1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ6: still the same old game

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Rouste, Oct 30, 2016.

?

Are you content with the level of innovation in Civ6?

Poll closed Nov 6, 2016.
  1. Not innovative enough

    17 vote(s)
    19.3%
  2. Too innovative

    5 vote(s)
    5.7%
  3. Fine like this

    66 vote(s)
    75.0%
  1. Rouste

    Rouste Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    I have played every civ game since the first one came out. I love the series and Civ6 is undeniably a good game. But I am greatly disappointed by the lack of innovation and the repetition of the series and its flaws.


    Imagine in 2016 designing a game where "you found a civilization and lead it to modern ages". Would you base your gameplay on board games? Yet this is what Civ6 still is.

    Would you make city management the core of the gameplay, and task the eternal leader in charge of building every single farm and granary? Would you create a gameplay that consists mainly in the endless repetition of identical decisions and the tracking of hundreds of menial tasks over an hour? A gameplay where, when at war, your offensive is interleaved with long sequences of laborious city management? Micro-management has been a plague since civ1.

    Would you create a gameplay so calculation-heavy that your maps look like tiny arenas where just four to six players battle together? Where you can conquer vast territories so quickly while the rest of the world only conquer one city at a time? Where diplomacy, trade and economy are so shallow?


    I would really like to see a game disrupting the 4X genre, because it is getting seriously dusty. Burn away Civ and create a modern Civ from scratch. EU4 is closer from what I want, but it is a historical game while Civ's nature is uchrony.
     
    Roald Amundsen likes this.
  2. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm fine with it. Civ7 will undoubtedly try to shake something up. It's always the odd numbered entries that do something new. Has been the case since Civ3, granted we have a limited sample, but it makes sense.

    It all depends on how much 2K/Firaxis wants to weather the ire of their base. Because people get really attached to their vision of what this game is. I am too, but I tend to defer to the developers and try to understand their vision. I'm oddly a huge fan of all their odd numbered entries.
     
    Nefelia likes this.
  3. TruthfulCake

    TruthfulCake Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    The fact that it's just an old formula that keeps getting refined is what gets players to return and play it. Without these micromanagement aspects of leading a civilization, the game loses its soul and needs to be renamed. Needless to say, there can be new games with innovations that stick more closely to what Europa Universalis offers. I don't mind new kinds of games - Total War and such are also great games that put focus on combat instead of running functional cities. But people love the Civilization series, and they will come back for new and refined versions of it as long as the spirit stays the same.
     
  4. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    I don't understand. It wouldn't be Civilization if it wasn't a game where you manage an empire city-by-city on a grid.

    I'm sure there will be games that aren't that and that's fine but those aren't Civilization. I happen to think what they've done in Civilization VI to shake things up is mostly good (if currently buggy and weird).
     
  5. Rouste

    Rouste Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    This is where we disagree.

    For me Civ should just be a game where we found a civilization and lead it throughout History. The rest are all details that can change.
     
    f1rpo and Roald Amundsen like this.
  6. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Its the same 33% old, 33% improved and 33% new.
     
  7. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    I believe we'll have to agree to disagree then. I think for the main series they should keep the core gameplay experience as well as its thematic trappings. There can certainly be spin-offs that do different things, and I'm sure there are other 4X games (or Grand Strategy, as the case may be) that will sate the need for historic themes using a different set of core gameplay mechanics.
     
    Solaxe and poom3619 like this.
  8. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,345
    Location:
    Germany
    Rouste, what you describe is an "Empire building game", which may or may not be interesting and fun to play. We'll find out as soon as a game developer decides to code such a program.

    However, this game will NOT be 'Civilization'!
    Games are like trade marks. They have certain characteristics that fans enjoy and expect to find in the game. Civilization is and always was about getting into the details of your empire, managing and optimizing your cities. A certain and very direct way to handle your units on the map is another one.

    Civilization was never a 'Grand Strategy' game and there is no point in changing it to one. There are already good games like this out there (looking at you, Paradox) and for the fans of this approach, I hope for new and fresh versions in the future. If you are more interested in this kind of play style, get one of those.

    But Civilization really should stick to its roots and deliver, what it's fans love about it!
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2016
    nzcamel, poom3619 and Lord_Azazel like this.
  9. player1 fanatic

    player1 fanatic Fanatic

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgrade, Serbia
    As long as Civ is 4X game based on history setting it will be Civilization.

    What is interesting is that all other 4X games are exclusively either based in space or in fantasy land. There are no other attempts to make history based 4X games (the last one was Call to Power over 15 years ago).

    So now we have over dozen games inspired by Master or Orion and Master or Magic, but no one is attempting anymore to make game based on Civilization formula.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  10. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,161
    Location:
    Lucerne
    I'm still missing a new and more depth-offering approach on Rise of Nations, that combined civ and age of empires. But it's not the job of a civ game to do that.
     
