[NFP] Is Civ 6 doomed?

[TomMcV]

Hi all - just my 2 cents.

I hated civ 6 with an absolute passion on release. Every time I have returned to it (note, I did not buy the DLC) I thought that maybe I judged the game too harshly, and then, within the hour or so, I realised that no, the game is just crap.

The mechanics seem to have been thrown together 5 minutes before coding started. Nothing seems balanced. It takes 6-9 turns for a decent productive city to build a new unit, in the industrial era, so quite how you could ever have a Great War style situation is beyond me (remember late game Civ 2 with hordes of howitzers, tanks and fanatics creating the apocalyptic end-game war?). The DLC civs seem designed to "pay us to play with an overpowered ability". Fundamental historical concepts don't exist. The AI. A mid-to-end game that is tedious.

Civ 6 seemed like the first Civ game created not by a designer with a specific vision, but by a committee led by audience focus groups, all under the important goal of "increasing accessibility" (i.e., and this will upset some people, but 'make the game playable by stupider people').

"Chess is great, but it doesn't have a big enough market share!" "Well audience research tells us that the way the Knight moves throws off many people" "Then lets Chess 2: now without Knights, but with more colours!"

The reason I love(d) Civs 2-5 is that they let me play a game that tried to simulate the breadth of human history. It was never a true simulation. But it was an incredible attempt at a gamification of a simulation, if that makes sense. Human civilization was transformed by Iron Working, so Iron Working was in the game. Oceanic navigation! Gunpowder! Railroads!

Civ 6 seemed to abandon this. It was no longer a game about recreating human civilization. It was a game about having high numbers on hexes. "Yield porn". It was about making decisions in the first few turns about how your civ would look 200 turns later to maximise tile yields. "I could found my city here, but if I put it there, then my industrial district could go there, then my university district there, WHY THE HELL DO I NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THIS AS A TRIBE WITH A BARE UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURE!"

(I think districts were ultimately a bad idea, though an idea worth exploring).

I think Civ 6 gave the audience exactly what they responded well to ("Petra yields are so awesome!" "Let's make the game all about that!").

And I think Civ 6 is yet more proof that the audience (kids!) does not know how to make a good game!

Civ 4 was like the Godfather.

Civ 6 is like Fast and Furious whatever.


And I am sure the Fast and Furious series has made more money than the Godfather series. So well done Firaxis. But without a complete change in their design direction Civ is dead to me (speaking as someone with maybe 10,000 hours across all the games...) and I absolutely do not trust Firaxis to make good games anymore.

P.S. Firaxis, you should sell the Civ rights to someone who cares, and just get into mobile gaming, I think is more your scene.

 

[Binkov]

Districts are a great idea. What's bad is the implementation, where there are bonuses and where there's a whole mini-game of micromanaging and planning placement a thousand years into the future. I think the fact that planning due to small cities being unable to house many different districts would have been enough.

And at the same time they left out some great potential for the districts:
if a district is lost, some population is lost.
Units get defensive bonuses when in districts.

 

[ezzlar]

The difference between what a skilled human yield maximizer can achieve and what the AI can achieve on average IS TOO D*MN HIGH! And all that the expansions and DLC have provided are even higher yield maximizing Civs and mechanics which the AI can not handle.

And now they leave the game at that (probably). My support for Civ 7 will consider this unfortunate turn of events

 

[Sherlock]

I think CiVI would be a better game without districts.

 

[Timewarp]

I don't think it is "doomed". But I think that coming out of Civ V, there was a lot of excitement for where Civ was going next. That is all gone.

I think the best that can happen for Civ VII is to take all the wonderful ideas and concepts except for zombies that are in Civ VI, and make them work together. Make the AI work a LOT better. I know that's expensive, but in Civ VII the only question a lot of people will have is: has the AI been improved.

Finally, the idea that districts have to be placed properly in 3300BC because in 800AD we'll need a Campus with this adjacency from the building squares, and that the best way to deal with districts is to place them as soon as they are available even though they won't actually be built for a long time, is a fatal flaw that changes the game too much from "simulating history" to "playing computer mechanics".

imho, Civ VI most definitely did NOT live up to its expectations.

I forgot to mention - the victory conditions are a big weak point in the game.

 

[Bactrian]

The reason I love(d) Civs 2-5 is that they let me play a game that tried to simulate the breadth of human history. It was never a true simulation. But it was an incredible attempt at a gamification of a simulation, if that makes sense. Human civilization was transformed by Iron Working, so Iron Working was in the game. Oceanic navigation! Gunpowder! Railroads!

Civ 6 seemed to abandon this. It was no longer a game about recreating human civilization. It was a game about having high numbers on hexes. "Yield porn". It was about making decisions in the first few turns about how your civ would look 200 turns later to maximise tile yields.

