What do people mean when they say Civ VI is "dumbed down?"

[salty mud]

This is a common complaint heard and I'm not sure what's meant by it. What is dumber in Civ VI compared to previous games? Is it not as complex?

 

[AriochIV]

I don't hear that complaint much, and I don't think it is dumbed down.

I think a lot of people reacted to the art style, which is similar to Civilization Revolutions, which was dumbed down. But I think Civ VI is at least as complex as any of its predecessors.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's significantly easier than its predecessors. I never beat Deity in 4 or 5, but it only took a few months for me to win @ Deity for 6. The AI just cannot provide a late game threat.

In addition, the game has very little restrictions on expansion, and economic management is very simplified. If you tried to ICS mindlessly in 4, you'd bankrupt yourself in no time, but 6 lets you brute force these things.

Other things include specialists being downplayed, and also diplomacy having fewer options.

 

[AriochIV]

It's significantly easier than its predecessors. I never beat Deity in 4 or 5, but it only took a few months for me to win @ Deity for 6. The AI just cannot provide a late game threat.

In addition, the game has very little restrictions on expansion, and economic management is very simplified. If you tried to ICS mindlessly in 4, you'd bankrupt yourself in no time, but 6 lets you brute force these things.

These are difficulty-level gripes, and have nothing really to do with the complexity of the game. For every system that's been de-emphasized, there are new ones. Placement of districts on the map is a whole new system that's never been in any previous games. Builder charges mean that you can't automate workers. These are all complexity increases, not decreases.

The game does have UI issues that make it difficult or impossible to micromanage some systems (such as with luxury resources), which does leave a feeling of being less in control.

 

[bbbt]

I've usually seen it as a claim that the game has been 'dumbed down/simplified' for mass market appeal compared to earlier versions.

Which I'd say the opposite - the game mechanics themselves are more complex than previous versions. And party because of that, the AI can't handle that, and the game is easier to beat. Which is I think what's giving people that impression.

 

[enKage]

It is refered to diffuculty level. Deity civ6 is sth like civ5 Immortal (or between emp/imm, but closer to immortal) and civ4 Monarch. Not only because AI cannot handle many things (Ai building space projects is a joke), but also because devs gave tool to completetly remove any thread from AI (neverending friendships and alliances with 5 out of 7 opponents). So we have few layers Ai cannot handle, and those which AI could handle, are dramatically simplified.

 

[Bibor]

This is a common complaint heard and I'm not sure what's meant by it. What is dumber in Civ VI compared to previous games? Is it not as complex?

I'll just leave this here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ace-strategies-from-a-10-year-veteran.574724/

 

[Archon_Wing]

These are difficulty-level gripes, and have nothing really to do with the complexity of the game. For every system that's been de-emphasized, there are new ones. Placement of districts on the map is a whole new system that's never been in any previous games. Builder charges mean that you can't automate workers. These are all complexity increases, not decreases.

Except economic management is less complex than it was in Civ 4 (sliders, etc). Diplomacy also had more options, like you were always forced to take sides since other civs would pressure you to stop trading (embargos, etc). You can't pledge to protect city states like you can in 5, nor can you haggle for votes.

These things have nothing to do with difficulty.Diplomacy in Civ 6 amounts to sending a delegation and making a joint war every now and then. The changes to builders is interesting, but nobody automated workers to begin with, unless you wanted a complete mess of a game.

Though yes, a huge part of it is it, because you don't need to comprehend most of these things like districts to beat the game on any difficulty-- all you have to do is focus on a few mechanics to bypass everything. While this is true of like every game, it's a bit more severe here.

I mean maybe not dumbed down is the right word, but to hardcore civ players it probably is a step down.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Except economic management is less complex than it was in Civ 4 (sliders, etc). Diplomacy also had more options, like you were always forced to take sides since other civs would pressure you to stop trading (embargos, etc). You can't pledge to protect city states like you can in 5, nor can you haggle for votes.

These things have nothing to do with difficulty.Diplomacy in Civ 6 amounts to sending a delegation and making a joint war every now and then. The changes to builders is interesting, but nobody automated workers to begin with, unless you wanted a complete mess of a game.

Though yes, a huge part of it is it, because you don't need to comprehend most of these things like districts to beat the game on any difficulty-- all you have to do is focus on a few mechanics to bypass everything. While this is true of like every game, it's a bit more severe here.

I mean maybe not dumbed down is the right word, but to hardcore civ players it probably is a step down.

I only began to know the series since V and only began to play since VI. Even as a new player - compare to those who began in civ3 or even earlier - I would love to see economic management and diplomacy, as you mentioned, to be more complex, or at least have more meaningful choices and flavors.

