[NFP] Is Civ 6 doomed?

[Krajzen]

DLL source code not being released is maybe connected to some weird Developers Policies and whatever, similar to the lack of communication with fans (pretty miserable when compared with weekly dev diaries of Paradox and open dev of Amplitude).

But at this stage I'd honestly say there is, how to say it nicely, a slight lack of competence of devs regarding other aspects. Like they are nice people who are genuinely trying to create Great 4X game but they lack competence to go beyond "good game". They can make pleasant audiovisual aspect, cool choice of factions, grab some cool ideas, patch their game and make it quite stable and polished, and they utterly fail at the magic that every previous Civ iteration managed to do: how to make a deep (not just wide) strategy game, interesting from early to late game, having the feel of 'being complete' and all its main gears working correctly. They just don't know how to make a great experience, even though they try.

I am still comparing current 'okay, nice game, can we please get third expansion now?' mood of the fanbase after GS to the universal acclaim BNW got where the dominating feeling was 'the base game is complete and awesome, now let's mod it forever'

Civ5 at release was a disaster, but then it was a magnificent process of long term vision of fixing and upgrading it that took many patches and two expansions, which aimed at making non military gameplay deep and fun and tried many new fresh ideas succesfully. Civ6 had completely no idea what to become from the very beginning. First it was basically reskinned uplifted civ5 2.0 with the idea of districts slapped on top of it. It didn't feel "civ5 but better" but "civ5 but less" though, so devs just kept adding more and more and more mechanics on top of that, hoping that the great game will emerge from it. R&F was done in desperate hope to alleviate problems of snowball and terrible endgame, and FAILED COMPLETELY lol. G&S then arrived with the collection of random ideas, terribly reintroduced Congress, and random cool idea of disasters, which probably was partially aiming at the aforementioned problem of inertia and stability of empires. Then we got NFP which is literally a collection of random ideas slapped on top of the game as spinoff bonus game modes, which change nothing.

The end result is a game filled to the brim with a metric ton of mechanics, which do the opposite of synergy, namely ending up as something less than sum of its parts. The amount of content is worthy of universally acclaimed top tier strategy game, but it doesn't add up to the coherent experience. Therefore a lot of people have the feeling of 'something not being entirely right' with the game.

 

[LastSword]

All it took was medicore sequel and people started romanticizing civ 5.
I remember that people were rather unhappy with BNW because it made a game easier. AI is good only if compared to civ6, and for me it is/was not interesting game from early to late (rarely going into modern era).

Is civ6 doomed? I believe that no significant change to the gameplay will be done. Therefore if you don't like game now, it is indeed doomed.
I also share an opinion that even those "big" expansions were hardly scratching the core game. I think loyalty was the most impactful mechanic introduced post release and I am not even sure if it made game better.

 

[Joch]

It's number 1 because it had basically no rivals

exactly, it is what the market currently wants.

Also as I said, franchises as big as this one (and with no rivals) tend to usually sell great due to their intertia,

Hardly. Customers are not stupid, People do not play games they do not like. You can easily see games that are a bust, big numbers at the start which quickly tail off. Civ 6 numbers have been rising steadily since launch.

https://steamcharts.com/app/289070

and Steam numbers do not cover games played on consoles or phones.

The PC games market has totally changed over the past 20 years, tastes have changed, the market is younger, there is more appetite for casual games, PCs now only account for a small part of the market share, most consumers play games on consoles or phones.

Businesses have had to make a choice, either go for the mass market with products with a broad appeal or become niche players with a product marketed to a more hard core crowd. Civ has become a casual strategy game with nice graphics and a bit of action that you can play on basically any device. Perfect for the player who wants to be entertained for an hour with something not too difficult when they have some downtime. The owners have found the winning formula which is very profitable for them and their shareholders. They are not about to change it and you can expect any future expansion pack or new game to be more or less along the same line.

Now players can of course complain that Civ 6 is not the hard core, ultra realistic strategy game of their dreams, but that is not the game the Devs are producing and you are not their market.

