Not the same old game... worse

[Cornelius Scipio]

Someone started a thread complaining about the lack of innovation. I do not quite agree: there is little innovation, and what is new is mostly bad. I played all Civ titles, starting with the glorious Civilization I, passing through the beautiful and innovative Civ II, struggling with Civ III (which added a lot of things) and finally arriving at the peak: Civilization IV Beyond the Sword, a game which is simply perfect. Civilizazion V is something different, with real new gameplay, not so deep but it's fun.
Civilization VI... well ... is a waste of time and money. The new stuff introduces a level of micromanagement unbearable. It is like you not only have to be the ruler of an empire but also the mayor of a dozen cities, working on city planning (like in SimCity). Did we feel the needs for that? No.
The map with improvement and wonders and district is beautiful, I admit, but not that different and in the end difficult to read. The cartoons-like appearance of other leaders and their lack of animation and sound leaves me baffled. No one plays Civ for graphics but this is a step back.
I bought the game the second day that was out (the day before I was busy), and I regret it. Maybe in a year some expansion or mod would give Civ VI some appeal. For the time being I suggest to stick to Civ V (everything good is already there), or go back to Civ IV for a seriuos challenge.

 

[Shadeseraph]

To each his own. I quite like the inherent mechanics of the game, particularly the part about "designing" the empire and correctly allocating and growing cities like a well greased machine. The only issue is that right now is lacking in the "challenge" department, but it's loads of fun to make the best civ you can, and multiplayer is great if you want a challenge.

A lot of people adores Civ 4. I found it fairly tedious, though I quite liked a lot of its mechanics.

 

[Solaxe]

If you think that Civ 6 has no innovation then you're either blind or trolling

 

[Graethyenne]

Someone started a thread complaining about the lack of innovation. I do not quite agree: there is little innovation, and what is new is mostly bad. I played all Civ titles, starting with the glorious Civilization I, passing through the beautiful and innovative Civ II, struggling with Civ III (which added a lot of things) and finally arriving at the peak: Civilization IV Beyond the Sword, a game which is simply perfect. Civilizazion V is something different, with real new gameplay, not so deep but it's fun.
Civilization VI... well ... is a waste of time and money. The new stuff introduces a level of micromanagement unbearable. It is like you not only have to be the ruler of an empire but also the mayor of a dozen cities, working on city planning (like in SimCity). Did we feel the needs for that? No.
The map with improvement and wonders and district is beautiful, I admit, but not that different and in the end difficult to read. The cartoons-like appearance of other leaders and their lack of animation and sound leaves me baffled. No one plays Civ for graphics but this is a step back.
I bought the game the second day that was out (the day before I was busy), and I regret it. Maybe in a year some expansion or mod would give Civ VI some appeal. For the time being I suggest to stick to Civ V (everything good is already there), or go back to Civ IV for a seriuos challenge.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But that said I don't understand your criticisms. Good luck in the future.

 

[Victoria]

Its only micromanagement when you are not used to it, as you get used to it you see the nuances that make it challenging.

I still like CIV 5 BNW but get bored too quickly. I want variety, spice, challenge, frustration, even anger. Its all good. In my view better than winning again using the same old Civ with the same old strat.

 

[Nefelia]

and finally arriving at the peak: Civilization IV Beyond the Sword, a game which is simply perfect.

You've found perfection. Congrats.

In all seriousness, though, Civ IV + expansions was great. But so was Civ V + expansions. Civ VI might even qualify sans expansion if it can be patched up and polished enough. It will likely be even better with expansions.

Regardless, I hope you are simply trolling.

 

[vincentz]

I too was a civ I player, and have enjoyed every step up to civ IV. I really disliked civ V, and havent even thought about buying civ VI, since what (IMHO) Firaxis broke in V wasnt fixed in VI.
Sometimes however, I think that maybe we just got old. Same way my dad would say the music I listened to when I was young was noise, and his dad most likely said the same to him.
The world is changing. Do we like the change? Not always. Should we get angry at a company for trying to get a new customer base. One that isnt grey-haired.
People who were born after civ I came out could be 25 years old now. Maybe we just need to leave. Find ourselves another hobby.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Find ourselves another hobby.

Or another game developer *cough* Paradox *cough*.

 

[Cerilis]

tl;dr: you will never be satisfied unless the new game is a clone of civ4: bts with better graphics.

