Returning to CIV VI after two year hiatus... my thoughts.

[El Caballerion]

I remember the day I got CIV III, my first ever foray into the CIV series. I loved its graphics, even though it felt a little too sterile at times. Then came along CIV IV, one of the best games I ever played, and one which set me down a course to become obsessed with history. When CIV V came out, there was a lot to be desired, but after two wonderful expansions, we were left with an amazing product (with still questionable AI), one that I sunk over a thousand hours into over the years.

Obviously, I was eagerly anticipating CIV VI, even though the graphic style set forth a very clear message: simple art style = simple gameplay mechanics. When I did get CIV VI, I was utterly disappointed at what seemed like a tremendous lack of detail. All game systems seemed either equal to those found in CIV V, or dumbed-down versions. I uninstalled after 3 months and vowed never to play until some expansions brought much needed improvements.

Hence, I decided to return to the game when Gathering Storm came out (as well as getting RISE AND FALL), and now that I've given it some time, I can clearly say that CIV VI is a decent game, but it's clearly not the game for me.

First, are the overwhelmingly generic civs. In CIV V, each civ had one bonus which really set them apart from the others. I'm generally a peaceful-build-wonders kind of guy, so Egypt was my go-to civ. Sometimes, after getting bored of this style, I would want to warmonger, but not fall behind in techs, so I would choose Assyria. Sometimes I wanted a vast empire, and would play as Rome for their building buffs, or I would choose Venice to really focus on one megacity. In CIV VI, none of the civs really feel that unique or revolutionary to me. Their perks don't really lend themselves to any revolutionary gameplay. Yes, I admit that not every civ in CIV V felt unique (cough, cough, America), but most of them did, in my opinion.

Second, the terrible art style. Nothing is more immersion breaking to me, than seeing these comical units in CIV VI that resemble the CLASH OF CLANS series. CIV V, especially with the RED MODPACK (with Ethnically Diverse Units) really made me feel like I WAS controlling the country I chose to play with. I loved marching up and down deserts with Egyptian warriors, but in CIV VI, even with mods, all the units look the freaking same. The overly-saturated hexes just hammer home that this is a glorified board game.

Third, the systems in the game are vastly underwhelming. Religion is almost exactly like CIV V. Diplomacy is almost exactly like CIV V. Warfare is almost exactly like CIV V. It felt like everything that could've been improved was chosen to stay the same, in order not to overly complicate the game.

Fourth, the governors. Now, I will say that the governor system is actually pretty cool, allowing for more personalization, but I hate the fact that they give these governors real names and stupid cartoony portraits. For instance, why would an African nation like the Zulu have governors like white Victor, Indian/Sikh Pingala, or the one Buddhist guy? The game wants so badly to promote multiculturalism where it doesn't make sense and this HURTS IMMERSION! I'd love to just have my 6 Zulu governors to have a randomly generated Zulu name, alongside a hand-drawn image of a Zulu person.

Fifth, buildings appearing on the map tiles. This is still perhaps the most distinctive aspect of the game, but honestly, it just makes the game feel like a turned-based CITY SKYLINES. I find myself placing down cities for absurdly gamey 'adjacency bonuses', to the point where my entire empire feels like one big city sprawl. The map becomes too cluttered with too much information.

Sixth, it's too easy. The CIVS don't attack me very often, and if they do, it's soooo easy to win. They do cheat though, advancing through eras much quicker than me. I will say that CIV IV was vastly more difficult in terms of war than CIV V or CIV VI.

What do I like about CIV VI?

I like that it runs quickly. CIV V would run slowly, bog down, and freeze, especially when I used mods.

I like the GREAT PERSON system, especially since they all have unique abilities, and being able to buy GPs with faith. I do wish that these people were locked into the cultures they represent (for instance, only Norway could get Leif Ericson).

I LOVE the music, especially the CREE and MAORI music. It makes me want to dance!

I LOVE the feeling of building your first wonder on the map, in the perfect location away from your city. I love seeing it slowly get built, turn by turn, while you bite your fingernails, praying to god that another CIV doesn't beat you to it. I do wish, however, that these wonders would age and deteriorate (like the pyramids in real life) as the eras progressed.
---

In short, with two expansions, I'm still vastly underwhelmed, and I must say that CIV is no longer my favorite strategy franchise. With smarter games out there (like EUROPA UNIVERSALIS 4), I'm realizing that CIV is now catering to a more casual demographic, and soon, I'll be moving on... until CIV 7 gets announced, and then we'll see if Firaxis has finally learned their lesson!

