Me too.
A lot of repetitive and boring stuff from previous iterations is gone.
The most important question : Is the AI good enough? Can it handle all the strategic layers?
Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?
- Thread starter wiggawuu
- Start date
A lot of repetitive and boring stuff from previous iterations is gone.
The most important question : Is the AI good enough? Can it handle all the strategic layers?
anandus
Errorist
I've been playing Civ since the first game (and since Civ 3 I play thrice-yearly a LAN with friends) and I must say it all looks very promising.
It seems that the current design team is very aware of the strengths and shortcomings of previous games and pay good attention to the forums etc to listen what the players want.
All in all I am very confident about this.
It seems that the current design team is very aware of the strengths and shortcomings of previous games and pay good attention to the forums etc to listen what the players want.
All in all I am very confident about this.
Been playing Civ 1 since '98, bit of a late starter but my family were late to computers 
Played an awful lot of SMAC around the early 2000s.
As you can tell from my posts, I'm pretty happy with the art, style and design of the game so far. Keep the info coming
Played an awful lot of SMAC around the early 2000s.As you can tell from my posts, I'm pretty happy with the art, style and design of the game so far. Keep the info coming
Felis Renidens
Prince
Started with Civ I, Played II, III, IV (Vanilla only) and V (both vanilla and expansions).
Now I play mostly V
VI seems to me to be an improvement over V, with some interesting new ideas. I hope it will work well.
Now I play mostly V
VI seems to me to be an improvement over V, with some interesting new ideas. I hope it will work well.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
Old timer here, I discovered this saga with Civ II when I was like 13 years old. Hell, I learned to speak English back in the day only so I could understand its huge-ass manual XD
I am surprised by the stark contrast between Civ 5's early information / impressions VS Civ6's
I remember that I started to get really wary about Civ 5 even before it was released. Just the stated aims and design philosophy that the producers stated during interviews, putted them in conflict with my own vision for the saga ("simplicity"; "multiplayer focused", "less simulation", "play to win AI", etc), the dettails and mechanics revealed already pointed out towards a a bigger military focus and less historical flavour (germany's original UA, global happiness, no goverments, etc) and the rushed, utterly content-devoid release of vainilla 5 only confirmed my worst fears. In the end it grew up to be a wonderful game thanks to the patches and expansions, but its lackluster release and the Beyond Earth's fiasco burned me HARD, and almost wipped away my faith in the series.
Now, enter Civilization 6's reveal. It has been the complete opposite. Every single piece of released information so far has been WONDERFUL. New mechanics for city building (districts), design aiming for a "play with the terrain feelin" that neatly encapsulates the "geography as destiny" historic theories, a complete social tree that compliments the tech tree for culturemongers, full flegding features from the start like religion instead of "simplicity"... I haven't playing the game, but I am already in love with its ideas! This might very well be the game that surpasses Civilization 4
I am surprised by the stark contrast between Civ 5's early information / impressions VS Civ6's
I remember that I started to get really wary about Civ 5 even before it was released. Just the stated aims and design philosophy that the producers stated during interviews, putted them in conflict with my own vision for the saga ("simplicity"; "multiplayer focused", "less simulation", "play to win AI", etc), the dettails and mechanics revealed already pointed out towards a a bigger military focus and less historical flavour (germany's original UA, global happiness, no goverments, etc) and the rushed, utterly content-devoid release of vainilla 5 only confirmed my worst fears. In the end it grew up to be a wonderful game thanks to the patches and expansions, but its lackluster release and the Beyond Earth's fiasco burned me HARD, and almost wipped away my faith in the series.
Now, enter Civilization 6's reveal. It has been the complete opposite. Every single piece of released information so far has been WONDERFUL. New mechanics for city building (districts), design aiming for a "play with the terrain feelin" that neatly encapsulates the "geography as destiny" historic theories, a complete social tree that compliments the tech tree for culturemongers, full flegding features from the start like religion instead of "simplicity"... I haven't playing the game, but I am already in love with its ideas! This might very well be the game that surpasses Civilization 4
I started a little backwards, with Colonization (the original one), around the time it was released (1994, I think?). A few years later, I got into Civilization, and played every game in the series since then. Despite some misgivings, I considered every single game in the series to be better than its predecessor, including Civ 5 (especially with expansions). I think it took the longest for me to warm up to Civ 3, the game was in my eyes better than 2, but very clumsy in some respects.
