288
submitted 2 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hakase@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago

There hasn't been a need for a new Civ since IV so I already wasn't gonna buy it, but now I'm gonna not buy it even harder.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago

I play freeciv (an open source civ 3.5 clone) much more often than civ 5 which I bought. I'll agree with you. Newer civ isn't all that attractive.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Civ 6 seems kind of dumbed down to me from previous versions. Besides, I've been having more fun with Crusader Kings 3 lately.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah... Civ 1, 2, 3, and 4 were all good - for different reasons. Civ 5 was where the design decisions stopped being about gameplay and started being about maximising profit. Making the game functional and fun was lower priority to making paid DLC. Players buy the buggy and unfinished game... then pay more to fix it piecemeal with the DLC. Such is the power of brands and advertising.

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
288 points (99.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8568 readers
515 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS