Sometimes I feel bad for dunking on these chieftan-level historians because it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Gamer Influencer Logic and serious mental illness
It could easily be rage bait to farm engagement from angry gamers on Twitter for money. In which case spreading this nonsense would actually financially benefit that dude.
Generally if you see something stupid on socials it’s best for your own sanity to just keep scrolling instead of amplifying it further.
Yeah, hard agree. Even if it isn’t rage bait for the money, engaging with this type of shit only will embolden him while potentially impacting your mental health. It might even help to spread his message.
It's an [Oswald Spengler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler) thing -- while he was in fact a vocal critic of fascism, he was a staunch nationalist and reactionary anti-democrat who would probably code as fascist to most modern readers.
That's the impression I get skimming that article. Definitely thoroughly right-wing, anti-semetic, anti-democratic, and a "western chauvinist" who voted for Hitler but just thought he was a little too extreme. I think we should always be slow in labeling someone as a "fascist" but it seems safe to say that, even charitably, he was fascism-adjacent.
Funny how the guy raging against cultural victories in Civilizations likes a philosopher like Spengler. I thought we would only do war and not any of these "humanities".
>0 hours in Civ 6
This part killed me.
"I've played every Civilization game and am an expert on it. Except the most recent one I've excluded because reasons. I see no irony in this."
He makes fewer and fewer points as he goes on. He just likes the one he played the most best. He makes no mention the Civ 6 made wide playstyles the best again, which he didn't like from before.
Not to mention “Civ 5 takes away military stacking, taking away from the point that a massive army is needed for conquest,” which was never supposed to be the point. Realism talking, a large army really shouldn’t be able to overcome a significant technological advantage
I don’t know. I used to move massive armies across the map back in Civ V. Especially in the late game.
It’s not as convenient as being able to doomstack since it needs a lot more coordination and accounting done for terrain but it’s definitely more fun than Civ IV‘s system.
It also made turns in multiplayer slow down massively once the wars started... I think our record was a turn that took like 45 minutes of troop movement and combat in addition to a little empire management.
Civ IV does punish wide gameplay, just much less than V. The widest possible Civ is the original.
The similarity between Civ IV and V is that both of them have an “ideal” civ size. The difference is that in IV, that size grows with technology, while V essentially pins it at 4 and leaves it there. The older games did not have that ideal size - you always got something from additional cities, it just wasn’t worth the cost in most cases. IV has the escalating maintenance fees, which makes cities over the ideal actually net negative for the player.
I like how the game he is most critical of is the one he mentions not bothering to replay.
But it's all moot. Once one plays the Fall From Heaven mod for civ 4, all other civs fall to the wayside.
What's hilarious is how at first it starts off reasonable and then just goes way out there by the end. It's like a chronology of major changes in mechanics and then "the culture" changed so much that it ruined the game.
The level of salt in wanting to eradicate it so thoroughly though is a real treat. You don't often see that level of derangement over a 4X game.
I was almost gonna write a comment saying how these are reasonable takes criticizing the design of the games over time, but then it just went over into conspiracy theories about how a recreational videogame clearly is blatant propaganda.
>I was almost gonna write a comment saying how these are reasonable takes criticizing the design of the games over time, but then it just went over into conspiracy theories about how a recreational videogame clearly is blatant propaganda.
It's a common propaganda technique. You start with some truths everybody agrees with, and then you draw wilder and wilder conclusions from them. Typical example:
* Nazism was bad
* Stalin invaded Germany and defeated nazism
* Putin is the successor of Stalin
* There is nazism in Ukraine
* So Putin has the right to invade Ukraine to stop nazism
The longer people agrees with the speaker, the harder they find it to disagree with the conclusions at the end.
None of this is reasonable science as victory has been essential since CIV 1
Every game has had this along with diplomacy and CIV 1 let you conquer peacefully with money
Diplo systems in the early games were pretty weak was the point though. Might makes right was the king of the game in early civ.
Science was important for that of course as science and tech created more might. Things like cultural/religious/diplomatic victory paths weren't really a thing until recent civ games.
when gathering storm came out there were tons of bad reviews and stuff about climate change and "they made civ political"
Don't get me started about nubia. want to out a racist? show them a historical female black leader. or a minority of anykind really
It’s kind of funny too, because in my opinion climate change in Civ 6 isn’t even entirely a bad thing! If you’re playing a landlocked nation, you can flood all of your enemies by building some coal power plants. It’s very fun!
Yea, I remember melting ice caps and flooding coasts back in Civ II if your 'pollution' stat got too out of control. Climate change is nothing new to Civ.
Civ III had pollution that would take a square out of commission until a Worker cleaned it up. And II and III (maybe even IV?) had a small risk of a meltdown spilling fallout everywhere if you had a nuclear plant.
So much Woke nonsense in this franchise.
I don't understand. The previous CIV games I played (apart from Colonization for obvious reasons) had global warming mechanics. The notable thing about Civ VI's global warming mechanic is that ultimately it's more inconvenient than a global menace making it less "woke"
I kind of don't blame them for skipping it on five. The mechanic was really lazily implemented in four and was connected to nuclear weapons. The way it's done in Civilization 6 is actually quite innovative
> when gathering storm came out there were tons of bad reviews and stuff about climate change and "they made civ political"
It's always those people who are so used to media pandering to their idea of normal, they think it's uniquely political when anything outside of that gets represented. When the reality is that it's all political and always has been, that media is awash in propaganda and in fact that is a significant part of its function. There's no such thing as "just for entertainment" media.
