Most of the Paradox Interactive strategy games have a similar flaw, where the developer releases a game that is bare bones, only to update over a decade with paid expansions that slowly bring in new players at increased cost. PI is kinder than Sid in that only one player needs an expansion for everyone to have access in multiplayer. I don't see it so much as greed as cost recovery. These games are incredibly ambitious, and in order to fund future games (and keep staff fed), the low risk business option is to produce add-ons at inflated cost. The practice is somewhat predatory, but the alternative for gaming companies is to die or get bought out by the scarier competition. Keep in mind that even a game at $60 costs less than a few decent meals, and the payoff lasts hundreds of hours more. The more egregious cost is the time and health investment for "just one more turn".
excellent addition to the discussion! Great points all around, Sims is a similar but much more dangerous beast... I think Sims gets alot of slack though because they made the game free. Imagine if Civ did something similar. Base game is free, addons and content packs costs raise the standard of gameplay. Obviously sims is a horribly monetized game, so im not saying thats the solution though. My real problem is just having to wait a year or two before the game is actually worth playing because of how much is left out from the last release on launch
valid points, and when looking at games like these, the cost value you get out of these seemingly small expansions is immensely greater than other games. While you may play skyrim over and over again, its DLC in the end will only really be worthwhile the first or first few times, whereas expansions to sandbox strategy games like this will give infinite replay ability meaning less features will have a far larger impact overall. Value wise I think its fair, given just one civ opens up countless hours of new experiences through playing as or with them.
I love Civ 5. For me it's the best in the series and I always keep coming back to it. Civ 6's cartoony art style doesn't work well for a Civ game if you ask me. If anything it makes me dream of Pirates!
I am a life long Civ2 player, I finally broke out and got 6 on sale but its been like 6 weeks and I haven't installed it yet, something just doesn't look right lol
I just had a game where i'm absolutely struggling to put down my first campus districts and hammurabi just rocks up with knights and then i check the tech tree and see that he is in the industrial age. i'm so done.
My biggest problem with this style of release, is that it pushes developers and publishers to discourage modding. Usually by reducing the power of the modding SDK. Because the more power modders have, the more likely it is a mod will come out with a mechanic or feature that would/could have been released over time. But I've gotten used to waiting 5 years for a game to finish its lifecycle and just get the collection with all the DLC in it.
Been thinking on and off for maybe a year now about getting back into it. Haven't played since civ3 back in early 2000s. That said, it's nice to see how often civ6 goes on sale on steam. Usually base game sale prices is $6CAD. Right now can get the entire everything for $31CAD instead of $266.. It seems just hanging out for 5+ years is the meta for it to be worth buying!
Brooo we seem to be on the same path here lmao. As soon as the game came out I immediately told myself I'll wait a long while before buying. Between this and another game, Stellaris, I think I'll go back to playing Stellaris for my strategy game needs
How do you feel about the older entries now? Are they still replayable? My first Sid Meier's was Colonization 1994, the second was Civilization II, then I played Civ III and then Civ VI, I have to say I prefer doom stacks to districts, and I can say the same about depletable builder units over worker units. I feel the older games let you have a more representative type of game, less tied to assuming the four little dudes in a hex took up all the space. I liked the tiles for the simple reason it felt like you could actually build an empire and not like seven cities.
Played civ 2-5. Every other year I watch a lets play of civ 6. Im sticking with 5. Absolutely dispise the district system. Also look at what they did to my boy, the worker ;-;. Hes ruined.
My biggest gripe with Civ 6 that has kept me from playing it for more than an hour or two in total... It's too god damn complicated. Civ V took me long enough to get into, but admittedly when I finally did get into it, I poured over 2,000 hours into it subsequently thereafter. With Civ VI, it just feels like an utter mess of tacked on features that drag the gameplay out unnecessarily to an already long game. I'm going to take another stab at it today but I don't have high hopes for it.
I don't know. I bought it on summer sale without the dlcs and tested it over the last two days. I can see what they tried and the potential but it feels... restrictive and like work? I mean it somehow is fun but it also feels annoying and tiring. Suddenly 7 turns feel like eternity compared to civ5 and the whole mechanics don't seem... thought trough? Like the district thing: Yeah, it is somehow an interesting idea and adds more strategy but at the same time it conflicts with the map generation, making it purely a thing based on luck. The whole game is based on science for you to win every other victory so you will always need the campus in every city, therefore already losing one tile (if you are a small island of 7-8 tiles it is a problem). And if you don't have mountains or jungles around, you get worse output compared to other civs who are lucky. Same with production: I had basically zero production since having only two hills near my city so I needed the factory disctrict next to the two hills. However, this lead to the problem that I couldn't build other districts since I needed the other tiles for farms for food. You see the problem? While the district idea is nice on paper in reality it is pretty restrictive, forcing you to design your city in the way the map tells you, even if it is not the playstyle you are heading for. The worst thing is, that you can't even remove the districts or relocate them so you are stuck with them even if you don't need them anymore. And the district idea is not new either. It actually existed in civ5 already, where specialists could build their unique buildings like academies, factories etc etc on tiles outside the city. I think this system was way better since it allowed you to enhance modernisations like mines and other things and you could remove them if not needed anymore. It was more flexible. Also, I don't like the idea of workers in civ6. Their "exhaustion" is just so annoying, forcing you to produce them all the time instead of working on real projects, not to mention that you can't build roads anymore, leaving it to the merchant. This is actually a problem too since it forces you to use them between your own cities and with every other city outside to create a network, which doesn't work with limited units like 1 in the beginning or 7 in the late game... And I won't start with the agendas... shit, this is just childish and annoying. Like I give a crap if China likes it if I produce much or hating me for building wonders...
