Why is CiV STILL more popular than CiVI?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No feedback on Amenities aka Happiness
Districts are boring

More importantly, the ever increasing cost of Builders, Settlers, Districts and District Buildings. 154 production for a 50 production building at 6 cities isn't fun.

This has been the case for the past three games or so. The previous games with all of it's expansions are typically far more balanced with much more features than the next installment before it has a chance for any of that.

Because they constantly gimp their newest games so they can sell DLC that actually makes the game decent.

Because Civ VI is still a broken game, of course.

Then again, Civ V is also still shit compared to IV.

districts are a good idea, they just need more work, maybe some buffs and a policy card to make new districts faster

CivV was shit until BNW, CivVI will probably have something similar

This thread got me curious:

for a TOTAL Civ newbie, which game would be the best way to pop muh cherry with this series, and why?

FREE

MAN

Civ 2: Test of Time

5 unless you're highly autistic.

any pros and cons?
I don't mind micromanaging, if that counts as "autism".

civ v will only die once civ vi gets all its dlc and civ vii is released

user this is like one of the fundamenta laws of the universe

districts are shit
production is weirdly slow

>I don't mind micromanaging
Play 5 and don't touch anything before it then.

How many people are playing Civ:BE?

Because if I wanted to play endless legends I'd play endless legend and not civ6

i had really high hopes for that game :(

If only the AI in AC wasn't so fucking shit.

Because the military AI is so retarded it can spend the entire game attacking one single city state and be unable to take it. An entire multi-city civilization can be stopped by one city city, let alone a player.

Most people play on normal. and on normal the AI is just absolute shit. And so it doesn't feel like a real challenge.

Also Civ 5 has been out for forever now. People with toasters own it and all it's DLC and would rather player that.

About 500 give or take.

who would win

>the worlds most advanced land army with more artillery than any other country in the world

OR

>some ocean tiles

I can't even play it anymore. It just crashes when I try to start it.

>don't touch anything before it then.
Any specific reason?
Is this one of those cases like SimCity 2000 vs "the others" ?

from what ive heard 5 was the first of a shift towards a more streamlined newbie friendly approach.
instead of having multiple units on tiles you can only have one unit per tile for simplicity

Because 5 limits you to 1 unit per tile which severely reduces the amount of active units and is just easier to play in general.

I still play BE. Rising Tide made the game fun, but it had already been ruined in people's eyes at that point.

I wish there was a mod for 5 that nerfed the AI border growth
>Tourism victory
>6 tiles out border

>AI's capital is 10 tiles

Mfw scammed amazon for a second vi key

Ignore any asshole who tells you to skip the older games. Civ 5 was a big departure from the old formula, and it has a lot of problems that the older games don't have. If you have any /vr/ in you, then I highly recommend starting from the very beginning and trying Civs 1-5 in order, since each one of them was considered a great game at their respective times of release.

Otherwise, give Civ 2 a shot, it's very similar to Civ 1 but not quite as unfriendly to handle. The core mechanics that define the series' gameplay are all in place and it's probably the easiest game to get into. After that try Civ 4 and then Civ 5.

Alright, thanks!
Yeah, I'm quite an oldfag when it comes to both games and my age, so I'm not a stranger to oldschool game design. Was just not into strat games at the time.

Stacks of doom were fun

>easier to play in general
This is what most game should strive for, no pointless clutter.
Unless you meant, "casual/easy to win", then fuck you and your shitty stacks.
Even Call to Power 2 did combat better than civ4.

because no one with any sense plays a Civ game that doesn't have two or more expansions out

How do you even start it? Seems to have been made specifically for AMD. Used to work for a while and now it just crashes.

Am I wrong to be unimpressed by Brave New World?
Gods & Kings was where the real meat of the DLC was. It feels like Brave New World just added in a few minor things in comparison, but it's the one everyone seems to praise.

