Posted April 21, 2023
Gudadantza: The reason I always played much more III over IV was because I always liked more the graphic art direction. I considered it easier, cleaner, more comfortable gameplay wise and my only gripe was that the game was too easy to expand, too fast, too many cities possible in the end game and too cheats, probably. Hard too explan.
I recognize IV as an objectivelly better game but never really liked too much nor the interface nor graphics, the performance overall. But I liked more the flow, the epicness of games and the amount of content.
And also It could sound strange but between IV and V I had better feelings with V
Carradice: With V, I played it, but eventually I wondered what was the point... Same with Beyond Earth (Alpha Centauri it was not, alas). I recognize IV as an objectivelly better game but never really liked too much nor the interface nor graphics, the performance overall. But I liked more the flow, the epicness of games and the amount of content.
And also It could sound strange but between IV and V I had better feelings with V
I liked the art direction, liked the interface, the change to hexagons and the one unit for tile. It is said that it is problematic depending the map and the pathfinding but in previous versions the stacking was also the origin of other problems as well. As players we use to make dissections and we give more importance to the negative, indeed.
About Beyond Earth, never played it, but what I watched about it is just an Alpha Centauri wannabe. It was impossible not to make comparisons, and in my point and view, they didn' t were close to its spiritual predecessor.
It was not horrible, I'd like to play it deeply, and maybe with the expansion it was much more complete, but Alpha Centauri is Alpha Centauri.