Thoughts?
It really does look more readable
Civ V worth getting for someone who hasn't played civ since 3? It's on sale currently
>>337618825
yes, as long as you get both expansions
>>337618825
Buy Civ IV, Civ V is kind of a different experience (for better or for worse)
>>337618825
Its a pretty decent game but if you do buy it make sure you get all the DLC.
They held content that should have been in the game originally and also held balance patches for the DLCs as well.
Civ5 stock is actually pretty lackluster but with all the DLC its pretty decent.
>>337618825
with expansions, definitely
don't get it without epansions
>>337618483
Well maybe faggots who couldnt see shit need to get glasses
Previous civ games looked fine in comparison to this crap
>>337618418
>>337618483
why do they insist on kiddie graphics
first civ revolution and now this shit
>>337618957
what the fuck why is there so much DLC for this game
>>337619321
Revolution's problem wasn't graphics.
It was the fact that Civ isn't the kind of game you play while slouching in your sofa
>>337619608
Because fraxis saw a quick buck, just go for the game of the year version it has the two expansions and you can pick and choose the DLC from there based off if you find it worth the price.
All of the people bitching about the graphics have not touched an actual civ game in their life
>>337618418
Civ 5 is honestly a shit game after playing it for a bit and getting over its novelty, if not for the shit lag in endgame multi than for the wasted potential the game had through stupidly frustrating mechanics.
Civ6, until someone actually plays the game and verifies otherwise, seems to will be the same thing with just better graphics and more gameplay elements that are unintuitive and don't work together well.
/end rant
Who else unironically prefers Civ3 graphics best?
Just look how crisp this fucker looks, like a sexy ass board game, exactly like turn-based games should be.
3D graphics made Civ look all wonky and shit
>>337618483
It does read better, but it still feels like I'm looking at a goddamn mobile game.
Besides, why is it so important that it reads better? Its not like this is a fast-paced game that requires quick analysis and thinking.
>>337620002
>with just better graphics
>>337620231
Your opinion is shit.
I reckon the graphics are simplified with the intent of making twitch streaming more accessible. Like Blizzard's philosophy with Hearthstone. The more easier it is for someone to tell what's going on, the more they'll get into it.
>>337618825
Civ V Vanilla is the worst Civ game
Civ V w/ All DLC is arguably the best Civ game
So yes, complete edition or bust
>>337618418
Every time I see it I'm a little less bothered by it.
I'm beginning to think it actually looks better.
Am I going insane?
>>337618418
The biggest travesty is the retarded paddle swords some of the units have. Firaxis straight up doesn't give a shit about their games.
>>337620678
>thinking 4-man military units looks better than 12-man squads
Yes, you are going insane.
>>337620450
The graphics are objectively better.
Civ V, is the only game where you have to click a giant icon above your unit isntead of the unit itself, indicating a lack of readability, i.e. an objective flaw in the graphics. Any other civ game has objectively superior graphics to Civ V, just by default. That's how bad Civ V is.
Hopefully you can turn down saturation a bit.
Also, What's your favorite civ, and why?
>>337621078
The one called Alpha Centauri
I feel Civ 5 is better if you want a more relaxed beginning that goes a bit quicker, if giving you less in depth stuff.
Civ 4 is more "Sit in front of your computer smashing the fucking spacebar until it breaks because you have 70 turns until you can do anything, but if you look away for 1 second you get butt fucked by barbarians."
>>337620871
Mods can fix that though.
Not that that's an excuse, but at least it's fixable.
>>337621187
Still need to play it, shit.
Assuming that the claim the devs made about the artstyle change was true, and it was for readability rather than preparing for a tablet port:
Making the silhouettes of the soldier models larger and more defined was a good move in this direction, yet it could add to the effect that an "army" in these games consists of a laughably small number of men. Also, the size of the character models in comparison to the cities and landmarks will always make the gameworld feel smaller and more toylike.
On top of that, some of the design changes don't seem to make much sense. The sharper border edge makes reading which area is and isn't yours a slight bit harder than the white gradient from 5. The detraction is only slight, but it makes you wonder why something like this was even worth changing. On top of this, the textures are muddier in 6, which makes discerning the borders between tiles harder, even if the textures themselves are higher quality.
The way the mountains blend into the surrounding area also makes tile borders harder to discern. The reasoning for this could be to emulate more realistic landmasses instead of jutting out of the surrounding area, but this is at odds with the established cartoony aesthetic. The roads in 5 are more defined and contrast with the ground more. The sparseness of the trees in 6 leaves the ground visible which makes discerning where it ends and the grass tile next to it begin harder, and the size of the trees also contributes to the toylike feel.
