[NFP] Is Civ 6 doomed?

[Cagarustus]

Is Civ 6 doomed? Is it already a Lost Cause?

We’ve all been hoping that it will get better and will become the game we want it to be (of course that’s entirely subjective).

I’m starting to think that Civ 6 can’t be salvaged and I think the Devs believe this too. Given we’re coming into the 5th year of Civ 6, I’d say development on Civ 7 has begun.

I personally think Civ 7 will be the Diablo 4 of Civ. It will try to return to the more ‘natural less cartoony’ style of Civ 5 whilst introducing deeper mechanics.

I hope I’m wrong but it feels like Civ 6 is nearing the end of its cycle.

 

[Myomoto]

I think doomed is a bit harsh.

I enjoy civ 6 a lot, but it's becoming pretty clear that my ideal vision of the game and the devs' vision are wildly different. Civ 6 seems to be suffering from too many features, many of which are poorly balanced and honestly are kind of just a waste of time if trying to win effeciently.

It's becoming half a sandbox game in the style of Crusader Kings, where you do have deep strategy/tactics, but ultimately it's more about generating a good story during your time with the game, and it's more like: "Yeah, you CAN make that crazy canal and add some airports and train tracks and mountain tunnels here and there... Maybe make a navy with nuclear submarines?". Do you have to? Not really, but it's fun to play with toys?

 

[8housesofelixir]

To be honest I don't think "less polish" or "near the end of the development cycle" equals to "doomed" or "lost cause."

Lacking a final touch and a complete failure are quite different. VI does have many interesting features, the problem is mainly bad synergy and/or lacking refined small touches.

Also, speaking of art style, personally I really don't like the art style of terrain and terrain features of V. I cannot figure out the difference between Grassland/Plains/Hills without a careful examination or sticking my face onto the screen. The color palate of V's terrain is too dark/gloomy overall compare to VI.

 

[KayAU]

I wouldn't go so far in my characterization, but as I was saying on the other thread, my experience with Civ VI development so far is that they haven't really done much to iterate and refine the systems that are already there in any significant way, instead preferring to add more content to an already very content rich game. They do minor changes and balance tweaks, a +1 here and a -2 there, and then they do new content. Additionally, they seem to have made a conscious decision to have systems interact as little as possible.

Based on this, I don't have any real hope that Civ VI will come any closer to what I wanted it to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad game, or that I haven't enjoyed it. But I am pretty much finished with it now, and have gone back to Civ V (with Vox Populi) and sometimes Beyond Earth. As @Myomoto says, it seems the developers vision for what the game should be is quite different from my own. I hope Civ VII goes in a different direction, and apart from that, I am happy to see alternatives like Humankind and Old World appearing.

 

[rastak]

LOL, doomed? OK, kind of like me thinking EU IV can't be salvaged. Play what you like, ignore what you don't I guess is my philosophy.

 

[Daigotsu Max]

Doomed to be endlessly compared to Civ V and not making everyone happy, that's for sure.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I'm afraid I can't accept the premises at all. Civ 6 had 2 expansions and additional content added beyond it. It was never doomed to begin with.

Also I have like zero respect for Blizzard so any comparison to them is not favorable.But if anything Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 is much more analogous to Civ 5; new and ambitious ideas ruined by utterly unplayable obvious betas at release made to be eventually playable but still a pale shadow of their predecessors. And don't get me started on those pitiful rehashes of their classical games with their eternally hostile approach to the custom content community.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

 

[universecreep]

I think doomed is a bit harsh.

I enjoy civ 6 a lot, but it's becoming pretty clear that my ideal vision of the game and the devs' vision are wildly different. Civ 6 seems to be suffering from too many features, many of which are poorly balanced and honestly are kind of just a waste of time if trying to win effeciently.

I would agree. Way too many features that are poorly implemented. Diplomacy is still a mess after 5 years and the world congress is still kind of a bother and meaningless rather than a fun mechanism.

I wished they'd fix/polish some of the existing systems before adding new content (I guess I'm ok with new leaders).

They did a pretty good job getting the gameplay systems working nicely in Civ V by the time they were done with it so there's definitely still hope.

Doomed to be endlessly compared to Civ V and not making everyone happy, that's for sure.

The comparison is to be expected and justifiably so. Civ V was definitely more of a revolutionary change and in my opinion, still a superior game. VI has the potential to eclipse V though but I don't know if we're nearing the end of significant changes. I wish they could make it viable to play tall as opposed to only wide in VI. I don't mind playing tall but a wide option would be nice.

 

[acluewithout]

Yeah, I’d agree with that.

I don’t think Civ 6 is doomed. It’s current issue is that it’s “Good, Not Great”.

NFP has some good stuff, sort of, and continued support is really welcome (you know, outside of the disaster which is the October Patch). But content like NFP doesn’t move the needle.

Civ 6 is never going to be “Great” without something like a Third Expansion. And it’s just really unclear whether FXS will do something like that after NFP.

Frustrating, but that’s where we are unfortunately.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, I’d agree with that.

