I think that when Civ VII comes out certain people are then going to look back fondly on Civ VI. As I've already seen happen with V when VI came out, etc.
For me personally? Civ V was my favorite game until VI came out. Now I can't return to it.
But then again I play only single-player, in pretty casual role-playing fashion. I've given up min maxing and just kind of do what I feel like. The game really is a blast played that way. But I could see how it wouldn't be considered as great for hardcore strategy fans.
Many pointed out that hate went wild with Civ V and not so much with Civ 6. Which is true from my remembrance. And rightly so to be honest! ;p
Civ6 has its issues and will continue to have them and some are a shame and should get still get addressed because they are major flaws and annoying as fu.. - hell!
Civ 6 could be so much more than it is. And if I start thinking about it there are loads of things. It's too easy. Standard speed is too fast. GUI issues if you're not using mods. Stupid AI trade behavior almost gamebreakingly in favor of the human player.......Pls, Firaxis, do something about it!!
It is a great game nevertheless and I will be playing it for many many more hours.
I don't hate Civ VI. I prefer IV and V, however. While Civ VI has a staggering array of subsystems and choices, I find that most of the choices available are busywork; they have little to no impact on the game. I think Civ VI has drifted from Sid Meier's "series of interesting decisions" philosophy to just a "series of decisions about optimizing something". With weak combat, trade and diplomatic AI combined with a weird and not fun World Council, most of the decisions you make don't help or hinder you enough to worry about.
I get bored with Civ VI; many times the game plays like an optimization exercise rather than civilization building.
It’s probably going a little far to say something like “omg civ6 worst game ever the graphics are not realistic and the AI is braindead uninstalling literally unplayable”
I think civ5 has better balance on certain things than civ6, but it too has some large failings. Namely science OP, tall OP, pikeman > swords, to list a few. I think civ6 is more fun though.
It could become twice the game with a solid, community balance patch.
Some criticisms are unjustified, most just need to be taken in context.
There's a recent thread about this, but complaints about the difficulty of the game, or lack thereof. There are some valid points about the AI, but at the same time, I recently asked for help getting 10 cities in 100 turns, but all the responses required (and assumed I'd use) rerolls to get an ideal start. If you need to stack the deck in your favour by rerolling, then the game isn't easy, you're just gaming the system aka cheating. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising those who reroll, if you find that makes the game more fun, then crack on, it's your game, but don't then complain that it's too easy.
People tend to exaggerate things to make something sound world ending, but in reality it's fairly minor. An example was with the run up to Gaul, some people were saying how their culture bomb was OP and would end up having a good portion of the map under one city, when even I, relatively new to Civ, knew that's not how it would work. Being a doomsday preacher is just more emotionally gratifying than cold, calm critique, so people prefer it.
People complain far more than they compliment. They might occasionally make a post about something they like, but most of the time they will rant about something that annoyes them. People are more likely to respond to and debate rants than praises. It's part of the ugly side of human nature than frustration and annoyance are more powerful motivations to action than appreciation and gratitude. It's easy to see why we evolved that way, but it leads to a very lopsided discussion forum, because people will complain far more about things than they will praise it, even thought they really enjoy it. When reading this forum, you need to keep this in mind. I might start a thread to get people to praise the game to slightly remedy this, actually...
Of course, there are always valid complaints. As the owner of the game on the Switch, bugs are my biggest bugbear. I haven't seen a properly rendered road or railway in months. As a counterpoint to help illustrate my previous point, how often do you here praises for the things that are properly rendered and look great?
Some criticisms are unjustified, most just need to be taken in context.
There's a recent thread about this, but complaints about the difficulty of the game, or lack thereof. There are some valid points about the AI, but at the same time, I recently asked for help getting 10 cities in 100 turns, but all the responses required (and assumed I'd use) rerolls to get an ideal start.
Well, in my opinion the only reason you won't get 10 cities in 100 turns is the case below:
1: You start on a separate continent separated by ocean, and your starting continent does not have enough space for 10 cities.
2: You don't have any neighbors to conquer.
