civ 6 is a good game with issues.

[DizzKneeLand33]

Not so much "better" as playing a completely different (and simpler) game with its own rules for production, terrain improvements, spies success rate and bribe abilities, FOW and so forth.

Civ 2 might have been more difficult, but claiming it had good - or better- ai is risible.

I'm really weary of arguing this. So, it's not about the AI, it's about the game mechanics created that the AI is supposed to "understand" -- so, you are right, it may not be bad AI as much as it is game mechanics created that an AI could not possibly comprehend. Does it really matter which?

 

[Evie]

I'm not talking about different game mechanics between civ 2 and 6.

I'm talking about the civ 2 AI (regardless of difficulty level) playing with different mechanics than a civ 2 human. That's how the AI was "good" - they were ignoring half the rules. No fog of war, no limitation on using spies, completely different production rules, ability to purchase a unit and receive it on the same turn, teleporting missiles, air units that didn't need to return to base, no limitation on sailing, etc.

it's easy to make a "good" AI when it gets to ignore a lot of game elements.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

they were ignoring half the rules

Well on that one we can totally agree.

 

[Aristos]

I'm really weary of arguing this. So, it's not about the AI, it's about the game mechanics created that the AI is supposed to "understand" -- so, you are right, it may not be bad AI as much as it is game mechanics created that an AI could not possibly comprehend. Does it really matter which?

In fact, it does matter. That was indeed the brilliance of Soren's design; not only was he a better coder with (IIRC) a specialization in AI, but he designed civ 4 as an AI-friendly game (his own declarations), the idea being that to make sure he had the best AI possible given the resources he had at hand, the designer has to create a game that the to-be-done AI can handle and use efficiently. And that is exactly what he did for civ 4. In other words, create game systems thinking of the AI first and how it will be able to use them, and then build the AI for them.

It worked.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

In fact, it does matter. That was indeed the brilliance of Soren's design; not only was he a better coder with (IIRC) a specialization in AI, but he designed civ 4 as an AI-friendly game (his own declarations), the idea being that to make sure he had the best AI possible given the resources he had at hand, the designer has to create a game that the to-be-done AI can handle and use efficiently. And that is exactly what he did for civ 4. In other words, create game systems thinking of the AI first and how it will be able to use them, and then build the AI for them.

It worked.

Perfectly said. So, indeed, that may be the difference that will not be correctable. For example, combat through walls (and hundreds of other concepts).

 

[Zaarin]

Still Firaxis insists in only discussing here historical aspects of civilisations.

Do you think he'd rather keep his NDA and have a job or violate his NDA and lose his job? Over conversing on a fan forum in his free time no less. Tough decision.

A true friend is not who tells you what you want to hear, but the one who tells you what you need to hear.

A bad friend tells you what you want to hear; a good friend tells you what you need to hear; but someone who just tells you you suck isn't your friend at all. Most of the complainers on these boards lately just keep repeating that the game sucks without offering any new or useful criticism, and I say that as someone who's had my share of criticism for the game. In many cases it's reached a degree of invective that makes one wonder why they invest so much energy into something they clearly hate with such passion; that's not healthy. Take up a hobby, read a book, try a different game; what's the point of investing so much energy into something someone loathes?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Do you think he'd rather keep his NDA and have a job or violate his NDA and lose his job? Over conversing on a fan forum in his free time no less. Tough decision.


A bad friend tells you what you want to hear; a good friend tells you what you need to hear; but someone who just tells you you suck isn't your friend at all. Most of the complainers on these boards lately just keep repeating that the game sucks without offering any new or useful criticism, and I say that as someone who's had my share of criticism for the game. In many cases it's reached a degree of invective that makes one wonder why they invest so much energy into something they clearly hate with such passion; that's not healthy. Take up a hobby, read a book, try a different game; what's the point of investing so much energy into something someone loathes?

Exactly what I wanted to say. Just because a game has faults dose not mean it is rotten. If a guy gives you nothing but say "you suck" 90% of time... would you say he is a good friend? Heck if a parent rarely gives praise to their child would you say they are a good parent?

 

[acluewithout]

I think [Civ 6] is a good game and entertaining game with bit of issues here and there...

I think it’s a good game that unfortunately hasn’t delivered on its potential.

There are a few different things going on.

One: some people don’t like Civ 6’s overall approach, ie the board game focus. It sucks when a franchise or property goes in a different direction than you want, but of course when it does it equally may well be someone else’s jam. I don’t think there’s much to really discuss or get upset about on that front, except maybe a discussion around what people want from Civ 7 or how Civ 6 compares to other Civ games or 4X games. Ultimately, FXS decided to make “Civ 6” instead of a different game, and that’s what it is. Personally, I really like Civ 6’s overall design and approach. That said, I really do have a lot of sympathy for those that don’t, and hope Old World, HK, past versions of Civ, Civ 7 or something else fills the gap.