 

[FenrisWolf456]

Hence, I decided to return to the game when Gathering Storm came out (as well as getting RISE AND FALL), and now that I've given it some time, I can clearly say that CIV VI is a decent game, but it's clearly not the game for me.

And that's cool, sometimes a game or a version just doesn't click. I loved Mass Effect 1, especially the heat system for weapons. When ME2 came out with ammo, it took a long while to get over it and it was only the immersive story-telling that kept me at the game.

First, are the overwhelmingly generic civs. In CIV V, each civ had one bonus which really set them apart from the others. I'm generally a peaceful-build-wonders kind of guy, so Egypt was my go-to civ. Sometimes, after getting bored of this style, I would want to warmonger, but not fall behind in techs, so I would choose Assyria. Sometimes I wanted a vast empire, and would play as Rome for their building buffs, or I would choose Venice to really focus on one megacity. In CIV VI, none of the civs really feel that unique or revolutionary to me. Their perks don't really lend themselves to any revolutionary gameplay. Yes, I admit that not every civ in CIV V felt unique (cough, cough, America), but most of them did, in my opinion.

Not sure what to say here. The civs in VI are just as unique as in V, in my opinion. You have your builder civs like Egypt and China, certainly your war-mongering civs like Macedonia and Zulu. Rome is still a strong one to take for expansive empires. It may be that a lot of the abilities in VI have been seen before in V, just modified and maybe shifted around some for VI, so it is no longer as fresh and unique for you. I think Gathering Storm does something to help shake things up. The Maori certainly play differently. There's some more unique gameplay such as Mali's gold focus, or Dido and capital switching.

Second, the terrible art style. Nothing is more immersion breaking to me, than seeing these comical units in CIV VI that resemble the CLASH OF CLANS series. CIV V, especially with the RED MODPACK (with Ethnically Diverse Units) really made me feel like I WAS controlling the country I chose to play with. I loved marching up and down deserts with Egyptian warriors, but in CIV VI, even with mods, all the units look the freaking same. The overly-saturated hexes just hammer home that this is a glorified board game.

Art style is a tough one, as it just can't appeal to everyone. Though I don't think you've really looked at the units for VI. They come ethnically diverse out of the box, and are even more so now in GS as they take on your civ's colours in their uniforms. There are RED modpacks for the entire game (including all the dlc packs), as well as for some unit expansion mods.

Third, the systems in the game are vastly underwhelming. Religion is almost exactly like CIV V. Diplomacy is almost exactly like CIV V. Warfare is almost exactly like CIV V. It felt like everything that could've been improved was chosen to stay the same, in order not to overly complicate the game..

Sure, but if you totally change every system, is there a point to it being a sequel or next iteration of the series? Having core systems helps define the series and allows for veteran players to settle in much more quickly so that they can focus on the stuff that is actually new, without having to relearn the whole entire game again. Much like my Mass Effect example, changing the core weapon functionality really shook up the basis of the game for me.

Religion could have been revamped, though I'm not sure in what way that would be an improvement on what there is now. Diplomacy is the same in every game, I find. The warfare is the same as that was a design intent; the devs were happy with the 1 upt system. But VI did bring in the whole idea of districts and building outside the one hex for the city. Personally, I would have liked more diversity in the district system, such as having multiple buildings for each tier that you can choose between, much like the Government Plaza. So say you can choose a Library for just science, or perhaps of say a School, which offers science and culture. The governor system is new as well, and the World Congress while somewhat similar to V is revamped and different.

Fourth, the governors. Now, I will say that the governor system is actually pretty cool, allowing for more personalization, but I hate the fact that they give these governors real names and stupid cartoony portraits. For instance, why would an African nation like the Zulu have governors like white Victor, Indian/Sikh Pingala, or the one Buddhist guy? The game wants so badly to promote multiculturalism where it doesn't make sense and this HURTS IMMERSION! I'd love to just have my 6 Zulu governors to have a randomly generated Zulu name, alongside a hand-drawn image of a Zulu person.