As someone who has played civ 4 a majority of his life it's a new experience to play 5 and 6 but I bought them both on sale it's kinda like my crusader kings 2 and 3 issue to much dlc but without it you miss out on the best content. I originally got civ 6 launch edition the day it came out on switch, then I got all the dlc over the years and bought 6 again when it was on sale on steam with "complete edition " now I just play on pc / steam deck for civ so my answer is yes it should be put in Day 1 but I'll still buy civ 7 when it comes out ugh....lol
Civ 6 is still the only civilization game I've aged but I ended up dropping it because me and my friends couldn't play together. Two of us were pm ps5 and one was on ps4. I used to be able to play with my ps5 friend but now I can't even do that... We tried so many different things to fix it but none ever worked. Kinda sad becaue I really enjoyed the game. Just gotta wait for civilization 7 I guess
I feel like the games have become too bloated with content and features that were never needed and its lost touch from the roots of the classic games. Complexity for the sake of complexity. Culture, Faith, Tourism, Districts, specialized buildings for resource tiles, city states, civics, climate system, governors. It just keeps going...Jesus christ bro all I wanted to do is build cities, build an army move my units around and conquer the world but now its just micromanagement simulator that turns every game into a hundred hour ordeal of over analyzing absolutely everything
yeah, in order to get shit done in civ6 you have to do other shit first. Like, I always want to go for domination victory but end up working on science first to get the good units first or keeping up with the ai. It is a problem with civ6. It all feels like work.
Sorry but this video is just objectively wrong at multiple points. Civ 6 was by an overwhelming margin the most feature-rich Civ game at launch. that isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. If your opinion is that it should have had even more at launch, then fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Similarly, if you just don't like the features, that's obviously also completely fine. I agree that in some respects there should have been more - from what I remember the number of civilisations was quite underwhelming at launch for example. But to compare it disfavourably to what Civ V was like at launch after Civ IV is absolutely absurd in my opinion. Sorry but you're just wrong about what you say Civ VI changed at launch. It was *far* more than just a graphics change and adding districts; it fundamentally reworked a boatload of features. Here's an incomplete list of new or changed gameplay features added to Civ VI at launch: - Districts - Eurekus and Inspirations - A completely new tech tree for culture - A reworked combat system, with the introduction of formations, changes to movement mechanics, different 'layers' of units, etc - A brand new victory condition, religious victory - A different religion system - Completely reworked (and in my opinion massively improved) city-state system, with the introduction of envoys replacing the old system of just buying influence with gold, and giving every single city-state a unique bonus - A new policy card system, far more extensive than the policy tree system of Civ V - Completely changing workers/builders. Now instead of workers that live forever and take time to build, workers build instantaneously but have finite charges - Completely reworked great person system. Now every great person is unique and there are global competitions for them - Fundamentally reworked happiness system. This completely changes how Civ VI is played compared to Civ V, encouraging large sprawling empires instead of restricting yourself to a few small cities because of how crippling the happiness mechanic is - Completely changing how roads work. Like with happiness, this allows you to build vast sprawling empires instead of being restricted to small empires because of how expensive roads were. - AI agendas, making every AI feel more unique In terms of gameplay mechanics, the two games were *massively* different at launch. I'm sure there's a bunch of things I missed too. Almost every single gameplay mechanics from Civ V was changed, very often in fundamental ways. You're perfectly free to dislike those changes, I don't like all of them. But to pretend that all Civ VI changed from Civ V was new graphics and districts is just silly. Yes, CIv VI didn't have every single last Civ V mechanic at launch. That would be unreasonable in my opinion to expect for a completely new game with completely new mechanics. And I agree that Civ VI was a pretty flawed product at launch; the war weariness system especially was very badly handled, and we could have done with a few more leaders/civs to start off with. But Civ VI was very noteworthy when it first launched for just how many features it DID have. And in my opinion, the new features they added in the expansions were almost all very good and unique once things were properly balanced (which to be clear did take a while). Probably the biggest disappointment in my opinion of the game as it is now is the World Congress, and how the optional modes in the new frontiers pass are badly balanced. Civ V, meanwhile, was extremely bare-bones at launch It was hugely panned by the fandom for its perception of being a massive step down from Civ IV: the general consensus among fans at the time was that it was a dumbed down and shallow experience. From what I remember, it was also a bug-ridden mess too. Civ VI at launch had some performance issues and bugs, some balance issues like with war weariness, and it did lack in the number of civilisations from what I remember, but the general consensus was that people were impressed by how feature-rich it was as a base game. Meanwhile, it literally took years for Civ V to not be hated by the majority of the Civ fandom. Seriously, you must not have been in the forums when these two games came out because the difference in the fan reception was like night and day. Civ VI took years to become truly great, but it was *inordinately* better at launch than Civ V was at launch, both in terms of the fan reception and in terms of the depth of the gameplay and features. In fact, probably one of the reasons why Civ VI was recieved relatively well at launch was because expectations for the game had been in the gutter after how awful the launch of Civ V was. No, it wasn't 'a couple months' for the expansions in Civ V. I really have no idea where you got this idea from but it's completely wrong. The first expansion for Civ V, Gods and Kings, came out 21 months after the base game. That's 5 months longer than the first expansion for Civ VI which came out 16 months after the base game. It honestly sounds like Civ V was your first Civ game, and you picked years after launch but thought it was a new release for some reason. Either that or your memory has just decieved you. Because I'm sorry, this video really sounds like you're living in an alternate reality. There's nothing wrong in criticising what Civ VI was like at launch, and there's nothing wrong with prefering Civ V over Civ VI, but there's simply no credible argument at all that the Civ VI base game had fewer features than the Civ V base game, or that Civ V was better recieved at launch than Civ VI. If anything, you could even argue that Civ VI had more features at launch than Civ V did after all of its DLC, because although Civ VI did remove a few features, it added quite a lot of new features too.
