Видео

Tˇwas a great childhood...

Civ 5 has a way better UI too. and Civ 6 has NO STATS. whats your gdp? what are the populations of the civilizations? Who knows, who cares? I DO

i think its kinda stupid to give narration the same weight of a point as some core gameplay features. I often skip the voicelines and I play while listening to music. Felt very biased to me.

I've never played 5, there is a better version?! 5 sounds like what I want 7 to be like.

Civ 5 is my go-to for modern CIV. Call me old fashioned but I still prefer Civ 3. It was great.

Civ 5 by a landslide,tsunami and earthquake.Civ 6 is cartoonish garbage.There can be debate about Civ 4 vs 5 but i would not call Civ 6 a civ game at all.

Fantástico video! Like and subscribe.

I've recently been playing Civ V again, mostly due to the music for Elizabeth 😁but your review of both games has me going back to Civ VI (with the Civ V graphics mod) as it does more of the core elements better, in my opinion, and forces you to think and plan city placement and growth. Good content chap.

Civ 4 best civ, civ 6 is better than 5, hated that policy system in civ5, felt like an EA game.

CIV 5

There are 2 main reasons why Civ V is the better and more rewarding game: 1. The district system is tedious and inflexible 2. You literally have to play wide in Civ VI and hammers are by far the most important resource at every point in the game, for any civ. The game-to-game variance in play is extremely small. Even the civ variety is toned down. Oh, and all aspects of the presentation are outright insulting. And the AI doesn't protect its interests in diplomacy. And the turn pacing is way off as a result of turns being super long cuz everyone has 20 cities that each have districts. And the combat is substantially worse. And the leader screen looks like a work in progress. And the diplo victory is stupid. And the culture victory is arcane. And the science victory is a hammers victory in disguise which requires next to no specialisation. I could go on

My first time playing Civ 6 was with my friends when Epic gave it out for free. I had like hundreds of hours of experience and they had none, so we agreed on playing in a team against AI. Ofc my friends were complete noobs, so I just told them to produce units and give them to me. I was trying to figure out where the happiness counter was.. Guess what.. I just conquered three ai civs in a row without consequences. It felt like nothing. No challenge at all. So I just sticked to 5.

Civ 6 feels like a mobile game. Why are all the characters ugly and fat? Or super skinny? Overdramatized proportions where everybody looks like bigfoot or a rake. Why did they cut out the backgrounds form the previous game? Why did they make it so the characters all have one single line of dialogue? It just boggles the mind.

I actually liked the scaling better in Civ V more since it alowed to play super tall. Keeping to a single city was at least a semi-viable strategy, which is simply not the case in VI.

Civ 6, if it is any good was too difficult for me to get into. I still play Civ 5. It looks to me like they have taken the worst of Civ 6 and brought that forwards into Civ 7. I suppose I will have to wait for Civ 8.

CIVII

I really don't like the agendas of the leaders in 6. Some make sense, some are irrelevant, and some are just stupid.

I feel most people are saying Civ 5 just cause its older (more nostalgic). Which is fine, but personally I find Civ 6 more fun in general. But not by all that much. Theyre both great.

I like humankind more

Civ 5 myself, I just don't like some of the changes in civ 6. Mainly: limited usage workers Districts/wonders taking whole tiles the art style

Civ 5 cause it's realistic

as a person who got to know the civ series from civ vi, i can't really compare... i've never played civ v. so i kinda got used to the ui, graphics and mechanics. now that civ vii is going to be released i think there's going to be another generation shock

i love both , but civ 5 is my first civ game so there is a bit of nostalgy there

I never got far in civ6. The thing I hated the most was having to manually instruct my workers on everything and having them gone after 3 turns. With civ 4 and 5, I always just automated my workers and continued with my other stuff. Not having that option really annoyed me.

I don't like Civ 5 for the simple reason that it penalizes you too much for playing wide.

VICTORIA 3!!

Picked up the c&c bundle on steam and it's brought back so many memories from my childhood

Civ 5 the orginal, no dlc's, dlc's sucked, only good thing was new units, nothing else wasnt enough to play them.. so i kept playing orginal.