Two: some people are unhappy with particular mechanics or balance decisions or bugs. Some of these are pretty reasonable complaints, some maybe aren’t. There’s certainly a few things that bother me, eg no spies against allies, but it’s hard to see any of these things as game breaking. Some may well get fixed in another patch. I think what maybe makes this issue a bit more acute is that modders don’t have access to the .dll, so the community can’t do much to address these issues, but overall I don’t think it’s a big deal.

Three: this is where I’m more upset. The game has been out since 2016, and FXS have a tonne of experience with this franchise, and yet somehow even on its own terms Civ 6 has still come up short against its potential or aspirations. Civ 6 was pretty good on release - basically Civ 5 but with much better mechanics and underlying platform - and after GS I really felt Civ 6 was in great shape and going to end up in a really strong place and potentially be the definitive version of Civ. Instead, development basically stopped, with NFP being a good addition but really only focused on pretty peripheral stuff to the core game.

It’s really this third point that kills me. Because I just can’t see it getting addressed. I mean, I’m really not sure whether FXS are even following these boards any more, and so whether there is any point continuing to discuss. FXS seem to be done.

I do agree with @Kupe Navigator that Civ 6 “as is” is a good game. Really good. But for a game that’s been out since 2016, with multiple rounds of development, I’m sorry but it really should be a better game than it is. I think I’m mostly on my own with this view, but I do think Civ 6 is sort of one expansion and a couple of good balance / bug passes short of what it should have been. Yeah, there’s lots of great stuff in the game, and the early game is really tight. The AI isn’t great, but it is passable. But the back end of the game is really thin, and lots of mechanics are underdeveloped compared to previous versions of Civ. The game just comes up a bit short.

negativity

Yeah, some of the negativity is overblown.

The FXS guys are pretty cool. They are obviously passionate about the game and its community. They are obviously fans of the game. And they have made an excellent game, and it’s had huge amounts of investment compared to other games in market.

But here’s the rub. For all that passion and investment, the game really does come up short in some fundamental places. I think that would be ok if they game was continuing to be actively developed, and or at least the .dll was released so modders could continue development. However, FXS have made it very clear they’re done, so all those underlying issues and frustrations have really been crystalised now.

Basically, most people could live with some of Civ 6’s short comings when it at least felt like they would eventually get better. But now it’s clear development has stopped, and the community can’t continue development, so now we’re stuck with the game as is. I do really like the FXS guys, but it is frustrating they’ve come so far yet stopped development before the game had reached its potential.

I think there are a lot of people who think no amount of further development would make the game satisfying. Personally, I really think the game is just one expansion short, but I really think I’m on my own with that view. And, actually, that kinda sucks too, because if both FXS and the fans are done with Civ 6, then there is really no chance at all of the game receiving any further development.

best fans in gaming

Like I said. I like the FXS guys. Civ 6 is a good game. But I honestly do feel short changed. I don’t feel like the best fan in gaming, I actually feel a bit of a chump.

I mean, I get it. I’m not entitled to anything from FXS. They don’t owe me anything. It’s their game, their vision. Development can’t continue forever. FXS have given fans a solid game, with lots of investment, and have really been super responsive and tried to please as many people as possible, and they genuinely deserve thanks, praise, congratulations for all that. And, you know, a franchise or property not living up to its potential happens all the time - I’m still sad (Ron Perlman) Hellboy never got a third movie, and man seriously what happened to Terminator and Indiana Jones? I mean, it’s pretty rare creative people completely nail stories / games / movies etc., particularly over multiple narratives / movies / sequels etc. That’s why people talk about the MCU, because that has managed to be amazingly consistent across multiple multiple movies.

I guess I just thought FXS would really nail it in Civ 6. Up to GS I really thought they would. NFP actually looked pretty promising, and I honestly thought there was a good chance FXS might do another season pass or expansion, and thought that would probably do it.

But no. This is where we are, and it falls short. Yes @Kupe Navigator, it’s a good game as is. I’d even say it’s a great game. And yes, FXS maybe don’t deserve criticism because they’ve actually put a lot of effort in, and got a lot of stuff right, and have done right by the fans overall.

But I’m sorry, for me, FXS have got awfully close to making maybe the definitive version of Civ 6, but didn’t quite get there. And maybe that’s not even a fair criticism - maybe asking for even more is just not right. I’m sure I’ll drop another 1,000 hours on the game, and I’m certainly not going to say a harsh word about the FXS guys who all seem genuine and cool, and have worked hard on this game and done lots of good stuff with it. But I am frustrated about where things have ended up. I really couldn’t recommend this game without caveats and I’m very dubious about doing this all again with some hypothetical Civ 7, and that is really disappointing given how much love this game had received from the developers and fans since 2016.