Good points! Civ 3 was my first albeit admittedly I played it as a youngster so many features were undiscovered and civ 5 (at launch) was the first civ game I really dive head first into
I bought Civ 6, complete, for $20 in late 2024. It's my first experience with the franchise. I'm playing it, and it's fun, but I definitely won't be back for 7. I think that's just fine. Play the version of the game you like. They'll always make a new version and change something you love, so just play the game you like and try a new franchise next time. That's how I ended up here. And I'll end up somewhere else when I get tired of this game. It's a buyer's market. We have all the power. They desperately need your dollars. Don't give them any. Make them prove that they're worthy. Bottom line is this. You'll never have enough time to play all the games you want to play. Never spend 1 second of your life playing a game that sucks.
Every new Civ game the graphics keep getting better, while the gameplay keeps getting butchered. The new mechanics are great, but why ditch so many cool old mechanics which are unrelated?
I kinda like it, but I deffo see the downsides. I think they should make it an optional path a civ can go down with different benefits and drawbacks. Would be very cool imo, more choice for the player is rarely ever a bad thing
@@SoGoodContent Thank you for your response. Keep making great videos! Out of respect, I give you some of my reasoning. I actually agree with you for the most part. More choices are better. I love Civ6's spy and rebellion system, and other aspects of the game. Also, the districts are not inherently bad. The main problem (along with the wonders) is their detriment to the map. Almost all of the older civ games (especially 3 and 5) captured, to some degree, the sense of scale a map should have. Wide open, unused spaces is beneficial to the maps. Of course I realize this just a video game, but from a bird's eye view IRL, the world is mostly open spaces compared to cities. It's okay to fill entire tiles with farms, let's say, because IRL farms to go on for miles and miles. Civ6 is the first Civ game I've played completely disconnected from this reality. (The Pyramids themselves are as large as the city of Giza LOLOL.) More importantly, in terms of gameplay, free movement of units in Civ6 gets clogged up on these condensed, overly-constructed, overly-filled-up maps. This is part of the reason why Civ5 combat was far more superior, and it just looks better (graphics aside). The only win I give to Civ6's combat system is that there is unit stacking in later part of the games. I'm not the only one. Every die-hard Civ fan I know has said the same thing. Just take a look at @izalith5847 comments below. Most of us continue to play Civ5 more than Civ6 for this reason and others. Anyway, "no complaints without solutions" a wise man once said. The solution to districts problem is simply to shrink them so they don't take up entire tiles on the map. In Civ 3, the player could actually zoom into the city (opening up a separate interface) to see various wonders/buildings. This is how districts should be done. Simply build them within the city tile and have a separate interface to see their progression/building etc. It more realistic from an immersion standpoint and, in terms of gameplay, the maps is freed up again. My two cents. For what it's worth.
I've been playing civ since civ 1 in the 90s, and I beg to differ. I find the district system and wonder placement system a welcome change and a breath of fresh air. It brings about new strategies for gameplay and prevents cities from being "overpowered" as it limits the stuff you can build in them by the amount of land you actually have in control, like how it is IRL. In civ 1-5, you can literally build all wonders in 1 city, this would be impossible in civ 6.
When do you know a Civ game is finished? Traditionally it's when the developers release a "complete" edition, which in the case of Civ VI, is apparently called "Anthology". Look for it on sale and your criticism about the cost is minimized. You can then be free to focus on more substantive criticisms like Civ V is really gey and VI is less gey
District mechanic was in Endless Legend a few years earlier (or maybe some other games before this). I don't think Civ 6 is worth putting more money into after the lame base game. I can just play most other 4x titles for a better experience.
