Mitchum
Deity
You must be doing something wrong. There are entire sub-forums at CFC devoted to teach people how to avoid this. Hint: It's not in the "All Other Games" section...
Game of the Year
- Thread starter civvver
- Start date
You must be doing something wrong. There are entire sub-forums at CFC devoted to teach people how to avoid this. Hint: It's not in the "All Other Games" section...
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Vote = Civ 4
Hardly a contest for me, and probably most of the forum.
Might as well jump to 2006.
Hardly a contest for me, and probably most of the forum.
Might as well jump to 2006.
Yet they had no event file in civIII while there was one in civII. Still not sure why they did that. Community asked time and again for a simple event file as in civII, nothing ever came of it.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Civ3 was pretty good compared to Civ2. I think it wasn't all that drastic of a difference, more like additions made. Units started getting bonuses vs specific units iirc, like spears double vs horses, it's been so long since I played I don't remember if that came with 3 or 4! And then adding health to units was a big change but it begain with civ2 and hit points. Civ3 just made it more sophisticated. And then they added resources which was a big change and a move in the right direction.
Other than that corruption and tax slider system was largely the same just expanded on. Settling was mostly the same, wonders too. I can't remember exactly but I think caravans worked in both too. Obviously diplomacy was a lot more enhanced especially since you could trade resources.
Then 4 came and while it expanded on a few things, it was just a leap forward. Some stuff, a lot of stuff, was redesigned. Like corruption and waste, those things were very annoying in civ3 and 4 replaced them with city maintenance. I liked it a lot better. Also gone was building maintenance. Good idea imo, you don't feel bad building stuff now, it's more fun, even if it's not worth the opportunity costs. And then civics added a huge new flavor to the game.
And just the tech tree in general and how units work. The rock paper scissors concept meant many strategies would work. You could go cavalry rush or try to get cannons, not usually both. If enemies managed to get infantry but not railroad maybe you quickly try to get oil and bombers. Lots of options.
Where I feel civ5 failed was obviously 1upt sucks, makes the game CRAWL late (and is really why I mostly hate it. finishing games is a chore.), but mainly the philosophy. Everything builds linearly. Like religion is just another +1 system. You pick a perk and it gives you +1 global happiness per city or whatever. Civic policies same deal, accumulate culture and buy policies or whatever they are called and it gives you bonuses. Nothing is a trade or a slider. I hate population producing research, it ties everything to empire size almost directly, which then becomes limited by this global happiness, it's so darn annoying. You can't run deficit research and make it up selling techs, you can't do anything complex and cool.
Anyway weekend is coming soon, I'll try to post vote results Sunday night or Monday.
Other than that corruption and tax slider system was largely the same just expanded on. Settling was mostly the same, wonders too. I can't remember exactly but I think caravans worked in both too. Obviously diplomacy was a lot more enhanced especially since you could trade resources.
Then 4 came and while it expanded on a few things, it was just a leap forward. Some stuff, a lot of stuff, was redesigned. Like corruption and waste, those things were very annoying in civ3 and 4 replaced them with city maintenance. I liked it a lot better. Also gone was building maintenance. Good idea imo, you don't feel bad building stuff now, it's more fun, even if it's not worth the opportunity costs. And then civics added a huge new flavor to the game.
And just the tech tree in general and how units work. The rock paper scissors concept meant many strategies would work. You could go cavalry rush or try to get cannons, not usually both. If enemies managed to get infantry but not railroad maybe you quickly try to get oil and bombers. Lots of options.
Where I feel civ5 failed was obviously 1upt sucks, makes the game CRAWL late (and is really why I mostly hate it. finishing games is a chore.), but mainly the philosophy. Everything builds linearly. Like religion is just another +1 system. You pick a perk and it gives you +1 global happiness per city or whatever. Civic policies same deal, accumulate culture and buy policies or whatever they are called and it gives you bonuses. Nothing is a trade or a slider. I hate population producing research, it ties everything to empire size almost directly, which then becomes limited by this global happiness, it's so darn annoying. You can't run deficit research and make it up selling techs, you can't do anything complex and cool.
Anyway weekend is coming soon, I'll try to post vote results Sunday night or Monday.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Bonuses against specific units were definitely part of Civ II (x2 against air units on the AEGIS cruiser, x2 against horse unit on the pikeman).
The crippling problem of Civ III is that it barely had any moddability (there was a map editor and that was it, at first). This improved slowly, but it took several expansions to get even close to back to what Civ II had, and even then we never got Events back.
Civ IV, of course, learned from that mistake and spectacularly fixed it with one of the most flexible CIV entry.
The crippling problem of Civ III is that it barely had any moddability (there was a map editor and that was it, at first). This improved slowly, but it took several expansions to get even close to back to what Civ II had, and even then we never got Events back.
Civ IV, of course, learned from that mistake and spectacularly fixed it with one of the most flexible CIV entry.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
The linearity was Civ Vs biggest weakness for me. Pick Monarchy once and keep the civic forever. Very few possible tech paths and not much choice.