So yes, the Civ series is "doomed" to follow the same formula and continue making lots of money for Take-Two and its shareholders.

 

[glider1]

Businesses have had to make a choice, either go for the mass market with products with a broad appeal or become niche players with a product marketed to a more hard core crowd. Civ has become a casual strategy game with nice graphics and a bit of action that you can play on basically any device.

No. It isn't a binary hard-core or casual situation. In previous versions of Civ4 and Civ5 they released the DLL to make the hard core happy as well as the casuals. In Civ6 they are not doing that. Why? There could only be a few reasons. Either they don't want to release the code so competitors could use it (which there are none). They are too lazy to release the DLL code because they simply don't care about a minority hard-core group. They are ashamed of their programming skills and don't want those skills to be visible to the public. What is the reason then for abandoning the hard-core civ-fanatics when they never did before?

 

[Mahi]

I fear the most they won't release the source code because they're going to reuse it in Civ 7.. Chills down my spine.

 

[Timothy001]

Maybe they plan more DLC or another Expansion after New Frontier?

 

[Tiberiu]

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

Hopefully, yes. It was a disaster which should have never seen the light of day. We can only hope Civ 7 will be an upgraded Civ 5 made for adults again.

 

[acluewithout]

But at this stage I'd honestly say there is, how to say it nicely, a slight lack of competence of devs regarding other aspects. Like they are nice people who are genuinely trying to create Great 4X game but they lack competence to go beyond "good game".

I sympathise with the sentiment but disagree on the substance.

The base game was excellent. RnF and GS together are excellent and quite coherent. Most of the balancing FXS has done has been excellent and NFP has a lot of good stuff going on. Firaxis clearly no what they’re doing.

If I was going to criticise the game’s development, it would be just that:

1. RnF wasn’t great when it came out. I feel that was partly because it was almost a Beta Version of Gathering Storm in some ways (although, yes, I appreciate they had different mechanics). RnF made way more sense once we had GS - eg Emergencies worked better with World Congress, Loyalty is more challenging combined with restricted Resource limits, and Governors worked better when there were more mechanics they could leverage like disasters.
2. The minority of balance changes have been a bit off or narrow. eg great lumber Mills got buffed, but sad river adjacencies were lost; great coastal Cities got buffed by why do Shipyards give +1 production to unimproved resources (fish get +1 production, then lose +1 production if you build a boat, then get it back again at Colonialism? WTAF?); great amenities got reworked but, er, what now?
3. Other stuff that’s duff still hasn’t been buffed. Looking at you Anti-Cav and Anti-Cav promotions, Infantry and Tanks both using oil, and Rationalism type cards.
4. Game modes need another pass. Secret Societies need less Governor Titles and more intrigue and trade offs; Apocalypse needs more ways to mess with nature than just Soothsayers and Soothsayers need to be more interesting (and I’d really like some Zombies in my Apocalypse); Dynamic Ages needs a Normal Age to stop the whiplash of Dark and Golden (albeit the new Dark and Golden Ages are themselves excellent).
5. Better AI. But then, the AI does keep getting consistently better. So, actually ok.

I know people don’t agree, but Religion and World Congress and Agendas are good mechanics. The biggest criticisms are that they could have been done differently. Which is true, although I really think how FXS has done them is the best in the context of the current game.

To me, Civ VI Vanilla had a great early game. RnF and GS made the early game even better and really got the good game into a pretty good place. Medieval and even Renaissance are fun. But the back end of the game is still just a wasteland of unrealised possibilities and nothing meaningful to do, meaning I’m always ditching games after I get Musket Men. Shame.

No, if Firaxis wanted to take the game from good to great they could. They have the ability. They’ve done it before with BNW and Civ V. And Civ VI has all the pieces in place to add more great content, eg Ideologies and Ideological Pressure using Tourism, Loyalty, Happiness, Governments, Governors, Wonders, Units, World Congress etc.

