I don't know if it's been mentioned already... but What is this "289084 - Sid Meier's Civilization VI Depot" that was updated 12 days ago, has now size and described as unused?
It seems to have had "Steam Sub 261665" included in it 12 days ago in it with no cost. But already has a "ValveTestSub 18577" and "Battleborn: Digital Deluxe for Beta Testing" in it - I don't think it looks like an expansion; so what could it be?
I've been watching that depot for about a year. Nothing has changed with it. I'm not sure why it is in that Battleborn app. It is defunct and unused.
There's nothing of interest going on with SteamDB. But I remind you that there were no apparent updates for the last few weeks of the spring patch. It's entirely possible they have adopted some way to QA test without our seeing the updates.
According to Steam stats it's the 23rd most played game on the platform (though it's back to being less played than Civ V, something it only overcame briefly during the immediately post-release period for Rise & Fall). On that basis I'd be very surprised to see Firaxis abandon it earlier in the release cycle than other Civ games. It may be the first entry in the series to underperform compared with its immediate predecessor, but it can't be considered a failure in purely commercial terms.
Civ V is simply a phenomenally successful game, for a strategy game to rank 15th in Steam stats not far short of a decade after its release - it sets a bar high enough that Civ VI would probably have been destined to fall short even if it were the game Civ players wanted rather than an unsatisfactory halfway house that sacrifices the mechanical simplicity of Civ V for additional micromanagement intended to please the Civ IV crowd, without any of the depth to its decision-making that the micromanagement fans want.
A little known game called Civ 4 may disagree. We just don't have Steam stats to show the number of Civ 4 players. I know I went back to Civ 4 after Civ 5 came out, it was a better game than Civ 5. For the longest time I was less than 10 hours played until after the first expansion. I think a lot of the Civ 5 current players may be new generation fans that have never played Civ 4, and they just didn't like what they saw with Civ 6 (which while an easier game overall, does have a little more complex mechanics).
She says they're "player characters" who look like her real life friends, but also that they're "part of a game."
Assuming they're Civ-related (which, going by appearance, they certainly could be), I wonder if these are leader concepts, UUs, or a mix of the two? What kind of cultures are represented here? The third image appears to be Celtic or Gallic?
A little known game called Civ 4 may disagree. We just don't have Steam stats to show the number of Civ 4 players. I know I went back to Civ 4 after Civ 5 came out, it was a better game than Civ 5. For the longest time I was less than 10 hours played until after the first expansion. I think a lot of the Civ 5 current players may be new generation fans that have never played Civ 4, and they just didn't like what they saw with Civ 6 (which while an easier game overall, does have a little more complex mechanics).
I see these sort of posts all the time. Either I must be in the minority or the pro Civ IV/anti Civ V are just very vocal. I loved Civ V once the expansions were out, for me Civ IV was not enjoyable. Each to their own.
She says they're "player characters" who look like her real life friends, but also that they're "part of a game."
Assuming they're Civ-related (which, going by appearance, they certainly could be), I wonder if these are leader concepts, UUs, or a mix of the two? What kind of cultures are represented here? The third image appears to be Celtic or Gallic?
The last one screams 'Vercingetorix' to me and the first one with the axe almost looks like he could be a Native American. The women with the facepaint looks like she could be Boudica to me also. Either of the women with dark hair look like they could be Theodora to me and the man/woman (I can't tell) with the halberd looks like a French/Swiss/Italian leader to me. I have no clue about the bald guy.
The style overall does scream Civ 6 to me so perhaps it could be a mini-DLC or the next expansion?
Coming up to 7 months since R&F was released. It's been tough, looking at what we got the first 7 months after vanilla release, a good amount of brand new Civs. I was hoping we'd get a least a couple of map packs since R&F, there is a lack of maps in VI.
I see these sort of posts all the time. Either I must be in the minority or the pro Civ IV/anti Civ V are just very vocal. I loved Civ V once the expansions were out, for me Civ IV was not enjoyable. Each to their own.
It's not just you. Civ 5 and Civ 4 are very different games, so it's not surprising there are those who like one and not the other. As a Civ player since Civ 1, Civ 5's my favourite of the series.
A little known game called Civ 4 may disagree. We just don't have Steam stats to show the number of Civ 4 players. I know I went back to Civ 4 after Civ 5 came out, it was a better game than Civ 5. For the longest time I was less than 10 hours played until after the first expansion. I think a lot of the Civ 5 current players may be new generation fans that have never played Civ 4, and they just didn't like what they saw with Civ 6 (which while an easier game overall, does have a little more complex mechanics).
While the full metrics for Civ IV aren't available since it was released pre-Steam and supported on other platforms, there's no evidence that the game performed better commercially than Civ V. On the available data we have, despite its limitations, Civ V was the more successful game and any claim otherwise is wishful thinking. Civ IV has been available on Steam for a long time and at bargain bin prices (two arguments often used to explain Civ V's continuing success post-Civ VI) and yet Civ IV has never put up remotely comparable numbers on the platform. Many of the features Civ IV fans decry about Civ V are precisely the sorts of things that result in greater popularity.