This one I'll grant you. There's really two ways they could have gone on this. Either every civ has their own set of governors, in which case their are either named (meaning you would have to learn all the governors for each of the civs in the game) or generic (leading to no real connection to them and they just being a bonus card you slap on a city to improve the numbers. Or you go the approach they chose, with the same set of governors for everyone, so it's a lot easier to identify which governor it is and what they do, and at that point they had to make the cast of governors diverse.

Personally, I would have preferred unique governors for each civ, possibly even with their own promotion trees to help better suit the civ they serve.

Fifth, buildings appearing on the map tiles. This is still perhaps the most distinctive aspect of the game, but honestly, it just makes the game feel like a turned-based CITY SKYLINES. I find myself placing down cities for absurdly gamey 'adjacency bonuses', to the point where my entire empire feels like one big city sprawl. The map becomes too cluttered with too much information.

I like the sprawling cities personally. I especially appreciate the art team efforts to put in tiny details to help keep the map active and interesting to look at, and to pass along information to the player. Small things like animals in the pen when the tile is being worked, or out in the open fields with the gate open when the tile isn't worked. As I mentioned above, I would have liked more buildings to choose between for the districts, which I think would definitely help add to the diversity of how things looked. Even so, I think it's far better than just having more farms or mines on the map making each city look the same.

Sixth, it's too easy. The CIVS don't attack me very often, and if they do, it's soooo easy to win. They do cheat though, advancing through eras much quicker than me. I will say that CIV IV was vastly more difficult in terms of war than CIV V or CIV VI.

AI civs have always cheated. In IV and earlier the difficulty came in that stacks were so powerful and were a product of number crunching, which computers can do very well. It's easier for the AI to throw production into producing units and throwing them at the player.

Choosing the difficulty is choosing how much of the cheating you want to have to overcome in your game. It's pretty much why I play on King/Emperor difficulties. I'm not interested in the higher levels as it restricts my early gameplay to the point that its not enjoyable.

My main issue with the AI is that it tends to be a bit too passive, most likely by design. Surprise attacks only happen when you have a small military strength, and even in wars, the AI often seems hesitant to actually attack and take cities. Similar for the religious game, perhaps a reaction to the annoyance of missionary waves in V constantly bombarding your own cities. But now it seems if I have a religion set up in my empire, the AI just won't attempt converting a city.

 

[El Caballerion]

I think I just can't get it into as being any sort of historical simulator, bc it feels too childish and makes it clear at around every turn that you are clearly playing a game.

I do think that if they wanted to make another CIV spinoff in between 6 and 7 (like they did with CIV Beyond Earth), they should do some sort of fantasy-based game. Make the rulers different gods vying for world domination, like with the game DOMINIONS, and make every civ super distinctive, like in ENDLESS LEGEND.

 

[morgenstern1]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Every time I'd been intrigued to consider Civ VI, I'd watch some gameplay, or read something about it that would reverse my impulse to get it. After reading your impressions, I realize that the weight of certain factors intrinsic to Civ VI have convinced myself that while I might like certain parts of Civ VI, I'm more fundamentally a Civ V kind of guy.

 

[Red_warning]

I've played both Civ 6 and EU 4 extensively and while EU is more sandboxy and got a very large amount of game mechanics they tend to be a bit shallow in their function. Civ 6 in comparison got fewer of them but I find them generally better thought out and have more of an impact on the game. I also vastly prefer Civ 6 over Civ 5 due to the adjacency bonuses, it adds a huge strategic layers to the game and I would be distraught not to see it in Civ 7 when that day comes.

 

[nzcamel]

Obviously, I was eagerly anticipating CIV VI, even though the graphic style set forth a very clear message: simple art style = simple gameplay mechanics. When I did get CIV VI, I was utterly disappointed at what seemed like a tremendous lack of detail. All game systems seemed either equal to those found in CIV V, or dumbed-down versions. I uninstalled after 3 months and vowed never to play until some expansions brought much needed improvements.

It's hard for me to get into your review beyond this when most of us agree that on release VI was more complex than any other vanilla version of the game.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I think I just can't get it into as being any sort of historical simulator ........ Make the rulers different gods vying for world domination,

Yeah that will really help it seem like a historical simulator

Most of what you raise is down to personal tastes, I love Civ VI and have played nearly a 1000 hours compared to less than 50 for Civ V - your mileage varies and that's fine.