The question is whether FXS will or won’t? Do we get a Third Expansion or something like it, or not? NFP is great and all, but it’s just a layer of (quite fun) polish. But the Civ VI engine is still missing a few brass pipes and gears, so more polish isn’t quite what’s needed.

Put another way. It’s great getting Sprinkles and Toppings for our Civ VI Ice-Cream, but what I’m still looking for is one more decent scoop before I start cracking out the 100s and 1000s and Chocolate Sauce.

As I’ve said before, Civ VI really needs something like “Brave New World” to round out the game and fill in the back end (plus maybe a bit more judicious balancing and tweaking). I just don’t know if that will happen.

I really hope it does. But I’m not very confident it will.

I fear the most they won't release the source code because they're going to reuse it in Civ 7.. Chills down my spine.

I have no interest in Civ 7.

If Firaxis can’t sort of make Civ VI “complete” after 4+ years, I see zero reason to buy into a further iteration of Civ no matter how much I like Ed and the team or the franchise.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Here is how good Civ VI is.

I gave it another really good try. I really did. But then after 4 out of 5 games on Deity without ever a declaration of war against me (one of them I played a Huge map with 20 civs and 36 city states (modifying the 24 limit) and even then, not one single war declaration, even when I declared early on and everyone denounced me. Even then about 50 turns later they were turning friendly. Watching paint dry is more interesting than clicking the end turn button from the middlegame to endgame in those games. 1450 hours in, and still no "life" from the AI.

This isn't Civ. At least not the Civ I know.

So, instead of starting another game, I decided to play a game of Civ 2, something I haven't done since 2002. It wasn't easy. I already had DosBox, but I still had to find a place with an old Windows image (I chose 3.1, oh the memories), install the image, then find the old CD for the game, installed the game, realized that the Win 3.1 in the DosBox needed graphics support and sound support, installed all of those, still couldn't get the music to play during the game (it doesn't think the CD is there) but the game actually played. Even found a pdf of the tech tree since I lost my poster many years ago.

And it was just a better game than Civ 6. Even to this day.

Of course I had to readjust to the graphics -- Civ 6 is so beautiful with great music as well. But, that readjustment was worth it. I wanted to remember where the franchise had gone since I first started playing.

I'm not saying the game is doomed. But when a game where your stack could be wiped out by a single attacking unit has more depth strategically than a game made 20 years later (1996 vs 2016 give or take), well, it's just not the same game anymore. And (imo) Civ 3 is better than Civ 2, and Civ 4 is better than Civ 3. Civ 5 with mods is interesting since the AI can be challenging, and heaven forbid, actually declare war on you.

I miss those days of Civ 2. I miss my (at the time) young son pointing at the monkey in the Theory of Evolution video and shouting "Look, it's Darwin!"

That was when the game/franchise had a soul. It may sell more copies now (although I just read that Civ 2 sold 3 million copies in the late 90's which isn't chump change), but it's not the same. Civ 5 was saved by allowing modders to have the source code. Alas, Civ 6 had no such savior, and now it's too late.

 

[glider1]

I fear the most they won't release the source code because they're going to reuse it in Civ 7.. Chills down my spine.

Thanks. I didn't think of that. You possibly have nailed the reason. The other possible reason they don't release the code to please the hard-core is that they are so few in number these days it isn't worth going to the trouble.

 

[Mahi]

Thanks. I didn't think of that. You possibly have nailed the reason. The other possible reason they don't release the code to please the hard-core is that they are so few in number these days it isn't worth going to the trouble.

Nevertheless they promised civ 6 would be a mod haven so they knew it was important for the community. I also think, to some extend that they actually acknowledgeded the modding community's contribution to civ 4 and 5's success and lifetime.
Giving out source codes for games is not really a common practice for major players in the game industry. Too much money is probably involved but it's sad, when the publisher don't realize they are hurting their own game when trying to protect it.

