I was greatly disappointed by Mass Effect 2. They slashed the development options, shortened the game and introduced ammo, completely neutering the Soldier class. Sorry Zappara, but give me Mass Effect over its sequel any day!
Stop the Presses!
- Thread starter Afforess
- Start date
konradcabral
Prince
Now I hardly can find some time to play RoM/AND and Championship Manager (of course the best edition - 2001/2002)
My brother is a CM 01/02 junkie. I try to bring him to Civ IV but he only enjoys soccer games (CM 01-02 and PES). I tried to give him money in order to convince him to JUST TRY God of War II, but he refuses.
I was a CM junkie too, at some level, but I had only one save which I played for 5, 6 years. I started with a brazilian 3rd division team, and reached great success with Barcelona. The save is in the 2080s and has 1GB, but I don't play it anymore.
The last games I really enjoyed was GoW I and II, Assassin's Creed I and II, Modern Warfare, Super Mario Galaxy.
stop insulting the sheepshaggersI always though Australian computers were run by bandicoots an numbats running on hamster wheels inside them.
EDIT: Oh wait your from New Zealand, they must be run on Kiwis or maybe Sheep.
eww old peopleTry Mass Effect 2 - at this moment it's probably best game available on the market. It's not FPS game since the camera angle is behind character and there's of course rpg elements and excellent story... and the npc characters... oh my!!!
Also if you think about FPS games, Bioshock 2 was just released... I get chills when just thinking about that game. I do enjoy some FPS games but I do require open game world, alternative paths and freedom to do things at my own pace, not some piperun levels like in most FPS games. Perhaps this was one reason why I led MMO guild (about 100 active members) for about year some years ago and made friends all around the globe.
From strategy games I played Civ 1 over and over again (on Amiga) before some of you guys were even borned!Now more recently I've played quite a lot of Total War games and as seen in RoM, I've used some elements from those games, though I haven't played Total War: Empire yet and I think they are soon releasing Total War: Napoleon... I'll have to get those games so that I can "steal" some ideas from them for Civ 5 mods...
that's because you live inDamn I wish my computer could run FPS games.
Well. At least it has a colour screen
CMKMStephens
Serious.
I have a pile of Civ I floppies in a box on the shelves beside me, bloody things don't seem to work any more though. Got them from my godfather a very long time ago.
"Copyright 1992 MicroProse Ltd. All rights reserved. Made in the UK."
"Copyright 1992 MicroProse Ltd. All rights reserved. Made in the UK."
It came out in 1991 In the States, the year before I was born, therefore it is old
I started playing Civ II when I was ~6, yes been one more turning for ~70% of my life
Nightguard
Warlord
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 131
It came out in 1991 In the States, the year before I was born, therefore it is old
I started playing Civ II when I was ~6, yes been one more turning for ~70% of my life
Get off my lawn!
/first played civ when they released CivNet, played sometime in the early nineties
/was nearly 15 when Master of Magic released, still waiting for a sequal
meto30
Chieftain
Just my ideas for continuation of a discussion above.
As for other games' ideas to bring to the modding scene, how about the Europa Universallis series? They are known to have a very loyal fan base attracted by game concepts alone (it is terribly unstable and outdated in code and graphics).
One idea I'd like to see stolen from EU III is cultural shift. After conquering a very large or cultured nation the conquerer might undergo change in cultural/ethnic identity. A historical example of this happening would be the Roman Empire relocating its capital to Constantinople and eventually evolving into the Greek-speaking cavalry-dominant Byzantine Empire.
As for other games' ideas to bring to the modding scene, how about the Europa Universallis series? They are known to have a very loyal fan base attracted by game concepts alone (it is terribly unstable and outdated in code and graphics).
One idea I'd like to see stolen from EU III is cultural shift. After conquering a very large or cultured nation the conquerer might undergo change in cultural/ethnic identity. A historical example of this happening would be the Roman Empire relocating its capital to Constantinople and eventually evolving into the Greek-speaking cavalry-dominant Byzantine Empire.
IMO Civ could borrow a lot from EU, but not to the point where it's over complicated. I love complexity, but one appealing thing about Civ has always been it's simplification of complex matters. A few ideas that could transfer well though are things like neighbor bonus tech diffusion, hiring and firing advisors, a better religious model (which we probably will not have anyway), and your point as well. The problem with it though is EU is much more narrowly focused which lets you feel like you are running a kingdom from the time period, while Civ is much grander and more of a sandbox. It would be a delicate balance.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
I hear that, i was on a team called "Joint Task Force - Bravo", down in Honduras, man what a trip, i was there one week after the Dictator of Panama was arrested.
You either WAY over simplified that or you might want to go back to study
meto30
Chieftain
That comment hurt.
If you'd kindly point out where I got my history wrong that would be appreciated, and if the second comment is not as ridiculing it would be appreciated even more.And I might have been simplifying, but I don't really see what is wrong about my statement above. The Eastern empire after the division, as far as I know, was so different from its old self (especially on military concepts) that they are often treated as seperate nations, yes?
They also spoke and wrote nearly entirely in Greek, as the Eastern half has done in the days of Trajan, correct? They were also very greek in philosophy, cuisine, and culture, I believe their life would have been alien to Cincinatus as Persians under Xerxes.
Since the example of Byzantium seems ill-placed (according to what I've been just told) let me cite another, perhaps better example. How about the dynasties of China? The rulers of China changed ethnic groups multiple times, having been conquered by other peoples at certain points in their long history, but eventually those who conquered China became China. The Mongols were little different from the Songs before them, and the Mings that followed did not change the Middle kingdom as much as they'd liked to believe, and the Qing are the ultimate testimony to the fact that all dynasties of China are eventually all the same, for their diplomacy, cultural arrogance, rigid and permeating ethical values, even religious practices all remained unchanged. Yeah, perhaps clothing and hairstyles changed, but the Manchu rulers could not change the Chinese, while slowly China changed them.
