Why doesn’t Sid Meier still make Sid Meier’s Civilization? - Here's A Thing

In this second episode of Here's a Thing, Chris Bratt takes a look at the Civilization series and the design rules that ensure it keeps on changing.
Interview with Soren Johnson: bit.ly/2jmNbyT
Subscribe to Eurogamer - www.youtube.com...
For the latest video game reviews, news and analysis, check out www.eurogamer.net and don't forget to follow us on Twitter: / eurogamer

[@mincephi4718]

You didn't even mention Beyond Earth savage

[@grizzly3793]

He didn't mention ALPHA CENTAURI either which I felt is a bit more important :P

[@fifthcolumn388]

It isn’t a numbered game, it was basically a big test demo for the bones of VI.

[@Kelvryn]

Beyond earth was awesome!!! It could have been the best with just a few more expansions .

[@TheBritt2001]

@@Kelvryn That's the tragedy of it. The base game should have been Rising Tide and it would have been far more successful. Real shame.

[@copperfield3629]

Really can't believe there's NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri / Alien Crossfire. Superb game and excellent gameplay. The custom unit designer is huge fun and the way diplomacy works is intriguing too.

[@elgado]

Indeed. Alpha Centauri was leagues ahead of some Civ games. The attention Reynolds put not just to the custom unit designer, but also altitude and rainfall patterns really made for a great gameplay. It's a real shame Civ games didn't take on some of these basic ideas. Civ 3 looked frighteningly flat and simplistic by comparison.

[@SamPearman]

Just found this new series and loving it. Chris Bratt's presentation is actually really selling it for me too.

[@SamPearman]

Should also add that this video and series made me sub to Eurogamer.

[@SamPearman]

***** Haha I'm talking about the video series, not the games.

[@benford1726]

Sid Meier is also (in my opinion) the best name you can give a soldier in Xcom

[@cindersofcreation]

Dont know about y'all but Civ 4 has the best memories for me

[@CPT85]

Hopefully this means the AI for the next Civ is getting a huge overhaul.

[@therexbellator]

lol don't bet on it. This is not a criticism of Firaxis but rather this is just the state of modern AI gaming everywhere regardless of developer. Contemporary AIs, which aren't really "intelligent" but rather a series of sophisticated scripts and triggers, have limits and Civ's complexity (juggling/pathing units, managing cities and citizens, diplomacy, victory conditions, and now districts) stretches them to a limit. Perhaps if machine learning can be integrated into it that might be a solution but until then we're going to have to accept that AI is never going to perform on the same level as a player.

[@HikaruKatayamma]

He doesn't know about Usenet groups? Daaaaaaaamn. Now I really feel old. :(

[@Avrysatos]

Sign us up for the nursing homes....

[@cheerydan]

Hikaru Katayamma Shhhh! Remember the first rule of usenet!

[@shadowling77777]

Hahahaha

[@themudpit621]

Civ 2 was such an addictive game. Tbh, the games that followed it were equally improved by, and harmed by, their increasing complexity and attempts at personalisation. Civ2 had the guts of what made the series great, and none of the fluff.

[@masterexploder9668]

My brother and myself agree that Civ2 has the best basic experience, improving on Civ1 foundations. Later games overcomplicated the game with all the extra stuff. I dislike 3, looks bad and had some weird issues (tanks losing to spearman or AI building squeezing cities on 1 tile), but Civ 4 is great when I want to play enhanced classic experience.

[@themudpit621]

Thanks for the response Master Exploder. I am hoping that in Civ6 they have found the balance again.

[@EveryoneWhoUsesThisTV]

Yea, Alpha Centauri and Civ2 ftw... They didn't get more complex after that per'se, they just added stuff like strategic resources and Brave New World ideology to make the wargaming aspect weak and dull... They went overboard making it... civilised.. I play Civ 5 with all the add-ons except BNW a bit.. Mostly we like to crack out the old LAN hub and play the Alpha Centauri Star Trek mod.. Until someone writes a better war game, TREK SMAC will do nicely!! :)

[@JO-dr2mf]

While not strictly civilization specific units, civ 2 test of time had the ability to play civs from different races in the fantasy and scifi game modes. Different races would have access, not only to multiple unique units, but even to unique tech and buildings.