 

[glider1]

Nevertheless they promised civ 6 would be a mod haven so they knew it was important for the community. I also think, to some extend that they actually acknowledgeded the modding community's contribution to civ 4 and 5's success and lifetime.
Giving out source codes for games is not really a common practice for major players in the game industry. Too much money is probably involved but it's sad, when the publisher don't realize they are hurting their own game when trying to protect it.

On the theory that they aren't releasing the code because they will reuse it in civ7, that implies that they won't release the code for civ7 either, which could mean a whole generation of civ without source code. No wonder you got a chill up your spine. Same here. Let's hope you're wrong.

 

[Krajzen]

Here is how good Civ VI is.

I gave it another really good try. I really did. But then after 4 out of 5 games on Deity without ever a declaration of war against me (one of them I played a Huge map with 20 civs and 36 city states (modifying the 24 limit) and even then, not one single war declaration, even when I declared early on and everyone denounced me. Even then about 50 turns later they were turning friendly. Watching paint dry is more interesting than clicking the end turn button from the middlegame to endgame in those games. 1450 hours in, and still no "life" from the AI.

This isn't Civ. At least not the Civ I know.

So, instead of starting another game, I decided to play a game of Civ 2, something I haven't done since 2002. It wasn't easy. I already had DosBox, but I still had to find a place with an old Windows image (I chose 3.1, oh the memories), install the image, then find the old CD for the game, installed the game, realized that the Win 3.1 in the DosBox needed graphics support and sound support, installed all of those, still couldn't get the music to play during the game (it doesn't think the CD is there) but the game actually played. Even found a pdf of the tech tree since I lost my poster many years ago.

And it was just a better game than Civ 6. Even to this day.

Of course I had to readjust to the graphics -- Civ 6 is so beautiful with great music as well. But, that readjustment was worth it. I wanted to remember where the franchise had gone since I first started playing.

I'm not saying the game is doomed. But when a game where your stack could be wiped out by a single attacking unit has more depth strategically than a game made 20 years later (1996 vs 2016 give or take), well, it's just not the same game anymore. And (imo) Civ 3 is better than Civ 2, and Civ 4 is better than Civ 3. Civ 5 with mods is interesting since the AI can be challenging, and heaven forbid, actually declare war on you.

I miss those days of Civ 2. I miss my (at the time) young son pointing at the monkey in the Theory of Evolution video and shouting "Look, it's Darwin!"

That was when the game/franchise had a soul. It may sell more copies now (although I just read that Civ 2 sold 3 million copies in the late 90's which isn't chump change), but it's not the same. Civ 5 was saved by allowing modders to have the source code. Alas, Civ 6 had no such savior, and now it's too late.

I have founded separate thread where I have complained on the lack of AI agression and empire - building not just against human, but even against other AIs. I have finally surrendered with civ6 after realizing the entire mid - to - late game is static and boring; nothing really happens, established empires linearly accumulate yields. Milion game mechanics, none of them solves that problem, which was already solved by civ5 and civ4, where late game was interesting.

1) No civil wars, revolutions, rebellions, internal politics or stability of any kind. Your empire and AI empires never collapse. Two separate happiness system (amenities and loyalty) both pathetically fail at simulating that. And that was an entire leitmotiff of R&F!
2) No danger to you, because AI is boring friendly pacifist, and war system makes it completely incompetent when jt isn't.
3) No interesting things in the world to look at, because AIs don't conquer each other. Again, milion diplomatic mechanics - except actual big alliances, world wars, cold wars, contests, interesting things happening.
4) No random events besides (often net bonus) disasters, because God forbid some immersion and unexpected challenge.

Just sit and accumulate yields. The only limit is your sanity to micromanage many cities, because otherwise infinite city spam always wins and if you won early game you won everything - nothing is going to stop you.

 

[glider1]

I have founded separate thread where I have complained on the lack of AI agression and empire - building not just against human, but even against other AIs. I have finally surrendered with civ6 after realizing the entire mid - to - late game is static and boring; nothing really happens, established empires linearly accumulate yields. Milion game mechanics, none of them solves that problem, which was already solved by civ5 and civ4, where late game was interesting.