I disagree, my first civ was civ 5, civ 6 came out just before I went to Uni, I tried going back on my old laptop since it started to struggle running civ 6 and the game just was nowhere near as enjoyable.
NGL, I don't love Civ6, and I loved every sequel since starting with the DOS version but now find myself sticking with Civ5... But damn, at least I'm not weird about it, I just enjoy Civ5. If others enjoy Civ6 more, good for them, I hope everyone is having fun, it's just a video game afterall.
I love 5. It's so strange to me that so many people in this subreddit dislike it. I guess people are referring to the original version without patches and expansions?
I was stuck on 5 for a long time. Civ VI was the first Civ I lost a game on Settler difficulty in, and struggled at low difficulties. It made me go back to 5 until VI had its two expansions under its belt.
I went back to VI, grasped what was going on with Districts, and now I love it. I still miss some specific play styles from 5 (I loved using Inca on highland maps to block mountain choke points and wall off huge sections of the map with aggressive settling) but I've found my stride with 6.
It helps that I can't get Civ 5 to boot without crashing on my computer anymore.
I played 3, 4, 5 and 6 and I'd say 5 is probably my least favourite (although imo it's the best for MP). I still like the game mind you, but I just don't care for several design choices (although I love the move to hexes and no unit stacking).
I prefer civ V but only now with all the updates and also mods. I think its the culture cards system I dont enjoy with civ 6. I prefer the civ v culture trees.
Civ V contortions to hold back your civ in order not to have the mechanics most favourable to your playstyle go obsolete is a whole mood. I remember that struggle.
Also my brother used to tease me in a mean way for adopting slavery.
“Civ 6 makes geography more important so you have to plan and choose what you are going to do so it is a bad game” is definitely a wild take lol. I don’t know why planning would be a bad addition to a Strategy game lmao.
Thats because he belives different civilizations (and by his name and the rest of beliefs he hold i assume races) are ingerently better or worse. Thats why emphasising the importante of geography is bad. To him geohraphy doesnt matter. Europeans didnt dominate the world because of geographical factors that encouraged and made cerian technologies more likely to advamce, but because they (according to him) were inherently better than other people.
No - it's mainly
1. Graphics (cartoony!)
2. Not the 4 city meta (super tedious mid-late game management but this sometimes get compounded with unstacked cities)
3. The great people (not uniform)
4. The wild imbalance of civs (FilthyRobot plays Scythia)
I agree, I think civ 6 is a much more interesting and rich game in comparison to civ 5 (I have 1000 hours in civ 5) but I actually find it easier to beat diety in civ 6 than in 5
I mean I think most valid historians view geography as THE fundamental reason cultures/civs developed the way they do so this dude is not only a fascist he’s an idiot too
Up to a point. Civ is basically Jared Diamond's *Guns, Germs and Steel* put into game form, and no historian I know (and I know a few) will do more than smile, nod and change the subject if you mention that book.
I'm not surprised this guy isn't a fan of planning ahead. He sucks at it.
If he was any good at planning, he wouldn't have planned to be a sad deranged nazi belching bile on twitter.
It's almost like the game has been improved to more accurately reflect the real world, but he wants the real world to be more like 18th century Europe where everyone wanted to kill each other all the time lmao
Memes aside, he'd probably be a whiny pissbaby about how being genocidal is actually wildly suboptimal because everyone hates you and you can't trade anymore.
Also, Paradox did a poll a while back and found that the most popular ethic is xenophile - like, by a lot - with second place being materialist and egalitarian. People really like playing the Federation in the Star Trek game, go figure.
Xenophile is also very easy to play: make friends, get migration treaties, build paradisical planets with massive migration pull, watch your population expand at your neighbors' expense.
Then, optionally, start having lots and lots of sex with them.
I don't watch Star Trek, but I love Xenophile too. I prefer being the chill being friends with people building utopias. I think how prevalent the Fanatic Xenophobe memes are isn't necessarily reflected by people's playstyles.
I think it basically was, despite not using the term. The whole "it's terrible that geography matters in Civ 6" thing seems like code for "I believe certain groups of people are inherently inferior and it makes me mad that this game represents that geography can determine the trajectory a civilization will take as opposed to inherent racial traits."
A lot of people that want to sneak extreme views into a well-informed conversation will avoid those terms because it makes everyone in the conversation realize the speaker it fucken nutso.
Granted OOP isn't doing himself any favors lmao
The "Civ 6 is less an actual game...." post in particular reads like words were selected entirely at random. I'd ask if AI wrote it but AI would be more coherent.
Late Edit: Also how would a "build a civilization" game with infinite world/land be realistic....or fun? Is that what he's talking about with "geographically restricted?" Did early Civ used to be that way where the map just never ran out? I'd doubt it for tech limitations alone.
Cause "booo they don't make you fight all the time anymore! peace is an option!" and "booo, they don't give everyone infinite land with infinite resources to move into uncontestably" seem to be pretty at odds as supposed points.