I will say that the addition of rocks on the coast was a nice touch.
>>337621187
I meant playable civ, not game
>>337621458
>I will say that the addition of rocks on the coast was a nice touch.
I'm pretty sure it's a gameplay mechanic that will affect embarking
What mode does /v/ play on?Its Marathon, isn't it?
>it looks too colorful
>it looks like a kiddy game
>it looks like mobile graphics
>>337621778
Just like Rome 2
>>337621270
Did you play on marathon speed or something? Because this isn't really true. Production times are much quicker in civ iv, and you're building more cities. You're making many more decisions every turn, and you usually get 5-8 cities by 1 AD.
>>337621778
>those cartoon swords
What the fuck man.
>>337621778
That would be cool. I hope we get more info on gameplay changes too, because there isn't really much to discuss or look forward to with the screenshots we have.
Even if they don't serve a mechanical purpose, they're nice because they add variety to what is otherwise just a flat plain of green.
>>337621458
You can now stack support units with regular military units
not sure what it looks like but I'm assuming it's part of the reason for bigger but fewer military units
![civilization_online_indian[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/J2B7Bvf.jpg "civilization_online_indian[1].jpg")
>>337622003
>waaah why is Civ Cartoony all of a sudden????
>>337618418
Looks like Warcraft 4.
>>337621993
I was playing on the normal speed, I dunno, maybe its just me but it felt like Civ 5, even on Epic speed had everything go by a bit quicker.
Then again, the loading times compared between the two is fucking killer, so it might go faster in Civ 4.
>>337622197
>playing non-canon spinoffs
Stop.
>>337622256
>civ
>canon
Looks fine. What are the improvements, though?
I've never really played a Civ game myself, how has it evolved between iterations, or is it much the same thing every time with a new coat of paint?
>>337622104
There's a link onribbitthat scavenged all the info from the news articles into one post
https://www.
>>337622256
>non-canon
Please, direct me to the canonical storyline Civilization series follow.
>>337622254
It takes less turns to build literally anything in civ 4, so idk why you would feel this way.
>>337621857
Marathon is way too fucking much for me. I start getting sick of a game right around 700 turns and normal/quick feels like it doesn't allow room for any sort of serious shit to go down without militaries becoming obsolete while en route so epic length is about right.
>>337622435
>Not following Civ Canon
>Not knowing Gandhi and Montezuma get married and have several children
It was a very touching moment that effected the whole rest of the series, anon.
I doubt the game will be worth 60 bucks imo.
>>337622527
Normal speed only has this problem on big maps. Normal and standard size are balanced around each other so there's no issues there.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9XjnOdS.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>337622256
>>337622527
Gotta agree, Marathon can be fun if the situation goes right, but otherwise it can be tedious as fuck. Epic is pretty accurate to its name.
>>337619743
what does this even mean?
>>337622737
I dont know why, cant bring myself to play standard sized maps. If anything I either go huge or tiny, cause the clusterfuck is just fun to watch.
>>337620231
>Hue
>>337618418
Oh god why is it so cartoony?
>>337622256
>Civ
>Canon
>>337622256
>using canons
pfft, I upgraded to tanks 70 turns ago!
>>337622698
People spend hundreds or thousands of hours playing a single Civ iteration, what does it mean to be "worth 60 bucks"?
>>337618418
I don't like Civ V at all but the one thing I did actually enjoy about it was it's graphical fidelity. What a good idea to have the sequel be just as dumbed down but also 10x uglier.
>>337620231
It looks pretty good with some texture packs, but vanilla is ugly as sin. Even II looked better.
I think IV is the ugliest, despite still being really good. I just hate the UI and how bad the transition from 2d to 3d was.
>>337622892
>>337618483
>>337618418
>all these graphics comparisons and screenshot edits
I'm getting some flashbacks to Diablo III here.
>>337622746
Suddenly I'm interested.
>>337623030
you mean artillery you fucking idiot
>>337618418
I don't get in. The previous sims looked just fine. I never remember reading complaints about Civ looking ugly or anything
yeah they changed it from game to game, but they maintain the same direction
why changte something that everyone had no problem with?
literally all they had to do was make a slightly upgraded Civ game and it would have been easy money
but no, they had to change something for the sake of change
>>337621857
never
fucking
again
>>337621778
I assumed it was just a hill tile beside an ocean
What is the best gametype and why is it small pangea with six players?
I miss leader portraits from Civ 3 where the leaders would wear clothes matching what era their civilization is in.
