Sid Meier's Civilization VI

 PC
User Score
7.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 1576 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 911 out of 1576
  2. Mixed: 362 out of 1576
  3. Negative: 303 out of 1576
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. euu
    Oct 23, 2016
    6
    It's better than vanilla Civ 5 but nowhere near as good as Civ 5 with all the expansions. The main problem it suffers from is lack of innovation. Not a lot of things have changed since the previous title. Combat is the same, trade routes work the same, so does religion, enemy AI is just as stupid, etc.

    There are some areas where the game did some modifications though, the most    It's better than vanilla Civ 5 but nowhere near as good as Civ 5 with all the expansions. The main problem it suffers from is lack of innovation. Not a lot of things have changed since the previous title. Combat is the same, trade routes work the same, so does religion, enemy AI is just as stupid, etc.

    There are some areas where the game did some modifications though, the most noticeable being the Districts. This makes you "specialize" your cities as you can no longer build all types of buildings in the city and have to think very well what you build considering the amount of tiles you have available. The social policy system has been changed as well, for the worse in my opinion, as now you gain some social cards when researching a social policy and you can select the bonus of a number of these cards depending on what goverment you have. Again, like in Civ 5 there is no downside to any form of goverment and some of the combinations you make don't even make sense(for example you can drag the Rationalism Card to a Theocracy and you don't get any penalty).

    One thing that I liked is that you can boost your research of Tech and Social by making certain actions in the game. For example, building a number of Quaries can boost your Research towards Mansory, reducing the time you need to reserach this tech, or defeating barbarians can boost you research of Bronze Working and so on. This is the best addition in my opinion as you are no longer need to put a lot of effort in creating Science and Culture, especially if you like to play Military.

    I would rate this higher if it wasn't however for the horrible presentation of the game. I think everyone is already familiar with the horrible iPad graphics. Look, nobody expected this to have GTA 5 graphics and you can talk all you want about muh unique art style but there is no excuse for a 60 dollar game in 2016 to look like a Fremium iPad game, especially when it looks worse than its predecessor. The sound isn't any better either. The Main Menu theme is fine and the choice of Sean Bean as the narrator is excelent, but the music in the main game sucks. Previous Civ games had classical music to listen to as you built your empire. This game has the type of generic crap that you usually hear in Facebook games.

    My 2 cents? Wait for the price to drop or at least for some mods to show up.    … Expand
  2. Machinegunkenny
    Oct 24, 2016
    5
    Totally uninspired. HORRIBLE AI. Have been a huge fan of Civ since the first one and have hundreds of hours on Civ 5 on Steam. Very upset at this pathetic iteration. The graphics are so bad, they must want the game to play on any potato. Civ 5 was not optimized well and I can say that Civ 6 is butter smooth but it should be with such horrible graphics.
    Sad...very sad. The game feels like    Totally uninspired. HORRIBLE AI. Have been a huge fan of Civ since the first one and have hundreds of hours on Civ 5 on Steam. Very upset at this pathetic iteration. The graphics are so bad, they must want the game to play on any potato. Civ 5 was not optimized well and I can say that Civ 6 is butter smooth but it should be with such horrible graphics.
    Sad...very sad. The game feels like early access.    … Expand
  3. 123456
    Oct 23, 2016
    7
    The game looks really nice to me - it seems to have divided opinion. It looks a lot like Torchlight. Animations are OK, but as with all Civ games they become tedious by your second world. Leaders on the diplomacy screen are nice and detailed but again they are boring quickly.

    More me this is the biggest negative in the game - repetitiveness. Doubling up the tech tree with the new    The game looks really nice to me - it seems to have divided opinion. It looks a lot like Torchlight. Animations are OK, but as with all Civ games they become tedious by your second world. Leaders on the diplomacy screen are nice and detailed but again they are boring quickly.

    More me this is the biggest negative in the game - repetitiveness. Doubling up the tech tree with the new culture tree just feels like a pop up window style annoyance. The buffs they give are extremely specific and narrow for the most part - a lot of making up the numbers. Each one is accompanied by a quotation read by Sean Bean. A lovely voice I never thought I got get tired of hearing. Well welcome to Civ 6. Other leaders will occasionally send you messages which take a very long time to voice, and they have very few to choose from - again you find yourself hammering the esc to get on with things.

    War is still fun, and the obnoxious warmonger penalty has had some revisions to make it slightly less so. However you can be friendly with one civ, neutral with another, and declare war on a third, and expect to be denounced by the first two in the same way.

    City distracts are a fun feature, adding a visual element and slight tactical placement to the specialising aspect of city development. A campus (science) near several mountains and another district is far more effective than alone in the desert for example.

    It's not bad, and I got it for £36 instead of £50 (seriously?) but it is quite boring and a little bit annoying.

    Too many little crappy buffs to click through, repetitive dialogue, diplomacy still pretty dumb, war is fun, districts are fun too.    … Expand
  4. Xxdaniels751xX
    May 13, 2017
    6
    I was looking forward to playing this new delivery since I found out I was going to leave. The advances that I had seen excited me, it seemed a good twist to a game that goes for the sixth installment and does not have a story to follow like those of other genres. I tried it and I must say I was quite disappointed.

    AI is schizophrenic. One shift asks you to send a delegation, you accept    I was looking forward to playing this new delivery since I found out I was going to leave. The advances that I had seen excited me, it seemed a good twist to a game that goes for the sixth installment and does not have a story to follow like those of other genres. I tried it and I must say I was quite disappointed.

    AI is schizophrenic. One shift asks you to send a delegation, you accept it but if you want to do the same, they will not let you. Five shifts hate you. At ten they declare war on you and you do not know what the **** you did to make them angry.

    The novelties, although I think they are noble in their proposals, they lack to be polished. The districts take too long to do, and although I understand that the idea is specialization, forcing you to do the aqueduct and the workshop (because you do not grow more) does not leave time for the rest.

    Religion is very annoying. If you do not fund an entry gives you much advantage, not to mention how unbearable it is to see hordes of missionaries bothering where they should not.
    The technological tree is the same as always. Eurekas are fine, but they help a lot to finish the tree quickly. If only they added more technologies ....
    The resources that are almost surplus, are very abundant, almost that you do not need to trade the strategic ones, and the luxury ones without the happiness lose much grace.

    Anyway, I hope they take out one or two expansions to fix it. Although it has good intentions in the changes, they are badly shaped    … Expand
  5. krj38
    May 10, 2017
    5
    RE: Civilization VI including the Spring Patch, with all DLCs up to Macedonia.

    I am so torn with this game. On the one hand, there is much to like here. To list just a few pros, the city development is great (though, you will often find yourself with "nothing to build", apart from military units); the game is as addicting as ever; the split tech and culture trees is exceptionally well    RE: Civilization VI including the Spring Patch, with all DLCs up to Macedonia.

    I am so torn with this game. On the one hand, there is much to like here. To list just a few pros, the city development is great (though, you will often find yourself with "nothing to build", apart from military units); the game is as addicting as ever; the split tech and culture trees is exceptionally well implemented; the mini-quest boosts are nice (though, can be often a hit-or-miss); the turn-processing times are rather good; the policy cards are amazing. Overall, the aspects of the game related to building your empire are well-though-out and well-executed. I sometimes wonder whether I'd be able to get back to Civ V.

    But, I might try to do just that because, on the other hand, when you're over with enjoying the empire-building aspect and think about the international relations in the game you'll be greatly disappointed. The AI either poses little or no challenge, or competes with you on extremely unfair terms. If you thought that AI in Civ V was bad, think again. Despite the patches, other leaders will still behave in an unpredictable manner (in the negative sense). What strikes me as most odd is that the AI seems not to upgrade tiles and builds not so many districts. Also, it is extremely reluctant to upgrade military units and is virtually useless when it comes to waging wars.

    So, the game has some good ideas, good mechanics, but the awful AI ruins the experience for me. In addition, there is the art style, that I'm not very fond of.

    All things considered, I give the game a 6.5. As stated above, it has great potential, but is ruined by the moronic AI.

    However, I'll give it a 5 for ideological reasons: the price is just way too high for the quality of the product and rather sparse content. And the prices of the DLCs and additional Civilizations are unacceptable. So the final score is affected by the cancerous policy game publishers and developers have, that is milking their fans: firstly they sell half-finished products with limited content for a premium price, and then sell additional content (which may be good), but in very small chunks for a high price.    … Expand
  6. WalterDisney
    Nov 14, 2017
    7
    Bought this game the day it released, and I kind of regret it. CIV VI doesn't come close to CIV V. CIV V is a lot more fun, the workshop is more developed, and the content is abundant. I'm also not a fan of the "cartoony" style CIV VI offers (though I thought I would have been). The fact that I'm not able to make it through a complete game on CIV VI should tell you everything you need toBought this game the day it released, and I kind of regret it. CIV VI doesn't come close to CIV V. CIV V is a lot more fun, the workshop is more developed, and the content is abundant. I'm also not a fan of the "cartoony" style CIV VI offers (though I thought I would have been). The fact that I'm not able to make it through a complete game on CIV VI should tell you everything you need to know about it. It just doesn't flow as smoothly as CIV V does, and it hinders your ability to have fun.… Expand
  7. Oshiri_Maeda
    Aug 7, 2020
    6
    Great game, very pleasant to start your own empire. But God, it is so tedious later in the game, every turn takes sooo long, and there is no action. Just building stuff and waiting for it to be built
  8. TheWaffle
    Oct 22, 2017
    6
    Six years after Civ 5, I wish this game were more of an improvement. It's nowhere close to the massive step forward from Civ 4 to 5. And while some elements have improved, others feel lacking. I'm glad to see the return of the government system, but it feels underdeveloped, and the ability to simply swap out policy cards with no political blowback feels very out of place. You're ostensiblySix years after Civ 5, I wish this game were more of an improvement. It's nowhere close to the massive step forward from Civ 4 to 5. And while some elements have improved, others feel lacking. I'm glad to see the return of the government system, but it feels underdeveloped, and the ability to simply swap out policy cards with no political blowback feels very out of place. You're ostensibly rewriting the social fabric of your civ, and yet it's just pick and choose. I'd like to see more penalties for switching, and some synergies with certain governments and policies. While I appreciate the faster pace, the maps seem much tighter, with almost no neutral ground left after the first 50 or so turns. The religion mechanic is mostly unchanged, and still feels like an afterthought, with little decision making beyond send-moar-missionaries. There's even less difference between great writers, artists, musicians now, which is a shame. This really just feels like another game released with missing content just to force the player to buy the expansion pack. The district system is more of a gimmick than a new mechanic, since having more districts doesn't allow multiple production queues or anything. The AI is still mystifying, with the computer proposing horribly one-sided deals and rejecting perfectly reasonable deals, and they seem to love declaring war on me even when I have a massive army/tech advantage. Diplomacy victory is gone, there's no economic victory. If it weren't for the wonky new graphical scheme, it would be hard to pick Civ 6 apart from a Civ 5 expansion.… Expand
  9. MirekVys
    Oct 31, 2016
    5
    The Civ 6 leave really mixed feelings on me.
    In first glance – amazing concept and game mechanics. It is really pleasure to play. It is really improvement from Civ 5. In many aspect. At this point game could take 10/10.
    But one thing annoying me most. Again AI is totally worthless. Annoying and stupid. There is totally no challenge in play. AI is not able to use or build army. I tried    The Civ 6 leave really mixed feelings on me.
    In first glance – amazing concept and game mechanics. It is really pleasure to play. It is really improvement from Civ 5. In many aspect. At this point game could take 10/10.
    But one thing annoying me most. Again AI is totally worthless. Annoying and stupid. There is totally no challenge in play. AI is not able to use or build army. I tried King. Only thing that change with difficulty is bonuses to AI and punishment to player. I hate this. Still on high levels AI sit like duck and complaining about my expansion, unable to do anything. Only Romans build some units and then send it to nonsense death. (army spread in my lands and kill itself from cities defenses, it does not try take city or withdraw for healing.) In late game AI do totally nothing. It seems that AI is totally broken.
    Firaxis Games – fix this. Try Endless legend, Age of wonders, or even total war, please. This is really shame.:(

    If they fix AI it could be 10/10.    … Expand
  10. joebobfrank
    Nov 24, 2016
    5
    AI is a serious mess.

    On difficulty 6+, prepare to have *all* of your land tiles covered by opposing player's missionaries when not even at war with them. Oh, you wanted to move your worker onto a tile? Too bad, there's going to be a missionary there for the next 10 turns until the AI missionary swarm chooses to move away. Do you like it when the AI requests to see your capital 10    AI is a serious mess.

    On difficulty 6+, prepare to have *all* of your land tiles covered by opposing player's missionaries when not even at war with them. Oh, you wanted to move your worker onto a tile? Too bad, there's going to be a missionary there for the next 10 turns until the AI missionary swarm chooses to move away.

    Do you like it when the AI requests to see your capital 10 turns in a row? I sure don't. How about demanding things from you every few turns even though you're ahead of them in everything but unit count. I'm sure those cavalry pose a major threat to me, with my mobile infantry.

    I've yet to have an AI accept a trade that I proposed and thought was reasonable. I give you 2 luxury goods, you give me one? No? You want 100 gold per turn as well? When the AI proposes a trade NEVER MODIFY IT. Once you modify it they'll just reject it outright, even if you've made it better for them.

    Is there a nice spot on the map you want to claim? Better produce a settler as your first unit, because the AI will magically have like 3 by turn 30.