I've also played a LOT of Civilization: Test of Time (basically a remake of Civ 2), back in the day. I still hope the mainstream Civ series will eventually include support for multiple maps. That single idea of ToT has HUGE potential, if done right.
Unlike most people, I wasn't crazy about SMAC, although I came to this game much later than most (after playing Civ 4). I see how good the game is objectively, but it just doesn't appeal to me on a personal level.
Since I really, really enjoyed Civ 5, to the point of playing several thousand hours of it, (possibly more than Civ 4 and Civ: Test of Time combined, the two other games in the series I played the most), I'm pretty confident I will like Civ 6 just fine. It seems to dial back some changes in Civ 5 that were missteps, and seems to be the "best of both worlds" between the innovations of Civ 5 and the solid, polished formula of Civ 4.
But I guess I'll have to wait and see how the ideas in Civ 6 are implemented =) so far, I'm super hyped for it.
I've also played a LOT of Civilization: Test of Time (basically a remake of Civ 2), back in the day. I still hope the mainstream Civ series will eventually include support for multiple maps. That single idea of ToT has HUGE potential, if done right.
Unlike most people, I wasn't crazy about SMAC, although I came to this game much later than most (after playing Civ 4). I see how good the game is objectively, but it just doesn't appeal to me on a personal level.
Since I really, really enjoyed Civ 5, to the point of playing several thousand hours of it, (possibly more than Civ 4 and Civ: Test of Time combined, the two other games in the series I played the most), I'm pretty confident I will like Civ 6 just fine. It seems to dial back some changes in Civ 5 that were missteps, and seems to be the "best of both worlds" between the innovations of Civ 5 and the solid, polished formula of Civ 4.
But I guess I'll have to wait and see how the ideas in Civ 6 are implemented =) so far, I'm super hyped for it.
Von Falkenheyn
Chieftain
Started with CIV II when I was 17 on my father's laptop (didn't have my own PC back then). Went on to III and its expansions and then fell in love with Civilization IV (best in the series for me so far). Played briefly with CIV IV Colonization and then clocked about 900 hours in CIV V plus all DLC and expansions. Didn't like Beyond Earth and the Rising Tide expansion was the first Civilization title which I didn't buy!
Civilization VI so far hits all the sweet spots for me. First of all we have local happiness factors which is a major bonus for me. I really like what they're doing with the districts. This means that you won't be able to copy-paste-spam the same buildings over and over again in your cities. I really like the "appeal" mechanism; it would seem that your cities can grow more quickly in "appealing" tiles plus there could be a tourism factor built in. I particularly like what they're doing with the tech trees; the CIV V tech tree had grown really stale as there were generally acceptable strategies for one to pursue. I like the direction they're taking with combat; 1UPT just couldn't cut it, but it's also very good that we're not going back to the stack of doom. I'm looking forward in future expansions for great additions to the military game. You could for instance research the LEGION as a formation which could allow you to join say, two swordsmen into a powerful new unit. I like what they're doing with the builder and the wonders! In general you're going to have to pay MUCH more attention to your geography instead of just spamming cities, buildings and wonders and pressing the "NEXT" button at the game's end waiting to finish.
Finally, two words..."Ed Beach"...'nuff said!
Civilization VI so far hits all the sweet spots for me. First of all we have local happiness factors which is a major bonus for me. I really like what they're doing with the districts. This means that you won't be able to copy-paste-spam the same buildings over and over again in your cities. I really like the "appeal" mechanism; it would seem that your cities can grow more quickly in "appealing" tiles plus there could be a tourism factor built in. I particularly like what they're doing with the tech trees; the CIV V tech tree had grown really stale as there were generally acceptable strategies for one to pursue. I like the direction they're taking with combat; 1UPT just couldn't cut it, but it's also very good that we're not going back to the stack of doom. I'm looking forward in future expansions for great additions to the military game. You could for instance research the LEGION as a formation which could allow you to join say, two swordsmen into a powerful new unit. I like what they're doing with the builder and the wonders! In general you're going to have to pay MUCH more attention to your geography instead of just spamming cities, buildings and wonders and pressing the "NEXT" button at the game's end waiting to finish.
Finally, two words..."Ed Beach"...'nuff said!
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,748
I started playing II and am excited about this one.
Now one thing to remember when it first comes out--there will be problems and deficiencies in the original release compared to the fully-patched and expanded game you had been playing. You'll see holes and some people will go to the extreme in their complaints. I think a few people have missed out because of initial reactions to a few previous versions. I think I might have fallen into that hole too with BE, which I never could get into.
Now one thing to remember when it first comes out--there will be problems and deficiencies in the original release compared to the fully-patched and expanded game you had been playing. You'll see holes and some people will go to the extreme in their complaints. I think a few people have missed out because of initial reactions to a few previous versions. I think I might have fallen into that hole too with BE, which I never could get into.
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
I've been playing since my dad got me into Civ II in the late 90s (think I was around 12 or 13 when I started). Played II, both Call to Powers (much maligned though they were), III, IV and V. Gave BE a miss.
Even with the gameplay video and the new articles, there is still very little concrete stuff to go on. That said, I'm pretty hyped so far. They are saying all the right things: a new engine with smarter AI, sophisticated diplomacy, 'just' wars, no more global happiness, it being easier to build more cities, wonder-spamming becoming harder, all the main gameplay systems from fully-expanded CiV are staying (except the World Congress but frankly, who needs it if basic diplomacy has been improved?). I even like the change from Workers to Builders with charges: having a bunch of Workers with nothing to do but automate in the late game wasn't very interesting, and it seems like there will be less for Builders to be doing than Workers in previous games.
Of course, there's tons I still want to know: more about espionage and religion are at the top of the list. One of the articles teased something about religious conflict being more of a thing, so that sounds promising. Espionage in CiV was really basic and I hope the system is more complex and fleshed out in Civ VI. I want to know more about City States and envoys. And I'd like to see the civic/government 'tech tree' at some point soon to get a better sense of how that's working. But I really like the idea of it being a progressive system rather than 'expend a point in this tree at the cost of that tree'. I'm sure there will still be an element of choice and decisions to be made, but it sounds much more natural and organic than CiV's social policies. Also, how will tourism fit in? It's going to be in the game, that much we know, and we've already seen a hint of it with the 'appeal' tooltips. I'm intrigued to see how this will play out: presumably it will make a difference if you build your tourism/culture district on a tile with high appeal?
My one disappointment so far is aesthetic: after watching the videos I'm much happier with the overall look of the game, but I'm still not 100% sold on the papery 'fog of war' and the leader screens (no, it's not as important as gameplay but after how CiV did leader screens it's hard not to look at these and think '...oh'). But those are both things I could get used to. I'm still kind of hoping that Teddy's painting background is a placeholder for something more interesting. That said, it has been pointed out that this leader screen style might make it more feasible for them to add a greater number of Civs to the game - if that's the case I'll feel better about it, but I'll always miss the lavish environments from CiV.
At this point, my main concern is: can it possibly live up to the hype? Saying things like 'the AI is smarter' and 'diplomacy is much more sophisticated' are really bold claims and after so many years playing Civ games, I feel like I've heard similar things said before and I'm kind of at a 'I'll believe it when I see it' stage. If they can pull it off, though? It's going to be the best Civ game yet.
Even with the gameplay video and the new articles, there is still very little concrete stuff to go on. That said, I'm pretty hyped so far. They are saying all the right things: a new engine with smarter AI, sophisticated diplomacy, 'just' wars, no more global happiness, it being easier to build more cities, wonder-spamming becoming harder, all the main gameplay systems from fully-expanded CiV are staying (except the World Congress but frankly, who needs it if basic diplomacy has been improved?). I even like the change from Workers to Builders with charges: having a bunch of Workers with nothing to do but automate in the late game wasn't very interesting, and it seems like there will be less for Builders to be doing than Workers in previous games.
Of course, there's tons I still want to know: more about espionage and religion are at the top of the list. One of the articles teased something about religious conflict being more of a thing, so that sounds promising. Espionage in CiV was really basic and I hope the system is more complex and fleshed out in Civ VI. I want to know more about City States and envoys. And I'd like to see the civic/government 'tech tree' at some point soon to get a better sense of how that's working. But I really like the idea of it being a progressive system rather than 'expend a point in this tree at the cost of that tree'. I'm sure there will still be an element of choice and decisions to be made, but it sounds much more natural and organic than CiV's social policies. Also, how will tourism fit in? It's going to be in the game, that much we know, and we've already seen a hint of it with the 'appeal' tooltips. I'm intrigued to see how this will play out: presumably it will make a difference if you build your tourism/culture district on a tile with high appeal?