1) No civil wars, revolutions, rebellions, internal politics or stability of any kind. Your empire and AI empires never collapse. Two separate happiness system (amenities and loyalty) both pathetically fail at simulating that. And that was an entire leitmotiff of R&F!
2) No danger to you, because AI is boring friendly pacifist, and war system makes it completely incompetent when jt isn't.
3) No interesting things in the world to look at, because AIs don't conquer each other. Again, milion diplomatic mechanics - except actual big alliances, world wars, cold wars, contests, interesting things happening.
4) No random events besides (often net bonus) disasters, because God forbid some immersion and unexpected challenge.

Just sit and accumulate yields. The only limit is your sanity to micromanage many cities, because otherwise infinite city spam always wins and if you won early game you won everything - nothing is going to stop you.

Like was discussed at one point in the VP forums here on civfanatics this type of game that civ has become is really a "me me me want more more more" type of game. To disturb that formula risks sales.

 

[AsH2]

I fear the most they won't release the source code because they're going to reuse it in Civ 7.. Chills down my spine.

Thanks. I didn't think of that. You possibly have nailed the reason. The other possible reason they don't release the code to please the hard-core is that they are so few in number these days it isn't worth going to the trouble.

Nevertheless they promised civ 6 would be a mod haven so they knew it was important for the community. I also think, to some extend that they actually acknowledgeded the modding community's contribution to civ 4 and 5's success and lifetime.
Giving out source codes for games is not really a common practice for major players in the game industry. Too much money is probably involved but it's sad, when the publisher don't realize they are hurting their own game when trying to protect it.

On the theory that they aren't releasing the code because they will reuse it in civ7, that implies that they won't release the code for civ7 either, which could mean a whole generation of civ without source code. No wonder you got a chill up your spine. Same here. Let's hope you're wrong.

I doubt "reusing source code" is something they (firaxis) consider - it's more of a mess now: 5 year, 2 XP, 1 SP and other additions since release - unless they would like to refine this civ6 gameplay version as best but cheap as possible: though that would need the code to be released for the mod community - check my poll-thread in signature..

 

[universecreep]

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.

Yes!! If they could implement this feature (and fix diplomacy and the world congress) I would them put VI ahead of V. Adding in vassals like IV would be a nice treat as well.
Perhaps if they added in more powerful building upgrades that could only be built by large cities (e.g Research buildings/Factories that can be upgraded to produce +200% and perhaps have 400 hitpoints once a city hits 20 population or something like that). It would make having fewer cities more able to compete against wide empires. It would be a nice option to be able to play wide or tall.

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.

Interesting. I admit to having gotten into the habit of expand, expand, expand (which can be fun) and miss playing tall like in Civ V. I admit that it is possible but certainly the game seems to favor expansion overall. I was always surprised by this since it seemed to be Firaxis' desire to avoid Civ II city-spam playstyle since Civ III.

I myself would prefer some option to have a tall empire and wide empire be equally viable playstyles.

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.

CIv V had problems on release but it certainly wasn't unplayable.

It most certainly isn't a weak game. If V was so poor why did the Devs borrow so many elements from it when they made VI?

In my opinion, it is the second best in the series after Civ IV. VI is a close third.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

2) No danger to you, because AI is boring friendly pacifist, and war system makes it completely incompetent when jt isn't.

And just to accentuate your point, why is it that almost every other Civ iteration has an "aggressive AI" option, but not Civ 6? Heck, you can go 2 levels more aggressive in Civ 3.

 

[need my speed]

This is Civilization III. For one, look at the scale - see also the minimap in the bottom-left of the screen:

Can you even imagine this - a civilisation, an empire, not a city-state with a measly three cities - existing in Civilization V or Civilization VI?