It was also the first Civ sequel where I felt they had taken something away. Civ 3 and 4 changed and added features. Civ 5 removed religion and international trade routes, removed tech trading, left us with no good reason to seek better relations with neighbouring civs. Some of the issues got fixed in the expansions, but not all.
It was also the first Civ sequel where I felt they had taken something away. Civ 3 and 4 changed and added features. Civ 5 removed religion and international trade routes, removed tech trading, left us with no good reason to seek better relations with neighbouring civs. Some of the issues got fixed in the expansions, but not all.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
You must be doing something wrong. There are entire sub-forums at CFC devoted to teach people how to avoid this. Hint: It's not in the "All Other Games" section...
I was exaggerating, mostly. I have skipped past pretty much an entire era in the time it has taken me to get my units to another civ's cities on the normal speed modes, so I ended up going for epic or marathon (though I'd havel iked a speed in between the two).
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,311
If we're still on 2005, I'm going to vote Age of Empires III. While Civ4 became great with expansions, when I got both AoE III and Civ4 in late 2005, it wound up being AoE that I preferred, and it replaced Civ3 as my most-played game in 2006. AoE III was great fun without expansions; Civ4 wasn't really more fun than Civ3 Complete without its own expansions.
By the end of the decade, I was playing Civ4 (with expansions) more than AoE III. But it was more like Beyond the Sword being Expansion of the Decade than Civ4 being the better title in 2005.
I'm sad to have missed 2004; I definitely would've voted for either RTW or Half-Life 2 over Pirates.
By the end of the decade, I was playing Civ4 (with expansions) more than AoE III. But it was more like Beyond the Sword being Expansion of the Decade than Civ4 being the better title in 2005.
I'm sad to have missed 2004; I definitely would've voted for either RTW or Half-Life 2 over Pirates.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Hmm.
I'm not going to dig through 27 pages here, so can anyone tell me if this thread has any rules on expansions ? Or games that come out broken and are only patched into a playable state the next year ?
I'm also bummed to have missed 2004. I just realized that's the year Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines came out and it's one of my favorite games of all time (with the fan patches).
I'm not going to dig through 27 pages here, so can anyone tell me if this thread has any rules on expansions ? Or games that come out broken and are only patched into a playable state the next year ?
I'm also bummed to have missed 2004. I just realized that's the year Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines came out and it's one of my favorite games of all time (with the fan patches).
And so a new week, a new year. Sweet and glorious 2006!
A lot of games on this list it seems, but not a huge number i have actually played. In terms of hours played though I have to vote for Heores of Might and magic V. Might be a slightly controversial choice, and it was not as good as 3. But IMO it was a highly accomplished game that was a lot of fun to play. The last of good HOMMs. And i spent hundreds of hours playing it. Much to my shame though, i never completed it. I got all the way to final mission and found it to be somewhat broken. And i couldnt be bothered to go back and make my characters good enough for the final fight.
A lot of games on this list it seems, but not a huge number i have actually played. In terms of hours played though I have to vote for Heores of Might and magic V. Might be a slightly controversial choice, and it was not as good as 3. But IMO it was a highly accomplished game that was a lot of fun to play. The last of good HOMMs. And i spent hundreds of hours playing it. Much to my shame though, i never completed it. I got all the way to final mission and found it to be somewhat broken. And i couldnt be bothered to go back and make my characters good enough for the final fight.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
Just gonna ask civver: most people already gave 2005 answers even if you didn't green lit it. So could you just tally up those votes and give an official "opening" to 2006, before more unorder ensues?
Well, we agreed not to crown Throne of Bhaal as the winner just one year after Shadows of Amn, so there's precedent for ignoring expansions, but no rules.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
2006.
Oblivion. Yes, yes, the voice acting sucked. Yes, yes, it dated badly graphically. Yes, yes, the level system was byzantine and probably broken. Yes, yes, the storyline sucked...
I'd still vote it for GotY.
(Also, for the 1997, if I haven't voted, I'll vote FO1. I mean, it's late, but still...)
Oblivion. Yes, yes, the voice acting sucked. Yes, yes, it dated badly graphically. Yes, yes, the level system was byzantine and probably broken. Yes, yes, the storyline sucked...
I'd still vote it for GotY.
(Also, for the 1997, if I haven't voted, I'll vote FO1. I mean, it's late, but still...)
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
I dunno. I think the idea behind it is good, but the execution is, oh so very poor.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Still I prefer Morrowind 1000 times to Oblivion. So I refuse to vote for it. For 2006 i will go with Medieval 2, honorable mentions for GTR2 and Gothic 3.
For 2005 i will chose X3:Reunion. The good one was Terran Conflict (2008) but Reunion started it all.
For 2005 i will chose X3:Reunion. The good one was Terran Conflict (2008) but Reunion started it all.
Similar threads
[Extension]
Naval Capital Units for VP
