Civ5 vs Civ6 - what each of those games did better?

[Morningcalm]

All I see here is a bunch of cherry-picking and compartmentalization with an almost blind preference toward grandeur and hyperrealism, both of which are merely art preferences. Not to mention a heavy bias toward criticizing UI design while generally ignoring 3D art assets.

I addressed the 3D art assets as to unit and terrain graphics specifically and featured two YouTube videos for that point alone.

It's hardly cherry-picking to pick out numerous grounds to directly compare the two games.

UI design is certainly relevant to an assessment of aesthetics for a computer game. I already addressed my dislike of Civ VI's plastic blue main menu in that regard, and I expanded my examples with others in my previous two posts here.

The devs were clearly going for a more culturally generic style, so we aren't going to have very Euro-centric pikes or helmets. The icons are admittedly a bit unclear, but I don't see "motion" as being quite necessary for communicating functionality, and the unit assets are drastically more identifiable in VI than they were in V.

Unclear is right--you can barely see the pike in the Civ VI pikeman. As for cultural genericness, it's not like Civ VI's unit icons are clear enough to benefit from such variations.

Having a large amount of detail in small icons is also poor design, makes things busy and illegible. So having more variation in color and shade in an icon doesn't necessarily mean it is better. VI overall seemed to take an approach of trying to simplify and streamline art design, again for purposes of accessibility and longevity, and so at least some part of the change was functional. I also suspect they used the unit asset in the icon art so players would form a stronger mental connection between the interface and the unit, which again is attempting to reconcile art design with functionality.

The significant differences in color and shade from Civ V's unit icons make it easier to emphasize certain things (like the machine gun, pike, etc). If anything is comprised of muted colors and black lines (Civ VI), it's harder to see what that unit is at first glance, and that hardly makes it functional. What is apparent is that it would be easier to draw a Civ VI unit icon than a Civ V unit icon. As far as beauty goes, Civ V beats Civ VI in unit icons.

This is where I think your biases start to show. VI Dido's background is not muted at all. It actually involves quite beautiful use of color and light, as do many of the other leader backgrounds in VI. V never had any backgrounds which deliberately tried to communicate and atmosphere and palette from sunlight or moonlight; V Dido might have been one of the civs that came the closest but it's nowhere near VI's level. I vastly prefer VI's backgrounds as communicating a certain mood and home terrain as opposed to V's which were all over the place.

I disagree. The black smudging around Dido's Civ VI leader screen is one aspect, but so too are the fact that the colors of the background have clearly been darkened, despite use of some sunset colors. There is also no light on Dido in Civ VI that stands out--she might as well be standing in a voice-recording studio without natural light. Civ V's Dido clearly has moonlight throughout her entire scene, which renders it far more atmospheric than the sunset lighting in the small portion of the Civ VI Dido background that isn't just smudging or black.

Also, same thing as above about the leader icon using the leader asset to overall have simpler design and overall more coherency between the UI and the assets. I personally dislike Dido's virginal appearance against a sultry nighttime harbor in V, and I particularly hate her icon design which is far too busy and romanticized.

I disagree. It's clearer who Dido is in the Civ V icon because of their use of an almost radiant halo (Art Deco style). Civ VI's is unclear unless you can recognize her face alone (as opposed to her clothing, the general colors in her leaderscreen etc). I liked Dido's nighttime appearance because it alludes to the romance in the Aeneid.

Personally I think hills are reasonably easy to spot on VI's map. And that's really the biggest complaint people have other than the overlay map being brown and muddy. If those are the worst things people can find about VI's map, then it's actually very well-designed. Certainly many of the other terrain features are a lot easier to distinguish than they were in V.

Did I say the hills were the "worst things people can find about VI's map"? No. I specifically pointed out people's comments in the YouTube video comparing the two (many of them, as you might have guessed, prefer the realism of Civ V's style). I then mentioned Marbozir's thoughts on hills in a separate, second video under the same point. The commenters in the first video almost unanimously prefer Civ V's graphics, with a few acknowledging they preferred Civ VI's nuclear explosions (but only those). Marbozir himself plays Civ VI with the Civ V graphics mod.

Civ VI's policy screen actually stands out to me as more aesthetic and functional, being simpler and easier to read on the left side and not requiring a bunch of navigation through policy trees and submenus. The card design and placement is cluttered, I agree, but overall it took many of the mechanics and UI elements in a better, clearer direction.

However, again, you are attempting to equate UI graphic design with aesthetic, and I think this point is fairly irrelevant to whether or not VI's art style is good or not.