    Prepare to have AI constantly declare war on you for no reason, yet not get labelled as war mongers and teamed up on. Then when an AI settles in the center of your territory and you declare war to raze the obnoxious city, you're a warmonger and everybody gangs up on you for the rest of the game.    … Expand
  11. raadoo
    Nov 26, 2016
    5
    after the update, the ai still braindead, though in a bit different way. no wonder, since it seems the only changes they made to the ai are the ones in the changelog, and these are minor tweaks, not real changes. so... it's 1906 AD, standard size map, i have 16 cities, 6 remaining ai civs together have 18 cities. they haven't even settled all of their continents... ai keeps breakingafter the update, the ai still braindead, though in a bit different way. no wonder, since it seems the only changes they made to the ai are the ones in the changelog, and these are minor tweaks, not real changes. so... it's 1906 AD, standard size map, i have 16 cities, 6 remaining ai civs together have 18 cities. they haven't even settled all of their continents... ai keeps breaking promises, so it's impossible to play peacefully, unless you're ok with them converting your cities and stealing your technology boosts. if someone breaks a promise and you declare war - it's still your fault and you get the warmonger penalty, so there's no point in keeping promises (unless you're far weaker - but that also doesn't stop ai from breaking those promises repeatedly). i've conquered the strongest ai civ in 20 turns (he broke a promise not to spy on me three times), he had almost no military, his best unit was a cavalry, i had tanks, bombers, artillery and mechanized infantry. i brought back to live gandhi, so he denounced me after 5 turns, because i was in a war with a civ that i liberated his city from... and so on... some bugs were removed, new ones appeared. if you're wondering whether to buy the game, wait for a sale, patches and dlcs. the game has potential, but it's simply not finished.… Expand
  12. LosOutlier
    Nov 20, 2016
    5
    A real missed opportunity.

    The successful changes to the game are mostly around the logical regrouping of existing features. Perfect examples are the districts which coerce the player into specialisation early on or the rethink of happiness (now Amenities) to be local to each city. I also like the intro of support units (medics, obs balloons etc). Beyond that, it has been an    A real missed opportunity.

    The successful changes to the game are mostly around the logical regrouping of existing features. Perfect examples are the districts which coerce the player into specialisation early on or the rethink of happiness (now Amenities) to be local to each city. I also like the intro of support units (medics, obs balloons etc).

    Beyond that, it has been an extremely lazy development. It 'plays' very much like Civ 5 and I cannot detect any changes/improvements to the actual game mechanics. This is mostly due to the AI which, as per the other reviews, really does suck. I got caught with my pants down by a stronger Civ while my army was warring in the west. Arabia came by sea from the east and declared war with 8 land units in the sea outside my capital. Rather than disembarking and taking my capital, his units just sailed around without attacking until I was able to bring in the Navy and destroy them all... ridiculous.

    It's not just the battle AI which is bad, the 'pathing' has actually regressed from Civ 5. You can no longer just right click your destination tile because the unit will rarely take the shortest path. I actually had it where I right clicked an adjacent tile and the unit went in the opposite direction... took 3 turns to arrive rather than just moving one tile. Seriously guys?? Not for a £50 game please.

    The diplomacy - as always - is ridiculously bad. If I want a luxury resource to rent from another Civ, they will generally be looking for 30/40/50 gpt. When they offer money for mine, you can't negotiate them to beyond 2 gpt.... again ridiculous. The ensuing negotiations are a farce - if you try to negotiate them higher, after they refuse you will not even be able to get the original deal. You ask 'what will make this more equitable' and all of a sudden they ask for obscene amounts of stuff.... again, pathetic, illogical, nonsensical AI.

    Finally, it'd be remiss to not mention the new graphics. Yes, they are objectively uglier than Civ 5 and the colours are garish. However, the games is now much quicker between turns while the AI players take their turns and I suspect the down sized graphics may have something to do with this. If this is the case then I think it is a good trade off because you get used to them, whereas long waits are always annoying.

    My final gripe is with the map types. The preset ones were bad on Civ 5 and have received no improvement for Civ 6. They have however, greatly reduced the amount of available map types and have taken away options to tweak water levels etc so therefore you now have fewer to choose from and no scope to improve them. Continents - one of the few maps available - is SO DULL. Always the same, 2 big lumps next to each other surrounded by sea with nowhere to explore. Fractals always makes ugly maps.

    Considering the above you may wonder why my score isn't lower. Well, as I said, it plays like Civ 5 so its still a decent game but as I said at the start, a total missed opportunity and a lazy development.    … Expand
  13. Tazilon
    Nov 19, 2016
    5
    I have now played ~250 hours of Civ VI. It seemed stable for me at first (although many others have reported problems with crashes on Steam). But Civ's first patch introduced crashes to me, too. Despite having a high end system, I get 100-200 turns into some games and it crashes - and continues to crash on that same turn even if I go back 7-8 turns in the auto saves. Additionally, theI have now played ~250 hours of Civ VI. It seemed stable for me at first (although many others have reported problems with crashes on Steam). But Civ's first patch introduced crashes to me, too. Despite having a high end system, I get 100-200 turns into some games and it crashes - and continues to crash on that same turn even if I go back 7-8 turns in the auto saves. Additionally, the patch introduced a flicker to certain colors on my screen if I zoom in more than about 1/2way.

    Overall, there is a lot to like about Civ VI. With the exception of the newly introduced flickering, the graphics are nice. The many paths to victory allow one to replay even the same Civ multiple times in pursuit of new types of victories. The addition of religious wars, although disliked by many, is a kewl new feature. Allowing one to chain a builder or settler to an army is a nice touch.

    But there are so many issues...

    1) No Mongols. Seriously Firaxis? A game entitled "Civilization", all about Man's history on earth ignores the civ that created the largest empire EVER? /smh epic fail.

    2) AI is horrible at war. It starts wars it has zero chance of winning. It retreats when it should attack. It too frequently attacks with only 1 unit despite having 10 other units (and almost certain victory in the battle) within 7-8 hexes. It often fails to use units which are even adjacent to enemy forces even when the unit could kill yours. As a war gamer, it boggles my mind how horrid the AI is at combat. I want to feel like I won a tough engagement but all too often feel like I just beat up a first grader and stole his lunch money.

    3) It leaves builders and settlers scattered about the map just waiting to get hijacked, even with the sanctuary of a friendly city 3-4 hexes away.

    4) It appears to have no concept of how to conduct naval warfare.

    5) "Islands" are frequently entire continents, connected to both north and south poles and impossible to sail around. So, despite deliberately picking "Island Plates" so you can play a game in which navies are more meaningful, you end up unable to move your fleets around the globe because most of the "islands" connect to the poles and are not possible to go around.

    6) The large number of playable Civs (but no Mongols) are borderline false advertising because it seems one can pick any civ and achieve any type victory with similar ease. Despite what they claim, civ and leader bonuses exert very little influence on how you need to play.

    7) Even more so than many games of this genre, Civ VI becomes a giant, boring slogfest about 50-60% of the way into it. You have great fun in the beginning, work your butt off to set your Civ up on as path to victory and are rewarded by being bored to death for the next 30 hours of game play while you mindlessly press ":Next turn" praying for the gasme to finally end so you can start a new one and make it fun again.

    8) Then again, since Civ VI didn't see fit to include a Hall of Fame or any other way of recording your god-like gaming skills for posterity, who cares if you finish? When you finally reach the last turn or achieve a victory prior to the turn limit (very easy for culture and religious victories),, you get whisked away to page giving you a meaningless score and then when you advance to the main menu, all record four win disappears into the ether, never to be seen again.,

    For $60, I should at least get a Hall of Fame to record my best wins.

    And that is the entire problem I have with Civ VI. It isn't a $60 game.

    If the game offered a $35 price point I would say buy it. It is priced almost twice that amount. In its current state, it is a $35 game asking you to pay $60 to beta test it.

    Wait til it is on a steep sale. You will be glad you waited.    … Expand
  14. edgargtz
    Oct 24, 2016
    5
    La AI es estupida, no reta al jugador, confunden mas con diferentes arboles y tipos de gobierno, su modo de combate se basa mas en graficos que en retar al jugador. Desde mi punto de vista el mejor es CIV 4 en donde en verdad disfrutabas estar jugando con estrategia.
  15. Miguelon
    Oct 25, 2016
    5
    This is definitely a step back from CIV 5, I am a CIV fan since the first civ game. The worst thing for me is the policy system, in civ V every time you earn a new policy you get a bonus, in civ VI you can just replace a bonus by a different one, getting a new government doesn't give you new bonuses, it is much worse than the policy system in civ V. The AI is completely dumb, they attackThis is definitely a step back from CIV 5, I am a CIV fan since the first civ game. The worst thing for me is the policy system, in civ V every time you earn a new policy you get a bonus, in civ VI you can just replace a bonus by a different one, getting a new government doesn't give you new bonuses, it is much worse than the policy system in civ V. The AI is completely dumb, they attack you with no reason even if you have a much larger army. Also you can't choose what to do with you "great persons", they just give you a few bonuses, in civ V you have different options in how to spend your great person.
    Overall the game is a bit boring, sometimes at later stages of the game you just have to click the next turn button, it is not well balanced, hopefully it will become a great game after the expansions packs in the future, but at the moment CIV V is a much better and enjoyable game, so is civ IV    … Expand
  16. funnytrollolo
    Oct 28, 2016
    6
    I tried to love this game but at this moment I simply can’t. The game is not engaging enough and feels raw. I keep my fingers crossed that the reason to release it in this incomplete state was not to milk cash from us but rather to accelerate bug fixing based on inputs from broader audience. We’ll see in the coming few months anyways, but for now…
    1) AI is extremely stupid in single    I tried to love this game but at this moment I simply can’t. The game is not engaging enough and feels raw. I keep my fingers crossed that the reason to release it in this incomplete state was not to milk cash from us but rather to accelerate bug fixing based on inputs from broader audience. We’ll see in the coming few months anyways, but for now…
    1) AI is extremely stupid in single player game. I mean, we hear all the buzz about new technologies, artificial intelligence & machine learning algorithm that adapt to the user behavior – well, it’s not about Civ 6. I started playing at the King difficulty being experienced player of Civ 5, but the gameplay is too simple and not engaging. I announced surprise war to my neighbor who in the agenda hates this, by stealing the settler. AI had 5 times more army than I and pulled 7 units next to one of my cities where I had just 1 warrior. And guess what – nothing followed, apparently they came to have a party or something next to my city, just standing there and ignoring what was happening. In 10 turns and pulled in/build 4 archers and smashed that crowd. What the hell is that? Why do I need to care about diplomacy, city planning, trade what so ever, if I can simply skim through the game by doing bare minimum and still win?
    2) User Interface – holy cow, who designed that? The scaling of menus is extremely bad; the notifications during AI turn, so called “gossips”, simply stack at the middle of the screen covering the game window and other menus, and I always have to wait until they disappear. I don’t know if this is an issue of HD resolution but hell, my PC is not strong enough to play it on higher resolutions. The science and civic trees design is horrible and provide little to know information which can be a bottle neck for new players. Also I am missing Demographics report a lot, the new reporting options are oversimplified and does not provide comprehensive picture on where the player stand against the opponents.
    3) Some of the BASE content is missing, like Diplomatic victory mechanics. I mean it is there but it is simply disabled. I am 100% confident it will come in DLC to milk more cash… On top, I do miss the ideology mechanics which was extremely powerful tool in Civ 5 to backstab your opponents by converting several other nations to your ideology and smashing the happiness level of your opponent.
    4) The graphic design choice is questionable. Most people including myself don’t like it, too flashy colors, too childish and cartoony objects. It’s like playing Torchlight after Diablo 1. Anyways, I can live with that but I don’t really understand why the game is so demanding to hardware? Apparently the engine is simply not optimized.
    5) I don’t like the switch to city-level happiness and housing bottleneck. It forces players to go wide and tall empires are in disadvantage. First 50-100 turns now all about spamming cities.
    To wrap up, it’s not all so bad, it’s still good old Civ but as I mentioned earlier it’s far from being polished. I had a feeling that I am playing alpha version, not final release. The best improvement so far is by all means the districts mechanics. It forces you to build more specialized cities and avoid the MEGA city approach although this may be a disadvantage for people who enjoy 1 city challenge. I like the fact there are no overpowered Wonders anymore which eliminate the “rush mode” to get Pyramids or Great Library. The new government mechanics is also a good idea, although requires some improvements as well because at the moment you can overthrow your governments without any significant impact.
    Net, net, if the perfect game is 10, I would reduce it by 3 because of stupid AI and by 1 for the rest of the issues. Civilization 6 gets a 6 score from me.

    Ideal Civ game recipe from my POV
    Take from Civ 5:
    Visual Design
    AI (improve it to make more sophisticated)
    User Interface
    Culture Tree & Ideology
    Take from Civ 6:
    City Development
    Science
    Government
    Religion
    Military
    Barbs
    City States
    Diplomacy & Espionage
    Commerce
    Mix it altogether and release!    … Expand
  17. akbil
    Oct 24, 2016
    6
    AI is most probably the element of utmost importance in single player games. And look. Firaxis didnt get any lesson from Civ 5 by kicking out the AI team from the company. Gosh, god damn it. Who tests the AI feature of the game, is it the team that programs it or some really dumb guys. then answer is clear, "yeah yeah it is working just fine, just as it did in civ5". Examples; I have theAI is most probably the element of utmost importance in single player games. And look. Firaxis didnt get any lesson from Civ 5 by kicking out the AI team from the company. Gosh, god damn it. Who tests the AI feature of the game, is it the team that programs it or some really dumb guys. then answer is clear, "yeah yeah it is working just fine, just as it did in civ5". Examples; I have the military power x3 of one civ and he/she stills declares war on me. In real world, if you dont like superpowers you just shut the f.k up, dont declare war on them. Second, civs declare war on me but since they are dumb, i can turn around the war and they beg for peace. if I dont accept their peace offer, then I will be the warmonger. Shame on you AI testers, ALL of you.

    And shame on some sites too, including metacrticis who reviewed the game in less than 24 hours and give it 9-10. Congratulations, we can expect this much dumb AI in civ 7 now.

    And as for the religion, my holy city/religion was wiped out by foreign apostles etc, cant train any units of my original religion anymore. So I am trying to revive my religion with the help of Jerusalem :))    … Expand
  18. geekgaming
    Oct 26, 2016
    5
    Not as good as I thought it would be. Disappointed all the way makes me want to go back to civ5

    Con: The automatism that civ 5 gave made it a lot better. Removing automatic workers is a pain also the card selections of bonuses towards which government is painful and useless too much information to get submerged into gameplay. Also, the civics and influence spent to research the same as    Not as good as I thought it would be. Disappointed all the way makes me want to go back to civ5

    Con:
    The automatism that civ 5 gave made it a lot better. Removing automatic workers is a pain also the card selections of bonuses towards which government is painful and useless too much information to get submerged into gameplay. Also, the civics and influence spent to research the same as the technology research tree just clusters the gaming experience.

    It's a whole mess that didn't make this game enjoyable. Will I still play ? Yes just for the fact that I spent money on it will I buy the expansions? Maybe if they fix what they have done to it which I doubt.

