thoughts on civ vi from old-timers

Been playing since civ4. In Civ4 even the first game is complete. Civ6, not so much. There's a lot of broken mechanics. Yes you're right this feels like an incomplete game.

But, IMHO, Civ5 vanilla was the WORST. Hey at least Civ6 is fun.

 

Even Civ4 was really bad on initial release. We tend to forget how bad the Civ games are on initial release. Civ6 is pretty bad right now, I've stopped playing for various reasons till the next patch (the AI not settling and not upgrading its units makes it a laughing stock)

I do think Civ6 is a step backwards graphically, and it's got the childish aura of Civ:Rev

 

Civ player since Civ 1. Before release I had my doubts about quality of Civ 6. I watched and read about it. Then it was released and although there is many people who claim they like it, even them express opinions that product is not finished (need to be patched). Main weaknesses seem to be an AI and maybe less UI and especially weak AI is a deal braker for me. Considering that I am glad I didn't buy this product. I do hope however it will get improved (DLCs and mods) and someday I will decide it is worth to buy it.

 

In my opinion, the primary problem with this is that consumer rights are very weak where it pertains to video games. If you buy a blender, and on setting 5 it randomly starts stopping and starting, you can have every expectation of being able to return it or get it fixed within a reasonable time (weeks) by the manufacturer. If the same applied to computer games, this behavior would probably quickly stop.

And before people cite the complexity excuse: don't even get me started. Yes, computer games are complex, but CPUs, for example, are more complex than that and a lot harder to build. Yet, CPU manufacturers somehow magically manage to deliver a pretty much fault-free product almost every time. So, really, complexity alone is not a sufficient explanation. It's more likely about market forces: it's profitable to release unfinished games and fix them later because you get your cash flow now and can take your sweet time to fix it later with a smaller team. Most players don't seem to mind enough that they refrain from buying games on release, and reviewers don't seem to tend to negatively take bugs into account (or don't notice them).

Also, if the devs can't handle the complexity of the product they themselves create, they should create a less complex product.

 

I think I qualify as an old-timer. Burned so many hours on this forum (lurked for ages too!) and this game.

I find myself agreeing with both the positive and negative posts on this thread. There is much to like about Civ 6, but once again they have rushed the game out to meet deadline. Why can't we regenerate the map, why doesn't it remember what options you have picked? There is little excuse for the balance issues which just demonstrate a lack of understanding about how to play Civ! I particularly agree with the poster that said that some of the Wonders aren't worth using a tile on - that shouldn't happen and is some that is ridiculously easy to fix. Some people will blame the beta-testers, but I suspect they raised many of the issues but there was insufficient time given to resolve them.

I do like the new graphics, builders, traders, building wonders and buildings on the map and the barbarian AI is good. The UI, tiny text and the intrusive diplomatic messages do make the game rather a chore however...it takes ages to do even 100 turns! I have not gone beyond Medieval at this stage...partly wanting to perfect the early game and partly getting bored of my empires.

I really hope this game is easy to mod.

 

/sarcasm/ Seriously? Way to share your viewpoint without being judgey /end sarcasm/

 

I'm an old timer and think that Civ 6 is a truly great game. It has so much depth at launch, and I'm still getting used to it after many many hours. But I am still infatuated with it. They've really hit a home run with it IMHO.

 

It's ok.
I am still missing the great Civ4 mechanics, but maybe that's like a lost one-of-a-time youth love.
It's better than 5 though !

 

As it is, for single player, I think the game is garbage and I stopped playing it after ~ 90 hours when it got clear that strategically, there was no challenge because the AI was too bad.
- after BE, it is the second uninteresting civ game in a row, I am not sure it can be fixed with updates, the mechanisms are already good, the problem is the AI, with new and more varied mechanisms,
it will be difficult to improve it significantly ( or too expensive and they won't do it ... )
- I am specially pissed off with the games websites ( PC gamer, RPS, Kotaku etc ... ), these guys are not honest or just incompetent, it takes a few hours to realize how bad the game is
and a ) they are not honest or b ) they didn't take the time to judge the game
I live in Japan and paid 7000 yen for a game I don't play, thank you, all the reviewers who gave it 8/10 or 9/10 ...

