Check out these gameplay videos from Civilization VI, which is coming to Linux

The new visual style is terrible. I understand the reasoning for it but they really could go with the improvement of Civ 5 style.

I don't buy that comics graphics. They should also make it more keyboard-centric thus also steam controller playable for example. I hate mouse clicking on some areas of screen when such an action doesn't really need a mouse.

I don't get this obsession with cartoon art in the gaming industry either. I hate cartoon art and in my opinion, the only place for cartoon art is a cartoon. It's just a complete mismatch for a "serious" game like Civ. Sorry if this sounds mean, but if a game uses cartoon art I automatically assume their artists weren't talented enough to draw realistic art.

The other thing I am fairly concerned about is cities occupying more tiles. It sounds like a great idea at first, but when thinking of scale, even one-tile cities are fairly large on a map that's supposed to represent an entire planet. I assume it will take a really large empire to even accommodate more than a handful of cities in its territory now? I also don't like how they say that no longer able to create cities hosting pretty much all of a nation's wonders would be somehow a good thing. Again, it's not realistic. If you look at e.g. France or England, they have one city hosting pretty much all of the nation's landmarks (Paris and London respectively). Russia has two (Moscow and St Petersburg). Italy and Germany aren't quite as extreme, but their capitals still host more "wonders" then the rest of their cities combined. Concentration of culture is actually fairly normal at least in countries having more cultural than natural wonders.

If you look at e.g. France or England, they have one city hosting pretty much all of the nation's landmarks (Paris and London respectively). Russia has two (Moscow and St Petersburg).

Because those became highly centralized monarchies early on, unlike --

Italy and Germany aren't quite as extreme, but their capitals still host more "wonders" then the rest of their cities combined.

What we today call 'Italy' and 'Germany', that were collections of autonomous principalities, kingdoms, etc., until fairly recently.

Concentration of culture is actually fairly normal at least in countries having more cultural than natural wonders.

I don't quite understand what that means.

-- but anyhow these videos (especially the one by 'quill18', and its sequel on YT) are quite informative. I haven't watched them to completion yet, but it was certainly good to hear that the 'vanilla' release will feature advanced religion, trade, culture, etc., that were all missing in V upon release.

As to the visual style: The first few screenshots had left me skeptical; but seeing it in motion, I'm quite a bit more sympathetic towards it. What I currently don't really like about the visuals is the clunkiness of the UI (oddly reminiscent both of Civ III, and the later SimCity games); but those will definitely be refined before release.

I am loving new style too.

Concentration of culture is actually fairly normal at least in countries having more cultural than natural wonders.

I don't quite understand what that means.

In North America we have a lot of natural wonders, so ours aren't quite as concentrated in one big city, unlike the European countries I mentioned. It's very hard to move a national park, so they tend to stay scattered across the nation. :D

And yes, it's great that a lot of the former DLC features are now part of the main game, but it's not as big of a deal if you already have Civ V and all its DLCs anyway. Whether I will prefer Civ VI over the full Civ V I already have is still an open question for me. So far I haven't yet seen a "killer feature" that would mark a true leap forward for the franchise. Like Civ V's combat system which was such a huge improvement over the silly "Kill one unit and the entire stack dies" combat of the older games. And the fugly cartoon art is more an argument for me to stay with Civ V, really.


Last edited by Kimyrielle on 26 May 2016 at 8:54 pm UTC

For me this new art style could ruin the immersion.

Civilization is a complex and serious game, is not a little town mobile game. I can launch nuclear bombs over my foes! I can burn and raze cities! How will this actions look with this cartoon style? Ridiculous, like a bad joke.

It looks like childish mobile games do imho -- certainly not the semi-realistic theme like in Civ V which I loved.

Not sure about the gameplay-wise changes but that I'll have to judge after playing myself

I don't care for the new visual style, either. There's a natural art evolution from Civ 1 to Civ 5. Then we get Civ 6 which is a significant step backwards in my opinion. My theory is that Firaxis has their eye on the console/mobile market and is creating a look that will appeal to casual gamers. My concern is that the gameplay will follow suit.


Last edited by Mountain Man on 26 May 2016 at 11:11 pm UTC

I don't care for the new visual style, either. There's a natural art evolution from Civ 1 to Civ 5. Then we get Civ 6 which is a significant step backwards my opinion. My theory is that Firaxis has their eye on the console/mobile market and is creating a look that will appeal to casual gamers. My concern is that the gameplay will follow suit.

Civ 3 had more 'realistic' graphics compared to Civ 4, which went for a more cartoony style.

