Should I get this or is V better? Ive not played this series since II

get V with all xpacs

>>387217473

Five.

Stay far away from 6.

>>387217473
get 6 when it has an expansion or two

What's so bad with VI exactly?

Did V ever end up surpassing IV?

>>387217473
just get 3

>>387217473

IV is great

V is total shit, with xpacks is barely ok.

VI this has really terrible AI but improves a lot both from IV and V.

Get VI

It's a civ game, OP.

That means you wait until all expansions are out.

IV was a trainwreck when it came out, best game in the series at the end.

V was a trainwreck when it came out, best game in the series at the end.

>>387222776

retarded AI
broken city expansion system
terrain generation glitches everywhere
soulless leaders
kids channel tier aesthetics

>>387223098
None of those really bother me except for the AI part. Is it really that shitty?

>>387222776
It has the same shitty AI as V but more concepts they can't deal with.

>>387223138

Imagine the algorithm is created to play battleship. And then the same algorithm is implemented into game of chess.

This is Civ6 AI in nutshell

>>387223138
yes

get V and the community patch if you want decent AI

>>387217473
V is ok with expansions, the sequel Beyond Earth is pretty much just same but with less everything.
Also in spess, with aliens and with expansion you get water cities.
The space game set after that is literal phone game tier.

>>387222828
Not even remotely

Civ 4 with caveman to cosmos is still the best

>>387222828
imo, yes. i guess longtime fans and serious players prefer iv, but im a casual player (350 hours) who started with iv and i prefer v. iv is deeper and more involved and has better AI and some better mechanics. i much prefer no unit stacking(and the warfare in general) and i like the new mechanics in v. if you play the game to find a method of exploiting the nuances of the mechanics as much as possible, iv is still better, but if you are somebody who just fires up a game and plays and doesn't get too deep, v is probably the better choice.

>>387217473
Then get yourself 4 instead, with all the expansions. You will have good time.

And then, after learning ropes with changes between 2 and 4, get yourself Caveman2Cosmos mod for Civ 4.
You won't need any other Civ game after that.

One thing for sure - stay the FUCK away from 6. It's horrible. While 5 has multitude issues, even it looks like a perfect 10/10 Civ game when compared with the clusterfuck of Civ 6.

I'm playing Civs, their spin-offs and clones ever since Civ 2 came out. The general, completely subjective opinion of mine goes like this
>Civ 1
Unplayable in current year, just aged too much to be still as enjoyable as it was 15 or even 10 years ago
>Civ 2
10/10 game, the sheer simplicity of it is its true power. Still perfectly playable
>Alpha Centauri
Unironically 11/10 game, never before or after there was a Civ-style game this immersive. It's technically Civ 2.5, so go figure. Menus are a bit cluttered, but that's the only issue this game has at all. A fucking masterpiece
>Civilization: Call to Power
Feels like a mod to Civ 2 rather than unique game, adding bunch of interesting mechanics and extending the timeline more into futuristic territory.
>Civ 3
I like to consider this game to be an experiment. It introduced a fuckload of mechanics that stayed for good in the series (getting Civs specific bonuses, eras, resources and so on), but all of it unpolished, unbalanced and bare-bones
>Call to Power 2
Same as the first game, but better and slightly more nuanced. Compared to Civ 3, it's a superior game, mostly due to not having brain-dead AI.
>Civ 4
Civ 3 with all the polish it needed, plus GREAT moddability. While vanilla game has a lot of own issues and feels at times weirdly paced (slow early, hectic mid, super-slow late game), it fixed pretty much everything Civ 3 had fucked up. Then comes mods for it, with Caveman2Cosmos being the best of them all, with the complexity this series should be aiming at.

>TBC

>>387222828
Not really, but they're both good games and it's difficult to compare the two since they're so different from each other. I still play both regularly.

>>387223983
>Continuing
>Civ: Revolutions
A quick, simple game for consoles, fun to abuse, but nothing special and quickly gets boring when you break it much
>Civ 4: Colonization
Shit-tier ramake of original Colonization, with bland, unbalanced gameplay trying to combine Civ 4 and Colonization mechanics and failing spectacularly at doing so. Has bunch of extensive mods, but it's like trying to fix leaking dam with band-aids
>Civ 5
Entirely reworks the whole game system, so it takes a while to get used to for old-timers. Most of the changes went in WRONG direction, making the game feel overly simplified (especially before expansions rolled in) and AI is suicidal aggressive (think Ghandi after embracing Democracy in Civ 1). Has a lot of fans and was entry point to the series for new players, so they don't even fully grasp how much the game changed and how many things went into shit. The game plays like more complex Revolutions, which is bad, but after getting some using to, can be fun. Preferably play it on multiplayer, thou
>Beyond Earth
Civ 5 in neon colours, trying to be new Alpha Centauri. Complete and utter mistake that should be burried and forgotten. The gameplay is bland, the fluff doesn't exist and it's basically Trade Caravan: The Game. Avoid like fire, especially if you even heard about Alpha Centauri.
>Civ 6
As they say in my country - "all the steam went into the whistle". The game is complete and utter disaster. A fucking joke out of the whole franchise. The mechanics are simplified into non-existing, the AI can't handle own game and most of things added to it are disjoined from the gameplay.

>>387222828
Nope.

