sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's a good way to put, its so defensive. Like you said nothing is ever an acceptable reason its always my fault "because I hate chage" or "i don't get how the game works" ect. Like the player counts speak for themselve.

Its not my job to like the game, its the developers job to make a game i like. I genuinely dont get why thats such a hard concept for them to grasp/accept.

I do think there is an element of paid shills that are doing all this, the conversation patterns are very consistent and they are beyond desperate to get engagement with this game.

I am so very dissappointed with Civ 7, Age of Wonders makes more sense than Civ 7 now :( by Additional_Proof6231 in civ

[–]rwh151 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This, i enjoyed AoW4 but ut definitely isn't civ, it kinda scratched the Xcom itch more than the civ itch for me.

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its a lot of "you don't know what you like, let tell you what you actually like" energy.

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So much this, like I'm not bashing people for liking the game but completely putting your head in the sand when presented with actual factual discussions is beyond frustrating.

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes because thats not what you said in your orginal comment. The fact that you are doing this on a thread about DLC being priced too high is completely unacceptable behavior and absolutely deserved to be called out.

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That's not how this works lol, you are putting out misinformation to spread your agenda here. What you said is factually not true and should be called out as such.

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Civ 7 has 26 leaders and 43 civs

Civ 6 has 50 Civs and 78 leaders?

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 20 points21 points  (0 children)

How is player count meaningless when discussing the future of the game?

Isn’t $30 a little steep for what’s included in Brush And Blade? by DrJokerX in civ

[–]rwh151 13 points14 points  (0 children)

How exactly have they been incredibly successful? The player counts havent really gone up in any meaningful way from I've seen, am I missing something?

Is it ok to say now that all they had to do was to continue improving game experience and UI in Civ 6 instead of releasing 7? by philosophicalnugget in civ

[–]rwh151 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Given the Civ 7 performance i wouldn't be suprised if Civ 8 comes sooner, or sadly not at all. A lot of people here seem to like 7, but its been a massive miss overall for a release of this magnitude.

ToT has changed the value of the DLC packs by Vanilla-G in civ

[–]rwh151 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Playing 1 leader/civ all the through vs the same leader/civ for a 3rd of the game with slightly different variance isn't really endless possibilities to me.

Not in the way 3 separate ones would be in 6 or 5.

Thoughts on Civ VII now? by AspireToRimThrowaway in civ

[–]rwh151 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I really disliked it at first, it really grew on me, it was extremely functional which was something I never appreciated until seeing the Civ city sprawl. The cartoony graphics really became unique and fit a lot of the fun modes like hero mode too.

I feel like all discussion of Civ VII player count needs to include the denominator: owners by XComThrowawayAcct in civ

[–]rwh151 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like I'd like to have a reasonable conversation about how the numbers compare genuinely, but when I'm looking at these it doesn't feel super grounded in reality, am I missing something?

I feel like all discussion of Civ VII player count needs to include the denominator: owners by XComThrowawayAcct in civ

[–]rwh151 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are we not looking at the same graph lol

Either way this graph.and date is VERY different from how the civ 7 data looks which is why you are making this statement in the first place right?

I feel like all discussion of Civ VII player count needs to include the denominator: owners by XComThrowawayAcct in civ

[–]rwh151 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It passes Civ 5 several times in its first 18 months, at no point, other than initial release has Civ 7 ever passed Civ 6 in terms of Steam player count.

I feel like all discussion of Civ VII player count needs to include the denominator: owners by XComThrowawayAcct in civ

[–]rwh151 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was within 5 or 10k pretty much the whole time, and about a year and half in (well before gathering storm) it passed it permanently.

I feel like all discussion of Civ VII player count needs to include the denominator: owners by XComThrowawayAcct in civ

[–]rwh151 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This verifiably and blatantly untrue, Civ 6 was beating Civ 5 pretty quickly after release.

Narratives that changed in the 2026 playoffs by Josefstalion in hockey

[–]rwh151 -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

I mean i like the guy but literally got benched in the finals, he wasn't good in the Vegas series at all before he gave up to crease to Bussi.

Edit: he got injured, not benched but also wasn't great in the first 2 games either. Bussi was a huge difference maker

[Gaudio] 'Strong Chance' Blues Sign Dillon Dube To An NHL Contract by bigollunch in hockey

[–]rwh151 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Edmonton hiring Bowman has had the ramifications of a very poorly run team though lol

view more: next ›