Will there actually be a Civ 7?

[Leyrann]

Yes, it is significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5. I could write a big text here and give you my reasons - not related to the graphic aspects of the game -, but I know you naturally wouldn't agree since you are a Civ 6 fan. So it would be a waste of time and space for you and me.

I'm not criticizing you. I said Civ 6 was by far the worst "to me". But I respect that you and the vast majority in this Civ 6 forum think it's the best!

If you're not going to give your thoughts and reasons, why mention it at all?

I am, for the record, genuinely curious why you think Civ 6 is so bad, as I've never seen someone criticize it's fundamentals in the way Civ 5 and Civ 3 often have their fundamentals criticized.

 

[LastSword]

I am, for the record, genuinely curious why you think Civ 6 is so bad, as I've never seen someone criticize it's fundamentals in the way Civ 5 and Civ 3 often have their fundamentals criticized.

Could you link me the stuff criticizing fundamentals of civ5 and civ3? Unless it is something like hurr-durr 4 Cities, in this case do not bother.

I would be also even more interested in something like why civ 6 is a good game. Never seen that.

 

[Pistol90]

Bad support for modding, and sci-fy + fantasy stupitidy is only thing I have agaist Civ 6. Even graphics (which I hated in first pre-release screenshots) at the end are positive if you ask me, but I would go any more cartonish that this.

 

[Linklite]

Bad support for modding, and sci-fy + fantasy stupitidy is only thing I have agaist Civ 6. Even graphics (which I hated in first pre-release screenshots) at the end are positive if you ask me, but I would go any more cartonish that this.

I'd add poor support regarding bugs and issues.

Actually, that is the one thing that actually upsets me. The others barly even register for me. I'd be very happy with the game ifnthey ever fix it.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yes, it is significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5. I could write a big text here and give you my reasons - not related to the graphic aspects of the game -, but I know you naturally wouldn't agree since you are a Civ 6 fan. So it would be a waste of time and space for you and me.

I'm not criticizing you. I said Civ 6 was by far the worst "to me". But I respect that you and the vast majority in this Civ 6 forum think it's the best!

You have’nt been here long if you think the vast majority of the forum thinks it’s the bestest

 

[Leyrann]

Could you link me the stuff criticizing fundamentals of civ5 and civ3? Unless it is something like hurr-durr 4 Cities, in this case do not bother.

I would be also even more interested in something like why civ 6 is a good game. Never seen that.

My knowledge regarding Civ 3 is rather limited, as I've never played it myself, but the main criticism that I'm aware of is that it apparently has rampant corruption and waste issues that basically leave any city not settled sufficiently close to the capital completely useless all game long, in the process encouraging the constant production of new settlers to expand because your cities never gain the ability to do something else, like build expensive buildings or produce trade (or commerce, whatever they called it in Civ 3).

As for Civ 5... whew, where to start? The imbalance between tall and wide is indeed a significant issue imo, it makes no sense that a smaller empire should be able to outcompete or even match a larger empire, and this has historically always been a rare event. Not non-existent, sure, but rare. There is a reason the modern-day superpowers are all among the highest population and land area countries in the world (Russia is the most notable exception, and we can all see right now how much of their position is actually not justified and simply inherited from the Soviet-Union, which could more or less match the USA in population).

But as for direct mechanics, well, first of all there's science and culture costs scaling with cities. It is incredibly frustrating to play with, and I've never seen anyone give a reasonable explanation for it in the first place. Somehow, it still manages to only rank second in most annoying mechanics in the Civ series (from the games I've played, that is), behind global happiness, which brings your entire empire to a screeching halt every ten turns unless you meticulously plan out every action you take, down to the last population growth. These two mechanics by themselves turn Civ 5 into a pile of trash, as far as I'm concerned. I haven't played a single game of it since the release of Civ 6, and I'd probably have quit it far earlier if I'd discovered Civ 4 at an earlier date (I started playing 4 because I became active on this forum around the release of Civ 6 and so many people were talking about 4 being better than 5).

Apart from that, there are many, many more minor issues. The stricter 1 unit per tile compared to Civ 6. The upkeep cost of roads often completely nullifying the supposed bonus income from connecting cities. The incredibly gamey and unfun golden age system where you're filling a bucket with surplus global happiness. Honestly, I'd probably be able to name quite a few more if it hadn't been six years since I last touched the game. In fact I remember doing so back then on this very forum - probably this very subforum.

