As the article says, it's history repeating itself. This one made more foundational changes to the formula than 6 did over 5, and once again, if you're looking to play a Civ game, the old game is still going to be cheaper. I loved 6 when it came out, but when friends were curious about dipping their toes in, I just referred them to 5 because it was almost as good and far cheaper to try out. Civ 6 charts compared to 5 around the same time period are similar. I haven't picked up 7 yet just because I'm still trying to get through other games, but I'm looking forward to it.

No ghandi = fuck you.

You know they're going to bring him back as DLC

I just referred them to 5 because it was almost as good

Why do you consider Civ 6 better than 5?

On a technical level, it functioned better. On an artistic level, I liked the look a lot better. On a gameplay level, they were pretty similar, but I liked what they did with city tiles in 6.

Has there even been a Civ release that was great at the start? I had the old Civ 2 "Multiplayer Gold Edition," which my friend, who had the original, said had a much better AI. Give it a little while and see what they can do to make Civ 7 better, then it'll sell well.

Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

My philosophy is that Civ 5 and Civ 6 are just fine. My friend was going to buy 7 on release and I was like "yeah, but you can just go play Civ 6. It's not like it's a bad game just because the new one is out." And I'm glad I convinced him otherwise because of how "okay" Civ 7 has been so far. Nothing against the game, I just already have the last three Civ games with all DLC and there is still a mountain of content that we already have to play with each other.

I honestly forgot about civ 7. Wow what a crazy long month it's been..

I'm not the person that you asked, but I do hold the same opinion. My biggest reasons are:

• Civs are far more incentivised to expand in VI, resulting in more conflict
• Districts make city placement a much more complicated question
• The city state influence game is both much more interesting than just a spending race and also has more game-changing rewards
• The culture and science victories are much more interactive with other civs now, rather than just hiding away and waiting for a bar to fill

I don't think V is bad by any means. It was the one that got me into the series after bouncing off III and IV. I just think that most of the changes in VI were improvements

puts on flame resistant hazmat suit

... Civ 7 is the Civ series shitty attempt at copying Humankind, Humankind is currently $12.50 USD, $25 for all DLC + base game, and is a way better deal than Civ 7 at $70, if not just actually a better game than Civ 5 or Civ 6 + all their existing DLC/expansions.

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

I'm still playing 4

Thanks for the tip, any chance it runs natively on Linux?

Has there even been a Civ release that was great at the start?

Does Alpha Centauri count as a civ game?

Incorporates 3rd-party DRM: Denuvo Anti-tamper

Requires 3rd-Party Account: 2K Account for Online Interactions

Somebody please wake me up when these atrocities are gone. (And thanks, Steam, for making them easy to discover.)

Yes, and Gods & Kings. I did technically play the game without them but it was long enough ago now that I don't really remember it without them

Thanks for the perspective.

Natively? I don't think so.

But I've been running it via proton on my steam deck for... over a year now, only real problem is the HUD is a bit smallish.

Haven't played Humankind, but Amplitude's previous Civ-like "Endless Legend" was amazing and very fresh take on the genre. And it looked like Firaxis were already trying to copy some of it in Civ 6, so I'm not surprised if this trend continues.