Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?

[gcm4738]

...

In Civ V, the game shifted to being a tactical game within a set of largely pre-planned strategies. Earn your next badge along the path you chose this time. Choose vertical or horizontal. Choose your civics strategy. Now follow the path, and execute it tactically in a fairly obvious manner. The dominating strategies disappeared, but now the common complaints are about the rules being restrictive in play-style (1UPT, defined policy trees, etc) -- that's quite a state change for Civ.

...

I clipped your post to this bit - but I agree with the whole thing. Expressed my feelings exactly. It was a hard thing to capture what was lost in the move to V but this post does it beautifully.

For me, maybe I'm optimistic to the point of being a deluded pollyanna but even if game design for $ these days will not allow a major title like civ to open things up to the point where players can either fail miserably or dominate spectacularly - maybe because it'll be a happier, safer experience for most of the people, or maybe because it's too risky that certain mechanics will be unbalanced or abusable until a year after release - I'm still hopeful that there will be some elements in VI that will make the experience interesting "one more turn-ey". In any case, due to my love of the Civ series overall I'll take the approach that I will play it from day 1 on its own merits without regard to what I liked or disliked about IV or V.

But like I say... maybe I'm being wilfully naive...

 

[ezysquire]

Started with Civ I.
Civ 6 looks promising because the designers are focusing the mechanics onto the thing that makes the series so great - the map!
Putting it all out there on the board and by adding benefits to exploration (tech boosts for discoveries etc) makes it more about the map - and for me that's gotta be a good thing.
Looking forward to losing countless hours in a void of civ. Would always pay top dollar for civ.

 

[darko82]

I clipped your post to this bit - but I agree with the whole thing. Expressed my feelings exactly. It was a hard thing to capture what was lost in the move to V but this post does it beautifully.

For me, maybe I'm optimistic to the point of being a deluded pollyanna but even if game design for $ these days will not allow a major title like civ to open things up to the point where players can either fail miserably or dominate spectacularly - maybe because it'll be a happier, safer experience for most of the people, or maybe because it's too risky that certain mechanics will be unbalanced or abusable until a year after release - I'm still hopeful that there will be some elements in VI that will make the experience interesting "one more turn-ey". In any case, due to my love of the Civ series overall I'll take the approach that I will play it from day 1 on it's own merits without regard to what I liked or disliked about IV or V.

But like I say... maybe I'm being wilfully naive...

You cannot make everyone happy, but for me the biggest issue with Civ V was quite a poor AI, which the CP improved it in many respects.

 

[malekithau]

Wore out the "n" key on my commodore amiga playing civ. To my mind Civ V was one of the better iterations. I look at the UI for IV or III or the stacks of doom and immediately shelve any ideas of reinstalling them.

Bring on Civ VI I think it looks great and I'm all for some new mechanics rather than living in the past.

 

[chrisge]

Are there any salesmen here?

 

[Mivo]

Started with the Atari ST versions, but mostly skipped 3.

So far, I'm pretty excited about Civ 6, particularly after 64-bit support and multi-threading for the AI were confirmed. There is still relatively little information out yet, though, so I'm as excited as I am about every Civ release. Sometimes it was justified, sometimes it wasn't (5), but it's always subjective. I actually like the visual representation, too.

Realistically, even if it's a mediocre release, I'll still get a couple hundred of hours out of it. And generally the expansions fix up things fairly well.

 

[Pepo]

Started with Civ 2 and SMAC, skipped civ 3 but Civ IV was the one that got me in. Probably one of the best 4x games released. The release of Civ V was a huge step-back and even though BNW fixed some things, global happiness and 1upt(which the ai doesn't know how to use) had put me away from civ V. So I'am very skeptical about the release, and I'am going to wait to see what this new Civ offers

 

[Acken]

Are there any salesmen here?

What are you doing ?

 

[Karmah]

Civilization 5 even with the expansions is still a bad game since it doesn't deal with the core problems. These are mainly 1UPT and Global Happiness. The expansions, while they add some good things like religion and tourism, are still hampered by a rotten core.

Could you be more insulting oO
So we are idiot if we find civ 5 far superior in all aspect to civ 4 ?

At least I know now not to value your opinion.

Moderator Action: Please do not criticize other posters. You can criticize the views they express, but not the poster themselves.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JtW]

I started with Civ I when I was 10 or something. Didn't really get into the franchise until Civ2 which I played for 1000s or maybe even tens of 1000s of hours. I didn't like Civ3 and stuck to Civ2 - only switched to Civ4 complete edition, mainly for the awesome mods like FfH and Rhye's, etc.

Civ5 was the first one I waited for before release - they made a lot of bold claims which then fell flat, unfortunately. I still played a lot and bought all the expansions but I got bored in the end. I haven't played Civilization in a year and a half or more.

For Civ6, I am more cautious. Ed showed he's capable - the expansions for Civ5 were great - so I think Civ6 can turn out great. But I also remember my disappointment with Civ5's AI, with the repetitive gameplay, and with the shallowness of it all.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Could you be more insulting oO
So we are idiot if we find civ 5 far superior in all aspect to civ 4 ?

