Where's the joy in civ6?

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I agree I get bored halfway though.

Would be better if more 4X games like Civ became progressively harder like the more level-focused games I'm used to. But I suspect that's not what really draws in the biggest fans; they like their shiny big numbers and yields and world conquest.

 

[reddishrecue]

The joy in civ 6 is this forum basically, when there's time to participate in it. The game itself I hardly even touch it sometimes because of the time. I like to talk about it and share it particularly playing against the AI and YouTube, watching people online destroy the AI also has a joy to it because you can know how to do it also. Going online and getting to nukes before others, etc...

 

[Noble Zarkon]

It's impossilble, even at low difficulty levels, to build up a city with full Science, Industry, Banking, Military and Airports.

That's one of Civ VI's strong points - every city can't do everything.

 

[Patine]

The joy in civ 6 is this forum basically, when there's time to participate in it. The game itself I hardly even touch it sometimes because of the time.

This is how I've come to feel. I've actually played an embarrassingly low number of games all the way to finish.

 

[Yorke]

For me, the real and last longing joy of Civ 6 is how it mixes strategy with 'storytelling' (emergent situations). If you go play the game straight up min/max then a lot of events from its side systems can become stale (or redundant, or bloated - it depends of which pack you refer to) in a broader perspective, but when you allow the situations that each play creates to take you though the game, I feel it's a different dynamic.

The counter of it is that you need to actively interact with each one of those systems always - and that can be workload at certain point in the game (mid to late). Part of it is related to liking or not the systems itself, but I also admit there's a lot going on if you want to play GS ruleset plus modes (I generally do barbarians, monopolies and societies).

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I have come to appreciate Civ5. Before Civ6 was released I had a wish list of what I wanted added to the game. The developers mostly fulfilled my wishes with Civ6. But just because they managed to achieve this it hasn't resulted in a better experience. I enjoy many of the changes in Civ6 but for some reason whenever I play I just find myself annoyed. I used to complain about how Civ5 was so streamlined. But despite this supposed deficiency it's actually a satisfying experience.

 

[Naokaukodem]

for some reason whenever I play I just find myself annoyed.

I feel exactly the same ! I'm not very good though, and that may be one of the reasons. But let's say Prince, it's not too hard no ? Last day I played a game with random civ and felt on a crappy civ. (bonuses to Holy Sites for every other district, cultural bombs that was lame, a weird mechanic where when you culture bomb your own cities they convert to your religion, etc.) It was on Prince. I never went past 2-3 cities before I told myself "I'm bored". And there was this little tribal village behind a barbarian camp in the snow, I thought that levying one warrior and one archer from a city state I could get it, but barbs started to come up from the north, too. The camps were south. They stucked "my" archer, I couldn't do much to save it, and then I attacked blindly a warrior with my remaining warrior. I don't know, maybe that's just that : I hate when I have objectives and that doesn't work properly. This fail was yet another slap in the face. And, that was all the fault of random barbarians coming from nowhere ! Argh, that pisses me off so deeply. Each game its dark fate. Maybe I was not focused enough on my objective : explore and expand ? I was building campuses by the way... Yeah, I think I had only 2 cities.

And when everything goes as planned, I always, ALWAYS end up with unhappiness AND lack of production...

 

[Chiss5618]

I have come to appreciate Civ5. Before Civ6 was released I had a wish list of what I wanted added to the game. The developers mostly fulfilled my wishes with Civ6. But just because they managed to achieve this it hasn't resulted in a better experience. I enjoy many of the changes in Civ6 but for some reason whenever I play I just find myself annoyed. I used to complain about how Civ5 was so streamlined. But despite this supposed deficiency it's actually a satisfying experience.

The most annoying part about civ 6 is districts imo. They're a good concept on paper, but I hate how you have to plan everything ahead or risk permanently messing up your city. Same with wonders. In V and previous games, you could always tear down improvements and early game building/wonder decisions wouldn't come back to bite you 300 turns later. A simple QoL change like being able to tear down/move districts and wonders would make them so much less frustrating.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

The most annoying part about civ 6 is districts imo. They're a good concept on paper, but I hate how you have to plan everything ahead or risk permanently messing up your city. Same with wonders. In V and previous games, you could always tear down improvements and early game building/wonder decisions wouldn't come back to bite you 300 turns later. A simple QoL change like being able to tear down/move districts and wonders would make them so much less frustrating.

