Civilization VI

[fragger]

Expected to be released in October of this year. There is much rumour and speculation, and some confirmation, on what this new number will bring to the Civilization table. From what I've read online so far it sounds terrific, with a whole new approach to city building and management, totally re-imagined diplomatic system, revamped combat system - revamped everything, really, which is what I've come to expect from Firaxis. These guys tend to be innovative and creative with new iterations of existing games, not just trot out the same old same old with prettier graphics and a token few "new features" thrown in (as is the practice of a certain company that starts with "U" and ends with "t" and has a "bisof" in the middle).

The graphics are sort of simplified to allow for the complex new city system - or maybe a better term would be "cleanified". The main reason for this is because a city will no longer occupy a single hex. There will be a "central" hex which is the city proper, then "districts" that you build up over time in the surrounding hexes (I'm guessing these will become "suburbs" when you advance to the more modern eras). Accordingly, the graphics have had to be "smoothed out" to avoid excessive clutter. The screenshots I've seen look very pretty but I think I might miss the photogenic "real-world" aesthetics of V's landscape. Even so, if the gameplay makes up for a slight loss of aesthetic appeal I can let it slide in the interests of attaining strategy nirvana :-()

Here's a comparison of V (left) and VI (right). I had to drastically reduce the image size for a reasonable upload, but it's sufficient for a rough comparo. From what I can gather, VI has a greater range of zoom than V, so I don't know how much the relative zooms gel with each other in this example. They seem fairly close:

**Click for larger view**

[smg id=8895 align=center width=600]


It will probably go like Civ V did - release a good game, then refine it via Steam updates (unlike Ubisoft some companies which tend to release partially broken games, then introduce new flaws to replace the old ones). With Civ V it wasn't a case of fixing glitches as it was a process of ironing out wrinkles in the gameplay balance (Civ V has never crashed or fatally bugged out on me, ever). Civ V went from strength to strength with this approach. The game was wonderful when it was released and gradually became outstanding. Updating is kind of understandable in the case of a deep strategy game like this. Civ games are far more complex than they appear in terms of gameplay logic and tabulation systems, and there can be weak strategic aspects of the game that only become apparent over a period of time and/or repeated playthroughs that are outside the scope of the playtest time the devs can reasonably allocate to them. But to Firaxis' credit, when they find something that needs addressing they get right on it, and they take their customers' feedback seriously.

I don't know how much input "Old Man Meier" has had on this title. Hopefully, at least some. Games from his company seem to shine best when he has a direct hand in their development. Civ IV was a dog of a game without Sid's steadying influence. We, or I guess on this site I should say I, will see :-()

Between Civ VI and No Man's Sky, I have some cool stuff to keep me hopping from one foot to the other in great, albeit potentially misplaced, anticipation 8)

[Art Blade]

almost bursting with anticipation and you're considering to hold back? Bad idea. Let rip, grasshopper  :-D

[Binnatics]

The new Civ, judging the picture comparison, looks friendlier. Less realistic, but more integrated as a whole. I bet that will add to the immersion of the game. Looking forward to more comparison pics like this. As you may know I never played any Civ and don't know older titles, but the change showing in this first pic is interesting 8)

[fragger]

Yeah Binn, I think you're probably right. The less realistic but cleaner graphic look should be beneficial to the new gameplay. Another new thing I read about was that Wonders will be built not within cities but in nearby vacant hexes. What are Wonders? In Civ you can construct Buildings within a city which will enhance that city or its productivity in some way (e.g. Library, Marketplace, Barracks - there's lots) whereas Wonders are projects that benefit your empire as a whole, but can only be built once per game, i.e. only whichever player builds a particular Wonder first gets to enjoy the benefits. Wonders don't just include the classic ones like the Pyramids or the Colossus of Rhodes (although they are all there) but continue throughout history and include such diverse things as the Taj Mahal, the Eiffel Tower and the Hubble Space Telescope. In Civ V the Wonders were built within cities, but in VI they'll be outside the cities and highly visible (only some, not all, of them were in V). Considerations like this are what have dictated the simplified graphics, so it doesn't get visually chaotic.

Civ VI will have some big shoes to fill, as long-term fans of the series such as myself agree that V was the best one ever produced. V sold about 5.8 million units, so VI will have to seriously impress if it wants to top that.

