Patient Gamers

10694 readers

342 users here now

A gaming community free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 12 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases.

^(placeholder)^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

cod@lemmy.world

briongloid@aussie.zone

BurntWits@sh.itjust.works

Getting into Civ 6 (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world to c/patientgamers@sh.itjust.works

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I got into Civilization rather late with their fifth entry. I was hesitant because as I get older I need more time to game than I do new titles. Still I picked up six with all DLC during the last sale. I have to say I am liking the changes. It was good to wait because Civ does need its DLCs to feel complete.

On a side note, it runs quite nice on the Steam Deck (In desktop mode docked)

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ripley@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wasn't patient with this one and have no regrets. The base game was good but the dlc adds a lot of interesting gameplay options. Buying the complete game is a steal now.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

A total steal and worth getting.

[–] OpticalMoose@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I've been looking to try Civ 5 or 6, but haven't decided which one yet.

[–] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IMO, Five is easier to learn and more straight-forward, while Six feels more convoluted, but Six gains some depth and variety from that if you put in the time to learn it.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I find 6 takes a bit more micromanaging to be effective, at least for me. I like both games, but if I had to choose one I'd go with 5.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

5 is superior imo, it's more simple to understand but has a lot to master. It's more visually appealing too, Civ 6 throws so much extra crap at you.

5 is more depth from simple mechanics. 6 is adding mechanics to try and make depth. I'd recommend 5 for sure, though 2K are kind of scummy and put 6 on discounts to try and force players into that and no longer really put Civ 5 on sale cause they know people would rather buy that.

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

6 also has a really bad habit of trying to hide a lot of stuff away from you for idk why, cleaner aesthetics? In 5 almost all the numbers are there out in the open ready to be looked at in-game and it makes approaching everything much easier for me

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Mods are great for fixing this.

[–] OpticalMoose@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think 5 is what I'm looking for. Sometimes Civ (in general) gets out of hand with the micromanagement. I want something that's kind of casual.

[–] warm@kbin.earth 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, 5 isnt too bad unless you got loads of units late game. 6 overwhelmed me from the get go.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

5 is a more traditional civ, 6 adds a lot of different things that add new layers, maybe not better things though.