• Skua@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’m not the person that you asked, but I do hold the same opinion. My biggest reasons are:

    • Civs are far more incentivised to expand in VI, resulting in more conflict
    • Districts make city placement a much more complicated question
    • The city state influence game is much more interesting than just a spending race and also has more game-changing rewards
    • The culture and science victories are much more interactive with other civs now, rather than just hiding away and waiting for a bar to fill

    I don’t think V is bad by any means. It was the one that got me into the series after bouncing off III and IV. I just think that most of the changes in VI were improvements

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Are you including Brave New World in that comparison? I’ve never played Civ 5 without it.

      • Skua@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yes, and Gods & Kings. I did technically play the game without them but it was long enough ago now that I don’t really remember it without them