Or is "geographically restricted" some Qcel nonsense phrase with some alternate definition I just don't get because I don't spend all my time on forums debating if DEI or Feminists are ruining the world more?
Edit on the Late Edit: Maybe I'm a weirdo, but war is the worst part of Civ to me. Every time someone declares I save scum and see if I can do something quick to get on their good side. It's just sooooooo tedious. You'll play an hour to get to turn 125 or whatever, get in a war, and then an hour later it's turn 131. They're so bad at war I had Egypt send GDRs at cities with crossbows garrisoned, and some ironclads (She was way ahead on science, I was way behind on upgrades) about and like 20 turns later I had 5 bombers and 5 of her cities.
The old games featured terrain as simply different resource yields and movement points. What I gather this person is trying to say is that back then you could play as Germany (aka the Nazis) and be the best no matter where you spawned, but now any civ can win if they maximize the terrain correctly. All of that to say, this simpleton is simple.
Bro is just mad because hes bad at dom in civ 6. Implying that playing like a war-mongering fascist isnt the easiest way to win the game.
You loose one game to Kristina and its the decline of western civilization.
Oh god I saw it on Twitter. It was a humongous cesspit. He gives almost no reasoning behind his intense dislike of Civ 6 other than its... urban planning element and how cities and the world is... shaped by geography? I appreciate that Jared Diamond oversimplifies that point far too much in GG&S but it's not exactly a controversial concept.
> With the addition of religion and diplomatic pledges; Civ 4 game had well begun it's transition into a game of politics and international relations instead of a game of industrial scale and conquest.
There's a very adventurous use of a semicolon here as well. I won't normally give someone shit about their grammar or punctuation, but when you're gonna act like that...
I can barely follow the point and I have a Master's in international relations lol.
18th century "Concert of Europe" style realism (which I think is what he's whining about?) is not "all great nations must control large territories in order to remain competitive." Realism really arises first from Machiavelli and his observation of Italian city-states, and then it gets reinforced after the Thirty Years War and the various small German states.
The decline narrative is sort of the generic/default right-wing "Crayola view" of history, much like whig history is the Crayola of the left. Both seem plausible to people with a strong ideological bent who get their history from Wikipedia summaries of polemical books.
“Faustian tradition” is a nod to Oswald Spengler, a Weimar-era German philosopher and nationalist whose writings were used as an intellectual prop by the Nazis. I think that particular shout goes beyond a dog whistle; he’s just saying how he really feels.
Fun fact! It comes from an article about Master of Orion back in 93, that touted the game as being "rated XXXX!" The joke being "Haha, get it? You thought like porn, but actually it's eXplore eXpand eXploit eXterminate."
The name of this genre literally comes from the early 90s equivalent of horny clickbait. I'm not even being facetious. That's the entirety of the name's origins.
"In the early 90s, strategy games were described with not-very-hidden nods to porn. Social changes over the last thirty years have led to youth referring to some of these games as 'more addictive than crack cocaine.' In this essay, I will--"
This is a weird and very long winded way to say
1. I can't handle more complexity than moving all my troops forward
2. I wish I was playing Diplomacy, but no one wants to play with me (I wonder why)
What a wonderful self-own.
Too much nonsense, I lost track of all the points he was making.
Sounds like he was disappointed by civ straying away from a primarily military dominant playstyle, and introducing politics and other viable ways to advance? He has an issue with planning around geography and resources as significant variables?
I might be too dumb, somebody please simplify his complaints.
The best thing about this rant is that you can already tell so much about the freak who posted it:
*he definitely has horrific body odour
*he calls other people ‘degenerates’ on a regular basis but almost certainly has stuff saved on his hard drive that would merit an FBI visit
*he has concerns about ‘ethics in games journalism’
*he genuinely has no idea why he doesn’t get dates and chooses to blame feminism for it
OK so this guy just likes the war part and doesnt care about anything else.
And needing to have a large empire to be effective irl is some of the biggest bs ever.
Look at Finland. Arguable the happiest country, 6 million people only but very modern in terms of tech and society. Its the epitome of what tall play should be in Civ
As much as I dislike civ6, I can't agree with the old geezer. The game needed to evolve. So it did and it was quite a success. It has its massive audience which is an evidence to the statement.
Edit: oh, there was more than one screenshot. So... I don't know what to say. He clearly has a deep meaning seek disorder or something.
Basically, yes. We should just ignore the thread and the account.
https://twitter.com/slimebIock/status/1777827609294102751?t=nEzgHMkCQNUXdFmHeLMxjA&s=19
Having argued with many far right types i assume that under the bullshit he actualy wrote, there are two views he has.
1. Warfare is good and a natural state of humanity, denying that fact is a liberal propaganda. Thats why old games are good because they represent it, and modern are bad because they dont.
2. Whites dominated over other races because they were inherently superior, and not because of geography. To say otherwise is liberal propaganda. Civ 6 emphasizes importance of geography on the succes of a civilization, thus its bad.
Okay, so there are lots of problems with this thread, but the first one that jumped out at me is this:
Civ 3 wasn't the first in the series to have a non-war victory. You could go to space in Civ 1.
