Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
Why do you consider Civ 6 better than 5?
Edit for anyone else wanting to answer: Please specify whether you’re including Brave New World (or Gods and Kings) in your comparison, since those expansions significantly improved upon the original Civ 5 release.
I’m not the person that you asked, but I do hold the same opinion. My biggest reasons are:
I don’t think V is bad by any means. It was the one that got me into the series after bouncing off III and IV. I just think that most of the changes in VI were improvements
Are you including Brave New World in that comparison? I’ve never played Civ 5 without it.
Yes, and Gods & Kings. I did technically play the game without them but it was long enough ago now that I don’t really remember it without them
Thanks for the perspective. :)
On a technical level, it functioned better. On an artistic level, I liked the look a lot better. On a gameplay level, they were pretty similar, but I liked what they did with city tiles in 6.