    I played over 30 hours already and still don't get the best of it. It just makes me want to go back to civ 5 and enjoy the game to it's fullest.

    Pros: I like what they have done with the city states loaning the military when in need is a great addon when you reach a certain level with the state for a certain price of gold but well worth it when you are at war.

    Districts are a cool addon as well to increase military culture science , religion on your territory at the expense of the tiles. But a really cool addon.

    and that's it! not enough to give a chance to this game, unfortunately, there is too much of a mess to get recovered the civics and automatism of the workers and even those government cards that are supposed to bring this game to another level of detail just does not meet my expectations it's unfortunate and I hope it is fixable but if not I will just put it aside and compensate on my urge on Civilisation 5 instead.    … Expand
  19. Jenne
    Oct 25, 2016
    5
    Mechanically solid and complete game but I can't forgive Firaxis for what they've done to the art style and the general vibe of the IP. Realism has always been important for Civ games, feeling like a real leader of a real nation has always been something unique that other 4X games didn't have. Why then Firaxis chose to go for a this cartoony, goofy art style? They can't say it's justMechanically solid and complete game but I can't forgive Firaxis for what they've done to the art style and the general vibe of the IP. Realism has always been important for Civ games, feeling like a real leader of a real nation has always been something unique that other 4X games didn't have. Why then Firaxis chose to go for a this cartoony, goofy art style? They can't say it's just because the cartoony map is less cluttered and easier to navigate because the leaders are just goofy, cartoony caricatures of real people too. I understand that for most players the art style of a strategy game is not important but for me personally it completely ruins the experience of playing a Civilization game. The only consolation is it's not 2005 anymore, Civilization is not the only 4X game on the market.… Expand
  20. Moo-vies
    Nov 30, 2016
    6
    Civilization VI is just more of the same with bad AI, not enough variety, not enough particularities in the leaders skill and a pointless game design beyond the year 1000 AD.

    Plenty of people who can't handle change will complain about the graphics (who cares, they do the job and you will cut the animated leaders talking after a few games to stop being interrupted all the time). Like    Civilization VI is just more of the same with bad AI, not enough variety, not enough particularities in the leaders skill and a pointless game design beyond the year 1000 AD.

    Plenty of people who can't handle change will complain about the graphics (who cares, they do the job and you will cut the animated leaders talking after a few games to stop being interrupted all the time).

    Like all 4X wannabes these days, you will anyway have to wait 3-5 years to get the extensions, mods and a complete game experience. The game also lacks mod support at the moment besides a few UI fixes and customization, so we have to wait until mod tools are released which could introduce some rules variety in the gameplay).

    I had a lot of time to play Civilization VI since release and got rapidly saturated.
    More than anything else, the infuriating times between turns are absolutely awful when you go beyond a small map. This removed a whole point in the subjective grade I gave to Civ VI.

    The lack of variety between games is a huge downer. I think the game needs to go further into leader specialization and really think hard about the mid game slog that goes all the way to the end. To be honest, the only motivation to end a game is global thermonuclear war, but once you have done that once, there is not much reason to end a game.

    My biggest critic is the kind of dissociation between units and production / science. Moving your armies should go way faster so the player could actually DO something. Right now, producing units then moving them around is just a time waste considering how much else you could do with these turns in terms of development to your cities.

    I like the workers having only 3 charges by default, it introduces a bit of dynamism.
    I wish wonders could be built outside the 3 tiles limit of the city itself. Wonders should be restricted to the territory, not the cities.

    With time, Civilization VI will undoubtedly become a really good Civilization if Firaxis brings as much attention to it as they did for Civ 5, but we will all be paying a high price for the finished game again ...
    So yeah, 6, is generous.    … Expand
  21. Valsona
    Dec 11, 2016
    5
    First off, I would like to say I personally like this game and appreciate the effort that was put down into making it look good. It has really gotten a face-lift from the previous games in the series.

    Secondly, I really like that Firaxis decided to make something new with the somewhat tedious system of workers in the games and even though I am a huge CIV-fan and have played every single    First off, I would like to say I personally like this game and appreciate the effort that was put down into making it look good. It has really gotten a face-lift from the previous games in the series.

    Secondly, I really like that Firaxis decided to make something new with the somewhat tedious system of workers in the games and even though I am a huge CIV-fan and have played every single one of them and appreciated the layout in the earlier system, the concept of builders instead of workers makes the game run so much faster and smoother without taking away any of the strategic thinking.

    Now to the negative remarks..
    Even though the new way of building improvements at first may seem like a delicate yet clever upgrade from the previously somewhat tedious method there are some serious glitches in my opinion. For one, you cannot, in any way remove/move a district. While this may seem like a part of the strategic depth of the game at first I feel that it would be somewhat more advantageous to be able to move at least certain districts like for say the encampment, seeing as how this can have a great impact on the placement of your enemies cities or your expansion plan, not to mention it would seem logical to want to be able to have an "army on the move". But this is just a minor thing and I recognize that it may just be my opinion.

    The problem with the AI's ability to make half-witted to wholeheartedly insane decisions however is a problem in a different dimension entirely. Not only the fact that they seem to be about as trigger-happy as a pawnshop-owner that has been raided by thugs just one time too many but they declare war as(it seems) a statement rather than anything else. I have played the game for about 50 hours or so by now, so, I admit, its not very much, but every 15-30 turns or peace I find myself in a war against an AI opponent on the basis that my haircut offends them.. Or so I assume..
    The AI is constantly declaring war, not only without a good reason, but when I line up my defensive units I too often see them coming at me with clearly inferior units, either in number or in way of science. And, if that is not bad enough, at times they actually manage to amount a decent army that should go wrecking ball in my territory, however they just seem to mope around taking multiple hits from my city defenses and garrisoned units until they decide to retreat, barely having scratched the walls and raided AT MOST two improvements. Yet other times, I face no army at all and when I send out a forward party against their cities they have basically no units at all!
    Its like the AI declares war upon you based on the basis that there has been peace for too long and thinks the player is bored, but merely does it for show.

    That said, I have some issues that I find falls in between in severity, probably because I'm as experienced when it comes to playing CIV as I am but:

    1. The tooltips for this release is.. lacking just doesn't cut it. It is non-existent! While this isn't a big bother for me who has several thousands of hours of gameplay combined on the previous games its really annoying when I find a new feature only to realise that there is no explanation anywhere as to what it does. Yes, google is my friend but really?

    2. While I like the fact that you brought back religious victory in this game, you have to tweak it.. really. It is far to easy to win a religious victory versus the AI because the religious units are simply too powerful. I get the point with inquisitors, really, I do, but then again? They cost way less than an apostle and have basically a VETO against you spreading any religion but mine among my cities. One action(out of three) and everyone believes in my god again. The AI never uses them that I have seen, but if they did, it would just make religous victory pointless again because it would be completely impossible so..
    By now, with inquisitors, religion has no other effect than a few bonus policies.

    3. The tech tree and policy trees need some work and tweaking. I like the linear system with both "policies" and tech but the trees in my opinion isn't really balanced. Also, there are so many policies/techs that could be situational, that you wanna use sometimes on some playthroughs, maybe. But they never end up being good enough in any situation, especially not since you get to change policies every time you discover a new one, completely for free! An easy way to give this a bit more strategic depth would be to bring back the "revolts" from some of the earlier games with the tweak that during the lower tier governments you have longer unrest if you wanna change during a specified number of turns.
    Example. Tier-1 2 turns of unrest if changing withing 20 turns at standard speed. Tier-2 1 turn of unrest if changing withing 20 turns.

    Overall, its a decent game. It could be great with the tweaking and a vast AI improvement. Unfortunately I'm a bit disappointed in my overall experience at this time.    … Expand
  22. Ganoba
    Apr 21, 2018
    5
    Civilization is my favorite franchising, but this game have so mane bugs and it seems that the developers don't care to fix ....
  23. kiptenbingo
    Oct 24, 2016
    6
    Initially I was excited and impressed with my first playthrough. A few of the features seem to work sporadically, music and animations have a tendancy to drop out. Graphics are okay but nothing special. Music is nice when it works. Game play is pretty slow and even after 300 turns you might be limited to making one click per turn. I do like the game but think we need to see a lot ofInitially I was excited and impressed with my first playthrough. A few of the features seem to work sporadically, music and animations have a tendancy to drop out. Graphics are okay but nothing special. Music is nice when it works. Game play is pretty slow and even after 300 turns you might be limited to making one click per turn. I do like the game but think we need to see a lot of improvements in the next few months. AI is terrible, lost count of how many times I have been invaded and outnumbered 10-1 but end up victorious in just a few turns and claiming multiple cities in the peace treaty. I know it is still early in the games life but I have to say that currently the potential outweighs the delivered content.… Expand
  24. Skipnipper
    Oct 28, 2016
    5
    Its a decent game I suppose. As has already been said, the AI is ridiculous and nonsensical, at best. This really kills the game as there is no challenge anywhere to be had. Graphics and sound are ok I guess but nothing special.

    Save your money.
  25. Braggi
    Oct 25, 2016
    6
    Flickering UI was in the end resolved by a simple driver update.
    First impression: a chatty tutorial that can not be saved (ORLY, Firaxis??).
    Very old issue: Lack of special resources still completely prevents combat unit production. Stupid. STUPID. My Civi immersion once died long time ago when being forced to build horse carriages instead of tanks ... Overall enough fresh ideas for    Flickering UI was in the end resolved by a simple driver update.
    First impression: a chatty tutorial that can not be saved (ORLY, Firaxis??).
    Very old issue: Lack of special resources still completely prevents combat unit production. Stupid. STUPID. My Civi immersion once died long time ago when being forced to build horse carriages instead of tanks ...

    Overall enough fresh ideas for someone who quit after III. Cities now grow organically over the map, no dedicated screen. Craftsmen with limited actions are ok with me, a consequence of playing on the main map only.
    I may tinker my own religion. There are now two trees to explore - science and culture, the second for social progress. Fine tuning your own government with policies is nice, the execution as text cards in boardgame style in not. Leaders are generated, providing small boosts but often needing very specific requirements to be triggered.
    Overall interesting dimensions, but too much micromanagement for the gain.

    There seems to be no limit to a civi's expansion, which IMO is a balance issue. Spamming settlers seems a valid strategy. Minor Civs to interact with, good. Initial survival pressure comes from barbarians roaming the lands, manageable.

    New techs pop up very fast from the start, especially as two trees trigger in parallel. Pacing feels strange.
    Treasury became an issue for me, with lots of tradeoff, felt ok. Compared to the old CIV also keept troop count lower, good. Units gain experience and may level with a small tree of improvements.

    AI seems stupid; sorry. Not impressed by diplomacy or war strategy yet.

    Overall: Tons of details, but hard to get the big picture.
    Will be a nice detraction to explore casually, but I don't see me spending lots of time with it.    … Expand
  26. bumarco
    Nov 4, 2016
    5
    Single player is pretty good. Really enjoying it.

    Tried to set up a multiplayer game with my wife - terrible. Should be ashamed of yourselves as game makers. I think, the reason it won't work is mac/PC, but FFS make an error message that says that. Don't let me invite her. Don't have her "visit profile" to accept. And sure as sh@t don't respond with some ambiguous version mismatch with    Single player is pretty good. Really enjoying it.

    Tried to set up a multiplayer game with my wife - terrible. Should be ashamed of yourselves as game makers. I think, the reason it won't work is mac/PC, but FFS make an error message that says that. Don't let me invite her. Don't have her "visit profile" to accept. And sure as sh@t don't respond with some ambiguous version mismatch with host message when she does.

    Fix it. It's 2016.    … Expand
  27. gamerINchief
    Oct 22, 2016
    6
    In almost every way, this is a step back from Civilization V. It actually plays and feels like it should have come before Civilization V and not after.

    It really is hard to not compare VI to V. Civilization V (Vanilla) is such an exceptional game in its fundamentals, mechanics, combat, accessibility, replayability, learning curve, engagement, user interface, etc. The only aspects in    In almost every way, this is a step back from Civilization V. It actually plays and feels like it should have come before Civilization V and not after.

    It really is hard to not compare VI to V. Civilization V (Vanilla) is such an exceptional game in its fundamentals, mechanics, combat, accessibility, replayability, learning curve, engagement, user interface, etc. The only aspects in which VI outshines V is in a much deeper diplomacy. Almost everything else falls flat.

    The atmosphere in this game is non-existent. Wonders don't feel rare or great, or give you that sense of accomplishment after completing them. User Interface is absolutely terrible. I should not have to battle the UI when trying to play through the game. If anyone has spent at least 100 turns playing the game you know exactly what I mean. The game feels so dull and dare I say just boring. Who cares if the civic system is more "complex" than Civ V's social policy system if I can't even feign interest in continuing to play one more turn? The graphics is just inexcusable for a 2016 AAA series backed by a AAA publisher. I don't have a problem with the style but the quality is so poor. Its like the graphics were developed by a low budget indie developer. I'm a devout fan of Civ but any review for this game above a 7 is simply not accurate.

    You have to be able to draw and capture the interest of a gamer. This game is not at all accessible for new comers or even many old fans. It has a slow, complex learning curve, and for those with not the interest to keep playing the game they will never learn it because the atmosphere of the game is too uninteresting/unaccesible to get to the intricacies of the new features.

    I would go back to playing Civ V if I hadn't already spent the past six years playing it. I wasn't expecting VI to be exactly like V or to even be better than V. I was however expecting it to uphold the exceptional quality the series has made for itself. All of these perfect scores and near perfect scores from both user reviews and critic reviews I have to shake my head at. I can guarantee these are from die-hard Civ fans with just a slight bias. I'm as big a fan of Civ as the next guy on here but I will reiterate this again: any review for this game above a 7 is simply not accurate.    … Expand
  28. SecondRateOp
    Oct 25, 2016
    5
    You cannot queue production in cities (wtf???).

    Workers can only do a limited number of improvements, then disappear (wtf???). I overall don't like the feel of it. The pace is weird. The flow is terrible. It's slow and messed up. Maybe it's the inability to be able to queue production. Maybe it's the fact that you have to constantly interrupt your production to make workers for your    You cannot queue production in cities (wtf???).

    Workers can only do a limited number of improvements, then disappear (wtf???).

    I overall don't like the feel of it. The pace is weird. The flow is terrible. It's slow and messed up. Maybe it's the inability to be able to queue production. Maybe it's the fact that you have to constantly interrupt your production to make workers for your neighboring low production cities because they only last a limited number of improvements. Maybe it's the fact that you have to build districts before you start reaping benefits and feel some sense of progress. Maybe it's the terrible housing system.

    I hate the housing system that stunts your population growth. You don't get 1 citizen per tile anymore, no. You start with between 1 to 3 housing capacity depending on conditions and get 0.5 housing per SOME tile improvements (not mines), then SOME buildings will give you few additional housing. Housing is SCARCE in early game. When your number of citizens reaches your housing limit minus 1, the growth rate is reduced. Good luck if you have land with little production, because it then becomes a vicious circle of production deficiency : You need population for more production and you need more production to build housing units to get more population. If you start in a tundra or a desert, you might as well start over.

    Districts aren't a well executed idea. The concept causes great balance problems. All the buildings you could build in previous games that would allow you to make up for low food and low production environments are gated behind... *drumroll*... population (which is gated by food and housing) and production! Building districts at an acceptable rate requires production, which requires population, which requires food and housing, which requires production. And then, as if that wasn't enough, districts are gated behind population minimums. Tundra and desert tiles are very hard to play for that reason. Other than the ONE trade route you can get in early game to get more food and production from another of your cities (which is a very bad thing to depend on for food), I really don't know what to do about that. Nothing in the policies helps with that either. Oh... and you can't build farms on tundra and hills next to freshwater anymore.

    Great people are given out like candy.

    Civics are weird, annoying and a little too much to think of for very little reward ; The bonuses are plenty in numbers, but they don't really feel significant or relevant. Everyone is going to have access to the same ones and progress roughly the same way. There is no specialization. There is little punishment if you don't plan ahead, don't think things through or make mistakes. You are forced to research civics that you do not want or need, as prerequisites to others that you might want. Being prompted to look at them and switch them every time you are done researching one (often) is annoying. I liked Civ V's way of doing it better. The buffs were fewer and more significant within the game balance and the choice you made really mattered.

    Eventually, you realize that civilizations have been at war and you were not notified. Well you were, among the 3 messages that last 5 seconds that pop on your screen at the beginning of a turn then disappear. AND THERE ARE NO LOGS for these things. If you miss it, it's gone. Forever.

    There is no diplomacy overview that I could find. You have to check each civ for its relations with others. THERE IS NO OVERVIEW TO SEE EACH CIV'S RESOURCES & WONDERS.

    The UI is a mess and all over the place.

    There is no indication of how long until border expansion, nor which tile the city is going for.

    The fog of war and unlit terrain are way too much alike. It is way too difficult to see resources on unlit terrain.

    Friendly civs can have units in each other's territory without open border which makes moving your units around even more tedious and can block your workers from making improvements. This is BS.

    There seems to be no way to tell a civ to piss off with their religion so be prepared to protect your cities with units. There is a new system with religious units that can attack each other... like normal wars weren't enough and we needed even more warring BS in this game.

    BORING. 3rd game trying to have fun. Can't get past renaissance without being bored out of my mind.    … Expand
  29. andrewbrown
    Oct 28, 2016
    5
    PROS:
    * no more micromanging workers, improving a tile in one turn is wonderful.
    * no more building roads, roads are laid with trade routes * can levy city state armies CONS: * No end screen with stats, making losing or winning worthless on reflection * When you lose, they don't tell you why, and its the same video regardless of ending * AI doesn't get smarter, just get bonuses on    PROS:
    * no more micromanging workers, improving a tile in one turn is wonderful.
    * no more building roads, roads are laid with trade routes
    * can levy city state armies

    CONS:
    * No end screen with stats, making losing or winning worthless on reflection
    * When you lose, they don't tell you why, and its the same video regardless of ending
    * AI doesn't get smarter, just get bonuses on harder difficulties
    * Religion is another layer tedious to manging addtional units
    * You have to buiild Wide, Tall is not an option
    * Civics have no impact to create unique style of play

    What I want out of CIV is being able to win with different play styles depending
    on Sceince, Religon, Culture, Domination, Economics (Money), or Dipolmacy. So I really want
    6 games in 1. The depth of most these subgame is simplistic, and you'd think by now with 5 previous
    games under their belt they would have fleshed out these subgames.

    Not everything has to play out as units on the board. Religion is so unfun because you are just
    slowly moving units across the board to convert other cities. Religon could be played out totally
    in UI Panels. Last thing I want is more units to move around the board.

    What they did to SimCity is what they are doing to Civ6. Instead of having large cities,
    they want you to have small meaniful cities. When what we wanted was what City Skylines
    produced. We just have to wait till someone makes the City Skylines for Civ.PROS:
    * no more micromanging workers, improving a tile in one turn is wonderful.
    * no more building roads, roads are laid with trade routes
    * can levy city state armies

    CONS:
    * No end screen with stats, making losing or winning worthless on reflection
    * When you lose, they don't tell you why, and its the same video regardless of ending
    * AI doesn't get smarter, just get bonuses on harder difficulties
    * Religion is another layer tedious to manging addtional units
    * You have to buiild Wide, Tall is not an option
    * Civics have no impact to create unique style of play

    What I want out of CIV is being able to win with different play styles depending
    on Sceince, Religon, Culture, Domination, Economics (Money), or Dipolmacy. So I really want
    6 games in 1. The depth of most these subgame is simplistic, and you'd think by now with 5 previous
    games under their belt they would have fleshed out these subgames.

    Not everything has to play out as units on the board. Religion is so unfun because you are just
    slowly moving units across the board to convert other cities. Religon could be played out totally
    in UI Panels. Last thing I want is more units to move around the board.

    What they did to SimCity is what they are doing to Civ6. Instead of having large cities,
    they want you to have small meaniful cities. When what we wanted was what City Skylines
    produced. We just have to wait till someone makes the City Skylines for Civ.    … Expand
  30. RodrigoLolli
    Nov 4, 2016
    6
    Civilization is my prefered game. I play it since civilization 1.
    I aways like to feel like I was in the game and been the comander of that people. But I think the caricature drawnning is not good for it.
    I expected more of the AI, graphics more realistic, imagens showing in the conquest of a city like in CIV2. The Palace been contructed by people happyness, and some think new, like    Civilization is my prefered game. I play it since civilization 1.
    I aways like to feel like I was in the game and been the comander of that people. But I think the caricature drawnning is not good for it.
    I expected more of the AI, graphics more realistic, imagens showing in the conquest of a city like in CIV2.
    The Palace been contructed by people happyness, and some think new, like newspaper telling the results of the wars. The concel of ministers should be more elaborated, with faces expressions like in the pasts civilizations.
    For me, Civilization 4 is still the best. and civ5 is still better then 6.

    I liked the roads and workes sistem, because we wast less time working roads.
    I will play civ 6, but I begin to wait for civ 7    … Expand
  31. Silverfish1983
    Oct 23, 2016
    5
    Simply cannot understand those citing 'gorgeous graphics'. This is the art style you get from FTP's or £3 tablet games. So disappointing when Civ V was a thing of such beauty. Everything else seems 'okay', but for me I simply can't get past the lazy and cheap feeling art style.
  32. peterus
    Oct 24, 2016
    5
    It's barely a strategy game - it is more of a cowclicker. Different strategic elements are jumbled together and grossly unbalanced. Player can't optimize the big picture to win. Instead it's about optimizing the minute details like planning out every move (literally in everything - from unit movements, through tech, policy to buildings) to get the achievement like inspirations for yourIt's barely a strategy game - it is more of a cowclicker. Different strategic elements are jumbled together and grossly unbalanced. Player can't optimize the big picture to win. Instead it's about optimizing the minute details like planning out every move (literally in everything - from unit movements, through tech, policy to buildings) to get the achievement like inspirations for your path on the tech tree, or planning out a city 3 wonders and 5 districts in advance... and than doing the same for 2nd city, 3rd city and so on.

    Graphics are very good, cartoony but it fits the casual feel of the game and music is average. AI is terribly idiotic, diplomacy is meh. It has a minimalistic, streamlined interface which lacks a LOT of important information but it's also easy to use. All in all, if you just go with the flow and build yourself a farm... I mean a civilization that I think you'll enjoy it. But if you are for the deeper substance - you won't find any in this game.    … Expand
  33. iseeall
    Dec 6, 2016
    7
    I've played all games in the Civ series, and all the derivatives. My fav is Alpha Centauri, and from the pure Civs, Civ 2. Civ 6 is basically Civ 5 with its 2 addons, plus even more unneeded stuff added on top. The series is moving in a direction which I don't like, piling up features that I don't want. They are tuning for dumber and dumber audience, trying to cash in on converts fromI've played all games in the Civ series, and all the derivatives. My fav is Alpha Centauri, and from the pure Civs, Civ 2. Civ 6 is basically Civ 5 with its 2 addons, plus even more unneeded stuff added on top. The series is moving in a direction which I don't like, piling up features that I don't want. They are tuning for dumber and dumber audience, trying to cash in on converts from mobile.

    The good:
    - well, it's still Civ. If you haven't played any of the Civ games, Civ 6 is a Civ game, and the tutorial is so friendly and accessible that you will even learn what a turn-based game is, in case you didn't know
    - like in Civ 5, combat is interesting, with units not dying after a single fight, there are adjacency bonuses and exp accumulation like in tactical wargames, just simpler

    The so-so:
    - the districts system (taken from Endless Legends), not that it was needed or adds much
    - the 2 separate trees for cultural and scientific advances - could have worked easier with a single tree, each tech just costing culture+sci.
    - graphics are obviously made for iPad players and kids, from which I suspect a planned port to mobile. I don't care about graphics much, but I can imagine this will upset many PC gamers
    - dragging cards to determine government and social policies - ok but i found bonuses of certain governments pretty strange. And I don't like trading cards games, so the whole aesthetic of cards being put in slots feels inappropriate here, at least to me.
    - city states - didn't like them in Civ 5 with their "quests" and attitude, though I know some people like the feature
    - workers can now only build 3 tile improvements after which they get "spent", and roads are built automatically by "trader" units - this apparently only slows down construction of tile improvements which isn't a bad thing but isn't good either
    - some techs get researched faster if a certain prereq is met (e.g. develop Archery faster if killed 1 unit with a slinger) - a good idea at first glance, but adds immensely to the rules bloat (more about that below)

    The bad:
    - in general, this plays too much like Civ 5 with its 2 addons, barely justifying the purchase ("why not just play Civ 5"?), and sadly carries over all the bad features added in those addons
    - still only 1 unit can be on a tile (annoying traffic jams)
    - tons of minor effects various things give which are hard to keep track of and which don't really change the game much. It almost feels like an RPG game where a chest piece gives +0.5% to fire resistance. The multitude of factors to consider doesn't make it a strategy game where you decide something but rather a tedious simulation with unclear, bloated rules which you mostly forget the next time you start a new game. Apparently the abundance of tiny rules makes the game simpler and takes away decision making. This game is so bloated that I wonder they could even bring it to release! It must have been a nightmare to test, debug and balance
    - religion is beneficial, even can be a victory type now, and there are tons of religions to pick from where you customize their tiny bonuses. You produce a "faith" resource which you can use (like gold) to buy things. This is ridiculous. Let temples make 2 citizens content and reduce that to 1 citizen after discovery of Scientific Method or something, that's just about how much attention religion should get in this type of game. I'm deeply saddened by the fact that they gave in to the political correctness train and started catering these complex games to religious market segments (do they even play Civ?)
    - tourism? Even a victory type for it (make more ppl in other countries come to you for a vacation rather than stay home)? This absurdity came in the 2nd Civ 5's addon, together with a minigame of putting great works of art into slots. But I get it: millions of Chinese are now cruising the world making selfies, so why not make a feature for them specifically.
    - the voiced-over texts for different countries which are shown/spoken each time you start or load the game. They aren't as idiotic as in Civ 5 but the overall feel of "glorifying" the player and praising him for something he hasn't even done (just picked up the game, haven't even won it) is stupid. Just check how little you get in Alpha Centauri for winning the game - a simple popup, and a score breakdown list. To me, that feels much more rewarding than this empty pathos.

    As I wrote in other reviews of other Civ games, Bryan Raynolds is not involved anymore (and he is the genius behind AC and Civ2 - the games I like the most). Civ 6 isn't a game made by passionate geeks who had tons of ideas. It's a franchise driven by market research. They want more players to buy the game, so they see what's popular now (e.g. Clash of Clans) and add that. It's the same thing that happened to the XCom, Fallout and many other games. My only hope lies with indies now. And it seems I won't have to uninstall Alpha Centauri any time soon.    … Expand
  34. Violett
    Dec 25, 2016
    6
    Another Civilization ... Yawn
    Well, I didn't rate this game low, because actually the game is quite good for step-by-step strategy game - with one BUT. This game is great BUT only for those who play Civ for the first time.
    Graphics is good, the game has its depth, but we saw it already - in Civ 5, Civ 4, and so on. For me the best Civs was Civ 2 and 3 - Civ 5 was good also, but this is    Another Civilization ... Yawn
    Well, I didn't rate this game low, because actually the game is quite good for step-by-step strategy game - with one BUT. This game is great BUT only for those who play Civ for the first time.
    Graphics is good, the game has its depth, but we saw it already - in Civ 5, Civ 4, and so on. For me the best Civs was Civ 2 and 3 - Civ 5 was good also, but this is another Civ with updated graphics and slightly updated gameplay. AI is still stupid as a trunk. Same units, same technologies. I understand there is nothing to replace tank and spearman in Civ games, but why to make another same game then? What next? Civ 7, Civ 8, Civ 9?    … Expand
  35. Artur_
    May 26, 2017
    7
    Plus:
    - City districts - a very good idea about city planning, management.
    - Great people having unique skills. - Corps and armies - a nice improvement. - Good reorganization of ideas. - Eurekas. - Sentiment ;-) Minus: - Infantile graphics (I know, childs play too, but an average "child" is 30 years, probably). - Removal of production queue. - Removal of statistics used to    Plus:
    - City districts - a very good idea about city planning, management.
    - Great people having unique skills.
    - Corps and armies - a nice improvement.
    - Good reorganization of ideas.
    - Eurekas.
    - Sentiment ;-)

    Minus:
    - Infantile graphics (I know, childs play too, but an average "child" is 30 years, probably).
    - Removal of production queue.
    - Removal of statistics used to compare civilisations status.
    - Quite often right-click to choose a movement target does not work.
    - Auto-jumping between units across whole map.
    - Diplomacy:
    > Pointless requests or "offers" from a weak civs.
    > They often declare war and just wait to be invaded and to lose a few cities, then make peace offer. Such a "war" may lasts centuries.
    > What is the point of constant condemnations?
    - Disappearing animations.
    - Spy task resets without information about previous task.