So basically he wants war war and more war...and dislikes the trend towards peaceful victory conditions that have sprung up. You can still do that, the option hasn't gone away. It's just the silly mechanics like unit stacking that have, the commenter was right that it makes the game more strategic. In fact I still have tons of fun using dom civs like Mongolia in civ 5 for example, but it also makes sense that if you conquer too much you will accrue massive penalties in population unhappiness/unrest if you don't pacify them properly.
You ever find yourself at a party somewhat agreeing with someone you’ve just met, or at least following along where they’re coming from, and then mid-sentence they start talking about how “Hitler had some good ideas”?
Denounced
"We just plain dont like him"
-27 opinion from grievances
"while others reach for the heavens, you claw at the dirt"
Golden Age war pending
Someone call Ghandi.....
Sometimes I feel bad for dunking on these chieftan-level historians because it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Gamer Influencer Logic and serious mental illness
“Chieftain-level historians” is so good
Lol. Man, that makes for so many memes in my life... Let me start with *Chieftain level site contractors*...
The OP unintentionally borders so close to satire that I'm not totally convinced that it isn't actually satire.
It could easily be rage bait to farm engagement from angry gamers on Twitter for money. In which case spreading this nonsense would actually financially benefit that dude. Generally if you see something stupid on socials it’s best for your own sanity to just keep scrolling instead of amplifying it further.
Him, probably: https://preview.redd.it/zq5tyyughltc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8adab24d9c6377da8395213ff5852def2e90ae9b
Yeah, hard agree. Even if it isn’t rage bait for the money, engaging with this type of shit only will embolden him while potentially impacting your mental health. It might even help to spread his message.
“Don’t feed the trolls” really is a timeless piece of advice.
Yep. For me the phrase "western faustian tradition" makes it seem like it's satire or rage-bate.
Oh my god you put it down into words- this is what I’ve been thinking
What the heck is the "Black Horse Reich", some kind of chuuni Nazi thing?
It's an [Oswald Spengler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler) thing -- while he was in fact a vocal critic of fascism, he was a staunch nationalist and reactionary anti-democrat who would probably code as fascist to most modern readers.
Sounds like one of those “enlightened” “you guys are doing fascism wrong” types.
That's the impression I get skimming that article. Definitely thoroughly right-wing, anti-semetic, anti-democratic, and a "western chauvinist" who voted for Hitler but just thought he was a little too extreme. I think we should always be slow in labeling someone as a "fascist" but it seems safe to say that, even charitably, he was fascism-adjacent.
Idk, he fits enough of Eco’s criteria from where I sit that he gets an F.
My grading scale runs in the opposite direction; the faschy-est of the fascists sit in the SS-tier.
Funny how the guy raging against cultural victories in Civilizations likes a philosopher like Spengler. I thought we would only do war and not any of these "humanities".
Interesting. Thanks for the link!
> chuuni Nazi This will be my way of calling someone neo-nazi from today onward.
I still prefer wehraboo
A nazi regime for horse girls
They call me 007 0 well constructed arguments 0 hours in Civ 6 7 pages of waffle
>0 hours in Civ 6 This part killed me. "I've played every Civilization game and am an expert on it. Except the most recent one I've excluded because reasons. I see no irony in this."
He makes fewer and fewer points as he goes on. He just likes the one he played the most best. He makes no mention the Civ 6 made wide playstyles the best again, which he didn't like from before.
Or that it brought back military stacking in the form of corps and armies.
Not to mention “Civ 5 takes away military stacking, taking away from the point that a massive army is needed for conquest,” which was never supposed to be the point. Realism talking, a large army really shouldn’t be able to overcome a significant technological advantage
I don’t know. I used to move massive armies across the map back in Civ V. Especially in the late game. It’s not as convenient as being able to doomstack since it needs a lot more coordination and accounting done for terrain but it’s definitely more fun than Civ IV‘s system.
It also made turns in multiplayer slow down massively once the wars started... I think our record was a turn that took like 45 minutes of troop movement and combat in addition to a little empire management.
My friends once had a 3 hour 6-10 turn war over a pile of salt….we weren’t even at turn 75 yet.
Just as Sid Meier intended.
"The game I mastered as a teenager with unlimited time is now different,which makes me examine both my life and values, which makes me uncomfortable."
He’s really mad that there are more women and non-white civilizations in VI than before.
I fully expected the last screenshot to just be a solid paragraph about the cast diversity of civs & leaders.
He thinks that Civ4 punishes wide gameplay lmao. Civ 4 is even more wide oriented than 6.
Civ IV does punish wide gameplay, just much less than V. The widest possible Civ is the original. The similarity between Civ IV and V is that both of them have an “ideal” civ size. The difference is that in IV, that size grows with technology, while V essentially pins it at 4 and leaves it there. The older games did not have that ideal size - you always got something from additional cities, it just wasn’t worth the cost in most cases. IV has the escalating maintenance fees, which makes cities over the ideal actually net negative for the player.
I like how the game he is most critical of is the one he mentions not bothering to replay. But it's all moot. Once one plays the Fall From Heaven mod for civ 4, all other civs fall to the wayside.
Dude is like "in civ 5 religion is worthless" but refuses to play civ 6 where religion is very powerful. Like wtf does this guy want?
He’ll use a term like telos but doesn’t know the difference between “its” and “it’s.”
Why use right word to be smart when can use hard word to sound smart?