 

[JtW]

I am one of the detractors of Civ6 (I am appalled by the terrible AI and have all but stopped playing). But accusing this game of micromanagement strikes me as weird. Especially if Civ4 was the pinnacle for you. Civ4 had much more micromanagement than Civ6, IMO.

 

[Ryika]

Had perfection in Civ IV and still bought Civ V AND VI.
That's a pretty stupid waste of money. Silly person.

 

[Haggbart]

Another one felt like his/her complain was entitled a seperate thread? How original.

Yeah, little innovation. Just, you know, a whole new culture tree, government system, city districts with adjacency bonuses, eurekas and inspiration bonuses, great people mechanics, builders instead of workers, religious combat, new victory condition, new movement rules, support units, corps/armies, harvesting of resources, seperate leader/civ abilities, new city state mechanics, new natural wonder mechanics, new barbarian mechanics (scouts and different type of camps) housing and amenities, day/night cycle, much better strategic view and in general very different graphics.

So yeah, not very much is changed

 

[Cornelius Scipio]

Thanks all for the replies, except the ones who simply posted personal abuse (like "silly person"), but the good thing about democracy is that everybody is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and to the use of stupidity. That said, I have the impression that criticising Civ VI is considered high treason here. I do not want to go into every single aspect or debating endless, but I think that I have the right to express to my disappointment and to warn potential buyers. That's what forums are for.
By the way I never said that there was no innovation, the opposite. Of course some new features are cool (like civics policies), some are interesting but poorly implemented (support units), others really bad. Let me just mention one: eliminating road-building makes no sense. Where and how to construct roads was - and is -. part of the rulers decisions, in ancient Rome many important consuls designed and ordered the building of strategic roads, that even now have their names in Italy (Via Cassia, Via Aurelia, Via Appia, etc.). They were not built buy the casual trader passing by. And railways? The vanished from the game...bah.
Anyway my main point was - and is - that this new version introduces SimCity mechanics in a strategy game, in the building of an empire. That is not what I expected and what I paid for. Of course you may like it, so enjoy!
After all, as somebody pointed out, maybe I'm just too old.

 

[spfun]

I think the game is decent but feels unfinished like most civ games are at release so nothing new. I'm disliking some of the aesthetic choices for example, unit combat animations which i normally leave on but have turned off already as they're all pretty horrible. ( the change to 3-4 people instead of 20 odd makes for less death overall, and the overtop Hollywood stupidity of some of the animations is painful to watch, cartoony in nature. ) Also the leaderhead graphics were much better in Civ 5.

AI needs a ton of work and bugfixing/balancing etc... And many features are missing.

Incredible the amount of posters on the defense here, so much saltiness for no reason. Everyone is entitled to there opinion. Nothing is universally liked.

 

[Biz_]

Anyway my main point was - and is - that this new version introduces SimCity mechanics in a strategy game, in the building of an empire. That is not what I expected and what I paid for. Of course you may like it, so enjoy!

yeah. this is the basic problem
the team making this game doesn't understand strategy at all - only city builders

city builders get boring really fast once you figure out the layout puzzles.
strategy games don't because they're multiplayer instead of solitaire, and strategy was the reason why older civ games were good

 

[kaltorak]

I don't know what it is, but I am not enjoying the game as much. Civ is my favourite franchite of all times. And shortly after the release of civ6 I find myself playing other games. And I can't really say what it is. Only thing I can think of is that I really enjoyed land hunting. Racing for the good spots. Now, the more cities the better, so it really doesnt matter much if you find good land. Just place another city and that will surely benefit you.I prefer each city beeing precious.

Also, the new movement mechanics of units, while totally makes sense in theory, is so annoying. No, it's not just getting used to it. Civ5 introduced 1upt, and while total worth it, it made moving units pretty annoying late game. Like I said, still worth it. But taking another step into making moving units annoying... come on.

Oh yeah, now I remeber another think that contributes to me not enjoying the game.While eurekas and inspirations are nice in theory, I dont like the implementation. They should be much more rare. I don't plan my research anymore. I just get whatever tech I already have with completed bonus. The efficiency difference is too much. Eurekas should be much harder to get, so you can focus on one when you really want, not just play normal and get almost all eurekas by default, and just skip some techs if you dont have the eureka yet.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I love threads about one specific person's opinions.

Seriously though, since we're expressing our opinions here and I don't feel the need starting 101st thread on the matter, I'll express it here if you don't mind...

