. Most of the new systems they added just never fit well with the rest of the game. They especially contributed to an overly board gamey feel as they mostly just added new buckets to fill. The diplomatic favor/world congress system is so atrocious that I have to turn it off with mods. No previous Civ game has any problems like that. I sorta only keep the expansions on because they contain some essential civs that the game wouldn't be complete without.

Now that everything is out though: the roster of civs and leaders is the best yet, even with the unnecessary post-colonial nations and the messed up France. So there's that.

 

[universecreep]

I'd say I'd half agree with the article. The game was pretty well formed when it released (as much as a modern game can be on release). It just needed more civs, leaders, units, and some balance to its systems. The expansions were especially confounding. Most of the new systems they added just never fit well with the rest of the game. They especially contributed to an overly board gamey feel as they mostly just added new buckets to fill. The diplomatic favor/world congress system is so atrocious that I have to turn it off with mods. No previous Civ game has any problems like that. I sorta only keep the expansions on because they contain some essential civs that the game wouldn't be complete without.

Now that everything is out though: the roster of civs and leaders is the best yet, even with the unnecessary post-colonial nations and the messed up France. So there's that.

I agree 100%.

It's a great game but the most flawed of the main Civ series.

I think they need new leadership in the team that's making Civ. The present group has gone as far as it can I think.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Did people never play Civ III?