 

[Bast]

I never played Civ V - that was Civ wilderness. But I think Civ IV was more complex and harder than Civ VI. Been thinking about how the game works now and there seems to be a lot of factors in each leader/civ that's steering you to do certain things and play a certain way - which makes sense from an historical perspective. But not from a strategy game perspective. In Civ IV, you have things that made you different to other players/AI but ultimately you're trying to play and win in a same way. I don't know, maybe I'm not making sense but it's just different.

Civ VI is fun to play, I just don't know if it's better or more in-depth than Civ IV.

 

[hhhhhh]

I believe any strategy game need to have some core contradiction. You cannot just go in one direction and mostly benefit from it without any dire consequences.

For example in Civ V, population is everything, but if population grows too fast you got killed by happiness. So you cannot just pump population as high as you want. Similarly if warfare are involved then you don't win by making a ton of units, otherwise you will be broke. And if you settle too many cities then the cost of science etc. are higher so your newest city won't be worth it.

But in Civ VI that "you cannot just go in one direction and mostly benefit from it without any dire consequences" is just no longer true. You settle wide, the wider the better. 3 cities with 2 population and 3 campus is better than one city with 6 population and 1 campus. This is the most dumb part. You settle you chop and you win fast, you build up your cities you be nice to environment and you suffer.

To give the devs some credit, these days chopping is not always the best option any more. Sometimes you do want lumber mill etc. And with Rationalism you do want a population of 10. But then you see people starve population to lock it at 10. And if you don't want your population to grow above 10, then there's no point to care about housing when you are at 10 pop. 109 turns until growth, totally fine for me!

 

[acluewithout]

It's significantly easier than its predecessors. I never beat Deity in 4 or 5, but it only took a few months for me to win @ Deity for 6. The AI just cannot provide a late game threat.

In addition, the game has very little restrictions on expansion, and economic management is very simplified. If you tried to ICS mindlessly in 4, you'd bankrupt yourself in no time, but 6 lets you brute force these things.

Other things include specialists being downplayed, and also diplomacy having fewer options.

Except economic management is less complex than it was in Civ 4 (sliders, etc). Diplomacy also had more options, like you were always forced to take sides since other civs would pressure you to stop trading (embargos, etc). You can't pledge to protect city states like you can in 5, nor can you haggle for votes.

These things have nothing to do with difficulty.Diplomacy in Civ 6 amounts to sending a delegation and making a joint war every now and then. The changes to builders is interesting, but nobody automated workers to begin with, unless you wanted a complete mess of a game.

Though yes, a huge part of it is it, because you don't need to comprehend most of these things like districts to beat the game on any difficulty-- all you have to do is focus on a few mechanics to bypass everything. While this is true of like every game, it's a bit more severe here.

I mean maybe not dumbed down is the right word, but to hardcore civ players it probably is a step down.

What he said.

“Dumbed down” might not be quite the right word.

Civ VI is probably the most complex Civ game in terms of the number of mechanics. And many of the mechanics have quite a lot of nuance.

But the complexity and nuanced mostly fall away, because you can brute force the game so easily, particularly as some mechanics really crowd out other approaches (Campuses and Science Adjacencies as an example). And some key mechanics seem to be much simpler than previous versions, particularly around economic management and diplomacy.

There are also maybe some mechanics that are focused on making Civ VI as “faster” game, and that might be part of the complaint (ie faster means dumber, slower means more thoughtful).

 

[Morningcalm]

Without more specifics on the context of "dumbed down" it's difficult to say why "people" (generally) say Civ VI is dumbed down. I wouldn't say that's fair though, even if the (IMO inferior) aesthetic style of Civ VI is reminiscent of bright, overly-saturated colorful mobile games (a style that makes me long for Civ V). Civ VI does have some strategic complexity, so I wouldn't say it's "dumbed down", even if it's definitely less strategically complex than Civ IV (no science/gold slider, fearsome AIs, multifaceted, complex diplomacy including vassals and the Apostolic Palace, war cost, AI preferences being more subtle instead of focused on a central, inane agenda).

 

[leandrombraz]

People that say that usually just wants to make the game look bad, without actually having an argument to support their claim. It's the same with calling it a mobile game, it's a nonsensical statement that is used emotionally, based purely on the art style. There's a lot of criticism to be made of Civ VI, dumbed down isn't one of them.

It's significantly easier than its predecessors. I never beat Deity in 4 or 5, but it only took a few months for me to win @ Deity for 6. The AI just cannot provide a late game threat.

But that's the AI's fault. I understand dumbed down as simplified mechanics, usually to appeal to a public that doesn't like complexity. If anything, the AI's struggle to play the game is a symptom of how complex it is.

but nobody automated workers to begin with, unless you wanted a complete mess of a game.

