I seriously cannot be the only one thinking this..

[MALCIV6]

I have to admit the new emphasis on culture and religion is impressive from a tactical depth point of view. However I can't seriously be the only one who merely reads this and thinks meh.

Civilisation isn't about spreading your Civilisation's religion across the globe for a religious victory, and it is most certainly not about building tourist/film/media centres to coast to a cultural victory. I mean where honestly is the fun in that?! Whilst I do like it being included as it adds another string to the bow, and hopefully keeps AI's distracted, I can honestly say I won't be spending a single bit of my precious resources sending any missionaries into neighbouring countries in hope of converting their nation. Or sparing workers to build a football stadium (Brazil) for that matter.

The true essence of Civilisation is about creating monster empires, with high levels of production and establishing a formidable army/navy. It's about going on a warmongering rampage to take over continents whilst trying your best to not become public enemy number 1 and at war with every nation at once. Yes stacking units has gone (admittedly that was positive as it did prolong the game) but the reason why we fell in love this game has not! Civilisation II was an incredible game, for it embodied the true nature of the game; growth, production, war.

I do understand it is each to their own and some people like playing the religious/cultural victory but how on earth is building tourist attractions/temples/museums etc as entertaining as conquering nations.

To me China, Scynthia and Germany are the way forward and the English with their artefacts and Brazil with their Carnivals will remain unused on my game.

 

[Siptah]

When I look at my civ 5 hall of fame I see a lot of all victory types (except diplomacy, that may only be 2 or 3). I am looking forward to religious and culture victories in civ VI. And of course, I'm looking forward to the space race. Honestly, to me civ was mostly about the space race and war was mostly to keep the other civs behind me. I do enjoy a war focused game, of course. I like the diversity that civ offers. I can understand that war is a lot of fun, but sometimes it's also tedious, especially after conquering a few civs and everything from then on is more or less just repetition.

 

[paulmclem]

Got to agree there is nothing more satisfying that a well executed city attack. Yes, indeed.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I think if you spend enough time here you'll find that there are many different opinions on this. Some people like to focus on building alone and would be perfectly happy skipping military altogether if they could.

The heavier focus on culture is likely a response to people's complaints that beakers were almost always the most important output. Splitting the tree may offer different paths to victory which is great IMO.

 

[Hajee]

I for one like empire building, and making an emprie is not just about army's. I never play civ with any VC on.

Religion is awesome, force others to follow my religion is great in civ 5, but civ 6 takes this to a whole new level. Just bc you liking killing millions in ur civ games does not mean the game should be only built around only on conquest

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I can't be quite sure (because we still don't know exactly how it will play) but I doubt I'll ever go for Religious victories in Civ VI, just as I never went for Diplomatic victories in Civ V or Civ IV. Just doesn't feel like a satisfying and legitimate victory condition. Conquest or culture all the way for me.

Of course, it's fine to still have victories I don't like in the game. Others will probably enjoy them, and that's great.

 

[JimmyBanks]

Interesting, I understand where you are coming from but don't agree.

I enjoy trying to win different ways. I've even tried winning a game without attacking another civs cities, it creates a while new challenge and I think with the Chinese disliking people who build wonders, Brazil with people who have more luxuries they are going to be wanting war all the time.

Sometimes it's fun to go out and smash all the civs but I like the other options as well.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Krajzen]

I haven't won a single domination victory in my 1000 hours of playing civ5, excluding multiplayer duels and achievement hunting on very small maps. I don't even remember what are its exact rules.

Total domination is extremely boring for me in all games I play because of
1) Snowballing nature - the more you conquer the easiest and more tedious it becomes.
2) I love simulation/"big strategy" games and don't care about most war games, and I love to watch the world grow and AI players interact, instead of conquering it and 'breaking' the simulation.

Every single victory in every of my 'serious' (non scenario, map size bigger than small) civ5 games ever was science, diplomacy or cultural, and some of my favourite games ever had like 1 or 2 wars for the entire session. My fav victory in BNW is culture. I also prefer score victory above domination, and I cannot remind of any BNW session where I fully conquered more than three civs (including huge maps with 22 players and me playing civs good for conquest).

The true essence of Civilisation

Doesn't exist outside of subjective feelings of a player. Mine true essence of Civilisation is immersion and simulating the human history and tedious pointless race for all cities breaks it. I only wage wars when it is strategically necessary for my nations.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

For me, warmongering is tedious not exciting. I prefer to feel as if my civ is the paragon of human excellence not a villain steamrolling over lesser nations.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Eh, if you're looking for a fighting game there are much better options than Civ.

 

[evanaurora]

I play civ very much as a builder, and am somewhat bored by war. Always have been. Moving around stacks OR individual units, either way, it's micromanagement in a way that's uninteresting to me.