Your statement that I'm attempting to equate UI graphic design with aesthetic is erroneous. Rather UI graphic design is part of the overall aesthetic of each game. We can see this clearly in the way menus in Civ V and VI differ in color scheme, font style, and so on for example. Functionality is an important part of art style when it comes to games, and the UI is a key part of functionality for players navigating the game. This thread isn't just about aesthetics or art style anyway, but Civ 5 vs. Civ 6 at large, so any points of comparison are fine to discuss. Note that I've objected to the quotes in Civ VI, for example, even though quotes aren't part of the "art style" of Civ VI (again, they don't need to be in order to be relevant to the comparison between Civ V and Civ VI).

As to your statement on policy trees, Civ V's policies can be recognized at a glance in part due to their differences in icon (specific policy icons over "classes" of economic, military etc icon in Civ VI, and their placement in the trees (i.e. you know the powerful ones at the bottom, the good openers, etc). I also disagree as to the functionality. The jumble of policies in Civ VI's policy screen speaks for itself and even people in this thread who disagree with me on other points agree as to the unorganized clutter that is the Bejeweled marble collection on the right side of Civ VI's policy screen.

On a related note, this clutter extends to the Civ VI tech tree. Civ VI's tech tree screen puts you all the way back at the start of the tech tree so that you have to scroll through to the techs you are actually able to research over to the right, so that undercuts your point about "not requiring a bunch of navigation" when we consider Civ VI UI generally. Moreover, the lack of clear color differentiation to delineate techs/civics researched and techs/civics available for research is a problem in Civ VI that did not exist in Civ V due to Civ V's use of bright gold, green, and blue to delineate different tech categories.

For the record, I think most quotes--regardless of how good they are--are irritating if heard too often. And these appear every time you hit each milestone. It's not really whether the quotes are bad (although I would argue there are very few which are genuinely great), but that they are some irrelevant attention-seeking detail that players are forced to endure in generally the same manner every game. I don't need to be hearing quotes every few turns; the devs should not have tied quotes to so many events and kept them for truly special occasions.

Based on the Reddit threads I cited, hundreds of players think Civ VI's quotes are particularly grating. It's not just the repetition of the quotes they were primarily complaining about there.

It's hard to say whether for sure that they won't include any older non-European nations when we aren't done yet. After GS a lot of people thought that Maya and Ethiopia weren't happening, but now look.

That's why I specifically cited the New Frontier Pass, as I said (quoted again below):

I'm glad you love Civ 6! For me it was a disappointment, though I liked certain aspects for it (forward-thinking, interesting leader choices). And it did certain things I strongly objected to (inclusion of Canada and Australia over other older civilizations with longer-lasting impact, and the overall proliferation of European civs, which is thankfully being cut back on with the New Frontier Pass' inclusion of Maya, for example).

Note that the New Frontier Pass was preceded by a survey asking whether we wanted more content, and what kind (civs, buildings, play modes, etc). Had there been a widespread "no" in response to that survey** as to new civs we may not have seen the Maya or Ethiopia or Gran Colombia or the other forthcoming civs in Civ VI at all. Firaxis' prioritization of Australia and Canada for inclusion were bad decisions when it came to diversity, and that undercuts any diversity demonstrated in other areas such as differing unit graphics by ethnicity.

**The surveytaking audience for it was naturally self-selecting given its distribution here.

 

[KayAU]

Again... Civ 6 absolutely has a few almost universally derided clangers of quotes* that have got far too much attention, which in turn has lead to claims that many of the quotes are bad. This is simply not true, as you saw when I highlighted a few, made up of my favourite and the first three I came across in the ancient/classical tech tree that I thought were outstanding. I didn't dig far. Lets please stop going in circles on this.

*Air conditioning in Rome/Wifi at Mt Kilimanjaro.

But I don't think many of the quotes are bad because a few of them are universally derided. I genuinely think many of them are bad. In the list of 59 Civ VI quotes you posted, I found 10 which I like, 24 which I don't feel too strongly about, and 25 which I don't like. By comparison, the list of 25 Civ V quotes Kupe listed, I like about 19 of them, and there are none I find particularly bad.

 

[reddishrecue]

These quotes from civ V are so compatible with each other.

Animal Husbandry
"Thou salt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
--The Bible, Deuteronomy, 25:4
Computers

"Computer are like Old Testament gods: lots of rules and no mercy."
--Joseph Campbell

 

[Morningcalm]

These quotes from civ V are so compatible with each other.