4 is the ultimate peak of the franchise (still not the best game in it), anything after it is steadily worse.

>>387223138
It makes vanilla AI from box release of Civ 5 look competent by comparison, so go figure how horrible the Civ 6 AI is.

>>387217473
Neither.

Get Civ IV instead
And if you remember II, then get SMAC.

>>387224693
This.

The series started high with original Civ, then rised higher with Civ II and even higher with SMAC. Then it went below Civ with Civ III, then rised up to something around Civ II level with IV...
... and then it took a nose-dive from Revolutions onward. Expansions to Civ V managed to crawl it back to Civ III level, only to then took another nose-dive, hitting bottom with BE and then fucking DIGGING in the bottom with Civ VI.

RIP Civilization.
Just looking at C2C vs what is in official Civ games make me depressed.

>>387217473
Civ 6 is literally an unfinished game, so why would you want to buy it in the first place? The AI can't even use half of the options it has. Not that they matter for the non-existing game mechanics, but still.

And like all previous anons said, buy IV with expansions instead.

File: 1502409685933.jpg (47KB, 1269x668px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1269x668px

>>387217473
Civilization V is a dumbed down shitter game, these two must be children for who it was the first Civ game:
>>387217501
>>387219908

If you want a new experience, get VI, if you want the actually good Civ game, get IV. But stay away from V, that killed the series.

>>387222828
FUCK NO!

>>387217473

get 5, since 6 is shit

5 does crash a lot on larger maps or with too many mods unfortunatly. If thats a deal breaker then just go to 6

>>387227732
How many Civs have you played?

Just get Alpha Centauri, OP

>>387227795

All of them, but if your talking about how many other ai in a game that's crashed... i think even 10 or so civs on a standard map still crashes every now and then.

Huge maps with 20+ civs can crash every 5 or so turns in later eras.

The one advantage 6 has, is even on modded larger maps with modded civs it runs like a dream. But the actual gameplay is so shallow and boring. Artstyle is annoying too.

>>387217473
I feel that the comparison goes like this.
>Get Civ 5 for the complete experience.
>Get Civ 6 & all dlc for an early access experience.

One is old and has its share of bullshit, and is abandoned by its developers.
The other is new and has its share of bullshit, but costs more.

4 and 5 are great imo.

THE PEOPLE
ARE
THE HEROES
NOW

>>387217473
It's good but the music SUUUUUUCKS

>>387229290

Is this a joke?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRgoEajuz_c

>>387229478
The music is per civilization. it's no longer a varied soundtrack. It's the same damn theme for the ENTIRE game you're playing. Hours and hours on end of that civilization's theme until it drives you completely insane.

>>387229681

I don't know what you're talking about. You hear the themes of the other civs in the game plus ambient, not just your own. That's one of the most complained about part about the music, that you can hear western themes while playing an asian civ and it's not regional like Civ V.

>>387222828
>>387222913
>>387223983
its another 'Civ 4 was good' meme spout.

I've played them all, 2 and 3 were great. 4 was bloated as fuck and 5 was probably the best (all post patch opinions). I was so happy to see the stacks of doom gone.

File: china5.png (2MB, 1386x1022px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1386x1022px

>>387217473
Civ5 is alright.

I like V and II, but I couldn't get VI to work on my computer, only briefly played it somewhere else and the district system seemed interesting so pirate it and check it out at least.

4, 5, and 6 are all great games. 6 has a different art style and new features.. Really fun to play. I've enjoyed the shit out of 4 and 5, both are amazing games with tons of content. You should get all three and then play all of them.

>>387223098
>kids channel tier aesthetics
this, it's what really bothers me with this game
i really regret buying it, and it's too late for refund but fuck this

is the civ playerbase really 12yo ? i assume they don't play games like this they play lol and overwatch and strategy games are mostly older audience
i really don't like it and can't play this shit any extensive amount of time

>>387223720
I've played it a couple of years ago, it was a huge clusterfuck. Did it get better? Is there a lot of futuristic stuff now?

>>387222776
It's not that it's bad. I'd say it's better than vanilla 5, even.

The problem with Civilization in general is that without the expansions you're basically playing an unfinished game. 6 has yet to have a single full-blown expansion, while 5 is complete.

>>387229195
BEHEMOTH
PULLS THE PEASANT'S
PLOUGH

File: france.jpg (213KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1920x1080px

>>387217473
Am I wrong or does VI have less depth with governments/ideologies than V did? In V your tourism could negatively or positively affect civilizations of different or similar ideologies, which made tourism feel useful even if you weren't going for a cultural victory. I can't seem to find how it affects anything in VI.

The removal of golden ages is kind of lame too. I'm not sure what the real benefit of amenities is besides a flat % bonus for the city.

All of the stats in VI seem really isolated and single-purpose, while V's actually interacted with each other.

Also this bitch looks like a fucking alien. Why did they give cartoon characters realistic textures? It's the creepiest shit.

>>387217473
The reason nobody will ever recommend you VI for now is because we all know that deep down its an incomplete game. The vanilla iterations of the Civ games are basically laying down basic groundwork for the game for expansions to THEN add content to.

Honestly if you actually started with Civ VI not only would that be fine, but you'd get to witness the game get IMMENSELY better as the expansions are added. However, the ultimate question is why do that when you can just buy Civ IV or V and get the complete experience right off the bat instead?