No game in the official series ever got combat right. Death-Stacking was just as ridiculous as what a poster farther up called "parking lot logistics", when a unit cannot even pass through an occupied hex.

The one game that got it right was Call to Power. You could build armies up to a limit of 12. There were significant ranged options. And no, you didn't lose the -entire- stack when one unit got defeated (which is also beyond silly). They'd actually fight at once vs the other enemy stack of 12.

I have NO idea why Sid Meier didn't lift the idea for the official franchise. It's clearly superior to anything they ever did. Call to Power 2 would be the civ game I play, would there be a modernized version of it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'd be curious what the "alternate" history is and how it ties into the storyline, but couldn't find anything about it on their website or on Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

VR will be here to stay, but I really don't think it will ever become anything but a niche product. There are too many unsolved problems. I for one don't need a device that is guaranteed to make me barf after a few minutes of wearing it. Not that these things are comfortable to wear in the first place. And it's usable only for a small subset of games, anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I mean, it's not that Civilization couldn't be salvaged. My biggest gripes with Civ VI are the god-awful visuals that just don't fit the genre of the game and can be explained only with the developers having played too much World of Warcraft in their spare time. And the resource micro-management. I don't want to have to deal with that kind of stuff. I want to build nations and cities, not managing trade routes because I lack a lump of charcoal to build a unit. And finally the stupid AI. But since they didn't manage for the past 30 years to implement a AI that doesn't act like a forensic psychiatry patient, my hopes are kinda limited.

Other than that I still consider Civ kind of the mother of all strategy games, which it arguably is.

The problem is (getting back on topic) that Civ V isn't necessarily better than Civ VI. Both games have things going for them, and things that made one cringe. Not sure if there ever will be THE PERFECT Civ. But if I'd implement a Civ game one day, I'd probably not clone a specific game of the series. It would be my own take.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NeverthelessCall to Power was a nice approach, but especially CtP2 was a complete code mess. They never got stable network gaming running..

Haha, I remember me having looked at the code. It's a really a mess. Don't ask me how that game even managed to run halfway stable. Never tried the multiplayer mode, though. Tbh, I think Civ is not a great game for multiplayer.

To be honest, what I would love to see is CtP2's core systems paired with Civ 5's hex map. CtP2 pretty much solved Civ combat, otherwise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I will get burnt at the stake for saying this, but having played every single Civ game there ever was, the one with the best overall features and mechanics was Call to Power II (which isn't even an official part of the franchise). IMHO of course.

They introduced waaaay too many micromanagement features in the later releases. For starters, I absolutely hate having to build my nation around randomly distributed resources and managing city districts. Yes, I get the idea it's realistic, but sometimes simpler is better.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Most of the list isn't my cup of tea, but Crusader Kings III and Wasteland 3 are definite buys.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

No virtual currency. No pay-to-win. No micro transactions. Ever.

Wishlisted!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's money and (as far as we know) it was made in a legal fashion, so the Kira devs don't need to care who it's from. Good for them, I say!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The worrisome bit is that our market-share is still exactly the same 1% it has been before Steam for Linux was launched (which was arguably the birthday of Linux as a viable gaming platform). I clearly thought that the only thing Linux needed to take off as platform was games. We got games. But still no growth. And that's -despite- Microsoft decided to do us a favor by replacing the well-liked Windows 7 with that buggy mess of spyware that is Windows 10.

Honestly, if the thousands of games we got was not able to give us a push, I am not sure what could.

The good news of 2019 is that Proton largely made the problem irrelevant, because nobody really needs to actively support us anymore for us to be able to play their games. Which is the and the only reason why 2019 might have been the best year for Linux gaming yet. For the first time ever, we're able to play a healthy portion of all AAA games on Linux.
Yes, I know some people would disagree with me. But my opinion is that I don't care what makes a game run on Linux as long as it runs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments