things civ VI did GOOD (part 2)

[Kupe Navigator]

I think there is too much criticism on civ 6 right now and in order to balance things a bit I think we need to talk about things Civ 6 did good and even better than previous civ games. ( and why part 2? I did do first part few months ago and didn't felt like necroing the thread)

1. better civ representation. Say what you will but I think civ 6 did a better representation of each of their civs. Sure some a stereotypical like say Canada and some leaders are... questionable like Catherine and Seondeok. But for the most part I think they showed what made each of civs unique and get people to learn more about the civ. And they did it in a respectable tone that you can tell that devs had repect for all of the civs.

2. having Unique infrastructure ( UB,UD,UI) for ALL of civs. In civ 5 there were some civs that do NOT have any unique Infrastructure-like Ottomans, Korea, Sweden ect.- while teams in civ 6 made sure even offensive civs like Ottomans and Mongolians have unique infrastructure that aids the conquest.

what else did civ 6 did good?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think VI's biggest strength is overall deeper cultural research and representation. As you said, we got a unique infrastructure for every civ. On top of that, I think the devs did a very good job of selecting slightly less known historical leaders that better fit each civ's playstyle niche. And the music is leagues richer than V's soundtrack (which was already very good).

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

As @PhoenicianGold said, if there is something I would pick that Civ VI did better than any of its predecessors, it was the music. Geoff Knorr, Roland Rizzo, and Phil Boucher just bring the game to life with a great soundtrack and great performance by the Prague Philharmonic Orchestra.

I just know there are going to be people telling me, "What about Baba Yetu??!!". I am not referring to it as worse music than Civ 6 music, it is on another pedestal, so please, don't ask me about it, please.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Well, Civ VI is a flawless game if we're just talking aesthetics.

I mean, this game's animation is gorgeous. Seriously, I've gotten used to it so I take it for granted, but every frame of these leaders is a delight to watch. The animations fully deserve a moment where you stop, take a step back, and appreciate it in motion. So every now and again, don't skip those agenda cutscenes. Sure, Dom Satan might be whining at you for playing the game right, but if he's gonna whine, you might as well enjoy his slick animation while doing so.

Additionally, I think the artstyle was executed well. It definitely had a lot of stylistic variance and unfortunately some leaders only look good in a vacuum, but as someone who does their own art in a similar style, I appreciate it. Also, just ignore me, I definitely didn't make fanart of the leaders...

Besides leaders, I also adore this game's cities. Sure, they don't have nearly enough clutter in them (something this mod can fix), but the attention to detail and adaptive generation of them is a joy to watch. Before I exit my games, I always zoom in close, turn off yield icons and slowly pan across my empire, admiring all the small details in every carefully designed piece of architecture. This is a very subjective thing, I concede, but I get some inexplicable joy in seeing these interconnected, bustling cities that I built. It's satisfying.

Quick note on the game's voice acting: while shoddy in some places (Jadwiga, Robert, and others...), I can't deny it's very entertaining, mispronunciations and mistranslations aside. I have no clue what Gilgamesh is saying, but he's saying it with so much charisma.

Lastly, the OST. Do I need to explain myself here? This is quite literally the game that got me into composing... some of these tracks will stick with me for the rest of my life. This is the kind of music that will long outlive its game.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Quick note on the game's voice acting: while shoddy in some places (Jadwiga, Robert, and others...), I can't deny it's very entertaining, mispronunciations and mistranslations aside. I have no clue what Gilgamesh is saying, but he's saying it with so much charisma.

Seondeok's voice acting is MUCH better than Sejong the great's one in civ 5 ( which was SO bad that it has been memed to death in Korea)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

2. having Unique infrastructure ( UB,UD,UI) for ALL of civs. In civ 5 there were some civs that do NOT have any unique Infrastructure-like Ottomans, Korea, Sweden ect.- while teams in civ 6 made sure even offensive civs like Ottomans and Mongolians have unique infrastructure that aids the conquest.

I do want to comment that when Civ 4 did introduce unique infrastructure they did give one to every civ including Mongolia and Ottomans. That being said there were only buildings back then and this time they've expanded the concept to include even districts.

That being said I do agree about civ representation over all being better considering we have 50 civs currently, though I feel like only 3 are really missing from Civ 5 (North Africa, 2nd Native American, non-Roman Italian rep). But overall they've done a better job in Sub-Sahara Africa, Asia, South America, and Oceania than the previous versions.

Also does Civilization Revolution count? Because if not this game finally gave us named geographical features.

And as @Duke William of Normandy would say, the music does slap! Maybe not as hard as Baba Yetu but it slaps harder than Civ 5.

 

[DWilson]

VI did better:

• Map effecting gameplay decisions
• More interesting city planning and placement
• Better government system
• Better civ selection
• More techs (if you count civics)
• Aesthetics
• Civ design
• Number of interesting systems
• Continuing updates
• Response to community feedback
• Better game at each stage
• TSL maps
• Multi-player scenarios
• Game configurability
• Science victory
• Religion
• City state diplomacy
• World Congress not simply being an economic victory
• DLC (I think the packs are generally of better quality)
• Barbarians (especially with clans mode)
• Built in Firaxis mods (game modes)
• Random events (with control on possible damage, allowing those who hate them to not be effected), including weather
• Amenities and housing (significantly more enjoyable than happiness)
• Loyalty, rebelling cities
• Ages

V did better:

• Culture victory
• Map replay post game
• Units progression
• Espionage (though not as good as BERT)
• Personality tables rather than agendas
• Production costs
• Tech progression (VI moves too quickly, because techs and civics are researched simultaneously)
• Control of World Congress
• AI ability to conquer cities and be a threat (and V was worse than IV)
• Unit movement
• War (combination of movements, unit diversity, production cost, and less durable cities)
• City puppeting
• Effects of conquering cities (population loss, need to integrate)
• Diplomatic trade (bribe to declare war or make peace with other civs or city states, and to vote in the World Congress at reasonably high cost)

Overall, VI is better, but if VII could take the best of both I would be ecstatic.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Seondeok's voice acting is MUCH better than Sejong the great's one in civ 5 ( which was SO bad that it has been memed to death in Korea)

That's good to hear!

And as someone who lives in the United States (my account location is a joke, to play along with the Alex meme) and really only understand English well, I must say that Teddy's Civ VI voice acting is also a huge improvement from Civ V's odd accent-fusion it had going on with Washington.

And while I don't understand Greek enough to call it a secondary language (I'm self-teaching myself, and as my signature says, I only speak a little), I must say that Gorgo, Pericles, Alex, and Basil all sound great. I have no clue what they're saying (thanks, subtitles!) but each of them sounds exactly how I'd imagine them to.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

That's good to hear!

which is no brainer since Seondeok's voice has been dubed by professional voice actress Seo Yu-ri
who is still active to this day.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Basically taking the stuff Civ V did and improving upon them. Civ V was a revolution, which change the series in so many ways, like one unit per tile, hex, cities tiles, culture as a global resource, unique civ abilities, the list goes on. Now while Civ V did change alot of stuff, it feels unpolished and some of the changes such as global happiness was perhaps not the best idea. Civ VI have taken the mechanics Civ V added, reworked them, in some cases quite alot such as how culture works even if the basic idea of it being a global resource is still the same, but making it into a second tech tree is quite a big deal, having two separate tech trees do make the game quite different.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Culture victory

I feel civ 6 did better in culture victory... it isn't just culture VS tourism but rather local tourism VS foreign tourism

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I feel civ 6 did better in culture victory... it isn't just culture VS tourism but rather local tourism VS foreign tourism

Civ VI give you more options to generate tourism than Civ V did, also the ways you get tourism feels better in Civ VI, except lack of wonder theming on other hand having tourism against other Civs have more meaning in Civ V. I still agree with you, that Civ VI culture victory is overall better.

 

[Linklite]

One thing to mention though it isn't Civ 6 per se - they're still improving the game significantly, even the free content. I'm not sure I could name another game that years after launch, gave me three new units and two new maps, with no expectation that I pay for them.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Adding onto the Culture victory discussion, sure, it's imperfect and a bit nonsensical (Roman rock bands in the year 1500? ) but I honestly feel like it's 6's best victory type. Well, my favorite, anyway While some routes to it are imbalanced, it's distinct from other victory types in the different ways you can win it. With Domination, you have to conquer every capital and follow a linear plan to get to that point. For Science, you have to have high science and production in your core cities. I could go on, but the point is that Culture actually gives you options. Want to stock up on faith, savor high appeal and spam national parks? Go ahead. Want to use that stockpile on rock bands instead? You're welcome to. Want to spam unique improvements and abuse Alcazar's +2 Culture? Go out there and exploit!

Culture gives you variety and options, something other victory types desperately lack.

And soon enough with the April patch, there'll be another way to win Culture: Population. Thanks, Khmer buff

 

[Aristos]

Loyalty pressure. No more foreign cities in the middle of your empire.

(Although Civ 4 had Culture pressure for that, but I like Loyalty better)

 

[DWilson]

Civ VI give you more options to generate tourism than Civ V did, also the ways you get tourism feels better in Civ VI, except lack of wonder theming on other hand having tourism against other Civs have more meaning in Civ V. I still agree with you, that Civ VI culture victory is overall better.

I think my biggest reasons for favoring V is that rock bands didn't exist (and in VI they're incredibly potent, making them very important), it had better interpretability, and better themeing. It feels like they got lost in creating options for VI, and subsequently gave too much influence to things that shouldn't be so powerful, while making the system far less pleasant to interact with and understand.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with everything @DWilson said except for two things. The bigger one is that Civ5 did Religion leagues better than Civ6 did; Civ6 botched Religion badly, and Religious Victory bears a large part of the blame. I hope Civ7 takes a more nuanced look at religion, and I think they could do worse than look to CK3 for inspiration. The smaller is that I don't think Civ6's world congress is in any way an improvement over Civ5's, which was already bad enough. (Can we please never have world congress in the game again please and thank you?)

Civ5's Culture Victory was better because it was more active and because tourism did more than fill a bucket. That being said...

I honestly feel like it's 6's best victory type.

Sadly, yes. Victory conditions are not Civ6's strong point.


Overall, though, I agree with those who said that Civ6's strongest point is aesthetics. The music is gorgeous, the map is gorgeous, the fog of war is gorgeous, the leader animations are gorgeous (until NFP dropped the ball hard). The game is absolutely beautiful.

 

[Yzman]

I agree with everything @DWilson said except for two things. The bigger one is that Civ5 did Religion leagues better than Civ6 did; Civ6 botched Religion badly, and Religious Victory bears a large part of the blame. I hope Civ7 takes a more nuanced look at religion, and I think they could do worse than look to CK3 for inspiration. The smaller is that I don't think Civ6's world congress is in any way an improvement over Civ5's, which was already bad enough. (Can we please never have world congress in the game again please and thank you?)

Civ5's Culture Victory was better because it was more active and because tourism did more than fill a bucket. That being said...


Sadly, yes. Victory conditions are not Civ6's strong point.


Overall, though, I agree with those who said that Civ6's strongest point is aesthetics. The music is gorgeous, the map is gorgeous, the fog of war is gorgeous, the leader animations are gorgeous (until NFP dropped the ball hard). The game is absolutely beautiful.

Can you go into more specifics about what you didn't like about the religion in this game? I am interested and don't remember it very well from Civ5.

 

[UWHabs]

I think using the map is the best part, really. It really ties into almost every aspect of the game, and does make you adjust your strategy around it. Could it be better? Sure. You're still too rewarded to spam everything, and I do think that chopping is way too valuable - makes no sense that I can pop a city down in the arctic, harvest some nearby deer, pop down some money, and suddenly I have a high functioning university. Whereas the city next door which unfortunately had no deer is now struggling to build the same thing for the next 85 turns.

But the fact that you place campuses in some spots, theatres in others. Maybe I'm not going for a religious win, but if I see me a +5 holy site, and I definitely will reconsider my strategies a little. Want the Pyramids? Yeah, but if you don't have desert, better find a new plan. Or maybe you didn't plan on the pyramids, but man, no AI seems to be near desert, and it's now 100 turns into the game and they're still available...

So the builder in me wants to build. Sure, I'm conquering the world and I will finish it before some of my cities are built up. But yeah, I'm still going to want the "best" spot for that theatre square. All of that to me makes it so that every game plays a little differently, and makes me want to continue to play. Civ 5 I got tired of after a time, I put it down at some point, and never felt the desire to pick it back up. VI I have stopped playing for a few weeks, but then you just wonder, maybe I should load it up and try one more game...

 

[Futumch]

The visuals for Civ 6 are really good. I am really a fan of the parchment style fog of war. On some games, I just look at the map and think that a printed copy of the parchment style map of this particular game would make a great wall decoration. If there was a way to roll back the fog over your own cities, I would certainly have some snazzy fantasy maps by now.

Sure, Dom Satan might be whining at you for playing the game right

I have noticed you used this term before (in other posts), and I was wondering if you could tell me which leader you were referring to ?