My one disappointment so far is aesthetic: after watching the videos I'm much happier with the overall look of the game, but I'm still not 100% sold on the papery 'fog of war' and the leader screens (no, it's not as important as gameplay but after how CiV did leader screens it's hard not to look at these and think '...oh'). But those are both things I could get used to. I'm still kind of hoping that Teddy's painting background is a placeholder for something more interesting. That said, it has been pointed out that this leader screen style might make it more feasible for them to add a greater number of Civs to the game - if that's the case I'll feel better about it, but I'll always miss the lavish environments from CiV.
At this point, my main concern is: can it possibly live up to the hype? Saying things like 'the AI is smarter' and 'diplomacy is much more sophisticated' are really bold claims and after so many years playing Civ games, I feel like I've heard similar things said before and I'm kind of at a 'I'll believe it when I see it' stage. If they can pull it off, though? It's going to be the best Civ game yet.
MrCynical
Deity
Started playing with Civ 1. Civ III was probably the first iteration that really hooked me, and I played a tonne right up to the top of the difficulty levels. Ditto Civ IV.
No surprises that I got Civ V as soon as it launched - which was a mistake. I played a few games, but it was such a broken unbalanced mess there wasn't really much point in continuing. After the first patch failed to resolve any significant number of problems I uninstalled it, and it stayed that way for a couple of years. Eventually I picked up the expansion packs dirt cheap in a sale and gave it one more chance. It had been patched up into a passable game, and I do play it occasionally. I find it a very - I guess "passive" is probably the best word - experience compared to the earlier games. III and IV I had to think and plan ahead. V has a lot of wandering vaguely through the game hitting end turn, mostly because of the ineffectual AI. If I want something casual it's OK, but it was never going to grab my attention the way the earlier versions did.
As for Civ 6? Some of the ideas in the previews look interesting. I'll probably pick it up eventually. Civ V has however burnt up all of the series' credit with me though, so I'm not going to get it at release. I'll probably give it a couple of years till it's as good as it's going to get before I bother with it.
No surprises that I got Civ V as soon as it launched - which was a mistake. I played a few games, but it was such a broken unbalanced mess there wasn't really much point in continuing. After the first patch failed to resolve any significant number of problems I uninstalled it, and it stayed that way for a couple of years. Eventually I picked up the expansion packs dirt cheap in a sale and gave it one more chance. It had been patched up into a passable game, and I do play it occasionally. I find it a very - I guess "passive" is probably the best word - experience compared to the earlier games. III and IV I had to think and plan ahead. V has a lot of wandering vaguely through the game hitting end turn, mostly because of the ineffectual AI. If I want something casual it's OK, but it was never going to grab my attention the way the earlier versions did.
As for Civ 6? Some of the ideas in the previews look interesting. I'll probably pick it up eventually. Civ V has however burnt up all of the series' credit with me though, so I'm not going to get it at release. I'll probably give it a couple of years till it's as good as it's going to get before I bother with it.
King of Spades
Chieftain
Been playing since Civ II. Loved II and IV, but played III and V quite a bit (about 1000 hours on V according to Steam).
I like what I've seen so far, lots of interesting ideas. I hope however that the in-game information and the civilopedia will be better and more correct than V, which was sorely lacking compared to II, III and IV. Seeing Ulysses S. Grant being misquoted already (he never used the word "military tradition", yet the word is used in his quote for the Civic of the same name), don't get my hopes up...
I like what I've seen so far, lots of interesting ideas. I hope however that the in-game information and the civilopedia will be better and more correct than V, which was sorely lacking compared to II, III and IV. Seeing Ulysses S. Grant being misquoted already (he never used the word "military tradition", yet the word is used in his quote for the Civic of the same name), don't get my hopes up...
Auramagma
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 81
Playing from Civ 2, appx. from around 1995...
I was a bit disappointed with Civ V at vanilla. It just felt less strategy game and more box of features compare to previous games in series and to Civ IV in particular. With time I've kind of started to appreciate it more, but still have hard time not to get bored passed turn 100 -150...
With Civ VI as people before were saying, I fear it moves towards even more features (again) and it is not clear at all whether more balanced gameplay was taken in to serious consideration or not. For example, introducing new AI personalities on the surface seems to be neat, but will it convert to consistent gameplay on AI side or will feel as AI behaviour is random as it was in CIv V? It doesn't matter if the mechanics beneath it are not random as long as the actual in game behaviour looks and feels that way.
