I never moved from civ 5 to civ 6. Every time I try civ 6 it feels awful and looks like a mobile game. Ive got little hope for civ 7 and since it ships with Denovo I doubt I'll ever try it.

[–] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’ve got over 1000 hours in Civ V and like 15 in Civ VI

[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Civ IV 1000+ hours
Civ V ~370 hours
Civ VI ~37 hours

Been playing since OG Civ on floppy disk. I'll skip Civ VII

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To me that just looks like adulthood.

[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Not really, gaming is still my main hobby when I'm home. I'm just sinking thousands of hours in to more compelling gaming experiences.

[–] williams_482@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago

Ahh yes, Civ IV. From ye olden days, when the dev teams cared about such weird and obsolete ideas as testing the game before release, or creating an interface that tells the player what the fuck is actually happening. Or useable asynchronous multiplayer, or an AI with enough of a clue to play the damn game competently... I could go on.

Some people apparently liked V's whole "don't build too many cities, we don't want to have an actual empire here" deal, which definitely isn't my thing but does create less micro. But most of the mechanics were reasonable and the UI shared more or less enough info to follow along. They also opened up the code after the final expansion so modders could do some really great things.

IV had a lot of really good ideas, and zero polish. The current version of the game is laden with silly bugs, ride with bizarre balancing choices, and hideously opaque with simple questions like "how much research have I put into this tech", "how much production overflowed off this completed build", and "how likely is this unit to kill this other unit, vs simply damaging it." They haven't opened up the code to modders, nor have they put any effort into fixing these frankly silly errors themselves.

Civ IV is great because of relatively simple mechanics which allow a lot of interesting choices in how to construct and develop your empire. It accentuates this by getting all the boring stuff right: bugs are few and minor, the interface is communicative, etc. it's not perfect in either regard, and yet somehow it far exceeds its successors in these simple categories. This is how you make a good turn-based 4X game actually fun, even with 2005 graphics.

And yet, V and VI sold extremely well, and VII seemingly will as well, despite inevitably being a grossly inferior product at release which will be dragged most of the way to a truly finished state over five years of patches and DLC.

I guess this is very "stop having fun meme", but why the hell are the only games in this genre (of all genres) trading balance, bug fixes, and comprehensible interfaces for fancy graphics? Is it really not profitable to make a game like Civ IV in 2024?

[–] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

I hate that I agree with this, but yup.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago

Same! I still play Civ V all the time

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 5 points 2 months ago

Each to their own! I really enjoyed V and have hundreds of hours in it, but I appreciated the changes in VI and felt like it vbecame a stronger game than V overall. I do have more hours in VI. I get that the art style was a little controversial, but I was never playing V for the visuals anyway

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I loved Civ 5 but I couldn’t go back after Civ 6.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 2 months ago

Civ 3. I want my stacks of doom and the ability to blow up improvements and roads with artillery attacks.