 

I have to say I appreciate (most) of the 7 pages of comments. I think this is a very interesting discussion. I do want to clarify my position however, since i might have used a poor choice of words. What I meant by "incomplete" was more about the job of making game rather than the game itself. I agree that there are some new and interesting mechanics with this release. And it is an indisputable fact the Civ 5 vanilla did not have religion or espionage. However, as some posters are saying about Civ 6 with its new stuff, Civ 5 was a radical departure from previous versions. For that reason I gave it far more leeway. Civ 6 on the other hand seems like a product that they just did not finish up and that was what I was trying to gauge from others who have played the series since the beginning.

I also agree with the many posters who have said much is repairable with mods and DLC and such, BUT that just proves my point....this product was not finished in even some of the simplest details. Are there people enjoying it? Sure and I'm glad for them. Is it fixable? Probably and I'm also glad for that. Am I playing it? Not any more, it just bores me. I'm back to Civ 4 and the Rise of Mankind mod for now.

This is just my opinion and I wanted to hear from others (but not Trolls).

 

I toned it down out of respect for the sensitive types who are still in shock.

Face it: most of those complaining about the game not being in a perfect state
at release only have themselves to blame.

Everyone had access to a lot of available information about the state of previous
Civ releases.
Complainers ignored those historical precedents and hoped that, despite all
evidence to the contrary, this time would be different.

They could have waited until after the patches and fixes were released to buy
the game, but they made the very poor choice, especially given their own high
standards for perfection, to buy the game early.

The other 80+% of people who bought the game early had an idea it wouldn't be
perfectly balanced and bug-free, because no other major game in recent
history has been.

I score it:
Realists 1, Naive Head-in-the-Clouds-dreamers 0.

ProTip: Next time, wait until after the patches and bug-fixes are in before
buying a game. Any game.

 

Civ player since Civ I. I couldn't really get into V, so I've been playing IV for what, 10 years now?

I see in the news that 1 million Civ VI games have been sold in 2 weeks, so *somebody* likes Civ VI. I may have to give it a try.

 

I see now, you agree with me. Pro tip: Next time just say "I agree" and keep the conversation about the game (i.e. on topic) and not about the players/consumers (i.e. off topic).

 

I've been playing Civ since before it had numbers like many other posters here

I think we all have a habit of forgetting what those were really like (at release and after a while). The original had the advantage of nothing else like it being available, the rules were very weak and the AI was really, really bad.

Civ 2 was decent, but again had no real competition and the same problems of the original until a second developer made Call to Power which was exceptional (and in my opinion vastly superior to anything Civ 3 did).

Civ 3 launched without multiplayer support in the dawn of multiplayer games and you were SOL until PTW which, in my opinion, didn't make the game better it just made it so you could suffer through it with friends. I can think of nothing good to say about Civ 3 other than it released along with a lot of other good games so I survived.

Civ 4 at launch was kind of funny, a LOT of people couldn't even get it to run and many vocal members of the modding community were in an uproar with the change to 3D. Although Warlords was good Civ 4 was still just OK until BTS was released and then it was amazing. Mod capabilities in Civ 4 made it the best of the series with some really amazing and ground breaking mods (look at how many people bought Civ 4 just to play Fall From Heaven, it's insane). This was a hard act to follow for any game, not just another Civ game specifically.

Civ 5 is recent enough that most people didn't forget about it's launch. I still remember all the fighting over the changes to hexes and 1UPT (both of which I love as rule changes to the franchise). We lost everything that Civ 4 had evolved into and got a very basic game which was more difficult to mod than Civ 4. Civ 5 did have two very good expansions though, G&K was very well done and was a great improvement and I think a lot of us were surprised when BNW came out and felt even better than G&K. Even with two expansions though it still lacks features from 3 & 4.