I don’t think Civ 6 is doomed. It’s current issue is that it’s “Good, Not Great”.

NFP has some good stuff, sort of, and continued support is really welcome (you know, outside of the disaster which is the October Patch). But content like NFP doesn’t move the needle.

Civ 6 is never going to be “Great” without something like a Third Expansion. And it’s just really unclear whether FXS will do something like that after NFP.

Frustrating, but that’s where we are unfortunately.

That's fair. We have to remember, though, when CivV was current it was treated in much the same way (or worse) than 6 is now. It's mostly only in retrospect that we see it the way we do now. People will say that the last expansion/patch "finished" up five but I'd argue that there is still a lot of balancing that would have been added. The four cities strategy (now called "tall") was a welcome change but was way too strong. And the AI issues go all the way back with the franchise.

 

[sonicmyst]

I won't say it is doomed, because civ 6 is the first civ game that caters to so many platforms (PC, XB1, PS, Switch, Mac, Android) and I think the vision is still there. Civ is a tabletop 4x game. What I am looking forward is just more polish and the game being more open for modders (in terms of allowing them make changes to core gameplay mechanics)

 

[Malachi256]

I'm done with Civ 6 - I've had plenty of fun, but it doesn't grip me anymore. The game is way too front loaded for me - all the planning, exploration, interesting military situations, and most of the interesting decisions all happen in the beginning, and then the rest of the many hours of gameplay becomes an efficiency simulator that was interesting for the first dozen or so games... but has become a total slog now.

I hope future iterations work on giving each era an interesting, and different, goal to work towards, and ultimately I also hope they really put effort into making late game world wars a likely event in typical sandbox games.

 

[acluewithout]

The game is way too front loaded for me

Yeah, this is my big problem.

Mid game onwards is just a wasteland of missing content.

By the Renaissance, you’ve basically unlocked all the Governors, the T3 and T4 Governments don’t really change things up much, there’s no new interesting districts or buildings to unlock generally (Neighbourhoods still suck, Coal Plant is maybe ok), there’s no particular reason to settle new cities beyond “moar yield$” and there aren’t really any new mechanics that kick in that change the game (except power and coastal flooding, but they’re quite weak / not much, or Rockbands or GDRs which are cool but sort of a kill switch for the game).

 

[sonicmyst]

The issue I have with late game, I think, is that the AI care so much about grievances that they dont want to become a warmonger anymore regardless of the diplomacy modifiers. This makes the late game lacking in conflict and at that point it only becomes a race for who fills the bucket faster.

 

[Glassmage]

Civ6 has too many features while cool and fun to use, but in the end the game isn’t good because AI doesn’t know how to properly use these systems. I am tired of AI Kongo yell at me because I violated their hidden agenda by not spreading my religion even though I found it 1 turn ago. I am tired of AI not knowing how to properly place coastal defense and pollute the world to kingdom come. I am tired of the stupid World Congress voting against you at exactly 8 points .etc.

 

[Haig]

I feel it is the best Civilization title yet and my favorite game of all time, so this kind of thread feels kind of over dramatic.

Constantly being one of the best selling and most played games on Steam, getting release on multiple platforms, active community = DOOMED!!

"We ALL been hoping the game to get better" .. lol

 

[Imaus]

It's mostly an AI problem. I think 6 is great, second to 4. (I've played 4, 5, BE, 6. Of these, 4 is my favorite, 5 is okay, BE is okay, 6, now, is great). The problem in each has always been 'Wow AI what the hell are you doing' and the remedy was always that the AI gets bonuses and you get weighed down...which doesn't solve the problem.

That is where the focus needs to lie. How do we get the AI to be better, and what IS better AI anyway?

 

[KayAU]

This is a bit of a side note, but I wonder how many here have tried out Vox Populi for Civ V? I love Civ V unmodded, but Vox Populi just knocks it out of the park. For one thing, it makes the game fresh again by adding a bunch of content, rebalancing everything, and introducing new mechanics (such as corporations and resource monopolies). It also does away with the things people seem to find the most objectionable in Civ V, such as "4 city tall" (although tall remains very viable) and global happiness. You now have local happiness and unhappiness which depends on a bunch of factors, such as literacy, entertainment, isolation, crowdedness, and so on. All pantheons, beliefs and social policies are redesigned and rebalanced to where they are pretty much all good and viable. Most important, however, is perhaps the fact that the AI is vastly superior to the unmodded game. Even at Prince difficulty, the AI does a pretty good job of keeping up, and can fight wars effectively.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Well, the game has two properties.

On one hand, it has been 4 years and has many many DLCs that it's likely to reach its end of development cycle given too much developments have been made.

On the other hand, the game is still bugged out with so many bugs and imbalances. And more terribly, even if the bugs and imbalances being fixed the game is still heavily leaned towards some of the "efficient paths", while others just being ignored.

On one hand, the game is well developed if we look at the time it took to develop, but on the other hand it is so immature that it needs a lot more works to be done if we look deeper into the game itself.