Revolution is the best the series should be shut down for how bad it is every time I play this garbage game I keep getting screwed over by the NPCs or just the games stupid settings can't get anything done can't do anything might as well just keep the game uninstalled or get my money back cuz the game is that s***
Lol I predicted civ 6 would release the way it did, as in very few characters to start and then they'll have you pay outrageous amounts for dlc. I don't like that kind of business at all hence why I won't buy civ 6 unless it's on a massive sale. Even then idek if I like the small changes from 5 to 6. The reviews were as predicted as well. Just a shame because civ 5 put them on my radar and i REALLY loved playing civ 5. Stellaris was actually my main strategy game but civ 5 obviously played way differently and felt way smalled then Stellaris. Games were faster imo. What a shame
Yeah just played as Germany just going for production win. Game tanked in two turns quit the game. I had taken over two empires halfway through the third for some reason as you get into the stupid voting section of the game the ai always votes against you. This caused my games economy to collapse then i was losing 60 gold a turn. I had the biggest empire with commercial hubs harbours, luxury resources, food. I built entertainment complexes. Had policies to improve ammenties, classical republic. I had far better tech than the ai. But they voted and now my stats are tanked. Stupid rules stupid game. Ruins the fun. Im in a golden age and im easily the winning faction im trading with two other civs who im diplomatically favoured. Yet still my economy tanks. High population, housing is good. Arenas. This game is just rigged af.
For a sequel just felt weird how much got abandoned from civ 5 at launch, besides Civ 5 dlc and all cost so much less than civ 6 so I guess its just up to the player
@@SoGoodContent I would like to remind you that civ 5 at launch was similarly barebones compared to civ 4 with all dlcs as it didn't have religions or espionage, but it sure had absolutely, and by that i mean absolutely, braindead ai (although final civ 5 ai is better than civ 6 ai but that's mainly because there aren't so many little systems confusing the ai all at once)
Wow first fallout 4 and now civ6 , i guess we should never listening to opinions on game as long as you enjoy it )Also im glad civ6 was on a huge sale on steam😅)
This game feels like it was made by a bunch of passive aggressive people who wanted their users to suffer. My wife and I play online, side by side on different consoles and televisions. I see firsthand that no matter what start position you select when matchmaking, it ALWAYS skews towards one player over the other. One of us will have natural wonders on an entire continent alone, while the other spawns on a tiny island with 3 other civs who immediately hate you for no reason (surprise war anyone?) We haven't finished a game in years because it blue-screens out and crashes so badly we just abandon ship and start anew. Since the most recent update (a few weeks ago), AI turn times have gone from about one minute to upwards of 5 MINUTES PER TURN, rendering the game unplayable as our turns take at most 90 seconds only to wait 5 minutes in-between. This game is riddled with glitches and bugs that should never have made it to the final product, let alone still standing after yearsof updating... I'm expecting the same, unfinished garbage to drop in Civilization 7.
No it does not get better and better revolution had all of this s*** and actually functional and you didn't have the worried about your stupid units getting stuck because the game settings are total bulshit how can you say that it is fair when your AI can't walk on other enemies squares but they can walk wherever the hell they want without any problems which I think is the most bulshit in the entire game and why I think this game should be completely removed from the steam store wipe it from existence making sure no one can play the game till it is actually fixed and not to the point where they consider it fixed were WE consider it fixed because that is what matters not what they think but what we think if we don't like it we're not going to play so what is the point of listening to the developer say that it works they recently made an update where it should allow you to play without having to go through the f****** terms I skipped the terms because of an invite and it wouldn't let me play what a lousy piece of s*** game piece of s*** developers lied in the update and made me just uninstalled the gameit's not coming back on I'm not going to put it back I'm never going to put it back I will put revolution on my console I will put it on my PC the moment they put it to PC I will not put any of their piece of s*** games else on there the only one I will put on is literally revolution
new is a waste of time 5 better in every way as 6 took it and made it more one sided for ai nerf combat you enjoy non stop pop ups and your city going to rebellion mode for crap you cant stop or best part small citys smaller expansion boring af every new leaders are for one trick play styles
@@SoGoodContent Cool I'm glad you took it the constructive way! And you might be funny and witty naturally but it must not feel forced, so being more natural and relaxed would probably make the content more enjoyable. Good luck!
Most of the Paradox Interactive strategy games have a similar flaw, where the developer releases a game that is bare bones, only to update over a decade with paid expansions that slowly bring in new players at increased cost. PI is kinder than Sid in that only one player needs an expansion for everyone to have access in multiplayer.
I don't see it so much as greed as cost recovery. These games are incredibly ambitious, and in order to fund future games (and keep staff fed), the low risk business option is to produce add-ons at inflated cost. The practice is somewhat predatory, but the alternative for gaming companies is to die or get bought out by the scarier competition.
Keep in mind that even a game at $60 costs less than a few decent meals, and the payoff lasts hundreds of hours more. The more egregious cost is the time and health investment for "just one more turn".
excellent addition to the discussion! Great points all around, Sims is a similar but much more dangerous beast... I think Sims gets alot of slack though because they made the game free. Imagine if Civ did something similar. Base game is free, addons and content packs costs raise the standard of gameplay. Obviously sims is a horribly monetized game, so im not saying thats the solution though.
My real problem is just having to wait a year or two before the game is actually worth playing because of how much is left out from the last release on launch
valid points, and when looking at games like these, the cost value you get out of these seemingly small expansions is immensely greater than other games. While you may play skyrim over and over again, its DLC in the end will only really be worthwhile the first or first few times, whereas expansions to sandbox strategy games like this will give infinite replay ability meaning less features will have a far larger impact overall. Value wise I think its fair, given just one civ opens up countless hours of new experiences through playing as or with them.