And why Civ 6 is a good game, there are many reasons. Districts are an inherently fun mechanic, even if I have some criticism regarding the execution (I made a thread about this roughly two months ago); they're the first ever implementation of city sprawl in the series and it's just fun to play around with. The addition of the civic tree adds more depth and enjoyment to this part of the game, though I will admit that again, there is an issue, namely in the simplicity of the civic tree (and to a lesser degree the technology tree). Builders are simply more enjoyable to play with than workers, even ignoring how they are superior in terms of game balance. Traders automatically building roads is a flavor addition I didn't know I needed until they revealed it. The culture victory is much more complex and fun than in previous games, and the diplomatic victory is actually passable, rather than a chore that feels more like you're exploiting the AI rather than anything else. Speaking of, the sheer variety of victory conditions simply adds another layer. City states have become much more interesting - no longer are you just throwing money at them to make them like you, and levying city-state armies can turn the tide of a war if done well. And I'm sure I could come up with a bunch more stuff if you gave me more time, but this post is long enough.

 

[pokiehl]

You have’nt been here long if you think the vast majority of the forum thinks it’s the bestest

I dunno man, most active people here really like the game (while acknowledging its flaws). There are only about 4-5 people who spend a lot of time here telling everyone else over and over why they think the game sucks, so I think "vast majority" is appropriate.

The thing I don't understand about the group of 4-5 people is why, if they are so dissatisfied with Civ 6 and think it's so awful, they spend so much time talking about the game, thinking about the game, playing the game, and even modding the game.

I myself have fallen out of love with the game and eagerly look forward to Civ 7. But I don't feel the need to grind my axe on this forum over and over, and I don't spend my time playing it or modding it anymore. So that's the part I don't get--why continually expose yourself to something that you don't like?

 

[kaspergm]

Builders are simply more enjoyable to play with than workers ...

... said no-one ever.

Traders automatically building roads is a flavor addition I didn't know I needed ...

... and indeed you didn't.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I dunno man, most active people here really like the game (while acknowledging its flaws). There are only about 4-5 people who spend a lot of time here telling everyone else over and over why they think the game sucks, so I think "vast majority" is appropriate.

The thing I don't understand about the group of 4-5 people is why, if they are so dissatisfied with Civ 6 and think it's so awful, they spend so much time talking about the game, thinking about the game, playing the game, and even modding the game.

I myself have fallen out of love with the game and eagerly look forward to Civ 7. But I don't feel the need to grind my axe on this forum over and over, and I don't spend my time playing it or modding it anymore. So that's the part I don't get--why continually expose yourself to something that you don't like?

No idea. I like the basic mechanics and design ideas in this game, just some of the implementation I think was not done well. The quality is very concerning. I play the Basic Game with a few house rules regularly. As much as I would like to try, I have a feeling that if I trued to play 4 again the sheer amount of micro would drive me nuts

 

[Civinator]

You think it's significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5? Really?

My knowledge regarding Civ 3 is rather limited, as I've never played it myself, but the main criticism that I'm aware of is that it apparently has rampant corruption and waste issues that basically leave any city not settled sufficiently close to the capital completely useless all game long, in the process encouraging the constant production of new settlers to expand because your cities never gain the ability to do something else, like build expensive buildings or produce trade (or commerce, whatever they called it in Civ 3).

I think it is very unfair to discriminate Civ 3 in such a way, only based on very old and obsolete posts, written more than a decade ago, and never having played it yourself. Civ 3 had a lot of time for being improved and for fixing all of the complaints in these old posts. Today you should play C3C with the Flintlock patch and may be CCM 2.50. Per example I showed a good and very well working solution for the "constant production of new settlers" some posts above, exactly giving the game the room for the production of all the things you have listed in your quoted post. To connect the "production" of settlers to the direct production in cities, in my eyes is a general error in the civ series, triggering a lot of following problems for a civ game.

If you say, you want to decide when you produce a settler, this is o.k. [de gustibus (non) est disputandum], so in history such a direct "production" of settlers was the exception, when looking in the wikipedia:

The reasons for the emigration of settlers vary, but often they include the following factors and incentives: the desire to start a new and better life in a foreign land, personal financial hardship, social, cultural, ethnic, or religious persecution, penal deportation (e.g. of convicted criminals from England to Australia) political oppression, and government incentive policies aimed at encouraging foreign settlement.

But in my eyes it is not o.k. - being aware of such a solution, that also is in a better line with history - to use such an obsolete argument as a base for statements against Civ 3.

