Article from Strategy Gamer discussing Civ V v Civ VI - link here. Article basically discusses opinions on why it’s taken so long for Civ V to overtake Civ VI on steam. I think these articles are mostly driven by slow news cycle for games - particularly for a website focused on niche games - but I thought people might be interested to read and discuss. A few random thoughts. Civ V v Civ VI. How is this still something people talk about? Is this just a meme that’s past its usefulness or relevance, or is there a real difference that’s still worth discussing? I haven’t really played Civ V, but at this point (ie after GE) I can’t even see there is all that much difference between the two games. Civ VI seems to have almost all the same mechanics (and where it does, I think Civ VI basically does those mechanics better). The only real differences I can see are: (1) Civ V has more permanent choices than Civ VI because of Social Policies. Hopefully that’s something a Third Expansion of Civ VI might fix; (2) Civ V dis-incentivised “wide” by having more empire management (eg global happiness, more restricted gold). While I think Civ VI could use a little more empire management, I think Civ VI’s encouragement of wider play is basically right; (3) no Venice (a point specifically made in the article). Civ 5.5. Article discusses how Civ VI wasn’t such a big change in the franchise compared to Civ V, and that Civ VI is really just a iteration or evolution of Civ V. I think that’s basically right - Civ VI is basically all of Civ V’s mechanics (except Social Policies and Ideologies) and a few mechanics from earlier games, but just more fleshed out and polished. I don’t really see that as a bad thing either. Price. There are some criticisms of how much Civ VI costs with all the expansions. I hear this criticism a lot, but to me the overall cost is fine once you aggregate that cost over hours played. Has wonder though whether price has increasingly become the nub of the difference between Civ V and Civ VI. Regardless of which is actually “better”, Civ V is much cheaper to buy complete than Civ VI and so perhaps there’s a legitimate discussion about whether Civ VI’s improvements aren’t worth the additional cost. Third Expansion. There’s discussion and prediction of a Third Expansion, although based on no more that fan posts. Still, interesting the gaming press has basically bought into a Third Expansion happening. That must surely weigh on FXS’s decision to have a 3xp or not. MP support. I’m sorry to hear FXS aren’t still supporting stability for Civ V for MP. I know you can’t expect people to do things for free or against self interest, but that seems like a needlessly rubbish approach for FXS to take for such a well loved game. Personally, I think the whole Civ V v Civ VI discussion is done. Civ VI is just better. Civ V‘s advantage is just you may have already bought it, so why move to a new version? Or you want to play a Civ game, and Civ V is cheaper.