I am not playing multiplayer as I can't allocate 4+ hour sessions in to playing the game, therefore, how strong AI is going to be and how much effort went in to it matters to me. In Civ V, as it is well known, AI was not capable of using 1ups system well as it couldn't use naval units properly. Hope for the significant improvement here.
Also, AI in Civ V (and to be fair in previous Civ installations as well) is not playing to win. It kind of tries to create that impression, but it is not actually aware of the victory conditions well enough and it just happens that it hits them as game progresses. Haven't heard that this is going to change anyhow in Civ VI...
Cards system in Civ VI - again at the moment feels like an extra feature to tick the box and create wow effect... I would prefer if most of the effort went into balancing the gameplay, rather than adding new untested mechanics...
Graphs, don't care much about it. Usually I like less cartoonish style and I am not that familiar with Marvels, which people compare it to, but why not as long as the game is strategically sound, fine with whatever graphics. Still playing Civ 4 and SMAC anyways )).
I was a bit disappointed with Civ V at vanilla. It just felt less strategy game and more box of features compare to previous games in series and to Civ IV in particular. With time I've kind of started to appreciate it more, but still have hard time not to get bored passed turn 100 -150...
With Civ VI as people before were saying, I fear it moves towards even more features (again) and it is not clear at all whether more balanced gameplay was taken in to serious consideration or not. For example, introducing new AI personalities on the surface seems to be neat, but will it convert to consistent gameplay on AI side or will feel as AI behaviour is random as it was in CIv V? It doesn't matter if the mechanics beneath it are not random as long as the actual in game behaviour looks and feels that way.
I am not playing multiplayer as I can't allocate 4+ hour sessions in to playing the game, therefore, how strong AI is going to be and how much effort went in to it matters to me. In Civ V, as it is well known, AI was not capable of using 1ups system well as it couldn't use naval units properly. Hope for the significant improvement here.
Also, AI in Civ V (and to be fair in previous Civ installations as well) is not playing to win. It kind of tries to create that impression, but it is not actually aware of the victory conditions well enough and it just happens that it hits them as game progresses. Haven't heard that this is going to change anyhow in Civ VI...
Cards system in Civ VI - again at the moment feels like an extra feature to tick the box and create wow effect... I would prefer if most of the effort went into balancing the gameplay, rather than adding new untested mechanics...
Graphs, don't care much about it. Usually I like less cartoonish style and I am not that familiar with Marvels, which people compare it to, but why not as long as the game is strategically sound, fine with whatever graphics. Still playing Civ 4 and SMAC anyways )).
Lord Gruin
Chieftain
I have played Civ since 1; liked it so much I bought 2; liked it so much I bought 3; liked it so much I bought 4; liked it so much bought 5; like it so much I will buy 6.
Having said that, I like 5 better than the others as, I guess, I can better maneuver my troops with 1 upt. I rarely was able to create big enough SOD's at the higher difficulty levels.
From what I have seen from Quill and Marbozir and BAStartgaming, the game play is the same, but different, where the different, in my humble opinion, is better. The look of the game takes a little getting used to; but, as they all say, you can tell what is what in each tile.
Having said that, I like 5 better than the others as, I guess, I can better maneuver my troops with 1 upt. I rarely was able to create big enough SOD's at the higher difficulty levels.
From what I have seen from Quill and Marbozir and BAStartgaming, the game play is the same, but different, where the different, in my humble opinion, is better. The look of the game takes a little getting used to; but, as they all say, you can tell what is what in each tile.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
The devil's in the details, it's too early for heavy excitement or criticism. The game needs to work first and foremost. I'll believe that when I see it happen on release and not before, given track record.
Yeah, good point. I mean, this same sentiment is always the same before every release of a new civ game. Everybody is on board and excited. Then the actual product is always a mess once we get it!
Aristos
Lightseeker
Exactly. Every single word of it.
(and yes, true old guard, 91'er with 1, 96'er with 2, 99'er with SMAC, millennial with 3, 05'er with the immortal 4, 13'er with 5... BE you say? what is that?)
Played Civ I, CtP2, Civ 2 TOT, Civ III, IV, V.
I disliked III and V, loved Civ IV and still play it from time to time.
I have moderate hopes. The civics/government system looks interesting. I'm very much afraid city states will be the same gamey thing as in Civ V which I can't stand, however, that the ai will still be unable to play wiht 1upt, am sad they aren't using CtP's combat model which is by far the best of all the series. I'm unimpressed by the worker change (I'd do it a la CtP2 again).
