I also liked civ 3 as that was the one that introduced concept of strategic resources. But I think plenty of people disliked it because it was such a race to build as many cities/armies as you could. Player with more cities almost always won.
I'm playing Civ 6 and I still don't know how to feel about it. So far I see reintroduced of caravan and missionary units so I'm thinking "been there done that." But, it seems the game has a lot more to offer so I'll be patient with final judgement.
Bought the game, played for few hours and feel seriously underwhelmed.
It's not that it's bad, it's just that it fails to achieve high standards of other Bethesda games. Graphics are mediocre and I've seen better facial animations in older games. In one location, quarry of some sort, the textures were horrible and I sunk through the ground.
PC controls when accessing inventory are terrible; when moving the default controls are "AWSD" but when navigating through inventory it switches to arrow keys. Did anybody think this through?
No, they probably haven't. Just designed the entire game for consoles and then just ported poorly to PC. Common story.
Hard to tell. Ability to ride wooden bicycles puts in the satire territory, but the rest seems like more or less serious complaints.
I just had time to finish expansion pack and while it doesn't add much new to gameplay the story of the main quest and characters are one of the best I have ever seen.
There's no need to attack his tastes; everybody likes to blow stuff up and run over those nasty honey badgers. Hopefully they'll make great game that wins over players like him.
I'm hoping I'll get to fly a Pterodactyl. :)
(yes, I know, that would be historically inaccurate but I want it anyway)
wrednajasobaka's comments