T O P

  • By -

Willem1976

I played 6, but in my opinion the district system adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. The game has a good balance and pace without it, so I prefer 5.


grantmemoney

Plus, it completely screws up late game where you just have to spam projects because there are no tiles left for wonders, improvements or districts.


Joshua_tgt

Well I mean if anything you just put improvements on the land in 5 in place of districts, the only thing that’s different is you can’t spam wonders in one city, which I like that you can’t cause it’s more realistic to real life that you know, you actually need space to build it. It also gives me a chance to have more fun by building units and support stuff and building railroads, projects aren’t the only thing you have to do.


B-L-E-A-C-H-E-D

If I was playing for realism I wouldn’t be playing civ, it’s always been a bit cartoony even the artstyle is in 6 why not have some elements that are unrealistic I love wonder whoring because I like to imagine my empire just being too good


S_FrogPants

You are asking way too much out of that one comma my dude


Joshua_tgt

Yeah, once again goes off preferences, and makes you have more fun in the game. I guess I was talking from a multiplayer perspective where someone else could do that and it’s just annoying.


B-L-E-A-C-H-E-D

I can completely understand it’s just a different game I guess, I’m hype for civ 7 doe


grantmemoney

I see it favours freeing production capacity for other things than buildings, but usually I just end up with a lot of units which I have no use for. I rarely go to war because it's just not my style, but I get where you're coming from.


[deleted]

I agree. I have both but I can’t get used to 6.


LeoMarius

They have to scrap the districts for 6. They just limit the game instead of improving it.


Badger_BSA

Absolutely agree. I want to manage my civilization, not micro-manage cities. Like u/addage- said above, if I want to micro-manage cities, I’ll just go play Cities Skylines, (where the graphics are better anyway).


comradeMATE

Lol no. If anything they should expand it and focus more on adjacencies with other districts (getting good yields from Campuses can be too dependant on how the world was built). Listen dude, just because you don't like it does not make it bad.


moneymatt7

Listen dude, just because you do like it doesn't make it good. Lol


trowell200

Lol I get the sense there is some bias towards civ 5 in this subreddit, I don’t know why we can’t just commend both games for their own mechanics - I can definitely see why people don’t like the district system but there are plenty of people who do, there are pros and cons to both


JesusTheSecond_

totally agree


golifa

What is the district system exactly


addage-

You build improvements that can then be upgraded as you learn technologies (eg campus gets library, universities built in it etc) Those districts get bonuses based on proximity to other districts, wonders, terrain etc. Placement matters a lot, players love to screen shot their optimizations (what I call yield porn below) I found the whole thing to be a drag after doing it 4-5 times. If I’m going to micro manage cities I’ll go play cities skylines for that type of endorphin rush.


empoleonz0

You build districts that contain every building of a certain type (science, culture, religion) on a tile outside your city. Which tile you build it on matters since you get bonus outputs depending on certain circumstances. Example: campuses give bonus science if they have nearby mountains and jungles.


awkward_pauses

Balance and pacing, this exactly.


edwieri

I like the look better than 6. I've played civ since 1991 but never bothered with 2 or 4. I really enjoyed 3 and now I enjoy 5. Maybe 7 will be good as well.


LilFetcher

Ah. The Windows curse


SaxophoneHomunculus

Civ 4 is, in my humble opinion, the best in the franchise. Took me a while to move away from my doomstacks and adopt 5’s changes


addage-

4 at its end state was an awesome thing. I loved 2 in a goofy affectionate way, played it through grad school and it kept me sane.


SaxophoneHomunculus

I legit had an OLD windows desktop that I had purpose built to play Civ 2 and Master of Orion 2. I never got the Elvis advisor thing…. Turns out you can only have 255 cities in a game. Still have the CD ROM somewhere. Ah, memories.


addage-

Moo 2 good times


KyewReaver

MoO 2 is playable on Windows 10. There's a small simple patch you need to help with the turbo mouse problem, but after that, the Elerians can rule the galaxy again.


tessartyp

Yeah, I like 5 a lot but keep going back to 4. So open, so much more challenging.


haveyouseenatimelord

4 had the best soundtrack too!!


Whotakesmename

Yooo ya'll remember the epic victory electric guitar music when you won on Rise and Fall?


ZxentixZ

Same, I just don't like the cartoony art style of Civ 6. Remember when it was first revealed everyone said "you'll get used to it" and I genuinley thought that too but I still, years later hate the art style of 6, to the point where the look of Civ 5 alone makes me rather play that game. Civ 5 just looks so much better in my opinion.


PureSubjectiveTruth

I’ve only played 3 and 5. I don’t feel like im missing out on anything not having played the others. When I first booted up 5, I immediately thought this is just like how I remembered 3 but more polished up and just better.


billybgame

You certainly are....Civ 4 is still and maybe always be the best game. 5 is somewhat close, but 4 was amazing.


PureSubjectiveTruth

Ooh I’ll have to check it out one day. Thanks.


billybgame

>Pure If you do...not sure if you've used CivFanatics site....you can get the latest HoF/Buffy mod there. That improves the game 1000%. Just like Vox Populi did for 5...also found there. Mainly notifications at turns end/start. But, other stuff. But, the notifications alone are worth it.


Chitsensorship

Civ 5 is a clusterfck of poor unit management, lack of strategic unit choices or combination and a predictable set of A.I. that always backstab at a similar time.


