FEATURES
. . . . . .
ABOUT
. . . . . .
CONTACT
. . . . . .
SHOP
. . . . . .
RADIO WoS
. . . . . .
NEWS . .
. . . .
SUBSCRIBE
. . . . . .
WoS FRONT PAGE
| Welcome to WoS Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board, it looks a bit ugly, and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Settlers 7; hopefully they get it right this time | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 5 2009, 04:41 AM (611 Views) | |
| caleyjag | Nov 5 2009, 04:41 AM Post #1 |
 
|
Linky Website is a bit sparse at the moment, apart from a rather silly commercial thing. Anyway, I hear they are going back to the roots with this one (although I have been let down 4 times before). I really hope so. Settlers I and II are still favourites that I play regularly. |
 |
 
|
| romanista | Nov 6 2009, 10:11 AM Post #2 |
Rick Lindeman
|
Gameloft is msking iphone settlers, this month |
|
|
|
| The Rev Owen | Nov 7 2009, 08:56 AM Post #3 |
|
The iPhone version's out, £2.99, apparently based on Settlers IV. |
|
|
|
| Marlon | Nov 7 2009, 12:02 PM Post #4 |
|
This thread has inspired me to (buy from a reputable software emporium) Settlers II 10th Anniversary edition. It is fab. |
|
|
|
| romanista | Nov 9 2009, 12:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Rick Lindeman
|
is that one of the good ones? |
|
|
|
| Mark X | Nov 9 2009, 12:59 PM Post #6 |
Embittered Comedy Blogger
|
Warning: I was tempted by iPhone settlers, only to be put off by it taking up about 230MB of valuable iPod space. Possibly my fault for being a cheapo 16GB Touch owner, but a lot of people seem to be unnecessarily bloating their games. Having to lose about six albums from my iPod every time I want to add a game is getting annoying.
Edited by Mark X, Nov 9 2009, 01:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Marlon | Nov 9 2009, 05:02 PM Post #7 |
|
I've only played the first four in any depth, and Settlers II 10th Anniversary edition - complete with its funky new graphics and sound engine - is easily the best and...um... "purest"? - Yeah, I'll go with purest - Settlers experience. Edited by Marlon, Nov 9 2009, 05:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
| jonarob | Nov 9 2009, 07:52 PM Post #8 |
Shriveled Member
|
7?! I remember enjoying II, and I didn't know any had been released since. Hmmm. |
|
|
|
| Rob M | Nov 9 2009, 08:22 PM Post #9 |
Honourable Member
|
Mmm, I knew there were at least four. The third one got rid of roads, which is a mind-bogglingly bizarre thing to do, and I lost interest from there. Recent ones looked all realistic as well - balls to that, I want woo-hooing geologists. I wonder if it's seven numbered instalments, or if they're including things like the apparently-crushingly-disappointing DS version. And speaking of number sevens, how is Windows 7 the seventh? The consumer line would go 3 -> 95 (4) -> 98 (5) -> XP (6) -> Vista (7) at a minimum, shurely? |
|
|
|
| caleyjag | Nov 9 2009, 11:39 PM Post #10 |
|
This is the 7th distinct game in the series on the PC, not including Settlers II, 10th Anniversay, which yes, is the best version to date. I and II are obviously classics. III and IV are a bit meh, because as stated above they got rid of the roads, which I always thought was one of the defining features of the game. V and VI lost all of the cutesy charm and also dumbed it down, so it's fair to say the series has lost its way a bit. It looks like VII is back on track aesthetically, and it's tantalisingly subtitled Paths to a Kingdom, so I hope that means they are going back to the original formula (I'm not holding by breath.) Edited by caleyjag, Nov 9 2009, 11:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| CraigGrannell | Nov 9 2009, 11:40 PM Post #11 |
Your thumping bass surrounds you
|
I wish companies would spend more time with older properties. Civ II could work (with some major UI work) on iPod, and it'd be better than Civ Rev. |
|
|
|
| romanista | Nov 10 2009, 12:55 PM Post #12 |
|
Rick Lindeman
|
isn't civ rev civ 1/2 with a different ui then? |
|
|
|
| CraigGrannell | Nov 10 2009, 01:13 PM Post #13 |
|
Your thumping bass surrounds you
|
Not reallythe AI is totally broken and hell-bent on warfare. In Civ II, the game could be fairly relaxed. In Civ Rev, every game seems a quickfire search for events/items that give you bonus items, so you can quickly make tanks to kill other civs with. |
|
|
|
| romanista | Nov 10 2009, 01:16 PM Post #14 |
|
Rick Lindeman
|
ah OKAY, never really played a fgull gamer, seem to be "out-civved" after civ 3, not sure why, as I spent so many hours on civ 1 |
|
|
|
| The Rev Owen | Nov 10 2009, 03:26 PM Post #15 |
|
