Civ VI is done. So how does Civ V look in comparison?

[SammyKhalifa]

I'd say 5 is still good but there a very limited number of real choices to make.

 

[Futumch]

I really didn't play a lot of Civ V. I was into other games at the time, I suppose. I ended up picking up all the DLC for it in one hit during a steam sale. I have certainly enjoyed Civ 6 though, and even though I'm not in the 3k hours gameplay range, it holds its own. I do agree with Zaarin about the Religious victory condition. That needs to be taken out behind the shed and put down.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I find it strange people think card choices are limited when there was a ton of debate over which ones were good in the elimination thread.

I would honestly be surprised if people could even agree on the first 3 things to build, much less long term card usage though.

As for governments, I have use for 5/6 of the 1st 6 governments. But I bet nobody can guess what the 6th one is now.

T3s I use less but usually Democracy is for alliances, Communism when alliances lack, and Fascism for Domination.

T4s are kinda useless all around except for Synthetic Technocracy which is tailored for science victories. I guess you can take Digital if you're not ready to launch, and the other government is just stupid.

Now Religion kinda sucks. Besides Founder beliefs, most are so incredibly dull. Pantheons are also dull.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I find it strange people think card choices are limited when there was a ton of debate over which ones were good in the elimination thread.

I would honestly be surprised if people could even agree on the first 3 things to build, much less long term card usage though.

As for governments, I have use for 5/6 of the 1st 6 governments. But I bet nobody can guess what the 6th one is now.

T3s I use less but usually Democracy is for alliances, Communism when alliances lack, and Fascism for Domination.

T4s are kinda useless all around except for Synthetic Technocracy which is tailored for science victories. I guess you can take Digital if you're not ready to launch, and the other government is just stupid.

Now Religion kinda sucks. Besides Founder beliefs, most are so incredibly dull. Pantheons are also dull.

I actually like the religions, just not the v.c.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I very rarely bother upgrading to a t4 government becuase by that point I'm just clicking next turn until I've won and none of the t4 govs will make that less clicks.

 

[lilnev!]

I only played a limited amount of 5, shortly after its release. It wasn't fun. I quit most games after making the "mistake" of founding or conquering "too many" cities. I don't enjoy an empire-building game that punishes me for building an empire.

 

[Platypusbill]

Campus should get much bigger adjacency from being next to city center, and could even get dedicated bonuses from being next to industrial zone (bonus science when researching "technological" technologies), encampments (bonus when researching military sciences), commercial hubs (bonus when researching economic sciences). As has been discussed at lengths elsewhere, I'd much rather see the mountain thing come into play through unlocking an Observatory building when campus is next to mountains, similar to how it was in Civ5.

Fair point, although besides the city center adjacency this is beyond the scope of the current system (since it involves new subsets of techs and more specialised buildings). I did read those suggestions in another thread and they are interesting ideas.

 

[shaglio]

The more I dwell on the topic of graphics, the more I realize that the ultimate for me would be Civ 5’s more realistic graphical depictions combined with Civ 6’s bright, vibrant color scheme.


And, on top of that, I’d love to see Civ 7 return to Civ 5’s leader screens. Goodbye bland, black backgrounds with blurry watercolor images and leaders who look like caricatures. It’s odd how, when comparing Civ 5 to Civ 6, the map of Civ 6 is so bright and colorful, but the leader screen backgrounds are the complete opposite.


And as for the leaders, just compare the different representations of Gandhi: one looks like an actual person and the other looks like some alien creature descended to earth.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And, on top of that, I’d love to see Civ 7 return to Civ 5’s leader screens. Goodbye bland, black backgrounds with blurry watercolor images and leaders who look like caricatures. It’s odd how, when comparing Civ 5 to Civ 6, the map of Civ 6 is so bright and colorful, but the leader screen backgrounds are the complete opposite.

That being said I would love for city-states in Civ 7 to get something similar. At least each one having their own diplomacy screen background.

Also as other's have said I'd want districts to return but change up the way they work. I'll put my ideas in the other thread.

 

[Tychusfindlay919]

- In V, it seems like if you aren't rushing science, you're just losing. Every victory is just science. Gotta rush that great library every game or else it... feels un-optimal! 6 is a lot more flexible so I don't feel pressured to do the same thing every time (although in more minor ways I do, such as certain pantheons/secret societies/etc being way better than their alternatives, but that's less overbearing)

Civ 6 is still very much science heavy with maybe the exception of some few niche countries/strategies. Science is still almost always more powerful to rush early-mid game than culture. I personally nerfed campus in my own game files and I find it more bearable, especially nerfing GP accumulation since great scientists also tend to have some of the absolute most bonkers effects of all the great peoples.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That being said I would love for city-states in Civ 7 to get something similar. At least each one having their own diplomacy screen background.

