Sigh....
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
Sigh....
>>343109849
Civ 2 was the best one anyway, no need to play any others
>>343109849
Damn she's ugly, just like RL.
>>343109849
they both look horrid. whats your point?
>people pretending 4 and 5 ever looked good
fuck.
>>343110448
but the one in civ 6 could look good if they didn't design her like some fucking dreamworks character
>>343109849
Honestly I can't believe how un-hyped I am for VI, everything about the gameplay and artstyle revealed so far is just so fucking mobile-tier it hurts.
>>343110587
and your face could look good if your dad hadn't fucked his sister
>>343109849
>Civ 5 England
Early warefare civ, early naval supremacy with lasting bonuses to naval logistics, the single best warfare unit in the early game par maybe the battering ram, 2 spies for flexibility and instant secure and subtract technologies.
>Civ 6
New ship, yet to see how good it is, seemingly early game warfare civ again, but hurr de durr museums for great works of art that has absolutely nothing to do with warfare and does not govern it what so ever. Also Harbor district bonuses on other continents. Oh, you like multiplayer games and are forced onto pangea maps? Lol fuck you England eat shit and suffer.
>>343110718
easy there tough guy.
>>>/b/
>>343109849
not thicc enough
>>343111197
is that where you went to cry after getting thoroughly rekt?
Civilization leaders have always looked cartoony, dummy.
5 was the exception to the rule, and even there they were stylized to a degree.
I wanted to give this game a chance but this artstyle is getting worse by the minute, gotta be real good to look past all that
>>343111002
Forgot to mention that they're basically making their naval UU a ranged privateer, and their melee UU is gimped if on Pangaea as well. I bet she will be a trash tier civ on filthy robots NQ tiered civ list.
>>343111002
Pretty sure they're trying to avoid one-trick pony civs. England can do domination, but they can do culture too. Ditto for America.
>>343111350
I'm not that guy you degenerate imbecyle shitposter.
>rekt
Don't use words you don't understand. Acting like 14yo btard does not make people rekt when you reply to their posts.
>>343111641
Sounds pretty confused to me. Civ is a game built up on small advantages, if you're directing one of those unique bonuses to something completely different you're ruining the playstyle of the civ. In my opinion anyway, I never wanted a jack of all trades civ, I prefer concise and determined play styles.
>>343109849
>2016
>People care more about graphics than gameplay in 4X game
Why don't we have threads discussing how shitty Civ 5 mechanics were and how lobotomised they are going to be in Civ 6?
