GRcade

KjGarly » Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:33 am wrote:Never played a Civ game before but I like the look of that :shifty:

Just checking my Steam library and noticed I have Civ 5, no idea when I bought that :fp:

You should definitely play Civ 5 now.

Start off slowly, there's quite a lot to learn if you've never played it before. Its definitely a game worth investing time in.

I only got Civ V the other day. I wasn't sure it was going to be something I'd get into as I don't usually play rts games. I did 7 hours straight the first night, then another 3 hours per evening. It's great!

Civ 5 isn't RTS It's turn based, after all!

zXe wrote:I only got Civ V the other day. I wasn't sure it was going to be something I'd get into as I don't usually play rts games. I did 7 hours straight the first night, then another 3 hours per evening. It's great!

Please tell me that's a joke.

He clearly means strategy Hugo, come on.

Civ 5 is the biggest time sink. Time flies so quickly, I could grow old like in The Last Crusade playing that game.

Rog » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:He clearly means strategy Hugo, come on.

But its not the same thing.

Using RTS as a catch all term for any strategy game drives me nuts, its in the strawberry floating name of the genre, how hard is it to realise that a game that takes place one turn at a time isn't being played in REAL-TIME.

I have played around 900 hours of Civ V yet still haven't mastered the game by any stretch of the imagination.

I dread to think how many hours this will suck up.

Should've teamed up with Bioware to make a Mass Effect Civ game, instead of this generic-looking sci-fi strategy game. Maybe more developed civilizations and maps will look better, but I'm just not liking that look right now.

HSH28 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:32 pm wrote:

Rog » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:He clearly means strategy Hugo, come on.

But its not the same thing.

Using RTS as a catch all term for any strategy game drives me nuts, its in the strawberry floating name of the genre, how hard is it to realise that a game that takes place one turn at a time isn't being played in REAL-TIME.

He clearly means strategy Hugo, come on.

Alvin Flummux » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:34 pm wrote:Should've teamed up with Bioware to make a Mass Effect Civ game, instead of this generic-looking sci-fi strategy game. Maybe more developed civilizations and maps will look better, but I'm just not liking that look right now.

Gears of war in space, the strategy game.

Donk » Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:50 am wrote:

Alvin Flummux » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:34 pm wrote:Should've teamed up with Bioware to make a Mass Effect Civ game, instead of this generic-looking sci-fi strategy game. Maybe more developed civilizations and maps will look better, but I'm just not liking that look right now.

Gears of war in space, the strategy game.

No no, Mass Effect, the best sci-fi franchise around, not shitty ass half-baked Gears.

Cover and shoot from 2 onwards with terrible story lines and the worst ending of a game series ever = Gears of War In Space.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Donk » Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:50 am wrote:

Alvin Flummux » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:34 pm wrote:Should've teamed up with Bioware to make a Mass Effect Civ game, instead of this generic-looking sci-fi strategy game. Maybe more developed civilizations and maps will look better, but I'm just not liking that look right now.

Gears of war in space, the strategy game.

No no, Mass Effect, the best sci-fi franchise around, not shitty ass half-baked Gears.

Did you play X-Com?

HSH28 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:

zXe wrote:I only got Civ V the other day. I wasn't sure it was going to be something I'd get into as I don't usually play rts games. I did 7 hours straight the first night, then another 3 hours per evening. It's great!

Please tell me that's a joke.

It wasn't intended as a joke no. You have my sincere apologies for my mistake in confusing two genres I rarely ever play. Sorry for this distress.

zXe » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:14 pm wrote:

HSH28 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:

zXe wrote:I only got Civ V the other day. I wasn't sure it was going to be something I'd get into as I don't usually play rts games. I did 7 hours straight the first night, then another 3 hours per evening. It's great!

Please tell me that's a joke.

It wasn't intended as a joke no. You have my sincere apologies for my mistake in confusing two genres I rarely ever play. Sorry for this distress.

The reason I wondered if you were joking is because this exact same thing happened in another topic on here only days ago.

Honestly though you really don't need to play a game to understand that real time and turn based are two completely separate things. Or is it me? Is that actually difficult and I just don't get it?

Donk » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:05 am wrote:Cover and shoot from 2 onwards with terrible story lines and the worst ending of a game series ever = Gears of War In Space.

The most complete, coherent, detailed, well thought out and well put together sci-fi universe outside Star Wars and Star Trek (and in my view, more interesting than both) would make a fantastic strategy game. I thoroughly enjoyed every ME game, including the stories, characters, and yes, even ME3s ending. It's a property ripe for expansion into other genres - RPGs, more TPSs, FPSs and strategy games at the least.

Anyway, back to my original point - I don't get the hype for this and the design just doesn't look that great to me, but maybe later on things will look better.

HSH28 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:53 pm wrote:

zXe » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:14 pm wrote:

HSH28 » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:01 pm wrote:

zXe wrote:I only got Civ V the other day. I wasn't sure it was going to be something I'd get into as I don't usually play rts games. I did 7 hours straight the first night, then another 3 hours per evening. It's great!

Please tell me that's a joke.

It wasn't intended as a joke no. You have my sincere apologies for my mistake in confusing two genres I rarely ever play. Sorry for this distress.

The reason I wondered if you were joking is because this exact same thing happened in another topic on here only days ago.

Honestly though you really don't need to play a game to understand that real time and turn based are two completely separate things. Or is it me? Is that actually difficult and I just don't get it?

No need to be patronising man. Honestly it was more that it just never came to mind. I just thought RTS style game, so I put that. I didn't really consider the differences between the meanings of RTS and normal strategy. I can appreciate how that mistake stands out, particularity for people who play strategy/rts games. But yea, I just never thought about really. In hindsight an error of judgement.

zXe wrote:No need to be patronising man. Honestly it was more that it just never came to mind. I just thought RTS style game, so I put that. I didn't really consider the differences between the meanings of RTS and normal strategy. I can appreciate how that mistake stands out, particularity for people who play strategy/rts games. But yea, I just never thought about really. In hindsight an error of judgement.

I wasn't trying to pick on you about it, its just something like I said that drives me nuts. I realise its not a particularly important thing and I'm not quite sure why it does, but it does. Its an easy way to wind me up.

For me there are a surprisingly large number of people who regularly play games who use the terms RTS and Strategy interchangeably, other than the fact that this must stem from a lack of knowledge about strategy games (which is obviously disheartening to someone who likes the genre), I guess its the fact that those people seemingly can't even bother to deconstruct the acronym RTS to realise anything described by it must take place in some sort of real time.

Anyway I think I'm probably repeating myself now, so lets leave it at that.

Alvin Flummux » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:45 pm wrote:

Donk » Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:05 am wrote:Cover and shoot from 2 onwards with terrible story lines and the worst ending of a game series ever = Gears of War In Space.

The most complete, coherent, detailed, well thought out and well put together sci-fi universe outside Star Wars and Star Trek (and in my view, more interesting than both) would make a fantastic strategy game. I thoroughly enjoyed every ME game, including the stories, characters, and yes, even ME3s ending. It's a property ripe for expansion into other genres - RPGs, more TPSs, FPSs and strategy games at the least.

Well thought out? Did you even finish ME3? As for the rest, there are dozens of scifi universes in fiction which blow it out the water. How would Sheppard saves the galaxy from evil robots make a good strat game?