[@copperfield3629]

Hmm, that "different tech" was analogous to the human equivalent, though - the tech, units buildings etc were basically just re-labellings, weren't they?

[@MrHyde-or3ye]

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said "I going to stare a new game of Civ." I would be richer than Gates.

[@kto9490]

I just wished Sid would make CIV again... instead of all these other guys. CIV 4 BTS is the best of the series.

[@Charles_Anthony]

Civ 4 truly is

[@somebloke3869]

I find it hard not to play India in 4. Their special unit, the worker, never becomes obsolete and you get them from the beginning. Also easy to found either Hinduism or Buddhism.

[@DinnyOHoon]

Chris Bratt has come on in leaps and bounds at Eurogamer, one of the best games journalists on the scene these days. Great series.

[@formerunsecretarygeneralba9536]

Civ 6 is my first ever civ games,I love the game and has been playing it everyday but I just don't like the way the city/district system works. I especially hate it when I need to invade an entire city just because I want one of his tile to make a national park. So here's how the tile system would work. Now obviously cities would still exist but they could spread (and work) beyond 3 tiles and the tile limit between a city and another city is only 1 tile. When you first start your city by using a settler, you could actually choose which 6 tiles you wanna own. (There is a rule, you can't just go 6 tiles straight, in order to go to another tile ahead you must first own 2 tiles below the tile you wanna own). Next since cities can be insanely big in this system, you can build speciality district more than 1 time (given you have the right population 7= 3 districts, 10= 4 etc) so in a city you could actually have 4 campuses (I honestly don't know why civ decided to not allow this). Also when you increase your border, you should be allow to choose which tile you want to own. Also you can merge cities together by completing a project so it would become 1 super city. Also all of your production doesn't come from the city centre (you don't make builders/districts/ buildings etc from the city centre). Instead you would have actual people running around your city to build something (yeah no more builders). So here's how it works, lets say you have 6 population, so you'll get to choose which tile you wanna work (this system will not change) but in addition you would also have like actual people (in this case 7 of them) so they could construct districts and building and stuff. Say you want to build a campus here, then you'd need to bring one of your people there to build or improve it. (So yeah no more builders) how long it takes depends on how many production and people you have. Lets say you have 28 production. So that means 1 people= 4 production per turn. You could focus all of your people to work that tile giving it 28 production/ turn or you could just send 1 (or 2 or 3 idc) so you could use your other population to work on something else. So improving tiles or removing tiles (chopping would and stuff) would also cost production but if you're chopping woods or something, the overflow production will spread amongst everyone. If the woods gives you 70 production then just divide them by 7 (your population), then each will get 10 production per turn for 1 turn. I know what you're wondering "but what if it takes them longer than 1 turn to reach a specific place?" Well then the production will be save as an overflow but there's a limit on how many production you could keep, it depends on a few factors (I haven't thought about what the limit should be) but you should be able to keep them idle (not working for a few turns and then it will save that production. So let's say for 1 turn all of your pop didn't do anything because they were travelling to go to a different tile. So that means it will save 28 production, the next turn each if your pop will work 8 production/turn for 1 turn but again remember there is a limit so you can't just let your pop not do anything so that you could build a wonder in 1 turn. Also your pop can be kill, so make sure you take good care of them. If your pop is near or working beside a volcano and then it suddenly erupt. Then there's a chance that you pop would be kill. The probability if your pop living is based on the severity of the natural disaster, your pop would have a higher chance of survival if it's beside a flood but a lower chance of survival if it's beside a volcano erupting. So this is why, it isn't a good idea to put all of your pop to work beside a volcano because you could lose all of your pop. Keeping them more spread out would be more safer for them. Ooh yeah people can also kill your people. If you're at war with someone, then they can just go inside your city and murder all your people. However you will gain a hell lot of grievances because they were attacking civilians. Also population is transferable, so you can just bring one of your pop from a different city, send them to another city centre and then there will be a button to change to that city. However it will cost them to be a bit disloyal for a few turns because you forcefully make them move. Ooh yeah loyalty now depends on the population (your total pop's average population). Each pop could have different loyalty (depends on a few factors). They'd rebel base on chances and not when their loyalty is at 0. If a pop's loyalty is at 80 then there is a slight chance that they's rebel. Also when a pop rebel, the city doesn't automatically becomes his city but they will change into a military unit and will try to take over the city. Since different pop has different loyalty then that means all your pop won't rebel if only 1 of them rebel but the more pop you have with low loyalty the more likely it is for them to rebel together. (Sometimes only 3 of them will rebel, maybe 4 maybe only 2, it depends). Awwh man I'd really like to continue because so many more ideas about how this new system would work but it's already so long and I doubt anyone will read it. Please give me your thoughts on my idea and reply back to me if you want me to continue explaining.