They need to bring back Elvis Civ II. I loved having 40 aztec units attack a city and having to watch them attack one at a time/s as om Civ III

I disagree on your take on the civics systems. The card system is a welcome break from the previous system which was a bit like a skill tree from Diablo. And correct me if I am wrong because I haven't played for a while, but in my memory one couldn't reset choices. While the card system allows adaptation as situations change. I have grown to like Civ 6 better after Civ 4 and Civ 2

got introduced to civ 6 a year ago. Haven't really played civ 5, but from what I can tell, civ 6 is definitely a step forward. The graphics is definitely not a strong point, but it is something of everyone's opinion and it is something I personally can pass off. (I will say that if they went with the same graphical strategy of civ 5, my laptop would not be running civ 6) The interconnected aspect of civ 6 honestly feels pretty nice. Even with the more "wide" focused strategy of the game, I can still find myself building tall cities and playing tall games. Idk, I feel that most of the arguments against civ 6 is that it feels too unfamiliar to those of the previous game. I totally understand that, but with each iteration it should be quite different. This pulls in more players and keeps the game from getting stale (and feeling like a cash grab by releasing very slightly changed games). With civ 7 coming 2025, if I find myself not liking it, I can always go back to the previous game.

6 fighting with 3 for 3rd place...5 and 4 clearly the best 2.

Was having great fun with Civ VI until the victory conditions failed to trigger, specifically the Culture and Diplomatic Victories, which apparently is a bug that Firaxis has refused to fix

The only thing Civ 5 better is its UI/Wonders art.

I have about 1900 hours each in Civ 5 and Civ 6 and to this day I'm still torn on which one I prefer. They both have their distinct strengths and weaknesses and initially I preferred 5 but 6 has added a lot of dlc since its launch in 2016 and it's hard for me to choose 😅 I think many people have a tendency to prefer 5 especially because they prefer the aesthetic of it and many people like to hate on 6 because they say it looks like a mobile game or a cartoon, and these people aren't necessarily wrong but I think if you play Civ for the art style/graphics you're missing the point.

Between the 2 when it comes narrators, I'd have to go with Civ IV. Leonard Nimoy will always be my favorite since starting Civ IV way back before is passing. His voice is still a huge reason i still play Civ IV

Soviets: *erase Einstein to get rid of Allies' prism and chrono weapons, end up losing their nukes in the process* Allies: *proceed to develop chronosphere, prism- I mean spectrum™, and nuclear- I mean proton collider™ tech anyway*

These are the most WILD and L takes I think I have ever seen. Trying to say someone you build 1 or 2 of and then turn on auto improve is a more valuable resource than something that is limited and you have to plan around working with production or buying with gold at all stages of game is just insanity. Trying to call it a mobile game as well because of it just make utterly no sense. Also it's so clear you have no actual idea about art design considering you called it "graphic design" which if you wanna talk about graphics, then it's non argumentative, CIV 6 just had better graphics. High res models, more polygons, more complex animations. It's not a subjective thing. Art direction can be but you're going to argue having an art direction is worse than not having one and just trying to make a copy of a historical figure after a base amount of research.

People who might mention big empires and civilisations. And forget to mention Iraq, Sumerian, Babylon and many more from this land between the two rivers. Have never read history or don't even know about where the real civilisation emerged from.

What about IV?

On culture; civ 5 keeps you in a box, you progress through a described culture block that only got its label from people in the present looking back. The future people will label what our present culture is/was. In civ 6 your culture is what policies you gravitate towards through your play style. You aren't just an honor culture that evolves into an exploration culture, those are labels. You are the honor culture at different times in history when you need or want it to be so, and the policies have greater relevance so that it doesn't feel like you are going backwards.

I like both but I like 6 better because taking cities is way too difficult in 5, and the happiness penalties for too many cities is stupid. I like the buildings in 5 better though, districts and district adjacency in 6 is annoying. Also Civ 6 graphics are way better, Civ V feels years older than it actually is

I have played all Civs since Civ II, I still like III and IV. But I play V. I didn't buy VI because of the graphics.