Seriously FXS. If any of you guys are reading this, just stick with the game a little longer.

dare I say, FINAL

Anyway. I feel pretty stupid posting yet another long diatribe about Civ 6. Most of my favourite people on these forums have already stopped posting (which is a whole other thing to be a bit sad about, because this forum is just one of the best places on the internet). Really, I’m not sure why I’m still making these same points again and again.

I guess all I have to say is, yeah, it kinda sucks where Civ 6 has ended up. No, not a bad game (pretty good really). No, FXS haven’t done anything wrong per se or failed to invest in the game or the community (quite the opposite really). No, not a big deal in the scheme of things - the current state of Civ is hardly the most interesting or important thing going on in the world right now. It’s is just a game after all.

But after everything, Civ 6 has kinda come up short for me, that isn’t going to get fixed, and that really does make me a bit sad.

[edit: typos and clarity.]

 

[Linklite]

...I don't see why there should be any expectation of a private company releasing its intellectual property as open source code. It is an individual decision, agree with it or not, but motivations are probably more complex than a binary "greed and stupidity"...

On a somewhat pertinent note, during a discussion about the dll, I, with the help of another, tried to track the claim about the dll being promised to be released and that Civ would be the most moddable ever. The reddit link I was provided put up a link to a summary of what was said by the devs. Originally, it seems what was said that, thanks to the engine, Civ 6 would be more moddable. Nothing about dlls. Where that came from seems to be that people, including those posting the reddit link I was provided, repeated what was said, but dropped the part about it being due to the engine, ie "Civ 6 will be the most moddable ever" was born. It was later inferred from that claim that the dll would be released. Which is a fair assumption from what they were reading, because how could it be the most moddable Civ ever, if previous iterations released it, but this one didn't? The problem being, that's not what the devs said, nor was the statement that it was inferred from.

Of course, it's possible I'm barking up the wrong tree, that it really was explicitly said by the devs but no one knows where it was said. On the other hand, this is all that's been given to go on, and it makes sense to me. Especially since no one has actually come up with a better source.

It's fascinating how Chinese Whispers has affected and so completely shaped the attitudes towards the product and the expectations of it.

Edited for typos and to make things more clear.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Cleaned up this thread and gave several warnings. If you feel attacked, your responsibility is to report the posts. Answering them is trolling and you will be warned or banned from the thread. You need to be respectful and civil and you may not make baseless claims about each other or Firaxis. This thread is being reopened until you all start this bickering again, then it will be closed.

 

[sonicmyst]

At the end of the day, I feel like even though people at Firaxis might want more polish in this game, my guess is that their hands are already tied due to some management decisions, specifically from 2K.

We all agree that we want more (not features, but improvements and fixes) and all we hear now is silence once more.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I like the city state mechanics in this game. I think this plus the vassal and diplomatic system from Civ4 would be excellent

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Here's some constructive criticism from moi, since I haven't said any yet:

1: Worldbuilder is still a mess, and could use much tweaking and fixing.

2: The U.I. is very messy, hard to use, so Firaxis could either just fix it themselves, OR, do what they did with the Map Tacks mod and integrate U.I. Mods.

3: Polish up the majority of the Modes and rebalance them. Most of them are just "Player Buffs" with a fancier name.

4: Building on the Second Point, since Firaxis has integrated a mod that people found useful in the past, it might mean they are willing to integrate generally good mods that people enjoy. I want to encourage this for Firaxis to do, as I see much potential in it.

 

[Zaarin]

I 100% agree with everything @acluewithout said, and thank you for that thorough write up.

The game has been out since 2016, and FXS have a tonne of experience with this franchise, and yet somehow even on its own terms Civ 6 has still come up short against its potential or aspirations. Civ 6 was pretty good on release - basically Civ 5 but with much better mechanics and underlying platform - and after GS I really felt Civ 6 was in great shape and going to end up in a really strong place and potentially be the definitive version of Civ.

This is basically where I am. Civ6 is a really good game--but it could have been a definitive game with a stronger central design philosophy and some more development of the core systems.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@acluewithout and others, excellent points all!

BUT it is precisely because of your points that I am convinced that Civ VI is done, finished, wrapped up, passed any redeem-by date, and, basically, no longer being developmentally supported. Even though there is More than Enough left to do to improve the game, it has reached the point where the same effort in a New Game pays a better dividend on the resource investment.

So be it: that's Capitalism, or indeed any system where resources are not infinite and you are under constant pressure to make the best use of them.

So, as I'm sure some of you have noticed, I am concentrating on what can be done in Civ VII to build on, improve, or ignore the Civ VI 'base', or add on mechanics and design features (suitably 'massaged') from other games or straight out of the Sublime Thoughts of the Fanatics.