Basically now before buying I would like to know if the ai is as pitiful as in Civ V, whether city states give immersion-breaking bonuses (hi, one desert city by the coast gives you more food than 20 farms), whether you can raze capital cities.
The game seems ok from a mechanisms point of view, but so far Civ V was a total flop for me in terms of immersion, and I'm nor sure that Civ VI gives me the flexibility I want. If all resources are clustered near city states for "gameplay" reasons again, I'll probably just stick with IV.
I disliked III and V, loved Civ IV and still play it from time to time.
I have moderate hopes. The civics/government system looks interesting. I'm very much afraid city states will be the same gamey thing as in Civ V which I can't stand, however, that the ai will still be unable to play wiht 1upt, am sad they aren't using CtP's combat model which is by far the best of all the series. I'm unimpressed by the worker change (I'd do it a la CtP2 again).
Basically now before buying I would like to know if the ai is as pitiful as in Civ V, whether city states give immersion-breaking bonuses (hi, one desert city by the coast gives you more food than 20 farms), whether you can raze capital cities.
The game seems ok from a mechanisms point of view, but so far Civ V was a total flop for me in terms of immersion, and I'm nor sure that Civ VI gives me the flexibility I want. If all resources are clustered near city states for "gameplay" reasons again, I'll probably just stick with IV.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
I started with Civ 2 as a kid, I could have played 1 but didn't know about it right away (from then until now I've always been a hybrid PC/console gamer so a good portion of my elementary school days was doing stuff like trashing the local high school gamer who otherwise could beat anybody in the neighborhood at bomberman/Mario kart etc).
Back then Civ wasn't the dominant strategy game like now. Warlords 2/3 were better than their respective Civ iterations and HOMM 3 remains one of the great TBS of all times with no Civ IV to compete with it back then or blemishes like newer HOMM games made yet
. I didn't really play civ in depth until IV, but I've played all of the mainline series except 1 a decent amount.
Civs 1-3 have way too much mundane unit control issues to go back tbh. I hate situations where I'm going through the motions only or waiting for the game to let me do something.
Back then Civ wasn't the dominant strategy game like now. Warlords 2/3 were better than their respective Civ iterations and HOMM 3 remains one of the great TBS of all times with no Civ IV to compete with it back then or blemishes like newer HOMM games made yet
. I didn't really play civ in depth until IV, but I've played all of the mainline series except 1 a decent amount.Civs 1-3 have way too much mundane unit control issues to go back tbh. I hate situations where I'm going through the motions only or waiting for the game to let me do something.
Aristos
Lightseeker
I started with Civ 2 as a kid, I could have played 1 but didn't know about it right away (from then until now I've always been a hybrid PC/console gamer so a good portion of my elementary school days was doing stuff like trashing the local high school gamer who otherwise could beat anybody in the neighborhood at bomberman/Mario kart etc).
Back then Civ wasn't the dominant strategy game like now. Warlords 2/3 were better than their respective Civ iterations and HOMM 3 remains one of the great TBS of all times with no Civ IV to compete with it back then or blemishes like newer HOMM games made yet
Civs 1-3 have way too much mundane unit control issues to go back tbh. I hate situations where I'm going through the motions only or waiting for the game to let me do something.
Well, of course we couldn't go back to I now... although some people do. But the instant classic it was is hard to forget, and in fact, we shouldn't. That is perhaps the very signature of the series, a signature that should be the test for every new iteration: is it an instant classic? IV was, even with it's quirks in vanilla, V... not so much, even after BNW. I like it now, sure, and it's become very fun, but never an instant classic.
The question now will be: will VI be an instant classic? And remember, quirks, bugs and imbalances, especially in vanilla, do not detriment the game as an instant classic... it just is, or it isn't. Also, in all these years of being a part of the best series in gaming history, I can say this: if it is an instant classic, it is instant, or it is not. I did not see any of the iterations become one after release.
I'm playing Civ3 again for fun. There are a lot of unrefined elements bit it is such a huge leap from 2. You truly get a sense of the AI as individual agents and with few hardcoded diplo features like blocs, vassals, ideology or religion, the civ3 the AI dont gey funneled into boxes. Theres a sense anything can happen. let's the player make up things. I have a Persian SoD parked next to one of my cities. Inside my borders. I'm sweating.
