Random Gaming Thoughts

[Speedy-Mcspeedz]

I am sorry if I asked this before, I can't recall but...

for someone who never played Civ before which one is best? Many praise II but the recent ones are getting high scores as well.

Im going to say personally III, alot of fanboys would probably disagree with me. I just liked the balance, game length and the more simplistic elements (not that i liked the overly simplistic console civ)

[Sarge]

Vanquish PC port confirmed.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/vanquis ... this-month

[Exhuminator]

That is fantastic news. Everyone should have a chance to play Vanquish.

[BoneSnapDeez]

All 7th/8th gen games should get PC ports. All games released henceforth should have a PC version available.

[fastbilly1]

Stage 4 of Robot Odyssey is damn near impossible

[retrosportsgamer]

The new NBA Playgrounds isn't bad - feels like a slightly less NBA Jam with card packs (no microtransactions) used to open the entire roster. Developer seems poised to fix and add in more content too. Haven't tried multiplayer yet, but enjoyed couple hours with game last night.

[Exhuminator]

Stage 4 of Robot Odyssey is damn near impossible

I believe in you. The more you talk about it, the more I want to play this game.

I wonder if the Carnage Heart series was at least a little inspired by Robot Odyssey.

[flylikeabird]

I am sorry if I asked this before, I can't recall but...

for someone who never played Civ before which one is best? Many praise II but the recent ones are getting high scores as well.

Also, does this game force you to do things exactly how the developers want? I played Pharaoh and you had to be extremely specific (bazaar max. 6 squares from houses, 3 temples per neighborhood, if you build 2 no matter how much abundance or facilities you build you won't reach "luxury housing" criteria, and they don't tell you. I literally had to study the manual and research online)

Civ II. I still have an old mac set up in my office almost specifically for playing a campaign on the original hardware I enjoyed it on when I get the itch. Great game, still holds up.

[Erik_Twice]

for someone who never played Civ before which one is best? Many praise II but the recent ones are getting high scores as well.

I'll be honest: Civ II has awful AI, even worse balance, is ugly as sin and generally speaking is a bad game. It gets by because it's old, but that's it.

Personally, I think V is the best of the first five games. I didn't like what little I played of Civ VI because it seemed to double down on the usual flaws of the series (Eg.Infinite city sprawl) and is much more complex (Two tech trees instead of one).

Also, the presentation of VI is awful. They went for a "comedic" tone that doesn't really fit the subject matter and falls into tired stereotypes. Cleopatra looks at your junk when talking about your army size and Philip II is borderline offensive in the way it presents Spaniards.

Also, does this game force you to do things exactly how the developers want? I played Pharaoh and you had to be extremely specific (bazaar max. 6 squares from houses, 3 temples per neighborhood, if you build 2 no matter how much abundance or facilities you build you won't reach "luxury housing" criteria, and they don't tell you. I literally had to study the manual and research online)

No, not at all, the series is pretty flexible in that regard.

[Ack]

I call bullshit on Civ II looking bad. It looks like a lot of other games from its time. Yes, it's got balancing issues and weird AI problems, but I've played way less attractive titles from that same era.