Do you think Civ VI is the best in the series?

[Mount Suribachi]

I don't play with mods other than QoL ones so I couldn't give a monkey's about the lack of moddability.

My all time favourite is and always will be SMAC for a whole host of reasons, but of the actual Civ games, yes I think VI is the best. If they could add the colonisation/vassal mechanic from IV that would be perfect.

 

[UWHabs]

I still look back fondly at IV, but once civ 5 came out and moved away from the stacks of doom, it was just so hard to go back, despite the fact that 5 had a host of problems and I ended up getting bored of it.

So in many respects, I would admit that civ 6 in my opinion probably is the best in the series, although it could definitely still use a fairly heavy balance pass, and tightening up of a lot of the mechanisms.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

I've played II, III, IV, V, BE, and VI.

II, III, and IV were all great in their day but now outdated. 2 major changes in V make it much better: Hex grid, and one-unit-per-tile.

BE was an obvious flop.

So the only real contenders for best game are V and VI. And it's hard to say. I'd much rather play VI now, but that's because I'm burnt out on V. VI has a lot of great features, but...I think V is better.

V had a better diplomatic victory, and better civilization diversity. That's enough to make it better in my book.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I've always been of the opinion that the current iteration of Civ is the best Civ, once the new version comes out I've never been able to go back to the previous one.

 

[King of Prussia]

Outright best? No. It is hard for me to say which one is the best. Civ V had a more enjoyable late game compared to Civ 6. Civ 6 has a more enjoyable early to mid game. I loved Civ 4 and i have found nostalgic memories of the games proceeding it.

Long term without proper mod support, Civ 6 will never live up to its full potential. Civ 6 still suffers from meh UI, and other meh functionality that holds it back. There were numerous obvious bugs that plagued the game for months or even over a year that you would see every play through. You had AI who couldn't use planes for the longest time, and even now it is very hit and miss. Naval threats are nonexistent after the early game when you get walls. Civ 6 released in a far better state than Civ V, but it still wasn't ready for release.

 

[FedorWin]

V is my favorite. But, while overall I like it better than VI, VI has some features that are done much better than in V (most notably, civics and policies). I just cant bring myself back.
If the devs can iron out most problems with VI over the New Frontier year, I will call VI my favorite. So I’m really putting my hopes up for the in-between patches. But if they’ll just add more bloat without some major fixes, then V will remain the best Civ game for me.

 

[The Civs 6]

Absolutely not, not by a longshot. And I'm speaking as someone who has played every single Civ since 1 on DOS.

Vanilla 4 is the best game in the series. Then comes 2, with 1 following close behind, and immediately after is fully expanded 5. Then there is 6. The other incarnations are not really worth talking about in a ranking.

If you disagree with me try playing a full game of vanilla 4 on King difficulty. You will find that winning a game is surprisingly challenging. That the AI is highly competent, and that it is not easy to formulate a winning strategy. It is Civilization at its purest, at its best. Moreover, every single game mechanic is well integrated. Something like religion fits in perfectly, and you will feel a mad dash to get one no matter what your play style.

2 and 1 are simple games that lack the slight bit of sophistication, especially on AI, that make 4 great. But they are pure Civ games that also lack the bloat that 5 and 6 suffered from. The only reason I'm not playing Civ 2 is because of technical limitations. Also, these games aesthetically peaked in this era. The rest of the games would be excessively stripped down (4, 5) or cartoonish to the point of being garrish and ugly (6, 3).

Fully expanded 5 is the anti-Civ. It is the commentary on civilization as a series. It is the only Civ game where you are focused on, you know, actually building a Civilization and not smashing other civs' faces. It is a great game but because it is an Anti-Civ it must automatically be below the real Civs. It couldn't exist without the rest of Civs.

And then there is the bloated but addicting mess that is Civ 6. I'm not going to lay out everything that is wrong with 6 here, but it's a deeply flawed game - more so than previous Civs. And Firaxis appears to be going more in the direction of feature bloat than fixing its problems, unlike with 5.

The rest are not worth mentioning. 3 not only was not a good game, but it was a game that came out at a very bad time, when many other fantastic games were starting to be made. The expansions to 4 ruined the delicate game balance. Before being fully expanded/patched, 5 was an unfun game.

