Civ 5 PRAISE Thread

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by The Civs 6, Apr 7, 2021.

  1. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 King

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    782
    I am not surprised that the Civ 5 rant thread is so long, because I am aware of how much that game's style irked people. But I'm surprised at how much it irked people (and how people who don't like 5 enjoy 6, but that's not the point of this subforum).

    Civ 5 is the only civilization game in the history of the franchise that rewards you for building a civilization instead of being basically a virus. By virus, I mean that in almost every game of Civ the goal is to expand to almost any scrap of land and to wipe out anyone you meet. Some people choose not to push the Civ system to its extreme, but still, it's there. On the other hand, in Civ 5, you are punished very hard for building that next city or for engaging in a serious war of conquest. You benefit greatly from increasing population and increasing happiness. Indeed, you can benefit a lot from building certain wonders and developing infrastructure.

    It was the first civ game to suffer from a static late game. But Civ 6 has proved that is just franchise rot. They just can't make a good quality game anymore. At least Civ 5 introduced ideology, which stirs the pot. And while it might be pointless to compare the tediousness of the Civ 5 late game with the tediousness of the Civ 6 late game, having played hundreds of hours of both, 5 seems a lot more tolerable. Maybe people just wanted 4 but with more stuff. But they couldn't just make 5 an expansion of 4. 4 is the "final word" on that era of Civ, a game that couldn't really be improved upon (except by modders, of course).

    So tl;dr, Civ 5 actually holds up okay. Basically everything that is wrong with it is also wrong with 6. But 5 has a lot of stuff going for it that 6 didn't really have. And of course, I'm talking about 5 fully expanded. They've fully expanded 6 and it's still just not a great game. I find myself preferring to play 5. It isn't like previous civs, but it's sort of the anti-Civ, or the meta-criticism of the lack of "civilization" in the first 4 games.
     
    Tiberiu, Kiwiwriter and plus like this.
  2. vorlon_mi

    vorlon_mi Just One More Turn

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chelsea, MI
    I enjoy Civ 5 for some of the things it does well. The BNW expansion pack added features that allow an empire to grow both in size and complexity. I love the "build your own religion" part of the game, which I find much more enjoyable than the anonymous religion of Civ 3 and the simple, look alike religions of Civ 4. I like the use of ranged and siege weapons in Civ5 much more than the "suicide catapults" of Civ 4. I love that units can swim, to avoid loading them onto transports. I love city states, with their quirks and quests.

    My quibble with your comparison of "growing a civilization" to "expanding like a virus" -- shades of Agent Smith from the Matrix! -- is that historically, many empires grew by conquering more land. From the Chinese dynasties in the east to Alexander and Caesars in the west, to the colonization of Africa and the Americas by European powers during the Age of Discovery. All of those empires were, in fact, civilizations not virii / viruses. Before all the expansions, one had an incentive to only have 4 cities, to get the free buildings. I used to joke, "4 cities isn't a 'civilization to stand the test of time' .... that's Ohio or Texas"
     
  3. beetle

    beetle Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,308
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    I loved Civ II, was disappointed by III, loved SMAC, and really did not care at all for Civ IV, and still love Civ V. I have played some BE and VI, but never was impressed enough to buy the expansions.

    With Civ II and SMAC, my very strong preference was for fewer but stronger cities. Those games both facilitated ICS, but one could play (and win) at the highest difficulty levels without it. I found that very enjoyable.

    I can understand the argument that Civ V went too far in the other direction, but III, IV, and VI are all swing-and-a-miss. Civ V gets so much more right than wrong! Very much worthy of praise! Thanks for this thread!
     
    Kiwiwriter and The Civs 6 like this.
  4. universecreep

    universecreep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    I had grown fatigued of Civ 6 and decided to give V a try again.

    I was surprised how different it is. I was also very pleased to play it again. It's like seeing an old best friend. Well optimized, systems balanced (yes some annoyances), fun and doesn't seem overloaded with features.

    I like 6 but 5 is definitely a notch above. Great game. A very close second or equal of CIv 4.
     
  5. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Newark, NJ and Christchurch, NZ
    I don't like Civ 6 for the limitations on great people, the cartoony characters, workers that vanish after three jobs, and everything taking up so much space. I LIKED having a city in one hex, and not having to do zoning. If I want to do zoning, I play Sim City.
     
  6. Sherlock

    Sherlock Just one more turn...

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,268
    Location:
    Eagle, Idaho
    I just went back to CiV after five years of trying every now and then to play CiVI.

    CiV is actually fun. It isn't full of arcane mechanics that are hard to actually get any benefit from. In CiV you can fight barbs and not be over-run in the first five turns, you can find decent spots to build your cities, you can trade with your neighbors. Everything is more doable.

    The music is way better. The art style is way better. The gameplay is way better.

    Since I've been playing CiV I'm right back to that 'playing for hours and staying up late to get one more turn'. That NEVER happened for me with CiVI.
     
    Timsahb and plus like this.
  7. plus

    plus Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    145
    civ5 is far better than 6.at its core,civ game is about war and conquest.6 tried to make it simcity.philidor said before that in the game of chess,soldiers are the soul of the game.in civ game i think the workers are.they are the ppl to build you improvements,work the land,connect cities.in 6 they called them builders and vanish them aftee 3 tries.
     
  8. Sherlock

    Sherlock Just one more turn...

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,268
    Location:
    Eagle, Idaho
    Yeah, but in VI you can spend lots of time figuring out where you're going to put that district in 100 turns. Isn't that fun?
     
  9. Straw Man

    Straw Man Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2021
    Messages:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Assuming you can actually stomach those atrocious Betty Boop leaderheads long enough to unlock districts.
     
  10. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,936
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rural Vermont
    Moderator Action: We're prepared to indulge a Civ 5 "praise" thread (as we long indulged a "rants" thread), but this is not the thread for Civ 6 bashing. Feel free to express your views about Civ 6 in the Civ 6 forums, but please restrain yourself here.
     
    PiR likes this.
  11. plus

    plus Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    145
    actually its not fun.for this i can play cities skyline.civ is a war game at its core,districts are just a new word for library,univercity etc,bur u know its all a matter of taste
     

Share This Page