Why is CIV VI so bad when compared to CIV V?

[Pixelabor]

What is going on??

CIV VI main menu screen is blue without any charm... the text is so small.... apart from that the character models are a joke...

What happened here??

I tryed to bypass it... and play the game still.... and what do I encounter?? districts?? And just so much crap.... everything on screen is small... everything so hard to see when compared to civ V.... even the fog of war in CIV V was better no joke... I understand however why some people may like this new fog....

I am trying to like it I swear... but ... the game feels uncompleted and broken...

I refunded... my first civ game ever to be refunded...

Guess I will go back to civ V and play some more...

[Copernicus]

Firaxis designed Civ VI with an eye towards making it different from Civ V. After all, who wants to pay for the exact same game twice?

You've already got Civ V. If that is the game you want, perfect! Don't worry about other, different games.

[Dr0W]

IMHO Civ 6 is better than 5 in pretty much every single way.

[lethminite]

When it launched, it was worse than Civ 5, but I think it's fairly commonly accepted that Gathering storm brought it to neck and neck, if not better, and then they kept updating it with the frontier pack, making it very much the most complete and polished Civ game.

As was said though, it is quite a different game, and I've noticed people lots of people who insist that only one of Civ 4/5/6 is good, and the other two are bad. Civ 4 fans think it was the last civ game where the AI was good, while the detractors think it's UI is just too old, and doomstacking armies kills strategy. Civ 5 fans think Hexes and split armies improved the core gameplay, but the AI complaint, and things like religion being too gamey bring it down for some people, as well as little things like the core military strat often being about getting your +1 range promotion before needing to do the upgrade where they lose a range.
Civ 6 has a whole bunch of step changes from Civ 5, district/wonder placement being core gameplay, along with needing to learn to chain eurekas, the builder vs worker change, and managing early game barbarian camps makes there actually be very few transferable skills from Civ 5.

I find it all a bit silly, all 3 are clearly great games, each with their own pros and cons. People will have their favourites, where the design choices work best for them, but to think any of them are 'bad' is just silly.

That said, it's amazing how weak each one is without expansions fixing their initial problems, and fleshing out/adding systems. I'd be very surprised if Civ 7 gets anything but initial hate. But a few years after launch, is likely widely praised.

[jonnin]

are you running at a nutty high resolution? You can configure this I think, but the default was of course designed several years back before 4k monitors or whatever that might make everything scale tiny.
options - graphics - ui upscaling and or resolution will make it bigger. It also has a weird habit of defaulting to windowed/borderless which uses your desktop resolution and may not be suitable. Put it to full screen and see if you can find a size you like.

districts are what they are. Its part of this version's strategy.

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by lethminite:

When it launched, it was worse than Civ 5, but I think it's fairly commonly accepted that Gathering storm brought it to neck and neck, if not better, and then they kept updating it with the frontier pack, making it very much the most complete and polished Civ game.

As was said though, it is quite a different game, and I've noticed people lots of people who insist that only one of Civ 4/5/6 is good, and the other two are bad. Civ 4 fans think it was the last civ game where the AI was good, while the detractors think it's UI is just too old, and doomstacking armies kills strategy. Civ 5 fans think Hexes and split armies improved the core gameplay, but the AI complaint, and things like religion being too gamey bring it down for some people, as well as little things like the core military strat often being about getting your +1 range promotion before needing to do the upgrade where they lose a range.
Civ 6 has a whole bunch of step changes from Civ 5, district/wonder placement being core gameplay, along with needing to learn to chain eurekas, the builder vs worker change, and managing early game barbarian camps makes there actually be very few transferable skills from Civ 5.

I find it all a bit silly, all 3 are clearly great games, each with their own pros and cons. People will have their favourites, where the design choices work best for them, but to think any of them are 'bad' is just silly.

That said, it's amazing how weak each one is without expansions fixing their initial problems, and fleshing out/adding systems. I'd be very surprised if Civ 7 gets anything but initial hate. But a few years after launch, is likely widely praised.

Well said sir. I see these threads with some frequency here. The games simply aren't really comparable. I play all three off an on, I think the only real problem with six is that the AI has way too much to do within the time constraints it is given so it not infrequently makes less than optimal decisions.

[Sstavix]

Every Civ game is different than its predecessors. I remember being annoyed when they changed from a square grid to a hex system. And then, what did they do with stacking?!? I can't protect my catapults by combining them with pikemen any more?!?

But you learn how to adapt to the new rules. I'm sure that Civ 7 will have even more changes... that will lead to fan outrage.

In any case, if you don't like it, just play the prior versions of Civilization. Nothing wrong with that approach!

[colostmy4]

That is a matter of opinion. I personally like CIV 6 better. You can't satisfy everyone. If you don't like CIV 6 as much as CIV 5 then no sense waisting your time here. Go over to the CIV 5 community boards.

[󠀡󠀡]

@op:

t h e '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''A R T'''''''''''''''''''''''''A N D'''''''''''''''''''''''''''G R A P I X.

[Astachoth]

Originally posted by Pixelabor:

What is going on??

I refunded... my first civ game ever to be refunded...

It is not refunded. I see a mouse!

[Pixelabor]

Originally posted by Astachoth:

Originally posted by Pixelabor:

What is going on??

I refunded... my first civ game ever to be refunded...

It is not refunded. I see a mouse!

they didnt let me refund

[SlasH]

I liked Civ2 the most, but why not try something different once in a while. I cant stand all these whining ppl. If you don't like it, don't buy it or get a refund.

[ACS36]

As far as everything being small. It's a user error. Nearly all games are best played on lower resolutions. Just because you have a 4k monitor doesn't mean you should use a 4k resolution for the games that you play. You can also scale the UI up to 150% in the options.

Civ 6 is a better game than civ 5, but I can understand why you'd be intimidated by learning new mechanics. Actually, no, I can't. Learning is part of the fun of playing games. Figuring out how everything works is what makes it worth while. I'm surprised you ever learned how to play civilization 5 if you're this unwilling to play six.

[Astachoth]

Originally posted by Pixelabor:

Originally posted by Astachoth:

It is not refunded. I see a mouse!

they didnt let me refund

Since that is the case, you might as well install this:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702339134
The game is difficult, but interesting, plus this mod improves the appearance of Civilisation 6 dramatically. I am a lousy player and I dread the dark ages.

[Astachoth]

Originally posted by SlasH:

I liked Civ2 the most, but why not try something different once in a while. I cant stand all these whining ppl. If you don't like it, don't buy it or get a refund.

I have played that version the most. I can actually finish the game and conquer the world. I think that version 3 and 5 are much more beautiful, but version 2 especially Test of Time are more fun.

[dopefish]

What's wrong with districts? It seems you are just listing everything the game has and saying you don't like it in principle. What are we supposed to say to that? Play something else?