Did Civ6 take a significant step backward?

[Ford]

Every new version is always going to be a step back because there always has to be room for expansions, that's the way it works. The difference between BTS and vanilla Civ 5 was huge, but more than made up for with the expansions.

Of course, the only way to replace your old game with an equally filled out and playable game is to wait until the second expansion comes out until you buy it.

 

[glg]

The game is brilliant, however, the UI is horrific. It takes quite a while to get used to it, and even then it's still pitiful.

A brilliant game with a horrific UI? No such thing. In my opinion not only this game but the gaming industry as a whole is stepping backwards, or rather in the wrong direction.

 

[MooFreaky]

So it it bewilders me that with EVERY new release, Firaxis effectively takes "three steps back" by dumping numerous successful features from those earlier versions. Unless, of course, it is a matter that Firaxis is entirely cognizant of what they are doing by initial releasing only 60% of what they manifestly could be putting in the package, but are deliberately setting aside to spoon feed us in the form of DLCs and expansions. (Would Firaxis be so pointedly mercenary about the way they Market their products? They are, after all, a business, and businesses exist to maximize Profits every way they can.)

There are probably several reasons for it, and they all have a degree of intermingling with each other.
As you point out, they are a business. Most people overlook that games are very expensive to produce, have low-medium return on investment and just aren't hugely appealing to the vast majority of potential investors out there. The average price to purchase a game has remained stable for over a decade, while the cost to produce them has gone through the roof. So they need to maximise their profits, and a great, proven way to do that is to sell DLC and expansions. Doing it this way may suck from our perspective, but it ensures that they keep producing new content and making new games.

Having too much in the game increases the chances of getting some of it wrong, of having it not work as intended (remember, even thorough testing won't tell you how things will turn out once it is in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people, using and abusing it in ways you couldn't conceive during creation. This will make people unhappy as it brings down the rest of the game. Or it could just clutter the game and make it confusing. Waiting, seeing how things go, making patches and then bringing out new mechanics that fit in really well with how the game ends up is far less likely to have problems, be deeper and more satisfying.

Plus, with all the costs and risks involved (even for a game with Civ's legacy it is still a risk...) getting it wrong could be a disaster. One bad game can maim or kill a franchise like this, or could result in a company going under (as has happened many times).

 

[MooFreaky]

A brilliant game with a horrific UI? No such thing. In my opinion not only this game but the gaming industry as a whole is stepping backwards, or rather in the wrong direction.

In general I agree. We are seeing fewer new ideas and ground breaking game play and far more "safe" games. But that comes down to return on investment. It is such a risk to make games that companies aren't prepared to take big, bold steps like they used to. People want every game to have the best graphics, bigger this and more of that, but if the prices go up or companies put in too much DLC people ***** and moan like no tomorrow.

 

[mazz0]

What are these balance issues people keep talking about? What's wrong with deleting units, for example?

 

[LordByron]

I'd like to say a few things.

People says civV AI was worst at launch... but did they magically forget everything they do in past game/expansions ?
If they fixed CIVV AI i expect it to be on par at CIV VI launch.

Diplomacy:
I still think CIVBE was the best diplomacy system. The game had flaws and the DLC put the nal in the coffin but was simple, polished and fun.

Why again the absurd warmongering hate if you defend against other civs aggressions?
A moderate warmongering malus is still hard to recover.

Tutorial: this game doesn t explain anything...interface is difficult to understand (spies expecially).

Balance: There are so many flaws that is way behind CIV V


My biggest complaints:

ART: I think civilization revolution complaints made it clear what civ players want i think they missed the target... and there is not even a graphic improvement.
This manages to be worse than civ V and civ rev at the same time while mixing both.


Music: CIV V was really good, CIV BE was one of the best i ever heard.... why is this so bland?


Suggestion for DLC:
Can we get 2 civs per nation so we can mix&match bonuses...expecially since most nations got some civs you would not expect to represent a nation history. (you could at least go on with the "comic art" giving us Nero for Romans and so on).

 

[Plus Ultra]

What are these balance issues people keep talking about? What's wrong with deleting units, for example?

If I understood correctly, it allows us to convert production into gold at a 1:1 ratio, making it possible to buy buildings in less productive cities.

Scythia and the Venetian Arsenal give a free unit for each built, turning that exchange ratio into 2:1... which seems to be game breaking.

Not sure if that requires using certain policies or there is any limitation to this strategy to be honest.