 

[kaltorak]

It's hard for me to get into your review beyond this when most of us agree that on release VI was more complex than any other vanilla version of the game.

Hidding information doesnt count as complex.
If it werent bc of the layer 1upt adds, civ4 would still be the best civ.

 

[El Caballerion]

Two points brought up by some folk earlier:

- Yes, CIV VI may have had some more developed features than CIV V, but it felt nearly identical. Besides the 'build on the map' play style, it felt like I was playing a cheaper, more dumbed down version of CIV V. Even now with Gathering Storm, I still feel underwhelmed when compared to CIV V's last two expansion packs.

- I also understand that CIV VI tried to have a little more in terms of ethnic diversity, and that CIV V didn't really have any. It took mod makers to bring this aspect to the game. I guess I just wish they would've given each Civ a little more love in VI. Yes, the warriors may have different skin tones, but they all carry the same weapon and look identical, clothing-wise. They don't look at all representative of the CIVs they fight for.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I still bounce between Civ 5 and 6. I think they are different enough that I enjoy playing both of them.

My main problem with Civ 5 (which is fine in 6) is there are way too many civs that are only really good for warmongering. I almost never fight at all, except defensively. I much prefer to build. But it seems like about 1/3 of the lineup only has combat bonuses (Zulu, Mongols, etc) or have mostly combat and some VERY small bonuses to other things (America, Japan, etc)

My main problem with Civ 6 (which is fine in 5) is probably that everything costs so much damned production. The pacing feels totally off. I'm discovering the techs for nuclear powered robots and space lasers, meanwhile I've just barely finished making my first coal power plant.

I think both of them also have the issue of overoptimization of strategies. In Civ 6 you basically do everything possible to spam out cities and increase production ASAP, leaving little wiggle room to do other things. In Civ V, you go tall and science as hard as possible and hope nobody invades you before you go to space. I think 5 is worse in this regard, 6 seems slightly more flexible, but not quite as much.

I adore both games, but they have flaws in different ways. 6's map artstyle and leader artstyle is a big step back, but I love the mocap animations, they're great.

 

[Naktis]

Agree on your governors thought, I also think that each civ should have they're own unique and different looking governors.
About war and other things , there is plenty threads about terrible AI , and our hopes that civ7 will get better AI.

I personally like the idea of what you build appearing on map.

 

[nzcamel]

Hidding information doesnt count as complex.
If it werent bc of the layer 1upt adds, civ4 would still be the best civ.

Civ 4 may still be the best entry in the series, especially if you want a game where the AI can push very good players.

There were plenty of things that made 6 complex on release, without considering "hidden information".

Two points brought up by some folk earlier:

- Yes, CIV VI may have had some more developed features than CIV V, but it felt nearly identical. Besides the 'build on the map' play style, it felt like I was playing a cheaper, more dumbed down version of CIV V. Even now with Gathering Storm, I still feel underwhelmed when compared to CIV V's last two expansion packs.

- I also understand that CIV VI tried to have a little more in terms of ethnic diversity, and that CIV V didn't really have any. It took mod makers to bring this aspect to the game. I guess I just wish they would've given each Civ a little more love in VI. Yes, the warriors may have different skin tones, but they all carry the same weapon and look identical, clothing-wise. They don't look at all representative of the CIVs they fight for.

As a fan of Civ 4's depth, 5 never grabbed me, even after both expansions. It added a few cool things; but took away much of the depth of 4. Other than road building there was never a reason to not have workers automated. People think there are too many turns in 6 where all you do is click next turn; yet that was 20x worse in 5. It's certainly not something I experience in 6 (maybe cos you can't alert religious units gah).

6 has its faults; but is a far more alive game than its dull predecessor. And that was before the earth came alive with GS!

 

[orasis]

Fourth, the governors. Now, I will say that the governor system is actually pretty cool, allowing for more personalization, but I hate the fact that they give these governors real names and stupid cartoony portraits. For instance, why would an African nation like the Zulu have governors like white Victor, Indian/Sikh Pingala, or the one Buddhist guy? The game wants so badly to promote multiculturalism where it doesn't make sense and this HURTS IMMERSION! I'd love to just have my 6 Zulu governors to have a randomly generated Zulu name, alongside a hand-drawn image of a Zulu person.

