So I finished my first Civ6 game and... I don't enjoy it as much as Civ5.

[SG-17]

I just want some validation that I'm not alone here. With COVID I've had time to dig into my backlog and I had Civ6 (and all of the expansions and DLC) waiting so I figured I'd give it a shot.

Played a basic large game on a random world on Prince and... I didn't enjoy it. I figured I should finish it so I could understand the new mechanics but compared to Civ5 I didn't enjoy it.

First problem was that trying to play on DX12 kept giving me crashes and issues, so I had to use DX11 in which I had janky animations for some reason (I have an FX-8370, 8GB RAM, RX480 8GB, and I play on an SSD, I should have no problem maxing the game out).

Everything just felt off and odd. Its hard to explain. I skipped on Civ4 for the same reasons after playing Civ3C for years, while Civ5 felt so much more like Civ3.

Maybe I'm just cursed to not like even-numbered Civs.

 

[pokiehl]

You haven't listed a single specific thing you didn't like so I don't know how much anyone can engage you here...

Anyway it doesn't matter - play whatever makes you happy.

 

[zxcvbob]

I like Civ 5 better, but I finally have a laptop that will play Civ 6 so I'm giving it another chance. They've balanced a lot of things so it's better than last time I tried it. I like the barbarians in 6 better; they actually know how to fight

 

[Connor_CivFan]

You can’t really judge a game you have played once, that was my mistake.
Played one game and decided I didn’t like it, it wasn’t till Gathering Storm that I played again and I can definitely say it is one of my favourite games (now I understand the games mechanics more now)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The main issue with civilization VI in my opinion is it encourage ICS or infinite city sprawl and discourage building tile improvements over spending the builder charges on chopping out stuff. Past civilization games, the placement of cities was not so much of how many cities you can fit but about the quality of each individual city.

 

[zxcvbob]

The main issue with civilization VI in my opinion is it encourage ICS or infinite city sprawl and discourage building tile improvements over spending the builder charges on chopping out stuff. Past civilization games, the placement of cities was not so much of how many cities you can fit but about the quality of each individual city.

I'm still getting used to that. I tried to only settle a few cities in good locations in '6, and then slowly add more cities -- more cities overall than in '5 but still not a lot. That doesn't work so well; I kept ending up in 2nd place and losing by just a few turns. If I was on the verge of a science win, someone else would win by culture. Or vice versa. Lots of small cities, few if any farms, 2 or 3 districts in each city with every city eventually having the district that contributes to my victory goal works better.

Also I've just learned that if you're going to war at all, even turning the tables on an aggressor and capturing one city from them, you need to go all in. Everybody hates forever a warmonger who didn't finish the job. But they eventually forgive a genocidal maniac who kills another civ. (I think that still needs some balance) I play peacefully until an AI declares war on me, then I exterminate them. Then go back to peaceful until someone else feels froggy. At least that's what I am trying now and it seems to be working.

 

[Icicle]

Why do you need your opinion to be validated? It's okay to be in the minority on things.

FWIW I think Civ 6 is better than un-modded Civ 5, but that's based entirely on my enjoyment of it which is wholly subjective and I see no reason to slapfight on the internet about it.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

When I first played 6, it took me a while to get into it. There was no falling in love at first sight or anything. At the time, my absolute favorite was 5, and it just felt like a step down for me. But after playing several games and getting the hang of it, it "clicked" for me. Now, it's by far my favorite iteration (and I've logged the most hours with it). So, I wouldn't necessarily write it off just yet.

 

[James_Champagne]

Yeah, Civ V was my first Civ game and when I first moved onto VI I didn't like it at all, it just felt very strange... yet now I greatly prefer it... in contrast actually played a Civ V game recently after a long spell away and the game now seems very basic to me (though it still does some things I like).

 

[InDubioProReo]

It's complicated. I got 1700 hrs in V, still play it time to time. The graphics feel off, but the gameplay feels extremely detailed and a lot more complicated than V. I really do not like the ICS style of VI though, I like the quality over quantity approach of V. Other than that, I think it's a pretty good game. However I think I will always prefer V.

 

[riddleofsteel]

It's complicated. I got 1700 hrs in V, still play it time to time. The graphics feel off, but the gameplay feels extremely detailed and a lot more complicated than V. I really do not like the ICS style of VI though, I like the quality over quantity approach of V. Other than that, I think it's a pretty good game. However I think I will always prefer V.

I think I'm in the same boat. I recently reloaded Civ V and modded it up to the eyeballs. Tons of fun.

 

[jasper]

didnt enjoy it.
Its hard to explain.
Just didnt enjoy it.
Skipped civ4 for these exact reasons.

Huh?

 

[GrumboMumbo]

I felt very similar about 5 vs 6, but once I got used to the mechanics of 6 I haven't really gone back to 5. However, as others have said, I really don't like the ICS approach of civ6. It cheapens the experience a bit for me. I am still trying prove that tall empires can be a competitive approach in civ6, but I think I am probably just wasting my time at this point.

Having said this, I think civ6 does a lot of things better than 5, mostly small quality of life things and it feels fresher to play. Once you get your teeth into the complexity of district placement and the game mechanics, I think you would have a lot more fun.

I think for it's time, I enjoyed civ5 more, but loading it up these days just feels a bit old and tired. Civ6 is a new challenge and I do enjoy testing out new strategies. Last summer firaxis brought in some really good balance patches. Most of it was in the right direction, but for me I still think it needs more work. The tragic thing is I think civ6 is only a few minor tweaks away from being an awesome game, but I think the changes I want to see are so deep routed that I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I get a feeling the developers are somewhat out of touch about the game, stuff like how bad or still how bad of a investment stuff like food market is show that. One of the most strange thing is all the tallk about playing to the map with district but when it come to buildings they seems to have lost much of their creative touch and just threw in flat yields and called it a day. Cost based on era instead of what the buildings actually give make very Little sense.