That said--- do I think war shouldn't be part of the game??? No, of course not. Civ is about choices, not One Right Way To Play. I'm probably only going to play Spain, Scythia, Germany a few times to mess around with them and will turn to Egypt, China, France, Brazil much more often. But I love that (most of) the civs I don't plan on playing much are in the game! Diverse gameplay (and agendas, yay) = FUN.

 

[jye42]

The true essence of Civilisation is about creating monster empires, with high levels of production and establishing a formidable army/navy. It's about going on a warmongering rampage to take over continents...

You have a very cynical view of civilisation, for me civilisation is about the progress of mankind. It is about surviving through the ages of history despite warmongering nations, it is about social progress and dreaming of a better tomorrow. Civilisation is about looking towards the stars and eventually leading mankind to space in a new era of exploration, prosperity and peace.

I don't know what your talking about but it sounds more the raging barbarians than a civilisation.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Whether for one reason or another, the devs who have the rights to this title certainly have a unique take on what makes the game great and fun.

Are they likely to be startled out of their reverie by Civ6's figures come launch? I doubt it.

 

[Atlas627]

Ok, so. First, what the "essence of Civilization" is about is clearly a matter of opinion.

Second, if you're looking for an empire-building conquest game ONLY, why are you playing Civ? There's like 20 other games that are great for that.

If you want to assume that there is an objective "essence of Civilization", then the essence would have to be whatever space the designers wanted it to occupy. And they clearly don't want it to occupy the empire-building and conquest game niche; if they did, Civ would be Total War. And it isn't. So, arguably, the essence of Civilization is very obviously not only empire-building and conquest.

It also isn't only SimCity either. Its the space where the 2 intersect, and that's what makes Civilization unique. That is more the "essence of Civilization", if anything.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Civilisation isn't about spreading your Civilisation's religion across the globe for a religious victory, and it is most certainly not about building tourist/film/media centres to coast to a cultural victory.

Sorry, but it's not for you, or any other one player, to say what the series is "about". If you don't want to play it that way, then don't. The developers have decided it fits with the game they've chosen to make, and some of us have fun with it. For us, this game is as much "about" that as it is about anything else.

I mean where honestly is the fun in that?!

See above. We don't all play the game exactly the same way you do. And the developers have clearly not chosen to tailor the game exactly to the way you play it.

 

[Ryika]

Going on rampages while killing, raping and pillaging is clearly at the center of our history as a species, and I'm glad I can still go onto a genocidal crusade when I feel like it, but I actually prefer the more peaceful aspects of the game, with only a few mass-murders sprinkled in-between.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

The true essence of Civilisation is about creating monster empires, with high levels of production and establishing a formidable army/navy. It's about going on a warmongering rampage to take over continents whilst trying your best to not become public enemy number 1 and at war with every nation at once.

I agree on the parts about creating monster empires and production, and traditionally, I have played pretty much all my Civ games with a military/conquest bent.
However, while I disagree with the others about turtling, building and never making war, there is no single essence of Civilization and they're just as valid as yours.
That being said, I think a better way to express what you might be thinking is that in the previous iteration (BNW),
the developers accommodated these players far more at the expense of players like ourselves.
So far, I don't get this feeling from Civ6, and feel like lessened warmonger penalties and local happiness once again pave the way for my preferred playstyle.

Of course, until a future patch ruins everything, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Zaarin]

You might not be the only one, but you certainly don't speak for everyone. In Civ5 I played exactly one aggressive expansionist game (I got sick of Rome stealing my wonders), and I still ended in culture victory. The overwhelming majority of my games are culture victories, plus a few science and one diplomatic victory. If anything, I'm concerned that Civ6's agendas will push me into war more than I'm comfortable with.

 

[MALCIV6]

I do love a good debate and I knew the post with spark a reaction, which is what I wanted as I am intrigued of others opinions.

However please do not take the post literally - I am not saying my 'definition' of the what the game is about or how to play it is correct, nor that the developers 'agree with me'. I do understand the concept of subjective opinions!

Please do not get offended by my war mongering tactics, I just wanted to know how the majority of you guys play it that's all!

 

[Gambito]

Uhmm.. no. That's why many of us play the Civ series, for its focus in building cities, and spend in culture, science and NOT emphasizing in total war. There are many other games one should try if you only want to destroy your enemies.

If any, I hope CIV VI will let you win a game without the need of warmongering. In 5 you had to dominate by sword the other Civs to achieve a cultural or science victory, so they wouldn't get them before you.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to play random, playing with every Civilization and try to achieve all types of victories. But it was annoying that I always had to build a great army because no matter how friendly you were, every other AI would betray you if you didn't had defenses, and you always had to go for that runaway Civ to stop spreading and win the game before you. I never got to win a cultural victory (with tourism in BNW) because of this. I hope that will be more feasible in this game.