Each means of victory feels good enough to pursue. The end-game is actually interesting now, instead of an inevitable march towards victory or defeat. That being said, with both G&K, and Brave New World (and all the other DLC) it is practically a whole new game. Much more streamlined and quite pretty, but without the customization or the features that Civ IV had. I didn't agree with some of the changes (although they've now grown on me), and I was dubious about it it felt like going from Linux to OSX. Yes it was revolutionary, but compared to civ IV, it was merely a shell. I've now bought the game and decided to give it a chance.Īt release, it felt empty to me. So: go for it, today CIV5 with DLCs is a superb product. Also the "one unit per tile" mechanic makes combat something you can win outnumbered if you are smart, in previous CIVs combat was only a matter of economy and productivity. So: what you heard 3 years ago is compltly true, but now things have changed, the game is totally worth, and even if it's more streamlined than its predecessors, it is a deep and complicated experience. This is when i left the title.Īfter G&K and BNW the situation is very much improved: they reintroduced all the features we loved, fixed bugs and freezes, balanced the game and made the best AI the entire franchise has ever seen (wow, enemy AI actually behaves in some logical way, incredible).
#Civilization 6 metacritic full#
Then, instead of fixing their beta product sold at full price, they started selling maps that everyone with the editor could do. Citics rewievs were positive, but we all know that big major game magazines are producer's slaves. It freezed, bugged and annoyed every other turnįanbase, me included, were really upset and metacritic was below average. Vast majority of features fans loved from the franchise were gone Originally posted by Ygolnac:When CIV5 was released it was a mess:Įarly beta state (should have been tested before selling as usual)