I love Civ 5. For me it's the best in the series and I always keep coming back to it.
Civ 6's cartoony art style doesn't work well for a Civ game if you ask me. If anything it makes me dream of Pirates!
I am a life long Civ2 player, I finally broke out and got 6 on sale but its been like 6 weeks and I haven't installed it yet, something just doesn't look right lol
@@ismu34civ2? 3rd and 4rd were great too, why you didnt try them?
The District mechanic is actually the exact reason why I don't like 6.
I will never be able to say Civ 6 is better than Civ 5. I could make an entire video on the issues with Civ 6
Do it.
Do it and I'll subscribe to your channel.
@ I wish you all would have stepped up 7 months ago when I wasn’t working full time lol…
I just had a game where i'm absolutely struggling to put down my first campus districts and hammurabi just rocks up with knights and then i check the tech tree and see that he is in the industrial age.
i'm so done.
I hated civ 6. All I wanted from it was improved AI, instead they made it worse
I'm glad I'm not the only person who didn't like VI. It seems pretty divisive, but I honestly didn't even play and it just kept restarting V.
My biggest problem with this style of release, is that it pushes developers and publishers to discourage modding. Usually by reducing the power of the modding SDK. Because the more power modders have, the more likely it is a mod will come out with a mechanic or feature that would/could have been released over time. But I've gotten used to waiting 5 years for a game to finish its lifecycle and just get the collection with all the DLC in it.
This is why I'm not excited for civ7 base game, not before they finish the whole thing.
Been thinking on and off for maybe a year now about getting back into it. Haven't played since civ3 back in early 2000s. That said, it's nice to see how often civ6 goes on sale on steam. Usually base game sale prices is $6CAD. Right now can get the entire everything for $31CAD instead of $266..
It seems just hanging out for 5+ years is the meta for it to be worth buying!
Brooo we seem to be on the same path here lmao. As soon as the game came out I immediately told myself I'll wait a long while before buying. Between this and another game, Stellaris, I think I'll go back to playing Stellaris for my strategy game needs
fellow patient gamers unite. also i like your pfp. only cool dudes know where that's from
Civ 3 is better than 6. I enjoy it more
For a 6 year old game 4 major expansions ain’t to bad and what I want to keep expanding the game keeping it fresh.
How do you feel about the older entries now? Are they still replayable? My first Sid Meier's was Colonization 1994, the second was Civilization II, then I played Civ III and then Civ VI, I have to say I prefer doom stacks to districts, and I can say the same about depletable builder units over worker units. I feel the older games let you have a more representative type of game, less tied to assuming the four little dudes in a hex took up all the space. I liked the tiles for the simple reason it felt like you could actually build an empire and not like seven cities.
Played civ 2-5. Every other year I watch a lets play of civ 6. Im sticking with 5. Absolutely dispise the district system. Also look at what they did to my boy, the worker ;-;. Hes ruined.
Same for me. Humankind is what I play if I need a break from civ5.
Yeah, apparently all workers in Civ VI have the IV Slavery Civic (can sacrifice population to finish building)
You lost me at not knowing who Sean Bean is…
did you...not watch the full bit? Sean Bean the goat
My biggest gripe with Civ 6 that has kept me from playing it for more than an hour or two in total... It's too god damn complicated. Civ V took me long enough to get into, but admittedly when I finally did get into it, I poured over 2,000 hours into it subsequently thereafter. With Civ VI, it just feels like an utter mess of tacked on features that drag the gameplay out unnecessarily to an already long game. I'm going to take another stab at it today but I don't have high hopes for it.
I don't know. I bought it on summer sale without the dlcs and tested it over the last two days. I can see what they tried and the potential but it feels... restrictive and like work? I mean it somehow is fun but it also feels annoying and tiring. Suddenly 7 turns feel like eternity compared to civ5 and the whole mechanics don't seem... thought trough? Like the district thing: Yeah, it is somehow an interesting idea and adds more strategy but at the same time it conflicts with the map generation, making it purely a thing based on luck. The whole game is based on science for you to win every other victory so you will always need the campus in every city, therefore already losing one tile (if you are a small island of 7-8 tiles it is a problem). And if you don't have mountains or jungles around, you get worse output compared to other civs who are lucky. Same with production: I had basically zero production since having only two hills near my city so I needed the factory disctrict next to the two hills. However, this lead to the problem that I couldn't build other districts since I needed the other tiles for farms for food. You see the problem? While the district idea is nice on paper in reality it is pretty restrictive, forcing you to design your city in the way the map tells you, even if it is not the playstyle you are heading for. The worst thing is, that you can't even remove the districts or relocate them so you are stuck with them even if you don't need them anymore. And the district idea is not new either. It actually existed in civ5 already, where specialists could build their unique buildings like academies, factories etc etc on tiles outside the city. I think this system was way better since it allowed you to enhance modernisations like mines and other things and you could remove them if not needed anymore. It was more flexible.
Also, I don't like the idea of workers in civ6. Their "exhaustion" is just so annoying, forcing you to produce them all the time instead of working on real projects, not to mention that you can't build roads anymore, leaving it to the merchant. This is actually a problem too since it forces you to use them between your own cities and with every other city outside to create a network, which doesn't work with limited units like 1 in the beginning or 7 in the late game...
