Looks like Civ 6 is done: Kevin called April "final game update"

[oSiyeza]

that's like your opinion man. There is a lot of people who feel satisfied with the game... even with all the faults. It is worth the money and DEFINITELY feel finished.

Of course it is my opinion, that is why I’m here to share it. And I don’t think I’m the only one who sees the problems of the game. From an unfinished World Builder, to a AI incapable of playing domination, to a terrible WC and Religious game, to a repetitive tech progression driven by bonus, to a shallow design built on the only principle of piling number modifiers, to game modes the AI simply cannot play.

Though I give you that pointless game systems do not make a game unfinished. I certainly would never say that what it is primarily a competitive single player game is finished, if only the human player can compete in some of the game modes and victory conditions.

But, of course if your opinion is that 6 is one of the best games of the franchise, you are entitled to it as well.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Honestly that's a plus to me considering I liked Rise of Skywalker more than The Last Jedi. I guess The Last Jedi was Civ 5?

Imo Last Jedi was the only film in the trilogy with any balls and soul.

I think comparing Civ to Star Wars makes for a poor analogy. Civ VI clearly had an identity, even if it had to sacrifice it here and there for fanservice. The JJ Abrams trilogy, at least while it was in his control, was only ever a hasty chase scene through underdeveloped worlds and characters, constantly moving down the checklist of nostalgia bait to hide the fact that he introduced nothing new to the franchise. Civ VI largely marched to the beat of its own drum and only gave into nostalgia bait for NFP.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

To be fair Civ V was in my opinion no masterpiece either. I would even say thar there is a terrific game if you take the best parts and ideas of 5 and 6 use them as the foundation for a game.

This game is in a very strange spot, after 5 years of dev cycle, 2 expansions, 20ish DLCs, and around 120$ of product. It feels like it overplayed its hand releasing content (which may or may not be worth the cost), and unfinished at the same time.

And look it is clear to me that some parts of the game work wonderderfully and are very funny, and at the same time no one would argue that some other parts are terrible and play like a chore. And more importantly, is not the best of the franchise at anything (except arguably citybuilding... with a dozen caveats). So no I dont think 6 is the cornerstone of the franchise, as many think it is, not by a long shot.

Previous games had faults too though, we just tend to gloss them over a bit more than with The New. Even the mighty SMAC had some not-so-good things about it. I don't think about that though--I think about the good and fun stuff. I imagine the same thing will happen as VI recedes into the rearview.

(Say what you want about the new star wars-the prequels were magnitudes worse. People who grew up with them have this delusion they were good, heh)

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Of course it is my opinion, that is why I’m here to share it. And I don’t think I’m the only one who sees the problems of the game. From an unfinished World Builder, to a AI incapable of playing domination, to a terrible WC and Religious game, to a repetitive tech progression driven by bonus, to a shallow design built on the only principle of piling number modifiers, to game modes the AI simply cannot play.

What SammyKhalifa said. it isn't like every other game hasn't got a fault. You may not like civ 6 I am not here to argue it BUT am arguing that civ 6 will be forgotten... it WON'T.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely some things I'd like to see tightened up. There are still plenty of superfluous mechanics that are either not needed or need better tied to each other. More isn't always better (and 6 certainly has more going on than any other civ). Still as a whole I'd say it's just as good and fun as the older ones.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Still as a whole I'd say it's just as grand fun as the older ones.

exactly what I mean. Civ 6 is flawed... BUT I don't think it will be forgotten any time soon. Maybe by the time of civ 10.

 

[oSiyeza]

exactly what I mean. Civ 6 is flawed... BUT I don't think it will be forgotten any time soon. Maybe by the time of civ 10.

But... we should all hope it will, dont we?. I certainly hope a new Civilization game will come that puts 6 into shame, improving on every aspect of it. And I dont think is such a difficult task, but more importantly, I think is a feeling we all should agree upon.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

But... we should all hope it will, dont we?.

Why should we hope that?

. I certainly hope a new Civilization game will come that puts 6 into shame, improving on every aspect of it.