As far as I can tell, nobody asked for ICS to return, sure civilization V have been crtitized due to punishing having cities in many ways but that don't mean flat yields and ICS is a good or fun solution and if you look at reality there seems to be a strong correlation between wealth and urbanization rate which should mean high quality cities should be much better than spaming campus villages. Even if they just changed so that a city could build multiple copies of the same district would likely reduce the ICS and it is not unrealistic that a large city can support several campuses or Commercial hubs.

Also stuff like chopping out space ship parts make no sense whatsoever, how can you turn Wood instantly into high Tech Equipment?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

honestly, while many things were better in Civ V, I think Civ VI is still the better game. And it has more depth and complexity, in a good way. Complexity is not inherently good, but Civ VI did well with the districts.

 

[trev1972]

It depends on what you are looking for in the game. I loved civ1 as a student, but obviously it was basic.
But i - roleplay and want a sandbox feel to my games, and for opponents to give at least an impression of a personality.

I liked the 'useless guff' too, my council, wonder vids etc

But despite a lot of that being missing in 4 it is the one i played the most, by far- thousands of hours clocked up.

As for 5 vs 6, i think 6 is probably better on balance, but after a few games of GS i have come to the conclusion that city spam is the way to go (that and exploiting inability of AI to use 1UPT). Pack them in, get the districts down, and dont worry if the city sucks other than district spots.

 

[acluewithout]

One of the most strange thing is all the tallk about playing to the map with district but when it come to buildings they seems to have lost much of their creative touch and just threw in flat yields and called it a day.

That’s a good point well made.

There is definitely something off about most buildings. You can just spam them and ignore the map entirely. And the problem only gets compounded when you throw in the Rationalism style cards.

JNR has a an interesting mod that tries to rework buildings a little. See here. Awesome mod from a talented guy. It goes a bit far in a few places for my tastes, but there are some really excellent ideas here (I particularly like the library), particularly with the Science Buildings and some of the regional effects.

I think FXS could massively improve the game just by giving a few buildings an alternative building like the barracks / stable, having a few more map based effects tied buildings (eg Building x buffs Bonus Resource y) or just more dynamic, and reworking Rationalism etc. As I’ve suggested elsewhere, I think having additional Governors that unlock later in the game (allowing Players to more clearly have “core” cities) and having some sort of Vassal / more meaningful Colonial Cities (to encourage late game expansion, and create a more clear “satellite” or “secondary” cities) would also help.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I think 5 and 6 are different enough that I jump between the two sometimes.

My main reasons for playing 5: Better balance, not quite as much snowballing, more focus on building, far better visuals in general. But dislikes: global happiness system, single tech tree, map can be a bit less interesting

My main reasons for playing 6: districts are fun, almost every civ has fun bonuses (unlike 5 where half the civs are just WAR FIGHT WAR FIGHT), dual tech tree. But dislikes: tall is worthless, , mobile phone game style graphics, you're strongly encouraged to warmonger and settle like 50 cities of 7 pop each, instead of what I want to do, which is have maybe 5 cities that are 20 pop

 

[oSiyeza]

I did not have any animation problems, but in such a long game performance problems may end undermining the whole experience.

Regarding the game itself... I have played civ from civ 1, and I have to say there is a charm in the first games and the big wars and clunky but funy mechanics they had, that I did not find in civ since III.

I think a big problem with the current iteration is that it has lost a lot of plain old fun in exchange for a more complex more balanced but less rewarding experience.

The devil is in the details, and think a lot of the problems with civ VI come from the lack of commitment with the many cool ideas the game has, that however are not fully realized.

I think the devs put emphasis on the wrong places. Like they felt the need to put all previous game systems just to not dissapoint fans, maybe too many systems, and that took the time neccesary to truly develop the important ones.

I aslo think they tried very hard to not unbalance any of the crazy ammount of components of the game to allow for multiplayer, and that ended in too many of those components feeling inconsequential.

However I think the game is very good, and I kind of love it, but also sometimes my games feel lame and I simple cant finish playing cause I get bored.

In the end I think civ VI has some of the best and also some of the worst realized ideas of all civ games.

There is so much room for improvement, and if systems such as the poorly designed AI, the diplomacy, the religion or the WC were re-thought a bit, this would be to me the best civ game. But I also understand that for many players this may be just a bad game, if the many problems of the game prevent them from enjoying the many brilliant things that it also has.

 

[zxcvbob]

I just finished a 6 science victory. The first half of the game was fun. The last half was tedious. Once it was obvious that I was going to win eventually, and nobody could catch with with an unexpected cultural (I was in the lead for culture. Don't know how) or religious victory (nobody was really pushing that very hard), I almost declared it a win and quit. But I saw it thru thinking I might learn something. I beelined whatever tech lets you build the space port, because the rest of my tech could catch up while I was building it. I built the space port in my highest production city (not my capital), then I built two more for backups. My capital had the aerodrome and was building fighters just in case. I had the democracy government and bought all the space-related scientists and engineers, then I switched to communism for the 10% boost to production. It still took about 50 or 60 turns to finish everything, and that was after I spent 50-someting turns building the first space port. Chopping forests and jungles and replanting tree/lumbermills didn't shave off a lot of turns per chop.

Maybe science is the one victory where tall actually is good, because you can't really distribute the production for the space project. (I should try that with Kongo)