 

[EvaDK]

I would love to see an overhaul of the endgame and winning conditions. Instead of a somewhat rigid 'Science/Cultural/Domination... victory, why not something that encourages more dynamic, flexible and perhaps unpredictable journeys?

I've also had quite a lot of games, where the endgame feels more like a chore to play through, than a challenge. The AI often doesn't know what to do to sabotage my strategy and that is especially felt around the Industrial Age and beyond.

 

[LastSword]

...

First of all, thanks for your time, I excepted you would just link something.

...it makes no sense that... and this has historically...

I am against using "history" and "realism" arguments, even more when we talk about fundamental issues. I hope we agree we talk about a game loosely themed on history. Or we can talk about how districts fits into the realism and then probably every other system.
And you have omitted quite important thing, many empires that grew wide eventually fell and divided into smaller states, something civ game isn't good at reproducing. So maybe balancing out wide in some way isn't so ahistorical.

The imbalance between tall and wide is indeed a significant issue imo...

But as for direct mechanics, well, first of all there's science and culture costs scaling with cities.

...global happiness, which brings your entire empire...

Uh, first of all... the imbalance of tall and wide is much more radical in civ6. For this post I will assume that you wanted to write that you have not enjoyed systems balancing out wide approach and they completely ruined game experience for you.

I kind of never faced such drastic Unhappiness you have described. I remember it as quite simple system properly explained in one tooltip.

I do not enjoy snowballing myself and have hard time finding rubber band mechanics to be bad or a
fundamental issue. The alternative isn't truely attractive.

The upkeep cost of roads often completely nullifying the supposed bonus income from connecting cities.

It was more that connected cities should nullify the cost of road. Isn't upkeep quite realistic.
Gold from connection was based on population of city and capital.

The incredibly gamey and unfun golden age system where you're filling a bucket with surplus global happiness.

Gathering yield to reach treshold for a certain reward is... quite common. I understand it is not the most engaging stuff, but I do not understand why this one stands out.

Quite surprised an AI was not mentioned.

And why Civ 6 is a good game, there are many reasons.

Districts are an inherently fun mechanic, even if I have some criticism regarding the execution (I made a thread about this roughly two months ago); they're the first ever implementation of city sprawl in the series and it's just fun to play around with.

I have yesterday googled some reviews and they had a lot of trite statements like that one.
And I am gonna be honest, I am not sure if Districts were good addition.

The addition of the civic tree adds more depth and enjoyment to this part of the game

Just curious, how do you feel about faith tree, is it a future?

Builders are simply more enjoyable to play with than workers, even ignoring how they are superior in terms of game balance.

Uh, objection, opinion. I probably feel about them in the same way you felt about global happiness. Funny thing when civ6 was announced I was truely excited about builders.

Traders automatically building roads is a flavor addition I didn't know I needed until they revealed it.

I agree. On the other hand I find railroads to be the worst in the series.

The culture victory is much more complex and fun than in previous games, and the diplomatic victory is actually passable, rather than a chore that feels more like you're exploiting the AI rather than anything else. Speaking of, the sheer variety of victory conditions simply adds another layer.

I am terribly unqualified to speak about that.

City states have become much more interesting - no longer are you just throwing money at them to make them like you, and levying city-state armies can turn the tide of a war if done well.

I kind of understand what you mean, but is ultimately throwing envoys really so different?
What is more, city-states can't even conquer cities now. Decay of influence also had its merits over the everlasting
envoys.
Yeah, my personal feel about it: step forward, step back. Not a big fan of city-states in first place.

We wrote big walls of text, yet ultimately it feels like you simply had fun playing one game and bad time playing other. Nothing fundamental.

 

[canadamufc]

I think the biggest disgrace of Civ VI is that they made modding 10x harder to do. I think I would rather play VI than V, but I think V does a lot of good things that people don't give it credit for. At least when someone criticizes V, I can go ahead and say "There is a mod fixing your problem", with VI that isn't always the case. It's why there is a high chance once VII gets its two expansions people may look back on V being the better game simply because of its modding capabilities. It's also why I think V will outlast VI simply because people will get bored of VI's mechanics. Admittedly I am not a modder though so I don't know the true extent of this problem but I think I have the basics of it.

Look at V's Vox Populi. And wow, what a complete overhaul that fixes so many of V's problems. I worry that such a thing is not possible with Civ VI.

And even in V's base game it does stuff better than in VI. AI personality and flavour and world congress are the two big ones. I think VII should focus less on splashing in new mechanics and systems and focus more on incorporating the best of the best from past civ games to create the most complete game possible. Let the expansions add the new systems.