Civ Rev is more Civ: The Game than Civ: The Simulator, if you see what I mean. In Civ 2 I generally ignored the "winning" goals and just got a country I felt was about the right size and concentrated on keeping things happy and peaceful. You can't do that in Civ Rev, it's a short, sharp game all about winning. It's blindingly good, too, by the way, but it's closer to Advance Wars than Sim City. |
|
|
|
| MojoJojo | Nov 10 2009, 03:31 PM Post #16 |
|
The official reason is that it's the 7th in the NT client line, although that's also wrong as you should have NT4 (4), Windows 2000 (5), Windows XP(6), Vista(7)... The reason for the confusion is that XP is internally versioned as 5.1 - apparently to increase compatiability with programs that only check the major version number. To further confuse issues, Windows 7 has the version number 6.1 for the same reason. I was vaguely aware Settlers had gained lots of versions since 3, but didn't realise they'd got up to 7. I think they've mainly focused on the German market where the loss of roads doesn't seem to have bothered anyone. Oddly, the video makes it look a lot like the Settlers of Catan. Considering the already similar names and the existence of the console SoC, you'd think they'd want to downplay that similarity, unless they've already got a license. Edited by MojoJojo, Nov 10 2009, 03:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RevMarzikins | Nov 10 2009, 03:54 PM Post #17 |
|
LOAD"*",8,1. READY. RUN.
|
Now see, I thought it would be because 98 didn't count as a major iteration in itself, what with it not being that much different from 95. |
|
|
|
| Pallid Dan | Nov 10 2009, 05:14 PM Post #18 |
Lucifer Alpha
|
and thankfully noone conciders windows ME as anything other than an abortion...... |
|
|
|
| RevMarzikins | Nov 10 2009, 05:59 PM Post #19 |
|
LOAD"*",8,1. READY. RUN.
|
I guess the one notable (positive?) thing about ME was that the System Restore was introduced through it. |
|
|
|
| CraigGrannell | Nov 10 2009, 10:11 PM Post #20 |
|
Your thumping bass surrounds you
|
I'll go with you on the sim/game thing, to some extent. The problem for me with Civ Rev is that it pretty much ceases to be a strategy game, and in many ways has more in common with a shoot em up. I'd love Civ for iPod, but Civ Rev is so far from the original (or even Civ 4) that I found it almost pointless on DS. |
|
|
|
| VinylPusher | Nov 15 2009, 11:27 AM Post #21 |
|
Sorry to be off-topic, but did anyone here ever use Win ME for any appreciable length of time? I only ask because it's the one version of Windows I've *never* used and I'm just intrigued as to how it seems to be less well regarded than 98SE. To try to keep somewhat on-topic (although I'm reaching a bit): If I were to play only one game from the genre occupied by Civ and Settlers, which would be most rewarding? |
|
|
|
| CraigGrannell | Nov 15 2009, 12:04 PM Post #22 |
|
Your thumping bass surrounds you
|
It depends on the level of abstraction and scale you want. Settlers and Civ are pretty similar in many ways, but the former is way more zoomed in. You see the little guys go about their work, building stuff. Civ is more abstract, generally concerned with global matters. Personally, I find Civ a much richer gaming experience, but Settlers is more fun to watch, in a 'Little Computer People' kind of way. |
|
|
|
| Deano2099 | Nov 15 2009, 04:04 PM Post #23 |
|
Yeah. It wasn't as much of a disaster as people make out, but it was a step backwards. After five years with Windows 98 SE Microsoft basically had a version of Windows 95 that was mostly stable and worked. Going to ME was like going back to an entirely unpatched Windows 95 for the sake of some new features no-one cared about while also breaking backwards compatibility with some stuff. It's not that it was awful, it was just measurably worse than it's predecessor. |
|
|
|
| VinylPusher | Nov 15 2009, 06:18 PM Post #24 |
|
The last game I played (and enjoyed) in this genre was Populous. I've just finished downloading CoD 6 and I'm still in the middle of re-playing Fallout 3 so I'll tag Civ on my To-Do list. I was almost intrigued enough to grab a VM of Windows ME, but I'm far too bored to bother. |
|
|
|
| cools | Nov 15 2009, 07:33 PM Post #25 |
|
I wouldn't bother. Even if installed and set up correctly with decent hardware and sane apps, ME will inevitably crash a lot. It's not so much "if" it'll fall over as "when". Horrible system. Fortunately, being a 9x based system it's generally dead easy to repair with a few tricks, but in all honesty it, as well as all the other non-NT based Windows are best confined to history 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · This is WoS · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:50 PM Nov 23
