Civ V or Civ VI which is better?

[REPENT]

Which one is better?

[valera-wrx]

Wandering Mania の投稿を引用：

Yellowbeard の投稿を引用：

Civ I - IV is for legit gamers.
Civ V is for legit gamers and those of the lowest common denominator.
Civ VI is for the lowest common denominator.

"Everyone is stooping to the lowest common denominator." - John Oliver

Personally, my favorite was Civ3. I used to host 'Space Race' games, with no 'War-decing' until gunpowder, all the time back in the day. Ahh memories.

Civ3 was great game, but it had some bewildering quirks like random city aquisition by culture and absolutely wild ungodly levels of corruption.
Good thing about Civ5 is that it is polished and refined in most aspects, so playing it feels like playing chess with RNG happening in early game and after that almost everything can be calculated.

[Wandering Mania]

valera-wrx の投稿を引用：

Civ3 was great game, but it had some bewildering quirks like random city aquisition by culture and absolutely wild ungodly levels of corruption.

What do you mean? I never saw any corruption.

valera-wrx の投稿を引用：

Good thing about Civ5 is that it is polished and refined in most aspects, so playing it feels like playing chess with RNG happening in early game and after that almost everything can be calculated.

Don't even get me started on the Civ5 RNG. If you start a game in the 'Nomad' stage, and work your way up through the ages, on a 'Marathon' speed, by the time you get Aluminium revealed, just to see that there is barely any on the map, and you have to plop 5 more cities just to reach a single deposit of 5;

Well... That kinda stuff just pisses me off.

[Quillithe]

Little off topic, but since someone earlier on mentioned Alpha Centauri and having a thoughtful plot, there's actually a whole blog analyzing the factions and technologies and secret projects.

They even basically fit together to have a 'canonical' sequence of events in terms of who loses and who wins.

https://paeantosmac.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/introduction/

As to Civ 5 or 6, I missed Venice too much and Civ 6 felt too into going excessively wide for how I like to play - on launch you'd just pick germany, spam cities, give each an industrial district, end of story. Didn't have anything to penalize jamming cities in as close as possible and ignoring terrain. In fact jamming cities as dense as possible was encouraged so you can get more adjacency bonuses, so where you settle is always just as close as the game lets you settle.

[The Ohio Question]

They both have their pros and cons, but il say this much. Civ 5 is more balanced, and all its elements actually work well.

In civ 6, the strength of civs is all over the place to the point of absurdity, in 5 the one glaring odd man out is poland and even they are not as bad as say, grand columbo in civ6.

Some of the sub systems in civ 6 are just flat borked, loyalty for example on faster game modes is just broken, still. Cities will rebel before you can actually do anything to stop them, punishing you for winning.

Those are just examples, the list gos on and on. Thats not to say civ 6 is bad, its not, its just not a well thought out game, and has some p2w dlc factions.

Civ 5 is the far more rounded and solid game.

[Wolfen]

Civ 5 for sure.
Civ 6 is a pile of garbage with an AI that is too stupid for its own game.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

V

[Quillithe]

Big differences that come to mind:

Civ 6 massively favors playing wide (population is basically just to let you build more districts), Civ V somewhat favors playing tall (but is more balanced)

Civ 6 is overall more complicated (Not necessarily in a good way). For example, a good city in civ 5 has good resources and yields. In civ 6 tiles have appeal ratings and districts benefit from certain layouts and wonders almost all have very specific location requirements so that you can't just put them down in general. And that's not getting into loyalty, power, or however the civ 6 culture victory works.

Civ V is more cleanly centered on your gameplay decisions instead of having too many fiddly little systems to keep track of at all times.

[Iconian]

I just took a quick look at the store pages for Civilization 5 and 6.

Civilization 5 has approximately

177,000 positive reviews
7,100 negative reviews

making for about 96% positive reviews.




Civilization 6 has approximately

182,700
35,800

making for about 83% positive reviews.



Just a nice little fairly objective measure there.

[Wandering Mania]

Iconian の投稿を引用：

Just a nice little fairly objective measure there.

Don't you mean 'Subjective'? Especially when looking at the Steam reviews; Which have been 'sketchy' at best, and 'completely untrustworthy' at worst.

For Example:
On one game that that I saw, that was an obvious 'asset flip', there was a positive review, rated the "most helpful"; And all it was was a recipe for pancakes.

Now granted, if you need a recipe for pancakes, that would be very helpful. But that's not the place to be puttin' stuff like that.

[Iconian]

I'm glad you pointed this out--thus the reason I wrote "fairly" objective.

The objective part is the quantity of negative and positive reviews that Steam displays on each of the games. It's easily measurable, and is a simple matter of numbers.

What's not as objective is how accurately those numbers really quantify players' opinions. I agree that's it difficult to know exactly how accurate they are, between negative review bombing, possible paid positive reviews, and other such shenanigans. But lacking some way of drilling deeper down into the numbers for accuracy, they seem like fairly decent statistics.

I've actually been bothered for years about the review system for system, since they changed it all up in November 2017 I think it was.

I think a very different and completely improved review system for Steam would be great. But it doesn't seem that likely any time soon.

[Wandering Mania]

Iconian の投稿を引用：

I'm glad you pointed this out--thus the reason I wrote "fairly" objective.

The objective part is the quantity of negative and positive reviews that Steam displays on each of the games. It's easily measurable, and is a simple matter of numbers.

What's not as objective is how accurately those numbers really quantify players' opinions. I agree that's it difficult to know exactly how accurate they are, between negative review bombing, possible paid positive reviews, and other such shenanigans. But lacking some way of drilling deeper down into the numbers for accuracy, they seem like fairly decent statistics.

I've actually been bothered for years about the review system for system, since they changed it all up in November 2017 I think it was.

I think a very different and completely improved review system for Steam would be great. But it doesn't seem that likely any time soon.

Don't forget 'Positive Review bombing', as that does happen as well.

But every review I have written, where made up of nothing but the truth, the whole truth, so help me Machine God. They are made up of 100% honest opinion, and most of the time, well, a good portion of the time, those opinions aren't good at all.

But the Steam review system as is, in it's entirety, is just a bit, well, bias. What with only 'yes/no' options, and most of them being made up of some pictograph, have 10 words or less, or are completely off topic. Kinda like this post is, so I'll get to the point.

Steam reviews can't be trusted at all.

But back on topic;
Yes, Civ5 is way better than Civ6. As Civ6 seems like it was made more to appease the masses, over the ones who actually planned on playing it.

[Ragnarjan]

Q

I have not played civ since civ 4,is 5 better than 6?

[Amanoob105]

Which is the best civ game? Alpha Centauri.

[fickó]

I vastly prefer Civ VI. Neither of these games are anywhere close to how good the 90s games were, but Civ VI is a step back in the right direction with some simple environmental modelling and less of a board game feel to it. The early games, and Call to Power in particular, felt more simulation-like, even though it was obviously simplified in order to even be comprehensible.

[Wandering Mania]

fisk0 の投稿を引用：

I vastly prefer Civ VI. Neither of these games are anywhere close to how good the 90s games were, but Civ VI is a step back in the right direction with some simple environmental modelling and less of a board game feel to it. The early games, and Call to Power in particular, felt more simulation-like, even though it was obviously simplified in order to even be comprehensible.

Really? You do realize that Civ has been around since the 90's. Right? And only Civ6, as well as every console version where betrayals to the Civ franchise.