this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
201 points (94.7% liked)
Games
32676 readers
988 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Between 4, 5 and 6, I don't even know if I want another Civ game. I usually just play 4, despite having 1-6. 4 is like the peak of the series.
I’m glad they moved away from unit death stacks in 5 and 6. I think 5 has the best art direction, but 6 is peak gameplay for me.
Armies in 5 and 6 are kind of underwhelming. Maybe a compromise of having terrain have unit capacities, with various units taking up more space.
Yep.
5 was okay and different, but was definitely the start of the downward spiral.
4 is the best of what civlization has to offer.
4 was also great in that it got two expansions
instead of 150 million tiny DLC for insane prices.
I thought 5 was quite good with the Brave New World expansion/rework.
I strongly prefer 5 to 6, 6 always felt like it was designed to be played on a tablet.
Civ II expansion was peak. I never felt better than the one time I managed to win as humans in the humanity Vs aliens scenario
That was test of Time wasn't it. So many fond memories
Apparently I was thinking of 'Conflicts in Civilization', which was just a scenario set for the base Civ II game. Tbh I sucked hard at that game back then but in my defence I was too young to really get good strategy and just enjoyed building wonders