21–30 of 150 posts
I'm a bit surprised at the graphics they have shown so far. I originally saw a screenshot and assumed it was a mobile game rather than a full-fledged AAA title for the PC.
Ditto. The cartoony feel doesn't really fit what I would expect from a CIV title, hopefully that will change. The gameplay changes themselves seem very promising, though
It would be fun to upgrade to a new CIV and see how it compares. Maybe I'll do that in October. But I might need some laptop-upgrades :)
I would love to see a game that accurately reflects modern geopolitics. It would generate a world and run a history up to a certain point, at which you'd take control as head of state of a particular nation and conduct national affairs. Ideally, the game would be able to make conducting the affairs of a large global hegemon like the United States as interesting as playing a small kingdom beset on all sides. Sort of l…
Balance of Power (both the original and 1990 editions; allowed play of the USA or USSR only) and Shadow President (allowed play as the USA only) come to mind; ISTR one that allowed play as a wider variety of real-world nations, but can't place the name.
I love the Civilization series, but I'll be honest: it really bothers me that certain companies have one or two franchises and they keep churning out new iterations of them every year or every other year. It just feels like a money grab after a while (especially with franchises like Call of Duty or Madden, which, from my perspective, don't improve appreciably in between iterations). I'd like to see them taking some r…
And I'm still sitting here and waiting for Age of Empires 4 :/
I would love to see a game that accurately reflects modern geopolitics. It would generate a world and run a history up to a certain point, at which you'd take control as head of state of a particular nation and conduct national affairs. Ideally, the game would be able to make conducting the affairs of a large global hegemon like the United States as interesting as playing a small kingdom beset on all sides. Sort of l…
When Civ 1 came out I played it religiously. To the point I could wake up at noon, start playing then look outside and find it was dark. I didn't really play Civ 2 or 3. I just found them to be classic examples of sequels: adding tedium more than anything else. Civ 4 I also played a lot, possibly as much as Civ 1. Civ 4 was, for me, a rare sequel that didn't just add feature bloat. It added a lot of depth while strea…
I would love to see a game that accurately reflects modern geopolitics. It would generate a world and run a history up to a certain point, at which you'd take control as head of state of a particular nation and conduct national affairs. Ideally, the game would be able to make conducting the affairs of a large global hegemon like the United States as interesting as playing a small kingdom beset on all sides. Sort of l…
> The real interesting part of the game in my view is that conquest is no longer an option Isn't it though? Russia seemed to do OK with the conquest of Crimea. Anyway the suggestion of Europa Universalis is probably the closest you will get right now. If Paradox made a post-cold war sim I'd play the hell out of it, but I think it would be hard to do right and be interesting precisely because without real conquest and…
A modern version simulating the last 100 years of politics and war on a worldwide scale would interest me. Especially if you could try different strategies and perspectives in current day hotspots like Syria, Southeast Asian sea, etc.
I would love to see a game that accurately reflects modern geopolitics. It would generate a world and run a history up to a certain point, at which you'd take control as head of state of a particular nation and conduct national affairs. Ideally, the game would be able to make conducting the affairs of a large global hegemon like the United States as interesting as playing a small kingdom beset on all sides. Sort of l…
> conquest is no longer an option Sounds like an interesting idea for a game, but that doesn't really accurately reflect modern geopolitics, does it?
There've still been civil wars, coups, proxy wars, trade wars, foreign-funded revolutions, etc, but these are way smaller scale and result in far less bloodshed than building up a massive army and smashing it against an enemy in an open war of conquest.
Interesting dynamics for a game like Civ.