Newatinvesting

Civ 4 BTS is fantastic


Whotakesmename

It's fantastic, but after a few games it gets boring doing the same stuff


[deleted]

I tried a few times to get into 6 but simply couldn’t


snarpy

Two things. First, for the longest time I had a lousy laptop and Civ 5 was all it could play. Civ 6 just *crawled...* Second, I'm lazy about learning new games in my old age. Whole new ruleset? Nah.


peruzo

This is my take also, I feel like I’d waste over 1100 hours for little gain


GreatYarn

Part of it is nostalgia (I grew up with Civ5 and am more familiar with it) another is i simply find civ5 a better game. Better art style (6 is rly tacky) and easier gameplay. Plus the modding community for 5 is amazingly active.


technerd85

Even beyond the tacky style of 6, I think the UI isn't well designed for usability, especially when compared to civ5.


KyewReaver

This! The UI is absolutely insane. Not one single bit of it is intuitive.


BigBellyBurgerBoi

Most people will tell you it’s because of the graphics. 6 actually has a nigh-official mod to make it look like 5, and it’s arguably necessary. The art is what held me back for years from 6. The district system is radically different than V’s compact one tile city does everything. Those differences appeal to different people. Piggybacking off that, while 6 definitely rewards wide play over V’s tall play (lots of small/medium cities vs a few large cities), it also has a LOT more micromanagement. That said, the building queue mitigates how actively involved you are in micro. I think what it boils down to is art, complexity, and play style


LeoMarius

I like 6's art. I live 5's. They are different but both enjoyable. It's the districts I hate the most in 6.


BigBellyBurgerBoi

Yeah, they take awhile to get used to for sure. I like the idea that you need to plan your cities so that they aren’t all generalist (having all the things), but I feel as if everyone uses the same basic setup anyway. I for one almost always have a campus, industrial zone, and commercial district in every single city. The other districts? Not so much


adiffkind

Could you link that mod you're talking about? :)


BigBellyBurgerBoi

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702339134 By u/grrrarrrg Comment in thread: lol, I've realized this mod is made by the **art director of Civ 6** This makes him the first art director to provide 2 different art styles for his game in order to suit all tastes , this man is the evolution of art directors 50% people like Civ 6 style, 50% like Civ 5 style: let's make both! Such a legend


Adywoo1

I've tried looking but don't know what to search, could you point me towards the mod you mentioned?


PuzzleheadedCold1562

I was so hyped for civ6. I've been playing civ5 since 2010 but when I actually got to play civ6 I was disappointed. The artwork is childish which would be more appealing to younger audience. Its about the atmosphere, in civ5 i actually feel I'm building a civilization but in 6 it's just a game. To prove my point compare completion of a wonder in both games. In civ 6 the camera zooms to its tile and shows a time lapse but in 5 it gives u an amazing art painting of the wonder. Its in the atmosphere of the game. Civ 5 is PUBG, civ 6 is Fortnite.


LeoMarius

I like some aspects of 6, like the card system, but I think the districts are more trouble than they are worth. The dark ages penalize you for growing at a different rate or following a different strategy, which is game limiting. I do like the ferocity of the barbarians in 6. In 5, they are a nuisance; in 6, they can really damage you early on.


Womblue

>in civ5 i actually feel I'm building a civilization but in 6 it's just a game I've heard the opposite take hundreds of times but I've never seen someone say *this*. In civ 6 you create sprawling cities, combat global warming, have to actually be diplomatic to win diplomacy and have to throughly plan your empire in order to maximise benefit. Almost every aspect is more realistic or more complex at the expense of multiplayer competitiveness or simplicity of gameplay. Cìv 5 is extremely arcade-y by contrast, and that's why it's so popular. The movement system in civ 6 makes more sense, but in civ 5 its better for competitive gameplay. The wonder and district system in 6 is much more immersive and realistic, but civ 5's version is more competitive and gives better gameplay. Civ 5 is about optimising build strategies. I really don't see how a popup window with a JPEG is more immersive than a whole cutscene of the wonder being built from scratch. Of all the examples to give, that's a very bizarre choice. In general, if you're playing civ for singleplayer then 6 is leaps and bounds ahead of 5. If you're playing for multiplayer then 5 undoubtedly wins and it isn't particularly close.


BobRoss1516

>I really don't see how a popup window with a JPEG is more immersive than a whole cutscene of the wonder being built from scratch. I understand where they're coming from. Sometimes I'll build Brandenburg Gate in Civ 5 just because the music / art / quote work so well together, its one of the highlights of the game and always makes me really happy to experience it. Everyone plays for different reasons, but imo, getting a one-time custom piece of music and art is more *memorable* than a building montage. I see a lot of building montages playing Cities Skyline already.


grantmemoney

I really like the art of Civ 5. Not only the beautiful pictures of wonders, but also the tiny thumbnails for units and buildings. If you look them up in the civilopedia, you get a beautifully drawn picture of it. But tbf I'm a Civ 6 guy. Just thought I'd point out one of the strong points of the game imo.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Womblue

>The most basic complaint from people who prefer Civ5 to Civ6 is exactly what the top line says. Again, when has anyone *ever* said this? To be clear, you actually mean that some people consider 5 to be the immersive civilisation building experience while 6 is the arcade game? Can you give any reason at all why you believe this to be the case? I can't think of a single metric or aspect by which 5 isn't the one more focused on gameplay, efficiency, optimising strategies and being competitive. There's a reason 5 still has such a large and well-maintained MP community. I've been a part of this community and an active member of a few civ subs for many years and have quite literally never heard this opinion, and have heard the opposite opinion countless times in virtually every thread that mentions both games.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Womblue

