The idea of it hooked me long ago, then I played it and the cartooney feel killed me. So I never played again. It was not the god game and city builder I wwas looking for. But the idea of it always seemed good.
Definitely waiting..... also need to upgrade ole trixie.... PC is getting a bit old. Checked my steam hours played for Civ 5 and Civ 6: Total 378 hours or 15.75 days played The craziest thing is I played 189.7 hours for Civ 5 and 189.6 hours for Civ 6.
Different people have different likes - some due to plain nostalgia, but a ton of people like Civ IV along with the associated expansion packs. I honestly just play the latest one (VI) and rarely go back and play older ones. But then I love playing these kind of games - I just suck at them.
That's what's weird. I mentioned that because every Civ probably had its complaints about things being different. I wouldn't know what "classic Civ" would be, but IV is generally considered the barometer against what others are measured, but there are lots of people that would rather play Civ II simply due to nostalgia. I know I'd never go back that far. In Civ VII, the major change from VI is probably the concept of Ages. In past games, you basically picked a Civ and got its associated leader (George Washington, for example, if you chose Murka). In Civ VII, every civ is tied to an Age, so as you change Ages, you'll be selecting a new civ, so now you get that new civ's bonuses, units, etc. for that age. This is a huge change. It used to be the civ you chose was the civ you played the rest of the game, but with ages, now you will be playing multiple ones. If I recall correctly, you end up choosing an Age, a Leader, and a Civilization... so Ben Franklin running the Maya during the antiquity age or something is something possible.
Interesting. That does sound weird. But not an immediate turn off. And I do believe the Civ that got me hooked was IV.
You can get the entire Civ 4 series for $5.99 on Steam right now through the 20th: https://store.steampowered.com/sub/4323/