Animal Husbandry
"Thou salt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
--The Bible, Deuteronomy, 25:4
Computers

"Computer are like Old Testament gods: lots of rules and no mercy."
--Joseph Campbell

I like both! And they were both delivered well too.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

no one is going to mention how civ 6 has unique details on their units? like for example even with swordsman there is different between what civ you are playing. Korean swordsmen looks very different from Inca swordsman for example. This was jarring in civ 5 since all swordsman looked western... even if I am playing a non-western civ like Korea or Maya.

 

[nzcamel]

For the record, I think most quotes--regardless of how good they are--are irritating if heard too often. And these appear every time you hit each milestone. It's not really whether the quotes are bad (although I would argue there are very few which are genuinely great), but that they are some irrelevant attention-seeking detail that players are forced to endure in generally the same manner every game. I don't need to be hearing quotes every few turns; the devs should not have tied quotes to so many events and kept them for truly special occasions.

I like each tech/civic/wonder having a quote; and the idea to have two for each (wonders aside) was probably to help avoid some of the repetition you note. Maybe there should be an option in the sound effects to turn off quotes being read out-loud. That could fix any issue for people who would rather just not have them.

But I don't think many of the quotes are bad because a few of them are universally derided. I genuinely think many of them are bad. In the list of 59 Civ VI quotes you posted, I found 10 which I like, 24 which I don't feel too strongly about, and 25 which I don't like. By comparison, the list of 25 Civ V quotes Kupe listed, I like about 19 of them, and there are none I find particularly bad.

I didn't post 59 quotes. Morningcalm did, and I noted which ones I loved and loathed out of his list. I guess I am going to have to go trawl the whole game and come back with a full list

 

[KayAU]

I didn't post 59 quotes. Morningcalm did, and I noted which ones I loved and loathed out of his list. I guess I am going to have to go trawl the whole game and come back with a full list

Sorry, I missed that. I don't think it makes much of a difference, though. My point was merely that I think Civ 6 has a lot of bad quotes, and that is based on my own assessment of those quotes. It doesn't really bother me that you feel otherwise.

no one is going to mention how civ 6 has unique details on their units? like for example even with swordsman there is different between what civ you are playing. Korean swordsmen looks very different from Inca swordsman for example. This was jarring in civ 6 since all swordsman looked western... even if I am playing a non-western civ like Korea or Maya.

I suppose you just mentioned it. I think visual diversity in Civ 6 is very good, as is the much more important gameplay diversity between different civs. When it comes to visuals in general, I do ultimately prefer the Civ V, but that is mostly a stylistic preference. I agree with @Morningcalm that things like icons, UI screens and leader scenes look better in 5. The main visual feature of the game however, is the map, and this is less clear-cut to me. Yes, I personally prefer a more "realistic" look, but I do think Civ 5 is starting to show its age.

I would like to say that I do not, nor have I ever, thought that Civ 6 looks bad, or suspected it to be made "on the cheap". Civ 6 is a very good looking game, and I have never really had any issue with its graphics.

 

[LMT]

I did not read all of the previous 7 pages, so these might have already been mentioned,,,

V > VI:

Bringing a civ back to life felt special. I recall when I brought China back in V, the graphics on the screen had a mystical quality, like a resurrection. In VI, I barely noticed when it happened and had to check the leader screens to make sure the civ was really back.

Also, the ability to play purely tall.

But in almost all other specs, VI > V.

 

[Ilt]

Civ 5 > Civ 6

 

[Zanteogo]

The biggest "downgrade" from civ 5 to 6 is the world congress. The loss of the ability to actually propose things and be stuck to the randomly generated proposals has to the the most half baked and lazy changes of them all.

Civ 6 also has a poor pacing system compared to 5. Even if you lower the speed, you tend to speed past the research tree way too quickly.

The Civ 6 AI is still horrible at actually doing war. It sends small groups of 3 or 4 units that my defenders make quick work of. I have never actually felt any fear of losing a war to an AI yet. Though Civ 5 wasn't perfect in this regard (the AI wouldn't move and shoot ranged units on the same turn for example), it still was alright at doing land based unit wars and I would sometimes lose cities to it.

I dislike the cell phone graphics style of Civ 6. Too "clash of clans" looking. Was the first thing I modded.

Edit: Almost forget, the way units move into rough tiles, Civ 5 was WAY better than the annoying Civ 6 way. Moving around in 6 is just a massive pain.

Edit2: Also, I loved making my own roads in Civ 5 from the early game. In Civ 6 you have to wait till half way though the game and the unit can only make 2 road tiles by default, before having to build another one.

 

[acluewithout]

The biggest "downgrade" from civ 5 to 6 is the world congress. The loss of the ability to actually propose things and be stuck to the randomly generated proposals has to the the most half baked and lazy changes of them all.

