Same with Paradox games. 4X in general is just really hard to get right on release because of how many interlinking systems there are, so waiting for balance updates at a minimum is never a bad idea.
I think a lot of people are waiting for the first Civ7 expansion pack to be released, whenever that may be.
Civ 6 without R+F, GS feels like a completely different game. As an example, in vanilla you can expand anywhere right up to someone’s borders whereas with the expansion straying too far from your territory you could just lose it to influential pressure from neighbouring cities.
They do make changes throughout the series, but every new game is a complete reset to a basic game so they can sell you all the DLC and expansions to make it into a full game.
As the article says, it’s history repeating itself. This one made more foundational changes to the formula than 6 did over 5, and once again, if you’re looking to play a Civ game, the old game is still going to be cheaper. I loved 6 when it came out, but when friends were curious about dipping their toes in, I just referred them to 5 because it was almost as good and far cheaper to try out. Civ 6 charts compared to 5 around the same time period are similar. I haven’t picked up 7 yet just because I’m still trying to get through other games, but I’m looking forward to it.
I just referred them to 5 because it was almost as good
Why do you consider Civ 6 better than 5?
Edit for anyone else wanting to answer: Please specify whether you’re including Brave New World (or Gods and Kings) in your comparison, since those expansions significantly improved upon the original Civ 5 release.
On a technical level, it functioned better. On an artistic level, I liked the look a lot better. On a gameplay level, they were pretty similar, but I liked what they did with city tiles in 6.
I'm not the person that you asked, but I do hold the same opinion. My biggest reasons are:
Civs are far more incentivised to expand in VI, resulting in more conflict
Districts make city placement a much more complicated question
The city state influence game is much more interesting than just a spending race and also has more game-changing rewards
The culture and science victories are much more interactive with other civs now, rather than just hiding away and waiting for a bar to fill
I don't think V is bad by any means. It was the one that got me into the series after bouncing off III and IV. I just think that most of the changes in VI were improvements
My philosophy is that Civ 5 and Civ 6 are just fine. My friend was going to buy 7 on release and I was like “yeah, but you can just go play Civ 6. It’s not like it’s a bad game just because the new one is out.” And I’m glad I convinced him otherwise because of how “okay” Civ 7 has been so far. Nothing against the game, I just already have the last three Civ games with all DLC and there is still a mountain of content that we already have to play with each other.
ign.com
Aktywne