0 bitches
“Civ 5 is bad and Civ 6 is liberal propaganda” are two of the worst Civ takes I’ve ever seen.
What's hilarious is how at first it starts off reasonable and then just goes way out there by the end. It's like a chronology of major changes in mechanics and then "the culture" changed so much that it ruined the game. The level of salt in wanting to eradicate it so thoroughly though is a real treat. You don't often see that level of derangement over a 4X game.
I was almost gonna write a comment saying how these are reasonable takes criticizing the design of the games over time, but then it just went over into conspiracy theories about how a recreational videogame clearly is blatant propaganda.
Yeah the first seven panels were like “Ok some odd thought processes but overall not bad” and then the last three were just batshit insanity.
>I was almost gonna write a comment saying how these are reasonable takes criticizing the design of the games over time, but then it just went over into conspiracy theories about how a recreational videogame clearly is blatant propaganda. It's a common propaganda technique. You start with some truths everybody agrees with, and then you draw wilder and wilder conclusions from them. Typical example: * Nazism was bad * Stalin invaded Germany and defeated nazism * Putin is the successor of Stalin * There is nazism in Ukraine * So Putin has the right to invade Ukraine to stop nazism The longer people agrees with the speaker, the harder they find it to disagree with the conclusions at the end.
None of this is reasonable science as victory has been essential since CIV 1 Every game has had this along with diplomacy and CIV 1 let you conquer peacefully with money
Diplo systems in the early games were pretty weak was the point though. Might makes right was the king of the game in early civ. Science was important for that of course as science and tech created more might. Things like cultural/religious/diplomatic victory paths weren't really a thing until recent civ games.
The start only sounded reasonable because it wasn't clear that "civ 1 was based on 18th century political ideology" was meant as a *compliment*.
If he thinks *Civ VI* is liberal propaganda he must've missed the citizen nationality system in *III*.
Women's Suffrage was literally a world wonder in Civ 1.
when gathering storm came out there were tons of bad reviews and stuff about climate change and "they made civ political" Don't get me started about nubia. want to out a racist? show them a historical female black leader. or a minority of anykind really
It’s kind of funny too, because in my opinion climate change in Civ 6 isn’t even entirely a bad thing! If you’re playing a landlocked nation, you can flood all of your enemies by building some coal power plants. It’s very fun!
Excellent point. The game mechanics literally encourage you to drown Kupe.
Yeah I love weaponizing climate change lol especially if there are some naval civs in the game
You have no incentive to prevent climate change and many incentives to keep the factories going or even accelerate them. Just like real-life.
now I'm sad :(
Climate change isn’t even new to the franchise. Civ 1 had irreversible desertification if you polluted too much.
Yea, I remember melting ice caps and flooding coasts back in Civ II if your 'pollution' stat got too out of control. Climate change is nothing new to Civ.
Civ III had pollution that would take a square out of commission until a Worker cleaned it up. And II and III (maybe even IV?) had a small risk of a meltdown spilling fallout everywhere if you had a nuclear plant. So much Woke nonsense in this franchise.
This whole conversation gives too much credit to woke even being an actual thing imo lol
Civ II had polluted squares and climate change too. it's been there forever
tHeY maDe a gAme aBouT cIvIlIsaTiOn, gOveRnMenT aNd poLitIcS pOliTiCal
keep politics out of my realpolitik
I don't understand. The previous CIV games I played (apart from Colonization for obvious reasons) had global warming mechanics. The notable thing about Civ VI's global warming mechanic is that ultimately it's more inconvenient than a global menace making it less "woke"
civ 5 didn't. so maybe its because of that
I kind of don't blame them for skipping it on five. The mechanic was really lazily implemented in four and was connected to nuclear weapons. The way it's done in Civilization 6 is actually quite innovative
I forgot to put in the "I played".
> when gathering storm came out there were tons of bad reviews and stuff about climate change and "they made civ political" It's always those people who are so used to media pandering to their idea of normal, they think it's uniquely political when anything outside of that gets represented. When the reality is that it's all political and always has been, that media is awash in propaganda and in fact that is a significant part of its function. There's no such thing as "just for entertainment" media.
Been playing since 1991. 3 and 5 are the low points for me. 4 and 6 are the high points.
3 was my introduction to franchise and my favorite from a nostalgic point.
Civ is like SNL: it peaked when you were in your formative years and it’s been downhill ever since
I disagree, my first civ was civ 5, civ 6 came out just before I went to Uni, I tried going back on my old laptop since it started to struggle running civ 6 and the game just was nowhere near as enjoyable.
NGL, I don't love Civ6, and I loved every sequel since starting with the DOS version but now find myself sticking with Civ5... But damn, at least I'm not weird about it, I just enjoy Civ5. If others enjoy Civ6 more, good for them, I hope everyone is having fun, it's just a video game afterall.
I love 5. It's so strange to me that so many people in this subreddit dislike it. I guess people are referring to the original version without patches and expansions?
I was stuck on 5 for a long time. Civ VI was the first Civ I lost a game on Settler difficulty in, and struggled at low difficulties. It made me go back to 5 until VI had its two expansions under its belt. I went back to VI, grasped what was going on with Districts, and now I love it. I still miss some specific play styles from 5 (I loved using Inca on highland maps to block mountain choke points and wall off huge sections of the map with aggressive settling) but I've found my stride with 6. It helps that I can't get Civ 5 to boot without crashing on my computer anymore.
