Have You Ditched Civ VI and Returned to Civ V?

[Patine]

No, not completely pointless. Asking someone who has left Civ5 for Civ6 will get you answers from someone who has played both games, and decided in favour of the former, and can get you insight that someone who has only either played Civ5 or Civ6 can't provide. I believe the implicit question OP is posing is: 'What aspects/features of Civilization V made you come back to it that were lacking or not as good in Civilization VI, a game that is supposed to be better and more polished than its predecessor?'. The answers can be informative and interesting; they can reveal what sort of a game Civ5 is compared to Civ6, which is helpful for someone who has only played one of the two, and wants to know whether he will enjoy the other. They can also show how some new game designs and mechanics aren't necessarily good just because they were introduced later.

Though I agree that if OP wants a fuller view of the picture, he will have to ask in the Civ6 forum why some (or more accurately, most) people find that game better than Civ5.

The pointlessness is not including the other iterations of Civ as options for having, "returned to them." It's a highly loaded and biased poll trying to more points than is obvious.

 

[AspiringScholar]

No, not completely pointless. Asking someone who has left Civ5 for Civ6 will get you answers from someone who has played both games, and decided in favour of the former, and can get you insight that someone who has only either played Civ5 or Civ6 can't provide. I believe the implicit question OP is posing is: 'What aspects/features of Civilization V made you come back to it that were lacking or not as good in Civilization VI, a game that is supposed to be better and more polished than its predecessor?'. The answers can be informative and interesting; they can reveal what sort of a game Civ5 is compared to Civ6, which is helpful for someone who has only played one of the two, and wants to know whether he will enjoy the other. They can also show how some new game designs and mechanics aren't necessarily good just because they were introduced later.

Though I agree that if OP wants a fuller view of the picture, he will have to ask in the Civ6 forum why some (or more accurately, most) people find that game better than Civ5.

I see what you're saying, but it could be put a little more comprehensively or with a more neutral tone, as the poster above me gets at.

I, for instance, played 3, 4, and 5 and feel unincluded from answering because I actually went back to 4 after playing 5 for a long time, and never even tried 6, but I've still been playing Civ regularly off and on for well over the past decade.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Most of my Civ experience has been with 5. 6 never really "clicked" with me and offered far too many features which did not interest me.

 

[foreverlost]

Nostalgia playing Old World inspired me to crack open my dusty digital edition of Civ V after almost a decade.
And you know what? I forgot what an awesome game it was!

It can hold it's own to Civ VI.

In fact, IMO it's gameplay is superior to Civ VI!

What do you think?

After 2000 hours of game time I have found that CIV 5 is the better game. No religion, no woke BS, no world is dying BS, and a lot harder.

 

[foreverlost]

After 2000 hours of game time I have found that CIV 5 is the better game. No religion, no woke BS, no world is dying BS, and a lot harder.

 

[KayAU]

I suppose people can arrive at the same conclusion for completely different reasons.