I see Civ VI's problem as failing to satisfy both Civ V and Civ IV players. Its mechanics are more complex, but it's a fallacy that mechanical complexity entails depth. The game added complexity that turned off some Civ V players without adding any depth that could bring in those from Civ IV who disliked Civ V. Strategically the game is shallower than Civ V - in Civ V you could succeed with pretty strongly railroaded strategies, but at least it demanded an actual strategy. On Civ VI you can still more or less random walk to victory at the highest levels - sandboxing is all very well, but you lose the essence of a strategy game if the available strategy is "anything goes". Amenities are essentially irrelevant, loyalty and era score largely became make-work once the novelty wore off (and patches reduced the difficulty of avoiding dark ages, initially set at a reasonable level), and entire resource buckets - tourism and faith - are barely relevant if not aiming for a specific victory condition. District placement demands extremely basic situational awareness and doesn't really add any city placement restrictions that didn't already exist in the Civ V 'rivers, forests and mountains good' approach - as with so much in Civ VI they're just a more click-intensive way to achieve the same basic result, without any attendant increase in relevant decision-making.
This hits the nail on the head, for me. The genius of the Civ series has always been that it's a sandbox on lower difficulty levels and a challenge at higher difficulty levels. I've played a lot less Civ 6 than many of the past iterations in the series, and the challenge level just isn't there the way it is for other versions where I've had to hone my skills and still be uncertain of victory. That robs the game experience of satisfaction, as there's no ups and downs, no disappointments at being beaten to a city site or a wonder, no sense of achievement when you get a great empire going. And definitely no "one more turn" feeling.
Still holding out hope that if they continue to work on Civ 6, this can be corrected. If not, there's always Civ 7 to look forward to and older versions to play in the interim.
This hits the nail on the head, for me. The genius of the Civ series has always been that it's a sandbox on lower difficulty levels and a challenge at higher difficulty levels. I've played a lot less Civ 6 than many of the past iterations in the series, and the challenge level just isn't there the way it is for other versions where I've had to hone my skills and still be uncertain of victory. That robs the game experience of satisfaction, as there's no ups and downs, no disappointments at being beaten to a city site or a wonder, no sense of achievement when you get a great empire going. And definitely no "one more turn" feeling.
Still holding out hope that if they continue to work on Civ 6, this can be corrected. If not, there's always Civ 7 to look forward to and older versions to play in the interim.
R&F suggests that this isn't the direction they're interested in going. I was pretty high on R&F when it released - loyalty promised to add relevance to neglected mechanics like amenity and era score rewarded forward planning, both in ways that looked like well-chosen approaches for the series. I never liked the governor system (and now find the endless prompts to choose a usually meaningless promotion or unnecessary character annoying) but it too seemed to reward planning ahead, if only by clumsily copy-pasting Civ V's social policy system into the newer game.
I returned to Civ VI recently and pretty much none of this promise still seems to be there. Avoiding Dark Ages now appears to happen largely automatically at game stages where it's relevant, governors are tedious and rarely useful for anything other than the loyalty buff as early in the game as they first become available, and when you don't need to worry about dark ages loyalty isn't that important as well as being yet another "The rich get richer" mechanic that mostly passively rewards you for doing something that you want to do anyway (growing population).
Deity gameplay appears once again to be a case of 'build a military to survive early rushes/counter barbarians, then coast to victory' - though I'll concede that the rushes are now aggressive enough that this is a genuine challenge (at least compared with vanilla), this isn't solving the core problem.
Possibly the game is more fulfilling to the Civ players who like setting personal challenges of the "win by Turn X" variety, as you certainly need tighter play to win more quickly - but that's true of every Civ game and the others don't sacrifice the need to play to a defined strategy simply to win by the game's natural end date.
R&F suggests that this isn't the direction they're interested in going. I was pretty high on R&F when it released - loyalty promised to add relevance to neglected mechanics like amenity and era score rewarded forward planning, both in ways that looked like well-chosen approaches for the series. I never liked the governor system (and now find the endless prompts to choose a usually meaningless promotion or unnecessary character annoying) but it too seemed to reward planning ahead, if only by clumsily copy-pasting Civ V's social policy system into the newer game.
I returned to Civ VI recently and pretty much none of this promise still seems to be there. Avoiding Dark Ages now appears to happen largely automatically at game stages where it's relevant, governors are tedious and rarely useful for anything other than the loyalty buff as early in the game as they first become available, and when you don't need to worry about dark ages loyalty isn't that important as well as being yet another "The rich get richer" mechanic that mostly passively rewards you for doing something that you want to do anyway (growing population).
Deity gameplay appears once again to be a case of 'build a military to survive early rushes/counter barbarians, then coast to victory' - though I'll concede that the rushes are now aggressive enough that this is a genuine challenge (at least compared with vanilla), this isn't solving the core problem.
Possibly the game is more fulfilling to the Civ players who like setting personal challenges of the "win by Turn X" variety, as you certainly need tighter play to win more quickly - but that's true of every Civ game and the others don't sacrifice the need to play to a defined strategy simply to win by the game's natural end date.
Yeah, they're trying. The new mechanisms are interesting enough to help, but they're just not quite there. Governors are too static that there's not enough variety with them, and I think the ages system is certainly interesting for role playing, but it's rare that I would even care most of the time what age I would end up in. There's not enough bonus to be in a golden age, and way too often I'd rather be in a dark age rather than a normal age that it's really not a "rise and fall" type of situation. Heck, I'd almost rather it be a simple dice roll what age you go into next.
Hopefully they do keep working with the systems, and can come out with a big patch that will rebalance it all and really expand on the systems. I've been going steady playing since release, but I last put the game aside about a month ago, and really haven't felt a huge urge to get back into it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