 

[racha]

Other than spending a disturbing number of hours playing Colonisation I'm new to the party, starting with Civ 5. I think they're different, rather than one better. The spreading out of cities in 6 is something I'm enjoying a lot, except when my beautiful districts are pillaged or some inconsiderate barbarian stands on a tile that I'm trying to build a wonder on.

On the flip side, add me to the list of people who are disappointed about the DLL source code not being released. Yes, I know it's a lot easier for the tier 1 modders to do really cool stuff in 6, but some stuff just can't be done without the DLL. Modding is also too hard for those of us who suffer from the dumb and I really wish Firaxis would make some better modding tools to compensate.

 

[j51]

Hahahaha! No.

Seriously, it needs so much work around tying its systems together and not just filling buckets. I'd put it in the lower tier of the series, but I still like, because it's Civ.

Edit: It could be the best though with some changes, there's a lot of great ideas in it, especially districts. I love those.

Three things to bump from a low to a top tier Civ entry:

1. Rework the Faith system: make it less about founding and spreading a religion and more just something that happens to the players that they can use towards different ends.

2. World Congress/Emergencies: Make it an optional game mode like Apocalypse. It's an enormous mess.

3. Espionage: radically simplify it and move it off of the map. Have spies go to civs (not cities). Put it all on a single menu with a few clear actions. Have anti-espionage be something you can set up once and not think about again.

 

[fantsu]

IV is the best in my opinion.
VI and II are both really good, but both miss some things.
Original follows after those. Its good also, but to me it lost some value after II came out.
I think V is the weakest I have played. I have mized opinions on V, it has a lot of problems that got fixed, but it did leave a bit bad taste in my mouth. Its fine.

I have no opinions about III as my knowledge is really weak on it. Less than 100 hours.

 

[Uberfrog]

“Best” is a difficult thing to define, but I will say that despite loving both, I have not played Civ 4 or Civ 5 since 6 came out.

 

[Arent11]

Give me the graphics of civ vi and the gameplay of civ iv.

 

[KayAU]

Civ VI could have been my favorite, but it unfortunately isn't. It has some really nice ideas, but ultimately, the execution of many concepts are not to my liking. For example, while I really like districts, I hate the impact they have on the relative strength and usefulness of large cities. Giant cities were fantastic in previous civ games, now they are underwhelming. The situational boosts were great in theory, but they should have been implemented as a percentage yield boost while researching, not as a lump sum of points. This would have avoided the silly meta of swapping out the current tech at a certain point to ensure you are not wasting research points. Basically, starting research earlier should always result in getting the tech sooner. Another thing I dislike, is that while there are many systems, there is a distinct lack of interaction between them. I want my cultural influence to be more than just a bucket of points which only matters for the pursuit of that victory type. I want my policy choices to impact diplomacy. I want religion to be a powerful tool in improving my civ. As it stands, what I usually do with religion is rush to get a Prophet, then keep it around as an insurance policy in case someone is getting close to a Religion Victory. I have better uses for Faith than trying to stave off invading Apostles during the early and mid game.

As for my favorite...am I allowed to include Alpha Centauri? Then I would choose Alpha Centauri. If not, with regards to which game in the main series i most enjoy playing now, well...I like my hexagons, so it has to be Civ V. It wasn't perfect, and I'm seriously burnt out on it, but it did feel more satisfying to me than VI.

I will give Civ VI one thing, though: I think the designs for the civs are rather good, and rather diverse in terms of gameplay variety. I find the options in older games relatively bland in comparison.

 

[Arent11]

As for my favorite...am I allowed to include Alpha Centauri? Then I would choose Alpha Centauri.

I actually did return to smac as well. If only I could get more modern graphics.

 

[Sostratus]

“Best” is a difficult thing to define, but I will say that despite loving both, I have not played Civ 4 or Civ 5 since 6 came out.

Most people seem to like the balance of civ5 - as I said earlier, the real differentiator between 5 and 6 is a mechanical one focused around adjacency. Numbers tuning is something we can fix. Civ4 at various points also has a very nice strategic balance allowing for several Viable strategies. (Although Civ4 deity is a true punishment that requires some interesting tactics.)
But the gameplay mechanics of 4 are very dated now.
I would rather make a mod to bring civ5’s balance to civ6 than play civ5.

 

[Morningcalm]

Civ IV was the best gameplay wise in my opinion (vassalage, proper war and peace mechanics that could devastate your economy if you went to war at the wrong time, functioning diplomacy victory, Apostolic Palace and UN), Civ V had the best aesthetics (leader backgrounds, unit art, terrain art), and Civ VI has some of the more interesting civ choices (not always good--see Australia, Canada, Macedon, but sometimes great, like Mapuche, Cree, Maori, Hungary).

