this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
245 points (98.8% liked)

Games

37293 readers
1568 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here and here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Thanks for the perspective. :)