If you don't have neighbor but have enough space, it is easy to expand once you get ancestral hall. Just chop new settlers on new cities and cycle the process. If you also get monumentality( which is almost ensured in T85-90) you can expand even further. With some good expansionist Civs you may get 20+ cities on T100.
If you have any neighbor, you may either use an archer rush or a horseman rush to defeat them, getting their cities. In fact T100 is a lot of time so Knight rush, Musket Rush or even Digger Rush may be achieveable.
Spoiler:
Unless 1 & 2 both satisfied, there's no way you don't get 10 cities before T100 I guess. You can get that in more than 95% cases without rerolls.
Sure if you start on a separated tundra island you cannot get that. But that's the only case.
Since 6 first released, I've kept track of all my games in an excel spreadsheet. Since I almost always play random, once I see who I'm playing as, I check to see how I have won with that Civ. Then try to win other ways. I find this a challenge. My last game, before a crash and corrupted file, I was trying a science victory with Chandragupta.
Civ 5 is much better than 6, that's a fact. Not even worth comparing. Look only at how civ 6 looks and the discussion is over. Every feature is broken. Nothing makes sense. Full with bugs. Braindead AI even more than in 5. I wouldn't pay even 1 dollar for civ 6 but I would pay a lot more for 5. Any there are many others like me. Let's face it, civ 6 is an objectively bad game in the series, probably better than civ 1 and civ 2.
Civ 5 is much better than 6, that's a fact. Not even worth comparing. Look only at how civ 6 looks and the discussion is over. Every feature is broken. Nothing makes sense. Full with bugs. Braindead AI even more than in 5. I wouldn't pay even 1 dollar for civ 6 but I would pay a lot more for 5. Any there are many others like me. Let's face it, civ 6 is an objectively bad game in the series, probably better than civ 1 and civ 2.
Civ 5 also has very serious trade bugs and you can easily grab millions of gold from Ais too. Only Civ 4 has a good, at least unbuggy design. Why don't they remake Civ4 with Civ6 artdefs?
Civ 5 is much better than 6, that's a fact. Not even worth comparing. Look only at how civ 6 looks and the discussion is over. Every feature is broken. Nothing makes sense. Full with bugs. Braindead AI even more than in 5. I wouldn't pay even 1 dollar for civ 6 but I would pay a lot more for 5. Any there are many others like me. Let's face it, civ 6 is an objectively bad game in the series, probably better than civ 1 and civ 2.
Wew Lad
That's a take hotter than molten steel. But the people have spoken:
Civilization V is a really good game!
But a lot of people seem to prefer playing Civ6. Every iteration gains some new things and loses some old things. Civ4->Civ5 lost a lot of the intricate specialist economy, corporations, and vassals, for example, which I greatly enjoyed, but that didn't make civ5 bad.
When civ6 was announced I didn't like the art style either, but given the game systems, I have come to appreciate it. The only thing I dislike is the sometimes inadequate distinction between grassland/plains flat tiles and hills.
Anyway the system is good, what it needs is some balance tweaks and bug fixes, also it shall open up the AI interface to attract better AIs. The system itself is not bad.
Civ 5 is much better than 6, that's a fact. Not even worth comparing. Look only at how civ 6 looks and the discussion is over. Every feature is broken. Nothing makes sense. Full with bugs. Braindead AI even more than in 5. I wouldn't pay even 1 dollar for civ 6 but I would pay a lot more for 5. Any there are many others like me. Let's face it, civ 6 is an objectively bad game in the series, probably better than civ 1 and civ 2.
Civ 5 is much better than 6, that's a fact. Not even worth comparing. Look only at how civ 6 looks and the discussion is over. Every feature is broken. Nothing makes sense. Full with bugs. Braindead AI even more than in 5. I wouldn't pay even 1 dollar for civ 6 but I would pay a lot more for 5. Any there are many others like me. Let's face it, civ 6 is an objectively bad game in the series, probably better than civ 1 and civ 2.
Melodramatic hyperbole isn't a great way to make your point, and a videogame shouldn't provoke such an emotional response. Your point is further invalidated by the admission in your own post that you have either never played the game (rendering your criticisms totally null) or that you in fact did pay more than one dollar for it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