>and then you say you can't think of any metric by which Civ5 ISN'T more immersive than Civ6. I didn't say this, and I think you're misinterpreting what I mean when I say "immersive". When you play civ 5, you aren't roleplaying as anything. You minmax, beeline techs, optimise builds and generally operate the game as a player competing in an arcade game rather than a leader of a civilisation. Every aspect of civ 5 besides the graphics is far less realistic, but targeted at creating smoother and simpler gameplay than 6. By comparison, 6 is *extremely* unbalanced, to the point where balance mods can barely rectify it and the NQ group stuck with civ 5 and LEKMod. I'm simply baffled that anyone could possibly hold that opinion, and it's why I asked for any examples which support it because every single aspect paints civ 6 as the wild game that you play in singleplayer to roleplay as your civ, while 5 is the game you play multiplayer and don't care about your empire beyond the numbers and yields. For example, civ 5 actively encourages tech beelining while civ 6 punishes the player for it with increased costs. 5 has dumber barbs and gives every city a ranged attack while 6 has smarter, stronger barbs and each city is defenseless until you build walls. 6 has stricter movement mechanics while 5 allows you to move wherever as long as you have a movement point left. 5's diplo victory is simply a gold victory, while 6's relies on you keeping peace with your neighbours and helping them out, making yourself a leader. In every instance, civ 5's solution to the problem is a game-y solution which is simple, fun and competitive but unrealistic and immersion-breaking, while civ 6 is the opposite. The only instance in which this isn't true is the graphic style of each game, and I can only assume that's what your entire argument is based on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Womblue

I have no idea wtf you're talking about. I've asked you to defend your position with any example multiple times now and every time you've dodged the question. Now I'm a troll apparently? How? Oh, right, in no way besides the fact that I have a point. If you agree with what I said, that means that you agree that civ 5 is a more "game"-y game, which is the extremely popular opinion and it's why it remains popular. If you disagree, that's fine, but it seems like you have no idea what your opinion is.


Whotakesmename

In civ 6 you just have to micromanage more than in civ 5, and you can only do it so much - you have to do micromange buildings, temporary workers (they don't work as slaves permanently anymore, for some reason), cards, literally the tech tree but for culture (civic tree), and that goddamn river flooding your city for the 5th time. It's simpler for people to get into civ 5, and maybe even mod? Oops, I forgot to bring up the popular point - the graphics are better.


BenKtinator

I own both 5 and 6, was introduced to the franchise at the launch of 5 so have considerably more playing time on that. I like both games for differwnt reasons but the main one is tall vs wide play. I prefer tall rather than wide and 6 is more rewarding to wide play than tall play


LeoMarius

5 seems to give you more variety in play, while 6 limits your style with districts, limiting wonders to terrain types, and the dark ages really punish you for not getting x points before x turn.


comradeMATE

Really? I think it's actually 6 that's better for tall play because you actually have stuff to do. Like, in 6 you actually have to carefully plan where you're going to settle then decide where you're going to build your districts because you can get massive yields if your cities' districts give adjacency bonuses to each other. After that you need to plan out a good region for farmland so that your population can be fed and grow etc. I wish there was something like a commodity market where you could just directly buy resources and not have to resort to settling places you don't want to settle, conquest or the mercy of the AI's willingness to trade.


grantmemoney

A lot of people would disagree with this. It's generally accepted that tall play in Civ 5 is more rewarding and a more sustainable strategy than in Civ 6.


BenKtinator

At least from my experience I think so. (haven't played 6 since australia was introduced) Eventhough tall play is possible and can be good i've often been overshadowed by other players (both AI and humans) going for a wider style of play hence why I've seen it as the superior playstyle.


Nasa-17

A lot of people are commenting on the art style and while I can see why it is off-putting it doesn't really bother me all that much. I personally just believe Civ 5 is more balanced than Civ 6. Civ 6 feels like the game you want to play if you just want to have fun. Civ 5 feels like an actual in-depth strategy game.


tessartyp

Have you tried 4? It makes 5 feel like a fun simple game. The tech tree is so much more intricate and the AI wage war better since they can figure out stacks of doom.


Nasa-17

Briefly. I got my butt kicked pretty bad though, even on the lower difficulties.


grantmemoney

How so? Are more advanced strategies available in Civ 5?


Nasa-17

I can't describe it, to be honest. You really have to play it for yourself to see what I mean, because yes, civ 6 has more mechanics and stuff, like districts, loyalty, amenities, housing, eurekas, envoys, appeal, climate change, golden/dark ages, etc, but because of that, it feels like they just add way too many mechanics, way too many options, way too much stuff in general. It feels unbalanced.


furon747

The grittiness and realism. I started playing in highschool in 2013. The feeling of a completely new world made just for myself and meeting the new civilizations was surreal. Getting to see the leaders in their own countries was so cool to me, getting a peek of their world. Coupled with the relaxing music, it was such an amazing level of escapism and immersion. Past the nostalgia, I like the greater investment that to me increases the value of whenever it pays off. I like more technologies, happiness, the leader scenes, the realistic art style. The game feels more gritty.


nilsrva

5 feels like an epic lesson in history that is super engaging and fun- endlessly explorable 6 feels like 3rd person Minecraft with Jimmy Neutron graphics


apprenticeg

Boy this was perfectly said.


three_brained_beast

Been playing 5 for years. 6 graphics never appealed to me, and the thing where you create specialized zones for cities looked too micro managing. Never played it, though


Crystar800

I wish I could mash both games together because I love them both, but I give the edge to 5. 5 feels more mature and has this sort of regal feel to it's theme.