The graphics so far certainly do have a 'mobile' flair; but from what's been revealed so far, it doesn't look like a dumbed down game at all.

This is going to be the best Civ game if what those video show us is accurate and true :D and if they don't spoil it until release :D
I love it! I love the art style, the new mechanics and also the old ones they kept and the fact that they took some inspiration from Civ 4 (and possibly even older ones that I haven't personally played)

Oh, and the best part is that it looks like this game is actually going to be good even in it's vanilla form, unlike Civ 5 which was pretty bad without it's DLCs that made it really good. There were also some small and useless DLC for money-baiting... I hope they will do without them, they give a bad image to the game and their company, IMO...


Last edited by 1mHfoksd1Z on 26 May 2016 at 11:30 pm UTC

I don't understand why people hate the graphics so much. I love them and I think they fit the game way better than any type of realistic graphics ever could. Remember, this is a game where America can build the Great Wall of China (Great Wall of America? (Trump?))... It's not that serious of a game; stop taking it so seriously.

Civ 3 had more 'realistic' graphics compared to Civ 4, which went for a more cartoony style.

Civ IV was stylized, not "cartoony", and it still looked like a serious "adult" game. Civ VI has a Playskool aesthetic.


Last edited by Mountain Man on 27 May 2016 at 1:07 am UTC

I like the new fog of war (the paper map thingy), but apart from that I don't like the new art style. It reminds me of Warcraft, and is a big step back from Civ V's graphics.

Gameplay wise I still prefer Civ 4, I have Civ V too and have played it for some 100 hours, but never really liked it that much. It seems like half the time I'm just waiting for buildings to finish so I can build more buildings, while simultaneously waiting for points to accumulate so I can unlock new buildings (science, policies).

I don't understand why people hate the graphics so much. I love them and I think they fit the game way better than any type of realistic graphics ever could. Remember, this is a game where America can build the Great Wall of China (Great Wall of America? (Trump?))... It's not that serious of a game; stop taking it so seriously.

Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking while playing Civ5 :) Why would such a game have so realistic graphics, among other things... it was like it was trying to be realistic while simultaneously trying not to. I was hoping for more cartoony graphics, and when I've seen the first screenshot in the announcement I was amped!
I really like this kind of graphics over the "realistic" ones... I like how Torchlight, Hearthstone, (LoL and Dota2 even tho I don't play them) look like, and many others as well.
It's a personal thing but I dislike most (but not all) graphics that try to look realistic, because of the "uncanny valley effect" ... maybe I'm more sensitive to it, idk... and they are ultimately just games... toony and playful looking, and not an alternate reality.
Horror games, FPS games and RPGs are the ones that really have to look realistic because the whole point is to get involved and feel like you're actually there (like an alternate reality) but there's no need for that in strategy games.

And I don't really understand why people even care so much, really. I'm sure most of them won't keep themselves from playing just because of how it looks, they will choose based on the game's mechanics instead. They are all complaining now but once the game will be out it won't matter at all, the games either going to be good/bad, fun/boring, but not beautiful/ugly.
I'm going to repeat myself again, but it's just a *strategy* game, get over yourselves! It's not like CoD/Battlefield or whatever shooter is popular these days suddenly became toony.


Last edited by 1mHfoksd1Z on 27 May 2016 at 9:10 am UTC

@Hori, I'm not sure I agree with you. The graphics are my first impression of the game, if I don't like it (and that's a subjective opinion), it's unlikely I'll look further into the game no matter how good it is mechanics wise.

Of course, if it gets lauded as the best game ever I might take another look.

I will buy it when it actually on linux not before...

And I don't really understand why people even care so much, really. I'm sure most of them won't keep themselves from playing just because of how it looks,

Looks do matter. If they wouldn't, I would play MUDs. Call me vain, but I have a hard time buying a game if I hate how it looks. That's one of the reason why I never played a Blizzard game and likely never will. WoW is the only major MMO game I never played, despite I am a huge MMO fan otherwise. Go figure. No, Civ VI isn't quite has fugly as a Blizzard game, but it will still take some serious great features to make me buy it, considering how ugly it is.

I don't understand why people hate the graphics so much. I love them and I think they fit the game way better than any type of realistic graphics ever could. Remember, this is a game where America can build the Great Wall of China (Great Wall of America? (Trump?))... It's not that serious of a game; stop taking it so seriously.

So because a game is set in alternate timelines or a fiction world it can't be serious any more? I agree with those who say that Civ games are more serious. I certainly don't see these games as I see Team Fortress or such games.


Last edited by Aryvandaar on 30 May 2016 at 7:45 am UTC