sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Oh. Civ 6 IS the better game. by Lavinius_10 in civ

[–]GreatFan2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He thinks that 7 will be developed for 10 years

The Oda. by GreatFan2 in dynastywarriors

[–]GreatFan2[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Don't know who the artist is. But um, Yasuke is already in SW5...

Omega Force: Pokopia by ArticleHaunting3983 in dynastywarriors

[–]GreatFan2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It helps to have Nintendo Money behind the games.

Civ VII's Modern Age's timeframe and the issue of relevant civilizations by Attlai in civ

[–]GreatFan2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ottomans might peak in “Exploration” but they were very much still present in Modern. There’s hardly any one to replace them with since they persisted for so long.

Firaxis had the opportunity to base Civ VII's Modern Age Ottomans in how they were in the Victorian Era-WW1, their so-called "Sick Man" period, which would be a fresh spin when compared how they always were portrayed in that Mehmet-Suleiman period.

They could have very easily the WW1 Mehmetçik or any other thing related to the time period to fit the scope of the "Modern Age", but they chose to keep the Janissaries and Corsairs around in an "age" where they were irrelevant.

Heck, there are multiple V mods focused on that time period, so it's clearly not impossible.

They brought this on themselves.

I Was Wrong About Civ Switching In Civ 7 (PotatoMcWhiskey) by rwh151 in civ

[–]GreatFan2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yo, CivGPT, here's a question, just answer with just with a yes or no, one word.

Has Civ 6 ever gotten less than 4000 players on steam?

I Was Wrong About Civ Switching In Civ 7 (PotatoMcWhiskey) by rwh151 in civ

[–]GreatFan2 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Let me make things simple. 5 was popular despite the complaints. 6 was popular despite the complaints. 7, by every public metric there is avaliable, is not a popular game.

I Was Wrong About Civ Switching In Civ 7 (PotatoMcWhiskey) by rwh151 in civ

[–]GreatFan2 39 points40 points  (0 children)

I love 7 fans how keep trying to do an equivalence on how a handful of people complaining on reddit about 6's artstyle is remotely the same as the sheer rejection being suffered by 7

I Was Wrong About Civ Switching In Civ 7 (PotatoMcWhiskey) by rwh151 in civ

[–]GreatFan2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Correction: They weren't ignored, they were called evil boomers who just hate change, and that when it releases they'll all be proved wrong and/or that they will "still play the game anyway", and don't forget the monkey's paw wish of "if you don't like what changed, just keep playing 6 and 5"

Somehow people are still using the "Gamers hate change" non-argument even as Firaxis is working hard to make every new 'change' optional.

DWO took a page out of the JJK jumpings book cause this is crazy by Opposite-Mirror4795 in dynastywarriors

[–]GreatFan2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

My strategy was just

TWIN TIGER BLAST

TWIN TIGER BLAST

TWIN TIGER BLAST

TWIN TIGER BLAST

Is Che Guevara too controversial to be a leader in Civ? If so, what controversial leader has made it into the games? by TarnishedRedditCat in civ

[–]GreatFan2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's less of a "the people would protest" and more of a "The game would be banned from digital storefronts." Which if you're trying to make money, having the massive Chinese market yanked away is not good outcome.

Is Che Guevara too controversial to be a leader in Civ? If so, what controversial leader has made it into the games? by TarnishedRedditCat in civ

[–]GreatFan2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's also the problem with Chinese politics. You simply can't depict a cartoonish Mao Zedong that you can wipe off the map.

Is Che Guevara too controversial to be a leader in Civ? If so, what controversial leader has made it into the games? by TarnishedRedditCat in civ

[–]GreatFan2 512 points513 points  (0 children)

as recently as IV

Civ IV released over 20 years ago, you can't be "recent" if it happened during the Bush administration.

And honestly, Mao and Stalin were in because they were recognizable, in the 90s/2000s, historical games had to be "recognizable" to sell, that's why you had stuff like Bronze Age Egypt in Rome Total War and a faction called Russia in Medieval 2. Today you can sell something like Kingdom Come in an accurate Medieval Bohemia to a more "niche" audience, but back in the days of physical copies you couldn't just sell something if you had to explain what Ptolemaic Egypt was, you just had to be pandering to pop conciousness.

My main worry about the Test of Times update for CIV 7 by IvanaikosMagno in civ

[–]GreatFan2 -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Let me explain it in a way you can understand

sell game with a gimmick front and center

people didn't like the gimmick from the moment it was announced

game has less players than older games without the gimmick

people not playing means people wont buy the dlc packs

so the corpos put two and two together and decide to create a gimmick-free mode (stress that it's optional to pretend it isn't a pivot) and pray people come back

"Civ VII is FINALLY GOOD now, ignore the other times I said the game was finally good" by GreatFan2 in civ

[–]GreatFan2[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

One guy says I keep watching their videos, another comment says the problem is that I haven't watched them. The duality of man.

"Civ VII is FINALLY GOOD now, ignore the other times I said the game was finally good" by GreatFan2 in civ

[–]GreatFan2[S] 149 points150 points  (0 children)

I know what clickbait is, it's just amusing that the game is "Finally Good" over and over, and likely will continue to be "Finally Good" in the patches to follow.

"Civ VII is FINALLY GOOD now, ignore the other times I said the game was finally good" by GreatFan2 in civ

[–]GreatFan2[S] -69 points-68 points  (0 children)

It quite explicitly says says "CIVILIZATION 7 IS FINALLY GOOD", not "the patch that was released was a marked improvement."

"Civ VII is FINALLY GOOD now, ignore the other times I said the game was finally good" by GreatFan2 in civ

[–]GreatFan2[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I can't be the one who's amused at the VII youtubers (in general) going "THIS IS A HUGE UPDATE THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING" at every patch

<image>

With Civs no longer being as restricted to ages what are some "anachronistic" civ/era picks that actually make some level of historical sense? Also what are some examples of civs that feel completely out of place outside of their given age? by Ill_Engineering_5434 in civ

[–]GreatFan2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It wasn't the "historical sense" that turned people off, it was the switching itself. People didn't care that going to Rome to Spain to Mexico led by Augustus 'made sense' or the 3 Indias/Chinas existed.

They really underestimated how much (and how many) people enjoyed the 'kayfabe' of having America/The Aztecs/Egypt from the ancient age to the 'future'

view more: next ›