[@Lapantouflemagic0]

there's some interesting ideas there, but many of the things you propose seem a bit cryptic and/or unnecessarily convoluted. personally i both like and hate the district system, at first the idea looked great, having cities spread on the map make it feel more organic and natural, but i don't like how districts are overly specialized : if i just want a school, a theater and a workshop to help my city develop, i shouldn't be required to sacrifice 2/3 of my farmland to build three districts. i should be able to all cram them together in one distric, also there's no good reason why one aqueduct would take as much space as the entire city center and so on. basically i would mostly rescale the entire game : have the map be much larger in terms of hexagons (or subdivide hexes in seven smaller hexes) and have cities take up seven of them, each additionnal district being only one (tiny) hexagon. the idea of merging cities is good too, but we could also imagine plitting them : let's say you have an iron deposit you want to exploit away from your main city, rather than sending a worker there build a mine and it magically works, you'd have to build a district (village) right on top or next to it, and in time it would become a fully-fledged city. this way no more sending settlers at random into the wild trying to find a place that "will be great in a few hundred years". actually everything could be seen as a district in which you can place a finite number of "buildings" : for most of the countryside you'd just place farmland and a couple of housings, and rather than having predetermined "industrial complexes", you'd just have a bunch of districts that you filled with forges, furnaces, mines and whatever. killing/displacing/capturing population is also an interesting idea, but i'm not convinced by the micromanaging part of what you propose is practical. as for the loyalty system, it's interesting but more of a gimmick to me : its main use it to help the AI spread in a way that makes sense, don't assume it will remain in the series forever. for what it's worth, i think a lot of good game designers are also quite dissatisfied with civ 6, and apparently a bunch of civ-like games are in developpement because everyone wants to try his own ideas =)

[@formerunsecretarygeneralba9536]

@@Lapantouflemagic0 I like your idea about districts not taking up 1 hexagon slot and only taking a fraction on it based on the district. You're right aqueduct should take less district space than campuses or industrial zones. As for my loyalty based on population, what I was going for is there should also be like ethnicity (their origin/ where they came from). So if you capture a city then you can just kill their population and move your people (lets say your france so you have french people move there) there so the loyalty would become better. Although I get what you're saying, micro managing it would be a burden. Also walls should be gone, I want more troops to troops instead of having to fight district walls for 10 turns.

[@Lapantouflemagic0]

@@formerunsecretarygeneralba9536 I think your issue with walls is mostly because the AI is garbage, it's incapable of organising one in a way that makes sense, so yeah, we don't get interesting battles often. Your ethnicity idea I think would be really interesting gameplay wise, I'm still not fond of the loyalty thing, but with mechanics such as immigration and emigration it could be interesting. I'm 99% sure no game studio would ever risk taking that path because of real world politics however... Basically if you make immigration and/or mixing ethnicities cause issues in the game, you'd be implying that immigration is bad. Which means that you'll immediately be flayed alive, rolled in salt and then burned at the stake by most of society who *wants* to believe that immigration never causes any problem. (Independently of whether the problems are real or not, that's beyond the point) The only way I would see that being interesting is having wars cause people to flee, generating refugees who would take time to incorporate back and cost food and money until then, but that would be merely a gimmick.