At least I know now not to value your opinion.

Moderator Action: Please do not criticize other posters. You can criticize the views they express, but not the poster themselves.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

So in a thread where where we are asked to give our opinion, he is not allowed to give his opinion?

This is the first constructive and productive discussion about what we like in the Civ6 forum that I've seen, and I would like it to continue. All opinions are valid as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Gorbles]

He didn't say that he wasn't allowed to give an opinion, just as an FYI. He simply said he wasn't going to value it, which is perfectly within his rights. That wasn't the part that got him in trouble

The topic of how much some posters don't like CiV has also been done to death in many, many threads in this subforum alone, so I kinda get the frustration. For some old-timers I've talked to that don't come to CFC, the lack of MUPT is a turn-off - a lot of people still hankering after those Civ IV mechanics. But that's a matter of preference more than it is a matter of being a good or bad game, in definitive terms.

Certainly, going on about CiV is kinda redundant given how we've got a bit of a enough on how Civ VI differs to talk about that now. Unpacking the Cities, that rather vague talk of late-game army upgrades, the Wonder tiles, and so on. Even the faction design with multiple unique elements.

 

[Ryika]

That's why an opinion should be supplied with words that actually make it clear that it's an opinion, not just be stated as fact as Thormodr did it.

Sometimes people don't think about it, but some people do that intentionally, just to annoy the rest.

 

[tat501]

Saw the trailer was pumped. Saw the screenshots was worried. Saw the gameplay and am excited again. I have my concerns that the district system is a bit "gamey" and doesn't look great aesthetically but I can live with it. The rest of the features look very interesting. It'll br fun to play in a more adaptive way, adjusting my strategy on the fly to deal with terrain and other such limitations instead of knowing beforehand - "I'm maya - going wide" or "I'm Babylon - going tall and turtle".

 

[Thormodr]

That's why an opinion should be supplied with words that actually make it clear that it's an opinion, not just be stated as fact as Thormodr did it.

Sometimes people don't think about it, but some people do that intentionally, just to annoy the rest.

Well, of course it is my opinion.

Obviously people disagree. C'est la vie.

Let there be free and open stating of opinion.

 

[dexters]

At some point repeating the same thing over and over again becomes redundant and is just meant to rile people up.

 

[Haig]

In Civ I me and my friends edited the files so that all the leaders asked stuff like "Would you like to exchange some Pepsi?" etc.

Never played II, has a good reputation.

III and IV loved

V (with expansions) is in a way the best one, but couple VERY frustrating things like battle A.I. and some diplo weirdness and some lack of details is not good. In a way IV and V are best ones so far but in different ways.

I'm very-super-pumped for VI at the moment, we only know so little, and yet all the details and mechanics seem to blow Civ V out of water, graphics on the video look gorgeus and I think Ed Beach was the right choice for the job.

I totally understand why Civ V was such a let down for many Civ IV fans, I hope they give VI a chance as it looks to be more deeper than V. Maybe after expansions it's even more detailed and complex than Beyond the Sword?

 

[Westwall]

I've played every title in the series since Civ 2.

Normally I would say I had the utmost confidence in Firaxis without any reservations whatsoever.

Civ BE shook my faith in a way that I never thought possible.

So I'll definitely be waiting to see what other people say about Civ 6 before I consider picking it up.

I'm not pre-ordering, that's for damn sure.

 

[Buccaneer]

Could you be more insulting oO
So we are idiot if we find civ 5 far superior in all aspect to civ 4 ?

Glad I am not the only old timer that feels this way.

I started with Civ2 around 1997(?), very active on the forums, kept playing Civ2 scenarios even through the awfulness that was Civ3, thought Civ4 was great until Civ5 blew it out of the water (eventually). I saw the potential with Civ5 in vanilla and really had hoped that it would greatly improve with the patches/expansions and it did. So far, I am seeing Civ6 starting where BNW had left off plus adding/substituting in some good elements from previous games.

By the way, in my 30 years of PC gaming, I have primarily focused on 4X strategy games and traditional 1-unit-per-hex wargames. Civ5 combined the best of both worlds for me and even the AI was better than what I had seen in most of those wargames (e.g., Battlefront).

 

[dexters]

Glad I am not the only old timer that feels this way.

I started with Civ2 around 1997(?), very active on the forums, kept playing Civ2 scenarios even through the awfulness that way Civ3, thought Civ4 was great until Civ5 blew it out of the water (eventually). I saw the potential with Civ5 in vanilla and really had hoped that it would greatly improve with the patches/expansions and it did. So far, I am seeing Civ6 starting where BNW had left off plus adding/substituting in some good elements from previous games.

Really love Civ3's loosy goosy mechanics. The game forcing you to police your borders is probably the most brilliant thing ever and could have been a really nice system if refined. And you see the genesis of a lot of ideas that are still in Civ5 and will be in Civ6.

Best part of the game are the trades. Not that I'm a tech trading fan, but it is required pre-Civ5, so I do it. But I love doing my arbitrage and interest bearing trades, stuff they took out in 4

I recently picked up Civ3 complete on Steam for a low price and have been replaying it.
The game has aged a lot better than I thought.