Awesome - I should also mention that if you do get into the older games, keep in mind that Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was released between Civs 2 and 3 as a spinoff title.

It plays fairly similarly to Civilization, but some of the mechanics get pretty wild and all the techs and units are scifi themed, so it might be confusing as a first foray into the series. Still very much worth checking out since it's also considered one of the greats.

I am still waiting for the expansions that fix the game and make it worth playing.

They need to give it a graphical update and make it more window-mode friendly.

BNW made late-game a bit more interesting and changed the AI to be less ridiculous/retarded. But I think BNW gets the credit because it was the last one, it's used as a catchall for all the expansion content.

lel. I cant believe how retards continually fall for the new civ when all they ever do is just remove all the previous expansions,
What a crock of shit. They might be able to even challenge GS games if they continually built on their platform, but no, money is far more important.

I really dont understand how these games are still popular when paradox keeps releasing more casual games .

You can make it run on desktop resolution and alt+tab smoothly by messing with the .ini file a bit.

Probably because one you can get for a fiver with all the DLC and the other one is like 40 quid

Civ V complete has been like $5 for years, Civ VI hasn't dropped below $30

Civ 6 has a really good base game (arguably better than Civ 5's base), but is crippled by a lack of balance within its game mechanics (like religion being utter shit), lack of good AI, and lack of content.

Civ 5 has all that and is modded to hell and back (Vox Populi is incredible), so right now it feels more complete. I'm sure we'll be saying the exact same about Civ 7 when that comes out.

are all the possible expansions out for 6? also sales probably making the 5 available to more people at a cheaper price.

Civ 5 got popular, a lot of new time players bought the DLC (because it's unplayable whitout DLC).
Then Civ 6 came out and this new casual audience realized they didn't really want to spend 100 more dollars on another civ game, hoping that in 2 years it will be good.

You could also try civilisation revolution, its real, REAL basic, was released on consoles so that should be a clue. Still enjoyable though and teaches you sort of like the attitude you should have, while leaving out all the proper stuff

after that, consider 5 with all the DLC

It's older and much cheaper, thus more people own it, on top of that it has 2 expansions + plenty of mods for even more longevity.

VI will inevitably surpass it with time as it gets patches, the obligatory expansions, and mods.

>all they ever do is just remove all the previous expansions

They didn't do that though, the base game has pretty much all the major features that they added in 5's expansions

This is pretty much the reason. I remember buying Civ 5 with all the DLC for around 10-20€. I pirated 6 on release, tried it, didn't like it too much. It may have improved until now but I don't really feel like paying full price for it yet. Waiting on one or two expansions.

>You could also try civilisation revolution, its real, REAL basic, was released on consoles so that should be a clue. Still enjoyable though and teaches you sort of like the attitude you should have, while leaving out all the proper stuff
sounds like trash to be honest.

Seems like I'm joggling between 2 and 5 so far

VI is ten times more expensive than V in Steam so people buy V and pirate VI.

Get Civ 3, it's easily the most "playable" of the old Civ games.

Only good thing about Civ 3 is the aesthetic on the world map, it's a pain in the ass to actually play.

They got rid of good rules like Zone of Control from the previous games, corruption/waste is the worst in the series, and the diplomacy feels like a prototype of something they perfected in the next game. Even the stack combat is better in Civ 4.

Because there was time Civ V was give for free.

>the discounted full game has more players than a current game

really makes you think

because vi is fucking shit and still hasn't gotten a proper expansion to fix the mess

Bought the civ bundle a while agora and I don't understand shit about the Civ 4 collection. Which one do I fucking install? Are they all standalone games or something?

Alpha Centauri. Never bettered.

Civ 4 is the best Civ, even to this day.

But Civ 5 is a friendlier entry point for a new player and it's almost as good, while adding a bunch of new stuff that is legitimately interesting.