And I won't start with the agendas... shit, this is just childish and annoying. Like I give a crap if China likes it if I produce much or hating me for building wonders...
just got it on steam for 20 AU with all the DLC 91% off
what a great deal, have fun lol and say bye to your life for a few days
As someone who has played civ 4 a majority of his life it's a new experience to play 5 and 6 but I bought them both on sale it's kinda like my crusader kings 2 and 3 issue to much dlc but without it you miss out on the best content.
I originally got civ 6 launch edition the day it came out on switch, then I got all the dlc over the years and bought 6 again when it was on sale on steam with "complete edition " now I just play on pc / steam deck for civ so my answer is yes it should be put in Day 1 but I'll still buy civ 7 when it comes out ugh....lol
preach it brother, same here lol
Civ 6 is still the only civilization game I've aged but I ended up dropping it because me and my friends couldn't play together. Two of us were pm ps5 and one was on ps4. I used to be able to play with my ps5 friend but now I can't even do that... We tried so many different things to fix it but none ever worked. Kinda sad becaue I really enjoyed the game. Just gotta wait for civilization 7 I guess
Your problem was playing on console and not Pc haha
the narrator from civ 5 is not Liam Neeson Xd i always thought it was but i did some research and it is William Morgan Sheppard
Ahahahaha! Yup valid point. Your the first person who has corrected that 😂
I feel like the games have become too bloated with content and features that were never needed and its lost touch from the roots of the classic games. Complexity for the sake of complexity. Culture, Faith, Tourism, Districts, specialized buildings for resource tiles, city states, civics, climate system, governors. It just keeps going...Jesus christ bro all I wanted to do is build cities, build an army move my units around and conquer the world but now its just micromanagement simulator that turns every game into a hundred hour ordeal of over analyzing absolutely everything
yeah, in order to get shit done in civ6 you have to do other shit first. Like, I always want to go for domination victory but end up working on science first to get the good units first or keeping up with the ai. It is a problem with civ6. It all feels like work.
I used to play it until I couldn't due to problem outside it's game. The Launcher
"Now I become EA to destroy your bank account"
Joke's on you, I pirate Civ games.
YAR!!!
Civ6 crashes constantly when far enough along, on any system.
Buggy.
Why even play if it's gonna crash?
I'll never go back.
Sorry but this video is just objectively wrong at multiple points.
Civ 6 was by an overwhelming margin the most feature-rich Civ game at launch. that isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. If your opinion is that it should have had even more at launch, then fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Similarly, if you just don't like the features, that's obviously also completely fine. I agree that in some respects there should have been more - from what I remember the number of civilisations was quite underwhelming at launch for example. But to compare it disfavourably to what Civ V was like at launch after Civ IV is absolutely absurd in my opinion.
Sorry but you're just wrong about what you say Civ VI changed at launch. It was *far* more than just a graphics change and adding districts; it fundamentally reworked a boatload of features. Here's an incomplete list of new or changed gameplay features added to Civ VI at launch:
- Districts
- Eurekus and Inspirations
- A completely new tech tree for culture
- A reworked combat system, with the introduction of formations, changes to movement mechanics, different 'layers' of units, etc
- A brand new victory condition, religious victory
- A different religion system
- Completely reworked (and in my opinion massively improved) city-state system, with the introduction of envoys replacing the old system of just buying influence with gold, and giving every single city-state a unique bonus
- A new policy card system, far more extensive than the policy tree system of Civ V
- Completely changing workers/builders. Now instead of workers that live forever and take time to build, workers build instantaneously but have finite charges
- Completely reworked great person system. Now every great person is unique and there are global competitions for them
- Fundamentally reworked happiness system. This completely changes how Civ VI is played compared to Civ V, encouraging large sprawling empires instead of restricting yourself to a few small cities because of how crippling the happiness mechanic is
- Completely changing how roads work. Like with happiness, this allows you to build vast sprawling empires instead of being restricted to small empires because of how expensive roads were.
- AI agendas, making every AI feel more unique
In terms of gameplay mechanics, the two games were *massively* different at launch. I'm sure there's a bunch of things I missed too. Almost every single gameplay mechanics from Civ V was changed, very often in fundamental ways. You're perfectly free to dislike those changes, I don't like all of them. But to pretend that all Civ VI changed from Civ V was new graphics and districts is just silly.
Yes, CIv VI didn't have every single last Civ V mechanic at launch. That would be unreasonable in my opinion to expect for a completely new game with completely new mechanics. And I agree that Civ VI was a pretty flawed product at launch; the war weariness system especially was very badly handled, and we could have done with a few more leaders/civs to start off with. But Civ VI was very noteworthy when it first launched for just how many features it DID have. And in my opinion, the new features they added in the expansions were almost all very good and unique once things were properly balanced (which to be clear did take a while). Probably the biggest disappointment in my opinion of the game as it is now is the World Congress, and how the optional modes in the new frontiers pass are badly balanced.