I would agree that VI feels more 'gamey' but I would think it's due mostly to the adjacency bonuses (although, also a living map should make it feel less so... I'm conflicted on it lol). As for historical immersion... CIV has never been a historical game, at all. It's always been a series that asks 'what if'.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Civ 5 and civ 6 has driven me more and more to paradox games as well each year. Which is a shame cause i still deeply love the civilization series. I would have been playing civ 6 after the second expansion if there was an actual challenge. I must have played hoi4 for about 40 hours last week. The AI is not perfect, but really enjoyable and challenging. If i would not be playing hoi4 i would pick up europa universalis 4 or chess before i would give civ 6 a try again. Civ 6 is not high on my list of to do things. Perhaps after a 30 day and quarter year patch.

 

[Aristos]

and our hopes that civ7 will get better AI.

Please make sure you are hopefully seated in comfort while you wait.

 

[El Caballerion]

Please make sure you are hopefully seated in comfort while you wait.

lol. I know, right?

I do want to say that I started a new game as Mali, and am enjoying the whole 'being crippled in production, but blessed in faith/gold' aspect of it. I really want more CIVs to be like this, so when you play them, you really have to engage with the game in a whole different way. Right now, the vast majority all feel the same, minus a minor perk here or there. I think CIV needs to take a page from ENDLESS LEGEND, and really try to make the CIVs very distinctive; give them massive buffs in one area, and massive nerfs in another. Basically, more Mali, and less America lol.

 

[Finvola]

I only recently bought Civ VI. I've played the series since the beginning, but several years ago, my previous PC was very basic and I could only play a few games on it, so I missed the whole Civ V era and continued to play IV. When I bought this PC almost 4 years ago, I had so many games to catch up on that I couldn't play, I didn't actually get around to purchasing Civ V until the end of 2017. I remembered my first impression. I was still playing IV at the time and I hated hated hated V at first but it grew on me and I came to like it for what it was.

Again, I was off catching up on other games and purchased VI in January when there was a huge sale on. I only purchased the base game because I wasn't sure if I would like it, as I heard mixed reviews. I was back playing V again and I didn't actually get around to downloading and playing VI until about 2 weeks ago. My first impression was I hated everything about it. I thought it was awful. I hated the graphics, I hated the music, I hated the new system. I thought the game was one giant piece of rubbish. I scrapped my first game and didn't think I would ever go back.

But I did the next day and gradually began to like it. It took a few abandoned games, mind you, but after several days of trying it out and understanding things better, I decided it wasn't such a bad game after all. I started to really enjoy it. I think it was maybe the following week when I started thinking about DLC and EPs. There happened to be another sale on, all the DLC and R &F were on offer following the release of GS. Really, at that point I just thought it would be nice to add a couple of new civs. I ended up buying the Macedon & Persia pack and then the following day I ended up buying the rest of the DLC in a bundle for pennies, more or less. Some were 50% off, some were a bit more. However, R&F wasn't quite on sale enough for me so I figured I'd hold off until another big sale and buy it then. I do intend on getting it, just not right yet. It's not in my budget right now, so I shall wait.

A few of my friends purchased GS and really like it, they said that it really added to their gameplay so I will buy that too, somewhere down the line. So many games, so little time (and money, lol).

But I went from complete hate to enjoying the game in less than a week, so there's that!

 

[Archon_Wing]

First, are the overwhelmingly generic civs.

See I keep seeing this, but I never understand it.

In CIV V, each civ had one bonus which really set them apart from the others. I'm generally a peaceful-build-wonders kind of guy, so Egypt was my go-to civ.

In Civ 6, you have China (and Egypt too)....

Sometimes, after getting bored of this style, I would want to warmonger, but not fall behind in techs, so I would choose Assyria.

You have Macedon or Sumeria.

Sometimes I wanted a vast empire, and would play as Rome for their building buffs

Rome in Civ 6? Kongo or Cree?

Now, I gotta say Civ 6 has nothing like Venice, but otherwise? I don't really see how most of the other things are absent from 6. But in any case, I'm just not certain how you can make this assessment given it's unlikely you could have played much of the civs since you picked it up again.

The game wants so badly to promote multiculturalism where it doesn't make sense and this HURTS IMMERSION!

Lol, which is why we have 3 Hellenocentric leaders.

Whatever. The AI is garbage tho.