Art :-D I guess I'm being cautiously optimistic about both titles. I'm excited, but I'm also braced for impact should the wall of disappointment loom :-()

[Art Blade]

braced for impact, eh? Fingers crossed no one will yell, "BEND OVER, HERE IT COMES!" :-()

[PZ]

I suspect we'll see good reports from you fragger!  :-X

[fragger]

Cheers PZ :) Indeed I shall probably gush a little if I like it and gripe a little if I don't :-D

I've read some more about the newie, there appears to be significant departure from earlier titles in a number of key areas. Whether I or any of the army of other Civ fanatics will like the changes remains to be seen - hardcore civvers are a tough audience to please and they can be pretty protective of their game :-() With updates (mostly in the early days) and two very generous EXPs, Civ V was eventually honed into being about as perfect a Civ game as one could hope for, so the devs of VI have a pretty high bar to clear.

I remember reading about V before it came out and I wasn't sure if I'd like the departures that had been made there, but here I am almost six years on and who knows how many games later...

Should VI end up stinking, I'll always have V, and that doesn't seem to ever get old for me.

[Art Blade]

 :-X :)

[PZ]

Gush and gripe all you like fragger, we all do here at OWG whenever we feel like it.  ^-^

[fragger]

I'm really hanging out for this now. I've read some write-ups and seen a few videos, I can't wait to try it out 8)

If it's as engrossing as Civ V has been, it'll be a new sleep-depriver for me :-() Six years of playing V and I haven't come close to exploring all the possibilities. There are still cultures I haven't tried playing as yet, map styles I haven't tried, map sizes I haven't tried, special rules I haven't tried, scenarios I haven't tried, units I haven't tried, tactics I haven't tried, strategies I haven't tried, combinations of all sort of things I haven't tried... the possibilities are nearly endless.

It's nice to know that if VI turns out to be a dud, there'll still be plenty of gaming life left in V to fall back on :-X

[Art Blade]

 :)

[PZ]

Looking forward to your impressions, fragger  :-X

[fragger]

Thanks PZ :) Rest assured I'll be giving some - good, bad, or indifferent :-()

[Art Blade]

 :-D

[fragger]

One week till launch 8) Getting excited now, but also bracing for possible crash-and-burn.

Will Civ VI make a grand entrance and impress everyone with its charm and brilliance? Or will it trip on the red carpet, fall down the stairs and do a faceplant on the Walk Of Shame?

Time will tell. I just hope the promotion of the game hasn't been too "Murrayfied" :-\\

[Art Blade]

good luck :) at least it's unlikely that they'll Trump Murray.

[Binnatics]

 :-D

Good luck with that game Fragger! All the anticipation must've been worth wile already, but it would be so nice if the game fulfils its promises :)

I remember that short before GTA V came out (for PC that is), I just couldn't believe it would really be so good as I'd hoped for, and everyone was telling. I mean, so many prequels, I just couldn't imagine that they would top that. Well, after over 2.5k of gaming hours, which is superduper extreme for me at least, I know they delivered.
I'm pretty sure Civ is going to deliver as well.   8)

[fragger]

Cheers fellas :)

The devs know they have some pretty big shoes to fill. Civ V was the best-selling title in the 25-year history of the franchise and the devs know they'll cop a royal pasting from legions of fans if they deliver a sub-standard product. Civilization is pretty much Firaxis' flagship title, so I think the devs will take extra care not to do anything that might arouse the ire of die-hard enthusiasts - like me - and damage their good rep with the Civ community.

Everything I've seen so far indicates that VI will be up for the challenge. The more I learn about what they're doing with the game, the more it sounds like they are making something special 8)

But we've all heard that before, and quite recently, haven't we? 8-X

[Art Blade]

oh man, yes, we have. ::)

However, doesn't mean it's got to repeat itself, does it  :-D

[fragger]

No mate, it doesn't :-D

Release day! Going into town this afternoon and will pick up a hard copy of the game from the store. There are a couple of editions, such as a "Day One" edition which includes a bunch of extra content ($89.95 AUD) and plain old vanilla ($69.95). There's some other super-duper version which includes a book of the history of the Civ franchise, a coin set, a fabric map of some sort, and all extras. Dunno how much that is, those sorts of things usually go for about $129 here. I don't need all that extra physical stuff, but I'm going to check out all editions anyway once I get there.

Then come home, get online, install, activate, register, wait for a Day One patch to install if there is one - the usual pre-fun ordeal.

Then start to find out if I have invested in several more years' worth of Civ joy, or if I've paid a lot of money for a new dangling crow-scarer.

[fragger]

Scored - here are some first impressions:

I got the stock-standard version as I didn't need a set of coins and a fancy book (just more crap to take up space in the house somewhere) and I wasn't about to fork out an extra 30 bucks for them. The edition I got did come with a "map", a fabric one with what looks like an ancient map of the world printed on it. It has absolutely no bearing on the game whatsoever and I don't know what the point of it is, and it's not even terribly attractive - it looks like the dog slept on it after a roll in the garden. I actually thought it was dirty or mouldy until I realised it was printed that way. I could use it as a tea-towel I suppose, it's about the right size, even though it looks like I degreased the car with it. There was also a code for an extra culture in the game, the Aztecs, which I've downloaded, so that's something worthwhile, I guess.