Improving =/=letting past things forgotten. Look at civ 4 VS civ 5... there are certain things civ 5 did better than civ 4 and yet civ 4 did not get forgotten and some people still think civ 4 is the golden age for civ franchise. And look at civ 5 VS civ 6. There are certain things civ 6 did better than civ 5 ( like returing of government, policy cards and natural disasters ect) and civ 5 did not get forgotten.
When civ 7 comes out, people WILL complain that it isn't good as civ 6 and that civ 6 was better than civ 7.

 

[Peserwin]

Why should we hope that?

Improving =/=letting past things forgotten. Look at civ 4 VS civ 5... there are certain things civ 5 did better than civ 4 and yet civ 4 did not get forgotten and some people still think civ 4 is the golden age for civ franchise. And look at civ 5 VS civ 6. There are certain things civ 6 did better than civ 5 ( like returing of government, policy cards and natural disasters ect) and civ 5 did not get forgotten.
When civ 7 comes out, people WILL complain that it isn't good as civ 6 and that civ 6 was better than civ 7.

Let us hope this won't be the case because civ6 has already hit rock bottom in by opinion. The game is half baked, not a single gamemode is working properly and the AI can't even handle the base game. Sure, FX made good money out of this, but I don't think I'll return for civ 7

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Let us hope this won't be the case because civ6 has already hit rock bottom in by opinion.

nah, it isn't best but it is not worst by a wide margin. People WILL always complain the present ones aren't good as past one. It happened when civ 5 was released and it happened with civ 6. It is a pattern.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Agree, civ IV and and civ III the ai was far more dangerous threat but it have alot to do with the simplicity of these games, especially the lack of one unit per tile, however that don't necessarily make them more fun.

Civ III have extreme expansion competition in the early game and everything not about expansion, like building wonders or infrastructure will likely put you behind. The rest of the game is basically tech trading simulation, trying to get the techs you need in order to conquer the other players. Very lacking in things like terrain improvements, basically just mine, irrigation and roads/railroads. Also have tons of management if you don't want to waste resources.

Civ IV, less focus on expansion but generally still a tech trading simulator with similar goal to reach key techs and units to expand with. Have many quality of life improvements over Civ III and more variety but feels a bit slower, less competitive and have some flaws like religious blocks.

 

[Kwami]

Let us hope this won't be the case because civ6 has already hit rock bottom in by opinion. The game is half baked, not a single gamemode is working properly and the AI can't even handle the base game. Sure, FX made good money out of this, but I don't think I'll return for civ 7

OK. You're almost certainly in the minority, though. Most of us are quite happy with VI overall, even if it has some flaws. I would expect VII to keep a lot of the basic features (hex grid, 1UPT, districts).

 

[pokiehl]

Let us hope this won't be the case because civ6 has already hit rock bottom in by opinion. The game is half baked, not a single gamemode is working properly and the AI can't even handle the base game. Sure, FX made good money out of this, but I don't think I'll return for civ 7

Unfortunate for you that you feel that way. I think Civ 6 is certainly flawed but is still wonderful and I hope they take the lessons from it to make 7 even better. Even if you don’t return for 7 (and let’s not kid ourselves - you will along with 99% of the other people who complain about the game here), they’ve expanded their player base so much that it’ll more than make up for it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Unfortunate for you that you feel that way. I think Civ 6 is certainly flawed but is still wonderful and I hope they take the lessons from it to make 7 even better. Even if you don’t return for 7 (and let’s not kid ourselves - you will along with 99% of the other people who complain about the game here), they’ve expanded their player base so much that it’ll more than make up for it.

Related to the original topic here, the question is whether the company would make more money selling civ 7 or more civ 6 at this point. Extending 6 would probably have less overhead, but at the same time I don't know how many new buyers they're going to entice by adding Morocco or whatever.

 

[Vizurok]

Related to the original topic here, the question is whether the company would make more money selling civ 7 or more civ 6 at this point. Extending 6 would probably have less overhead, but at the same time I don't know how many new buyers they're going to entice by adding Morocco or whatever.