Also as other's have said I'd want districts to return but change up the way they work. I'll put my ideas in the other thread.

The way the City States were handled in Civ 5 when it comes to UI was better.

I actually HATE the Civ 6 CS panel because it's so counter-intuitive, you have to scroll through and find your city state, they're un-ordered (I think they are ordered by ID which is useless).

I don't want anything in style of City State Leaders, but a basic pop-up where you can click on a city state and do diplomacy via that screen would be welcome, including a unique image to represent possibly both the Culture and Type of a City State.

 

[Zaarin]

And as for the leaders, just compare the different representations of Gandhi: one looks like an actual person and the other looks like some alien creature descended to earth.

To be fair, you chose one of the most extreme examples in the game. Hojo, Teddy, Cyrus, Poundmaker, etc. are much more on the realistic side of stylization...

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

To be fair, you chose one of the most extreme examples in the game. Hojo, Teddy, Cyrus, Poundmaker, etc. are much more on the realistic side of stylization...

To be fair I think Civ 5 and Civ 2 (possibly?) Gandhi are the only times Gandhi didn't look outlandish.

Civ 3, Civ 4, and Civ 6 have had a pretty weird Gandhi.

 

[Mudrac]

I think people are punching Civ 6 more than they should. It is a great game, definitely flawed and somewhat lacking an overall sense of completeness (although it still feels way more complete compared to even a year ago, before New Frontier), and that on both technical level, content level and overall complexity is the best the Civilization franchise has offered so far. I think people may have expect way too much from Civ 6, it is isn't yet that "perfect" Civ game most of us have been waiting for years, maybe Civ 7 will be. But overall the game is fantastic and very fun to play, despite a somewhat problematic AI and certain mechanics which haven't been integrated in the best and most interesting way possible (World Congress, Leader Agendas..).

What for me was always somewhat lacking in Civ 6 compared to Civ 5 were two things: Immersion and a sense of Journey. In Civ 5 with its beautiful art style and more grittier tone you really get the feeling that you are embarking on a journey through history and that you really are step by step building a civilization. Civ 6 has more of a feeling of board game that has the filter "Human History" turned on. You don't really get that sense of Immersion or Journey, you are way more focused on the gameplay than just enjoying the whole process. This is the reason why I think a lot of people are drawn towards Amplitude's Humankind, because that game really gives you a sense of embarking on a Journey towards Human History, rather than just playing a game, the out of this world art style is also a huge plus.

Whenever Firaxis decides to start working on Civ 7 I really hope they will take into account the whole Immersion and Journey factor.

 

[shaglio]

To be fair, you chose one of the most extreme examples in the game. Hojo, Teddy, Cyrus, Poundmaker, etc. are much more on the realistic side of stylization...

That's true, there are leaders that look rather realistic, but the ones that don't look realistic really stick out like a sore thumb. Gandhi as I mentioned, Gilgabro with his swole physique, your buddy Dom Satin with his overly oblong head all come to mind.

 

[Zaarin]

To be fair I think Civ 5 and Civ 2 (possibly?) Gandhi are the only times Gandhi didn't look outlandish.

Civ 3, Civ 4, and Civ 6 have had a pretty weird Gandhi.

It checks out: Gandhi was pretty weird...

I think people are punching Civ 6 more than they should. It is a great game, definitely flawed and somewhat lacking an overall sense of completeness (although it still feels way more complete compared to even a year ago, before New Frontier), and that on both technical level, content level and overall complexity is the best the Civilization franchise has offered so far. I think people may have expect way too much from Civ 6, it is isn't yet that "perfect" Civ game most of us have been waiting for years, maybe Civ 7 will be. But overall the game is fantastic and very fun to play, despite a somewhat problematic AI and certain mechanics which haven't been integrated in the best and most interesting way possible (World Congress, Leader Agendas..).

Speaking for myself, I'm hard on Civ6 because it is a really good game--and with some polishing and cohesion could be truly great.

That's true, there are leaders that look rather realistic, but the ones that don't look realistic really stick out like a sore thumb. Gandhi as I mentioned, Gilgabro with his swole physique, your buddy Dom Satin with his overly oblong head all come to mind.