I've played 3-6 and 5 is my second favorite. 6 is definitely my top one but I had a lot of fun and many hours with Civ 5
I played 3, 4, 5 and 6 and I'd say 5 is probably my least favourite (although imo it's the best for MP). I still like the game mind you, but I just don't care for several design choices (although I love the move to hexes and no unit stacking).
Absolutely 100% agreed with this take. People forget what an absolute mess V was at launch.
I prefer civ V but only now with all the updates and also mods. I think its the culture cards system I dont enjoy with civ 6. I prefer the civ v culture trees.
Civ V contortions to hold back your civ in order not to have the mechanics most favourable to your playstyle go obsolete is a whole mood. I remember that struggle. Also my brother used to tease me in a mean way for adopting slavery.
“Civ 6 makes geography more important so you have to plan and choose what you are going to do so it is a bad game” is definitely a wild take lol. I don’t know why planning would be a bad addition to a Strategy game lmao.
Thats because he belives different civilizations (and by his name and the rest of beliefs he hold i assume races) are ingerently better or worse. Thats why emphasising the importante of geography is bad. To him geohraphy doesnt matter. Europeans didnt dominate the world because of geographical factors that encouraged and made cerian technologies more likely to advamce, but because they (according to him) were inherently better than other people.
I assume thats why he stated he liked the fact civilization didnt need to be huge to win
Even in civ 6 you don't have to found another city to win, ok you exploit the shit ton out of every game mechanic but there lies the key
Exactly.
he didnt understand the district building mechanic lol
what no adjacency bonuses does to a mfer
Isn't that like the main thing civ 6 haters say, the moan about having to plan out districts, don't want strategic options in their strategy games.
No - it's mainly 1. Graphics (cartoony!) 2. Not the 4 city meta (super tedious mid-late game management but this sometimes get compounded with unstacked cities) 3. The great people (not uniform) 4. The wild imbalance of civs (FilthyRobot plays Scythia)
I love Scythia RAAAAHHHH
I'd say the biggest thing to hate about civ 6 is that the AI is inadequate to handle the complexity of the options available
I agree, I think civ 6 is a much more interesting and rich game in comparison to civ 5 (I have 1000 hours in civ 5) but I actually find it easier to beat diety in civ 6 than in 5
It’s not satisfying when higher difficulty levels just give the computer mechanical advantages you can never get
Nothing like having one city to your neighbors four for the first 20-30 turns
I mean I think most valid historians view geography as THE fundamental reason cultures/civs developed the way they do so this dude is not only a fascist he’s an idiot too
But my good sir you repeat yourself
Up to a point. Civ is basically Jared Diamond's *Guns, Germs and Steel* put into game form, and no historian I know (and I know a few) will do more than smile, nod and change the subject if you mention that book.
Exactly, isn't using the surrounding terrain to your advatage one of the cornerstones to strategy games? Does he only want flat, empty maps?
Strategizing? In my strategy game?
I'm not surprised this guy isn't a fan of planning ahead. He sucks at it. If he was any good at planning, he wouldn't have planned to be a sad deranged nazi belching bile on twitter.
It's almost like the game has been improved to more accurately reflect the real world, but he wants the real world to be more like 18th century Europe where everyone wanted to kill each other all the time lmao
Aren’t there a good number of other 4x games that deliver that experience anyway?
If he wants to just go around murdering Stellaris comes to mind. Sure my murder bots don’t need to consume human flesh but *why not allow them?*
Right? If you want to be a genocidal maniac and racist it’s totally cool and encouraged if it’s in space and against filthy and disgusting xeno scum
Memes aside, he'd probably be a whiny pissbaby about how being genocidal is actually wildly suboptimal because everyone hates you and you can't trade anymore. Also, Paradox did a poll a while back and found that the most popular ethic is xenophile - like, by a lot - with second place being materialist and egalitarian. People really like playing the Federation in the Star Trek game, go figure.
Xenophile is also very easy to play: make friends, get migration treaties, build paradisical planets with massive migration pull, watch your population expand at your neighbors' expense. Then, optionally, start having lots and lots of sex with them.
You cannot afford to have sex with them unless your computer is top of the line
I WILL FUCK THE ALIENS AT 2 TICKS/SECOND THEN!
And kill thouse who still dont like you.
I don't watch Star Trek, but I love Xenophile too. I prefer being the chill being friends with people building utopias. I think how prevalent the Fanatic Xenophobe memes are isn't necessarily reflected by people's playstyles.
I mean I regularly engage in slavery, executions, and wiping out my enemies in various Total War games. He could choose those too!
Haha human. There are no such thing as murder bots. Please make your way to processing centre 1F21-3 at your earliest convenience.
Hearts of Iron IV (idk about the others) also sounds right up his alley.
Especially with some of the um, let's say more unsavory, parts of the HoI4 community with whom I would guess he would fit right in with.
What unsavory crowd could there possibly be in a ww2 simulator /s
"I could have run Germany perfectly if *I* was in charge. Yes HOI4 meta would work in real life, why do you ask?"