Anyway, after a half-hour install and the obligatory day one patch, I had a quick play. I think it'll take me a while to decide whether I like it or not. There are substantial changes from V which will take me some time to get my head around, as well as many things I will have to "unlearn" from V.

It's not an instant grabber like V was. When I started playing V, I knew within a few minutes that I was going to like it. I'm not getting that same love-at-first-sight vibe from VI, but that may be because it's just so different from the last game with so much new stuff to get used to. Comparisons to V are inevitable, but so far VI feels a little rough around the edges. Much the same thing happened with V initially. It took a few tweaks and updates before it really began to find its groove, and VI could well go the same way. We'll see.

Graphically, it's greatly simplified compared to Civ V in some ways, but actually more complex in others. Map and terrain is much more stylized and less quasi-photorealistic than V, but I think that may be necessary given the new mechanics. This game could get very cluttered-looking very quickly if it had Civ V-style graphics, so I think the "cleaner" map style will w@&k well with VI. There are some minor wrinkles to iron out - auto-scroll is a bit clunky and could do with a fine-tune (it's actually disabled by default, which is weird) and the unit animation could be sped up a bit when moving from tile to tile. This can be turned off, so that units "jump" instantly from one hex to another instead of moving there. That would be quicker, but a lot of the charm of Civ V was in watching your units moving about. The movement is not slow enough to be annoying (it's programmed that way, it's not a framerate issue) but it's just that half-second or so too long.

The game appears to be quite resource-friendly - I'm running with everything maxed out on DX11 and it runs very smoothly. So far - it might be a different story later in a game when all the map is uncovered, there are lots of units running around and a lot of stuff is built on the landscape. Once again, we'll see.

The "Fog of War" system is - odd. In Civ V, everything was covered by cloud until you moved units into it to clear it and reveal the land beneath. From then on, land which lay within your units' visual range would stay illuminated, and tiles that were not would be dimmed-out, so you could still see the revealed landscape regardless. In VI, unexplored land looks like old map-paper until you uncover it. But once you move on, instead of the now-unseen hexes dimming out, they turn into what looks like a stylized old map. It's hard to describe (I'll try and get a couple of screenies) and I don't know if I like it. Maybe it'll grow on me.

The user interface largely follows on from that of V, and it's very good, but I can tell already that "Old Man Meier" probably had no hand in the design. Sid's interface designs are famous for their clarity and usability, and V's was a thing of great beauty. The layout of this one is largely the same (totally different look though) but the new features concerning government, social policies and much else has necessitated an overhaul of some interface functions. It's not as naturally intuitive as Sid's Civ V design, but I can't really say whether it's better or not until I get more of a handle on how the game works.

There's quite a learning curve with this one, even for a seasoned Civver like myself. I won't go into all the changes here (there's lots and they wouldn't mean much to a non-Civ player) but suffice to say it is a very different beast from its predecessors.

One thing may be missing. I've seen some clips on Youtube which show the various cultures' leaders when viewed in the Diplomacy screen, and they were animated, like they were in V. So far, the leaders I've met have been static images. Maybe they only become animated in the Diplomacy screen, which I've yet to fully interact with. I'll have to check on that.

So far, I'm intrigued but not yet captivated. I might become captivated once I have a better understanding of how everything in the game works and have more of an idea of what the heck I'm actually doing :-() I definitely think the game has potential though. Until I play more, I won't know more.

[Art Blade]

enjoy the game, fragger -- and beat it :-X :)

[Binnatics]

Indeed; RROOAAARRRRR!!!! 8)

[fragger]

Thank you gentlemen, I shall do my utmost :-D

Played some more, it's growing on me. I'm starting to realise that this is probably the deepest Civ ever. There are so many changes that it's almost like a different game - almost.

One gripe I have is that the Leaders don't appear to be animated, at least I haven't seen them be anything but static so far. They were shown as being fully animated in preview trailers, but this appears to have been omitted from the final release. Typical... It doesn't matter to the gameplay, but it would have been nice to see. It's becoming a thing, apparently - show stuff in trailers that isn't in the actual game. I call it "Hello Syndrome", although it's been going on since before the NMS debacle. This shonky practice really needs to be cracked down on, even when it's not game-breaking. Maybe the animations will come in a future update...