[@formerunsecretarygeneralba9536]

@@Lapantouflemagic0 yeah the AI being awful at controlling units plays a part on why I hate walls but the main reason is capturing a city with walls take too much time, I don't like there being an invisiblr archer constantly shooting my units that's 2 tiles away and I don't like the idea of capturing city to gain all of its tile. My idea is when I move my troops to a tile (let's say a niter improved tile), then that tile is temporarily mine and if it is not near my borders it temporarily acts as a city with only 1 tile and will slowly spread when I move a unit to a tile that isn't defended by a unit (this will force people to actually defend their territory/tiles instead of just placing an archer in a wall shooting from a distance). If it is near my border then my border will just increase. When I capture the city only then I will get all of its tiles (except if there is any enemy unit that is currently standing on a tile, that will be his). Also if I make peace with the AI without capturing the city, I should be able to negotiate with him about me keeping those tiles that I've taken. Sometimes I just want that 1 tile and I don't really wanna take an entire city because I'm too lazy to manage that really awful city placement. So yeah I would really love it if they use like this territory system where territory is prioritize and not cities. Anyway walls can exist but no invisible archers. If a unit that's not a ranged unit is in the walls then I can hit him. If it's a ranged unit then I can only hit the ranged unit with a ranged unit (but they will have a much higher defence). Also walls should be easier to break, a few shots from a catapult should be enough to break an ancient wall and walls shouldn't be exclusive for city centres, we should be able to build walls across our empire like the great wall of china but using your idea (which is a really good one) they should only take up only a fraction of a tile's space so you could still place districts there. Once you destroy a wall in that tile then you can only enter through that tile. This will make strategy about how to enter a city, more interesting. Should they force all of their troops on the northen wall that has only 1 wall destroyed and is not heavily guarded or sbould they break the eastern wall that is heavily guarded? Finally you know what they (the civ 6 team) could add like right noe to civ 6 that would be good. If we could purchase territory. Seriously I don't what's up with AIs and nit wanting to sell cities. Like seriously your city is about to go bankrupt because you have too many troops, you still have like 9 cities but none of them have commercial hubs, all of them have access to the sea. Why won't you take my money for a shitty city so I could gain access to the sea? Heck they wouldn't even accept all even if I try to give him all if my cities for one if his cities (I've tried). Anyway that and more agreements/deals (or treaty) like threatening them to make peace with my city states or not I'd go to war with them or limiting the number if troops they could have after they lost a war (like treaty of Versailles) they could steal create troops more than the limit but they'd generate grievances (the more troops they have passed the limit the more grievances they'll generate).

[@craigkovatch7564]

It's ok you can choose your show's name in thirds.

[@craiginzana]

Civ 3 was absolutely my favorite and still is.

[@Bobinarea52]

i miss rise of nations :(

[@iexist8758]

It's still available you know

[@Kelvryn]

play it on Xbox Game Pass PC

[@opsimathics]

" I don't know what a Usenet group is" look at this child

[@flakmagnetStudios]

Enjoying the series Bratterz. Keep it up!

[@1337nub5]

Jesus Christ I love Civ 2 still to this day; great video!

[@vbscript2]

Civ II was indeed awesome. Now I want to go back and play it again. Such a great game.

[@Shauma_llama]

Best version of the game, IMO.

[@Grabacr-pl3wy]

Civilization revolution on the Xbox 360 anyone?

[@RobertMcGovernTarasis]

Really enjoyed that, thank you

[@speedracer123222]

My favorite civilization game is civilization revolution

[@thatonekid640]

speedracer123222 it’s basic but the combat is fun until modern infantry armies with 144 defense show up

[@AndreDiasRJ]

Civ4, with the mod Realism Invictus, is the best so far. I have been playing since Civ1

[@Sticker704]

I feel like the high quality of this video might get a certain Eurogamer employee not on his arse by 10am tomorrow.

[@piranhi]

Love these videos :)

[@Kuggar]

I felt Colonization was better than Civ. So good. Still play it today!

[@MDKII]

This is a great series. I love it.