 

[Gedemon]

Well, it's not that it's 10x harder, overall it's a bit harder on some stuff, a bit easier on others, the problem is that it's limited for core changes, so yes, you have the basics of it: there won't be a Vox Populi-like overhaul for civ6, unless the civ6 modders community stay attached to the game as the civ3 modder community is still today...

Which I can't imagine happening, but who knows ?

 

[Leyrann]

I think it is very unfair to discriminate Civ 3 in such a way, only based on very old and obsolete posts, written more than a decade ago, and never having played it yourself. Civ 3 had a lot of time for being improved and for fixing all of the complaints in these old posts. Today you should play C3C with the Flintlock patch and may be CCM 2.50. Per example I showed a good and very well working solution for the "constant production of new settlers" some posts above, exactly giving the game the room for the production of all the things you have listed in your quoted post. To connect the "production" of settlers to the direct production in cities, in my eyes is a general error in the civ series, triggering a lot of following problems for a civ game.

If you say, you want to decide when you produce a settler, this is o.k. [de gustibus (non) est disputandum], so in history such a direct "production" of settlers was the exception, when looking in the wikipedia:

The reasons for the emigration of settlers vary, but often they include the following factors and incentives: the desire to start a new and better life in a foreign land, personal financial hardship, social, cultural, ethnic, or religious persecution, penal deportation (e.g. of convicted criminals from England to Australia) political oppression, and government incentive policies aimed at encouraging foreign settlement.

But in my eyes it is not o.k. - being aware of such a solution, that also is in a better line with history - to use such an obsolete argument as a base for statements against Civ 3.

I was under the impression we were comparing base game only. As for what I base my understanding of Civ 3 of, that's actually posts that were made about five years ago, not "over a decade ago"; as you can see on the left, I wasn't even a member of this forum at that time. I've always understood Civ 3 to be widely considered the worst game in the series, but maybe opinion on that is more divided than I previously believed.

I am against using "history" and "realism" arguments, even more when we talk about fundamental issues

Fair enough, it's always a bit of a tossup, some people care a lot about them, some people don't care at all.

Uh, first of all... the imbalance of tall and wide is much more radical in civ6. For this post I will assume that you wanted to write that you have not enjoyed systems balancing out wide approach and they completely ruined game experience for you.

I kind of never faced such drastic Unhappiness you have described. I remember it as quite simple system properly explained in one tooltip.

I do not enjoy snowballing myself and have hard time finding rubber band mechanics to be bad or a
fundamental issue. The alternative isn't truely attractive.

In Civ 6, you can win a game perfectly fine on 5-7 cities, each with a governor, the right policies, et cetera. Meanwhile, it was virtually impossible to expand in Civ 5 without crippling your happiness and cultural progression - and to a lesser degree your scientific progression. I'll do you one better: I've attempted tall games in both Civ 5 and Civ 6, and I enjoyed them more in Civ 6. Let alone the difference between wide games.

If this makes sense, in Civ 6 I feel like there are incentives to not expand, while in Civ 5 there are punishments against expanding. And I'd much rather be led by incentives than punishments.

All that is of course ignoring that the entire concept of tall versus wide did not exist until Firaxis included it in their Civ 5 design philosophy.

As for the unhappiness... the system is not complicated. That doesn't mean it isn't the single most annoying game mechanic I've ever encountered. It punishes you for building a new city, it punishes you for conquering a city, it punishes you for growing your cities, it punishes you for any action that's supposed to grow your empire, and it does so by cripping your empire. In Civ 6 (which technically has roughly the same calculations for happiness!), if you don't meet happiness demands, individual cities drop into negative happiness and receive sizable penalties to their production and growth. In Civ 5, if your empire as a whole lacks even one point of happiness, you get... what was it again? -75% food in all cities, or something like that? And if I remember correctly, that wasn't all, but it's been six years since I played the game.

And as for the snowballing, I consider that a rather fundamental mechanic of 4X games. Sure, there should be bounds, but the entire deal with expanding and exploiting is that you use your resources to get more resources, which allow you to get more resources, and so on.

It was more that connected cities should nullify the cost of road. Isn't upkeep quite realistic.
Gold from connection was based on population of city and capital.

There's no reason to build a road other than to connect cities. So why not simply make roads free and do not add a bonus for connecting cities, just like it was in previous games? The fact that connecting cities gets you money implies you're supposed to make money from connecting cities.