If you go ask how many people automate workers outside of Civfanatics, you're in for a surprise. The inability to automate workers is a common criticism to Civ VI, usually from older players that just want to have a good time and aren't into micromanagement. I risk to say that if Civ VI had automated workers and other types of automation, like puppet cities, there would be a lot more players that would make the jump from V to VI.

 

[Archon_Wing]

But that's the AI's fault. I understand dumbed down as simplified mechanics, usually to appeal to a public that doesn't like complexity. If anything, the AI's struggle to play the game is a symptom of how complex it is.

Like I said in my post after, this is a part of the problem, but it's not exclusively the problem. I listed things after that have little to do with the AI.

For example, even after nearly 4 years of development is there no way to encourage an ally to stop attacking your city state. From either a roleplay view or a strategic view, it still loses to its predecessors.

There are a number of nuances that I would consider streamlined and less involved in 5 and 6. For example, in 4, there were multiple choices for upgrading; eg you could upgrade from a warrior to a spear, a swordsman, or even a machine gun even though it's a completely different line.

Note that being complex or streamlined is not always a bad thing. Some things are probably more on the menial end and are better off simplified. Complexity doesn't always increase depth either.

If you go ask how many people automate workers outside of Civfanatics, you're in for a surprise. The inability to automate workers is a common criticism to Civ VI, usually from older players that just want to have a good time and aren't into micromanagement. I risk to say that if Civ VI had automated workers and other types of automation, like puppet cities, there would be a lot more players that would make the jump from V to VI.

Well, I'm trying to speak of the more serious player after all. If you automated workers; you probably don't really care about this topic to begin with.

I mean, yes builder cost and making the use the value of builder terms is something new and novel to the series, but let's not pretend it's some kind of giant innovation or requires that much skill.

I'm just trying to express why some players of older civ, find it a step down. I've never been in the hardcore group, so challenge doesn't bother me. But for those people that enjoy making entire forum threads about min-maxing every move, they probably just don't feel as rewarded.

But the complexity and nuanced mostly fall away, because you can brute force the game so easily, particularly as some mechanics really crowd out other approaches (Campuses and Science Adjacencies as an example). And some key mechanics seem to be much simpler than previous versions, particularly around economic management and diplomacy.

I think the more egregious imbalances do really put the damper on more interesting things. I could max out my industrial zone, but why? Why not just chop 245453 trees instead? I could flip every city peacefully, but I could have an easier time just capturing anything. Why put all that effort in when someone's just going to come in and be like "t200+ LOL Why not just conquer the whole map and pretend it's not a domination victory?"

Yes, you can make up your own rules and challenges. There are many people that enjoy the game by doing them. But there are also players that don't like to pretend and want the game to push their limits without having to hold two hands behind their backs; yea I guess they should play multiplayer, but that's just really dodging the issue here.

See, by now, I'm sure everyone has seen how the game is "meant to be played" (denounce everyone you see and take their stuff) and I think it's pretty inane and choose to ignore it. Can't expect everyone to do that. I've asked players if they'd play this game if we added a "Super Deity" with even more bonuses, and basically it wouldn't work.

To be fair though! Perhaps if you've played this franchise for tens of thousands of hours collectively, that maybe it is time to move on.

Granted, you could cheese you way through 4 too, but you still had to work for it.

Oh, and the mobile game comments are of course noise.

 

[steveg700]

This is a common complaint heard and I'm not sure what's meant by it. What is dumber in Civ VI compared to previous games? Is it not as complex?

Well, it's not a deep game that confronts players with tough choices. Civ VI lacks any kind of growth constraints. The teeth of unhappiness have certainly been pulled so that players can engage in unchecked expansion until the map is full, rather than challenge players to develop their civ's and expand in a strategic fashion. It's very much a game of spamming cookie-cutter cities until you win.

In addition, it's clear that the AI plays with a hand tied behind its back while cheating at the same time. or instance, if you're playing a religious game, it should be easy to notice that the AI is able to pump out religious units at a far faster rate than its faith output should allow (cheating), but then it doesn't leverage them against you (dumb). They could go straight to the heart of another civ's empire to stomp out their religion. Instead, they shuffle around looking for baby cities to poach. Sometimes can look at their cities and sometimes see ten or twelve apostles just shilly-shallying about.

The very fact that so many players here treat as the assumed difficulty is telling. The highest difficulty setting of a game should be harrowing and nearly impossible to win at. Instead, if anything, the game is easier because the AI is just better at building things that can just be taken from it. It ain't a hard game, and if a game is easy to play then it's rather axiomatic that it ain't all that smart.

People that say that usually just wants to make the game look bad, without actually having an argument to support their claim.

An unsupportable generalization. Detailed arguments are issued in these forums all the time.