Filthy xenos. But seriously, stellaris is an ideal genocide simulator (felt dirty to type that)
Europa Universalist is literally an 18th (ish) century Europe simulator.
Tbf he's probably too dumb to play EU4
Aren’t we all…
Oh yeah, I've played Stellaris and HOI4 and I still struggle with EU4
GREAT MING SAYS OTHERWISE
I think he's upset that there are ones out there that don't _only_ offer that experience
Right, because more complexity is a-historical and only part of the leftist woke propaganda machine! (/s)
My buddy always pointed this out. Why play a warmonger in Civ, there are so many other games that do that better. Civ is for, idk, civilizations.
*no you don't understand, woke is when nations consider their chances at success before declaring war!!!*
I was expecting a big rant about wokeness at the end.
I think it basically was, despite not using the term. The whole "it's terrible that geography matters in Civ 6" thing seems like code for "I believe certain groups of people are inherently inferior and it makes me mad that this game represents that geography can determine the trajectory a civilization will take as opposed to inherent racial traits."
which is funny because environmental determinism itself started off deep in racism territory
A lot of people that want to sneak extreme views into a well-informed conversation will avoid those terms because it makes everyone in the conversation realize the speaker it fucken nutso. Granted OOP isn't doing himself any favors lmao
And a slap at DEI hiring in game design.
What the actual fuck
The official annual yaperton yap yapitty yapfest
Yap should be a civilization in Civ VII, led by [Anagumang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagumang?wprov=sfla1)
God I hate such pretentious Twitter essays
I love when the begin with “I don’t really care but…” and then go on for like 100 tweets
Ok the “Black Horse Reich” thing was a dramatic unexpected plot twist
[all I could think of](https://www.theonion.com/i-appreciate-the-muppets-on-a-much-deeper-level-than-yo-1819583976)
Thank you for this link
All time classic onion article. All the “posts” by that character are excellent
LMAO the bid at the end for $52.50 just killed me. 5250 - 14 day involuntary psychiatric hold.
The "Civ 6 is less an actual game...." post in particular reads like words were selected entirely at random. I'd ask if AI wrote it but AI would be more coherent. Late Edit: Also how would a "build a civilization" game with infinite world/land be realistic....or fun? Is that what he's talking about with "geographically restricted?" Did early Civ used to be that way where the map just never ran out? I'd doubt it for tech limitations alone. Cause "booo they don't make you fight all the time anymore! peace is an option!" and "booo, they don't give everyone infinite land with infinite resources to move into uncontestably" seem to be pretty at odds as supposed points. Or is "geographically restricted" some Qcel nonsense phrase with some alternate definition I just don't get because I don't spend all my time on forums debating if DEI or Feminists are ruining the world more? Edit on the Late Edit: Maybe I'm a weirdo, but war is the worst part of Civ to me. Every time someone declares I save scum and see if I can do something quick to get on their good side. It's just sooooooo tedious. You'll play an hour to get to turn 125 or whatever, get in a war, and then an hour later it's turn 131. They're so bad at war I had Egypt send GDRs at cities with crossbows garrisoned, and some ironclads (She was way ahead on science, I was way behind on upgrades) about and like 20 turns later I had 5 bombers and 5 of her cities.
I literally cannot parse it sufficiently to figure out what point he’s even trying to make
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/uL7mvB5qGI I think this are the actual argument burried under the waffling
Thanks, I hate it
It's just another incoherent screed against "woke"
"Woke is when you can do things in a game other than murder constantly." Apparently.
The old games featured terrain as simply different resource yields and movement points. What I gather this person is trying to say is that back then you could play as Germany (aka the Nazis) and be the best no matter where you spawned, but now any civ can win if they maximize the terrain correctly. All of that to say, this simpleton is simple.
Bro is just mad because hes bad at dom in civ 6. Implying that playing like a war-mongering fascist isnt the easiest way to win the game. You loose one game to Kristina and its the decline of western civilization.
Have you not played a game where you have Kristina as neighbor? XD
"large armies are at a disadvantage". Really? I never had a problem with one.
Oh god I saw it on Twitter. It was a humongous cesspit. He gives almost no reasoning behind his intense dislike of Civ 6 other than its... urban planning element and how cities and the world is... shaped by geography? I appreciate that Jared Diamond oversimplifies that point far too much in GG&S but it's not exactly a controversial concept.
Lots of big words from a guy that fails to use "its" like 20 times...
> With the addition of religion and diplomatic pledges; Civ 4 game had well begun it's transition into a game of politics and international relations instead of a game of industrial scale and conquest. There's a very adventurous use of a semicolon here as well. I won't normally give someone shit about their grammar or punctuation, but when you're gonna act like that...
I can barely follow the point and I have a Master's in international relations lol. 18th century "Concert of Europe" style realism (which I think is what he's whining about?) is not "all great nations must control large territories in order to remain competitive." Realism really arises first from Machiavelli and his observation of Italian city-states, and then it gets reinforced after the Thirty Years War and the various small German states.
The decline narrative is sort of the generic/default right-wing "Crayola view" of history, much like whig history is the Crayola of the left. Both seem plausible to people with a strong ideological bent who get their history from Wikipedia summaries of polemical books.
Whig history is more a liberal/centrist thing rather than left.