Gathering yield to reach treshold for a certain reward is... quite common. I understand it is not the most engaging stuff, but I do not understand why this one stands out.

Quite surprised an AI was not mentioned.

It mostly stands out because it's one of the things I still remember, to be honest. I also disliked that it was tied into global happiness, as I loathe that entire mechanic.

As for the AI... well, it's not like I can claim Civ 6 is better in that area.

I have yesterday googled some reviews and they had a lot of trite statements like that one.
And I am gonna be honest, I am not sure if Districts were good addition.

I mean you could've not cut out the part where I explained what I love about them.

Just curious, how do you feel about faith tree, is it a future?

Not sure if I'm a fan of it, faith tapers off at some point by it's nature, while you'd expect a tree to go to the end. Best to keep religious stuff in the civic tree imo.

Uh, objection, opinion. I probably feel about them in the same way you felt about global happiness. Funny thing when civ6 was announced I was truely excited about builders.

Yes, it's an opinion, isn't "x is better than y" almost always an opinion? And no, you don't feel about them the way I feel about global happiness, or you wouldn't play this game and wouldn't even bother visiting this subforum because you consider it so crap.

I agree. On the other hand I find railroads to be the worst in the series.

I agree on that, railroads should be far more important than they are.

I kind of understand what you mean, but is ultimately throwing envoys really so different?
What is more, city-states can't even conquer cities now. Decay of influence also had its merits over the everlasting
envoys.
Yeah, my personal feel about it: step forward, step back. Not a big fan of city-states in first place.

Envoys are their own resource, meaning they don't compete with other things you can spend on, nor do you have the opportunity to gear your entire empire towards city states in order to absolutely dominate that aspect of the game. Which, in fact, also allowed you to win a ""diplomatic"" (economic) victory.

Is a city state still a city state if it conquers more cities? I'd also say that's a rather niche thing in the first place.

Decay of influence is just the city state begging for more money, I don't see what it adds to the game.

I think the biggest disgrace of Civ VI is that they made modding 10x harder to do. I think I would rather play VI than V, but I think V does a lot of good things that people don't give it credit for. At least when someone criticizes V, I can go ahead and say "There is a mod fixing your problem", with VI that isn't always the case. It's why there is a high chance once VII gets its two expansions people may look back on V being the better game simply because of its modding capabilities. It's also why I think V will outlast VI simply because people will get bored of VI's mechanics. Admittedly I am not a modder though so I don't know the true extent of this problem but I think I have the basics of it.

Look at V's Vox Populi. And wow, what a complete overhaul that fixes so many of V's problems. I worry that such a thing is not possible with Civ VI.

And even in V's base game it does stuff better than in VI. AI personality and flavour and world congress are the two big ones. I think VII should focus less on splashing in new mechanics and systems and focus more on incorporating the best of the best from past civ games to create the most complete game possible. Let the expansions add the new systems.

As far as I'm concerned, can't fix a broken premise. Civ V's issues are usually in fundamental game mechanics, while the execution of the game is pretty good. Civ VI's issues, on the other hand, are in the execution, while the fundamental game mechanics are very good.

Want to fix global happiness being extremely frustrating? Good luck, because my gut says the 'needs to be more restrictive' and 'frustrating to play with' issues have overlap, meaning no good spot exists where it's both restrictive towards overly wide play, yet not frustrating to play with.

Want to fix wide being too strong compared to tall? Simple! Give more incentives for going tall. More established governor bonuses, steeper Settler production cost ramp, maybe reduce base housing in a city while increasing housing opportunities for developed cities? If you go a little deeper, perhaps you can increase the capital's loyalty pressure, but reduce that of other cities, making far away cities less loyal? Et cetera.

 

[Civinator]

I was under the impression we were comparing base game only. As for what I base my understanding of Civ 3 of, that's actually posts that were made about five years ago, not "over a decade ago"; as you can see on the left, I wasn't even a member of this forum at that time. I've always understood Civ 3 to be widely considered the worst game in the series, but maybe opinion on that is more divided than I previously believed.

The German Civ site civforum.de made a poll about the worst civ game of all times. The result shows, that by far Civ 6 was considered to be the worst civ game of all times, followed by Civ 3:

Spoiler :

The problem of that poll was, that most of the people who voted for Civ 3 as the worst Civ of all time, were young civers, who never played Civ 3 themselves, but only heard about it by obsolete old comments, frequently by civers, who never have played Civ 3 themselves and especially had no clue about the condition of those civ games today. Such discriminating posts about Civ 3, especially from civers who had never played it themselves, stop young civers from trying to play C3C in the current form. That´s why I made the effort to post here in this forum.