 

[Zaarin]

There are individual things that other versions have done better, but overall yes, I think Civ6 is the best of its franchise. Best 4X game overall? Not by a long shot.

Civ V had the best aesthetics (leader backgrounds, unit art, terrain art)

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who think Civ5's "shades of mud and misery" aesthetic was anything but hideous.

 

[megabearsfan]

It's a mixed bag for me. Each of Civ IV, V, and VI have things that they do better than the other games in the series.

Civ IV still has my favorite tech tree of the series. Most techs have optional prerequisites, which means you are more free to focus on only the techs that you want. There were some "dead" techs, but they were mostly leaf techs that weren't necessary for progressing further into the tech tree.
Civ IV also had permanent alliances and vassals, which are both concepts that I would like to see return to the series in some form. The lack of a cooperative victory is, IMO, one of the biggest things holding diplomacy back in Civ V and VI because no matter how peaceful you've played, you can't work with the other civs to achieve victory.

As for Civ V, I actually preferred how that game handled both trade routes and great works (in BNW, of course).
I liked that trade routes in Civ V have reciprocal benefits right from the start, so that receiving a trade route from another civ actually benefits you and gives you a reason to maintain peace with that civ.
I also liked how great works were more relevant earlier in Civ V, and getting theme bonuses was easier and more common.
I feel like both of these mechanics regressed in Civ VI.

As for Civ VI, I love how much more relevant the map terrain and geography feels (with the district adjacency mechanics and so forth). The unstacking of districts and other visual flourishes pack so much more information onto the map (compared to Civ V). You can see every piece of infrastructure in a city from the main map screen. Every improvement has a distinct graphic or animation for when it is worked versus un-worked, so that you know (just by looking) what tiles are being worked and which aren't. I wish Civ VI also had a variant of the little cabin that appeared on unimproved worked tiles, but meh...

 

[The Civs 6]

There are individual things that other versions have done better, but overall yes, I think Civ6 is the best of its franchise. Best 4X game overall? Not by a long shot.


It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who think Civ5's "shades of mud and misery" aesthetic was anything but hideous.

Well by that token Civ 6 looks like a children's coloring book made by someone with middling taste

It's a mixed bag for me. Each of Civ IV, V, and VI have things that they do better than the other games in the series.

Civ IV still has my favorite tech tree of the series. Most techs have optional prerequisites, which means you are more free to focus on only the techs that you want. There were some "dead" techs, but they were mostly leaf techs that weren't necessary for progressing further into the tech tree.
Civ IV also had permanent alliances and vassals, which are both concepts that I would like to see return to the series in some form. The lack of a cooperative victory is, IMO, one of the biggest things holding diplomacy back in Civ V and VI because no matter how peaceful you've played, you can't work with the other civs to achieve victory.

As for Civ V, I actually preferred how that game handled both trade routes and great works (in BNW, of course).
I liked that trade routes in Civ V have reciprocal benefits right from the start, so that receiving a trade route from another civ actually benefits you and gives you a reason to maintain peace with that civ.
I also liked how great works were more relevant earlier in Civ V, and getting theme bonuses was easier and more common.
I feel like both of these mechanics regressed in Civ VI.

As for Civ VI, I love how much more relevant the map terrain and geography feels (with the district adjacency mechanics and so forth). The unstacking of districts and other visual flourishes pack so much more information onto the map (compared to Civ V). You can see every piece of infrastructure in a city from the main map screen. Every improvement has a distinct graphic or animation for when it is worked versus un-worked, so that you know (just by looking) what tiles are being worked and which aren't. I wish Civ VI also had a variant of the little cabin that appeared on unimproved worked tiles, but meh...

The Civ 6 maps are a HUGE improvement on earlier maps, and that's one of the main reasons why I come back to 6 and not 5.

 

[Zaarin]

Well by that token Civ 6 looks like a children's coloring book made by someone with middling taste

The 90s want their "real life is brown" trope back. I can only assume that people who think muddy colors are "realistic" have never stepped outside their house. (The associated trope "the Middle Ages are brown" also needs to die. Go look up Medieval tapestries and illuminated manuscripts and tell me everyone walked around wearing undyed burlap. Hollywood cheapskates. )