While civ_king comment was harsh, i would agree on his point, byzantine empire is in no way associated with hellenic greece other than location.
Byzantine was monotheistic orthodox monarchy which power largely relied upon trade and intricated diplomacy, while Ancient Greece was rather union of assorted polytheistic city states with mixed types of government, some slave democracies, some monarchies. In cultural aspect they are highly different as well. Byzantine was christian with according morale, while greece semi-paganistic. If you really interested on that matter i recommend you to study byzantine history, from it's start where Eastern Roman Empire was founded through it's wars with Persia, Armenia, Khazaria, and even Russia (Russian lords several times made big raids on Constantinople in IX-X), then Crusades which were start of it's fall till its end when it was conquered by osmans.
Byzantine was monotheistic orthodox monarchy which power largely relied upon trade and intricated diplomacy, while Ancient Greece was rather union of assorted polytheistic city states with mixed types of government, some slave democracies, some monarchies. In cultural aspect they are highly different as well. Byzantine was christian with according morale, while greece semi-paganistic. If you really interested on that matter i recommend you to study byzantine history, from it's start where Eastern Roman Empire was founded through it's wars with Persia, Armenia, Khazaria, and even Russia (Russian lords several times made big raids on Constantinople in IX-X), then Crusades which were start of it's fall till its end when it was conquered by osmans.
meto30
Chieftain
Talin2009, thanks for the info, but I already knew those facts. But thanks anyway.
By 'Greece' I am not talking about Hellenic Greece, but Greeks under the Roman Empire. As I recall they not only spoke in a different tongue but were quite different from the Romans that conquered them, especially in terms of social values. There is a distinct difference between the Eastern half and the Western half of the Roman empire from the first Caesars because of that very fact. The Christian Greeks(shall I say Orthodox Greeks?) became the single dominant cultural group in the Byzantine Empire, especially when she started losing outlying territory. I was talking about that shift.
And still I stand by the statement that the shift in identity happened because of the Capital relocation. And Cincinatus probably would still have disapproved of the way of life in the Eastern 'Romaion' Empire.
But of course, he would have dissapproved with the people in Hadrian's time as well...
PS. I would not rather be assumed to be uneducated. Being assumed so hurts in the deepest places, especially when having being educated is one of the few prides one clings on to.
PSS. I'm not an unlearned fool, Civ_king, so I believe you owe me an apology.
By 'Greece' I am not talking about Hellenic Greece, but Greeks under the Roman Empire. As I recall they not only spoke in a different tongue but were quite different from the Romans that conquered them, especially in terms of social values. There is a distinct difference between the Eastern half and the Western half of the Roman empire from the first Caesars because of that very fact. The Christian Greeks(shall I say Orthodox Greeks?) became the single dominant cultural group in the Byzantine Empire, especially when she started losing outlying territory. I was talking about that shift.
And still I stand by the statement that the shift in identity happened because of the Capital relocation. And Cincinatus probably would still have disapproved of the way of life in the Eastern 'Romaion' Empire.
But of course, he would have dissapproved with the people in Hadrian's time as well...
PS. I would not rather be assumed to be uneducated. Being assumed so hurts in the deepest places, especially when having being educated is one of the few prides one clings on to.
PSS. I'm not an unlearned fool, Civ_king, so I believe you owe me an apology.
But Greeks under Roman Empire were just that - minority, one of them. No state identity. Only remains of former glory of ancient greek culture. And i think Byzantine inherited more from Rome in terms of being an Empire rather than Greek, and later on they (Byzantine) became identity of their own, only lightly related to Greece. That's all my imho ofc.
meto30
Chieftain
Yes, but wasn't Latin the official language of the Empire, for public and formal use? I don't think it was until some time in the 4th century that Greek was diclared official.
However I guess you're right in that to say moving the capital to Constantinople made the Empire Greek is oversimplifying. Greek-speaking or not, the term 'Greek' would not be a just epithet for the Byzantines.
Back to my original statement though; cultural shift(and evolution) would be a wonderful mechanism to add to the Civ scene. Of course, there are Civics and Religions for that, but right now there is no mechanism tending to the 'identity' issue other than the city culture scores.
This can also be an improvement(addition) to the existing Assimilation feature in AND. Say, French Civ captured Frankfurt. It would remain German for the moment, but the identity of the denizens would change over time, which direction and rate could be influenced by Civics(I'm thinking about something similar to the Expansion civics in Rhye's and Fall). Extensive reeducation and cultural assimilation efforts could erase the Germanness off the Germans, thus making them French in all aspecs(and losing the UU and UB building capabilities). On the other hand, by striving for reconcilation and harmony the German identity could be retained, in which case the difference in culture will cause problems if not properly taken care of(or stamped to dust, as in the previous case). On the extreme case the opposite might happen and German culture could spread to the French parts of the Empire, in which case the leadership can declare German as part of their heritage(like in the EU games) and the Empire shifts to German. Or combines into a whole new kind of identity.
os79
Deity
Actually, it is better psychologically to assume the same of the attacker of what he accuse you of being. Because by personally attacking you instead of having an educated discussion, that attacker effectively proved his inability to be cool and intelligent in debate.
In other words, don't expect apologies but rather smile in knowledge that the attacker shamed him/herself needlessly and be happy that your honor is intact
.