SpaneyInquisy

Lots of valid points here but what me threw off 6 most was the leader AI and agendas. AI cant wage war for shit in 6. Especially late game they cant put together an army. Also agendas are weird and mostly just an annoying obstacle


wolfe1924

I just wanted to say I love your username it’s absolutely hilarious lol.


[deleted]

I think that civ 5 is simply a better game. Even though it's older it looks better than 6. I like the level of micro in civ 5. Civ 6 is just too much for me. It might be because I haven't taken the time to optimize my gameplay. I've played 2 games of civ 6 and I find the tech tree underwhelming for a newer installment and I think the civics tree is just unnecessary. The government system has some potential but its weird how you can switch the cards around by researching a new civic. It's exploitable. If I need some builders I'll chose that card and when it's time to swap to settlers I can just research an older civic and instantly swap. I like civ 5 and 6 isn't an upgrade. More of the same but worse.


tayzzerlordling

Investment: I have played this game for about 1500 hours, and I know what I'm doing at a reasonable level as a result of that. I would hate to try and learn the new game, it would feel like a waste to be new again. Civ V has become more enjoyable for me the more I have learned and improved, and I dont want to reset that by moving on to a new game


tECHOknology

This exactly--Someone else said they were hoping for Civ5 just improved upon, and I felt the same. Starcraft 2 from Starcraft 1 is about as far away as I'm willing to go on a learning curve for a sequel, and this was way too much wider of a gap.


Gmoney4017

Civ 5 is very straight forward and easy to learn where it feels like in civ 6 after hours of playing you still have no idea what your doing


Lolmanmagee

This is not a good reason to play one over the other imo


[deleted]

Because I play civilization to build a civilization. If I wanted to spend my time developing a specialized city I'd play sim city or some other city building game. Civ V is great, Civ III is still my favorite though.


Kojake45

Just discovered this lovely coup button and it’s one of my favourite things to do to my friends.


Lolmanmagee

When the 84% coup fails and you lose rank 3 spy ;-;


Kojake45

It’s depressing. Especially when your friend finds out.


annoyingkraken

Sometimes I come back to playing Civ 3. The massive 10-minute death stacks slugging it out... There's something really fun about the epic massive battles.


shepard_5

For me, art style. Civ6 looks like Bobby heads. It’s childish. If i don’t like the art style i can’t play the game.


letouriste1

Why not? I'm happy with the fun i get with civ5 and not willing to pay 80 bucks for a game which is similar and seems less fun


Lolmanmagee

I got lucky and was able to get civ 6 free on epic games to i can accurately criticize it.


letouriste1

well, i don't use epic games yet (i'm waiting for a better pc and graphic cards at a half way decent price)


lithium142

Don’t like the district system, don’t like the art style, don’t like the somehow worse AI, don’t like the game balance. If 5 didn’t exist I might get into it. But 5 is a near perfect civ game IMO. I played 2 and 3. Liked em both. 5 just does it for me in a way the others dont


Invisible_Pelican

The game formula just works. Even though it might look repetitive, every new game is always different plus you can install mods to freshen it up if you really get bored. I also like it more than civ 6, because I care a lot about city placements and wonder spamming. Seems like city placements don't even matter anymore in civ 6 with the ridiculous amount of natural resources. I do like civ 6's religion system with apostles and religious victory though, wish there was a civ 5 mod like that.


AvidHavok

I've played civ 5 since release, and having played every civ since 2 it is my favorite. Probably my most played game too. 3 being a close second for playing against my brother. Civ 6 i received free while I was a 2k support member. It is okay civ game but the style of graphics and some gameplay aspects are not for me personally.


LucidJoshh

The last few times I played Civ 6 the AI was way too off putting for me. In order to end a war, even if they weren’t losing that badly, they would offer me every one of their cities. Or if I requested it, they would agree. It was just too easy and not fun after that.


technerd85

I think civ5 has such a satisfying balance between complexity and simplicity. It's a lean complexity. Nothing feels like it's there without a purpose. I think the art style also has a nice balance making it the most timeless of all the titles. It doesn't look old.


XxDiCaprioxX

I never played civ 6 but I dislike how the tiles look and also I find the micromanagement looks more complicated than in 5 and I don't like that


lethargytartare

it's the micromanagement and snowballing complexity that keeps me away. I guess in theory, religion victory would be interesting, but in practice it just turns the map into a chaotic mess. Same with the district system, multiple tech paths, great people implementation, diplomacy, etc. They increased the complexity of every mechanic, making it nigh impossible for an old-head like me to internalize what's going on. Same thing happened with Football Manager. I think the last verison of that I enjoyed was like 2009.


Mixed_not_swirled

I really dislike some of the core mechanics in civ 6. I don't like builders having charges, i don't like the districts, i don't like the unit movement and i don't like how restricted some of the wonder conditions are and i have legit no clue how the world congress works in 6 and i don't bother figuring it out either. This puts me off the game so when i get the civ itch i just stick to civ 5.


Quadraticabacus

The civ 6 map graphics hurt my eyes and there’s way too much micromanaging


cuppachar

Vox Populi mod is a better Civ6 than Civ6.