 

[Staal]

OP... just no. I was never a Civ 5 hater and I clocked many hours on it but it was lacking in many ways. Compared to any previous game in the series Civ 6 is a triumph. It is the most complete and well designed iteration yet. As far as systems go it takes 99% of what has been done before and builds on it in innovative and fun ways. Spies, Great People, Workers, AI Wonder spam, empy build queue and so much more that (many of which we as players did not even think of could be improved) have been tweaked or redesigned and age old problems or discomforts have been fixed. Cartooney graphics or not (personal preference is completely irrelevant here) the feel and look of the game is undeniably high quality. The player has interesting decisions to make throughout the game. Dozens of various systems, themes and periods of human history are combined in a way that feels so natural and... just right.

Balancing, AI and some fluff (HoF etc) needs fixing/added obviously, but Civ 6 is a massive achievement in game design. It is sad how desperate people are to get a high reply thread that they feel the need to post stuff like this.

I'll say it again; Civ 6 is a TRIUMPH. Ed Beach deserves so much credit for this.

 

[IllustriousYou]

People says civV AI was worst at launch... but did they magically forget everything they do in past game/expansions ?
If they fixed CIVV AI i expect it to be on par at CIV VI launch.

In a sense, Civ VI does 'forget' what they wrote for V. The old AI was based on weights. It's behaviors were hard-coded into the game dlls. The new AI is based on decision trees. It's behaviors are stored in XML files.

This is how the devs were able to make the barbarian scout stuff work. The first step of the decision tree is exploring with a scout. When the scout finds a target, the decision tree switches to "attack" mode, producing different units and sending them to invade. This complex, stepwise logic wasn't available in the old system.

 

[bdemz]

agree completely!!!!! It's terrible that we are comparing an improved and new version of Civ5 and then comparing it to a 5 year old release. I could see if this was a new company competing with Civ...but they left out a ton of really easy things and basics. It's like if the new Madden came out and they forgot to add drafting or how to pass.

 

[Skybird]

3) Load sequences: As much as I like the sound of Sean Bean's voice, do I really have to put up with his spiel EVERY time I LOAD a Saved game? I'm hoping I just missed the Mute Option.

I feel we need a menu option - "Narrator expires mid-game On/Off" Just to keep the realism of Sean's inevitable demise.

 

[Gorbles]

agree completely!!!!! It's terrible that we are comparing an improved and new version of Civ5 and then comparing it to a 5 year old release. I could see if this was a new company competing with Civ...but they left out a ton of really easy things and basics. It's like if the new Madden came out and they forgot to add drafting or how to pass.

I don't think renaming a city or being able to put a unit on alert qualifies as a core mechanic comparable to passing the ball in a sportsball game. Being a player of a water-based form of sportsball, passing the ball is pretty key.

 

[andymant]

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't think the UI is horrible. Really, I'm not sure why it's so bad. There are a few things I'd like to see like a demographics window and a more informative religious pressure mechanic, but beyond that I'm not sure what all the fuss is. I like that clicking on a city doesn't automatically inundate me with hordes of info I'm not looking for, and that I can selectively choose which info I want it to look at at that moment. Also appreciate the fresh water and continents overlays. Other than that their goal of minimizing the UI and providing in game details just by looking at the map was largely successful. Any information I might want is only an easy click away, I don't have to shift through a bunch of menus, etc. What am I missing, exactly?

I agree with the above responder that Civ series, with the exception of the much decried Beyond Earth, has never been about hyper customization of your civ; it has always been about making your selected civ work with what it was given. I'm actually really greatful they hyper specialized the civs! Two abilities and two or more unique infrastructures/units means I have to play the game like a puzzle to maximize my civs' bonuses while they are still relevant, and I love that. That being said, there were many features I actually really liked from Beyond Earth, the chief among them being the political influence system. It's like they half implemented it with the agendas but I think the deals and agreements were a fascinating feature that could also be well adapted to civ 6's currently wonk'd diplomacy system. I also did liked the trait system but I'm not sure that would be quite as coherent with civ 6, since they are already so specialized. All of this to say, while taking away the COMPLETELY SUPERFULOUS option to rename cities is definitely an odd choice for a game who's nearly entire franchise run has given that option from launch, it is hardly ruinous or gamebreaking.

