Between Civ 4,5,6 how would you rate the depth of each game and the AI?

[cll3]

Half of the ~2 million owners have played the game for less than 33 hours. I'd say it's entirely possible that 35% simply haven't finished any games.

That's an interesting metric; I actually fit into that category for many other games I got off steam. For example I bought the $200+ Endless Legend bundle when it was on sale for like $16 or something. I tried a couple games. That game is actually very deep, very few imbalances, many ways to play which I didn't really get to see yet, but I could tell it would be an awesome game through and through. But still... I just can't seem to get hooked. I tell myself I can always save it for later... meanwhile I'm loading up some other game I've already explored thoroughly instead.

Steam is a platform that makes it too easy to just pile on a huge library, and never really get utility out of most of the stuff you buy. I'm guilty of this in many aspects, not just for games... ebooks, movies, gadgets, suits, firearms, you name it. If you select a random "thing" from my pile of irresponsible buys and made an achievement list for it, I'd be that guy that never even utilized it to 10% capacity. Chances are, I'd be the guy that never completed "Irish Heartbeat" for that random "thing"

Civ VI wouldn't be one of those things for me, but I can see how it could easily end up being one for some other irresponsible buyer. So to me, it's not really a metric about the game itself. It's more about irresponsible buyers. I think only a small proportion of steam users actually go out of their way to disable achievements.

 

[Archon_Wing]

But is it really irresponsible or just another way of looking at playing games?

Some would argue that getting 20 or so hours of gameplay is "worth it" while others certainly wouldn't. But then given the quality of games these days, that might be a thing. Many people tell me that a movie is 2 hours worth of entertainment, therefore 20 hours is worth 10 movies.

Without a doubt, people buy stuff without using it, sure. But I think people are missing the point here-- casual gaming is really a thing, with gaming being more mainstream over the years, I would argue the people that really go on and play games in depth and discuss strategy are by and far in the minority. And thus, to casual games, they're just not going to be looking for the best AI because they wouldn't even be able to tell you what a good AI is. V shipped with a laughingly broken AI; sold tons. IV's was never good either, and then you have people saying 6's is the worst. Still sells. I bought it too. It didn't stop me either, even if I wanted a better AI.

 

[Biz_]

gameplay depth

civ4: 5/10

civ5 vanilla: 7/10
civ5 expansions: 1/10
(this is not a typo. civ5 expansions only added breadth. but they removed almost all of the depth from the game)

civ6: 3 (?)



AI:

civ4: 2.5/10
civ5: 0.4/10
civ6: 0.1/10

 

[Menzies]

From release to final patch for Civs IV and V, Civ VI as it stands:

Civ IV: 3-7
Civ V: 4-6
Civ VI: ~4

Hard to really rate it on such a scale though. Of course, Civ IV was a really easy game for AI to play though, so you've got to give credit for them actually innovating, despite the difficulties in coding AI for a more complicated game. With that, gameplay depth:

Civ IV: 4-5
Civ V: 2-5
Civ VI: 6

That is, if we don't count micromanaging as game depth.

 

[Tabarnak]

Consider that according to Steam, only 35% of people have unlocked the achievement for beating Chieftain difficulty or higher. For Civ 5, this is 22%. Now some people might be using offline mode I guess, but that should be fairly telling. Of course, this might also mean people don't finish games, but that's probably even worse.

I'm one of them! I actually never completed a game.

CIV4 AI>CIV5 AI>CIV6 AI

Strangely,

CIV6 MP>CIV5 MP>CIV4 MP

 

[manarod]

For me civ6 is way more complex and less linear than civ5 complete. civ 4 is in the middle
It's difficult to rate the ai. civ5 is simpler. The combat is easier than civ6 where units are slower, cost more and pillage is deadly
the problem with civ6 ai is that you can see what is doing. you see how bad is in building cities, while in civ4 and civ5 you never see what's inside ai cities. also when you take a city in civ5 anc civ4 you take blank city, in civ6 you take the city as build by the ai and it sucks (how many religion distric do i need?). also you see how is bad in create great persons!
Also civ6 has a far less linear strategy, unlike civ5 (tall or wild) or civ4 (specialised cities). In civ5 just tell the ai to take tradition and go tall, in civ6 there is not such strategy, what policy you need? far more difficult
for me the ai is the same, are the rules that are less friendly for the ai in civ6

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Game Depth-at initial release:

Civ4: 7/10.

Civ5: 5/10

Civ6: 8.5 out of 10.

Why have I rated Civ6 so high? The seperation out of the Tech & Civics tree (something I have wanted forever), the unpacking of cities, the more detailed government design system, a highly detailed religion system out of the box, more variety in Great People & City States, more diplomatic options-including agendas. More situation-specific Wonder building. More individualized Civilizations-via Civ & Leader Unique Abilities.

Those are the key reasons. More ways to alter relations with City States, more Policy Slot Categories (like Legal and/or Labour), the ability to use diplomacy to change a Civs government & a deeper & more dynamic Agenda system (maybe even agendas for City States?) would definitely help push that score even higher over coming expansions.

AI, at initial release:

Civ4: 7 out of 10.

Civ5: 5 out of 10.

Civ6: 6 out of 10.

Civ4 had a very canny AI in terms of military strategy & building priorities, but was all too easy to manipulate just by having the same religion-for example.

Civ5 lost points at initial release due to the fact that relations with AI civs was initially very "black box", with no way to tell what was impacting your relations, or to what degree.

Civ6 AI, regardless of what others have said here, I actually find very competent overall, at least in terms of building cities, districts & wonders. I do still find its use of its military sometimes a bit lacking.....though with the odd flash of genius (like when China launched a sneak attack on me & took a city away from me). What I like most of all about Civ6 AI though, is that I am finding it much more *rational* in terms of diplomacy. Unlike Civ5, it feels much more intuitive to establish long lasting relationships with a Civ......without the feeling of "gaming the system" that I had in Civ4. I almost wish they'd scrap the +2, -4 etc next to each relationship factor. Colour & font should be enough to give us an insight as to why our relations are good/bad.