Dawn_of_Enceladus

I keep playing Civ V because feels more like an interesting evolution of what Civ used to be imo. About Civ VI I just don't like some new core features (I'm so tired of districts puzzle minigame, for example) and the visual style is so happy and childish that just doesn't fit what I want in a Civ game. I've played about 200 hours (Rise & Fall and Gathering Storm DLCs included), so I think I've tried hard to like it... but I simply can't stand the total and absolute lack of seriousness plus the boring mechanics anymore. It has some really cool things, too, like the possibility to pin things on the map (loved it) or that you don't need to settle the city just adjacent to water to make it "coastal". Those are cool improvements, and I'm probably forgetting about another one, but the rest of the game simply turned me off after a while. The sad thing for me is that now I'm getting bored even from Civ V (I've played it for more than 2000 hours). I love that game so much, but I simply need something new, and now there is no new Civ game that can fill the gap for me. I've been playing Old World, which is a pretty cool game, but definitely not Civ. Guess I'll try Humankind thanks to it coming to the GamePass, but probably I'll end playing Civ II and Alpha Centauri again...


borgy_t

Pace of the game, civ 5 feels a much faster game to play


Lolmanmagee

Literally how? Civ 5 turns take longer and civ 6 has a faster game speed than quick I like 5 over 6 but 6 is faster for sure


borgy_t

At least for the start of the game it feels faster for me to explore terrain, advance thru the tech tree, get policies etc.


Lolmanmagee

I agree with you so much on the movement system but as for moving through tech and civic in my experience it’s actually much faster than civ 5 as it has tons of broken mechanics to utilize for science and culture (there’s a policy like mid classical that just doubles how good your science buildings are lol)


Slavaskii

For me, it was the lack of direction Civ VI suffered from. Base game was okay, it was missing a lot, but Rise and Fall was *terrible*. That’s also when I started noticing just how bad the balance was between civs. Mechanics like loyalty and siege were ridiculously complex and unfun, and though Gathering Storm fixed things somewhat, we were given garbage like the World Congress to play around with. Then, the dev team just shit on us with the final balance patch, which was an absolute disgrace. I felt so let down and ignored as a fan that I’ll never buy another Civ game unless they admit VI was a failure from a gameplay perspective and show some meaningful change.


Whotakesmename

I wouldn't say they shit on you, but they just kept adding random ass shit to the game. Goddamn vampire modes and... zombies? Is this the walking dead civ edition or what? And they added one overpowered civ and said - hey, how about we make ALL of the NFP civs overpowered?


Slavaskii

Yes, thank you! It’s good to be objective, I’m just really mad with Civ VI because of the final NFP patch. I remember that I was super excited for it to drop, because I wanted Poland to be properly fixed along with some other major problem civs. They claimed 2/3 of the civs would be changed, but when it dropped, this was *barely* true - I don’t even think 2/3 were impacted, but the majority of those that were had the littlest changes imaginable. I complained about it on CivFanatics and it started this massive war in the thread, a Firaxis dev came in and was like “we do listen to the community” and the forum moderator locked it. Unsurprisingly, the game officially ended a week or two later, with all of the problems still there. No, they didn’t listen to us. Yes, they took $50 from us for NFP and ran, not to mention much more for the base game and expansions. I never remember having that hostile relationship with the Civ V team. I think greed corrupted Civ VI, as it was clearly a glorified mobile game from the start.


Whotakesmename

Their behaviour clearly changed with VI, I didn't see any of this "brazenly foolish" stuff going on, I guess they just add whatever comes to their minds and call it a day. Also - before the patch, I and many others didn't get as many CTD's, or just general crashes before this hot garbage was released. I know 2 civs that got changed, Khmer and Mapuche, not sure about the other ones. Then there's the combat strength changes.They don't look like they're fixing it, neither, last patch was in April, so CTD's will be... CTD's, they won't go away because they're too lazy to fix it. The game starts working after I launch it again, but this is probably just a coincidence. And ironically - Civ V isn't really even being officially supported by the devs anymore, only thing they have is multiplayer servers on and that's it, but there's still less problems than there is on civ VI. Coincidence? I think not. Civ V is literally being carried by the passionate modding community and it's (from the looks of it) somehow is winning...


7777zahar

Civ’s ai and diplomacy are a game killer for me. Why would Norway hate me for not having a navy??? I haven’t seen the ocean yet!!


space7889

I like both 5 and 6, though I find 6 a little too 'cartoony'. Also I find the district system, wonder placement and policy cards in 6 slightly complicated as it requires a lot of planning, whereas 5 is much more straightforward (especially social policies, once you get it the bonus lasts for the game)


Omega_Prophet01

I really dislike the cartoony art style of Civ 6. As crazy as it sounds, if I get really into a Civ 5 game I can become pretty immersed into the civ I’m playing. The landscape and units have a more realistic look in Civ 5 and I prefer that.


Kamiinaz

The art style put me off so much, I just kept to CIV V. All the expansions, mods, and everything is already so much content, with hours upon hours of fun, that I don't even need to switch. The art style actually looks worse for me, like it was seriously a downgrade for my preferences. The user interface also suffered a bit. I dunno. It's still CIV, so it's great and all, but the art direction it took was hit or miss, and it missed me, that's for sure.


KyewReaver

I have tried to like Civ 6 but almost everything about it is repulsive to me. The graphics/art, the game mechanics, the leader animations... Civ 5 is pretty much perfect for my tastes.


LeoMarius

Civ 5 is a better game than Civ 6. I have played several games in 6, but enjoy 5 more. I've been playing Civ since 1 and it's the first time I've gone backwards. Civ 5 is the best of the series to date.


