Cerebralbore101 said:
Looking back, it seems like the 90's and early 2000's were the best time for PC gaming as far as unique and cool games go. Too many PC gamers these days aren't even interested in games like this, Civ, or RTS. I really feel like a lot of PC games from that era didn't age well. But that's not a bad thing. Just a testament to how well their sequels have improved in recent years. Civ III, and IV would still be perfectly good games, if Civ V and VI didn't blow them out of the water. Same goes for a lot of the older Total War games. I'll get Homeworld Remastered eventually on GoG. From what I've seen it looks to have held up well. |
I've played Civ3 most then next would be Civ5. Civ3 was bad ass except it was usually turned into stacks of doom. I played user made scenarios most from 3 getting them off Civfanatic. I didn't like 5 that much at first but it grew on me. It was finally fleshed out with the 2 expansions. Currently just 30 hours into 6. I like it but sometimes even though they seemed to dumb it down I find myself just clicking away and skipping info and other shit. Like governors. I put them in city and then just upgrade them when get chance but hardly care or do much with them except if take over far away city then I'll move one to that city to help loyalty and prevent flipping of city back. Sure it beats the random overthrow of cities that you took in 3 which would piss me off if had lots of troops stationed there. It's like there is no fucking way partisans retook the city with my army (tried to not use armies as much because cpu never learned to use them properly in 3) or huge stack sitting in city. It was all about culture and military presence be damn. Anyways I almost had more fun micromanaging cities in 3 than doing most bs in 5 and 6.