I think you’ll find that most strategy fans would agree that Civ 4 was the peak of the series to date (drop by , and that Galactic Civilisations II (a relatively recent game by Stardock) is the peak of 4X space strategy to date. I’m not sure where you’re finding all of these strategy fans in universal agreement, but the ones I play with are playing Civ IV/Civ Rev and Gal Civ 2, rather than Civ 2 (the first you could play online – although that clearly wasn’t an innovation by your standards) and Master of Orion II (the ‘classic’ of space 4X gameplay – MOO was surpassed by its sequel!).

And as for 4X being a legacy genre, I think you’re confusing ‘legacy’ with ‘niche’ . There are still a steady albeit limited stream of 4X games being released, and they still sell respectably, even though they’re generally only released on the heavily pirated PC platform.

And hexes being a pretty small enhancement?! They are a _huge_ game changer when it comes to actual military strategy. I never suggested they were new to gaming (and, indeed, they’ve been around longer than 30 years ), just new to Civ – which is the game we’re talking about. Suggesting that the shift from squares to hexes, and from unit stacks to individual units on tiles, is just plain ludicrious. Drop on over to http://www.civfanatics.com and post that in the forum and see how you go – ask them if the series has changed much since Civ 1 as well while you’re there .

On the by, even if you don’t understand the impact of the military changes in Civ 5, how about the introduction of religion in Civ 3, and its enhancement in Civ 4? Or the introduction of vassal states in Civ 4? The ‘core’ Civ series has been constantly evolving and changing, and Civ 4 played very differently to Civ 1.

Anyways, you’re not actually logically addressing my arguments, but rather trying to deflect the criticism by bringing up new points, which means it’s going to be pretty pointless trying to have a proper discussion with you, which is the most disappointing part (by some margin) in your writing.

3D shooter fans almost universally agree that games keep getting better every year. Uncharted 2 is a big favorite for example. Even the most ardent fans of Doom/Marathon would completely agree that todays games are way better even if they share the same core dodge/aim/shoot mechanics.

4x fans almost universally agree that the best games are from back in the past. Look at HOMM for example (I’ve put hundreds of hours into that). Fans are almost unanimous that HOMM 3 was the best and none of the sequels ever recaptured the magic (HOMM 4 as particularly terrible). Similar story with MOO.

Or how about Spaceword Ho!? That game is so old, the last version was released on Palm OS! 4x is a legacy genre (and I’ve played a ton of SOSE and Total War)

“Hell, Civ 5 introduces hexes, which anyone who is familiar with turn-based strategy will tell you is a _huge_ game changer when it comes to combat.”

Dude, that’s a pretty small enhancement. Hexes were a strategy innovation 30 years ago?

“I’ve got a PS3 and _loved_ Chains of Olympus”

Well, you broke my theory…

How can you say that Portal 2 is over-rated? You say “is it really that good?” Well, we don’t know yet. Portal 1 was great, and if portal 2 is a longer game with the same great gameplay and dialogue, which it looks to be so far, then it absolutely deserves those accolades.

I agree about all the other points though.

Your other suggestions seem reasonable enough, although your ‘Ghost of Sparta’ recommendation seems to compare it to main console games. I’ve got a PS3 and _loved_ Chains of Olympus, and will be back for Ghost of Sparta with bells on. On the other hand, Patapon was interesting enough, but the gameplay is pretty basic, and it’s nothing you couldn’t do on PSOne (although, clearly, no-one did).