    Reg Pither and Lord_Azazel like this.
  11. Stringer1313

    Stringer1313 King

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    995
    You shouldn't have poisoned your post with the words "Europa Universalis".

    I hate Europa Universalis but I acknowledge a lot of people on these forums enjoy it. EU is so incredibly tedious and impenetrable to me I can't stand it.

    Having said this I agree with the spirit of your post
     
  12. Rouste

    Rouste Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Yes, I do realize it was a mistake. Besides some posters seem to conclude that I would like a more historic or strategic setting than civ while I actually want an uchronic 4X like Civ is. Just with a completely different gameplay.
     
  13. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,261
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I think the innovation is great. If anything they may have been too ambitious and the game has some weird balance problems right now. The game is far from perfect, but if they fix these balance problems, the game will be 9 out 10 level.
     
  14. Selten

    Selten Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    15
    Innovation is over rated IMO. Good execution on the games concept is far more important.
     
  15. Lord_Azazel

    Lord_Azazel Prime Swatter

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    421
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Norway
    I don't think they will ever change the tiles and turn based boardgamr gameplay, it is too much og a nametag to what civilization is. If they were to change this, it would be a completely other game. I have tried games like EU4 and the total war series, and while I feel there really is a place for a more realistic version of civ game, I don't want civ to be that game. But I would very much welcome a more RTS type game without tiles where you would take an empire from the stone-age to the present/future. I just don't want to replace the boardgame feel that civ has. It would be like if the next counter strike took a battlefield turn with ads, tanks, capture points and respawning. It could probably be a good game, but it would no longer be counter strike.

    When it comes to expansion, battle and diplo, sure, there could always be more depth and balancing.

    Yes civ still has some lategame problems where things kinda grind to a halt, but this could be tweaked by sorting out some end game goals, ai behaviour and the like.

    It might be I'm not quite ready for civ to change from the board game aspect since I've only been on the boat since civ3. And I dunno why no other companies have tried making a not turn based game on a randomly generated world. I would very much welcome it, but I don't want civ to change from what it is, a computer board game.
     
  16. Rouste

    Rouste Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    This is not what I am asking for. I do not want a more historic or more realistic civ. I simply feel like the civ gameplay is old school and lacking, with too much boring micro-management and pacing problems, not grand enough and lacking depth, and it fails to reinvent itself.

    "If you loved civ5, you will love civ6. On the other hand you could just continue to play civ5 since it is the same game." I am slightly exaggerating.
     
  17. TehJumpingJawa

    TehJumpingJawa Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    204
    Endless Legends had a nice idea with superimposing a larger region map on top of the tile layer, though allowing only a single settlement within each region was a missed opportunity IMO.
    Civ 6 has continents, though they're not really utilised for very much, again a missed opportunity.
    You could use a higher level region map as a basis for a more eu4-like diplomacy/claims model; so each war wouldn't devolve into a total war of annihilation, but rather one of fulfilling a war goal.

    Getting rid of the grid entirely would be an interesting direction to go; free form strategic movement like the newer Total War games & more organic looking borders.

    Borders, rather than being something you grow, could be something you claim.
    Nations claiming the same land would be a cause for diplomatic tension, claims and war. (Several space 4x games have had the notion of claiming systems)

    There are lots of directions Civ could be taken to bring something new to the franchise.
     
  18. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    more like 33% unimproved
     
  19. knightblaster

    knightblaster Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Somewhere in Time
    That's because Civ owns that space. It would be very, very hard for someone else to make anything to compete with it in an effective way. When the MOO series went down a dead-end, it really opened up the space 4x genre, and the fantasy 4x has always been wide open, with no one dominant product. Civ dominates historical 4x to such a a huge degree that it's too daunting to spend the money to make a serious competitor, really.
     
  20. TheXMassTeam

    TheXMassTeam Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Hi :)

    I think it's fine like this.
    - I don't care about the new cartoon's design (but I really want new ship's design, cause modern ships are ugly)
    - I really like the new dedicated zone and adjacency bonus system
    - I love the new politic system, with cards to tweak your civ as you want or need
    - I like the new great person system, but there is too few of them, late game (and one more turn syndrome's game) this entire game-play feature simply disappear cause of the lack of GP
    - I'm ok with the new unit's system, don't like or hate it. There is room for improvement (as your builder that can't improve a tile if your AI ally decide to camp this tile forever)
    - I'm ok with the new religion system. Also room for improvement (as the unreadable coloured map when you select a religious unit)

    The only point I could think that civ 6 is not a "2016 empire builder" is about UI : useless and endless diplomacy screens, lack of information about simple things like adjacency bonus, and strange choices when it come to trade roads or spy assignation.

    Overall there is room for improvement in a lot of area (AI, diplomacy ...) but Civ VI looks like a 2016 game imho :)
     
    Nefelia and TwistedMinds like this.

Share This Page