This is the heart of my current disenchantment with Civ 6. Most of my enjoyment in playing it has come from the anticipation of the game it could become, rather than the game it is. And I was okay with that when Civ 6 first came out. Exploring the new features and learning how the game worked was fun.
Now that I've explored the new features and have a better understanding of how the game works (and what parts of it don't), I don't find the underlying gameplay compelling. Exploring new strategies (like lumber mills spamming) isn't interesting to me in an environment where the AI doesn't pose a credible challenge or impediment to my post-Ancient era plans. It's possible that an Aquaducts-only strategy could work on Deity, I don't know. I'm not interested enough in starting a new game to find out.
Twelve months ago, I'd have described Civ 6 as awesome, too. Now I view it as missed potential, a civ-building system that doesn't have the legs or gameplay value that it's predecessors did. I'll still tune in for each patch and expansion, though, because I'm still interested in the game I think it could be, and I would dearly love to be wrong.
I don't have any regrets about buying Civ 6. I've gotten far more than my money's worth out of the game in terms of play time and enjoyment. Unlike Civ 5, though, it's just not something I'd want to go back to time and time again to play "one more turn" (and yes, I play the Firaxis version of Civ 5, no mods). At least, not now it isn't. If it ever gets to the point that I need to pay attention to what the AI civs are doing after turn 50, I'll re-evaluate.
Yeah. I can sympathise with all of that. I may be closer to this view that I thought.
What I like about Civ VI. Civ VI gets two big things right. First, scope: not just historical (EU4 does that too), but you play from the foundation of civilization through to the modern world. When you cleave closely to the real world, it allows for so much more creativity and (I guess) role play than just pure fantasy. Second, the map matters: districts, improvements, housing, 1upt, the map matters.
Civ also gets some little stuff right too. It’s turn based; and board game like. That works for me in terms of playability, but also the ‘boardgame’ aspect makes it feel more immersive / real, because more is left to your imagination. There are multiple viable strategies (which is linked to how important the map is). The mix of micro and macro is very good: micro for cities and units (which I care about), but more abstract and less detailed for things like religion, spies and trade.
There’s nothing else on the market that does these things. And Civ VI does all of them better than any other version (IMO).
What kills me. First, polish. Civ VI has a lot of stuff in it, and lots of it is really polished. But something’s aren’t, and it’s annoying, maybe because of the comparison to what does work.
Second, Civ VI lacks focus in some areas, which results in some glaring gaps and or poor design decisions. Spies are a good example - mostly good, better after R&F, but still need a bit more development.
But it’s the third problem that’s the killer. Civ VI lacks depth. People complain about the AI, but I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s more that, if the AI was better, that would help address the lack of depth.
You see, because of the lack of depth, everything which I’ve said is ‘good’ about Civ is reduced to either optimisation or role playing. Both are fun, sure. But you look at the scope of the game, you look at the tools available to you, and you say to yourself “I’d like to do so much more with this game”.
R&F sort of makes things worse. First, because it introduces elements which build on what is there, it has also increased the number of things which aren’t polished, and has also left a lot of gaps still unfilled. For example, Governments need to be developed more - they feel too gimmicky - but R&F hasn’t really developed governments, it’s just added more
gimmicky stuff.
But, second, R&F has added a tonne of more
mechanics and, while a lot of these are cool, none of them really add more depth. It’s more complexity, but no more depth.
I can see ‘polish’ and ‘focus’ getting better. But, although I can happily play without more depth; I do ultimately keep wanting “more” depth - not necessarily more mechanics or toys or just ‘complexity’, but actual depth. I don’t know if that’s something the game can have.
I want Civ to have depth the way Catan does. Instead, what we have now is more like Tetris with roleplaying.
Why I’m not playing. In my head, the above issues aren’t really why I’ve stopped playing or haven’t bought R&F. Instead, I think I’ve stopped playing because: (1) my favourite Civ, England, has been utterly, utterly knee capped, and I just can’t be bothered anymore, (2) my two second favourite Civs, Norway and Japan, are ‘stagnant’ in that Firaxis still hasn’t addressed all the issues around anti-cav (particularly Pikes), Military Tactics and Medieval Melee - basically, I’m jack of playing a Viking King or Shogun without Beserkers, Samurai and Men-at-Arms; so, I don’t really have anyone I love playing instead of England, and (3) since R&F, the game feels like it’s in such a state of flux that I don’t want to start developing tactics just for the game to reset and have to start again. I’ve been thinking about maybe even modding to address (1) and (2), but why do that when the game is likely to change so much this year?
But. Is that really why I’m not playing? Or is it, really, the lack of depth? @Trav'ling Canuck, reading your post, I think maybe it is the lack of depth that’s putting me off, I just hadn’t realised.
I don’t know. It’s just a game. I honestly can’t believe I’ve written as much about it as I have.