[@redseagaming7832]

Honestly I think civilization 3 is my favorite I've only played Civ 3 four five and six the world in Civilization 3 feels more vast than the later games

[@Gunnarr123abc]

Yeah I prefer 4 but 3 really does feel bigger. I like playing the scenarios on civ 3, which I thought were superior to any scenarios in Civ 4. (although civ 4 has some great mods, I been playing Sword of Islam recently) And I love building the palaces....

[@19wongs4]

I love how Civ Beyond Earth was left out XD

[@FurEngel]

I worked on CIV3 for Firaxis. Worst job ever. Great game though.

[@mattmexor2882]

Why didn't you like the job? Civ 3 is my least favorite, though. The ideas were good but the implementation made the game less fun. 4 cleaned a lot of that stuff up. I have the same problem with 6. The idea is interesting but I find it much less fun to play than 5.

[@TheDandelionMind]

Really good video, cheers for that.

[@Yesnog05]

Rise of Nations was such a good RTS game

[@adammarshall978]

I really enjoy this series!

[@joro-2024-p9w]

So Anton Strenger will be the lead designer on Civ7, or what?

[@Benkenobi8118]

One of the 1/3rds at least for me is the idea of stacking more than one unit on top of each other.

[@smat4214]

Man I love this series

[@blairclarkjr.4791]

Beyond Earth has been wiped from existence. It has not been referenced EVER... I love it

[@yeeetbiggeryeet6146]

Cause they are fun and they make money while being passionate.

[@nickb9171]

This series is really cool, and it's much more legit than I realized! An interview with sid meier?? Damn!

[@fouronetwo813]

Civ 2 is the one I started on. Played it when I was 10 or something on the Playstation. I played 3 and 4 on PC when I got older. For the longest time I would have said 3 was miles ahead of 2 and 4 was the hands down best (may very well still be) but now that I've gone back and played 1 and 2 I've come to love them. Probably would take 2 to a desert island over 4 and I might even prefer 1 over 3 even though it's pretty nonsensical with random wonders and teleportations 😂

[@personalsong7632]

This is the legit answer to people keep on comparing Civ 5 a better game to Civ6

[@deebernaers137]

Nice series with interesting little tidbits, now just a name!

[@mitchjohnson4714]

What I like about these 100+ million dollar art projects is that they disprove the stupid notion that great art can only come from some lone rebel against society working in poverty in his basement. Their greatness and their success demonstrate that profit can motivate great art, andlarge projects can be great art.

[@contumelious-8440]

Yeah, I was thinking that, or.. that great art comes from talented people, regardless of their income. I can't decide which is true. You could help me by linking some great art that was done with money and no talented people involved. Then I could decide which is more important. (yes, i know this is 2 years old gfy some things need said.)

[@contumelious-8440]

@ger du I think you misread my intentions. I state great art cannot come from money alone. It must have talent as well.

[@yukowl]

Railroad tycoon

[@matthewrevell2706]

Civ 4 is the best entry, civ5 and civ6 are okay but have soo many problems.

[@mattmexor2882]

I think 5 is the best. 4 was OK. The thing with 5 is it needs to be played multiplayer. The computer sucks with tactical combat and so the ai buffs need to be made ridiculous. They really need some sort of neural network running the tactical ai. Of course the stacks of death traveling around and around the world in 4 are similarly ridiculous.

[@ragnabot9000]

So exciting

[@JGar453]

And this why I stand by Civilization 3

[@KingMswatiIII]

Civ 3 forever!

[@SincerelyFromStephen]

I gotta say, I honestly don’t like the design of Civ 6. It just feels thicker to me for some reason than Civ 5.

[@mattmexor2882]

I think civ 5 with the expansions is the best of any civ. I just don't find the district management fun. The idea of shaping the map with your civilization and that having an effect on the tactical map is a good one, but the building decisions that need to be made are not the ones I'm looking to make

[@SincerelyFromStephen]

MattMexor2 I completely agree, I’m not as concerned with micromanagement of my cities. If I wanted that, I’d play City Skylines. Civ is about the whole world/bigger picture.

[@longrange90]

What the trailer music at the beginning please. ?

[@Zunken]

LG R. I know it's soo good!! It took a while but i found it. John Murphy - Sunshine (Adagio in D Minor)

[@longrange90]

@@Zunken thanks man you are a boss :)

[@jordanjuarez8102]

How about Sid Meier’s Gettysburg?

