In the list of bad design changes:
Nations consider whether they can win before declaring war.
“the game no longer reflects an 18th century view of world conquest”. Why should it? Running a war empire is costly, sacrifices production for military over infrastructure, and usually results in unhappiness for the empire. The whole point of the game is that world powers change and adapt to “stand the test of time”. Changing game mechanics beyond “conquer” is exactly the same thing. That’s why there are multiple win conditions. This dullard barely had an argument to begin with, and it’s a bad one.
Carl von Clausewitz: War is a continuation of policy by other means.
G*mer: Sounds like woke nonsense to me.
Most old-school purists would say that Civ IV was the best one, so he even fails at being a g*mer.
I mean Leonard Nimoy as the narrator, hello?!
Civ4 is
is so many ways, it’s only flaw is that Civ5/Civ6 has better unit tactics, but almost everything else about Civ4 was 10/10.
They made Civ IV too political for him
as someone who has put over 1000 hours into every single civ game (not combined, each), Civ VI is actually the best. I know, hot take.
Bro be mad that there’s too much civilization in Civ. He’s also full of shit; Civ had the “first to Alpha Centari” win condition since the beginning, it was never military conquest or bust. Hell, the way I played Civ II back in the day was to build up massive wealth stores, keep bribing opposing civilizations’ cities to rebel, then once they were down to only a city or two I’d switch to communism and then invade them and win.
I still have no clue what he thinks he means by “faustian”.
Same! What do they think they’re saying?
Lmao at “Reddit celebrity”
I fucking love Jesus, almost as much as I love war, murder and conquest
spoiler
Checks out completely
“Third Horsemen”
lol does he mean like wil wheaton and val kilmer or is this account i’ve never heard of supposed to be like the time in nineteen ninety-eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and he plummeted 16 feet into the annoucer’s table?
Oh shit, is he the 3am chili guy!?
Civilization has always been more of a board game with a historical skin than some kind of simulation. Making small civs viable wasn’t done for any ideological purpose than creating more gameplay variety, same with the addition of more ways to win and the removal of doom stacks.
For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare.
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
45
5 6 7 8
8 85 6 8
what the fuck OP
he’s complaining about optional game modes like “not killing everyone” lol.
Me sharting that the woke game Age of Empires 1 has a nonviolent wonder victory unlike the Faustian game Warcraft 2
I actually thought Civ 6 was too combat focused. I prefer managing tables and resources.
Imagine people in the 21st century not stll having an 18th century view of politics?
truely the west has fallen.And what the fuck is the “Faustian Western Tradition?” Some new meaningless fash buzz phrase? The fascist who wrote that piece calling midwesterns hobbits for lacking “a sense of imperial destiny” called Floridians “Faustian idividualists” or something. Did someone mention Faust in a Marvel movie or something?
