Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Steam Top 10

Here's Valve's report of the 10 bestselling games on their Steam service for this past week:

  1. Sid Meier's Civilization V: Gods & Kings
  2. Arma II: Combined Operations
  3. Deus Ex: Collections
  4. Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
  5. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Collection 2
  6. Max Payne 3
  7. The Elder Scrolls V" Skyrim
  8. Deus Ex: Human Revolutions
  9. Magic: The Gathering: Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013
  10. Torchlight II

View
41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

41. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 19:41 theyarecomingforyou
 
Verno wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 14:38:
The reviews (much like Civ 5) seem mixed and opinions vary on the details, some say the new subsystems are an afterthought and others say they're a large improvement. It's one of the few times I really feel like I need a demo because at $30 well, it's not crazy expensive but I have other stuff to play so I could put it off until its cheaper. If stuff is really improved (and I'd love to hear specifics) then I might grab it.
Well, Firaxis is generally pretty good about offering huge discounts so I imagine it will be on sale for 50-75% off within the year.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 19:40 Sepharo
 
Verno wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 14:38:
It's one of the few times I really feel like I need a demo because at $30 well, it's not crazy expensive but I have other stuff to play so I could put it off until its cheaper. If stuff is really improved (and I'd love to hear specifics) then I might grab it.

$30 did seem too expensive but for some reason $22 seemed right
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 14:38 Verno
 
clearly not everybody is of the same opinion as you.

I was referencing my take on the general problems people complained about having in Civ 5. I never said Civ 5 was a terrible game or that everyone in the universe hated it. I'm open minded, I'm not opposed to changing my mind and buying it but I'm more interested in whats better and how they addressed the problems rather than opinion clashes. For the record I could write a laundry list of the problems in Civ 4 so I'm not one of those people who thinks the predecessor was better just because. Civ 5 did a lot of things very well, it just didn't have the same depth or replay value for me and I found the AI very mediocre - particularly in warfare and diplomacy.

The reviews (much like Civ 5) seem mixed and opinions vary on the details, some say the new subsystems are an afterthought and others say they're a large improvement. It's one of the few times I really feel like I need a demo because at $30 well, it's not crazy expensive but I have other stuff to play so I could put it off until its cheaper. If stuff is really improved (and I'd love to hear specifics) then I might grab it.

This comment was edited on Jun 25, 2012, 15:06.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 13:56 theyarecomingforyou
 
Verno wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 08:49:
When people talk about Civ 5 being less than its predecessors, I think of poor AI, less cultural options, no religion/espionage, a greater focus on war, less diplomatic options and so on.
There's nothing wrong with the AI; it has its issues but that's true of the previous games too. There certainly isn't a greater focus on war, not when Civ4 dramatically favoured military victories with obscene unit stacks - I'd say the exact opposite, as cities are able to fend off any but a serious assault. As for cultural options they are a lot more varied, especially with the great units which can build enhancements, steal land, etc. And the implementation of religion and espionage in G&K is dramatically better than in Civ4, which is highlighted in virtually every review I've read.
Verno wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 08:49:
I haven't played the expansion and don't really plan on getting it since the reviews seem to paint them as afterthoughts that don't really fix the underlying problems.
The reviews I've read have called it an essential expansion that is worth purchasing. If you didn't like the core game then obviously you're not going to find much to like in an expansion but your characterisation isn't fair or accurate.

Civilization 5 isn't a remake of the previous game, nor was it trying to be. The core concepts are the same but they tried to address the issues people had with the game. As I said, although I very much like the game I was never a fan of the city states but the expansion does a lot to address that and now I find them much more interesting and less annoying. It's still impressive that Civ5 is one of the most played games on Steam and has been since release - clearly not everybody is of the same opinion as you.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 13:34 Creston
 
nin wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 17:30:
Honestly, I started a second playthrough as a rambo type style, but it wasn't as fun as the stealth route, and I stopped played. Using the burger menu to summon a chain gun and wiping out everything kinda kills the challenge of it.

It can be played either way, but I found the stealth method a lot more rewarding.


Killing everything is too easy in the game, and makes it dull after a little while. I actually made my "kill everything" playthrough a literal one, so I killed EVERYTHING in the game. Detroit and Hengsha were nothing but mass-graveyards, and it's actually quite challenging to try to kill everything without getting swamped by the cops on Deus Ex difficulty.

The most fun playthrough, for me, was the pure ghost one, however. In it, you can't take out ANYONE (except where the game necessitates it.)

Do you need to get past that door and that guard is in the way? Find away to distract him from the door without taking him out. It's amazing how convoluted ideas can get when you're just trying to get past one guy.