I actually prefer Civ VI’s approach to the World Congress resolutions. It’s much better balanced and less open to abuse. There’s a thread on Reddit where Firaxis explain their thinking - see here which includes additional links. If you prefer the Civ V design then that’s cool of course, but there’s nothing lazy in the slightest about the Civ VI design.

 

[Zanteogo]

I actually prefer Civ VI’s approach to the World Congress resolutions. It’s much better balanced and less open to abuse. There’s a thread on Reddit where Firaxis explain their thinking - see here which includes additional links. If you prefer the Civ V design then that’s cool of course, but there’s nothing lazy in the slightest about the Civ VI design.

Well, to expand on why I think the Civ 6 world congress is just plain horrible:

Automatically meeting in the Medieval era... this is hands down the biggest "immersive" killer of the game. It has zero logical sense how it could even function. Civ 5 waiting until a single Civ actually found all the different Civs and once a Printing Press was unlocked made the world feel like it was progressing naturally. Not because X about of turns has passed.

Random Proposals? How much effort would it have taken to re-added a head to the congress plus a system where civs could actually pick what is voted on? It would add a feeling of realism and a reward for being powerful enough to decide what is voted on.

Diplomacy Consequences In civ 5 if you proposed something a civ liked or disliked would effect your standing with them. Also if you helped one of their proposals pass they would like you, if you voted against it they would dislike you. Nothing at all like that in 6.

Place your bets for diplo victory points! In 6 the main advantage of "playing" the congress "game" is earning diplomatic victory points. However, the way it's done is just by making sure what you vote on passes. the easiest way to do this is once you learn the way to predictable AI votes, to always just vote for that. To show how lazy this system is, watch this video:

Certainly not "balanced and less open to abuse".

 

[8housesofelixir]

Well, to expand on why I think the Civ 6 world congress is just plain horrible:

Automatically meeting in the Medieval era... this is hands down the biggest "immersive" killer of the game. It has zero logical sense how it could even function. Civ 5 waiting until a single Civ actually found all the different Civs and once a Printing Press was unlocked made the world feel like it was progressing naturally. Not because X about of turns has passed.

Random Proposals? How much effort would it have taken to re-added a head to the congress plus a system where civs could actually pick what is voted on? It would add a feeling of realism and a reward for being powerful enough to decide what is voted on.

Diplomacy Consequences In civ 5 if you proposed something a civ liked or disliked would effect your standing with them. Also if you helped one of their proposals pass they would like you, if you voted against it they would dislike you. Nothing at all like that in 6.

Place your bets for diplo victory points! In 6 the main advantage of "playing" the congress "game" is earning diplomatic victory points. However, the way it's done is just by making sure what you vote on passes. the easiest way to do this is once you learn the way to predictable AI votes, to always just vote for that. To show how lazy this system is, watch this video:

I do like how throwing gold to AI can grant you diplo victory points in a diplomatic game (a substitute of "economic victory" ), but the world congress victory points just feel like a badly designed slot machine. IMHO world congress definitely need an overhaul.

 

[acluewithout]

Random Proposals? How much effort would it have taken to re-added a head to the congress plus a system where civs could actually pick what is voted on? It would add a feeling of realism and a reward for being powerful enough to decide what is voted on.

The posts I linked to explain why having players choosing resolutions was seen as sub-optimal. The key issue was that it required all the resolutions to be balanced against each other. That would have been hard to do (according to FXS), but also stifling because you could not have some resolutions being more powerful than others. Having random resolutions means that some can be situational and some can be quite powerful.

I don’t think the posts cover this either, but random resolutions also makes Diplo Favour more valuable, because whenever you spend Diplo Favour you don’t know whether you might be using it up just before some better resolution comes up (or you maybe needed DF to down vote a military emergency against you).

As I said, if you don’t like how resolutions work, that’s totally fine. But FXS clearly designed it the way they did for valid reasons (not saying superior reasons, just valid) and weren’t being “lazy”. There are also some that like the current system, including me, and that’s a valid view to have even if it’s not the majority view.

I’m not really going to comment on the other points. I’ve posted about most of that stuff before elsewhere. Don’t necessarily disagree with those other points, although some of them maybe aren’t a big deal for me personally. I don’t really think WC or Diplo Victory need an “overhaul” but it would benefits from some further balance passes and tweaks. I think the move to linking Diplo and Religion is a good one. I think there’s some other easy stuff FXS could do too, eg option to send Spies as Ambassadors to other Civs capitals to generate additional Diplo Favour; having resolutions that have broader scope, like banning all animal luxuries or gem stone luxuries not individual luxuries. Hopefully FXS keep fine tuning it.