I agree with this. Civ6 definitely feels more like a board game to me than a "gamification of simulation," and in my opinion the series is worse off for it. I like board games, but if I want to play a board game then I will play a board game. I would much rather Civ lean into its simulation-y potential. The ability to do that should be seen as a strength in my opinion, not something to be abstracted away.

If I were to put this into the context of board games, I'd rather Civ play more like Twilight Struggle (my favorite) than a highly abstracted Euro-style board game (and I like many of those). People sometimes complain about how the randomness of the card draw or the coup rolls (for those who know the game) can swing Twilight Struggle, but that's exactly what I like. For me, fighting the Cold War or guiding a civilization from the stone age to the space age should feel more like managing chaos than an opportunity to min-max. Right now the Civ series is trending in the opposite direction.

 

[Sherlock]

I don't think it is "doomed". But I think that coming out of Civ V, there was a lot of excitement for where Civ was going next. That is all gone.

I think the best that can happen for Civ VII is to take all the wonderful ideas and concepts except for zombies that are in Civ VI, and make them work together. Make the AI work a LOT better. I know that's expensive, but in Civ VII the only question a lot of people will have is: has the AI been improved.

Finally, the idea that districts have to be placed properly in 3300BC because in 800AD we'll need a Campus with this adjacency from the building squares, and that the best way to deal with districts is to place them as soon as they are available even though they won't actually be built for a long time, is a fatal flaw that changes the game too much from "simulating history" to "playing computer mechanics".

imho, Civ VI most definitely did NOT live up to its expectations.

I forgot to mention - the victory conditions are a big weak point in the game.

Love the part about 'best way to deal with district is a FATAL FLAW'. Yup. It kills the game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Love the part about 'best way to deal with district is a FATAL FLAW'. Yup. It kills the game.

It absolutly kills even the pretense of immersion or flavour and reminds you that not only is this a game, but it’s a port of a boardgame

 

[kaspergm]

I don't think that districts were an inherently bad idea, but like I have discussed at length elsewhere, I do agree that the adjacency meta fills too much in the game, both in terms of the impact those "free" yield has on your progress (which can be game deciding), but also in terms of the extent your empire decision making will be based upon district placing options, as mentioned above. As has also been discussed a lot in the thread about major flaws of civ 6, I do believe that if population had a much bigger role in deciding your yields, many of the problems mentioned on this page of this thread would be minimized.

Oh, and about the boardgame-ification of the game, imo. the policy cards are the major culprit here. I hate those with a vengeance.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Hi all - just my 2 cents.

...

Civ 4 was like the Godfather.

Civ 6 is like Fast and Furious whatever.

...

More like Civ 6 is like Godfather Part 3. Yes it's doomed especially now that it just crashed every two seconds. Looking forward to August and HumanKind launch.

 

[Abaxial]

Looking forward to August and HumanKind launch.

You only need to wait until June and you can have Old World, by none other than Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ 4). All this talk about "Will Humankind kill Civ?" is taking your eye off the ball. Old World may be more likely to fill that role.

From what I hear, Humankind is going to have enough exploits to keep Spiffing Brit in videos for a long while.

 

[Socrates99]

It'll be nice to have good competition. Maybe that'll give them impetus to tighten up their design for VII. I hope they introduce some good mechanics Civ can take as inspiration. Somehow I don't see Humankind scratching the same itch as civ though. Playing an amalgamation of civs will likely have us talking about builds rather than specific civs. I'm just worried it will often lead to the same choices and grow stale. I hope not.

But doomed? I kind of lol at that. Most games that are too easy lose people's interest quickly. I know I generally move on once I've mastered a game. For some reason even many of the biggest complainers will win on deity over and over. Those same complainers will continue to come to this forum to talk about their current game which happens to be their umpteenth deity win. Weird for a game that's "doomed."

There's a lot I'd like to see improved but the hyperbolic whining or entitlement can be super cringey.

 

[pokiehl]

You only need to wait until June and you can have Old World, by none other than Soren Johnson (lead designer of Civ 4). All this talk about "Will Humankind kill Civ?" is taking your eye off the ball. Old World may be more likely to fill that role.

From what I hear, Humankind is going to have enough exploits to keep Spiffing Brit in videos for a long while.

Old World has been available for quite a while already. Have you played it? It’s fun but it’s certainly no Civ.

For one thing it’s limited to one era only. For another thing its graphics are really really bad. I liked the gameplay but the game is an eyesore. I hope they keep improving it.

It'll be nice to have good competition. Maybe that'll give them impetus to tighten up their design for VII. I hope they introduce some good mechanics Civ can take as inspiration. Somehow I don't see Humankind scratching the same itch as civ though. Playing an amalgamation of civs will likely have us talking about builds rather than specific civs. I'm just worried it will often lead to the same choices and grow stale. I hope not.