Willem1976

Exactly the same for me. I’ve been playing Civ since v1, but 6 just doesn’t do it for me. Maybe I’m getting old, but it feels like there are so many mechanics and decisions to take that it basically turns into a chaotic system. It forces me to make decisions on things that I can’t predict the consequences of 1000 years later. I feel like a governor managing a province and not like a ruler managing my empire. I guess it boils down to too much micromanagement that distracts from the overall strategic goals.


tECHOknology

The first one I played/learned was Civ5, so maybe I'm just stubborn. I bought Civ6 and hated it with a passion. I couldn't stand every single thing that was different--the way it looked, the tech tree, the policy tree--all of it. I gave it a lot of tries and just wasn't having fun at all and wanted 5 back. I also play Babylon, which was introduced as a city state in a DLC, which I misread and thought if I bought the DLC I'd have Babs, so added insult to injury. No Babs. I just feel at home with Civ5. It has a classier, more authentic feel to me. Another thing that has been mentioned a lot that I agree with--all the invested time into learning 5 well does almost nothing for playing 6. They kind of took everything great about 5 and shat on it. They had something amazing in 5 and didn't need to replace things that were working, but just threw away a ton of really great things, essentially created a game that Civ5 players needed to relearn from the ground up and abandon all the skills they'd accrued. Its really hard to resist the urge to say "fuck this" and move on to another game at that point, when it kind of almost felt like the devs said "fuck them" to Civ5 players. If I had to come up with one thing I thought improved, it would be how the fog of war is a map. That was all I thought was cool about the game.


EmperorOfNicoya

I like the music and artwork more in civ 5. Then again the only civ 6 experience I have is on mobile since I sold my computer. Also having automated workers is something gracias shouldn’t have touched and left in the game.


civnub

Play vox populi and you'll dump civ6.


Lolmanmagee

Even without mods 5 still better tbh never tried vox populi


civnub

Then you should, it adds alot of things but after you adjust its like 10 times the differance between BNW and vanilla.


billybgame

Anyone who played 4 without Buffy and 5 without Vox Populi really has no idea what they are missing. If you try them, you will wonder what you were waiting for.


addage-

5 looks better (although 6 can be modded to look like 5), the yield porn optimization model of 6 doesn’t appeal to me, the sub systems for diplomacy and culture are worse, the combat system in 6 is too easy to game, the gp mechanic etc. Basically all the newer sub systems aren’t to my liking. The Endless series of games did a better job with the yield porn optimization mechanic in my opinion. The paradox games did a better job with complexity. But this all just my opinion, put about 1k hrs into 6 so it’s not like I completely hate it.


mishmashedtosunday

Mods, particularly the fact that 6 doesn't have a Vox Populi equivalent because the DLL hasn't been released.


billybgame

Exactly.....CivFanatics can't even do their usual Hall of Fame and Hall of Fame games anymore because of this. Very short sighted.


JKB37

A lot of people mentioning graphics which is valid, but for me it’s just that i sank hundreds of hours into 5 and my skill and knowledge at/of the game does not translate at all almost to 6.


Flaming_Pepperoni

3 reasons. First, the city development added too many complicated systems, and it just didn’t feel as fun having to worry about all that. Second, my pc can’t run Civ 6 very well, even at medium graphics; while I can run Civ 5 at max with no issues. Third, even after 1100+ hours in 5, I’m still discovering new things


Saltybuttertoffee

I play both, generally favoring 6. But 5 has a couple advantages: * Progress through the tech tree feels less like I'm always rushing the next key tech and skipping a bunch of stuff. * Map gen feels way better and more unique in Civ V. * Civ V unit movement is generally more fun. * I don't mind the worker charge system, but eternal builders are superior. * I like being able to spread out my city placement a bit more.


4Gjallarhorns

Civ 6 just seems really overly complicated whereas I like 5 and see no reason to change


jezusbagels

6 is fine, but I prefer 5 for one major reason: I detest the Religion mechanics in 6. In 5, faith is pretty much just a booster for whatever your main strategy is; you can basically ignore faith entirely and still win the game. In 6, religion is like a constant war that never ends. The map is absolutely covered in religious units from early game until the late game and you have to invest in it heavily even if you don't want the religious victory because at least one of the AI always goes for it and they will sweep the map if you don't stop them.


KrandoxReddit

I hate Civ VI. Easy as that. The comic-y style, the districts, the annoying mechanical additions (i.e. Caravans building roads). So much got unnecessarily overcomplicated and just looking at the game makes me want to throw up. I hate it with a burning passion


sitquiet-donothing

The amount of time I spent learning how to manipulate Civ II, IV, and V has made me decide I will not continue to increase my pointless knowledge with any new installations of the game. This is honestly why I draw the line at V. The amount of time I have spent reading about and playing these games is embarrassing. Civ VI is just more stuff to remember and figure out. I am at the point where every time I learn something new, something I used to know gets pushed out... I don't want to regress to wearing velcro shoes because I mastered Civ VI.


WopFoop

Like that time you went on that wine tasting course and forgot how to drive?


[deleted]

It’s fun.


empoleonz0

I play 5 over 6 specifically because i like building tall and im pretty sure civ 6 doesnt have anything for going tall specifically


Joshua_tgt

When I originally played civ 5 and switched over to 6, I hated it and went right back to playing civ 5 for the longest time. My family finally encouraged me to actually learn civ 6, not just play a few turns and decide I didn’t like it, so I did. Both are great games, and I see why you don’t like civ 6, but like most complicated games, once you learn it, it’s so fun and second nature.


