Why Civ VI is so boring

[bjelar]

Every system seems to be good and every detail seems to be right but somehow the game just gets dull every time. I think I have finally figured out why Civ VI is so boring beyond turn 100. You no longer have to care about gold, because the game hands you 500+ every turn. You don't have to care about production, science, culture or district placement because everything is fine anyway. Your city is crap? No problemo, it is still good enough.

Remember the gouvernments in Civ V? It has been a while, but from memory if the other civs pick a different gouvernment than what you did, you get loyalty issues and the game is hard again. Civ VI needs something like that. It is fun as long as your actions matter, but after turn 100 you can leave all decitions to a blind cow and you will still be alright. It is too easy, not challenging and therefore boring.

[Renz]

What difficulty are you playing on? I play on 7 and there is never a moment like this until close to the end.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

I play deity, difficulty does vary between games though, depending on what happens with each civ.

I just hate that once you do get the ball rolling.. it just gets ridiculous in out shining people.

[akhsavi]

It's boring because you need to be encouraged to buy heavily overpriced DLCs to make it not boring.

[Covfefe]

Well, 2K will end up just adding actual casino mechanic to the Civ series in the future for more "excitement".

[Professor Byleth]

Yes very boring, better stop playing and also posting here. More fun games out there for you ;) ;)

[Palmerdale]

TeperiBlaze eredeti hozzászólása:

Forget Civ 4: Colonization, play the original Sid Meyers Col instead. Ten if not hundred times better, but with sad graphics. But as gameplay, this game beat even the newer Civ games, so good! :)

The original Colonization runs quite well with DosBox. Ignoring the graphics, the only performance issue I have with the original is how long it takes to generate the world. The only game flaw is the tendency for other nations parking units next to your cities. Still, it is a far, far better game than the Civ4:Colonization disaster.

[Gentoo]

dcain3456 eredeti hozzászólása:

TeperiBlaze eredeti hozzászólása:

Forget Civ 4: Colonization, play the original Sid Meyers Col instead. Ten if not hundred times better, but with sad graphics. But as gameplay, this game beat even the newer Civ games, so good! :)

THIS. Firaxis had ONE job in the Civ 4 Col remake and couldn't get that right. The original is far better except for the DOS graphics. There was a version for Windows 3.1 but it was buggy as hell.

The religion and revolution mod and its successor (just out now) makes it as good as the original. Seriously. Its dirt cheap and way better than Civ 6. Like night and day.

[Doom monkey]

Its the nature of a super well balanced game, that nothing matters and nothing happens.

Besides combat, where is the massive exploit? Where is the early game tech slingshot you had in civ4? Where is the luck of getting a free settler in civ 2 and 3? Or an advanced city just there under a hut?

Even a big barb uprising you get nothing but XP for it. :\

In my most recent game, i sacked my new nearest neighbors. Now i'm so far ahead nothing can stop me.

In civ4 by now the zulus would have a few vassals, and we'd still be on parity.

There's nothing the AI can do to stop you once you get even a little bit ahead.

[Despiser]

Most of the fun in any Civ game is establishing your empire. After that, tedious micromanaging takes over. If you’ve completed your tech trees then it gets stale fast. But I find most complaints come from large maps and higher. Of course it’s going to get boring with so many cities and no real importance to borders. Play on small to standard size maps where territory is much more meaningful and you don’t become embroiled in a drawn out slugfest. Your game should last about as long as research is meaningful but avoid artificial turn limit victory conditions.

[hurepoix]

Boring, may be because civ 6 is not so challenging. Perhaps it is to allow multiplayer to have more simple game they can handle as well as removing some surprise that can make a big difference at early game. (gaining a settler or a free city from a village like said above by doom monkey).

Point also I never saw at Civ 6 a horde of furious barbarian jump outside a village, crush your scout who enter this village, then spread and eventually raid your city.

You can abandon your city that now dont need a garrsion. Anyway more than half of the time barbarians entering your territory go wander elsewhere without plunder you.

You can also spawn as many city as you want without fear bankrut (as long a map size allows it)

But the final as more important point is you have not to fear a war. War is the player exclusive tools. You can use it to forbid an AI oponent to win, if he is too close to achieve a cultural, religious, or other condition ; just kick it enough to prevent him to win. On your side you have nothing the fear. AI is unable to go at war even it have 10 times more army forces than you.

I agree a big part of a civ game fun, is to establish an empire. For most people I know, it require a large, very large map. However without surprise, without challenge, with a pityful AI, Starting a game is no more than the chronical of a fortold victory ... not very exciting ... and so boring.

[Exemplar]

Gentoo eredeti hozzászólása:

Try Civ 4: Colonization. It adds a more enjoyable aspect (development and processing of goods).

