I love Civilization 5, Is the Gods and kings version worth the money? I was thinking about getting it. I can't wait for the new Beyond Earth. It looks amazing.
I used to love CIV 3 and 4. Is civ 5 really worth playing it? they told there's no possibility to put many units into a stack there. Is it true?
No I love it. It makes it more like a chess game, much more strategic. They went to the hex system with so it wasn't just moving huge stacks of units.
For me it's Thief:The Dark Project, and Thief 2:The Metal Age... with recent updates (to a decade and a half old game engine) both are still better games (and sometimes better looking) than a lot of recent game releases. New fan missions keep the game alive with many new levels and even full on campaigns coming out every month; the highlights of which being the "A Night in Roxburg" series, "Broken Triad" and of course, the Halloween classic "Rose Cottage". Of course, the questionable origins and legality "newdark" executable opening the game up to widescreen patched, 32 bit color depth and the ability to add new textures shows just how determined fans of the original two games are. (along with System Shock 2 which uses the same engine!) -- much less devoted fan projects like "The Dark Mod" which tries to recreate the original gameplay using the Doom 3 engine. Which is now a free download with engine: http://www.thedarkmod.com/main/ Sadly, those are the good games in the series... "Thief 3: deadly shadows" was a buggy unplayable ineptly developed mess; (Ion Storm, big shock) -- from the spiked billy club being called a blackjack (because when I think non-lethal knockouts, I think metal spikes), to the 'mines' the size of monster truck wheel hubs, loot glint, the 'body awareness' crap that was part of the garbage third person perspective, to the stiff backed crappy character animations and broken ragdoll physics... The only good thing I can say is yeah, Shalebridge Cradle was a good level. The new relaunch "Thief" is so filled with console-tard bull as to say the developers just didn't get what made the originals so good. Shoving two fingers up the players nose and dragging them from arrow to arrow is NOT good gameplay for a 'thief' player. As if the idiotic "loot glint" in 3 wasn't bad enough, now it has "window glint", "climby claw" glint, and "whitewash dripped all over every point you can climb up" telling you EXACTLY where you can go; then they brag about bringing 'rope arrows' back, but you can only use them at scripted points -- to go with all the other scripted pre-planned crap like "takedowns", jumping, etc... HELL YOU CAN'T EVEN JUMP WHERE YOU WANT?!? It has no sense of freedom or explanation, suffers from the "lets have you go through the same game area over and over for nothing" level-hub crap that made 3 suck, and on the whole reeks of just being another "Let's sleaze out a game dumbed down for console-tards, and crap out a PC port any-old-way."
Sad perhaps but I loved this game and played it for hours, literally! It looks so antiquated compared to todays platform games. Amazing what we had to call a pc game years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master_(video_game)
In a lot of ways I think that's a lot of what made them HAVE to be better games. You HAD to make a good game with good gameplay, as you couldn't just "visually wow" and then coast on that. I mean, some of the most epic games I ever played didn't even HAVE graphics -- see the old "interactive fiction" games from Infocom, Scott Addams or even Radio Shack's in-house releases. ZORK, Wishbringer/Enchanter, Bedlam, Raaka-tu... GREAT games; I wasted a good chunk of my childhood on them. Even the early predecessors to MMO's like "Legend of the Red Dragon". ... none of them even had graphics. Text only... and they were REALLY GOOD GAMES! I think it's also why I'm so into working on making new games at 160x100 or 80x50 graphics, it so limits what I can do it forces me to concentrate more on making a good game than being visually impressive... even if I didn't get the memo One of my side projects right now is a "adventure" (as in atari 2600 style) game using that same 160x100 16 color mode... I've got an early sprite-sheet here (at 4x zoom): http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/adventureSpritesX4.png ... and yes, my main character does kinda look like Hank Hill. The limited graphics capabilities is forcing me to put a lot more effort into gameplay -- today it's like they can have a 3d artist wipe themselves, throw it into an off the shelf game engine like Q4 or UDK, and call it a game. Sometimes the result is really good (the ENTIRE Arkham series), other times not so much (Rage, ME3, GTA4) ... and sometimes it falls in the middle; see "Wolfenstein: The New Order" -- which is trying WAY too hard to be a mashup of the major hit games of the past two years; NOT that I expect anything more than that from an ID release. ID has always been about technically impressive game engines, but have always been lacking when it comes to actual substance. Of course the disastrous amount of "pop in" and textures that -- much like Rage -- are so low resolution they look like they came from over a decade ago -- they have really started to 'slip' on the technically impressive part; I don't see this problem in UDK or CryTek engine games.
My favourite one is Pro Evolution Soccer, but i don't play like about 4 years, so i don't know if it's still available, but is a very good game.
Mine would have to be Oblivion, I put over 800+ hours into that game. I only managed to get 250 hours our out of Skyrim it just wasn't as fun. Greg