Sid Meier's Civilization

Kane Lives said:
You say that, but I seen multiple new and upcoming RTS games chase the e-sports dragon and fell absolutely flat on their faces. (Grey Goo, COH2 and DOW III comes to mind, though in the case of the latter two it was also dragged down by other absolute dogshit decisions.)
Click to expand...

I remember COH2 being decent and COH3 being the terrible one, but I didn't play COH2 much and only remember the controversy being communists angry that the Soviet Union was depicted in a bad light in the campaign.
 
Video talking about how awful the discord mod team for civ6 competitive is, and according this comment:
1000036566.jpg
The guy doing the investigations got suspended. The siloization of the internet has been a disaster for lolcow watching.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Unhinged duck, AspieNextDoor, Kongou Posting and 15 others
Fig Kommandant said:
I would lay more blame on SC1 than SC2 honestly. Koreans having kept the game alive for so long in very competitive communities gave a skewed perception of what the average strategy gamer is and it made studios try to milk the esports trend.
Click to expand...
Kane Lives said:
You say that, but I seen multiple new and upcoming RTS games chase the e-sports dragon and fell absolutely flat on their faces. (Grey Goo, COH2 and DOW III comes to mind, though in the case of the latter two it was also dragged down by other absolute dogshit decisions.)
Click to expand...
Attempts to profiteer off the Finno-Korean Hyperwar definitely were responsible for a lot of recent (post-SC2) RTS failures, but I think that was erroneously projected backwards to explain why the genre declined in the mid-aughts to begin with.

RTSs during their golden age (I'd say this was 94-04) weren't defined by Starcraft; Warcraft and AoE both came out before, and while multiplayer became a big draw they were fundamentally casual/campaign-driven experiences. Even after Starcraft launched the general trend was to ape AoEII; Starcraft's overall sales didn't exceed AoEII until years later (thanks solely to SKorea), and games like Galactic Battlegrounds, Empire Earth, Cossacks and arguably even Stronghold were essentially 'what if we made AoEII but with x?'. Obviously Warcraft III's immediate success also overshadowed Starcraft's; there's a reason why we got World of Warcraft and not World of Starcraft.

Oversaturation was the big factor in why RTSs declined, but more in that it encouraged devs to push the genre out of its own conventions. Warcraft III's modding scene created DOTA, DOTA leaned heavily into the hero combat and created the MOBA; the sort of people who found RTSs appealing for the APM aspect switched to MOBAs because it scratched their dopamine receptors better than the slower, conventional RTS formula. The emergence of real-time tactics (Myth, Total War, and our own Sid Meier's Gettysburg to name a few) gave a challenge from the other side; the sort of people who were interested in 'strategy' broadly and historical games in particular were also the sorts of people who were interested in commanding armies and having some time to think about their plans rather than have to micro individual units while things kept happening offscreen.

I think a good example of how just how thoroughly Total War killed the part of RTSs that Blizzard didn't is looking at the handful of successful RTSs from the mid-aughts; Battle for Middle Earth, Dawn of War and Empire at War. All of them feature squad/army mechanics that discourage apm micro, all of them have real time battles taking place on a turn based strategic overworld, and all of their campaigns offer the player a relative amount of freedom compared to traditional RTS campaigns; the only things really marking them as RTSs are their use of Heroes and that resource management is still part of the tactical maps.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: genericlurker777, Verpa Teutonica Ingens, Hoplixe and 7 others
Racial Slurs the Movie said:
I'll say it, Alpha Centauri doesn't hold up.

Setting wise, it's damn near perfect but god is the UI and trying to navigate the game clunky. It feels like a game made for aliens at times with all the weird choices.
Click to expand...

I use the PRACX which modernizes the UI (better options, native widescreen support), but it's most certainly a game closer to 30 than to 20.
 
Racial Slurs the Movie said:
I'll say it, Alpha Centauri doesn't hold up.

Setting wise, it's damn near perfect but god is the UI and trying to navigate the game clunky. It feels like a game made for aliens at times with all the weird choices.
Click to expand...
I grew up with Free Civ. So the UI to me is fine. UI shid or not. After Alpha Centauri the AI became too retarded to be a challenge even with cheats.
 
JJLiautaud said:
Video talking about how awful the discord mod team for civ6 competitive is, and according this comment:
View attachment 7002441
The guy doing the investigations got suspended. The siloization of the internet has been a disaster for lolcow watching.
Click to expand...
Fun fact, Herson (who goes on plebbit as Herson100 - proof in About Me section), seems to be an avid destiny fan, given how frequently he posts on r/destiny.