But doomed? I kind of lol at that. Most games that are too easy lose people's interest quickly. I know I generally move on once I've mastered a game. For some reason even many of the biggest complainers will win on deity over and over. Those same complainers will continue to come to this forum to talk about their current game which happens to be their umpteenth deity win. Weird for a game that's "doomed."

There's a lot I'd like to see improved but the hyperbolic whining or entitlement can be super
cringey.

yep. This is the forum where people with 2000+ hours in the game, and people who spend their free time making mods for the game on top of that, come here to remind everyone that it’s “doomed” and that it sucks constantly and even though they have 30000 hours across the entire series and play Civ 6 every day, it’s awful and they’re DEFINITELY not buying Civ 7, no siree bob!

Side note: the premise that a game is finally “doomed” after 5 successful years and more sales than any other game in the series is pretty funny.

 

[Killer Rabbit]

yep. This is the forum where people with 2000+ hours in the game, and people who spend their free time making mods for the game on top of that, come here to remind everyone that it’s “doomed” and that it sucks constantly and even though they have 30000 hours across the entire series and play Civ 6 every day, it’s awful and they’re DEFINITELY not buying Civ 7, no siree bob!

Side note: the premise that a game is finally “doomed” after 5 successful years and more sales than any other game in the series is pretty funny.

Truth. Sometimes the negativity around here can be so tiring.

 

[Archon_Wing]

For some reason even many of the biggest complainers will win on deity over and over. Those same complainers will continue to come to this forum to talk about their current game which happens to be their umpteenth deity win. Weird for a game that's "doomed."

Well, that's not completely true. Some complainers are actually pretty bad at the game and refuse to change anything because it wouldn't be fun. (Which is understandable to a degree, but sometimes you have to concede elsewhere. However if you've already made up your mind, don't waste my time if you weren't even willing to listen) It's almost impossible to refute the points because I have to pretty much say "everything you said is wrong" and I rarely do that because that doesn't lead to much of anything.

I'm not talking about different opinions, but things that are factually wrong (like unit stats) and sometimes completely made up. (The AI is going for me!!)

Although I suppose a fair point is that they're still winning because they don't need to learn to play it.

 

[Socrates99]

Well, that's not completely true. Some complainers are actually pretty bad at the game and refuse to change anything because it wouldn't be fun. (Which is understandable to a degree, but sometimes you have to concede elsewhere. However if you've already made up your mind, don't waste my time if you weren't even willing to listen) It's almost impossible to refute the points because I have to pretty much say "everything you said is wrong" and I rarely do that because that doesn't lead to much of anything.

I'm not talking about different opinions, but things that are factually wrong (like unit stats) and sometimes completely made up. (The AI is going for me!!)

Although I suppose a fair point is that they're still winning because they don't need to learn to play it.

Are those the ones here being all doom and gloom though?

You've got to be talking about that goofy accidental diplo thread right? That one makes my brain break. I've won culture on accident when I've been going for dom but you have to actively pursue diplo.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I don't want to list specifics lol but that's just a mild one and it's been a consistent issue.

I really don't mind complaining. I do it a lot myself. What I don't like is boring and repetitive complaints because... it's boring lol. There's a difference between making fun of Firaxis for designing Georgia, and then there's discussions about how one is not buying civ 7 every day because of some pet issue. And even worse if it's just based on user error.


I have my own biases though lol. I am one of those people that thought 5 was a mistake so I am glad 6 was not like its predecessors. I do grudgingly accept 1upt as a part of life. Maybe those people will find a good game with 7... who knows.

Now, to be fair I probably won't buy Vanilla 7 either. (I didn't buy NFP until a few months ago)

 

[jasper]

Listen to these overly dramatic naysayers.

Theres things wrong with the game but lol not as bad as people here are trying to claim. Doomed? Wow.

So many fun additions like governors, districts, 1 upt, religion, information and aethetics visible from the world map.

It wasnt enough like civ 5. Thats ok. Games can be their own. The day civ 7 is an fps saving the world from nazis/aliens then we have a problem.

Maybe blizzard will remake civ5 for you guys. Until then, smooches, enjoy civ6 lol.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Districts in Civ VI were done wrong. HumanKind has a much better model for districts which makes sense since Amplitude invented the idea with EL.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

yep. This is the forum where people with 2000+ hours in the game, and people who spend their free time making mods for the game on top of that, come here to remind everyone that it’s “doomed” and that it sucks constantly and even though they have 30000 hours across the entire series and play Civ 6 every day, it’s awful and they’re DEFINITELY not buying Civ 7, no siree bob!

One of the video titles the A.I. made in this video perfectly describes, IMO, what you're saying.

"How Bethesda Broke Me, And Here's Why I'll Keep Buying Their Games Anyway."