Yeah, I think that everyone can agree that adding Morocco and a werewolf mode will not likely attract new buyers. But here's a million dollar question: would Civ 7 have that big of a traction? I can even simplify: does anyone feel like that we even need a Civ7 right now? (Okay, the right now is more likely more than 2 years, but the point stands.) Here we are, with a more-or-less complete civilization game that has an abundance of features (and some nagging problems, but it almost seems like to me that people have very different viewpoints on the nature of the actual problems) and a somewhat timeless graphic design.

Are people that enthusiastic to jump back into (and pay for) a 18-civ beta-like gameplay experience that will likely miss a whole lot of features that we currently take for granted? I think that in order to truly gain traction, Civ 7 would need to be a groundbreakingly amazing gaming experience, and if we're honest, that's not the thing we can expect from a vanilla Civ game release.

Personally, I feel that we are approaching a point-of-no-return in gaming that makes game sequels somewhat redundant. There are great examples from a wide variety of genres, like WoW, EU4 or even to some extent, FIFA - these games seem to have reached their final form and as long as player engagement is maintained with regular updates, publishers are likely to skip the overhead of developing a brand new game and will rather stay with their reliable cash-cows. I believe that Civ6 is very close to this status, and if the developers find a way to keep coming up with new content (if EU4 can do it, I'm sure that Civ can), I really don't see the incentive for switching to the next title in the foreseeable future.

 

[Kwami]

Personally, I feel that we are approaching a point-of-no-return in gaming that makes game sequels somewhat redundant. There are great examples from a wide variety of genres, like WoW, EU4 or even to some extent, FIFA - these games seem to have reached their final form and as long as player engagement is maintained with regular updates, publishers are likely to skip the overhead of developing a brand new game and will rather stay with their reliable cash-cows. I believe that Civ6 is very close to this status, and if the developers find a way to keep coming up with new content (if EU4 can do it, I'm sure that Civ can), I really don't see the incentive for switching to the next title in the foreseeable future.

And yet we still got CK3 because the developers ran into limitations with CK2 and wanted a fresh start. We'll get EU5, too, for similar reasons. And that's why we'll get Civ VII.

It's not all gloomy, though. While Civ V was pretty bare bones, Civ VI was actually quite rich in features on release. And it was pretty damn stable for a new game, too. I would imagine that VII will be more like VI than V in that regard.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

It's not all gloomy, though. While Civ V was pretty bare bones, Civ VI was actually quite rich in features on release. And it was pretty damn stable for a new game, too. I would imagine that VII will be more like VI than V in that regard.

There was a point when Civ V didn't have Religions or Trade Routes, so I will certainly agree with you there.

 

[pokiehl]

And yet we still got CK3 because the developers ran into limitations with CK2 and wanted a fresh start. We'll get EU5, too, for similar reasons. And that's why we'll get Civ VII.

It's not all gloomy, though. While Civ V was pretty bare bones, Civ VI was actually quite rich in features on release. And it was pretty damn stable for a new game, too. I would imagine that VII will be more like VI than V in that regard.

CK3 is a great example. It had a lot going against it in that CK2 is packed to the gills with features, but it managed to do extremely well on release because it was also feature rich but also truly improved the visual experience of CK2. I think they went into the development of CK3 knowing that the typical model of barebones release wouldn’t work in today’s climate and I’m sure Firaxis knows that as well. The appetite for it is so low among gamers.

I’m hopeful that Firaxis sees that clearly and will deliver a complete-feeling Civ 7 at release.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

There was a point when Civ V didn't have Religions or Trade Routes, so I will certainly agree with you there.

Yeah a lot of the ill will towards Civ 5 was because the original release was so crappy. People declared it the "Death of the Series" lol. It became pretty good by the end though so a lot of that's forgotten.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yeah a lot of the ill will towards Civ 5 was because the original release was so crappy. People declared it the "Death of the Series" lol. It became pretty good by the end though so a lot of that's forgotten.

Hmmm... Am I sensing a pattern here?