Civ V, meanwhile, was extremely bare-bones at launch It was hugely panned by the fandom for its perception of being a massive step down from Civ IV: the general consensus among fans at the time was that it was a dumbed down and shallow experience. From what I remember, it was also a bug-ridden mess too. Civ VI at launch had some performance issues and bugs, some balance issues like with war weariness, and it did lack in the number of civilisations from what I remember, but the general consensus was that people were impressed by how feature-rich it was as a base game. Meanwhile, it literally took years for Civ V to not be hated by the majority of the Civ fandom. Seriously, you must not have been in the forums when these two games came out because the difference in the fan reception was like night and day. Civ VI took years to become truly great, but it was *inordinately* better at launch than Civ V was at launch, both in terms of the fan reception and in terms of the depth of the gameplay and features. In fact, probably one of the reasons why Civ VI was recieved relatively well at launch was because expectations for the game had been in the gutter after how awful the launch of Civ V was.
No, it wasn't 'a couple months' for the expansions in Civ V. I really have no idea where you got this idea from but it's completely wrong. The first expansion for Civ V, Gods and Kings, came out 21 months after the base game. That's 5 months longer than the first expansion for Civ VI which came out 16 months after the base game.
It honestly sounds like Civ V was your first Civ game, and you picked years after launch but thought it was a new release for some reason. Either that or your memory has just decieved you. Because I'm sorry, this video really sounds like you're living in an alternate reality. There's nothing wrong in criticising what Civ VI was like at launch, and there's nothing wrong with prefering Civ V over Civ VI, but there's simply no credible argument at all that the Civ VI base game had fewer features than the Civ V base game, or that Civ V was better recieved at launch than Civ VI. If anything, you could even argue that Civ VI had more features at launch than Civ V did after all of its DLC, because although Civ VI did remove a few features, it added quite a lot of new features too.
Good points! Civ 3 was my first albeit admittedly I played it as a youngster so many features were undiscovered and civ 5 (at launch) was the first civ game I really dive head first into
Sprawlimg empires... dont make me laugh one of the main problems with civ 6 is the diorama feel
I would blame 2K games as well because I can't play their f****** game without their garbage input
I bought Civ 6, complete, for $20 in late 2024. It's my first experience with the franchise. I'm playing it, and it's fun, but I definitely won't be back for 7. I think that's just fine. Play the version of the game you like. They'll always make a new version and change something you love, so just play the game you like and try a new franchise next time. That's how I ended up here. And I'll end up somewhere else when I get tired of this game.
It's a buyer's market. We have all the power. They desperately need your dollars. Don't give them any. Make them prove that they're worthy. Bottom line is this. You'll never have enough time to play all the games you want to play. Never spend 1 second of your life playing a game that sucks.
Every new Civ game the graphics keep getting better, while the gameplay keeps getting butchered. The new mechanics are great, but why ditch so many cool old mechanics which are unrelated?
Been playing civ for decades. Please please please get rid of the districts! At least, keep them limited to the city tile. Clogs up the map
I kinda like it, but I deffo see the downsides. I think they should make it an optional path a civ can go down with different benefits and drawbacks. Would be very cool imo, more choice for the player is rarely ever a bad thing
@@SoGoodContent Thank you for your response. Keep making great videos! Out of respect, I give you some of my reasoning.
I actually agree with you for the most part. More choices are better. I love Civ6's spy and rebellion system, and other aspects of the game. Also, the districts are not inherently bad. The main problem (along with the wonders) is their detriment to the map. Almost all of the older civ games (especially 3 and 5) captured, to some degree, the sense of scale a map should have. Wide open, unused spaces is beneficial to the maps. Of course I realize this just a video game, but from a bird's eye view IRL, the world is mostly open spaces compared to cities. It's okay to fill entire tiles with farms, let's say, because IRL farms to go on for miles and miles. Civ6 is the first Civ game I've played completely disconnected from this reality. (The Pyramids themselves are as large as the city of Giza LOLOL.) More importantly, in terms of gameplay, free movement of units in Civ6 gets clogged up on these condensed, overly-constructed, overly-filled-up maps. This is part of the reason why Civ5 combat was far more superior, and it just looks better (graphics aside). The only win I give to Civ6's combat system is that there is unit stacking in later part of the games.
I'm not the only one. Every die-hard Civ fan I know has said the same thing. Just take a look at @izalith5847 comments below. Most of us continue to play Civ5 more than Civ6 for this reason and others.
Anyway, "no complaints without solutions" a wise man once said. The solution to districts problem is simply to shrink them so they don't take up entire tiles on the map. In Civ 3, the player could actually zoom into the city (opening up a separate interface) to see various wonders/buildings. This is how districts should be done. Simply build them within the city tile and have a separate interface to see their progression/building etc. It more realistic from an immersion standpoint and, in terms of gameplay, the maps is freed up again.
My two cents. For what it's worth.
I've been playing civ since civ 1 in the 90s, and I beg to differ.
I find the district system and wonder placement system a welcome change and a breath of fresh air.
It brings about new strategies for gameplay and prevents cities from being "overpowered" as it limits the stuff you can build in them by the amount of land you actually have in control, like how it is IRL. In civ 1-5, you can literally build all wonders in 1 city, this would be impossible in civ 6.
When do you know a Civ game is finished? Traditionally it's when the developers release a "complete" edition, which in the case of Civ VI, is apparently called "Anthology". Look for it on sale and your criticism about the cost is minimized. You can then be free to focus on more substantive criticisms like Civ V is really gey and VI is less gey
District mechanic was in Endless Legend a few years earlier (or maybe some other games before this). I don't think Civ 6 is worth putting more money into after the lame base game. I can just play most other 4x titles for a better experience.