Edit: aaand he has TDS. See, I knew it, from the second I heard his voice, that someone sounding that faggy, with the typical faggot lisp, has to have a reddit account and appropriate political leaning.
 
  • Political Sperging
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Mordecai "3 Finger" Brown, Spooky Dogwood, JJLiautaud and 1 other person
ToroidalBoat said:
Annoying flaw in Civ 1 and 2 is triremes getting randomly lost at sea, a limitation which may not apply to any of the civs ran by AI.

What they should've done was what they did in Civ Rev: have shallow and deep sea regions. With those triremes limited to shallow sea.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what they did? The only difference is that you are allowed to take a risk by venturing out in deep waters, as long as you end your turn adjacent to the cost you are fine. Yes, it's one more thing for the AI to cheat with but they cheat using pretty much any game mechanic you give them.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: genericlurker777, 412-L and ToroidalBoat
ToroidalBoat said:
Annoying flaw in Civ 1 and 2 is triremes getting randomly lost at sea, a limitation which may not apply to any of the civs ran by AI.

What they should've done was what they did in Civ Rev: have shallow and deep sea regions. With those triremes limited to shallow sea.
Click to expand...
Hmm? Thats a game mechanic. You shouldn't be allowed to cross the ocean in a dingy in 3000 BC. Civ 1 did have a flaw where coast that touched only a city (such as on a 1 tile island) wouldn't count as coast and triremes would sink on it. But thats easily avoidable if you know about it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I_Lurk_Here, Chickenpolar and ToroidalBoat
Uncle Holter said:
Isn't that what they did?
Click to expand...
Nah, in Civ 1 and 2 it was a random chance of a Trireme getting lost at sea, if not adjacent to a land tile at the end of movement. Seems random chance did not apply to AI.

whatever I feel like said:
You shouldn't be allowed to cross the ocean in a dingy in 3000 BC.
Click to expand...
The computer-controlled players could do that anyway because the lost-at-sea thing didn't apply to them, and the problem was in both Civ 1 and 2 (I think). Eliminating that random chance and just making it so Triremes couldn't even go on deep sea tiles like in Civ Rev would've made it even. I think Civ 3 first introduced deep vs. shallow seas?
 
ToroidalBoat said:
Nah, in Civ 1 and 2 it was a random chance of a Trireme getting lost at sea, if not adjacent to a land tile at the end of movement. Seems random chance did not apply to AI.


The computer-controlled players could do that anyway because the lost-at-sea thing didn't apply to them, and the problem was in both Civ 1 and 2 (I think). Eliminating that random chance and just making it so Triremes couldn't even go on deep sea tiles like in Civ Rev would've made it even. I think Civ 3 first introduced deep vs. shallow seas?
Click to expand...

I'd personally play some games newer than Civ 2 lmao, but Civ 3's ocean tiles functioned the same as all water did in Civ 2, non-ocean going vessels ran a 50/50 risk of sinking at the end of every turn. Civ 4 was the first game to outright prohibit ancient ships from sailing oceans.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ToroidalBoat
What really sucks is that the game has that Denuvo thing. So I can't even "acquire" it later on when all the patches and DLC potentially fix a lot of the game's issues. No way am I gonna actually buy it again.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Nuns with guns
Computer God Autism said:
I think a good example of how just how thoroughly Total War killed the part of RTSs that Blizzard didn't is looking at the handful of successful RTSs from the mid-aughts; Battle for Middle Earth, Dawn of War and Empire at War. All of them feature squad/army mechanics that discourage apm micro, all of them have real time battles taking place on a turn based strategic overworld, and all of their campaigns offer the player a relative amount of freedom compared to traditional RTS campaigns; the only things really marking them as RTSs are their use of Heroes and that resource management is still part of the tactical maps.
Click to expand...
Total War Warhammer hasn't been pozzed.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: There Is Light At The End and Rebel Wilson
Mister Fister said:
Total War Warhammer hasn't been pozzed.
Click to expand...

yet...hasn't been pozzed yet.

There is probably a lot of pressure on them to do so but CA loves money more then social clout so they've held their ground so far. And to be fair it be really hard to pozzed TWWH after all...I mean what would you change? Make Franz into Franzcine? Vlad is now Victoria? The Skaven use they/them?

I think fortunately for all of us WarHammer fans that these games are just not really suitable for woke take over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: U 'MIRIN BRAH?
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back