Sid Meier's Civilization VI

Sid Meier's Civilization VI

View Stats:
CordisDia May 16, 2019 @ 1:34pm
Why is 5th better than 6th
I'm interested in this game ... Steam reviews caught my attention ... Mixed ratings- are they result of superb 5th part, and this game is victim of high hopes( aka Fallout New Vegas vs Fallout4 and 76 ) , or there's something wrong with this game ?
< >
Showing 1-15 of 46 comments
Svetimas May 16, 2019 @ 1:45pm 
Civ V is not better than VI. Prove me wrong.
Kaisha May 16, 2019 @ 1:48pm 
The game is fundamentally a mess... It just does not work.

The movement and general 'day to day' game play (UI, clicking, response times, animations, etc...) are all slow and sluggish. It'd take pages to go into detail on all the small changes but suffice to say its just slow, sluggish, and unresponsive even on top end systems. And its not a lag/graphical/CPU issue, its just by design. Clicking is slow, movement slow, animations play out slowly, queuing actions is slow, attack indicators slow, map scrolling slow, auto scroll slow, etc..., etc... It just plays like a 20y old game. Anything that takes 1-2 min in 5 takes easily 4x longer in 6. It just makes the entire experience tedious.

There is little thought to gameplay depth or balance. There's system stacked on top of system, but they don't complement each other, rather they step on each other, yielding this weird mismatch of competing system. The result is the whole is less than the sum of the parts. Districts are a mess, adjacency bonuses a mess, wonder take up tiles so you have no room to build anything, workers are consumed (so all you really do is build them non-stop all game), tile yields mean almost nothing so you can place pretty much any city anywhere so terrain is almost meaningless (compared to 5). Happiness is a strange mess (and it wasn't great in 5 so how they managed to create a worse system is beyond me), culture and social policies/card system is just dumb, science is trivial to get so you usually are starting the space race by 1000 AD or something stupid.

The AI is... well so utterly terrible that it makes Civ 5 AI look good. And that's saying something...

The end result is there is there is nothing here to sink your teeth into. Every game plays out the same regardless of civilization or map contents. If you like to click around and see Civ as pretty solitaire then you'll probably enjoy it, but if you like strategy or depth then 5 is far better than 6.

The devs messed up bad on 6, refuse to admit their mistakes and instead have doubled down on them, and the reviews reflect that.
Last edited by Kaisha; May 16, 2019 @ 2:06pm
Havan_IronOak May 16, 2019 @ 2:16pm 
Read some highly rated reviews and decide for yourself. Civ V was a GREAT game and it was rock solid coding wise. Civ VI adds several new layers of complexity but it's not as solid coding wise. I've played Sid Meiers Civ games since before they had numbers after the titles and Civ VI is the first game that I've played where I've encountered what are clearly programming bugs.

Course I'm retired now but I lead a team of 20+ programmers for over a decade and I know a bit about software quality.
LextheMighty May 16, 2019 @ 3:39pm 
It isn't. 6 is way better.

Originally posted by Kaisha:
The game is fundamentally a mess... It just does not work.

The movement and general 'day to day' game play (UI, clicking, response times, animations, etc...) are all slow and sluggish. It'd take pages to go into detail on all the small changes but suffice to say its just slow, sluggish, and unresponsive even on top end systems. And its not a lag/graphical/CPU issue, its just by design. Clicking is slow, movement slow, animations play out slowly, queuing actions is slow, attack indicators slow, map scrolling slow, auto scroll slow, etc..., etc... It just plays like a 20y old game. Anything that takes 1-2 min in 5 takes easily 4x longer in 6. It just makes the entire experience tedious.
The unit animations play out slowly but you can enable quick movement and combat if that annoys you. The map scrolling, clicking, and other things aren't slow for me or any of my friends. That might be a problem with your computer.

Originally posted by Kaisha:
There is little thought to gameplay depth or balance. There's system stacked on top of system, but they don't complement each other, rather they step on each other, yielding this weird mismatch of competing system. The result is the whole is less than the sum of the parts. Districts are a mess, adjacency bonuses a mess, wonder take up tiles so you have no room to build anything, workers are consumed (so all you really do is build them non-stop all game), tile yields mean almost nothing so you can place pretty much any city anywhere so terrain is almost meaningless (compared to 5). Happiness is a strange mess (and it wasn't great in 5 so how they managed to create a worse system is beyond me), culture and social policies/card system is just dumb, science is trivial to get so you usually are starting the space race by 1000 AD or something stupid.
Your right some of the systems do need improvement (religion and espionage). But districts are my favorite part about this game. You can't just cram as many wonders in a city as you like now. You actually have to plan and prepare. With gathering storm tile yields are huge. A city with a river or volcano next to it has a big advantage. Happiness was a mess in civ 5. Global happiness was extremely annoying. Amenities aren't perfect but they are way better than civ 5's system.

Originally posted by Kaisha:

The AI is... well so utterly terrible that it makes Civ 5 AI look good. And that's saying something...

The end result is there is there is nothing here to sink your teeth into. Every game plays out the same regardless of civilization or map contents. If you like to click around and see Civ as pretty solitaire then you'll probably enjoy it, but if you like strategy or depth then 5 is far better than 6.

