A vocal minority of the Civ community hate Civ 5 and even prefer 4, why?

[sixty4half]

I like both games, not hating or preferring either to the other. Here's some of the things I like about one over the other;

Civ 4 - Peaceful Play is much easier.
Stacked Troops. This seems to make more sense on a smaller scale. I wouldn't push through a mountain pass one archer at a time, it would be entire platoons at once. (see Civ 5 note about 1UPT)
SPP system is better IMO.
City Flipping (and border pushes) through Culture
I like the way you mix and match the Civics to create your own government specialized to how you wanted to run your empire
Water Transports

Civ 5 - AI civs won't just let you get away with winning without putting up a fight (aka Peaceful Play is nearly impossible)
1UPT This adds a level of strategy to war that is lacking from previous versions OMG STACK OF DOOM COMING OUR WAY.
Each leader is unique, in Civ 4 leaders seemed to blend together and didn't really alter the way you played the game.
Far fewer military Units. Do I really need 6 different Melee units before I hit the 3rd era?
The way Religions work. However; I don't like that GP purchasing in later era's is based off of faith. It seems like the devs said, how do we make Religion important throughout the entire game? Oh, we'll tie a really important feature to Faith even though it's only loosely related in the best of cases historically.

 

[greygamer]

Yes, it did make a difference. Did it make a difference to you that in IV the option was there to play toroid maps?

Sorry I didn't make it clear... I mean to the design choices made to Civ V/VI
I am fine without toroid maps it's not a selling point to me

 

[Eurik]

Sorry I didn't make it clear... I mean to the design choices made to Civ V/VI
I am fine without toroid maps it's not a selling point to me

I love the hexagons and I find the 1 upt an interesting turn. If they had build that on what was already there in Civ IV I think I would have embraced both games wholeheartedly. Despite the hexagons, which I think really are an improvement, I felt that V was a downgrading of IV. (See my first post in this topic). I nevertheless played it, but not as enthousiastically and with the same feeling of adventure. VI to me feels even a downgrading of V. Even less options and even less free game play. The path from IV to VI feels like a funnel. At V I could still breath but at VI I'm gasping for breath.

But perhaps I would not have felt this way if I had not been spoiled so much with four editions of improvement.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Personally, Civ V G&K was the first PC game that I bought in more than a decade, and I added BNW a few weeks later. That was because I replaced my console with a gaming laptop in order to go over-seas. Civ V became my primary source of entertainment on work nights and now it has tremendous nostalgic and sentimental value because I associate it (especially the music) with that time. I suspect a lot of people have similar emotional attachments to IV. I also didn't start playing V until it had two expansions and a number of patches so I didn't have to play through its growing pains. First impressions make a big difference. I'm sure IV was monumental in its day, and I'm sure it's still a good game but I bought it after V and I've never been able to get into it properly as a result. Maybe one of these days I will.

 

[FieryCharizard7]

Well to be fair Tundra tiles should be almost impossible to travel through until Industrial/Modern technology anyway Neither pole was reached until the early 20th century and passage through polar territory was something of a grail quest as well.

So should polar tiles not even be trekkable until a certain tech is reached?

 

[stachnie]

If Civ V was a completely new game, it would be O.K. However, for old fans of Civ (remembering slow development from original Civ for DOS to Civ IV BtS) this was a disappointment. Some very good reviews of Civ III to VI are available at the Sullla's website http://www.sullla.com/ . Recently I have bought Civ V Complete and I understand its haters. It is not a bad game and I think I will spend a lot of time playing it but it is much worse than nearly perfect Civ IV.

Last but not least: mods. If you are tired of regular Civ III or IV, you may install a lot of mods which affect the gameplay very much. For Civ III I like Double your Pleasure/Rise and Rule and Conquests of Might and Magic. For Civ IV I like the successors of Rise of Mankind: a New Dawn and especially Caveman2Cosmos (in which you may start in the Prehistoric era, fight Neanderthals etc.). I do not know if there are mods for Civ V comparable to these mods.

S.

 

[GT_OKEZ]

So at first I was a critic of Civ 5 but that's because years ago I only tried the vanilla and was thoroughly unimpressed especially since there was Civ IV as an alternative to play. But then recently I've been playing a lot of Civ 5 ( & 4 as well as 6) to quench my Civ thirst and my opinion of 5 really changed. The version of 5 I'm playing is the latest one G&K, BNW.

I have to say I like 4, 5, and 6 all for their uniqueness they offer.

I started on Civ III but IV was the one that really entrenched me into the franchise. It's always going to rank high for me for that reason alone. Currently, 5 offers the most diversity in game play and most in depth Civ experience there is in terms of what you can actually do in the game. It's the most developed IMO as it stands right now. I do like that BTS IV had unique properties like corporations and I'm disappointed that didn't carry over. Civ VI is still in vanilla stage that just been released. It's missing a lot compared to IV and V right now but already has some unique properties which make it stand apart (districts and a civics tree like the tech tree). There's no diplomatic or economic victory condition in 6 right now and I hope that becomes an option as the game develops. But then again, Civ 6 is a sandbox and there may be even more new concepts that may not be fully traditional but could be fun nonetheless.


Current favs:
1. Civ VI - not because its actually better than V and IV right now but I see loads of potential with this game that can surpass both versions before it. It's a sandbox strategy game IMO.
2. Civ V G&K/BNW - I just like all the diversity in this game and it offers the most in terms of exploration/level of development. I think there are some abusive mechanics that can make the game seem repetitive and boring even with all the different Civs ( much less pigeonhole strategy in Civ IV than in V and VI i.e. ICS bias).
3. In some ways its true #1 but I think it's gone as far as it can go. It's remained a strategically diversified game and the AI diplomacy is quite developed. As for multiplayer not a huge fan in this one but love in V and especially VI.

 

[Robo-Star]

A vocal minority of the Civ community hate Civ 5 and even prefer 4, why?

Civ 4 can be played without Steam.

 

[stachnie]

Civ 4 can be played without Steam.

Steam is not so bad. My experiences with Uplay (especially Conflux) are MUCH worse...

S.

 

[Tombaugh]

should't this thread be moved to the civ 4 forum?