[@Wookien]

Great and relaxed channel. Good face and voice for youtube. Interesting topics. Good lenght. Way too long intro. 4/5. Will subscribe.

[@thejamesthird]

Chris Sawyer's Roller Coaster Tycoon.

[@Lordpickleboy]

Locomotion will always be better :p

[@Benkenobi8118]

It also was Civ's downfall by making Civ:5, Panzer General.

[@Charles_Anthony]

So true. Six looks decent, but 4 and 3 are still my favorites and can be argued to be the best.

[@mattmexor2882]

For me 5 was the best, especially once the expansions came along.

[@AlexS-oj8qf]

5 & 6 is shit. 4 is the magnun opus of the game, with Rhyse and Fall of Civilization.

[@Dell-ol6hb]

Alex Shuysky I think 5 is great and 6 is shit

[@mattmexor2882]

5 is the best. 6 is a step backwards. Probably if given a choice between 4 and 6 today I would choose 6. Hard to go back to stacks of death

[@joefox9875]

@@mattmexor2882 Stacks of death! God it would suck to see one of those and realise your eight hour game is over. I still like Civ 4 over the others though. When they unpacked the cities in Civ 5, the game started to feel more micro-managey and less epic.

[@pentalphastro]

lover of 3 and 5 civ. Hater of graphs on 6. still play the 5. more realistic less cartoonish. but civ is civ...always one more turn..

[@somecuriosities]

So is the real reason why Civ 5 & 6 lack a certain _;je_ _ne_ _sais_ _quoi'_ of the good ol' 4x civ magic because none of the original founders (or those worked under them) are there to lead development any more? Maybe that's why series has been simplifying in terms of the sheer strategic depth of its game play since civ 4 ( ie stagnating) - leaving us with some dull, bland (but very pretty looking) mushy gameplay?

[@HolyOrderofDragons]

In my opinion Civ series is starting to suffer from it. While Civilization Iv and V felt like natural evolution of the series, with Civ VI is like a childish attempt at staying relevant. Art-style is childish and sutable for mobile games rather than real PC games and as predted it is now on tablets. The AI handles the so called new features so badly that it feels like a joke and You basically just steam roll over AI if You just survive the first 50-100 turns. Civ V stayed among the top on most played at steam for years, Civ VI is nowhere near.

[@Charles_Anthony]

The appearance of 6's land and graphics is perfectly fine(reminds me of 4 which is great). I think the OP was talking about the leaders. They look like Disney characters.

[@ishizukahikaru643]

I only played Civ 1 and 2 ;(

[@longclaw22-72]

Good it means Civ 7 won't look like a cartoon

[@wakarangerYT]

I really love the Civ VI art style, every leader in Civ V looked so dead and uninspiring.

[@eddiekoski]

Member Civ 3 Armies?

[@Kandall05161]

I like how you don't even acknowledge civilization beyond earth. it really fits the games reception

[@Lius525]

You look like Reynad's brother lol

[@BjarkeDK]

jesus only 12 likes and 1 comment, wth?

[@wintersking4290]

Well according to some they didn't find the right person for civ 6. Worst implementation of multi-tile cities I've ever seen.

[@rogerfurlong1535]

God I'm old hahaha

[@RastaJew]

About 5% of what you say is unintelligible. If you're going to talk fast enunciate better. E.g. "Civ 2 has a whole bunch of examples of this actually. But being allowed to run it on Windows and allowing [something] are probably the biggest headlines."

[@RastaJew]

Also is there a way to subscribe to a particular playlist only? Everything else Eurogamer does is awful unoriginal trash content.

[@TullyBascombe]

I can't imagine that there will be a Civ 7 unless they make some radical changes. The formula is old and stale. I think they should just bury the horse.

[@Kknifepo1nt]

no mention of smac, the precursor to civilization, which started the whole turn based genre iirc

[@cognology604]

Pity that so many of them were botched

[@avveb9644]

Civ 5 is the best

[@Gigan101KAWR]

Civ V - best design Civ VI - worst design

[@Thatowlzguy]

Agree completely

[@Charles_Anthony]

Civ 4-best game

[@Thatowlzguy]

Civ5>Civ6

[@because4337]

No wonder I didn't like any civ game newer than 2 and alpha centauri.

