|
|
|
die with honor
Last Seen:
Today @ 3:26 PM
Posts: 5,407
Visits: 19,798
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settler
Last Seen:
6/23/2008 6:56 PM
Posts: 3
Visits: 2
|
|
Scipio Africanus (6/18/2008)
*Scratches head in puzzlement" "Hmmm? Should I be excited at a new installment, or should I be dubious that half of what they are promising will actually work the way they portray it, and later feel like a gullible fool for shelling out another $60 for yet another glorified patch that frankly shoulda been included in the ORIGINAL Civ4, let alone Warlords, let alone BTS . . . wonders if the Firaxis producers went to the same school as the breed of cinema producers who ushered in the era of the Parte Deux, Parte Tois . . . Parte Infinitude Sequel Tradition . . ." Oops! Sorry, that was my inner monologue coming through . . . Uh, yeah! . . . Looks great!  I used to be that way, but after the abuse of my money in a broken Conquests, no way. FireAxis was so busy in getting Civ IV ready they left Conquests in a fairly broken state. I tried Civ IV, and agree with your comments. I switched back to the broken Conquests because I preferred it to Civ IV. I have not tried the two expansions and have no plans. Leo (6/18/2008)
You could not play the natives in the original...
I am EXTREMELY suspicious.
I loved the original colonization...and if the gameplay is the same, with the graphics of Civ IV...then that's okay.
But if they have the rabidly xenophobic AI of Civ IV and the other things I hate about Civ IV...I'll be sad.
I seriously hope it's not 60 dollars.
Oh who am I kidding? I'll buy it...I just know I will. I only hope it doesn't suxx0rIf more people stopped buying the broken games and wrote, called, and e-mailed why they were not buying broken games, the game companies would be forced to provide unbroken games. Whatever you do, do not trust the game magazine reviews. They give above average reviews most of the time to avoid losing advertising money.
|
--
Who needs one
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
