There are quite a few of us who loved Civ4 and hated Civ5. I am one of them. I'm not going to rehash all of the reasons. All of us Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters more or less know what they all are!
I think the way to best sum up the main reason that Civ4 was so great was that it was probably the most "historically immersive" version of Civ ever. On the other hand Civ5 basically went away from that "historical immersion" experience and made it much more "boardgamey". Anyway, I think all of the Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 haters know exactly what I mean!
My main interest in Civ games is the ability to play a game that feels like reliving alternate history in a nutshell. I prefer Civ4 over all the other parts of the Civ series because it comes closest to that personal vision and interest. Civ5 OTOH felt way too much like a glorified boardgame that was much further removed from that history building experience.
So what are the thoughts from other Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters on the upcoming Civ6?
Myself, I am not sure although I am somewhat hopeful.
Firstly, I am very heartened to hear that Civ6 is getting rid of one of the horrible concept of global happiness back to city happiness of Civ4. That was a must for me to even consider Civ6! Civ4's system of local happiness and city maintenance was near perfect in terms of balancing "wide vs tall" styles of expansion and also felt historically immersive whereas Civ5's new system was a huge disappointment. It looks like Civ6 is trying to be more like Civ4's system?
It also seems that Civ6 is trying to find some middle ground between stacks of doom vs carpets of doom. Whether it works or not, we'll see. I can tell you that I hated 1UPT and the carpets of doom and making Civ5 function on a tactical level on world sized maps was just something I could never get into!
Now I know that Civ5 tried to make amends with BNW but ultimately it never corrected many of the fundamental flaws of Civ5 to make it as good as Civ5BTS IMHO.
But I will say that some of Civ6 new features such as the builder concept, district concept and actions direct research and these all seem to be good historically immersive ideas. Also the city-state implementation seems to be improved from the overly simplistic bribe with gold only model (although I still am not crazy about CS in general).
Where I think Civ6 might fall short is in trade and diplomacy. Civ6 diplomacy was horrible and extremely historically immersion "breaking" as all the AIs basically were acting way too "gamey". Civ6 seems to try to improve that but will it do it enough for us Civ4ers?
I think ultimately though, Civ6 really sounds more live Civ5.5 to me. I don't think I'll hate it as much as I did Civ5. But will a Civ4 lover like me ever feel like it is a step up from Civ4? I'm very skeptical.
What do other Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 haters think?
For us Civ4 lovers who play the game for the historical immersion/history building aspect, will Civ6 give us that feeling? Or is it will it still be too "boardgamey" for our tastes?
I think the way to best sum up the main reason that Civ4 was so great was that it was probably the most "historically immersive" version of Civ ever. On the other hand Civ5 basically went away from that "historical immersion" experience and made it much more "boardgamey". Anyway, I think all of the Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 haters know exactly what I mean!
My main interest in Civ games is the ability to play a game that feels like reliving alternate history in a nutshell. I prefer Civ4 over all the other parts of the Civ series because it comes closest to that personal vision and interest. Civ5 OTOH felt way too much like a glorified boardgame that was much further removed from that history building experience.
So what are the thoughts from other Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 Haters on the upcoming Civ6?
Myself, I am not sure although I am somewhat hopeful.
Firstly, I am very heartened to hear that Civ6 is getting rid of one of the horrible concept of global happiness back to city happiness of Civ4. That was a must for me to even consider Civ6! Civ4's system of local happiness and city maintenance was near perfect in terms of balancing "wide vs tall" styles of expansion and also felt historically immersive whereas Civ5's new system was a huge disappointment. It looks like Civ6 is trying to be more like Civ4's system?
It also seems that Civ6 is trying to find some middle ground between stacks of doom vs carpets of doom. Whether it works or not, we'll see. I can tell you that I hated 1UPT and the carpets of doom and making Civ5 function on a tactical level on world sized maps was just something I could never get into!
Now I know that Civ5 tried to make amends with BNW but ultimately it never corrected many of the fundamental flaws of Civ5 to make it as good as Civ5BTS IMHO.
But I will say that some of Civ6 new features such as the builder concept, district concept and actions direct research and these all seem to be good historically immersive ideas. Also the city-state implementation seems to be improved from the overly simplistic bribe with gold only model (although I still am not crazy about CS in general).
Where I think Civ6 might fall short is in trade and diplomacy. Civ6 diplomacy was horrible and extremely historically immersion "breaking" as all the AIs basically were acting way too "gamey". Civ6 seems to try to improve that but will it do it enough for us Civ4ers?
I think ultimately though, Civ6 really sounds more live Civ5.5 to me. I don't think I'll hate it as much as I did Civ5. But will a Civ4 lover like me ever feel like it is a step up from Civ4? I'm very skeptical.
What do other Civ4 Lovers/Civ5 haters think?
For us Civ4 lovers who play the game for the historical immersion/history building aspect, will Civ6 give us that feeling? Or is it will it still be too "boardgamey" for our tastes?