I can't speak for anyone by myself, but the goddamn art direction just instantly turns me off. I feel like I'm playing a goddamn facebook game.
Even the quotes you get when you research a tech are some le wacky reddit-tier zingers instead of serious biblical passages or whatever. Really shows you what they were aiming for./

Same reason AOE2 is still more popular than 3.
Because it's better

4 to get you used to the basics then 5.

Don't stick to 4 for too long, the late game is nonsense.

You can ignore Colonization if you want. It's a mod that's a remake of an unrelated Sid Meier game from the past.

Warlords and Beyond the Sword are expansions to Civ 4. I think you can ignore everything else and simply install the second expansion, Beyond the Sword, and run it. I've got all of those on Steam, and the only thing I've installed is BtS, which seems to enable Warlords content as well.

Because part of the joy of Civ has always been looking at an untamed land at the start and slowly peeling back the mess and cultivating it.

For some reason, the art direction in Civ 6 makes it so that untamed land never looks untamed, and cultivated lands never look cultivated. It's just visually sloppy mobile game looking mess that loses one of the fundamental joys of the series.

It's the first Civ game that I have not bought (I'm old), and I think because I look at it and think it LOOKS shitty. That kind of thing hurts sales.

I like it being put this way
Civ games have always had a very good sense of visual progression
from isolated little villages, to compartmentalized walled cities, to sprawling landscapes where everything is interconnected to serve the nation

DING DING DING. This is the serious non-meme reply. Serious veterans are also wary after the previous Civ in Space full fledged game had a PR disaster with its DLC/Season Pass, not that's even half of the complaints hurled at it's general mediocrity.

You have the Reddit fanbase that is comfortable with Civ 5 and isn't going to gamble on Civ 6. You have veterans who enjoy modded/max expansion Civ 5 and are not gonna be fooled after Civ 5's spinoff mod Civ in Space was a lackluster shitshow.

Meme reply is they ruined the girls in this game and added WOMYN LEADERS for the sake of DIVERSITY. Catherine the Great is unattractive, France isn't lead by Napoleon but but by a STRONK WOMYN, and the graphics took a nose dive by looking like a mobile game. Civ 5 had realistic/natural colors palette and strong art direction, Civ 6 is LE CRAYONS OVER SATURATED ITS JUST LIKE FARMVILLE art direction. Instead of trying to be faithful to civilizations, the game has this feeling of 50:50 diversity ratio for genders, what a joke. A literal who over fucking Napoleon, France gets cucked in both fiction and non-fiction.

i preordered it because i fell for the 'it's the most complete civ game at launch!' meme. i played one game and haven't picked it up since. the ui is a mess and the game's systems are shit.

endless space 2 is the better recent 4x game.

>Civ V is also still shit compared to IV

stack of doom was ridiculous mechanic. it ruined IV and every earlier version of CIV. that alone made V the best. then when you add to V a more thoughtful implementation of civics and then add religion, only a fool would say IV > V

>got Civ V complete for around $10
>still perfectly enjoyable and has more features than VI currently
>VI is $60, even on sale was 3-4 times the price of Civ V complete
I wonder why people play the cheaper option in a series where it doesn't really matter if you have the older version.

because of ISABELLA

you forgot to add that anyone who bought BE in between 5 and 6 saw the writing on the wall about 6 in the shitty and horrible trainwreck fuckery moneygrab of BE

Because it´s not a full game for now, unlike Civ V.

There's nothing wrong with stacks in Civ IV. There's plenty wrong with units getting swamped like they do in late game Civ 5 because they can't all fit into the landmass.

>it ruined IV and every earlier version of CIV

You didn't play earlier versions of Civ. Stacks worked very differently compared to Civ IV.

I've always played on Marathon and I'm used to long times with little happening but 6 took the tedium to a new level.
Any city that's not placed in range of several plots that can be improved for production takes a ludicrous time to build anything, especially the industrial district one would think to build to try and fix this
And the rising cost for Settlers really makes it a pain to try and fill out a continent

Happiness is easier to keep track of, districts are shit, Civ V has a more developed modding scene that increased the quality of the game massively, world congress makes diplomacy more interesting even if it's still bad.