Revolution is the best the series should be shut down for how bad it is every time I play this garbage game I keep getting screwed over by the NPCs or just the games stupid settings can't get anything done can't do anything might as well just keep the game uninstalled or get my money back cuz the game is that s***
Lol I predicted civ 6 would release the way it did, as in very few characters to start and then they'll have you pay outrageous amounts for dlc. I don't like that kind of business at all hence why I won't buy civ 6 unless it's on a massive sale. Even then idek if I like the small changes from 5 to 6. The reviews were as predicted as well. Just a shame because civ 5 put them on my radar and i REALLY loved playing civ 5. Stellaris was actually my main strategy game but civ 5 obviously played way differently and felt way smalled then Stellaris. Games were faster imo. What a shame
salad
They did my boy suleiman black skinned in civ6.. Like, why? Why they depicted a white man as black? Idk…
Never played it. Decided not to try it based on this video.
Yeah just played as Germany just going for production win. Game tanked in two turns quit the game. I had taken over two empires halfway through the third for some reason as you get into the stupid voting section of the game the ai always votes against you. This caused my games economy to collapse then i was losing 60 gold a turn. I had the biggest empire with commercial hubs harbours, luxury resources, food. I built entertainment complexes. Had policies to improve ammenties, classical republic. I had far better tech than the ai. But they voted and now my stats are tanked. Stupid rules stupid game. Ruins the fun. Im in a golden age and im easily the winning faction im trading with two other civs who im diplomatically favoured. Yet still my economy tanks. High population, housing is good. Arenas. This game is just rigged af.
Civ 5 at lunch was much worse than civ 6 at launch imo.
For a sequel just felt weird how much got abandoned from civ 5 at launch, besides Civ 5 dlc and all cost so much less than civ 6 so I guess its just up to the player
@@SoGoodContent I would like to remind you that civ 5 at launch was similarly barebones compared to civ 4 with all dlcs as it didn't have religions or espionage, but it sure had absolutely, and by that i mean absolutely, braindead ai (although final civ 5 ai is better than civ 6 ai but that's mainly because there aren't so many little systems confusing the ai all at once)
Wow first fallout 4 and now civ6 , i guess we should never listening to opinions on game as long as you enjoy it
)Also im glad civ6 was on a huge sale on steam😅)
This game feels like it was made by a bunch of passive aggressive people who wanted their users to suffer.
My wife and I play online, side by side on different consoles and televisions.
I see firsthand that no matter what start position you select when matchmaking, it ALWAYS skews towards one player over the other. One of us will have natural wonders on an entire continent alone, while the other spawns on a tiny island with 3 other civs who immediately hate you for no reason (surprise war anyone?)
We haven't finished a game in years because it blue-screens out and crashes so badly we just abandon ship and start anew. Since the most recent update (a few weeks ago), AI turn times have gone from about one minute to upwards of 5 MINUTES PER TURN, rendering the game unplayable as our turns take at most 90 seconds only to wait 5 minutes in-between.
This game is riddled with glitches and bugs that should never have made it to the final product, let alone still standing after yearsof updating...
I'm expecting the same, unfinished garbage to drop in Civilization 7.
Oh snap, i forgot to mention all the backhanded compliments and passive aggressive attitude the AI civs toss around in copious amounts LOL
Civ 5 is much better. Less micromanaging than 6
Don't enjoy it not at all completely uninstalled that told my friend I'm never installing it again because it is that s***and I literally mean s***
No it does not get better and better revolution had all of this s*** and actually functional and you didn't have the worried about your stupid units getting stuck because the game settings are total bulshit how can you say that it is fair when your AI can't walk on other enemies squares but they can walk wherever the hell they want without any problems which I think is the most bulshit in the entire game and why I think this game should be completely removed from the steam store wipe it from existence making sure no one can play the game till it is actually fixed and not to the point where they consider it fixed were WE consider it fixed because that is what matters not what they think but what we think if we don't like it we're not going to play so what is the point of listening to the developer say that it works they recently made an update where it should allow you to play without having to go through the f****** terms I skipped the terms because of an invite and it wouldn't let me play what a lousy piece of s*** game piece of s*** developers lied in the update and made me just uninstalled the gameit's not coming back on I'm not going to put it back I'm never going to put it back I will put revolution on my console I will put it on my PC the moment they put it to PC I will not put any of their piece of s*** games else on there the only one I will put on is literally revolution
new is a waste of time 5 better in every way as 6 took it and made it more one sided for ai nerf combat you enjoy non stop pop ups and your city going to rebellion mode for crap you cant stop or best part small citys smaller expansion boring af every new leaders are for one trick play styles
No not fun
Civ 6 is good?
You need to have your head examined.
You played it with all the dlc and still think it’s bad?
Man get to the point rather than trying so hard to be funny. I want to like the video but it feels like I'm watching CNN.
I'm trying to improve my intros, appreciate the feedback!
@@SoGoodContent Cool I'm glad you took it the constructive way! And you might be funny and witty naturally but it must not feel forced, so being more natural and relaxed would probably make the content more enjoyable. Good luck!