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.