Only thing Civ VI did right was make religion good and great people more fun to use.

>Meme reply is they ruined the girls in this game and added WOMYN LEADERS for the sake of DIVERSITY. Catherine the Great is unattractive, France isn't lead by Napoleon but but by a STRONK WOMYN, and the graphics took a nose dive by looking like a mobile game. Civ 5 had realistic/natural colors palette and strong art direction, Civ 6 is LE CRAYONS OVER SATURATED ITS JUST LIKE FARMVILLE art direction
Unironically this.

>Instead of trying to be faithful to civilizations, the game has this feeling of 50:50 diversity ratio for genders
I wouldn't mind that part if they looked like pic related.

>Meme reply is they ruined the girls in this game and added WOMYN LEADERS for the sake of DIVERSITY.

Kill yourself.

You think leaders like Boudica and Woozie got in by merit?

they didn't get the nose right

Civ 5 is honestly the easiest to get into and the best in the series, but I'd say start with 4 just so you can give Fall From Heaven 2 a go. Extremely fun mod, and we just haven't had a total conversion mod on that scale for any of the new Civs.

Stacks of doom were not in any way a problem in Civ IV, where units that could do collateral damage to the whole stack was a thing. It was balanced and efficient, unlike V's sliding panel puzzle carpet of doom gameplay. It also made the AI an actual challenge, as the devs were never able to make the AI understand V and VI's combat.

Glorious art deco vs canard enchainé faces.

Can't you just say
>which game should I start with?
You sound like a faggot

Because it's ugly, broken, inferior in content to the last two games, and simultaneously dumbed-down while also needlessly complicated.

The important part was fixing how pointless the scientific victory was. It was literally just a waaaaaay worse cultural victory. Seriously, after a longer crawl through the unlock trees you don't have a single marvel to build and win but multiple parts and to assemble them?
At least now the cultural victory can result in a stalemate like the military and cultural.

I certainly like the idea behind Eurekas, but it feels as though as long as I do my best to get most of them done I easily leave the AIs behind in the dust

Civ VI base is better than V base. Gonna have to wait on 1-2 expansions for it to surpass it now.

>An entire multi-city civilization can be stopped by one city city
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon

I like and prefer VI to the other games for many reasons but V costs considerably less and Firaxis does not seem to want to make and actual content for VI outside of microtransactions for single civs.

Alpha Centauri > Civ V > Civ IV > Civ VI > Civ III

but 6 has potential to eventually be better than the other civ games, doesn't come anywhere close to AC though

Revolution

The designs for the characters are terrible. I don't want to play this fucking liberal garbage.

Civ 6 is pure cancer.

Because Civ 6 somehow, for some ungodly reason, feels even SLOWER than Civ 5 while offering even less ways to expand like crazy. Reducing global production based on the amount of cities you own is fucking stupid, I honestly don't understand what Firaxis was thinking.

Had some great times with Civ2 and Alpha Centauri. The writing for AC is very good.

Endless Legend is NotCiv5 the same way AC was NotCiv2. Rips off mechanics in a lot of cases, but has enough things to keep it fresh... like minor factions, which are a combination of barbarian camps and city states, and units that are equipped paper doll style like an RPG instead of replaced.

Is there any mods that make resources dynamic? Like I kinda hate how mines never run out of ore and that I can't work a mine more or less, or how animals never migrate or anything.

>AI is retarded in 5
>dev solution: lol just play at a higher "difficulty" where you play gimped
>AI is even more retarded in 6

inb4 "just play with people lel", civ multiplayer is so buggy/broken/boring you have to be dense to say that

Pretty much this, I still played Civ 4 regularly with my friends until Gods & Kings, then I played both. When Brave New World came out I mostly played Civ 5.

poorfags

there was atime you could pik up the whole civ 5 bundle for $10