Yes. I like the stylized approach, but my issue with Civ6 is they need to pick an art style and stick with it. Hojo, Cleopatra, and Wilhelmina all look interesting in their own way, but they don't look like they belong in the same game. (There are a few that just look bad regardless of art style: Gandhi, Pedro, and most of the NFP leaders, especially Kublai, come to mind.)

 

[UWHabs]

Speaking for myself, I'm hard on Civ6 because it is a really good game--and with some polishing and cohesion could be truly great.

Yeah, I may mention things I don't like, or things which could be improved, and arguably some major changes I would love to see in a future civ 7, but I still play 6 and still greatly enjoy it, even with the flaws. There's just a few things that they could do that would make it even better just for some basic interest/balance, even assuming there's no massive new content or new AI re-write coming down the road.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I like the stylized approach, but my issue with Civ6 is they need to pick an art style and stick with it.

I wholeheartedly agree. And as someone who does art in their freetime (with a cartoonish artstyle, admittedly) and has drawn multiple of Civ VI's leaders before, I've had to study the designs long enough to realize why that stylistic clash really occurs.

I think the main contributor is the varying eye size. Teddy has tiny eyes, which clash violently with those of bug-eyed Gandhi. And when you look across all the different leaders' faces, every pair of eyes has a different shape and size, not because of the leaders' differing races and places of origin, but because of differing styles. The inconsistent eyes paired with the unpredictable variation of exaggerated proportions from leader to leader all contribute to this jarring feeling of disunity in Civ VI's art. And the game just barely gets away with it, too, because it stubbornly refuses to place multiple full leader models next to each other in the game itself, out of fear that the audience will easily spot the glaring discrepancies in style (but when they actually have the courage to in video thumbnails... YIKES it's not pretty)

And I want to make myself clear: I don't think having an exaggerated art-style is a bad thing. I actually commend any game that does it, and love games with drastically stylized designs. I really do find that kind of art pleasing to look at, and incredibly interesting. But, I criticize Civ VI for it because stylized designs backfire when there is no stylistic coherency. I love some of Civ VI's leader designs... separately. But they merely create an uncanny feeling in me when I scroll through the leader selection screen and see all these different exaggerations fighting with each other.

Note to Firaxis: if you ever try the stylized look again (and I desperately want you to, because it's clear you have a team of marvelous artists), maintain stylistic coherency. Even if you diverge from some of the "slightly stylized" designs and push it way into the cartoonish realm of total caricatures, remember that even caricatures obey stylistic rules between each other. This approach of taking a leader and then stylizing each of them in a wholly unique way that doesn't correspond with any previous designs has backfired, and will only create visual contrast.

(and seriously, going back to what I said earlier, some of the thumbnails it spawns are just horrendous in this regard. Look up the Macedon and Persia Pack on Steam. Alexander the caricature standing beside Cyrus painfully highlights how these two almost look like they're from different games...)

 

[Zaarin]

And I want to make myself clear: I don't think having an exaggerated art-style is a bad thing. I actually commend any game that does it, and love games with drastically stylized designs. I really do find that kind of art pleasing to look at, and incredibly interesting. But, I criticize Civ VI for it because stylized designs backfire when there is no stylistic coherency. I love some of Civ VI's leader designs... separately. But they merely create an uncanny feeling in me when I scroll through the leader selection screen and see all these different exaggerations fighting with each other.

Note to Firaxis: if you ever try the stylized look again (and I desperately want you to, because it's clear you have a team of marvelous artists), maintain stylistic coherency. Even if you diverge from some of the "slightly stylized" designs and push it way into the cartoonish realm of total caricatures, remember that even caricatures obey stylistic rules between each other. This approach of taking a leader and then stylizing each of them in a wholly unique way that doesn't correspond with any previous designs has backfired, and will only create visual contrast.

100% this. Most (not all, but most) of the leaders look good on their own merits, but the jarring variation in styles becomes really apparent when you scroll through the leader selection or diplomacy screens or have multiple leaders visit you between turns. There really needs to be some more consistent art direction. (And I too like the stylization and hope they stick with it, though even if they trend more towards realism I hope they pick a distinctive art style and not take the "realism is bland" Civ5 approach.)

 

[Linklite]

So, I'm guessing that it wouldn't be popular to have each leader stylised according to the artstyle of their civ, then?