Civ VI gave me, at least, a Good Run: over 3000 hours of playing time, which, as I've commented before, either reflects a pretty good game despite all of its faults, or that I dropped a tank hatch on my head once too often while I was in uniform.

On to Civ VII . . .

 

[Archon_Wing]

Three: this is where I’m more upset. The game has been out since 2016, and FXS have a tonne of experience with this franchise, and yet somehow even on its own terms Civ 6 has still come up short against its potential or aspirations. Civ 6 was pretty good on release - basically Civ 5 but with much better mechanics and underlying platform - and after GS I really felt Civ 6 was in great shape and going to end up in a really strong place and potentially be the definitive version of Civ. Instead, development basically stopped, with NFP being a good addition but really only focused on pretty peripheral stuff to the core game.

Seems to be a common thing for them. As good as Civ 4 was, they ended up leaving some broken stuff in that just never got fixed and while they may fix some stuff here, I have my doubts with the rest of the problems. Stuff like MAA at Apprenticeship is dumb but easily adjusted while stuff like the World Congress is just so fundamentally flawed I don't know where to begin.

Honestly I probably would have had a better outlook had they just ended with Gathering Storm and continued to refine it; maybe adding some civs at the end as DLCs. NFP just was like that unwanted sequel.

And what is definitely true is I'm certainly not going to be paying $60 or whatever to beta test Civ 7. I had sales every time, but still ended up forking over a bit. I suppose people that paid full price and sank over $200 in this game probably do have a right to be upset here and there because it certainly isn't worth anything close to that.


Ironically, that'll probably extend my time for 6 until the point where 7 is more or less feature complete.

 

[Linklite]

Ironically, that'll probably extend my time for 6 until the point where 7 is more or less feature complete.

Same. I was a late comer to Civ 6 and got everything apart from NFP on sale. I don't see how a company, or customers, can think a game like Civ 6, even without the issues, is worth £200. That the anthology was valued at £180 is shocking to me. It's a big game and has a lot of content, but I'd be looking at half that.

I won't be buying Civ 7 at launch for multiple reasons, but I'll probably wait until I've seen the reviews, seen the reactions and done some investigating. Then get it in a sale. The problem is that with NFP, everyone got super excited over it when it really wasn't all that. I'm wondering if the same excitement will override judgement for Civ 7 and the various add ons, which will make it hard to judge if it's worth it or not.

And, please, don't go down the SP route of delivering content. I won't buy any of it if that becomes a dominant method.

 

[Aristos]

Seems to be a common thing for them. As good as Civ 4 was, they ended up leaving some broken stuff in that just never got fixed

Last patch for BTS was June 2009, two years after the civ 4 cycle was over, and when they were already working on Civ 5. It was a good patch, and a surprise patch for everyone, that fixed some of the issues left behind.

But that is not the most important difference. The biggest difference is that they released the dll source, and very early. To this day, people still work on fixing/bettering issues in BTS. The mods for civ 4 are the best in the franchise's history bar none (with one exception: Vox). Even for Civ 5 they kept their Soren-initiated tradition of opening the dll to the modders, and that is why Vox exists.

That has changed now. For whatever reason, they will not release the dll. I have my own explanations for that but am done sharing them. The key point still remains though: nobody will be able or willing to fix the (many) remaining issues to the detriment of the game and its potential.

 

[kaspergm]

I think it’s a good game that unfortunately hasn’t delivered on its potential.
[...]
I do agree with @Kupe Navigator that Civ 6 “as is” is a good game. Really good. But for a game that’s been out since 2016, with multiple rounds of development, I’m sorry but it really should be a better game than it is. I think I’m mostly on my own with this view, but I do think Civ 6 is sort of one expansion and a couple of good balance / bug passes short of what it should have been. Yeah, there’s lots of great stuff in the game, and the early game is really tight. The AI isn’t great, but it is passable. But the back end of the game is really thin, and lots of mechanics are underdeveloped compared to previous versions of Civ. The game just comes up a bit short.

I think your post is really excellent, @acluewithout, and I agree almost completely with your points, except perhaps the last paragraph quoted here. I don't think Civ6 is one expansion short in terms of delivering what it needed to complete its potential. It's had the number of expansions needed, the problem was that the content of these expansions was poorly made, most obviously the world congress and pretty much all of NFP.

There are other aspects of the game that I would also have designed differently, but like you say, much of that boils down to personal taste. However, the world congress can only be seen as a train-wreck imo., and wrt. NFP content, what we should have had instead was a properly fleshed out and integrated version of the barbarian and the corporation modes, and then most of the rest should have been scrapped on the drawing table (stuff like tech shuffle could remain as toggable for those who cater into that).

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I for one will not buy civ 7 until either Korea or Maori is in the game... and hopefully we have better leader than seonduk. (BRING BACK SEJONG THE GREAT TO CIV)