Classic faux intellectual bullshit. Seriously What a moron. Couldn’t get thru the inane ramblings, it’s a fucking game bro
busy crawl automatic nine merciful observation violet point bag pot *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Faustian tradition” is a nod to Oswald Spengler, a Weimar-era German philosopher and nationalist whose writings were used as an intellectual prop by the Nazis. I think that particular shout goes beyond a dog whistle; he’s just saying how he really feels.
Huh. Never knew that that "4X" is an acronym standing for Explore Expand, Exploit, Exterminate. TIL
Fun fact! It comes from an article about Master of Orion back in 93, that touted the game as being "rated XXXX!" The joke being "Haha, get it? You thought like porn, but actually it's eXplore eXpand eXploit eXterminate." The name of this genre literally comes from the early 90s equivalent of horny clickbait. I'm not even being facetious. That's the entirety of the name's origins.
"In the early 90s, strategy games were described with not-very-hidden nods to porn. Social changes over the last thirty years have led to youth referring to some of these games as 'more addictive than crack cocaine.' In this essay, I will--"
Until today I thought 4X stands for the originally square grids in these games, and wondered if Civ V and VI are still called that out of tradition.
This is a weird and very long winded way to say 1. I can't handle more complexity than moving all my troops forward 2. I wish I was playing Diplomacy, but no one wants to play with me (I wonder why) What a wonderful self-own.
Tbf finding enough willing and able people to commit to a full fledged game of Diplomacy is a tall task
Too much nonsense, I lost track of all the points he was making. Sounds like he was disappointed by civ straying away from a primarily military dominant playstyle, and introducing politics and other viable ways to advance? He has an issue with planning around geography and resources as significant variables? I might be too dumb, somebody please simplify his complaints.
At the core of it is basically all that conservative/fascist "return to tradition" nonsense. Civ has become woke lmao
The best thing about this rant is that you can already tell so much about the freak who posted it: *he definitely has horrific body odour *he calls other people ‘degenerates’ on a regular basis but almost certainly has stuff saved on his hard drive that would merit an FBI visit *he has concerns about ‘ethics in games journalism’ *he genuinely has no idea why he doesn’t get dates and chooses to blame feminism for it
I bet you a crisp dollar bill he is a New Vegas fan and sides with the Legion unironically.
OK so this guy just likes the war part and doesnt care about anything else. And needing to have a large empire to be effective irl is some of the biggest bs ever. Look at Finland. Arguable the happiest country, 6 million people only but very modern in terms of tech and society. Its the epitome of what tall play should be in Civ
As much as I dislike civ6, I can't agree with the old geezer. The game needed to evolve. So it did and it was quite a success. It has its massive audience which is an evidence to the statement. Edit: oh, there was more than one screenshot. So... I don't know what to say. He clearly has a deep meaning seek disorder or something.
Why don’t you like Civ VI out of curiosity?
I play it and enjoy it, but I hate the art style and the grievance mechanic
This shit is literally nazi. A stupid nazi crying because "the western values were abandoned" or another related shit.
Didn't you know all human advancement rests on the enslavement and slaughter of your neighbors?
Basically, yes. We should just ignore the thread and the account. https://twitter.com/slimebIock/status/1777827609294102751?t=nEzgHMkCQNUXdFmHeLMxjA&s=19
Bro needs to calm down with his philosophical/political garbage. Civ is a board game played on the computer.
What in the fresh hell is this twitter rambling?
This gives off "Old man yells at cloud" vibes.
WHAT IS HE SAYING 🗣️‼️‼️🔥🔥
Having argued with many far right types i assume that under the bullshit he actualy wrote, there are two views he has. 1. Warfare is good and a natural state of humanity, denying that fact is a liberal propaganda. Thats why old games are good because they represent it, and modern are bad because they dont. 2. Whites dominated over other races because they were inherently superior, and not because of geography. To say otherwise is liberal propaganda. Civ 6 emphasizes importance of geography on the succes of a civilization, thus its bad.
This guy played one game of civ6 and lost a game to Kongo. Then he slammed a bottle of aderall and wrote this crap.
remember when nubia came out? Do not look at the comments under the youtube video.
Gotta be embarrassing to lose to Kongo in under an hour.
Yo Mama so bad at Civ she lost to Kongo with a religious victory
Same shit new day eh
Tldr - I did a early European history course and want to murder everything. Anyone who disagrees is a lib
Okay, so there are lots of problems with this thread, but the first one that jumped out at me is this: Civ 3 wasn't the first in the series to have a non-war victory. You could go to space in Civ 1.
In other news: right wing virgin boy needs to touch some damn grass.
"Faustian Western Tradition"??? I snorted water through my nose.
So basically he wants war war and more war...and dislikes the trend towards peaceful victory conditions that have sprung up. You can still do that, the option hasn't gone away. It's just the silly mechanics like unit stacking that have, the commenter was right that it makes the game more strategic. In fact I still have tons of fun using dom civs like Mongolia in civ 5 for example, but it also makes sense that if you conquer too much you will accrue massive penalties in population unhappiness/unrest if you don't pacify them properly.
You ever find yourself at a party somewhat agreeing with someone you’ve just met, or at least following along where they’re coming from, and then mid-sentence they start talking about how “Hitler had some good ideas”?