I started with II and I loved it. Couldn't get enough. Then I discovered III and loved it even more, again I couldn't get enough. I didn't own a pc back then so that maybe the reason for "not getting enough" thing. Had to play at my cousins or friends place. Then came IV and again I loved it. When I finally had my own pc, BTS was out for a while. I played to death that game. So much that by the time V was announced I was pretty tired of IV. So again I was so excited about V. Everything they told and showed about it felt so good. Damn I was naive, and why wouldn't I, considering I loved every single one so far. But it was horrible, absolutely horrible. It was a mess. An empty soulless mess. When I played it I felt empty inside, so empty and pointless the game was. By the time BNW came I had zero excitement about the game. Was too late for me. By that time I learned to play it out of habit, because I had to get my civ fix somewhere. But there was no joy. I simply accepted, learned to tolerate it.

VI is nowhere near close that disappointment that V was. My expectations were so low, I'm positively surprised. Is it what I'd consider good? Nah. It's decent. But I know it will be "good" after a few patches. Hopefully one big patch will be more or less enough. Then come mods and it might become "very good". And then with expansion maybe even "great".

I like the prospect of me not having to learn to like / tolerate it, but rather liking it for what it is.

 

[Menzies]

Someone started a thread complaining about the lack of innovation. I do not quite agree: there is little innovation, and what is new is mostly bad. I played all Civ titles, starting with the glorious Civilization I, passing through the beautiful and innovative Civ II, struggling with Civ III (which added a lot of things) and finally arriving at the peak: Civilization IV Beyond the Sword, a game which is simply perfect. Civilizazion V is something different, with real new gameplay, not so deep but it's fun.
Civilization VI... well ... is a waste of time and money. The new stuff introduces a level of micromanagement unbearable. It is like you not only have to be the ruler of an empire but also the mayor of a dozen cities, working on city planning (like in SimCity). Did we feel the needs for that? No.
The map with improvement and wonders and district is beautiful, I admit, but not that different and in the end difficult to read. The cartoons-like appearance of other leaders and their lack of animation and sound leaves me baffled. No one plays Civ for graphics but this is a step back.
I bought the game the second day that was out (the day before I was busy), and I regret it. Maybe in a year some expansion or mod would give Civ VI some appeal. For the time being I suggest to stick to Civ V (everything good is already there), or go back to Civ IV for a seriuos challenge.

When Beyond the Sword was released it was virtually unplayable. Civ games are rarely well balanced, and seldom even stable on release. This game is doing well for this time in the release cycle.

As for the rulers, they have sound and animation. The low graphics option for them is to just be an image to my understanding though.

 

[Ryika]

Thanks all for the replies, except the ones who simply posted personal abuse (like "silly person")

Well, if you think THAT is personal abuse then better pray to never meet me in my natural habitat.

but the good thing about democracy is that everybody is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and to the use of stupidity. That said, I have the impression that criticising Civ VI is considered high treason here. I do not want to go into every single aspect or debating endless, but I think that I have the right to express to my disappointment and to warn potential buyers. That's what forums are for.

No, debating about the flaws of Civ VI is not high treason, people do it a lot and there's a lot of righteous complaints that can be leveled against the game in its current form.

Your post however added nothing of value to the discussion, in summary it's basically "I don't like the game". A thread like we already have dozens of them, with no new perspectives, not even any explanations about what exactly you don't like about the things you criticize (aside from, ironically, the part about graphics that you yourself say is of relatively low importance), and the weird accusation of intense levels of micromanagement that I can't follow at all, and of course was not explained either. It was just another superficial "Let me be the next one in a line of people who just want to tell the world that they don't like the game!" as if that was of any importance to anyone but yourself.

 

[Erev]

I've been playing Civ since Civ2. Civ6 has been more stable at launch than any prior release (though I did come to 2 a bit later). I would also say that I currently find it more entertaining out of the box than prior editions. I do feel that there is a bit of a fork in the Civ series when it comes to the path taken for Civ 4 (which is beloved by many but which I loathed due to the sliders) and Civ 5 (which I feel was a good game but really only came into its own with the expansions). Civ6 has taken the Civ5 path and cleaned it up... with the exception of an awkward UI and an even more buggy than usual AI that is. Personally I'm quite enjoying Civ6 but I am dying for Firaxis to patch it. It will be a far better game with the diplomacy tweaked and the late game CTDs fixed.