    There are crazy AI boosts/downturns sometimes - 1st game on lowest settler difficulty ended having modern tanks against catapults and archers and a few arquebuses, 2nd on prince : same tanks against same catapults and archers. Third game, imperator level, I didn't exit medieval age while others got to industrial one. Fourth one on imperator too - again modern tanks against catapults, but few countries had WWI infantry, at least. Can't remember something like that from Civilisation V, there were usually similar units, not several ages back.    … Expand
  36. Dandy_Dust
    Oct 22, 2016
    6
    Under the restriction that this comes as a first impression: They said all the DLCs would now be implemented with the game from the start - OH REALLY??? --> No WORLD MAPS with TRUE STARTING LOCATIONS, no turning the city - states off, no handling distances between cities and so on and so forth.... I don´t like the PLAYCARD - LOOK of Politics, if I want to play tabletop - games I´d turn toUnder the restriction that this comes as a first impression: They said all the DLCs would now be implemented with the game from the start - OH REALLY??? --> No WORLD MAPS with TRUE STARTING LOCATIONS, no turning the city - states off, no handling distances between cities and so on and so forth.... I don´t like the PLAYCARD - LOOK of Politics, if I want to play tabletop - games I´d turn to Magic - cards or something. AI - REAL AI, that´s what I expect in the year 2016. I am disappointed.… Expand
  37. gordonbays
    Oct 24, 2016
    6
    For all those bored of the past civ (Civilization) games, this version is perfect. Civilization 6 introduces new mechanics, new resources and much more.
    One of the greatest things that was upgraded is the screen panels. Taking the religion panel as example, now it shows how many followers you got and much more.
    The foes leaders interaction screen looks gorgeous now and more helpful. I    For all those bored of the past civ (Civilization) games, this version is perfect. Civilization 6 introduces new mechanics, new resources and much more.
    One of the greatest things that was upgraded is the screen panels. Taking the religion panel as example, now it shows how many followers you got and much more.
    The foes leaders interaction screen looks gorgeous now and more helpful.
    I felt the strategy more balanced and harder to create a snowball economy, witch is great.
    The main screen music is amazing, just like the new UI (user interface).
    Overall the game keeps its well polished concept, with decent graphics and perfomace.
    Im surprised that after several hours playing i didn't had any crashes.

    The dark side of Civ 6

    Although its very personal, i didn't like the new cartoon art concept, it makes me feel playing a cheap tablet game.
    Some new screens are confusing, poluted and the icons don't help the player figure out at a glance whats going on.
    The new leader interaction screen is very anoying, there is a long talk and the options take ages to fade on. Of course you can bypass this mess hiting ESC key but if you do this on a incorrect timing you close the whole screen.
    One change that shows the new face of civilizations its the promotion screen. Instead of a simple panel with butons like previous versions we have now a screen that obliterates all your vision and show less promotions than before. More cliks, less resources and all for sake of a better looking UI.

    Final conclusion

    The game went to a next level, thats sure, althoug i don,t like the new concept. The new mechanics are decent, and some old ones received great improvements.
    My biggest concern is about gameplay. There is way too much resources in this game made just for a better looking and tablet users instead of being quick and simple for desktop players. And a lot more clicks needed to do same tasks.
    The units, techs and strategic resources are reduced to a level that i never saw before.
    I hope that modding comunity and dlcs bring more content to the game and fix all the anoyances. Untill then im strugling to give it a score of 7 out 10.    … Expand
  38. jaimemar
    Oct 25, 2016
    7
    Did you like CIV V? Then I give you a few comparisons.

    The game brings great improvements but also looses some good aspects. Good aspects - Graphics is obvious (and not important to me in strategy franchises). - Unit promotions are not so broken. You can't start with autohealing planes (some improvements make you gain experience more quickly). In CIV 5 with 4 L3 bombers and a    Did you like CIV V? Then I give you a few comparisons.

    The game brings great improvements but also looses some good aspects.

    Good aspects
    - Graphics is obvious (and not important to me in strategy franchises).
    - Unit promotions are not so broken. You can't start with autohealing planes (some improvements make you gain experience more quickly). In CIV 5 with 4 L3 bombers and a couple of land units you could defeat massive enemy offensives. Now there is not such imbalance.
    - The cities are not so broken. In the past building rush led you to very powerful cities with all possible advantages. Now districts make you spend tiles, as well as wonders, so you can't have everything. Additional districts need higher population, so you won't be able to build a lot of stuff on a city with little tiles or insufficient food flow.
    - Combat is somewhat better. There are not senseless unit upgrades: ranged units won't have useless promotions if they evolve into melee units and vice versa. Combat mechanics are also better.
    - Religious victory is not looking 100% perfect, but it's rather fun, as it is not a passive victory, you have to use well your religious units.
    - More balance between early, mid and late game. in general.

    Bad things:
    - New eras have a lot less flavour, as the new tech tree hasn't got those fixed era limits.
    - The interface is messier than before, sometimes you lack important information that you used to have in BNW.
    - The card system for the civics is almost nonsense. You have 50 cards unlocked, but you can use 6... and often you will find problems to find the interesting ones. That should be revised in future mods or expansions, because social policies are often meaningless and you research whatever comes next.
    - World wonders are a bit too weak. In civ5 some were too powerful and gave devastating advantages. in Civ 6 they generally give very poor advantages. Considering that you can waste 4 or 5 tiles in an important city to build them... it's annoying.
    - AI still stupid on combat and other aspects. The biggest need to improve gameplay was more or less ignored.

    To sum up, I think CIV6 will make me stop playing CIV5 and CIV BE. I find the game ABSOLUTELY BETTER than the previous ones. However I find some aspects that prevent me from giving it a bigger score.    … Expand
  39. VitaminK
    Nov 13, 2016
    7
    7.5/10 This one was really tough for me. On one hand it looks glorious, I didn't run into any bugs during my fist couple playthroughs (gamespeed fast ~12 hours total), it looks AMAZING. Game/World generation is one of the best I've seen. City and district building actually makes sense the way they have it layed out. On the other hand a couple things have been completely taken out.7.5/10 This one was really tough for me. On one hand it looks glorious, I didn't run into any bugs during my fist couple playthroughs (gamespeed fast ~12 hours total), it looks AMAZING. Game/World generation is one of the best I've seen. City and district building actually makes sense the way they have it layed out. On the other hand a couple things have been completely taken out. Diplomatic system is a complete joke and the AI in its current state is HORRENDOUS. Give this game a year for patching and some good DLC and it'll be worth it all the way. AI patching will automatically bump this up to an 8-8.5… Expand
  40. Koblihozrout
    Oct 22, 2016
    7
    It's a mess, and rather disappointing sequel. Needs a lot of patching and expansions...

    The graphics and art incomparably worse than civ 5, especially wonders. Music and atmosphere is also worse, but civ5 was too good a game in that regard. AI is.... well there is no AI actually, it doesn't even escort workers or settlers, I'm surprised that deity AI doesn't loose to barbs. Again if    It's a mess, and rather disappointing sequel. Needs a lot of patching and expansions...

    The graphics and art incomparably worse than civ 5, especially wonders. Music and atmosphere is also worse, but civ5 was too good a game in that regard.

    AI is.... well there is no AI actually, it doesn't even escort workers or settlers, I'm surprised that deity AI doesn't loose to barbs. Again if you play against deity difficulty, the bonuses are so insane, that it's no longer a symmetrical game, but more like tower defense. Sad.

    And lastly the game has some beyond earth vibe to it, there are many techs for witch you simple don't care, it doesn't have that magical progression feel that previous civs had. Government and cards system is great, but bonuses are very minor. There is no specialization and differentiation with culture polices. There are almost no vital techs or breaking points to progress to. And wonders just suck.

    Overall step in right direction, but abysmal execution.    … Expand
  41. Sandro13
    Oct 24, 2016
    7
    Плюсы и минусы Цивилизация VI

    -Плохой ИИ. Идиотский ИИ! -Плохо видно руины. Туман войны красивый, но не информативный. -Неудобное перемещение юнитов: при автопереключении выбранный юнит мискликом перемещается хрен знает куда, нет возможности препятствовать автопереключению удержанием кнопки мыши. -Идиотский обстрел из городов, не нужное центрирование на городе при выборе мишени.    Плюсы и минусы Цивилизация VI

    -Плохой ИИ. Идиотский ИИ!
    -Плохо видно руины. Туман войны красивый, но не информативный.
    -Неудобное перемещение юнитов: при автопереключении выбранный юнит мискликом перемещается хрен знает куда, нет возможности препятствовать автопереключению удержанием кнопки мыши.
    -Идиотский обстрел из городов, не нужное центрирование на городе при выборе мишени.
    -Много мелких деталей интерфейса. Например рост города и ходы производства.
    -Неудобное (неинформативное) уведомление о событиях. Нет уведомления про рост городов.
    -Счастье заменённое довольством и разделённое по городам неудобно и неинформативно.
    -Политики в ветке культуры. Их очень много, большая часть из них узконапрвленны.
    -Дороги нельзя строить рабочими. Только торговцами.
    -Великие люди стали менее значимыми.
    -Что-то непонятное с ядерным оружием. Дурацкие перевод.
    -Нет вытеснения культурой клеток влияния государства.

    +Интересное решение с районами.
    +Удобный выбор фиксации добычи ресурсов в городах.
    +Интересное решение с рабочими и моментальным сбором ресурса.
    +Объединение юнитов в армию.
    +Более равнозначная возможность различной победы (культурная и религиозная)
    +Прокачка юнитов.
    +Не пропадают торговцы, когда начинается война с тем, с кем торговал.
    +Формы правления. Хорошая идея и реализация.

    В целом Сидмейр хотели сделать игру, отличную от 5-й версии. И пожалуй это удалось, но многие решения вызывают сомнение. Некоторая недоработанность в плане ИИ и информативности. Думаю многие, как и я, ждали более лучшую игру, чем 5-я версия Цивилизации. Но я не могу сказать, что такой стала 6-я версия.    … Expand
  42. cottandy
    Oct 10, 2017
    6
    I see just a raw version of Civ 5 right now. That's what the 6th is.
    Spent a great amount of time playing every previous Civ... but this time it made me sad after a few hours of game.
    Without doubt, the predecessor was just the best and it was way too difficult to outperform it! But what was the point of spending years to make the same old game with minor changes, which made it worse    I see just a raw version of Civ 5 right now. That's what the 6th is.
    Spent a great amount of time playing every previous Civ... but this time it made me sad after a few hours of game.

    Without doubt, the predecessor was just the best and it was way too difficult to outperform it! But what was the point of spending years to make the same old game with minor changes, which made it worse than it was? It's almost like the history with annual FIFA games.

    AI is poor! No, in previous versions it wasn't the best, but this time once again it's the worst ever.
    Even the graphics are better in the 5th than in 6th.
    Civ 6 is full of good ideas, but they didn't shape them up.

    Hope they will fix everything with patches and make it a better game. But right now it's not worth spending money. It's better to play Civ 5, because it's a finished fine game.    … Expand
  43. Rodney5
    Oct 24, 2016
    7
    Far too much effort is spent on the cartoon-ish good looking pictures, possibly they are aiming for a younger group of players, or just that George Lucas got involved somehow.

    The game is very similar to CIV 5 with a few tweaks, but I am not sure if they are actual improvements or there to make the game look different. I really hate the tactical view option, it looks very nice, but    Far too much effort is spent on the cartoon-ish good looking pictures, possibly they are aiming for a younger group of players, or just that George Lucas got involved somehow.

    The game is very similar to CIV 5 with a few tweaks, but I am not sure if they are actual improvements or there to make the game look different.

    I really hate the tactical view option, it looks very nice, but the limited line of sight makes it almost unusable. Fortunately you can use the strategic view, but then it doesn't look that nice anymore,
    in fact CiV 5 looks better.

    So if you want a game for young kids that looks nice by all means this is for you.
    I will give it a few more shots and then probably go back to playing CIV 5.    … Expand
  44. dk3d
    Oct 21, 2016
    5
    Coming from Civ 5 and every Civ before that, I found the game familiar, perhaps too much. I've only put in 30 minutes and several dozens turns thus far, but the layout, upgrades, units, leaders, map grid, interface, is all almost too much like Civ 5. Yes, there are few new tidbits here and there I've come across but I'm sitting here thinking to myself, after 6 years, I was looking forComing from Civ 5 and every Civ before that, I found the game familiar, perhaps too much. I've only put in 30 minutes and several dozens turns thus far, but the layout, upgrades, units, leaders, map grid, interface, is all almost too much like Civ 5. Yes, there are few new tidbits here and there I've come across but I'm sitting here thinking to myself, after 6 years, I was looking for more.

    More as in a better looking and bigger feeling map, as in, use the 3D to the max and let us rotate, immerse ourself in the game world. Instead, it's the same old, 45 degree angle psuedo 3d that teases you with what could have been.

    More as in, far far better graphics. Don't get me wrong, they are nice, but they are mobile/ipad feeling.

    More as in, wow, exact same tech tree so far, granary, iron working, blah blah, all in same order. I'm a bit jaded by Stellaris's tech how it throws random pieces at you I guess. But even so, the EXACT same tech tree?

    It will replace Civ 5 for sure, but I'm not 100% convinced yet why I bought it thinking it would feel new and cool and be $60 well spent. I might get there. The first 30 minutes feel way too familar to me though. I wanted so much more from the next generation of Civ.    … Expand
  45. StefanakosGR
    Oct 22, 2016
    7
    This is the Civ experience everyone expected. While there are a lot of new features, old civ players should feel right at home. But ...

    The engine, while mature and generally bug free, is clunky and demanding. Looks like it is an advanced version of the civ 5 engine. The result is a game so slow when you play with anything more than a couple of civs, that it ruins the experience. And Im    This is the Civ experience everyone expected. While there are a lot of new features, old civ players should feel right at home. But ...