The lack of advanced game creation options is way more disconcerting, since it feels to me that it should have held over from when civ 5 finally implemented all of that. Even BE at launch had more advanced game options than this. I'm definitely missing the ability to adjust city state numbers or landmass sizes (particularly on island plates), as well as a few smaller details. I feel like this was a mistake to leave out, since the basic mechanisms for those features already exist.

I'm used to Civs being dumb with DOWs since that's been a feature of Civ since forever, and always will be until they have a revolutionary discovery when it comes to making game AI. There are hard coding things I feel like they should do to stave off the completely ridiculous DOWs, like get rid of the ability to declare surprise wars completely. I have some theories on how to work this out but don't feel it appropriate to elaborate on here. There are other more troubling problems with the current AI that needs addressing first, IMO. That and giving us back our advanced game options dangit

 

[Dale H]

No, you are not the only one. I really appreciate the UI. Still learning how to use it first game through but it is very innovatve and very helpful and efficient in giving me the info I need to develop.

This game takes things in a bunch of different directions or stretches the dimensions in ways that are going to be challenging. The old ways of Civ5 and BE don't all work. I am a little frustrated by this but it is how I adapt.

A few small issues annoy me like a civ with a bunch of forces on my border complaining I am threatening them and trust me I am going to nuke that Scythian witch asap.

I do see there may be some balancing required but overall I am stoked by the game and absolutely adore the graphical appearance.

 

[Nefelia]

#2) I don't mind that DoWs _can_ occur. But, please, at least show me casus belli more substantial than the monarch woke up on the wrong side of the bed that morning! Further, would it really have been too difficult to add 5-6 civs to the mix that were NOT as bloodthirsty as Genghis Khan? There's, what, 19? 20? civs in the mix. Does EVERY single one of them have to be an out-and-out warmonger?

To be brutally honest, this is a user-error issue. If you lack military strength, you will be targeted. This was the case in Civ V, and is even more so in civ VI. Fortunately, Warriors and Slingers are dirt-cheap to produce and do incur any unit maintenance costs.

my biggest let down so far is the size of the map.....which I was sure was going to be an issue with the new district system.
Even on "huge" maps it still feels too small, hopefully map mods will able to fix some of that

There is already a mod that addresses this. Three new map sizes: Enormous; Giant; and Ludicrous.

It's like they started this game from scratch...could have just improved BTS with added features

Civ VI is a new game. It is not the third expansion for Civ V.

They DID start it from scratch, as they should. After five years of playing Civ V, many people were ready for some significant change.


As for the UI: I like it quite a bit, actually. It is incomplete, of course, but it will be filled out in time.

 

[dexters]

No, you are not the only one. I really appreciate the UI. Still learning how to use it first game through but it is very innovatve and very helpful and efficient in giving me the info I need to develop.

The UI is mostly fine, just really weird unintuitive decisions in some parts and some really glaring missing UI features like sorting and a LOG to keep track of all the trader/diplo rumours and events going on. In many ways it reflects Civ6 as a whole. 80% good 20% what were they thinking? (bugs and exploits excluded obviously)


Nothing that can't be fixed.

Aesthetically it looks great and is less cluttered than Civ4 or 5.

I have a thread about the current UI issues I'd like to see addressed
http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ6-ui-fix-requests.603082/

 

[Nefelia]

The UI is mostly fine, just really weird unintuitive decisions in some parts and some really glaring missing UI features like sorting and a LOG to keep track of all the trader/diplo rumours and events going on. In many ways it reflects Civ6 as a whole. 80% good 20% what were they thinking? (bugs and exploits excluded obviously)

Huh. I view Civ VI more as 80% good and 20% whoops-didn't-have-time-to-finish.

...well, maybe a bit more that 20%.

 

[CaptainPatch]

There is already a mod that addresses this. Three new map sizes: Enormous; Giant; and Ludicrous.

Yyyyaaaaaaa! You just made my day! "Ludicrous, here I come!

ADDENDA: Uhm. Just Checked Steam and didn't see any Workshop associated with Civ6 yet. So where can I find this mod you mention?

 

[dexters]

Will mods disable achievements?

 

[aimlessgun]

I like the game a lot so far. The new mechanics are mostly very good. After patches and DLC I'm 99% sure this will be way better than Civ5 and probably better than Civ4 even though I don't think 1UPT was worth the problems it brought.

My biggest gripe is AI that seems worse than launch Civ5 AI, which is saying a lot. I see myself moving on to other games until this is improved.