(Poll) Is Civ6 currently in a more 'complete' state than Civ5 was at release?

[SuperJay]

Hey there CFCers, long time no see. I'm currently on the fence about buying Civ6 (yet) due to the lingering trauma of the Civ5 initial release, which many here may remember as a less-than-stellar experience.

So my question to those of you who are playing Civ6 now and who played Civ5 at release is just that. Is Civ6 feature-complete, for the most part? Do you feel like it's a more robust, balanced gameplay experience that rewards a variety of approaches and enables you to win games in different ways? Or are we back at a similar place to what we had in Civ5, with a fairly scarce feature-set or lacking content and systems that make for a fairly skeletal framework that's geared toward one particular victory condition?

Serious and genuine question here, looking for serious responses and not axes to grind. Detailed replies appreciated. Thanks!

 

[redwings1340]

I didn't play civ V at the initial release, but it does seem to be much better than V vanilla, with a lot of great systems. There's a lot of content in this game, it's pretty impressive.

It's not complete, though. Diplomacy and combat AI are still weird, the religion wars system feels like it could use more depth, balance isn't amazing (people are claiming that horse archer rushes are incredibly op), and a lot of setup features are missing (earth map, etc). It feels like they might have rushed it a couple months, but what they have to show so far is pretty impressive.

 

[MkLh]

It has more features and content, but it's as unfinished. Balance and UI are just as bad as they were in V. Balance may be even worse. IIRC when V was released, you needed to understand and use at least some game mechanics to beat Deity. Now any noob on tube beats deity by just playing aggressively.

 

[MistyRonin]

Simply put. Yes.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Definitely. While it needs some polishing and balancing, like any new strategy game, it boasts far more content than vanilla Civ5.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Really obviously yes. It has complex elements from both expansions for civ 5 on release. It isn't perfect, but it is far more a complete game. I think its a better game than civ 5 is right now, in fact.

Though I could have done without missionary spam carrying over.

 

[Ryika]

Both are true. Civ VI has all the features it needs, at the same time it repeats all the mistakes of Civ V - just with more features, and in a less severe manner.

- AI is very incompetent
- UI is very bad
- Lots of Options are missing
- Balance is all over the place
- Early game almost always ends in wars (though this may be intentional)
- Tons of bugs
- Missing Hotkeys for important actions
- etc. etc.

But even with all of these problems, I'm enjoying the game a lot. If they work on fixing stuff I see a bright future for the game, even without content-dlc.

 

[eMeM]

Obviously it's better.
But if you are considering buying the game I think the question should be not "is it better than Civ V at release", but "is it better than Civ V now", because the alternative to playing Civ VI is playing Civ V with all the stuff that's been added over the years.

 

[dexters]

I have some issues with the UI, if a unit's turn is done, it immediately cuts to the next unit making me move a unit someplace I didn't intended to.

The reasources section is somehow harder to read than in Civ5 and I have to dig deeper. I wish it's all on the top bar and I can however over them and know exactly how may spare luxuries/resources I have

Otherwise it's a vastly superior at release to Civ5 and less buggy than 4. Looking forward to the patches and balance items now for the next six months. I already envision this game ending up in a very good place after 2 expansions and DLCs are out.

 

[dexters]

Obviously it's better.
But if you are considering buying the game I think the question should be not "is it better than Civ V at release", but "is it better than Civ V now", because the alternative to playing Civ VI is playing Civ V with all the stuff that's been added over the years.

In a way it is. It has most of the BNW and GNK features but with a twist. It's not 'better' but a different experience that builds on what we've seen. I don't feel like i'm playing a stripped down game.
Trade routes, religion, City State diplomacy, Ideologies, tourism, great works are all in.

 

[SuperJay]

Obviously it's better.
But if you are considering buying the game I think the question should be not "is it better than Civ V at release", but "is it better than Civ V now", because the alternative to playing Civ VI is playing Civ V with all the stuff that's been added over the years.

Nah, I really did mean to pose the question as I asked it. I don't expect any brand-new release to be more stable or more robust than an application that's had years of patching and large updates. I don't mind getting a game that still needs some minor balancing and polish, but I don't want to repeat the disappointment that was Civ5's release.