    The engine, while mature and generally bug free, is clunky and demanding. Looks like it is an advanced version of the civ 5 engine. The result is a game so slow when you play with anything more than a couple of civs, that it ruins the experience. And Im on an i7 with 32 gigs of ram and an R9 390. Also, like beyond earth, trader (caravan) management seems to take a huge chunk of your time. When you are playing on a big map, after 10 cities it is maddening.

    Graphics are cartoon-ish and childish, which is a bit of a turn off for me. But the leader animations and voice overs are awesome.

    Overall I just wish I didn't have to wait 5 minutes for a turn on big maps. I literally watch episodes on netflix on my 2nd screen and pause and un-pause to play in between.    … Expand
  46. aidan0
    Oct 28, 2016
    7
    The game is ok I guess, I had a couple of crashes late game, but was able to continue after a reload. I spent 16 hours with my first play through, prince difficulty small map, and after winning, I can't say I like it better than civ 5. The victory was not that fulfilling. Maybe because I was going for the space victory and got the culture victory instead. I was also glad this multi dayThe game is ok I guess, I had a couple of crashes late game, but was able to continue after a reload. I spent 16 hours with my first play through, prince difficulty small map, and after winning, I can't say I like it better than civ 5. The victory was not that fulfilling. Maybe because I was going for the space victory and got the culture victory instead. I was also glad this multi day session was over. Where playing civ 5 was an addiction, civ 6 feels like a chore.

    I like.
    - I like knowing what the AI is thinking.
    - Having districts is a good idea.

    I don't like.
    - build queue's are so slow, even with an industry focused city thing progress slowly.
    - counter spying is a chore I don't like.
    - even with all the roads, travel seems so slow.
    - population assignment managements was better in civ 5.
    - no army overview (I haven't found it)
    - tech tree seems rushed in the modern/future area
    - Not enough information about districts, when assigning workers to it.

    My final impression is that it kinda feels like a chore to play.    … Expand
  47. godunow
    Nov 9, 2016
    7
    I like it a lot. It takes Civ V with all the expansions and streamlines all the pieces so they feel more like one mechanism.

    While changes may not be fundamental (unstacked cities, separate civic tree, tech boosts, support units, builders, roads) they are all to the better. Also: this is a matter of personal preference but I like graphics - nice, readable, functional. Music is also    I like it a lot. It takes Civ V with all the expansions and streamlines all the pieces so they feel more like one mechanism.

    While changes may not be fundamental (unstacked cities, separate civic tree, tech boosts, support units, builders, roads) they are all to the better.

    Also: this is a matter of personal preference but I like graphics - nice, readable, functional. Music is also very good.

    What I hate is how tech discovery quotes have been chosen - they were supposed to be funny, but they break immersion in epic act of buiding your civilization (example: Military Training - "Those who in quarrels interpose, must often wipe a bloody nose.")    … Expand
  48. strondbokken
    Nov 16, 2016
    6
    I really want to like this game, but the imbalance between civs and the many silly (ie stupid) random game mechanics make it more of a headache to play than anything. First off, there are about 2-3 civs that will absolutely destroy anyone else they are near. Huge (yes huge) imbalance here. Sumeria and Scythia are ridiculously overpowered in the early game. Can they be countered? Yes. ButI really want to like this game, but the imbalance between civs and the many silly (ie stupid) random game mechanics make it more of a headache to play than anything. First off, there are about 2-3 civs that will absolutely destroy anyone else they are near. Huge (yes huge) imbalance here. Sumeria and Scythia are ridiculously overpowered in the early game. Can they be countered? Yes. But the process of doing so will cause you to fall so far behind anyone else that it's pointless to even try. Also, the barbarians are a nightmare. They show up on horses immediately. Have fun losing a ton of soldiers to them if you are unfortunate enough to happen across a gang of horsemen during your first 30 turns. Bottom line, there is nothing new here at all and the civ balance is a joke. The AI is ridiculously bad as well. Fun for a bit, then it's back to "well, I'll play again when they patch/fix these things".… Expand
  49. dyselehrt
    Nov 6, 2016
    7
    I'm actually quite pleased with the game. There's truly only two things that I feel compromises the game. The first thing is, as others have mentioned, the AI. I'm by no means a Civ veteran, but even I can beat it on "immortal" without much difficulty (it's the second hardest difficulty setting). I also don't like the system it has adopted from previous series that the AI gets bonusesI'm actually quite pleased with the game. There's truly only two things that I feel compromises the game. The first thing is, as others have mentioned, the AI. I'm by no means a Civ veteran, but even I can beat it on "immortal" without much difficulty (it's the second hardest difficulty setting). I also don't like the system it has adopted from previous series that the AI gets bonuses depending on the difficulty setting. I would very much prefer if the AI were smarter in general and made better decisions, not that it got a bonus advantage. That's just lame. The second thing I don't like is the Sean Bean voice-over. It's not that I don't like him as an actor, but his voice sounds just wrong. His voice isn't meant for voice-overs. Simple as that. Because of this, I go for the German and Russian voice-overs despite being unable to understand them. I'm glad there are these options, otherwise this issue might have ruined it for me. Other than this it's a great game that most likely will be even better with patches and expansions. In it's current state it's a well earned 7 too me. It is thoroughly enjoyable and well worth buying.… Expand
  50. tokonju
    Oct 21, 2016
    6
    I tried it, and i don't like it...
    Graphic is just bad, colors are not good at all, very low texture resolution, not very well drown if you ask me...
    I also don't like the map, mini map and fow... All in all step back from civ v... Sound is fine a guess. Gameplay is just boring, idk tbh, too much barbarians and no city bombardment, i really don't think that is realistic scenario...    I tried it, and i don't like it...
    Graphic is just bad, colors are not good at all, very low texture resolution, not very well drown if you ask me...
    I also don't like the map, mini map and fow... All in all step back from civ v...
    Sound is fine a guess.
    Gameplay is just boring, idk tbh, too much barbarians and no city bombardment, i really don't think that is realistic scenario...
    Nice features like districts, various bonuses etc...

    I hope that they will add more civs soon... and fix some stupid ideas along the way... Like someone said wait for GOTY :)...

    Also, one big "-" for all this great scores that game received, it's a joke as always... I only read user scores anyway, and even the high user scores are given from brain dead people or "bots", because there is no way that this game now worth 10... there are just too many little things that didn't mention that just looks and feels cheap...    … Expand
  51. herlius
    Oct 27, 2016
    7
    The Builder unit is an absolut waste. Why do you need a Builder unit as long as most of your buildings are built automaticaly around your city center? It sounds totaly illogical to me. Not to mention they last only 3 turns. Why? Is there any historycal reason for it?
  52. halldors78
    Jan 3, 2017
    6
    Started the game and it looks very good and plays greatly and all that but the main thing i have against it is that i can't use the num keys for unit movement wich has been possible in any civilization up till now, that just barely makes it playable on my laptop, except when im sitting in a very good position with a real mouse instead of the touchpad. and until they will fix this wichStarted the game and it looks very good and plays greatly and all that but the main thing i have against it is that i can't use the num keys for unit movement wich has been possible in any civilization up till now, that just barely makes it playable on my laptop, except when im sitting in a very good position with a real mouse instead of the touchpad. and until they will fix this wich should be this big of a problem i will not play the game.… Expand
  53. sherbz
    Nov 2, 2016
    7
    I have thought long and hard about how good this version of civ is. I think in its current state, a solid 7 out of 10 would be fair. Civ is a vastly complicated and strategic game. There are a huge number of features and systems at work in it. And “balance” is almost an objectively impossible scenario to achieve. I think at release, it is in pretty good shape (certainly much betterI have thought long and hard about how good this version of civ is. I think in its current state, a solid 7 out of 10 would be fair. Civ is a vastly complicated and strategic game. There are a huge number of features and systems at work in it. And “balance” is almost an objectively impossible scenario to achieve. I think at release, it is in pretty good shape (certainly much better than V). For the most part the new systems work, and work well. Districts are an interesting strategic development; faith is included from the start and has a similar implementation to how civ 5 works; the new card system for social policies is far more flexible than the previous social policies; and the separation of trees is a good feature. There are a couple of areas though where it falls flat. The first is the AI. This is tied closely to one of the design decisions – to keep one unit per tile. The fact is that strategically it is far easier to code an AI that has to contend with stacks as opposed to moving dozens of units across a diverse terrain. A carpet of doom is no more fun than a stack of doom. And when coupled with the new restrictions on movement, the liability of vast traffic jams is an annoying and persistent feature. The AI also has a significant problem in upgrading its units. And its not uncommon to be fielding tanks against an army of AI horseman. The AI is also not aggressive enough at expansion and is handicapped by not being able to wage war effectively. I also think that removing all restrictions on number of cities was perhaps not the wisest decision. The UI could also do with some attention as largely it looks bland and not having building queues is a pretty bizarre omission. Other than that though, it retains its same addictive feel, and once a few patches are out, it will be the same old civ. If you are sitting on fence and not sure whether to buy the game, then don’t. Wait until its on sale or the price has dropped before purchasing.… Expand
  54. HaloFever
    Oct 13, 2021
    6
    At least it is a Civilization game. When Civ 6 was released, I was skeptical of the ugly cartoonish art style and the district system. After playing on iPad and now on PC (technically Mac), I am still skeptical. Though not as bad as Civ 3, Civ 6 has some of the worst changes in the series.

    The game kind of looks like Civilization, but instead of playing as some kind of world history,    At least it is a Civilization game. When Civ 6 was released, I was skeptical of the ugly cartoonish art style and the district system. After playing on iPad and now on PC (technically Mac), I am still skeptical. Though not as bad as Civ 3, Civ 6 has some of the worst changes in the series.

    The game kind of looks like Civilization, but instead of playing as some kind of world history, global conflict simulator, the game plays like a board game that has a too few many rules. Instead of government, you have card that you play. Government is essentially meaningless. Choices are meaningless. What matters is using cards and board piece placement to maximize bonuses and then hitting end turn until you gain enough points in whatever to win.

    The district system is interesting and not in a good way. Instead of building improvements in a city, improvements are spread across the map. This means that wonders of the world like the Great Library will take up 100 square miles of land. (Maybe they need the space for parking.) It also means that if you want to build a library to increase science, you first have to build a campus and then a library. You can't just choose library and have the campus auto-built with it. (The delayed gratification if found throughout the game. Build a Missionary or a Rock Band and then waste its first turn giving it a promotion.) Need a quick boost to happiness? First you have to build an entertainment district before building an arena. How do the citizens feel about this? They have to drive 100s of miles to get from their neighborhood to the factory district. The whole district system is mocked by the game itself when builders have the options of making seaside resorts and solar farms without the need for a district.

    2K Games undercut the districts (and wonders) with the changes to how cities gain points for victory. Civ V went too far in the direction of fewer cities built big (tall gameplay). Civ VI goes to far the other way with no limit on the number of cities (wide gameplay). Every game benefits from investing in settlers to found more cities. Why build a district when you can build a whole new city? Why build an industrial zone when you can have more mines? The developers are hell bent on cost benefit so no mechanic is broken. But when every mechanic is nerfed, none of the mechanics matter.

    Civ 6 also kills many quality of life changes enjoyed in previous Civ games. A player cannot automate a city, so a world winning wide empire leads to toiling in tedious torment. Even in Civ V, which championed small empires, you could take over the entire world and set up all the captured cities as puppet governments. The a.i. would prioritize gold in every captured city and that was fine because gold is useful. Civ 6 doesn't even have an option to set the city to auto-generate projects like making more science.

    War is not great but it does include many of the strategic advancements from Civ 5. The barbarians in the early game are a nightmare. They always have the best weapons and generate 3 or 4 units at a time. It's like the early rushes from Aztecs in Civ 5, only now every game has a rush. Because builders must be rebuilt after every 3 uses, pillaging is a real pain in the ass. Units are so broken out by era that by the time you build an army to deal with a threat, it becomes obsolete. Meanwhile, the barbarians you marched toward for the last 20 turns are spawning the latest gunpowder units. Just so fun for players. And because 2K Games didn't know it wanted for strategic gameplay, armies are back.

    Did I mention the terrible selection of leaders? I like that addition of new and interesting leaders. I don't like the removal of old favorites like Caesar, Napoleon, and Lincoln. And please stop releasing games in a sad state only to sell the players more content with DLC packs. This is why I always wait so long to buy games. (Full disclosure: my son bought Civ 6 with all the DLC. I've been playing it through the Steam family sharing feature. )

    There are good additions. The district system means a player can plop down Golden Gate Bridge between two landmasses or dig a canal through a continent. Spies are more useful than Civ 5. Religious combat is its own thing (maybe too much its own thing). All-in-all, Civ 6 is the kind of Civ release that really makes you think "When is the next one?"    … Expand
  55. smilzoboboz
    Feb 22, 2017
    7
    A good Civilization game, evolved from Civilization V, with great mechanics on a bad implementation.

    I liked a lot the addition of districts, cards and differentiation of social and science advancement trees. I also welcomed the new religious victory condition (even if it's kinda flawed, will write about it later). On the other hand the new graphic style and the lack of “penalties”    A good Civilization game, evolved from Civilization V, with great mechanics on a bad implementation.

    I liked a lot the addition of districts, cards and differentiation of social and science advancement trees. I also welcomed the new religious victory condition (even if it's kinda flawed, will write about it later).

    On the other hand the new graphic style and the lack of “penalties” for large empires (the game actually forces you to rush creating new cities in your empire, will write about it later) dragged things a bit down for me.

    So, in detail, the mechanics of this new Civilization game are very good, overall positively evolved from Civilization V, but since the game forces you to rush on city building you get two bad side effects:
    Capturing cities feels like a joke, for example you may end up capturing 10 to 15 cities in just a few turns with no real side effect on your empire.
    For the same reason (too many cities) religious victory condition is a mess, you will see 3~4 priests per city battling (yeah… that is lame) for religious supremacy which is beyond annoying.
    Again for the same reason it's just easier to colonize to get certain resources rather than initiate trading with other empires or trying to acquire influence over state-cities.
    To get you the idea, totally forget about Civilization V Arrigo Dandolo play style, it's just impossible with the current state of the game.