 

[Zanteogo]

The key issue was that it required all the resolutions to be balanced against each other. That would have been hard to do (according to FXS), but also stifling because you could not have some resolutions being more powerful than others. Having random resolutions means that some can be situational and some can be quite powerful.

So pretty much they were too lazy to balance it.

But FXS clearly designed it the way they did for valid reasons (not saying superior reasons, just valid) and weren’t being “lazy”.

Respectively have to disagree.

 

[acluewithout]

Respectively have to disagree.

Not sure you’re being particularly respectful at all, but no bother. Perhaps I’ve just misread your tone.

Did you read the post I linked to? I think FXS gives a good account of their reasons for having random resolutions. Their reasons were more than just “it’s too hard”, although even if that was their only reason that doesn’t necessarily make them “lazy” but rather that they decided to invest additional resources into other aspects of the game. I also think it was proactive of FXS to take time on Reddit to explain their thinking.

Calling Firaxis “lazy” is neither productive nor supported by the facts. The most that can really be said is (1) you wish they’d taken a different approach and or (2) you wish they’d devoted more resources than they did.

Anyway. You seem to have your view. You’re welcome to it. I was just trying to give you an alternate view, and connect you with some information from Firaxis you might not have seen before.

 

[KayAU]

I don't think this is about lack of effort or resources, but I too dislike how the World Congress works in Civ 6. The way I see it, there are two sides to it. One is a "guessing game", where you want to vote for whatever is most popular in order to gain points for a diplomatic victory. I don't find this particularly enjoyable, nor very logical. To me, it would make more sense if diplomatic victory points were a measure of your actual influence. For example, they could be awarded for proposing and passing resolutions. The other side of the World Congress is actually exerting power/influence to benefit yourself or damage others. This side of things is really diminished by randomizing proposals, and the fact that most proposals are not all that useful. It also doesn't help that with the exception of adding or removing diplomatic victory points, all proposals are temporary. I get that if you had some agency in which proposals came up, some would be more powerful than others, and thus come up more often. But is this really a big problem? I think more is lost by having proposals be something random, and often uninteresting, that you can't ever plan for.

If they made this system better, diplomatic influence could be a real source of power, and add depth to the game. You would open up new possibilities for civ/government/wonder abilities too. For instance, what about an ability which allowed you to make an additional proposal? Or which expanded which proposals you could make? Or gave you more voting power? Or diminshed other players' voting power? There could be many possibilities for making the diplomatic game much more important. My thoughts drift again towards Alpha Centauri, in which gaining control of the Planetary Council was a big deal, and votes were generally consequential.

I also find it a bit weird how disconnected the World Congress is from diplomacy in general, but this is something of a theme for Civ 6. Systems are kept separate.

 

[salty mud]

I, too, will throw my voice behind disliking the World Congress in VI, and I would go as far as to say it's lazy, as Firaxis had a good example to build on in Civ V. The first time the world Congress popped up in Civ VI in the medieval era (far too early for a world cooperation project, by the way) I was flabbergasted that I was voting on proposals with civs I hadn't even met yet... They must have been present at the conference, but wouldn't reveal themselves to me. I never quite understood how or why proposals were made, or why AIs were voting the way they did.

In Civ V, one could be proactive with the WC. If I'm achieving a domination victory, I can try push through the proposal to cheapen unit maintenance. If an enemy player is running away with culture, I can push through the proposal to make it harder to get Great Writers, Musicians etc. In VI, it's much more reactive. I have to pray to RNJesus that something worthwhile will pop up.

 

[acluewithout]

snip

snip

I think random resolutions is a better mechanic overall, but realise I'm likely in the minority. You certainly can still use resolutions to hobble your opponents or boost your own victory. Yes, it's more RNG, but it's also about being opportunisitic and biding your time. I prefer that to knowing I can reliably always push a resolution that lowers maintenance etc. every game.

That said, I think the resolutions themselves could be reworked, particular the "B" options which often have just too many options. The resolutions would be better if they were more open ended instead of so specific.

I'm certainly no fan of Diplo Victory, particularly how points are calculated. I would have preferred just not having a DV at all. I also wish the WC was triggered somehow, rather than just automatically starting in the Medieval Era. But it is what it is.

Anyway. I've said more on this topic then I meant to. TLDR; Firaxis have explained why they did the WC the way they did. I like random resolutions and mostly like the WC. Everyone else mostly doesn't, and that's of course fine.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Having never played with the world congress in Civ 5 I can't comment on how each one works better but I don't mind the WC in Civ 6.

I do agree that it comes maybe an era too early. I wouldn't mind bumping it back to the Renaissance and triggering when you meet all civs.