• RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    People who like Civ usually don’t like it when y’all make changes, so it’s kinda surprising that Civ changes so much.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you like a particular Iteration there is little to stop you from playing it.

      Every version is an unique interpretation of the core premise.

      • Zexks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Ehh there’s some irritant variation for sure. I really like the hex tiles but prefer the simpler leader mechanics. Not to mention backporting the end of doom stacks.

      • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah I play civ 6 a lot, my wife and I have thousands of hours combined. People have bosrd game nights we have civ nights.

        I can’t see us upgrading any time soon unless there’s something spectacular but even then going from 5 to 6 was hard work

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        That is true, but sometimes technology advances and it gets difficult to get the older titles to play nice with newer hardware. That doesn’t mean the gameplay needs to be completely changed up in the next iteration.

        • Gladaed@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sounds like a you Problem. Just because you cant get it to run doesnt mean we shouldn’t have a New Civ.

    • arudesalad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Their design process is 1/3 old stuff, 1/3 reworked stuff and 1/3 new stuff. The idea is that why should release a new game if it’s just the same as the last one. This is actually a problem so often that there is a recurring meme within civ communities every new release

    • Nighed@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because after a few years they complain again when more changes are made because the current game is so good…

  • unautrenom@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The transitions between these eras will offer the chance to select a fresh civilization, with a range of options determined by your previous choices.

    Wait a minute. I feel like I’ve seen that one before…

    Oh well, fair enough. Humankind drew heavily on Civ in its design anyway.

    • qarbone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I’m not mad that they chomped Humankind’s flavor. I see it as an admission that the game had good ideas (if less-than-stellar execution). I’ve just seem rando comments trying to tamp down on claims that there are similarities like their stock portfolio is riding on it.

      I’m sure it’s management’s fault but they should be shouting out fellow devs in their breakdowns: “oh, we saw Humankind and thought it’s mechanic was fascinating. But we wanted to adapt it closer to our style and refine some pain points we noticed in our execution.”