    Something I was worried about, because so many people pointed that out, was bad AI, but I have to say that in my 2 games AI was quite good, just a bit too aggressive, in everything (e.g. Teddy building a city in a tile between two of my cities, ending up with a oblong, space crippled city or Hojo declaring war just to move through my territory).
    Finally I have to say that at the moment leaders offer you a little bit of variance only at the very start of the game, middle and ending phases of the game are more or less the same whichever leader you get to play: huge empires, fought at least two or more wars, fairly high in all compartments (science, culture, etc).

    Would I recommend this game, yes, no doubt about it, but don't get it right now, wait till a few DLC are out (or even better a GOTY edition “final” pack) because there are both “flaws” and lack of diversity at the moment.    … Expand
  56. GamingPoptartTV
    Dec 26, 2016
    7
    It's better than vanilla Civ 5 but nowhere near as good as Civ 5 with all the expansions. The main problem it suffers from is lack of innovation. Not a lot of things have changed since the previous title. Combat is the same, trade routes work the same, so does religion, enemy AI is just as stupid, etc.

    There are some areas where the game did some modifications though, the most    It's better than vanilla Civ 5 but nowhere near as good as Civ 5 with all the expansions. The main problem it suffers from is lack of innovation. Not a lot of things have changed since the previous title. Combat is the same, trade routes work the same, so does religion, enemy AI is just as stupid, etc.

    There are some areas where the game did some modifications though, the most noticeable being the Districts. This makes you "specialize" your cities as you can no longer build all types of buildings in the city and have to think very well what you build considering the amount of tiles you have available. The social policy system has been changed as well, for the worse in my opinion, as now you gain some social cards when researching a social policy and you can select the bonus of a number of these cards depending on what goverment you have. Again, like in Civ 5 there is no downside to any form of goverment and some of the combinations you make don't even make sense(for example you can drag the Rationalism Card to a Theocracy and you don't get any penalty).

    One thing that I liked is that you can boost your research of Tech and Social by making certain actions in the game. For example, building a number of Quarries can boost your Research towards Mansory, reducing the time you need to research this tech, or defeating barbarians can boost you research of Bronze Working and so on. This is the best addition in my opinion as you are no longer need to put a lot of effort in creating Science and Culture, especially if you like to play Military.

    I would rate this higher if it wasn't however for the horrible presentation of the game. I think everyone is already familiar with the horrible iPad graphics. Look, nobody expected this to have Battlefield graphics and you can talk all you want about unique art style but there is no excuse for a 60 dollar game in 2016 to look like a Fermium iPad game, especially when it looks worse than its predecessor. The sound isn't any better either. The Main Menu theme is fine and the choice of Sean Bean as the narrator is excellent, but the music in the main game sucks. Previous Civ games had classical music to listen to as you built your empire. This game has the type of generic crap that you usually hear in Facebook games.

    My 2 cents? Wait for the price to drop or at least for some mods to show up.    … Expand
  57. TatsMcGee
    Sep 8, 2018
    6
    I have finally done it. I have finally purchased a gaming PC and I can finally start playing PC games. This is a game that I have owned for a long time but I could never play it because my PC couldn’t handle the mid game. Now that I have finally sat down and play through an entire game, I feel underwhelmed. Civilization V is one of my top 5 favorite games of all time and Civ VI just feelsI have finally done it. I have finally purchased a gaming PC and I can finally start playing PC games. This is a game that I have owned for a long time but I could never play it because my PC couldn’t handle the mid game. Now that I have finally sat down and play through an entire game, I feel underwhelmed. Civilization V is one of my top 5 favorite games of all time and Civ VI just feels lacking.

    I love the Art style and its still turn-based and part of the problem is I don’t know what I’m doing. I will continue to play it and hope eventually that the game will click with me. Civilization Revolution was the first Civ game that I played and it clicked with me instantly, Civ V was the first PC version and that was instant as well. This just feels off to me.

    I’ll keep at it and maybe expansions will help but for now, its not just not doing it for me.    … Expand
  58. ExpertPL
    Nov 11, 2016
    7
    I was never a fan of Civilization series, that may be a reason why I give such low score, but I think that Civilization VI introduced not enough new things into this series compared to it's predecessors. In my opinion the audio and more animated graphics in Civ VI are the way to go for the whole series, thanks to it, I feel like Civ VI shows that it is a game inspired by history, notI was never a fan of Civilization series, that may be a reason why I give such low score, but I think that Civilization VI introduced not enough new things into this series compared to it's predecessors. In my opinion the audio and more animated graphics in Civ VI are the way to go for the whole series, thanks to it, I feel like Civ VI shows that it is a game inspired by history, not actual historical strategy and I think it's better that way.… Expand
  59. andreadavided
    Sep 26, 2021
    7
    The game is good. It's fun to play and engaging. You still want to do one more turn and go to bed too late. That being said it's not evolved one iota from the previous versions.

    Combat is still lame and technology only goes to nukes and computers. We have better tech even today but it's lumped into "Future tech" and you can't see it or research it. That's a let down hence my grade of 7.    The game is good. It's fun to play and engaging. You still want to do one more turn and go to bed too late. That being said it's not evolved one iota from the previous versions.

    Combat is still lame and technology only goes to nukes and computers. We have better tech even today but it's lumped into "Future tech" and you can't see it or research it. That's a let down hence my grade of 7.

    One very big problem: launching the game is harder than starting an old car engine. It takes 5 minutes. Buttons are unresponsive and there's no dialogue or visible timer. The DRM soft must be heavy and ****    … Expand
  60. S3XU4LH34L1NG
    Sep 12, 2021
    7
    Im not the biggest fan of the genre tbf, but this hooked me for 30 hr give or take. I guess its pretty overwhelming at the start but gets easiert after a couple of games. Mind you this game has about 50 % of the content hidden in DLC.
    Overall a solid game with decent depth, but it gets old pretty fast once you figure out how it works. Bigger maps are very annoying because not all win    Im not the biggest fan of the genre tbf, but this hooked me for 30 hr give or take. I guess its pretty overwhelming at the start but gets easiert after a couple of games. Mind you this game has about 50 % of the content hidden in DLC.
    Overall a solid game with decent depth, but it gets old pretty fast once you figure out how it works. Bigger maps are very annoying because not all win conditions and factions scale equally.    … Expand
  61. Vacuolum
    Mar 14, 2021
    7
    A very good game, but the bots epicly dumb and if u wanna play multiplayer u need to find lots of other trustable player or everyone will just leave the game by turn 10. The game have lots of desync and connection issue as well.
  62. Woolee
    Oct 4, 2021
    7
    You don’t want to spend your night in front of the computer? You have a wife and kids? You cherish your friendshi
  63. Rnoviok
    Dec 4, 2021
    7
    a good continuation of the series, but I'm sticking with number five .
  64. Pelu
    Oct 27, 2018
    7
    It's OK, but much worse than Civ 5 or 4. It has new interesting features, which don't add much value. The AI is complete garbage and graphics ugly. Would not buy again.
  65. PowerGamer
    Jan 17, 2021
    7
    I've played the CIV games since they came out may decades ago.
    Got this most recent incarnation for free off of the Epic store.
    The game was pretty fun for a while on the first try, and stopped when I beat it once. Didn't feel like it was worth playing anymore. Kind of a let down. It needs some quality of life elements added to the UI. Why repeat some of the same dialog options over    I've played the CIV games since they came out may decades ago.
    Got this most recent incarnation for free off of the Epic store.

    The game was pretty fun for a while on the first try, and stopped when I beat it once. Didn't feel like it was worth playing anymore.

    Kind of a let down. It needs some quality of life elements added to the UI. Why repeat some of the same dialog options over and over again when they didn't matter for instance. Such dialogs could have a "don't show me again" checkbox.

    The worst of it is the balance and progression between the various units.
    For instance jet planes are a nearly unstoppable defence. The mobile SAM units are almost worthless. The only way to combat them is to bring your own planes.
    And the balance in the progression is off. The game is likely to be over from a cultural victory way before you get to have fun towards the space age.

    Maybe this is just a problem with computer games in general, but the AI seems pretty much the same one from CIV3.

    I really like the battles and the tech upgrades so I wish they would focus more on them. Now you are just considered a "war monger" if you fight for more than several turns.

    Instead of suggesting a future tech, why not just one? There could be futuristic laser weapons, hover tanks, antimatter bombs, etc.

    Somewhere I feel there is a great CIV game waiting to happen, but mostly the game appears to have had a graphics upgrade but the gameplay has stagnated.    … Expand
  66. micheldbruin
    Oct 15, 2017
    6
    There is a lot to like but also a lot not to like. The game takes forever load, go make that coffee meanwhile, the gameplay is fluent sometimes, other times a bit laggy. Very often the game won't close and I'll need to log out to get back to the desktop. The soundtrack, not very entertaining for long. I like the new featured which were introduced. Other players never respect anotherThere is a lot to like but also a lot not to like. The game takes forever load, go make that coffee meanwhile, the gameplay is fluent sometimes, other times a bit laggy. Very often the game won't close and I'll need to log out to get back to the desktop. The soundtrack, not very entertaining for long. I like the new featured which were introduced. Other players never respect another player's religion, even if they promise to do so. I never start religions anymore as a consequence. The other players are a bit tame for my taste and the barbarians far too aggressive. A barbarian camp will pop up and creates a barbarian every turn for 5 to 10 turns which forces you to keep an army. If you eradicate the camp it will pop up again even before your warriors have returned home. I'm fighting barbarians far more than other players. The units are less looking than in civ5 (boring legion and samurai). What's up with the weird world wonders! Not wonders at all most of them. Truth be told, I like civ5 better.… Expand
  67. Chucklenut
    Mar 28, 2020
    6
    An otherwise solid sequel hampered by DLC dependency and poor single-player balance. Civ 5 was criticized at launch for lacking most of the features Civ 4 had with its two expansion packs, making it feel like a shallower experience with prettier graphics until its own DLC was released. Learning nothing from this (or perhaps learning people will begrudgingly accept being nickel and dimedAn otherwise solid sequel hampered by DLC dependency and poor single-player balance. Civ 5 was criticized at launch for lacking most of the features Civ 4 had with its two expansion packs, making it feel like a shallower experience with prettier graphics until its own DLC was released. Learning nothing from this (or perhaps learning people will begrudgingly accept being nickel and dimed for their niche), Civ 6 suffers from this same issue and is anemic of past features, civilizations, and wonders in the base game. While it does feel like a complete game once you buy all of it's current DLC, are you really willing to spend the full $167 when for it? If you live and breathe Civ, maybe you are, but at the very least wait for a sale so you don't embarrass yourself too harshly.… Expand
  68. Melgacius
    Feb 8, 2018
    7
    I love grand strategy games and the prospect of playing any Civilization game always fills me with excitement. Civilization VI was acclaimed upon its release as being a glaring improvement over its predecessor. Now that the dust had settled and the game has been around for some time, I do not think they have told us the whole story.

    I've really enjoyed playing this turn-based strategy    I love grand strategy games and the prospect of playing any Civilization game always fills me with excitement. Civilization VI was acclaimed upon its release as being a glaring improvement over its predecessor. Now that the dust had settled and the game has been around for some time, I do not think they have told us the whole story.

    I've really enjoyed playing this turn-based strategy game, yet I admit I became a fan of the game's scenarios or expansions, and I was not totally convinced by the traditional sandbox mode that was always been my favourite previously. This entry of the series presents a considerable dose of new mechanics, but that after squeezed it is clear that they are only derivations of what already happened in the last expansion of the previous game. Two of those are mandatory to be mentioned given the fact that they change the planning of cities in a remarkable way. The introduction of specialized districts that add bonuses and allow for evolutions throughout the game has now ended with the random upgrades of each of the hexagons that we could make in previous games. The decision of where to put them messes with many things in the present and future. Each one obeys certain rules, giving more or less bonuses depending on their location. This seems simple seen individually, just choose the hexagon that assigns the biggest bonus and put the district there, nothing special... however this placement will interfere with the placement of new districts in the future, or with the improvement of the hexagons if some new bonus is discovered in that tile, or even with the placement of World Wonders. This has turned my usual farm-filled cities into sparsely upgraded cities, since any improvement I could make could stir up future bonuses. Speaking of improvements now the workers are consumables. In the old days we would leave them there to make automatic improvements and there you go. We never thought about them ever again, but they were continually in their toil to micromanage hexagons. Now they only make three improvements each and then we have to produce or buy a new unit. It is no longer workers who build the roads, but the merchants, who when starting a commercial route create the road to the city to which they are going. Briefly, these are the biggest changes that the game presents us.

    There are other changes but with less impact on gameplay. In my opinion all these changes made the game more interesting. The four forms of victory are now domination, religious and science that already existed, and the diplomatic changed to the cultural one. Now everything that does not involve war has become much more interesting. We can spread religion all over the world, with our missionaries and apostles being able to engage in religious battles with their opponents, something that involves lightnings and arms thrown in the air, until one of them gets tired and ends up dying of apparent religious boredom. The spies work in a funny way, and they give a good help to our development by stealing technology that saves us a good amount of shifts in our productions, something very important in a scientific victory. Planning our cities to offer maximum tourism is an exasperating challenge because it is a bit of trial and error since we do not know the practical results of our decisions. But in a game of strategy it is blood that we seek, and it is with war that we obtain it. Artificial intelligence has many flaws and it is in this aspect that it is more noticeable. If we choose a low level of difficulty, it does nothing, if we choose a high level it cheats and produces much more units than possible, overwhelming us by the magnitude of the numbers. Even though they are not able to have a decent strategy during a war, and whether it is against us or against another bot player, wars are never beautiful to see and always end up close to a draw. I have been declared war multiple times, so many that I do not always understand why. The speed with which they declare war does not mean that they end up attacking us, often they do not, and sometimes they can not even reasonably interpret the terms of the peace treaties, mostly to their disadvantage. If they consider that they are losing the war even if they are winning it, they have no problem offering us cities to end the war with.

    Probably they do not mind that becaus one of the game biggest issues. Spam of cities. There is no downside to have multiple ones because now the degree of satisfaction of the inhabitants is done one by one and not in a general way. It is also easy to solve their needs, which means that if we distract ourselves we are surrounded by a sea of adversary cities and with no space to expand. In the long run more cities represent more points to everything.

