[NFP] Is Civ 6 doomed?

[Chekko]

OCC is winnable on deity. Have you tried to win with just 3-5 cities? Sure tall is eminently workable with VI just like wide was workable in V, probably easier.
I play 3-5 city games on Emperor fairly often, and it is a pleasure, not a task.

I play on Emperor. Maybe I could win with 5 cities but I mean to have it as a more viable option. And if you can do that on Diety I'm pretty sure you are very good at this game and know just about every little strat in the game. So of course you can do that. But that doesn't mean it's an option in the game.

 

[SuperFly47]

Implement something that makes you able to play tall and I'd be very happy with Civ 6. They added some nice features I like and they continue to make it better. Not sure how I feel about New Frontier but small additions are still additions I suppose.

Have specialist product GPP and district buildings no longer produce GPP. Each tier of district buildings should increase yield of specialists.

 

[Karmah]

Oh, I wasn't aware that Civ 5's score was that high. I do know that it took a long time (a couple of years) before Civ 6 surpassed Civ 5 inn number of concurrent players. Still to this day, with regular content being released for Civ 6, Civ 5 still has about half the number of concurrent players. Not bad for a more than 10 year old game which hasn't seen any new official content in over 7 years.

Actually, looking at the number of concurrent players over time for the two games is quite interesting. Unfortunately, there isn't any data for the first 2 years after the release of Civ 5, but we can see that Civ 5 reached a peak with the release of Brave New World, and after that, it held a constant high number of concurrent players which didn't start to slowly drop off until 3 and a half years later, when Civ 6 was released. Civ 6, on the other hand, started out with a massive peak on release (I do remember the build up and excitement, no doubt helped by the success of Civ 5). It then immediately dropped below Civ 5's level, and stayed there until a new peak was reached with the release of the first expansion. Again, numbers dropped below Civ 5's level shortly after. Civ 5's popularity was slowly declining throughout all of this time, which is natural for such an old game which was no longer receiving content, and at some point not long before the release of the second expansion for Civ 6, Civ 6 did surpass 5 in terms of concurrent players, albeit not by a lot. The second expansion gave it another boost, but levels didn't reach anywhere near what Civ 5 did after its second expansion. In fact, it is only now that the game is getting regular content updates that Civ 6 has even come close to the level Civ 5 maintained for 3 and a half years with no new content, and is managing to hold more than 50k concurrent players consistently.

View attachment 573024

I think this speaks volumes to the lasting appeal and quality of Civ 5. I believe Civ 6 has received a higher quantity of content than Civ 5, but in terms of keeping players engaged, the more refined and interconnected systems of 5 seems to win out. At least that's my take.

The problem with pure trend based time-series analysis for product appeal is that sometimes we forget about one fact , it's time. In a product like civ , the age of the audience is also a factor. And the fanbase ages along those 'years passing' , their needs and engagement might change because they get older.

 

[Abaxial]

Reviews, of course, take into account things like graphics, which have been steadily improving, thought I am not sure Civ 6 really improves much on Civ 5. I didn't play Civ 4 when it was new, and I find it hard to get into now because the graphics look so weak.

 

[fantsu]

What do you mean by "out on top"? If we take Steam reviews, Civ VI's all time review score is at 82%. Compare:

Civ V: 96%
Civ IV: 92%
Civ III: 90%

According to Steam at least, the largest digital distributor by far, Civ VI comes in at a distant and convincing last place.

This just shows that average players dont know anything about games they own. Civ V is so weak compared to any other civ game, or even 4X game so far, its hilarious.
It was also the only one that was actually unplayable for 6 months after release and the one that dumbed down every aspect of the series and made the AI as weak as it is now. Wow.

 

[KayAU]

This just shows that average players dont know anything about games they own. Civ V is so weak compared to any other civ game, or even 4X game so far, its hilarious.
It was also the only one that was actually unplayable for 6 months after release and the one that dumbed down every aspect of the series and made the AI as weak as it is now. Wow.

Well, I like Civ V. Are you saying it's because I lack knowledge?

 

[fantsu]

Well, I like Civ V. Are you saying it's because I lack knowledge?

No. Liking things is a whole different thing. I like even Civ:Rev and Civ4:Col and that is not common. It's not the case with V, but some people even love games that are notoriously bad.
It's just good thing if people find stuff they enjoy. But as an review scores, those numbers are quite the opposite from reality.

 

[KayAU]

No. Liking things is a whole different thing. I like even Civ:Rev and Civ4:Col and that is not common. It's not the case with V, but some people even love games that are notoriously bad.
It's just good thing if people find stuff they enjoy. But as an review scores, those numbers are quite the opposite from reality.