So instead of Tribal Leader X looking like a savage throughout the game, even after obtaining nukes and whatnot, he starts to look like Malcolm X later on.
>>337622737
Civ isn't fun on anything less than huge maps with 12+ civs though. That's basically the minimum requirement to create a realistic and deep political web later in the game with real world wars and shit.
Of course, in Civ 5 you can't do that anyway because the erratic AI is impossible to forge lasting, realistic alliances with - or lasting conflicts against for that matter.
Huge maps on Epic speed is the best setting for single player, while completely turn-based Normal speed is best for multiplayer.
I'm glad the game looks less muddy than Civ V but I'm not a big fan of the art-style change. As long as they don't remove shit that was present in Civ V I'll be happy.
>>337623660
>Civ isn't fun on anything less than huge maps with 12+ civs though.
I play on normal-sized maps with like 6 civs and I have fun.
You can't tell me what to do.
>>337623660
Civ IV you really don't need 12+ to have world wars. THe diplomacy system with the religious blocs and defensive pacts, and possibly most significantly, IV's AI's 'peace weight' system, creates all the complex political situations your';e talking about. Of course they're more complex with more civs, but it definitely works in standard size games.
You're right about civ v though. The diplomacy there doesn't really go anywhere even with 18 civs
>>337623642
That takes effort though
>>337623660
>the erratic AI is impossible to forge lasting, realistic alliances with - or lasting conflicts against for that matter.
This has been true for all Civ games.
I think at this point it's become a feature since the developers have for 20 years ignored the possibility of any decent AI diplomacy mode.
>>337623660
for regular civ yea but SMAC on anything above regular size is a fucking nightmare
>>337624031
Well yeah, holy shit thats not even a question.
>>337623642
Why the fuck is the mayan one wearing a suit but keeping his ear things?Suits are horrible.
>>337623642
Civ III was my first civ, so I miss this detail too
>>337618483
If there are visible unit upgrades like Civ Rev, sign me the fuck in.
>>337624376
I think read in an article that you can merge support units with main combat units or something like that.
>>337624218
>Suits are horrible.
Well, that's what most of the moderns leaders use
It's kind of scary how fast hours go by when playing civ, I've got 200 hours and I got it last christmas.
>>337624456
Just a real life thing. Every culture adopted the suit and turned into a sea of grey.
I'm all for monoculture but come on.
>>337623917
>>337623929
>>337623951
You just don't know what you're missing out on though.
>>337624596
japanese pulled it off really well tho
>>337623196
lol whatever nerd
>>337624664
I've tried it on civ iv before. i just don't wanna do it on less than marathon speed, because a lot of the mechanics are imbalanced on epic speed like chopping, golden ages, anarchy, etc. but ican't enjoy marathon speed.
also a lot of the balance is just not for huge/tons of civs. wonder availability, research rate percentage, national wonder buildings requirement, etc. get skewed and imperfected outside of standard size
>>337622892
That looks pretty good.
>>337620238
>Civ never looked like a mobile game
Isnt there a way to unlock every single steam achievement for civ5 instantly somehow?
>>337625807
yes there is.
>>337625807
Steam Achievement Manager, yeah.
civ vi literally looks like viva pinata
>>337625942
Isnt that against the rules?
>>337626010
Wasn't that game a hidden gem, like StyleSavvy: Trendsetter™?
>>337626310
dont get me wrong im a grown ass man and i liked viva pinata and if i could id play it again, but i just dont think the look is very fitting for this game
>>337618418
If I never had heard about civ before and someone told me that the upper panel is the sequel from the lower panel, I would believe and say they did a great job improving the graphics and artstyle.
>>337622746
>civ with sexy girls
ok, you've got my attention
>Graphics
>Addition of ridges
>More emphasis on the hexagonal grid
We endless legend now
>>337619321
Side meiers said that lately he makes his games for his children which are like 9-10 years old.
>>337622892
The problem is the artstyle, not the graphics.
>>337622435
Read a history book.
>>337622746
Damn gooks know how to make history interesting!
>>337622746
hmm, this is weird I guess its sort of like civ in a streets of sim city kind of way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6XKAjYO9Eo
>>337619805
don't listen to this guy, go to dealzon and pick it up the game + entire DLC for like $10
We Nintendo now!
No, seriously this was a smart choice by them though. When the game gets too large in older civ games, the performance suffers quite a bit and it can even crash on older machines. Simplifying the graphics should hopefully mitigate that issue.
please don't pull shit off reddit.
>>337618418
Why does it look like a phone game?
>>337628245
Because mobile gaming is the future, anon. Like it or not.
>>337628201
What makes you think it's from reddit?