You can see that I have conquered many civilisations; Egypt, the Aztecs, the Maya, Greece, France, the Netherlands, the Haudenosaunee, Sumeria (who in turn had conquered the Celts). But the AI is not passive here; the old world is about as advanced as I am, and used to be much more advanced. Sumeria conquered the Celts. Scandinavia declared war on me, and together with Portugal I managed to take Greenland from them (yes, indeed, two AIs and I actually fought on a fourth landmass). Persia declared war on me the previous turn, and already successfully took over a lightly defended island of mine. They also just landed a few Knights in my sole colony on Eurasia, just across Alaska. And, mind, the AI as a rule sucks at naval invasions. Should I take the fight to their homeland (I can't cross the ocean yet), I'd be faced with dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of strong units. While conquering North America, multiple AIs declared war on me, beginning all the way back in the early ancient age with the Aztecs, and multiple times I was genuinely threatened.

In fact, look at Europe:

The USA is apparently in a war against the Ottomans, judging by the city names. Persia is conquering a swathe of Portugal. The Hittites have fully exterminated Russia, probably in an alliance with Portugal. Maurya (in Australia) has exterminated Japan (used to also be in Australia). Can you imagine AIs doing that in Civilization VI? No.

There's no empire, no civilisation, both in scale and in what an AI can do. This is for a large part caused by one unit per tile, and will as such never be solved. Similarly, there's no immersion, no meaningful interaction with AIs, no personality - this is something that Civilization IV absolutely nailed. So, yeah, the Civilization franchise, for me, is 'doomed'. I'll stick with III and IV.

 

[TreVor_ish]

Yes, Civilization was always a synonym of a big scale game for me (grand strategy), but they really made it a cheap change in VI (past IV really, although YAMP really tries) .
I mean it feels like Firaxis could no longer deal with the problem of micromanaging, so made a game smaller it would not be such a pain in the ass. And with NFP it's like adding a bunch of new sudo mechanics (without fixing problems that exist since the beginning) that only make whole experience even more tedious. I don't get it - why change things no one asked (no more spying allies?!) and why don't fix things that are a real pain - there is a thread bout minor pet peeves with quite a list already...
I LOVE music in VI though...

 

[Krajzen]

This is Civilization III. For one, look at the scale - see also the minimap in the bottom-left of the screen:
View attachment 574645
Can you even imagine this - a civilisation, an empire, not a city-state with a measly three cities - existing in Civilization V or Civilization VI?

You can see that I have conquered many civilisations; Egypt, the Aztecs, the Maya, Greece, France, the Netherlands, the Haudenosaunee, Sumeria (who in turn had conquered the Celts). But the AI is not passive here; the old world is about as advanced as I am, and used to be much more advanced. Sumeria conquered the Celts. Scandinavia declared war on me, and together with Portugal I managed to take Greenland from them (yes, indeed, two AIs and I actually fought on a fourth landmass). Persia declared war on me the previous turn, and already successfully took over a lightly defended island of mine. They also just landed a few Knights in my sole colony on Eurasia, just across Alaska. And, mind, the AI as a rule sucks at naval invasions. Should I take the fight to their homeland (I can't cross the ocean yet), I'd be faced with dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of strong units. While conquering North America, multiple AIs declared war on me, beginning all the way back in the early ancient age with the Aztecs, and multiple times I was genuinely threatened.

In fact, look at Europe:
View attachment 574646
The USA is apparently in a war against the Ottomans, judging by the city names. Persia is conquering a swathe of Portugal. The Hittites have fully exterminated Russia, probably in an alliance with Portugal. Maurya (in Australia) has exterminated Japan (used to also be in Australia). Can you imagine AIs doing that in Civilization VI? No.

There's no empire, no civilisation, both in scale and in what an AI can do. This is for a large part caused by one unit per tile, and will as such never be solved. Similarly, there's no immersion, no meaningful interaction with AIs, no personality - this is something that Civilization IV absolutely nailed. So, yeah, the Civilization franchise, for me, is 'doomed'. I'll stick with III and IV.

I honestly wouldn't be capable of playing that game, too much micromanagement. Give me a dozen cities with the kind of micro choices civ6 forces upon me and I am already exhausted.