[@Svalbaz]

Let’s hope Civ VII changes things and ignores everything from Civ VI

[@gelzamangitzaman1482]

Civ 6 was a crap it lost me there.

[@nicholasandrews9835]

No mention of civ: beyond earth. I get it, it’s very forgetful.

[@amygrindhouse4193]

very incomplete presentation...

[@txdmsk]

Civ I + II were great. III was amazing. IV was one of the best games I ever played. V was crap. VI I won't even touch. :(

[@ketaminemeltdown]

I hear you. IV BTS is the yardstick. V on release was an absolute disgrace, but 2 exp packs and a kazillion patches later it's a good game. Although personally I will always feel it's what moved Civ from 'empire building game with elements of war' to 'war game with elements of empire building'. Haven't played 6 yet - 2 of my friends do say it's pretty good.

[@gabrielklinw9725]

+Ketaminemeltdown Civ VI is far better than Civ V on launch, with a lot more content and polish. I stopped playing Civ V when Civ Vi came out, it's quite a good game.

[@xixingpooh]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. While Civ VI had a better launch, it still has many issues it has to overcome. The agenda system came out very bugged, and the AI was worse than Civ V's at times. Though, they are slowly working on fixing it, I feel like the diplomacy system, while good in concept, didn't really work out the best.

[@NWRIBronco6]

Sort of agree with +Air Nomads. I personally love CIV VI much more than V, but after having dumped a large number of hours into it I don't feel like it's quite lived up to the IV legacy, and a major factor is the AI. They are absolute trash - not just the bugs, which get patched quickly, but they're terrible at combat and utterly vindictive in diplomacy. This poor AI makes balance of difficulty levels (which is on the same scale as V, rather than the more fine-grained scale of IV) ludicrous - on King difficulty it's easy to wipe the floor by the Renaissance, but on Emperor I struggle to keep up in even a SINGLE category of the four victory conditions; I can typically only do so if I am playing against few CIVs and am overemphasizing that one attribute (with the appropriate leader) and even then it comes around mid to late game, if at all. I'd also like to echo +ketaminemeltdown's comment about war vs. expansion. Like V the VI map can feel a bit small, and with the import of proper city placement and the pseudo-global amenities stat I find it much less amenable to expansion. Maybe another immersive element that's just a straight up weird design decision was to go with sarcastic tech quotes - it also detracts from the sense of wonder that IV had, which was extra surprising since they brought on Sean Bean to narrate (which felt like a hearkening back to the good ol' Leonard Nimoy days of IV). That said VI is way worth the experience! The addition of city-unstacking leads to more unique cities, government types/policies leads to finer-grained control over projects, and "eureka/inspiration's" provides a similar feel to the 'quests' of IV but much more persistent since it's for every tech.

[@JGar453]

d3st88 I disagree on 5 and 6 but I agree that Civ 3 was amazing

[@dark_khan2232]

I didnt hate it, but wasnt a fan of RoN.

[@ChrissyCourtney]

Somebody needs to put this boy on his arse

[@grutzkopf6804]

dude; im not an english native and just want to say u r way to hard to understand...

[@LeadsTheFallen]

He never did make them. He just stuck his name on them just like Tom Clancy

[@1812madjack]

Except he definitely made the first one, as the video above mentioned.

[@morbid1.]

Tom Clancy wrote books... that's why games have name in title because it relates to his books

[@NWRIBronco6]

AND he employed all the people who were making them. I also hear the decision to stick his name on was ad-hoc and it's turned out to be a good piece of marketing.

[@Lordpickleboy]

could you imagine if every developer for civ had there name on it people be so damn confused its better to stick with 1 name the name you started with just to keep things from being confusing and lately you really only hear of civ referred to as well Civ so

[@saturnus633]

Civ III's animations make me vomit

[@deeRay7292]

48 seconds intro before u even say anything, no thanks. thumbs down

[@Lumo95]

Song at the start?