|
|
 |
| [Jun 24, 2012, 2:30 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Here's Valve's report of the 10 bestselling games on their Steam service for this past week:
- Sid Meier's Civilization V: Gods & Kings
- Arma II: Combined Operations
- Deus Ex: Collections
- Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Collection 2
- Max Payne 3
- The Elder Scrolls V" Skyrim
- Deus Ex: Human Revolutions
- Magic: The Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013
- Torchlight II
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 33. |
Re: Steam Top 10 |
Jun 25, 2012, 07:54 |
theyarecomingforyou |
|
|
jimnms wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 21:05:
I have yet to see this dumbing down in Civ V. Some parts of the game were streamlined or simplified, but not dumbed down. I find it more challenging than Civ IV. No longer can I create a huge military stack and steam roll my way to an easy domination or territory victory. I tried creating a massive army in my first game and dominating the other civs only to find my civilization crumbling due to massive unhappieness from expanding too fast and razing and conquering a few cities. By the time I managed to get my civs happy enough to begin producing stuff and my military fighting again, I was left in the dust while the other civs had advanced way ahead of me. Civ V requires a lot more strategy and planning than Civ IV. Exactly. The go-to strategy in Civ4 was amassing an insane stacked army and moving it from city to city. Civ5 completely changed that dynamic by moving to hex tiles (more ways to assault a city), removing unit stacks and allowing city to attack/defend on their own (a huge improvement for early game). And the way happiness works you really need to focus on the infrastructure of your cities, especially the wonders.Crustacean Soup wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 21:40:
I've heard complaints about irrational AI diplomacy; either they've improved it a lot, or those complaints were off, because I'm not seeing it. Civs declare war on me when they have a comparably powerful military (or are desperate; e.g. I wiped out two civs, then settled on Suleiman's continent, ignored his warnings and set up a second city right beside his capital), and they usually only seem to do so now when they have a sneak attack ready. They form blocs. Blocs occasionally collapse, and your friends will turn on you if you start to encroach on their territory or start to become threatening; not really a bad thing, and they always seem to act at least somewhat 'rationally'. I still think that civs are overly aggressive and not very strategic. In my game last night I was attacked early on from the sea by a character that although obviously had a larger army was not in a position to use it against me. I destroyed his invading army with minimal effort but he refused to negotiate peace and had all the city states allied to him. I then had to annex them all and he still didn't give up. So I sent in a naval fleet and captured one of his coastal cities, fended off the assault and he offered me everything in peace... for about 15 turns, before breaking his word and launching another attack. I razed his city, withdrew, turtled on science and then nuked him into oblivion. The point is that AI was basing all its decisions on who had the highest rated army rather than on any strategy or on probable outcomes.
Chromius wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 00:04:
A game does not even need to be made for todays consoles for it to be dumbed down for the console masses. Civ 5 was very basic on release and its funny how you all get faked out by the pretty graphics, just like the oversized boobs on the blonde bimbos on tv that are ugly as hell. It was simple and is simple. I wouldn't call a game "very basic" for not including every feature and civ from every previous game and expansion. They made huge fundamental changes to the core mechanics at the risk of alienating their fans. Sure they stripped out the old religion and spies mechanics but I really wasn't a fan of them based upon their reliance upon units, something which Gods & Kings avoids (aside from great prophets). The only thing I found annoying was the implementation of city states but again G&K addresses that and makes them a much more important part of the game, yet reduces the reliance of killing barbarians and micro-manages their quests - now a lot of it is automatic and based upon your progress in science/faith/culture/happiness.
At the end of the day it's pretty hard - and pointless - to dumb down Civ because the core concept is pretty inaccessible to most gamers. It requires a lot of patience, a lot of trial and error, a lot of research and understanding and an awful lot of time. What can do - and rightfully so - is to streamline elements and make the game mechanics much more transparent. There's still a lot you have to learn through experience - especially when assaulting cities - but at least when you lose or aren't doing well it's usually clear why. The happiness and gold mechanics are infinitely better than what they had in Civ4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core i7 2600-K (4.6GHz) | 12GB DDR3 | GTX680 SLI (1215/1605) | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB SSD | Windows 8 Pro
Hazro HZ30Wie 30" | Saffire PRO 40 | Razer Mamba | Coolermaster RP1000W
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