    Well, to few characters that I can use, so much more to say...    … Expand
  69. Jack5switch
    Nov 10, 2020
    7
    Sid Meier's Civilization VI is an alternative to the traditional gameplay of the fifth instalment. It expands the original strategy with new skill trees, units, resources and diplomacy. It is also the prettier game between it and Civilization V, with fully integrated multiplayer and modding support.
  70. M3TAmeat
    Dec 5, 2018
    6
    Fact is, I just like the Civilization series and the gameplay too much, as that I could leave out a part. But unfortunately I am already thinking since the last two parts more and more to buy the game for the release.
    And sorry, normally I would give a 7 out of 10 for the initial teething problems, broken AI and mediocre balancing. But due to the growing, ridiculous DLC policy, I can not    Fact is, I just like the Civilization series and the gameplay too much, as that I could leave out a part. But unfortunately I am already thinking since the last two parts more and more to buy the game for the release.
    And sorry, normally I would give a 7 out of 10 for the initial teething problems, broken AI and mediocre balancing. But due to the growing, ridiculous DLC policy, I can not agree more than 6 in 10 for myself.    … Expand
  71. 4ya5h1
    Aug 24, 2022
    7
    at first sight this game is good, great and interesting but when you spend some time, and get used to it civilization become a little one-sided. i played through few days long time lot of hours in a row, finished few full games and it became boring. then after few days break i played lot of time again and it was good again then again boring
  72. NezharMC
    May 3, 2019
    7
    Similar to Civ V with all the expansions minus the number of leaders and world congress, this game is a double down on the best features of the older version but with a different art style (cartoonier), which I like due to better clarity of tiles.
    It also makes more important the control of the tiles because of the district system and world wonders need their own tiles. Workers are now    Similar to Civ V with all the expansions minus the number of leaders and world congress, this game is a double down on the best features of the older version but with a different art style (cartoonier), which I like due to better clarity of tiles.
    It also makes more important the control of the tiles because of the district system and world wonders need their own tiles. Workers are now builders that improve tiles in a single turn but have 3 uses, which makes the game faster.
    It's an interesting game for noobies of strategy games like me, although to more seasoned players, the really stupid AI may concern them. The AI is probably what costs 2 points for this game, it is really that bad. But a fun game overall.    … Expand
  73. Babutto
    Oct 1, 2019
    6
    Pros:
    - graphics;
    - district system; - units, battles, promotions, research, culture, victories. Cons: - diplomacy is the same **** as usual. If you become strong, everybody hates you. They started using the system of diplomatic points, but you cannot win it even if you have more than others, guys will block your votes; grudge against others doesn't do much if you don't want to    Pros:
    - graphics;
    - district system;
    - units, battles, promotions, research, culture, victories.

    Cons:
    - diplomacy is the same **** as usual. If you become strong, everybody hates you. They started using the system of diplomatic points, but you cannot win it even if you have more than others, guys will block your votes; grudge against others doesn't do much if you don't want to start the war;
    - diplomatic relations themselves do not provide many options. TW series moves forward, here they stuck the same for YEARS. Your allies ALWAYS spy on you and even if you catch the spies keep doing it;
    - governors are useless, city states are less useful then in 5th;
    - AI, workers system should be upgraded for sure. Military engeneer to build railroads? Really?

    Overall: the game contains good ideas, BUT the series should boost their diplomatic side, improve workers, AI, maybe improve research that will contain alternatives that will affect you in a long term and make every discovery valuable.
    Beyond Earth by far is more interesting.    … Expand
  74. RGB-Meta
    Apr 15, 2019
    5
    Not as good as previous in my opinion. Much more difficult and at higher level, like King, the AI will destroy you if you make any strategic errors. Simple things become critical. Can win easily on all levels from Prince down. Have never won a game above Prince level and am getting really frustrated at the AIs ability to target me for the simplest mistake. Attach by 3 Battleships whenNot as good as previous in my opinion. Much more difficult and at higher level, like King, the AI will destroy you if you make any strategic errors. Simple things become critical. Can win easily on all levels from Prince down. Have never won a game above Prince level and am getting really frustrated at the AIs ability to target me for the simplest mistake. Attach by 3 Battleships when I am the most advanced nation and didn't have that tech yet. But AI did and enuf to hit me hard. Can't say what the AI did but I call cheat!. Was a super fan before this. Prefer Civ 5.… Expand
  75. alanwaketan
    May 2, 2020
    7
    本作初始版本相较于前作而言可谓是全面倒退。唯一乐趣的可能就是建立工业六角星。但讲真，文明作为一个以写实著称的系列，卡通化会不会有些过激。实在是喜欢不上本作。
  76. theredd636
    May 2, 2020
    5
    This game improves in actual game play every year. Unfortunately the AI isn't that great as they are always popping up on the users screen often saying that you military is not good and that they don't care for a leader with a bad military. Then when you do develop a military they still come up with the same prompt even though you have the best military in the match. if you are looking forThis game improves in actual game play every year. Unfortunately the AI isn't that great as they are always popping up on the users screen often saying that you military is not good and that they don't care for a leader with a bad military. Then when you do develop a military they still come up with the same prompt even though you have the best military in the match. if you are looking for a strategy game with great AI this is not for you, but if you want an Feature heavy game that is great if you wanna sit down and play for 10 hours straight by yourself or friends then this is for you.… Expand
  77. Pirocr07
    Dec 31, 2020
    6
    The game is enjoyable but the main thing with it is the AI and the difficulties in the game. There is a big change between “Prince” and “King”, not even going to mention how hard is to play in difficulties like “Inmortal”. Basically the AI is super dumb in all difficulties but it gets advantages from the beginning and in combat, which makes it very difficult to win a game in higherThe game is enjoyable but the main thing with it is the AI and the difficulties in the game. There is a big change between “Prince” and “King”, not even going to mention how hard is to play in difficulties like “Inmortal”. Basically the AI is super dumb in all difficulties but it gets advantages from the beginning and in combat, which makes it very difficult to win a game in higher difficulties, I feel like it is possible to do it with certain civilizations and it certain scenarios only. Science is super overvalued, the amenities system is a little bit complicated and the royalty system is a little bit annoying too (this last thing is optional). Apart from that is a good game, obviously if you are on pc you can make some changes and “fix” the difficulty problem taking away some of those crazy advantages but then you will probably end up playing like in prince difficulty. There are plenty of civilizations and there are multiple ways to win, some easier than others but still, it gives more options for you.… Expand
  78. GioGiorno
    Jun 28, 2020
    7
    Divertido com bastante conteúdo e várias maneiras de finalizar. Só achei um pouco monótono e demorado pra finalizar, talvez por causa dos turnos serem "lentos".
  79. Lex_x
    Jul 19, 2020
    7
    Игра довольно хороша, но всё же слишком похожа на 5 часть. Я не уверен, что готов считать эту игру полноценной частью серии, ибо она довольно вторична. Да отличия есть и они заметны, но их не так много как хотелось бы. Я бы предположил, что разработчикам стоило подождать с выходом игры 1-2 года и добавить больше интересных и новых механик, НАПРИМЕР НОРМАЛЬНУЮ ДИПЛОМАТИЮ! По факту этоИгра довольно хороша, но всё же слишком похожа на 5 часть. Я не уверен, что готов считать эту игру полноценной частью серии, ибо она довольно вторична. Да отличия есть и они заметны, но их не так много как хотелось бы. Я бы предположил, что разработчикам стоило подождать с выходом игры 1-2 года и добавить больше интересных и новых механик, НАПРИМЕР НОРМАЛЬНУЮ ДИПЛОМАТИЮ! По факту это просто дополненная 5 часть, не плохая, но и не отличная.… Expand
  80. murtazasamiwala
    Aug 6, 2020
    7
    I enjoyed the game a lot for a while, but the battles/games tend to be too long, and after a few weeks I felt kind of done with it. The civilazations and units seem very well designed, but I did not feel like replaying too many times.
  81. m3t4cr1t1c
    Jul 23, 2020
    5
    Few play Civ on God lvl. I am one of them. 43 years old, played Civ since "...and Earth was without form and void".
    I won't waste my time writing to many lines about this ""new"" civ game. I will just compare it with FIFA. In FIFA they spend 99 percent of their energy for graphics improvements. This Civ dev does the same. This game could be THE GAME. All humans could play it, it could    Few play Civ on God lvl. I am one of them. 43 years old, played Civ since "...and Earth was without form and void".
    I won't waste my time writing to many lines about this ""new"" civ game. I will just compare it with FIFA. In FIFA they spend 99 percent of their energy for graphics improvements. This Civ dev does the same. This game could be THE GAME. All humans could play it, it could become incredibly immersive, complex, beautiful and flexible . Instead... they upgrade graphics with every new one. Very few strategic changes comparative with hundreds that can be made. Watch reality... and watch this game. Civ is not Civ...it's just a joke. Years ago weak processors could have been an excuse. Today - NO. Bad dev.    … Expand
  82. tmsmith3
    Aug 3, 2020
    6
    Each component of the game seems to have no effect or of little consequence to all of the other components. Still very fun, and the dlc is worth it
  83. realkinko
    Aug 18, 2020
    7
    There's many things that annoy me with Civ VI, one of them being laughably bad AI - and I really mean laughably bad. I can't count the number of times I've laughed at AI opponents for acting really weird (like being my best friend one turn, only to be a sworn enemy a couple of turns later).

    Another thing that, at least for me, is completely unique with Civ VI is the fact that winning    There's many things that annoy me with Civ VI, one of them being laughably bad AI - and I really mean laughably bad. I can't count the number of times I've laughed at AI opponents for acting really weird (like being my best friend one turn, only to be a sworn enemy a couple of turns later).

    Another thing that, at least for me, is completely unique with Civ VI is the fact that winning isn't fun - and what I mean by that is that it doesn't really matter. You don't care if you win or lose, because you know you could win every game if you just went for the science victory (which is just about the only reasonable way to win a game it seems). You don't play to win, you play just for the fun experience of expanding your territory and exploring the world.

    Overall it's a good game. It's a fun game to play with friends if you're looking for a more relaxed experience.    … Expand
  84. ErayTellezi
    Nov 17, 2020
    7
    Bence fena değil ancak oyun yapısı gereği inanılmaz vakit alıyor. Bu kadar süre için verdiği keyif değer mi bilmiyorum.
  85. RockerKR
    Nov 17, 2020
    7
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Decent Game llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
  86. eraybeycik
    Dec 24, 2020
    7
    Oyun güzel ama belli bir seviyeden sonra kazanamıyorsunuz. Sadece zevk almak için değil de gerçekten ülke yönetmek için oynuyoruz gibi.
  87. buddookan
    Feb 12, 2021
    6
    Mega nieczytelna, bzdurne zasady, AI tragiczne, nudna i mnóstwo błędów. Najgorsza od czasów jedynki.
  88. prussii
    Jan 1, 2021
    7
    DISCLAIMER: This is the first and only CIV game I've played.
    CIV VI does good job to introduce basics new players to the series, although some systems like the diplomacy stay unclear. Also the AI diplomacy seem illogical. The game is still very addictive and it is the primary example of a 'one more turn' game. The gameplay is very fun and satisfying. Cool game for LAN party with friends.    DISCLAIMER: This is the first and only CIV game I've played.
    CIV VI does good job to introduce basics new players to the series, although some systems like the diplomacy stay unclear. Also the AI diplomacy seem illogical. The game is still very addictive and it is the primary example of a 'one more turn' game. The gameplay is very fun and satisfying. Cool game for LAN party with friends. Playing with AI gets a bit boring after couple of games.    … Expand
  89. rafabrand
    Jan 5, 2021
    5
    They tried to change a lot of things. I agree that a new game is done to keep people playing. But this one is the worst civ that I played. I haven t tryed rise and fall yet.
  90. SebastiedJuan
    Sep 13, 2021
    5
    This game is the way they destruct a great series. Civ3 and Civ4 are history masterpieces, and Civ5 was a great great game, only a little more simplified/user friendly version of Civ 4 with less struttures but still be a great game where u have a great heat. In Civ 6 u don't have this. Game pace is boring, slow, and A.I. is broken, unexistent.
  91. KTheSlayer
    Jun 18, 2021
    6
    Much more casual and nice-looking in the first time, but very low in replaying potential
  92. Lewisbwh
    Mar 3, 2022
    6
    Civilisation 6 is an unfinished game. With the DLC this game is great. Without the DLC this game is as barebones as possible. 2K has been getting lazier and lazier, they want to get as much money out of you as possible with as least effort as possible. The soundtrack still slaps though.
  93. PetyaBiszeps
    Aug 25, 2022
    6
    That's first CIV i'm playing in and it's interesting and immersive enough. It has it's own problems, bad optimization, some weird menu bugs. Also i have to admit, that my experience was interesting at the start until 60-70% of game, after you get tanks, airplanes and other stuff it's getting boring, maybe it's just me, i don't really know. But overall i would rate it something between 6-7That's first CIV i'm playing in and it's interesting and immersive enough. It has it's own problems, bad optimization, some weird menu bugs. Also i have to admit, that my experience was interesting at the start until 60-70% of game, after you get tanks, airplanes and other stuff it's getting boring, maybe it's just me, i don't really know. But overall i would rate it something between 6-7 and if i could i would rate it 6.5, but if i have to pick between 6 and 7 i will go with 6. It's okay but it COULD be better.… Expand
  94. dr-kenobi
    Sep 7, 2022
    7
    Еволюційна цивілка, але все одно не змогла перевершити 5-у. Можливо колись з 7-ю вийде краще

Awards & Rankings

10
#10 Best PC Game of 2016
10
#10 Most Discussed PC Game of 2016
19
#19 Most Shared PC Game of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 84 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 79 out of 84
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 84
  3. Negative: 1 out of 84
  1. CD-Action
    Jan 12, 2017
    90
    You don’t want to spend your night in front of the computer? You have a wife and kids? You cherish your friendships and enjoy parties? Beware of this game. It’s that good. [13/2016, p.44]
  2. The Overpowered Noobs
    Jan 11, 2017
    90
    It's a more playful, fun feel to the franchise, perhaps, but all that's wrapped around a deeply nuanced game. If you've ever enjoyed playing a multi-layered, immersive and strategic board game with a bunch of funny characters, get in here.
    Read full review
  3. Games Master UK
    Jan 1, 2017
    74
    Firaxis has made some significant, exciting changes, but has also obscured vital information. [Christmas 2016, p.70]
See all critic reviews »