...and truth be told, you represent the minority in this discussion.
Perhaps you should join other like-minded individuals who enjoy Civilization V in the proper threads.
This is a 'Rants' topic for those of us who don't enjoy CiV to post our disagreements.
Wait, let me analyze this here.
So you're saying that you support the idea of the Civilization franchise becoming a war-mongering one, and not an empire building series which it was meant to be?
Put yourself in a situation where you have all the technologies except Nuclear Fusion, which is needed to build the Giant Death Robot. Suddenly, Genghis Khan and even Gandhi of all people throw a slew of Giant Death Robots towards you. All you have is Stealth Bombers and Modern Armor.
150 Strength versus 80 Strength (Modern Armor). Who is going to win?
You yourself just admitted that you prefer Conquest and Domination victories as opposed to Cultural and Space Race victories. Civilization is a poor fighting game at best. It's recipe for success lies within the balance of research, maintenance, commerce, culture, and supporting an adequate army. Put all focus on military and you got yourself a serious imbalance in the game mechanics.
====
No it's not. I simply think terrible DLC is a bad concept that wants to reach out and squeeze people of their hard earned cash. It needs to be made cheaper. They should also be where they are simply optional additions to the game, you don't need to use them if you want to fully enjoy the experience.
Now I have to pay out money if I want to play as a Babylonian. Not everybody has the option to get that DLC either. And that is just wrong.
Seriously? The donation model? It's more like 'We want your money and since we don't value you as a valuable customer you have to suck it up or quit blah blah blah'.
Once again, the popular saying 'Good things come to those who wait' is applied.
So, what should we do? Wait two-five years for everything to come out and then say 'Oh boy, everything in one package, I guess I'll go out and buy it'?
Some people prefer to buy the vanilla game during initial release just to find out the great new additions that have been built upon from the previous iteration. So far, most people think Civilization V was a huge step backwards. As a once proud fan of the Civilization series, I can't help but agree with them because there is so much wrong in this game. Who designed it? A group of game developers that actually care or a group of financial heads that were desperate for profits?
It adds nothing new that I haven't seen already in previous iterations. It's a polished piece of turd.
This guy is a genius. I mean just look at the descriptive details he gives out in his review. It's a definite spot on.
Worthy of a A+ in my book.
Exactly.
It would only seem logical that you obtained a set number of gold and a positive output of gold per turn before cranking out libraries. Of course I don't speak for everybody, but the bit about experienced players is so painstakingly obvious that it would seem childish to start building universities without even looking at the commerce ratio.
Having a spamfest of libraries with only 10-50 percent research isn't going to help is it?
It's like Firaxis suddenly decided to target a group of ******ed kids who know nothing else than to play 'shoot-em-up' every time they grab hold of a strategy game.
Moderator Action: No need for name-calling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Simplicity does not equal better.
Definitely. The guy who formed Napster got sued big time, and it no longer exists.
So I guess that the 18-year-old is Britney Spears, right?
We went from guys like Tupac Shakur and Kurt Cobain who helped innovate the music industry to a bunch of rejects. Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift? They look like a byproduct of Bratz.
Everything went downhill following the so called 'Y2K' announcement. Turns out that marketing firms took this new technology and started prodding mass audiences in order to buy particular products. Heavy marketing indeed.
I find very well why IGN would blindly rate games like Civilization a 9.0 rating. Truth by told, games that actually deserve the 9.0 rating are very hard to come by. The fact of the matter is, like Hollywood, most movies/games cranked out are going to be mediocre. There are only a select few that manage to climb up to the top of the rubble.
I enjoy my freedom on the Internet as well. The thought of my account shutting down just for who I am and the personal preferences I go by is clearly depressing. These companies want to control YOU, because once they do they can easily tell you what to do and what not to do. Not a good approach by any means in the book.
And this description, pertaining to McDonalds, is that society has become lazy. People associate a mainstream title and go with it because they know what to expect. Mom and pop stores don't have that reputation. They don't receive credit. Walmart receives huge amounts of credit, and for what? Because it is one of the most profitable companies in the world?
Your last paragraph is a bit unsettling. So you want Hollywood and the music industry to make the choices for us? I'm sorry but from what I see today, they're making terrible choices. Hollywood is now one of the prime suspects in deciding what we should or shouldn't do. And quite clearly, it's all about the materialism and the fame.
http://magisterrex.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/blogpanzergeneralaction.gif
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2010/290/938528_20101018_screen001.jpg