The devs messed up bad on 6, refuse to admit their mistakes and instead have doubled down on them, and the reviews reflect that.
I agree the AI has problems especially with military tactics. But it's not enough to ruin the game.

One of my favorite things about 6 is how every game is different. Each civ and leader has abilities that change up the gameplay a bit.

Civ 6 might just not be the civ game for you. But I find it much better than 5.
Kurnn May 16, 2019 @ 6:38pm 
Civ 5 isnt better then civ 6.

Its like saying Fallout New Vegas is better then Fallout 4. Both are awesome, but in their own way.

Civ 6 is the evolution of Civ. Outstanding game!
Raj May 17, 2019 @ 12:14am 
I have played all Civilisation series from series 1. Series 6 is definitely the best of all. The district layout, grievances, loyalty, climate, etc has only made the game more exciting. No doubt there are issues/bugs in the game but overall the game is better.
pitonsnaboca May 17, 2019 @ 2:02am 
Civ6 was entertaining at release. A bit rough on the edges and unpolished, but it did the trick for a few months. It was comparable to Civ5 at its peak.

After this last expansion, Civ6 is way better than 5 could ever dream to be.
tulle040657 May 17, 2019 @ 9:34am 
Why is cake better than ice cream?
maestro May 17, 2019 @ 10:34am 
I'm only about 20 hours in and I liked it so far. I agree the AI can be more annoying than anything especially when they keep bothering you for things you'll never agree to. The cons don't outweigh the pros for me tho. Overall I've had a generally enjoyable time and there is also plenty of stuff on the workshop to help you tweak your game.
swap commends May 17, 2019 @ 11:24am 
Originally posted by DocGangrena:
I'm interested in this game ... Steam reviews caught my attention ... Mixed ratings- are they result of superb 5th part, and this game is victim of high hopes( aka Fallout New Vegas vs Fallout4 and 76 ) , or there's something wrong with this game ?
Dudes, everyone has different views on gameplay. Every part of the Civilization was great in it years. Somebody likes civ5, somebody still plays siv4 ( stupid ),
and a lot of liked civ6. So it's only your opinion, u don't need to tell, that ,, no, civ6 is better!", ,, no, civ5 is better! "
Last edited by swap commends; May 17, 2019 @ 11:24am
Cinereous Monk May 17, 2019 @ 12:00pm 
Originally posted by Kurnn:
Civ 5 isnt better then civ 6.

Its like saying Fallout New Vegas is better then Fallout 4. Both are awesome, but in their own way.

Civ 6 is the evolution of Civ. Outstanding game!

Fallout 4 was a dog's breakfast compared to New Vegas and 3, the only upside was the modding system.

Civ 6 is devolution in almost every aspect apart from the districts feature.
Doom monkey May 17, 2019 @ 12:09pm 
Kind of a pointless set of comparisons.

If you get far enough into civ6, you realize that all you need to do at any piont to win is build military units and crush the AI. they can't fight.
donald23 May 17, 2019 @ 12:13pm 
Originally posted by Doom monkey:
Kind of a pointless set of comparisons.

If you get far enough into civ6, you realize that all you need to do at any piont to win is build military units and crush the AI. they can't fight.
This goes for literally every Civ in the main series since 1...
Doom monkey May 17, 2019 @ 12:21pm 
Originally posted by donald23:
Originally posted by Doom monkey:
Kind of a pointless set of comparisons.

If you get far enough into civ6, you realize that all you need to do at any piont to win is build military units and crush the AI. they can't fight.
This goes for literally every Civ in the main series since 1...

Thats just untrue < 5 and building a big military had enough downsides that you would get behind and could have problems.

6 literally has a card that makes it so you can have an infinite number of early units with no upkeep. If you try to do that in civ4, your economy collapses.

Also you barely need a big army in civ6 because you're going to be running about a 20:1 kill/death ratio. God it's so sad.
cerberusiv May 17, 2019 @ 12:38pm 
First up let's be honest about V. On release a lot of people hated the one unit per tile (and went back to IV and haven't played a later version of civ since). The AI coding left a lot to be desired and some aspects were never satisfactorily fixed (it has the same flaw as VI for the sequence in which it moves units. I play water maps and with V would often see an AI civ suicide its melee ships against a city, then send in a battleship and reduce the city defences to zero, spend 20 turns bombarding that city and never send a melee unit to capture it).

V was steadily improved and was quite a decent game by the end.

VI started with basically the same AI routines but is a far more complex game (easily the most complex game in the main civ series). The AI has never been properly sorted out to prioritise different aspects of the game and often appears to make random (poor) decisions (I generally build both Venetian Arsenal and Ruhr Valley wonders in my capital but the AI often fails to locate its industrial zones where even one of those wonders can be built in a city).

VI isn't that much better or worse than most of the previous civ games (III was really badly regarded when it came out, never recovered and was quietly forgotten when IV was released). It has it's flaws like they all do.

VI has had a series of "unfortunate" things happen, or not happen, and the reviews have gone up and down.

If you have never played a civ game before then buying the complete edition of V in a sale is probably the way to go. That is a lot cheaper then VI and will allow you to decide whether you actually like this type of game. Then try VI in a year or so when there will hopefully be a complete edition available at a reasonable sale price.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 46 comments
Per page: 1530 50

Date Posted: May 16, 2019 @ 1:34pm
Posts: 46