I like the pure Ghost walkthrough the best of all, even better than the "Stealth with knock-outs" one, especially since you get a ton less XP, and thus have to be more diligent about which upgrades to buy.

spoiler : The Pure Ghost walkthrough does mean that Malik dies, since you have no way to save her.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 11:15 Crustacean Soup
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 07:54:
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.

See, I said that bit about Sulieman because he didn't have the larger army. Nowhere close (and his war declaration message reflected that, which was a neat touch). He did have the largest on that continent and sued for peace after he took that city I planted on his turf. Maybe I'm just having good luck this game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 08:53 Sepharo
 
jimnms wrote on Jun 25, 2012, 07:37:
There is one thing I miss from Civ IV, and that is the colony thing. Although I think to form a colony in IV the city/cities had to be on a separate continent. I remember in a Civ IV game I didn't have a resource I needed, but there was some on a small unclaimed island. I sent over a settler, made a city, turned it into a colony so I could get the resource without the negatives of an extra city to maintain.

I'm in a similar situation in my current Civ V G&K game. I just researched iron working which reveals iron on the map. As my luck goes, there is no iron in my borders. There is one source two blocks outside the border of my capitol, but it's too far out to buy the tiles and I don't think the borders will expand any farther. I want that iron, but it's in a shitty location and not worth putting a city there just to get it.

Generate a great general and have him lay down a fortress, it will capture the tile you put it on and a circle of tiles around it. And since you can put the fortress on a tile adjacent to your territory that's a 2 tiles wide expansion, just what you need That's how I capture my oil which always seems to spawn just slightly out of reach.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 08:49 Verno
 
When people talk about Civ 5 being less than its predecessors, I think of poor AI, less cultural options, no religion/espionage, a greater focus on war, less diplomatic options and so on. City states were one of those things that sound great on paper but just don't work well IMO. It's not so much about having every individual feature of the previous games, it's more that what is there hasn't been executed that well.

I haven't played the expansion and don't really plan on getting it since the reviews seem to paint them as afterthoughts that don't really fix the underlying problems. I always found the AI in Civ 5 to be a bit of a joke, even on the harder difficulties you're just essentially fighting their bonuses as opposed to AI that is more difficult.

It's certainly not a bad game though, it was entertaining enough for awhile and I got my moneys worth. I just found it a tad shallow and not very challenging compared to Civ 4 (unit stacks not withstanding).
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
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.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 07:37 jimnms
 
There is one thing I miss from Civ IV, and that is the colony thing. Although I think to form a colony in IV the city/cities had to be on a separate continent. I remember in a Civ IV game I didn't have a resource I needed, but there was some on a small unclaimed island. I sent over a settler, made a city, turned it into a colony so I could get the resource without the negatives of an extra city to maintain.

I'm in a similar situation in my current Civ V G&K game. I just researched iron working which reveals iron on the map. As my luck goes, there is no iron in my borders. There is one source two blocks outside the border of my capitol, but it's too far out to buy the tiles and I don't think the borders will expand any farther. I want that iron, but it's in a shitty location and not worth putting a city there just to get it.

I had an idea for a unit like a settler, but instead of making a city it would put up a mining colony so that you can get resources from outside your borders in unclaimed territory without having to build a new city. It wouldn't have territory borders, but it would have a range around the colony that would let you mine/farm the resources in its range. The farther from your border, the more expensive to build and/or maintain. It also can't defend itself, so you would need to guard it from barbarians and other civs.
 
Avatar 17277
 
MeanJim on Steam
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 02:15 Crustacean Soup
 
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.

In what way? The interface is much nicer, they changed Happiness from a city thing to an empire thing and got rid of health, they added building and tile improvement maintenance, they got rid of war weariness, they added a far higher (empire-wide) happiness penalty for annexed cities, they got rid of religion, they added extra brains to the diplomacy-side AI to form blocs more organically.

There were some heavy balance and AI issues on release, but exactly where's the dumbing down?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 02:04 jacobvandy
 
Also a horrible analogy to Civ, as KOA actually was a dumbed-down console game that was ported to PC...  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 01:09 Jerykk
 
Most of these games go for graphics over intelligent thought out content and design, take this big recent game by Big Huge Games Kingdoms of Amalur:Reckoning, many of you thought it was great the gameplay was tedious and repetititives and the 3rd person view was abysmal, it was many steps back from the PC rpg predecessors.

