If you add up all those that said it was at least as good as older Civs, we can see that around 68 percent don’t view Civ 6 as a step in the wrong direction when all things are considered. Overall, those that said it was somewhat or much better outnumbered those who said it was somewhat or much worse-43.2 percent versus 31.8 percent, respectively. This was the most divisive question, with roughly a quarter of respondents each deeming it somewhat better, about equal, or somewhat worse. Question 3: How does Civ 6 currently compare in quality to older Civ games? In my personal experience, I switched to Civ 5 pretty early on-but it wasn’t until after the second expansion, Brave New World, that it really felt like a complete game. Many Civ 4 die-hards criticized changes like only allowing one military unit per tile, and the lack of features like religion in the initial release of Civ 5. Give it time, Civ VI is the better game."Īnd he’s not wrong. Reddit user J-Codo gives some voice to this phenomenon: "Civ V was regularly denounced until the DLCs came out. 35 percent switched over right away, 15 percent more were sold after Gods & Kings, and just over nine percent said Civ 5 never became their go-to game (either because they stuck with an older iteration like Civ 4, or because Civ 6 was their first-I was silly and didn’t think to separate these two possibilities into their own responses). While SteamSpy data isn’t available going back that far, the most popular answer was "after two expansions," coming in at about 41 percent. Here we can see pretty clearly that Civ 5 had early adopter problems of its own.
Image via Steamcharts Question 2: When Civ 5 came out, how long did it take to become your "go-to" Civ game?
0 kommentar(er)