That said, Civ 6 is a really good game. It is by far the most "feature complete" in the franchise at launch, not the bare bones game that 3, 4 or 5 were at launch. It adds more new mechanics than any previous Civ has (some of which are almost as polarizing as US politics) and it is already proving easier to mod than Civ 5 was in some aspects even without any official tools or pre-release SDK access to well known mod authors. The AI is not really worse than it was in earlier games but the combination of typical Civilization AI mistakes and easy human player exploits makes it look really, really bad. Toss in some sloppy mistakes not directly related to the AI (tech/civic tree dead-ends and shortcuts) and the problems are compounded further. The great news is that unlike Civ 5 this time we won't have to wait for expansions to get an amazing game, the AI, tech tree and balance issues are already being addressed by the modding community since it's far easier to adjust game mechanics and rules than it is to create them. If you've been around long enough to play the other 5 you're really just doing yourself a disservice by avoiding Civ 6.

 

Long time player myself right from Civ1, I prefer marathon games and found myself not bothering with the game after 2 days. Pitiful AI, constant pointless AI leader spam scenes and the fact I have to reselect multiple settings everytime I want to play sucked what enjoyment I did get from it out. It's now shelved for reconsideration after first patches hit. This combined with BE has resulted in myself never touching a Civ release out of the gate again.

 

Civilization has always released "incomplete" in exactly the manners that Civ 6 has - UI's a little wonky, AI is janky, and so on. In fact, the UI in Civ 6 is better at launch than Civ 4's was (there was also a lot of drama about it) and the AI is better than 4 and 5 at launch. I can't remember 3, but I do remember it not improving its own strategic resources. Forever.

Civ 5's departure was hexes and 1 UPT. That was it. That was the big departure. Took work, sure, but it's just interface. Civ 6 adds Districts to the builder side of the game. That's an entirely new subsystem that didn't exist in Civilization before. The tile outputs are noticeably higher in Civ 6 than in any other Civ game, and I suspect it's because the devs had to rebalance everything to account for Wonders and Districts taking up space. Farms now yield 6, 7, 8 food. That would have been crazy in previous Civs. You don't have to play Civ 6 if you don't want to. And the devs make it sweeter to wait - the Aztec bonus content will be unlocked for all in a few months. So go ahead and wait. Civ 6 will always be here for you and it'll keep well.

But if you want to have a hand in shaping the future of 6 (and Civilization itself), then playing it and thoughtfully contributing on possible ways to chart the course ahead is your best bet.

 

Copiloted a few games. I think the districts system and culture tree have a lot of promise, the eureka/inspo system is great, and religious warfare feels both deeper and yet more of a closed box. Very disappointed with AI, diplo, and the near total erasure of indigenous American and African peoples. Playing a game on standard settings, you likely will only see European and Asian faces. Will not be getting until at least one expansion-level gameplay fix and a serious attempt at diversity.

 

I've also played every version of Civ from the original through to 6. I agree that Civ 6 suffers from the same dopey AI that 5 had upon release. I might be in the minority but I really dislike the religious slant in the game (apostles, etc). I acknowledge that religion has been one of the drivers of cultures in our past, and even through to the present day. I just dislike the implementation of it in-game, it seems a distraction.
So far I've held off from starting off any new games until some sort of patch is available. The diplomacy system needs a ton of work, and the Warmonger concept is in need of adjustment, as it seems to favour the AI over the human player by a massive margin. Not being able to tell Montezuma to move his 40-odd units from my border is annoying, especially as if one of my infantry farts near his border and I get a stern telling-off.

My conclusion is that Civ 6 is like a cheese or a wine. It needs time to mature to a refined product. And a buttload of patches.

 

Asia: Japan, China, India
Western: France, Spain, Germany, America, England, Brazil
Africa: Kongo
America: Aztec

Africa and America are underrepresented, but certainly not nearly erased.

 

I 100% agree, same for me