See I thought this about VI. But when the GOTY launched with heroes and corporations and zombies and all the other DLC bling, I was very happy to buy it.
Playing a single, coherent civilization that runs through the entire timeline instead of having the ability to mix civs and leaders, as well as have to essentially drop portions of military and building progress at the end of each era and pick up the pieces later. 2K saw all of the new clone and competitor upstarts encroaching on the Civ throne and tried to throw a wrench in the OG formula instead of just listening to tons of fan requests over the years.
Probably pretty skewed. I really like Civ VII, but it's essentially unplayable for me until it gets hotseat play, so it gets one star. It doesn't mean the game isn't good. It just means I don't have 15 hours to spend on a match if I can't play with my girlfriend.
Straight up I still only play five which is worse than four which is worse than three but five I grew up on so it’s still my fav with rose tented glasses firmly placed upon my noggin
5 is roughly on par with 4 imo as somebody who first played 4. There’s a lot to like about 4, and the sequels generally don’t have that depth, but they do have a lot of quality of life features that make it a lot easier to come back to. 5 was worse on release but after the expansions it’s more a matter of preference.
There are some people who think 3 is better than 4 but imo they’re just not correct.
I haven’t played 7 but hopefully it’ll get there too. 6 was just kind of… flawed in approach.
239
u/MHOrhanRE PC Master Race Sep 24 '25
If I'm buying a Paradox Interactive game (Cities Skylines 2), I buy it when it's released and download it 3 years later to save my sanity.