I agree that good review scores are not synonymous with a good game, or at least, with me thinking something is a good game. But who gets to decide if a game is good or bad, anyway? At the very least, the review scores are an indication that a lot of people liked Civ 5, and I don't think it is fair to assume that is because they "don't know anything" about the game. It is probably just because they enjoyed playing it.

 

[salty mud]

No. Liking things is a whole different thing. I like even Civ:Rev and Civ4:Col and that is not common. It's not the case with V, but some people even love games that are notoriously bad.
It's just good thing if people find stuff they enjoy. But as an review scores, those numbers are quite the opposite from reality.

The vast majority of people disagree with you. Perhaps you're the one who is wrong?

Spoiler :

I dislike Civ V greatly as well, but the way you're arguing this makes you look quite arrogant.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Hmmph, Civ 4 was out long before it got on Steam.

Also note that the top 2 reviews on 6 are complaining about the pricing (and it deserves as such)

We're also running a false assumption that reviews actually represent the player base. I don't bother with steam reviews, if I bother even rating my games at all. Also considering a few sentences or less constitutes a review, well... Heck, even the "top rated" reviews for Civ 6 are mostly 2 sentences long.

I mean, I actually agree that Civ 5 managed to keep its players happy. But all that really proves is Civ 6 is not Civ 5. Maybe this game isn't for some people, and after 4 years, it's kinda too late to change that.

This just shows that average players dont know anything about games they own.

Indeed. And there's a bunch of clueless complaints about Civ 6 on Reddit and on this very forums too, much less for more casual types.

 

[Chekko]

Steam has its weird community reviews. Been too many times where I've seen thumbs up reviews with mostly negative descriptions and thumbs down reviews with positive descriptions. I think it would be better if Steam had a 0-10 rating score instead.

 

[KayAU]

I honestly prefer the thumbs up/thumbs down system. The problem with 0-10 ratings is that they tend to end up pretty binary anyway, with a lot of reviewers either giving the game a 0 or a 10. For those who review more conscientiously, you still have the problem that people have completely different standards for how to score games. Many see a 7 as an average score, while others will say a 5 should be average. With a thumbs up/thumbs down people are just answering whether they like it or not, and I think it gives a better picture after all. It might have been nice to have a "neutral" option as well, for those games you want to write about, but can't clearly recommend or not recommend. As for nonsensical reviews, there will always be some of those. Some people write ironic reviews (typically upvoting garbage shovelware games to be funny), and others again review based on fundamental misunderstandings of the game or not liking the genre, or something along those lines. You get this wherever customers review things. I've seen Amazon customers give products top marks with comments like "I am so looking forward to receiving this, I think it is going to be great!".

Anyway, despite all these flaws, I find that things tend to average out, and customer reviews usually end up reflecting my own opinion much more so than critic reviews. If we go back to the games in question, Civ 5 and Civ 6, they have around 100k reviews each. I don't think ironic or complete nonesense reviews make that much of an impact on the scores. One thing which probably has had an impact, however, is the controversy surrounding the EULA for Civ VI. It's a valid enough complaint and I respect people's right to downvote because of it. However, it doesn't say anything about the quality of the game itself. If they had avoided this controversy, it is likely that the score would have been much higher. It might not have reached the same level as Civ V, though, 96% positive is pretty amazing.

I just realized I haven't made a Steam review for Civ V myself. I did for Civ VI (it was a thumbs up, obviously), but somehow forgot it for Civ V.

 

[Archon_Wing]

One thing which probably has had an impact, however, is the controversy surrounding the EULA for Civ VI. It's a valid enough complaint

It isn't though. The complaints were parroting the same misintreptation of the EULA, because all of it was regarding contacting the company for support or entering contests.

The Red Shell thing was of concern though.

 

[CyberPhy]

This just shows that average players dont know anything about games they own. Civ V is so weak compared to any other civ game, or even 4X game so far, its hilarious.
It was also the only one that was actually unplayable for 6 months after release and the one that dumbed down every aspect of the series and made the AI as weak as it is now. Wow.

Eh I think V is a great game way better then IV and VI

 

[EscapedGoat]

CIV VI is fine for what it is and will not change much now (It's basically CIV 5.5 - how did those crazy Romans do decimals? ) but what was really a lost opportunity in this iteration of CIV was streamlining. There's far too much pointless busy-work esp. late game is a nightmare, turns take forever and the game seriously runs out of steam for me around turn 130-ish, finishing a game is most times a chore.

What I would like to see in CIV VII:
-streamlining empire management - I can't stand micromanaging all those cities mid/late game.
-Make the decision to either populate an area with many small cities or one big one more interesting. Maybe add a "merge" cities option later in the game to avoid the micro-hell. Make population grow faster "upwards" not only "outwards".
-penalties for going wide: corruption, gpt, science penalty - come on, big empires bring in more resources, but should cost more to run, that's how it is. it's been in every CIV except this one!
-more focus on individual and specialized cities - make cities more unique and cool with national wonders, more % boosts based buildings etc. Who doesn't love a super-science city? In some games, I just hate my generic piece of junk "filler" cities, which I need because it's efficient, not because I love those cities.
-The policy cards is a cool idea on paper, in pratice I find it clunky and I always choose the same ones anyway. I preferred CIV V social policies, felt less generic and had more "character" if you could call it that.

 

[KayAU]

It isn't though. The complaints were parroting the same misintreptation of the EULA, because all of it was regarding contacting the company for support or entering contests.

The Red Shell thing was of concern though.

I believe you are correct, and I think I must have been misremembering. Nonetheless, the controversy hurt review scores, and had it been avoided, Civ VI would likely have a better rating.

-The policy cards is a cool idea on paper, in pratice I find it clunky and I always choose the same ones anyway. I preferred CIV V social policies, felt less generic and had more "character" if you could call it that.

I basically agree with you, but I don't see these as the same type of system. Social Policies in Civ V was a type of bonus tree, rather than a government system. I think you could easily have both. For a bonus tree, I think Civ V and Beyond Earth both had good ones. For government systems, I just wish someone at Firaxis would take some inspiration from Alpha Centauri's Social Engineering.

 

[Chekko]

Although I love Civ 5 and 6 I would Civ 7 to be a more reworked Civ. Not have it be Civ 5 V3 with some new additions.

 

[civac]

How many of you actually strongly favor the combat system in Civ5/6? I watched some SP games of Civ6. Tactical depth was almost entirely absent in combat, mostly due to inept AI and the absurd strength of cities. Is this different in MP? Is my impression wrong? The 1upt system has significant negative consequences (unit cost, unit movement range, increased micromanagement and visual clutter).

 

[salty mud]

How many of you actually strongly favor the combat system in Civ5/6? I watched some SP games of Civ6. Tactical depth was almost entirely absent in combat, mostly due to inept AI and the absurd strength of cities. Is this different in MP? Is my impression wrong? The 1upt system has significant negative consequences (unit cost, unit movement range, increased micromanagement and visual clutter).

As I touched on earlier, I think 1UPT is Firaxis's way of fixing a problem that doesn't exist, and the consequence of that is an actual big problem. 1UPT is an absolute pain to deal with. Moving units around the map is painfully tedious, and if you move more than 3 at once, you will be sorting out traffic jams every turn. I've never come across the infamous "carpet of doom," but having a sizable army of 10+ units is likely to bring on a migraine. What really hurts it for me, though, is the lack of immersion and feeling of progress that is inherent to 1UPT.

One unit takes up the same space as a city. We're never really told how big a "unit" is, but this is, by all counts, absurd. A unit cannot end its turn on a tile with another unit, but it can effortlessly pass through tiles with other units on. The developers knew that traffic jams were an inevitability of this system, so they just threw in magical transport boats and voila, your units can now circumvent lakes, moats and seas with ease. People who call this "tactical" make me laugh. If you wanted to conduct a naval invasion in Civ IV, you needed the transports and firepower to back them up. It wasn't perfect, but a darn sight better than the current system.

Aside other absurdities, such as archers being able to fire over two entire cities' distance, 1UPT doesn't allow for the rampant industrialisation and all-out warfare that Civ IV did. Once you get your 10-15 unit army in the late classical/early medieval, you're probably better off just upgrading it and replacing what you lose; the alternative is spend eternity moving them around. In Civ IV, once your economy picks up, you can field truly monstrous armies that evoke WWI-type meatgrinder situations. Wars of attrition become exactly that. In Civ V, every war is the same. You'll surround the enemy city with 5-6 units, a few ranged and kappow it until it gives in, whilst the enemy hopelessly runs around in the background.

If 1UPT actually worked and we had some tools to properly utilise it (I fantasise about battle line systems like those from the Hearts of Iron series) it may actually be fun. Technologies that add combat width could help add some progression to the game; eventually we field 2UPT, 3UPT and so on. This is obviously what Civ VI was going for with corps and armies. Oh well, wonder what Civ VII has in store.

 

[8housesofelixir]

As of today, a lot of (if not the majority of) turn-based and hex-based strategy games use a one-unit-per-tile system, with some adequate exceptions such as support units stack with military units or air units stack with land units. It is a common trend in game design since around late 2000s or early 2010s.

To be honest, I hardly see people complain about the 1UPT design outside of the Civ series.