I agree with this list much more than your original games list. For me three best would be Generals Zero hours at third, Kane's wrath as second and Yuri's revenge as best game. For me original Gererals was bottom of the list because of lack of good plot and zero hours is not that much better. Those news between missions doesn't really cut it if you compare to Kane and his subordinates trough three games. Zero hour different generals mode was fun and some were very good, but against computer it wasn't that much fun. I mean more often than not I started to blow things up with super weapons, at least in those levels you had hard time to reach opponent. Last general you fight against was mostly just annoying more than anything else when playing hard mode and I didn't really enjoy it that much. There are 2-3 times in my life when I had started that mode thinking "I will beat every general at least once" and gave up after beating it with 3-4 generals, because in the end it just more of same shit in same package. Yuri's revenge was the expansion for me. Much better plot than in original RA 2 and fighting against Yuri was so much fun. Yuri faction feel super op at first, but it's easy to beat once you understand they really doesn't have that much that they can do after you block their mind control.

My list is quite different. I would put Tiberian sun to 1:st, because it had best plot in my opinion and it was great to see world more infested with Tiberium and Kane coming back when you actually learn he is more than human Nod leader. RA 2 and Tiberian wars was tier 2 for me. Ra 2 has very good game play, but plot isn't that great. Tiberian wars has great plot as world is mostly consumed by tiberium and humans are desperate to find solution for tiberium problem. Also alien faction scrins bring nice spice to the mix. Game play is ok, not really big upgrade after Tiberian sun thought. RA 3 and Generals were tier 3, time travel plot is nice as it was in og RA, but plot isn't that great. It's basically old allies vs soviets third time with empire of the rising sun because of time travel, but it just didn't bring anything new. There was some nice new things like units that can travel land and sea or chance from air units to walking units, but all in all it was little meh for me. Generals was closest to "our world / near future world" and only one where superweapons were not limited. Game play was ok, but there was really no interesting plot points or even good actors, just those "news" between missions. OG RA and C&C are tear 4 for me, they are ok games with good plot, but game play feels pretty old these days. C&C 4 is dogshit and I agree with you, they really took everything out that make game command and conquer game, it's just empty husk. You can see plot really is even bigger thing to me than game play. That's because I feel that C&C games are always driven by good plot and good actors. That is biggest reason why generals, RA 3 and C&C 4 are so low in this list. RA 3 and Generals doesn't have great plot and only mediocre actors. C&C 4 biggest sin aside how bad game play was, that they tried to make Kane some kind of good guy and savior of mankind. Kane is one of the best video game villains for me and it was just disgusting how they turned him to good guy suddenly. Worst decision ever.

I've played V and I'm still playing VI. Definitely enjoy playing VI more. In terms of base game, I like lots of things about VI such as the district system, military combat and the religion mechanic. The expansion packs for VI are a different matter though. I hate the loyalty mechanic introduced in VI: Rise and Fall. It's too strict at higher difficulty levels, which essentially makes the game unplayable. While I don't mind the climate change mechanic introduced in VI: Gathering Storm, I feel like cities became much harder to conquer in that expansion.

The only CnC I ever played a lot of (and I mean a LOT) was Tiberian Sun but having just purchased the Ultimate Pack and immediately played Tib Sun for a couple of days, I got on RUclips to see what other games in the franchise were as good and expecting Tib Sun to be near the top of the list. BTW, I barely play campaign and only play skirmishes so that's what I loved about Tiberium Sun... I just never found the graphical style of the other games in the franchise that I played to be to my tastes.

Civ 6 all the way

Honestly just like a lot of people it boils down to me not being able to stomach the cartoonish whimiscal aesthetic, Civ 5 gives me the same cozy vibe as watching a historical documentary late at night, Civ 6 feels like I'm playing a kids board game...also Civ 5's music is legendary

After 1500 hours in civ VI getting back to V was such a relieve. First, game is just overwhelmed by stupid mechanics. And second, warfare became pretty dumb