Colonization is boring, too, once you realize your first moves should be to sell your initial guns to the closest indian village, drop off your guys and return to europe to pick up 2 people on horseback to farm out all the first time indian visits and stuff, buy your own galleon to transport treasures and sell muskets to every indian nation until they won't pay the price they cost in europe.

I mean, if you go through the "right" vectors, most formulae become simple. You can put the research subject matter down or you can make different shapes and/or limitations to see if you can make it more interesting. Case in point, were I to avoid doing what I know is conducive to winning any match of Colonization, I would see the way it appeals to you.

I appreciate the advances that have been made in improving Civ 6 AI. The other day I spawned directly between Sumeria and Nubia and while I did fine blocking one invasion, there was categorically nothing I could do when the second attacked. The next game I was pretty much isolated in a nice defensible corner and wasn't the target of one DoW while I quickly rolled to a science victory.

The systems are complex and I don't doubt people have varied experiences with a handful of examples that make things seem easy or unnecessarily difficult. One or two AI opponents with bad sets of circumstances can make the entire world system lean toward a runaway, and experience with the game allows a human player to be that runaway.

I see what the Op wants to say, but I don't agree it's the entire picture.

[zeeter]

I think a bigger problem with the game is that there really hasn't been anything new ever since culture came into play back in version 3. They added a few more buildings and wonders but those are just there to have something to build.

They added religion but that doesn't really do a whole lot.

They added districts, which make the player think about which types of buildings they want in a particular city. That's a step in the right direction, but really isn't that huge of a deal.

The game changing wonders we used to have are all nerfed. Remember Leonardo's Workshop? The way the Library of Alexandria used to work? These were wonders where if you were falling behind you could catch up quickly. Now most of the wonders add bonuses to a civ but don't change the game at all.

What the game needs is some completely new features that change the way we play the game while keeping the core concepts intact. Otherwise we're more or less playing the same game with better graphics.

[Edefonce]

I think it's mostly because a lot of player just want predictable games and guaranteed victories :
- Players don't want to learn how to manage their tiles : whining about non automatable workers
- Players don't want to learn the religious system: whining about how broken it is and desactivation of the victory condition
- Players don't want to learn the happiness system : whining about too few amenities
- Players don't want to learn the loyaty system : whining about how broken it is
- Players don't want to learn the tourism system : whining about the culture victory and only going to war to avoid their defeat
- Players don't want anything remotely random : whining about natural disaster or the random quests in CIV IV and BE

Yes the game can be perfectible but devs have made the game for a big portion of the player base who doesn't want to actually study the rules of the game to get good at it.

[zeeter]

Edefonce eredeti hozzászólása:

I think it's mostly because a lot of player just want predictable games and guaranteed victories :
- Players don't want to learn how to manage their tiles : whining about non automatable workers
- Players don't want to learn the religious system: whining about how broken it is and desactivation of the victory condition
- Players don't want to learn the happiness system : whining about too few amenities
- Players don't want to learn the loyaty system : whining about how broken it is
- Players don't want to learn the tourism system : whining about the culture victory and only going to war to avoid their defeat
- Players don't want anything remotely random : whining about natural disaster or the random quests in CIV IV and BE

Yes the game can be perfectible but devs have made the game for a big portion of the player base who doesn't want to actually study the rules of the game to get good at it.

I don't think any of the above are true. The problem with the game is that it is not at all random, other than the starting location. Almost every game has the same flow to it. We know the religious system but feel it is more annoying than anything else. We know how to manage tiles as we've been doing it since 1992 or whenever Civ1 came out. Same with happiness. Loyalty isn't that much different than the old culture system with some different ways to counter problems with it. We understand tourism - it's not that complex.

The issue that many of us have is that often in order to obtain any sort of victory other than domination we need to nearly dominate the other civs. And if we're doing that we may as well just go for a domination victory. Culture is the only other one I sometimes go for.

Typical game:
Win the early part in order to expand.
Build up in the middle part and choose a victory condition that suits the situation.
Knock down or out any of the other civs that can challenge my victory in the modern age.
Wait turn after turn until my victory is achieved in the atomic age, or whatever the next age is.

Yet almost often, by the time I've secured certain victory by knocking down the other civs I may as well just keep going on with my domination victory since I'm already almost there.

[TheStalePrinceofArdeer]

Amen 🙏 brother. There’s all these other interesting win conditions: culture, religion etc… but for each one you have to go military first to knock down your neighbours… which leaves you almost at domination every time. The other wins are basicallly domination but instead you “add on” a culture or science or religion win Stg the end… maybe it’s just a sad reflection of humanity?? Or just the world firaxis have created. Human behaviour and motivation is more complex then shown by civ/ which basically says: other civs are the enemey, people want pearls and arenas to be happy. Maybe sounds dumb - but I wonder if happiness could be a victory condition? And no building 25 arenas wouldn’t make people happy - would need to be a combination of science, wealth, culture etc