Anyway, I'm sort of slightly above being ambivalent towards Civ VI at the moment and leaning towards at least liking it, but that might improve - or worsen - the further in I get. The thing with games like this is that you can't really form a complete opinion until you've played all or most of the way through at least one game, since there's so much to learn and assess. The biggest hurdle for me personally is simply getting used to the appearance of the game. Of course it's different to V, and all preceding numbers, that's to be expected. But I have to say that I'm not hugely crazy about the look of it so far (just the playing area I mean, not the whole game, which is beautifully presented). The map is not horrible to look at, and it all works very well, but I'm missing the real-world look and the subtle Art Deco elegance of V's design. That's just personal taste and has no bearing on the quality of the game, which I must say is very high. A lot of w@&k has gone into it, and I feel obligated to fully feel it out before I make any rash judgements. I can live with the look if the gameplay is sound.

It's a way more terrain-intensive affair now. Careful thought really needs to go into where you found new cities as you need to not only consider how the city will benefit from the terrain at present, but into the future. A major factor to consider when founding a city is the introduction of "districts" in VI. In all previous Civs, everything you built in a city would be in that city's hex. But now, once you have the prerequisite techs and sufficient population in a city, you can assign a hex outside that city tile (within three hexes of the city) in which to establish a district. There are a number of them - military, harbor, commercial, industrial - 12 types in all. From then on, units and buildings pertaining to a certain district will appear in that district instead of the city itself. E.g. if you have a military district (Encampment), any combat units or related buildings that you build in that city will appear in the Encampment rather than in the city itself. This makes for some interesting options as you can try to place a military district away from the city and closer to wherever any conflict may be brewing, the better to intercept incoming hostiles before they reach your city (districts themselves can be trashed by enemies, so you still need to defend them). The consequence of establishing districts is that your cities will sprawl over the landscape instead of being confined to a single space, just like a real city, with the central city space resembling a CBD. Districts can gain adjacency bonuses for being constructed on or next to certain terrain types. A scientific district (Campus) will boost a city's science if it's located next to a mountain or jungle hex, for example. So thought must be given when founding a city as to where and which types of districts you might want to establish later for that city, especially as some types of districts cannot be build directly adjacent to the city hex, or are restricted to being built in certain types of terrain. It's a good system, I think. It means, for example, that you no longer have to build a city right next to a sea hex in order for that city to produce ships. The city can be located back from the water and its Harbor district established next to the sea for ship production.

Government and social policy systems (called "Civics" in VI) have been so overhauled that they bear almost no relation to their V counterparts. This part of VI is a whole new ball game, and will take some getting used to. Like I said in my last post, there are things I need to unlearn from V, and a good part of the learning process involves learning what needs to be unlearned :-() It's more intricate and dynamic now and way more open to variation and influencing factors. It's almost like a game in itself.

I think I'll have to start my first game over. As with anything like this, you learn by your mistakes. I've already made some bad choices due to not knowing exactly what I was doing and I nearly got wiped out already when Arabia launched an unprovoked attack on me and I was woefully unprepared to meet it. I had just one Warrior unit, due to me being fixated on getting my first city up and running, and the Arabs sent six units against me ???? I scraped through with the aid of a couple of very hurriedly purchased units (fortunately I had a bunch of money saved and could buy the units outright instead of having to build them, which would have taken me more turns than I could spare) and we made peace, but it was a close shave. I also think I got started in a bum location, as happens sometimes, and I'd rather be doing my learning from a position of strength >:D

Here's a screenie, showing how the Fog of War looks. The brightly coloured hexes are ones within my territory and my units' visual range, unexplored land (upper right) looks like blank map paper, and land which has been revealed but is currently outside my visual range appears in "old map" style (around the bottom of the picture). It takes a bit of getting used to, but I'm starting to think it's at least some kind of cool.

[smg id=9385 align=center width=600]

The game is getting strong reviews: four or four-and-a-half out of five stars, nines out of tens, and +90 percents, so it's being very well received. I haven't come across any glitches or flaws and despite my own thus far wishy-washy feeling towards the game's appearance, I have to admit it's polished and very well turned out.

I think the game is more demanding than its predecessor in terms of the level of thought you have to put into it. V could be forgiving to a degree if you made some bad choices, but VI requires you to think carefully about every move and decision as everything you do now will have an effect later on. And if you're brand-new to the game as I am, you don't really know what "later on" will actually entail, so at this stage it's a bit of a grope in the dark. It will be a while, I think, before I can claim a victory of any sort.

Sorry for the blather, but this is some serious strategy gaming and it warrants a few paragraphs :-()

[Art Blade]

I wish you luck but I also like to read about epic failures.  :-()