Is this game for Col what Civ3 was for civ?

[Heraclitus]

Its clearly broken at the moment...

[Krill]

IMO yes. (Though that is due to the MM and broken stuff, not considered on any deeper level).

[Tattila the Hun]

The game that really got me interested in the franchise? I hope not, I have so little free time as it is...

[CWRice]

Col is way better than Civ III and not really broken at all in my personal subjective experience. It hasnt crashed on me a single time, and I really liked the game play.

[arthurdent2k]

I actually like this game. Its just that with the endgame being as it is the replayability suffers a lot. Other than that, its rockstable, has nice graphics and is clearly fun to play, at least for me.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by arthurdent2k
I actually like this game. Its just that with the endgame being as it is the replayability suffers a lot. Other than that, its rockstable, has nice graphics and is clearly fun to play, at least for me.

Yep, except the end game, the win/ lose, is very important.

You need that win/ lose element to be fun or what's the point? As it is, it feel divorced from the rest of experience and success is best delivered by an cynical step out of the spirit of the game. The theme of the game (colonisation and independence) breaks down and the fun ends.

[Nikolai]

Yes it is. The game has been one big disappointment. When the only way to win at lowest difficulity is to use gamey tactics that is not even obvious, it tells something...

[Cort Haus]

I had thought that it was just me who was spectacularly shít at this game, even on the lowest level, but I'm relieved to discover I'm not alone.

I love the look and feel, and the buildery economic development of the early and mid-game. Maybe I'll switch the revolution off and just play for points.

[Nikolai]

That is actually a very good idea. Why haven't I thought about that!

[akikonomu]

Is this game for Col what MoO3 was for MoO?

[Nikolai]

Yup.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by akikonomu
Is this game for Col what MoO3 was for MoO?

I think that's a bit too much. MoO 3 ended up a really bad game. Colonization isn't THAT bad and has a lot more potential.

[akikonomu]

MoO3 was a bad game no one would play/could play as a 'strategy game' without installing a user mod, which made it a decent if annoying game. In that sense, this game is doing the same thing to Col what MoO3 did for MoO.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by akikonomu
MoO3 was a bad game no one would play/could play as a 'strategy game' without installing a user mod, which made it a decent if annoying game. In that sense, this game is doing the same thing to Col what MoO3 did for MoO.

Why ask a question you already seem to think you know the answer to?




But I suppose I could be charged guilty of that as well, I however meant it as a rethorical question.



And I dissagre, this game is much more playable than MOO3

[Boracks]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
... this game is much more playable than MOO3

I agree the game is more playable than MOO3 (most games are...) but the issue with this game is versatility - there ain't none. It's like one of those puzzles where you draw a line through a maze. Once you know the route, why bother playing it?