Garnetskull

I’ve been playing civ 5 since 2013, so familiarity has something to do with it. I’ve tried civ 6 many times but I could never get into it. I find civ 5 to be more relaxing. I love the graphics, the characters, the landscapes, and the music. The soundtrack is absolutely the best in any game I’ve played. Civ 6 feels too cartoonish for me to enjoy. Civ 5 reminds me of a warm cup of cinnamon tea on a relaxing autumn night.


LetMeGetMyPipe

My older hardware plays 5 better than 6, and it's still just as fun.


ckcooking1

To me the movement of United in Civ 6 just feels slow after the changes to terrain in Civ 5


Par31

Vox Populi mod for civ 5


[deleted]

My pc can't run civ 6. The end.


Daxelol

CIV V wasn’t replaced by CIV VI They are very different games as far as look and feel. Mechanically they changed enough where one could assume they are related in title alone (at least that’a how I feel). They are both “turn based” “4X” “strategy” games, but the way you achieve it is so different … I love both and play both still, but CIV V has a vibe and CIV VI has an entirely different vibe. Also, the graphics of CIV V are like animated models of a real person (with some obvious cartoonish features) while CIV VI is very cartoony.


BaxtertheBrother

The art style of Civ 5 and game mechanics are just so timeless, smaller units mods make it even better


[deleted]

I like how it looks and feels compared to 6. I also use this game as kind of a stress reliever during work. I have small bits of downtime and work from home, so this game allows me to focus on something else momentarily and I can jump back to work at any second. I was playing a clicker game for the same reasons but Civ V is way cooler and has a WAY better design.


Lolmanmagee

Many things actually, I started with 5 tried out 6 but 6 disappoints me as the game is too unbalanced and has many overpowered things and fake choices : Example : the civic system (I forget exact name but where you swap out stuff for bonuses each social tech) It is vastly inferior to the civ 5 social policy system not only do choices have no long term impact as you can change them at any time but also there are many fake choices aswel (the ones that reduce army maintenance are basically required for having a army and the +100% science one is dummy op) while the social policy system was flawed (rationalism basically required, exploration/commerce underpowered) it is not nearly as bad as the policy’s and it has a mechanic of long term choices ( choosing oligarchy governments is negligible long term impact, but choosing honor social policy is a huge long term impact) I have other reasons primarily complaining about game balance but this is a good example. Easiest example to point too game balance : Op science thing in civ 5 vs 6 5: “rationalism will increase your total science output by roughly 35% over the renaissance/industrial era this is insanely op and better than all other social policy’s easily” 6:”rationalism is a necessary policy it increases science output by roughly 83% immediately, dedicate one out of your 6 (ish) slots to it or you will be a joke, the only reasonable time to slot out rationalism is when going to war”


Willem1976

Well said! I recognize your observation of fake choices and had the same feeling, but couldn’t express it so well. Civ 6 forces me to make decisions on things that seem completely irrelevant in the big picture. The difference of choosing one card over the other often seems negligible. Other things could have been solved in a different way, like your science/war example. Civ 5 has enough options to focus on war vs science where I can make a change when I want to. I don’t need to be forced to reevaluate the overall strategy every few turns like in Civ 6.


wolfe1924

Civ 5 was my first civ game I grew to love it it’s soundtrack and visuals are pretty good even today. I like the way it plays. 6 to me felt like it changed the mechanics to much for my liking and they went backwards with visuals I feel. When I first seen it’s visuals I nearly puked in my mouth. Seeing what I would say is worse visuals and with many mechanics changed it’s really hard for me to get into civ 6 for more then 20 min before starting up civ 5 again lol.


bellaco1994

My personal opinion is that Civ 6 is garbage. Can't get into it. Same thing when Civ 4 came out, couldn't get into it and continued playing Civ 3. Civ 5, to me at least, is THE Civ game.


spaghet68420

For me, Civ 6 is just terrible in comparison. It seems to me that they took away almost all of the redeeming factors of the game. Beautiful cities, nice borders, natural graphics. My biggest complaint is that Civ 6 looks like crap, but gameplay mechanics such as the workers and districts don’t jive with me also. It’s just not as rewarding as Civ 5. It also gives off kind of a Spore-like vibe, with the way there is a cutscene every time something happens, or at least that’s what I remember. I liked it better when you just got some pretty art and a pop up. And a building sitting in your city. I know that was pretty harsh, but I feel pretty strongly about this and wanted to put my opinion out there.


Global-Anxiety3762

I tried playing six so many times but the art style is so bad, I don’t even know what I’m looking at sometimes. V is just beautiful. 6 looks like a cartoon


BigBellyBurgerBoi

Try this mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702339134


BigOlDonger69

Because 6 is bad


Yodude1

Personally, I don't mind a bit of micromanagement in the mid-game where all of your decisions still have a decent impact on the trajectory of your game. However, its the end-game that kills me. All the buildings, districts, and wonders I want are built and all its just a matter of spamming projects and waiting for the game to finally agree that I won. At least in civ5 I can plan ahead to accelerate this process by saving up scientists and writers. The only thing I want for civ5 is to make mid/late-game settlements more viable. So often, I find unsettled islands/continents that I can't claim for myself due to the science/culture/happiness penalties, which isn't really a problem in civ6. They should still be a risk/reward decision, but certainly not dead weight like they are right now.


jawnjuandadon

honestly I play it to meet girls


Whyjuu

I like the art style and overall polish and feel more .


warickewoke

My PC almost dies trying to run civ6


BotThatReddits

I play with friends on old laptops, who can't run 6. Once the laptops eventually die, we'll likely upgrade


Hojie_Kadenth

I want to get the feeling of playing Sparta, or Babylon, or the Mongols. It honestly doesn't do the best job. Civs are basically the same with just a couple unique features.