 

[Zegangani]

The problem of that poll was, that most of the people who voted for Civ 3 as the worst Civ of all time, were young civers, who never played Civ 3 themselves, but only heard about it by obsolete old comments, frequently by civers, who never have played Civ 3 themselves and especially had no clue about the condition of those civ games today. Such discriminating posts about Civ 3, especially from civers who had never played it themselves, stop young civers from trying to play C3C in the current form. That´s why I made the effort to post here in this forum.

We can say the same thing about the People who voted against Civ6. I mean, In Polls like that you will find voting People that have only played 2-3 out of the 6 Games, and they simply dislike Civ 6 because of its "cartoonish looks". I recently saw a post on reddit from a longtime civ4(or 3?) player who just started to try out civ6 and they said it's a bad game and they are returning to civ4/3 just because in their first civ6 games the AI was giving them a good challenge in warfare (on prince I think).

I'd rather say the problem of that Poll is how the poll is set up in the first place. Surveys that make you choose 1 thing out of X is nothing but a way to get quick answers/opinions that can be based on anything or nothing. They don't give you to choose between things based specific argumentations, like which civ is better in strategy/has better AI/is more immersive/most replayable/has the best warafare...etc. and there also has to be grading values to sort the Games between each other, so you have authentic results.
So no, Polls like that I cannot take seriously, I mean unless the voters also stated in a post what exactly drove them to their vote. On the other hand if you have tons of votes it's going to be a big chore to read all the comments/argumentations.
Fortuntely we can very easily make those kind of Surveys with Google Form or use other survey tools, and still get authentic and easy to read results.

 

[Civinator]

I agree with that and did not post that poll to annoy fans of Civ 6, but only against the phrase, that Civ 3 is widely be considered the worst game of the civ series. In my eyes it is no good base to postulate that a civ game is the worst of the complete series. Every game of the Civ series brought a lot of fun for many players and therefore in my eyes it is much better to look at the good sides of the games of the Civ series and not to postulate one or two of those games to be the worst of the series as it was done here.

Edit: Corrected the typo sites to sides

 

[Leyrann]

I agree with that and did not post that poll to annoy fans of Civ 6, but only against the phrase, that Civ 3 is widely be considered the worst game of the civ series. In my eyes it is no good base to postulate that a civ game is the worst of the complete series. Every game of the Civ series brought a lot of fun for many players and therefore in my eyes it is much better to look at the good sides of the games of the Civ series and not to postulate one or two of those games to be the worst of the series as it was done here.

Edit: Corrected the typo sites to sides

I'm not 100% sure about the first time I brought up Civ 3, but in every reply to you, I have consistently stressed that "I've always understood" et cetera about Civ 3, always making clear that I'm not making an absolute statement, so I don't really get why you keep taking it that way.

I'm glad to hear that you enjoy Civ 3, and I'm not trying to take anything away from that.

In fact, let me clarify why I brought up Civ 3 in the first place: Someone stated that they were of the opinion that Civ 6 was the worst game in the series. I didn't know who they are or which games they liked, so I brought up the two games in the series that, in my prior experience, are most disliked on this forum. By simple statistics, bringing up Civ 3 was more likely to be an effective argument than bringing up, say, Civ 4.

 

[Zegangani]

I agree with that and did not post that poll to annoy fans of Civ 6, but only against the phrase, that Civ 3 is widely be considered the worst game of the civ series. In my eyes it is no good base to postulate that a civ game is the worst of the complete series. Every game of the Civ series brought a lot of fun for many players and therefore in my eyes it is much better to look at the good sides of the games of the Civ series and not to postulate one or two of those games to be the worst of the series as it was done here.

I also completely agree with you on this. I constantly see People suggesting a Feature from Civ III (or other Civ games) to make a return in Civ 6/7, and lately also many People on Reddit who post things about their Civ III Games, and that alone (seeing People playing Civ III today, with civ 4/5/6 (being supposedly better) on the marked) speaks a lot about the Game. So, as you have stated, every Civ title has brought something new and good to the game or did something that worked much better than in the other civ titles. And this is exactly why you see many People constantly advocating for and anticipating a new Civ Title to incorporate all the great things from all the previous iterations of the Game that worked pretty well and make them work together instead of constantly reinventing the wheel (so that the devs experiment with new things (like Loyalty) and things that coold need some improvements instead of changing something that already works fine/great).