 

[leandrombraz]

For example, even after nearly 4 years of development is there no way to encourage an ally to stop attacking your city state. From either a roleplay view or a strategic view, it still loses to its predecessors.

There are a number of nuances that I would consider streamlined and less involved in 5 and 6. For example, in 4, there were multiple choices for upgrading; eg you could upgrade from a warrior to a spear, a swordsman, or even a machine gun even though it's a completely different line.

Note that being complex or streamlined is not always a bad thing. Some things are probably more on the menial end and are better off simplified. Complexity doesn't always increase depth either.

There's an abyss between citing a few simplified things and saying that the game is dumbed down. For each of the things you mentioned, there's a lot more that are way more complex than previous iterations. The Civics tree and the policies system are way more complex than social policies, Eurekas/Inspirations make both the civic and tech tree more complex, other quest systems also adds complexity (city-states, era points). City States and Great People has a lot more options and uniqueness, a lot more going on than on Civ V. There are districts and wonders that are built on the map, all kinds of adjacency to think about, a variety of unique improvements with its own rules, tile features and resources that can be chopped/harvested, regional effects, loyalty, war weariness, governors, the list goes on. Sure, there are still options that the game lacks, not everything is as complex as in previous games and not every complexity leads to depthness, but to call it dumbed down is nonsense.

 

[Sostratus]

I agree with some previous points that the systems themselves are not “dumber” but the balance point of the game right now means that a lower skill level is needed to play successfully at virtually every level.

When you measure by “victory” the skill ceiling is very low.

 

[acluewithout]

I mean, to summarise: some mechanics in Civ VI are more deep and challenging than previous versions; some mechanics are less deep and challenging; but the net effect is the game is overall “easier” “less challenging” and or “less deep” once you get overall the initial learning curve of things like Districts.

And also the AI is somewhat weak.

My hope is the game modes might add some depth. I could certainly see the Game Modes adding more challenging mechanics around empire management and economics, because FXS won’t have any concerns about discouraging newer and or causal players because the mod is optional. Guess we’ll see.

 

[Archon_Wing]

There's an abyss between citing a few simplified things and saying that the game is dumbed down.

I mean, I'm talking about entire systems here. This isn't about a major detail or two. It is things that are central to decision making as a whole. I'm not going to stay here and exhaustively detail it.

I'm not saying that just because Civ 6 doesn't have distance maintenance, it's automatically worse than Civ 4. I'm saying that Civ 4 has systems in place that put a limitation on snowballing out of control, and dealing with them as a puzzle, while 6 doesn't even have a system at all beyond escalating settler costs which are not stopped by war. "Is my empire overexpanded" isn't even a thought here.

For each of the things you mentioned, there's a lot more that are way more complex than previous iterations. The Civics tree and the policies system are way more complex than social policies, Eurekas/Inspirations make both the civic and tech tree more complex, other quest systems also adds complexity (city-states, era points). City States and Great People has a lot more options and uniqueness, a lot more going on than on Civ V. There are districts and wonders that are built on the map, all kinds of adjacency to think about, a variety of unique improvements with its own rules, tile features and resources that can be chopped/harvested, regional effects, loyalty, war weariness, governors, the list goes on. Sure, there are still options that the game lacks, not everything is as complex as in previous games and not every complexity leads to depthness, but to call it dumbed down is nonsense.

Ehhh... well I didn't care for Civ 5 either. That game doesn't even feel like Civ to me. But you're really just posting a laundry list of features, and not how they really affect grand strategy on a large level. I mean war weariness isn't new, and nor is flipping. Resource removing isn't exactly something that really impacts strategy either (especially when the right answer is just to remove it). I mean, is it really challenging my brain to have to remove the stone just because it didn't exist in other games? It's not even really a choice.

Districts vs tiles should have been an interesting decision. But it really isn't. Not until the recent expansions did we really have super tiles. In most of the game deciding if you want a 20th 2/1 tile or a district or wonder, again, doesn't impact strategy in any way. Oh that rice tile? Not even worth collecting. Just build over it anyways since we don't grow past 10.


The rest of the stuff is... basically bucket filling. Being able to time inspirations and Eurekas, as well as Great People is more of a matter of mechanics rather than strategy. It's testing more of one's ability to memorize and know mechanics. This is probably better known as micromanagement.

Now don't get me wrong, Civ 6 certainly does demand a good deal of mechanical skill to play efficiently, and that DOES matter, but this is really not what I am getting at. While I don't agree with Steveg700's post, I do agree with his main point; none of this actually forces you to make tough choices.

I guess I would say combat in Civ 6 is more interesting because you can attack districts. Unfortunately, you kinda need an opponent for that.

But hey, Civ 6 is better than 5 if you ask me. I could even say the AI's stupidity helps in a way so that people have more freedom to do things.