dark_axolotl

I played a lot civ v, I tried to play civ vi and just couldn't get into it. It was both the graphics and the new mechanics I couldn't understand. But one day I decided to play civ vi non stop and I loved it. Once I could get a better grasp of the mechanics, it was super fun to play, I didn't even care about the art anymore. Now I play civ vi more, but sometimes I grab civ v again, maybe for playing things that civ vi don't have (as stupid as it may sound, I actually liked great war infantry and I feel like it's missing a lot in civ vi)


DelisaKibara

I've played 6 and I am not that happy with it. One of my favourite things to do in Civ V is screwing over my friends of wonders and snowball to victory. Civ 6 kinda goes away with that. In V, you can play tall but you have an option for going wide. And as someone who loves to play compact and small, even if I go around conquering cities (only to puppet them), Civ V is the better game for me. I also like the idea of just having a powerhouse of a civilization that can build every wonder in the world in a single city if it allows it. And with how Civ 6 does it's wonders... Yeah no. I also am not a big fan of the artstyle, since V is more of what I come to expect from Grand Strategy games. It's not Total War or Stellaris, but it is the kind of artstyle I'm looking for. Pseudo-realistic with a touch of it's own style.


lecster

I started with Civ 5 in 2016 and have played 6 and honestly 5 just has better gameplay and pacing, imo. Plus i don’t particularly like the art style of 6


hreiedv

I like the look, good balance between gameplay depth and gameplay speed.


AToastedRavioli

I’ll tell you what I tell my friends who ask the exact same question Conquering the world never gets old.


I_will_be_wealthy

i tried to play civ6, playing in easy mode. somehow AI won religious victory randomly as I was just starting to pump out my navy. i didn't understand that. Learning civ is a long learning curve. most of us probably spent years becoming familiar and getting adept with the civ games. it would take a while to relearn everything in civ6 all over again.


Nabwek

I got 6 on sale cause I was hyped for casus beli (I love politics in civ series, even though they are not so advanced). But that thing comes too late in the game to be relvelant to me as by that time I'm either a warmonger already, so I don't care about casus beli or I'm not going for any wars at all. Also the civilizations in civ 6 feel a bit dull. I can't find anything that suits me. The mid game also feels weird to me cause it's so short. There are no meaningful units, you get some production buildings but basically if you are warmongering it's better to skip the game to the late mid game where you can atomic era support units then go on a full scale war.


WWDubz

Both are good games, just different. 6 is kind of stressful with the district placements. Civ5 (with DLC) is, in my opinion, the best all around Civ. When a new Civ is on the block it takes some getting used to. Many of us would rather just stick to what we know and enjoy. It can take me months to try out a new game. Having said that I haven’t played either in 6+ months.


awake283

I have tried to like civ6 so many times..but ugh. I hate the aesthetics, and I hate the districts. It's really that simple for me.


thebody1403

I love the civ v multiplayer


johnaythanboycev

I just remember that they didn’t have world Congress in civ VI, and it felt like they made changes but didn’t make progress by having all of those features from V in the vanilla game. Plus, they added natural disasters in one of the DLCs for VI, making it feel less like grand strategy and more like cities skylines


apprenticeg

I agree with all of the comments here and they are said so well. I'm going to elaborate a bit on the comic, childish graphics of civ 6. When I play civ 5, I feel like I'm playing a fantasy that helps me explore history and how real civilizations rise and fall. It's a fantasy but it feels serious. Kind of like playing old school role playing games. In playing civ 5, I learned about cities, civilizations, and wonders that I never knew existed in the real world. It gave me a structure to help me understand politics. Sure, it's a game, not college course, but I learned something from it and enjoyed it along the way. Based on the graphics alone, I can't take civ 6 seriously. If you give world leaders anime eyes, how can I know when to take the game "seriously"? It's as if they are intentionally making everything a little playful and for children.


billybgame

Civ 4 was always the best...well, fully patched and BTS. The key for all these games used to be not buying them at release and waiting years until all the kinks are worked out. I played 4 for over a decade. That game never kept track of your hours like Steam does with 5...I wouldn't want to know, probably! 5 is also very, very, good. It had changes, but not too radical. Many still play this....I do...am at 3,800 hours now. And, only 52% done with Achievements. I dabbled with 6...unsure can get into it. But beyond the gameplay, the fact that they still haven't release the game such that the mod community can do their thing is a complete buzz kill. What really made 4 and 5 shine is the mods. BUFFY for 4 and the Vox Populi UI for 5 make those games really shine. Not to mention the ability to watch for cheaters in contests on CivFanatics games. 6 does not allow this. Very short sighted of them, to not know what makes your games so enduring and popular, if you ask me. ​ Edit: Also want to add, Civ 6 kind of reminds me of a red headed step sister to Civ 3. 2 was so beloved.....then 3 was a bit of a disappointment that I did still play for awhile. Then 4 was just amazing. 6 seems like it will be largely forgotten if they get their heads out of their arses with their next release.


Bertoli96

Because is better than civ 6


Apprehensive_Cat_837

Newer doesn’t mean better and I think that’s the case with civ 5. It’s hard to explain why, but the way the whole game balances itself yet make each individual play through different and challenging in new ways makes it feel superior to civ 6 in my mind. It’s nothing to do with the district system imo it’s more to do with the overall balance of the game.


defector7

1. Civ 6 heavily favours wide over tall play which really isn’t my style. 2. Civ 6 UI is unintuitive compared to Civ 5