(November 26th, 2012, 22:36)darrelljs Wrote: Obviously the best read was the one regoarrarr lost on the last turn to Commando Modern Armor. Pure, pure joy.
Second place is Cuban Isolationists.
Darrell
The link
Which PBEM was this again?
|
Most Entertaining Threads...
|
|
The link Which PBEM was this again?
(November 27th, 2012, 05:00)Fintourist Wrote:(November 26th, 2012, 22:36)darrelljs Wrote: Obviously the best read was the one regoarrarr lost on the last turn to Commando Modern Armor. Pure, pure joy It was pitboss 1
The only downside is that you have to wade through like 1200 posts of me regoarrarring up the thread
It is a pretty good read I think. I was doing well, then attacked, then nuked, then I still nearly won. Except for the aforementioned Commando Modern Armor
@Reddit post - Strongly disagree with the notion that Warlords -> BtS was some massive improvement. Patched Warlords =/ BtS
(November 25th, 2012, 21:31)SevenSpirits Wrote: I agree, but I think Civ IV single player is pretty broken too. Get trade bait -> tech trading party -> Liberalism -> military tech -> win game. Do you think Civ V is no good for multiplayer too? Seven, while I think that's probably more right than wrong the "get trade bait" can actually have some interesting wrinkles. Beyond that I guess my contention is that below Deity the second or third best victory paths may be very viable and fun, more so than in Civ5. (December 1st, 2012, 21:20)sunrise089 Wrote: @Reddit post - Strongly disagree with the notion that Warlords -> BtS was some massive improvement. Patched Warlords =/ BtS If you're talking balance for SP, sure. I think the fact that nobody has any interest in playing Warlords speaks for itself though right? More specifically, I think the unrestricted leader change alone makes BtS as massive improvement over Warlords. That practically gave us a new game and made MP much more interesting.  (November 26th, 2012, 00:09)Sullla Wrote: I'm willing to grant people their own opinions, but if they game is supposedly so good, why aren't more of you playing it? It's constantly one of the most played video games on Steam. At the time of writing, it has 12k people playing it. An incredibly popular and fresh release "Black Ops 2" has the same amount of people playing it! The only games that have more players are Dota 2 and TF2 (great FREE games), Football Manager 2013 and both CS and CS:S. The numbers of course vary depending on the time of day, but the point is this: Civ5 is incredibly popular compared to other Steam games. And it's been out for over two years (with expansion released last summer), and is still pulling these numbers, so clearly it has some longevity as well as popularity. Source: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Whoa, you mean to say that the list of "most played games" on Steam is made up of... a bunch of games that are Steam exclusive? NO WAY!
 Next thing, you're going to tell me that Mitt Romney is polling extremely well at the Young Republicans conference. Seriously though, I've been seeing this quoted for years as a supposed indicator of popularity, and it's a terribly misleading statistic. Nearly everything on Steam's most played list of games are (shockingly!) games that require Steam: DOTA2, Counterstrike, Team Fortress, Civ5, etc. Keep in mind that 100% of the playerbase of these games are using Steam. These games are then thrown into an uneven comparison with games that don't require Steam, games like Call of Duty and Skyrim, creating a highly misleading apples to oranges situation. Call of Duty's sales are overwhelmingly located on the consoles, probably on the order of 10:1 if not higher, and then it's also possible to purchase Call of Duty on the PC without getting it through Steam, so this list is comparing something like 100% of Civ5's install base to 2-3% of Call of Duty's playerbase. What does that mean? Nothing. The chart is comparing completely different things. I could just as easily reverse the rhetoric, and argue that 100% of Civ5's playerbase can't even outpoll a small minorty of the players from much more popular games. But what we'd really need are comparable Steam numbers from previous games in the Civilization series, which we don't have because they were (thankfully) never exclusive to Steam. Without that, any comparisons are meaningless. (December 13th, 2012, 10:04)Sullla Wrote: Whoa, you mean to say that the list of "most played games" on Steam is made up of... a bunch of games that are Steam exclusive? NO WAY! Black Ops 2 and Skyrim both require Steam. If you purchase it from another site, a Steam key will be included. You need the Steam client installed on your computer to play these games. That's how PC Gaming is these days. Nearly every single AAA title requires you to use Steam or Origin or uPlay. Exceptions are of course games like MMO's and indie games. Well, most of them, anyway. Don't be silly Sullla! Of course we are going to compare the amount of people playing the PC version of Black Ops 2 to Civ5. Civ5 only came out on PC afterall! What if Civ5 came out on consoles, could it then have just as many players? I highly doubt that, but it would certainly have more than just as a PC game! Anyways, that was hardly the point. It is like comparing 100% of Black Ops 2 PC players to 100% of Civ5 players, and that is a fact! I believe your original point was that no-one is playing Civ5. That is so very wrong. I'm not sure how to prove it to you if you don't even trust numbers. Certainly over here in RB people aren't really playing it, or at least not telling that they are because they'd get flamed to hell if they did. But go check out Civfanatics or something.. Say, Civ4 "General Discussion" has 689k views, while Civ5 "General Discussion" has 488k. That's quite close for a game that's been out for way less time and "nobody plays" as you say. I guess they are all just posting about how much they hate the game? Well, probably I actually agree that Civ4 is the better game. But people have been playing and are still playing Civ5 and that much is a fact.
Yeah. I'll repeat what I've said before too: Civ 5 is a good game and worth playing. It's still one of the top 5 best strategy games on the market. It's on par with Galactic Civilizations and Sword of the Stars and several other such titles. It has flaws, but so does every game that isn't Civ 4. It beats Civ 4 in several areas: graphics, tactical combat, accessibility for casual players, action level compared to Civ 4 being too peaceful, simplification of subsystems like trade routes and naval transport. Just because it didn't replicate Civ 4's level of variety and polish doesn't mean it's worthless or terrible. It can be Majora's Mask to Civ 4's Ocarina of Time.
|