What I'm hoping for in Civ7 is a hybrid system. Instead of districts taking up so much real estate on the map instead have a system where you can zoom into your city and build it on a more micro level. Civ6 feels too much like a board game. I hope the developers move away from this design for the sake of immersion .

 

[Disgustipated]

I've played this quite a bit, but I was getting burned out by the lackluster civs in this recent batch of dlc's. Started a game last night. What brought me back, listening to the Fall of Civlizations podcasts on youtube. I was watching the Carthage/Phoenicia one. You would think I would play as Dido, as you can see I like this civ a lot, but I do eventually want to finish this leaders pack. It's just so many of the new leaders don't interest me. I'm playing as Elizabeth, but so far I found this leader uninspiring.

I hope they don't go with this too much for Civ7 and put out content just for the sake of content. Quantity isn't necessarily better than quality, in fact it isn't in most cases.

 

[UWHabs]

What I'm hoping for in Civ7 is a hybrid system. Instead of districts taking up so much real estate on the map instead have a system where you can zoom into your city and build it on a more micro level. Civ6 feels too much like a board game. I hope the developers move away from this design for the sake of immersion .

Yeah, I would love to have more flexibility. Personally, I think it would be nice if "districts" we just like more generic areas where your city is growing to, so that maybe one district ends up with a library, market, and a bank. Another one has the zoo, amphitheatre, and maybe a park in it. Then when you design the game, you give different bonuses to the buildings, rather than the districts. So your university is maybe +4 science, but gains +1 science if it's in the same district as a library, +1 science if next to a mountain, +0,5 next to a rainforest, etc...

Something along those lines IMO would be a great balance. I do really hate how I can have this size 15 metropolis without a market in it. But I do like how not every city is superb at everything, so that's a hard balance to pull off..

 

[reddishrecue]

Markets particularly in larger cities do make that increase gpt ... it's worth getting. I've done that in civ 4 and had stacks with cities that were expensive but once the markets came in, the economy started to fix.

 

[Abaxial]

Civ6 feels too much like a board game.

You say that like board games were a bad thing.

 

[pokiehl]

You say that like board games were a bad thing.

To some of us, this series being more and more similar to a board game is indeed a bad thing.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

If I didn't need to sleep I would love to play a entire game of civ in one night. I don't have the same enthusiasm for finishing a game over multiple nights.

 

[reddishrecue]

People in other languages recognize this game I think.

 

[Abaxial]

Well, the original Civilization WAS a board game and I remember playing it. As I have said before, while you can have a realistic game on one period - CK, EU, Victoria etc, I think it is asking too much to conflate them all. Thus, the board game-like approach is a good workable solution.

 

[pokiehl]

Well, the original Civilization WAS a board game and I remember playing it. As I have said before, while you can have a realistic game on one period - CK, EU, Victoria etc, I think it is asking too much to conflate them all. Thus, the board game-like approach is a good workable solution.

Bringing realism into this is a non-sequitur. It’s not about a dichotomy of “realism vs board game-like,” nor is it about a stark black and white contrast.

Look at Civ 4 or Civ 5 and compare them with Civ 6. The latter is much more boardgame like from its systems (the district puzzle and emphasis on maximizing adjacencies and tile yields) to its UI (policy cards).

When we complain about about the game being boardgame like, we generally are advocating for a return to more immersive and less gamey systems.

 

[Abaxial]

When we complain about about the game being boardgame like, we generally are advocating for a return to more immersive and less gamey systems.

To say that Civ 5 is more "immersive" than Civ 6 seems to me to be very subjective and arbitrary. One can equally well be immersed in a Civ 6 game. What I understand is that you like Civ 5 more than Civ 6. Each to their taste. Some of the mechanics of Civ 5 I prefer to Civ 6, and some the other way round. Overall I think 6 has the edge.

 

[pokiehl]

What I understand is that you like Civ 5 more than Civ 6.

Nah, I can’t go back to playing Civ 5. I just think there’s a lot that was done better in that game.