 

[wiggawuu]

The worst part of about the game is its still civ 5. But, to 80% of people out there, that's a positive.

Ive only been able to play 4-5 hours

 

[Usama84]

I didn't like 5 at release, but I am willing to give 6 a chance although it is closer to 5 than the older ones... I have played 5 hours so far, its pretty fun, but seems a bit easy (at prince), but whatever, i used to get annoyed at how aggressive the AI was before. Now I have time to build the pyramids and trade routes.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Nah, I really did mean to pose the question as I asked it. I don't expect any brand-new release to be more stable or more robust than an application that's had years of patching and large updates. .

Truthfully, I think it is. There are some summary screens that are MIA and UI issues that need adjusting, but in terms of mechanics, I'm missing nothing from 5 or its expansions.
Haven't had any stability problems, and I fiddled with the useroptions to get rid of the stupid autocycle, so game is good to go.

 

[dexters]

Certainly the most technically capable and complete version. As +2 days after launch.

No major massive crash bugs or failures found yet.

 

[Perl]

My thoughts on the game are that for each thing it gets wrong it gets two things right. Diplomacy seems a little bit limited, but the actual diplomatic interaction is absolutely excellent. I get declared war on, and I can get them begging for mercy by actual tactical victories rather than being forced to have simply a larger army, and whenever they sue for peace in a war they are losing they actually offer a good chunk of stuff. Their trade deals are also fair and reasonable, and it seems the AI is actively playing with the player rather than against. The diplomacy is a big deal for me because I think diplomacy makes or breaks a 4x game, and Firaxis got the actual AI for diplomacy down, just as long as they don't break it.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

It's night and day compared to Civ V at release. Much better game. There are plenty of kinks to be worked out, sure (the UI in particular is surprisingly bad), but it's way, way better than vanilla Civ V was.

I've had one crash in about 12 hours of play so far.

 

[LDiCesare]

It's got more features, but it's also got no AI worth talking about (as in advantages of 12 vs 1 and unable to take a city, will just sign peace, civs denouncing dead civs, civs declaring war on you wihtout having met you, inablity to cross water once again).

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Just my two cents. Civ IV has always been the best Civ type of game to me. I think Civ V was a dumb down version but it was a huge upgrade aesthetically compared to any other Civ game. Yes Civ V was a mess and MP really never was right but I had my share of epic 6 player FFA games and 1v1 MP games and even 4 player FFA games that I enjoyed. Civ V SP had a good run with Deity and Immortal Challenges and GOTM and HOF ran smooth as well. I am having a hard time enjoying Civ VI because of its less realistic approach and the UI along with the Fog is a pain for me. I really dislike how the borders look for my cities compared to any other Civ version. I find the AI easy to roll on Immortal and I played a Deity duel and a 4 player Deity game that I found it easy to rush units and sell them and exploit rush buying. I haven't played a stand/stand Deity game just yet because I really don't enjoy any of the graphics. The game play as far as choices are better than Civ V meaning that I feel it is a more complex game but since I warmonger most of the time anyway I find it pretty easy to take over the world. Of course this is only about 20 hours in so I can't give a solid decision yet but I find myself disgusted with the animation and fog of war so much that I am going to have to rely on the community to keep me interested in the way of comparing maps/games and I haven't found any good public MP games yet and I don't feel just ready for MP. I have tried to connect a few games but they all ended in DCs before turn 5. Time will tell. I know when the Elite players start posting LPs and listing B.O.s and strategies I think it will be more interesting for me. However it is going to be hard for me to get into this type of interface and the look of this version of Civ which doesn't feel like Civ to me for some reason. It could be just that I need time to adjust to this version. It took me awhile to enjoy Civ Rev when I would play it on the PS3.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

I don't think there's really a question about whether or not this is a more complete game than 5 was at launch. Even with all of the expansions, 5 still didn't feel as good as this does now. It's all of the small things that make this feel better. The eurekas, the city management (all of it actually makes sense this time!), religion, culture, great people popping... it's fantastic.

I have not tried spies yet, so I'm not sure about that system. Culture victories are neat now, and religious victories are a challenge.