>>337622527
the nice thing about marathon is that it gives you a lot more time to play around with your unique units if you're playing as rome or someone like that
>>337619321
simpler, cartoony aesthetics are inherently easier to understand than things that try to look realistic. Just compare any mass activity in some realistic looking mmorpg to world of warcraft, the ones that don't go for cartoony are just a confusing clusterfuck.
>>337619095
nice shoop
>>337618418
I, personally, in my personal opinion, personally enjoy the look of Civ VI.
But that is just my opinion and everybody else is entitled to their own opinions.
Nobody here would let someone else's opinion on the look of a game dissuade them from buying it, right?
What's the purpose of this thread?
>>337628201
only one that would lurk reddit would know its from reddit
It's okay, I lurk there too but don't play hypocrite.
>>337619095
My thoughts exactly
>>337626698
Looks like Catan m8
>>337628716
>>337628201
it was on the front page earlier today with the guy who made the images
also you obviously can't read good because i said not to pull shit from reddit not anything about it being wrong you browse both.
Civ VI looks like a rip off of Endless Legend without the neat future-fantasy aesthetic. Lmao.
>>337618418
I just realized that the terrain casts shadows in Civ 5 but not in 6.
>>337629294
Every 4X rips off each other in some way
>>337620627
Vanilla Civ5 was different and it took some getting used to the hex tiled. Overall a decent game but just not the full civ experience. Maybe on par with civ2. Civ5 BTW is best ever Civ.
>>337618418
he forgot the crossbowmen on the hill next to the city
>>337629425
Vanilla Civ5 was awful mate come on at least admit that.
>>337629425
Ijust really want a civ IV with hexes, modern graphics, much improved AI, and some buffs to aggresive/protective.
tfw dream sequel will never exist
>>337622746
>>337622197
>>337627713
is it any good? Is it still possible to play? I've seen some renders of the map from >>337622197 and it looked cool.
Where can I find more info on it?
>google it faggot
I did when I first found the renders and found nothing else out about it
>>337623642
>we will never have a civ game with the council of advisors from II with the leader portrait progression of III
>>337623642
The best were the modern leaders dressing to match earlier time periods. I will never get tired of Abe Lincoln wearing a fur top hat
>>337630591
thank god
>>337629294
endless legend looks absolute dogshit with that hexagonal design style
>>337630591
Best advisors were Civ IV, when there were no people and the 'advisors' were just extremely well-designed, useful screens which increased playability.
>>337630604
>>337623642
can you post more of these?
i dont mind the graphics as long as gameplay turns out better
also, dont most people overstate a change in graphical aesthetics?
grim and "cartoony" looks can both look really good, its just a different vibe
>>337629294
This is true, and with a worse artstyle to boot. Like they copied aspects of it without even considering that it's supposed to be part of a whole.
But honestly, it's stupid to complain about it when Endless Legend is a Civ ripoff in the first place.
>>337630982
when's the best time to go to war as a peaceful civ? I usually end up wanting at least one other capital but I feel like every single war I ever participate in (whether it was my choice or not) ends up just dragging my nation down. Hopefully Civ 6 won't have happiness again, it's a pretty bad balancing mechanic I'd say. War is punishing enough on its own thanks to development time and troop cost, the penalties for capturing a warmongers cities are simply too high right now. Everyone shits on you, you get like -30 happiness for each city and the AI usually picks mediocre spots
>>337628981
and it was on 4chan and other websites long before today, fuck off with the reddit boogieman
>>337618418
I don't care about the graphics.
In fact, if they're easier on systems that's better for Toasterbros if the game is better.
>>337631680
they already confirmed VI won't have V's global happiness. they're presumably going to back the classic happiness system.
>>337623642
What about Civ Rev? When all your advisors would get more fancy and modern as you went through the ages
>>337631665
>>337630604
>>337623642
do you have montezuma?
>>337626983
>reading the paper jew
No thank you. I get all my historical facts from Civ games.
>>337632021
India dropping the nukes on USA when then? I need to know so I can flee from NA
>>337619321
Well CIV is the kiddie strategy game
>>337623642
Woah, implying progress means conforming to a Euro-American dress sense? /problematic/ much?
>>337632194
I wouldn't say that. It's just that its focus is on being a game and not a simulator, like more 'serious' products like Paradox grand strategy games.
>>337621778
I thought that was pic related
>>337631883
>they already confirmed VI won't have V's global happiness. they're presumably going to back the classic happiness system.
Source?
If nothing else, this is one piece of news I could be happy about
>>337620231
>Who else unironically prefers Civ3 graphics best?
you got me