By "many of you," do you mean "almost nobody?" Because I don't really remember anyone proclaiming that KOA was great. Some people thought it was decent, most people thought it was generic and forgettable.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 01:09 Prez
 
Some people don't understand the difference between streamlining and dumbing down, and assume that it's an affront to your intelligence if you don't have to spend months learning the mechanics of the various game systems.

Ain't that the damn truth. to be fair, the Civ series has never been a particularly impenetrable one, certainly not like many turn-based strategy games of days gone by, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't benefit from some streamlining. For me, Civ 5 (what little I have played it anyway) is more "different" than dumbed-down. I can see how some of the bigger departures from the Civ formula could be considered change for the worse by some fans of the previous games (particularly Civ 4), but that dislike is not indicative of a "dumber" game. I'm thinking it just means the changes weren't to your liking.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 25, 2012, 00:04 Chromius
 
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.

Most of these games go for graphics over intelligent thought out content and design, take this big recent game by Big Huge Games Kingdoms of Amalur:Reckoning, many of you thought it was great the gameplay was tedious and repetititives and the 3rd person view was abysmal, it was many steps back from the PC rpg predecessors. My only thought was wtf is this?

PC games have been infected by Idiocracy , lol. Never mind Capitalism has purchased our Democracy and most of the tards in the US cant see it. Baah no use there is no intelligent life here. mmmm wine.

No wonder US is dropping in education value. Hey we need some new pc games that show you how to tie your shoes and pick up your dirty dishes lol
 
Avatar 55170
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 24, 2012, 22:35 killer_roach
 
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.

Some people don't understand the difference between streamlining and dumbing down, and assume that it's an affront to your intelligence if you don't have to spend months learning the mechanics of the various game systems.

Personally, I'd just call that approach poor design, but to each their own.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 24, 2012, 21:59 Prez
 
Sad to say that I quit my campaign in Sins in frustration today. Granted I had a virtually unbeatable empire built, with 3 massive fleets that were rolling over opposing planets rather easily and victory was all but a foregone conclusion. Even so, I feel deprived of the "payoff" of all the hard work and strategizing that got me there by experiencing the joys of seeing my bitter enemies for the last 55 hours crushed beneath my galactic war machine. The reason? Late game lag. I'm talking slide show city/low teen frame rates kind of lag. To be sure, late game lag/stuttering has always been a bit of a problem in previous iterations of Sins, but before Rebellion it has never rendered the game unplayable. In the past lowering the UI and graphics options allowed me to finish the games I played, but no such luck here.

I am told it is in large part due to the fact that the Sins engine can only use 32 bit (meaning it will not utilize over 4 GB of RAM regardless of how much you have) and it does not utilize multithreading [EDIT: My terminology was wrong- that should read "hyperthreading"], meaning it will only use one core of multicore procs, and to change that would need a massive engine overhaul that Ironclad lacks the resources to do. Fair enough. But if that is the case, why in the world would they make the game more graphically intensive when it was already gimped and can't take advantage of faster systems with more memory?

This comment was edited on Jun 25, 2012, 00:19.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 24, 2012, 21:48 Prez
 
Techie714 © wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 16:54:
Sepharo wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 16:18:
Techie714 © wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 16:12:
Max Payne 3 needs to move up on that list. So far it's one of the most engaging story driven games I've ever played. The graphics are simply incredible & the game play is a real blast.

I agree but I feel we're in the minority here. A lot of posters have complained about the story, cutscenes, and gameplay. I really enjoyed the story and setting, didn't mind the cutscenes too much and thought the gun play mechanics were great.

The game also scored some great reviews too.

I noticed today that Max Payne 3 has a higher Meta score than Diablo 3 on Metacritic. Interesting...
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 24, 2012, 21:40 Crustacean Soup
 
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'.

Spies are a nice new mechanic. Melee naval units and coastal attacking are very nice additions. I'm still not sure if religion makes a very large difference, but my current (and first) game I decided not to play religion-heavy, and went with Rationalism instead of Piety. I like the new units and techs fleshing out the early-modern age, and the combat rebalance seems to have worked well.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 24, 2012, 21:05 jimnms
 
Jerykk wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 18:33:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 17:03:
Chromius wrote on Jun 24, 2012, 16:52:
Civ IV was the last Civ game for me. Civ 5 was dumbed down (simplified) way too much for the console masses just like many other titles in the last few years

If that's the case, I think they missed a key part of the strategy, i.e., actually releasing it for the consoles they dumbed it down for.

This. If you're going to accuse a game of being consolized, at least check to make sure it was actually released for consoles. Civ 5 may have been simplified but it had nothing to do with consoles.

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.
 
Avatar 17277
 
MeanJim on Steam
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo