Need newer game, please recommend.

[BigTex]

Could use a few suggestios in the ways of hardcore strategy games. After finding the remake of Colonization to be pretty flat compared to it's predicessor, I want to find something else. Are there even any decent strategy games out there anymore?

Most I've run across have scrapped most of their depth for pretty color's and making the game "more accessible" for players. Debating just loading up Sierra's Civil War II or Ghengis Khan2, PTO even, and spurning the new.

[Zenicetus]

Could use a few suggestios in the ways of hardcore strategy games. After finding the remake of Colonization to be pretty flat compared to it's predicessor, I want to find something else. Are there even any decent strategy games out there anymore?

Have you tried Galactic Civilizations 2? It's the best strategy game I've played in the last few years. It's pure strategy; turn-based, with no tactical layer (you don't control ships in space battles). There is a campaign, but it's really just a trainer for the game mechanics. It's basically a sandbox strategy game, where you can set up different-sized, randomized game maps. The AI is very good, and the last expansion adds unique tech trees for each race. Don't get it without that expansion (Twilight of the Arnor). No copy protection, although you have to register and use their online service for updates.

[CrossLOPER]

Speaking of The Witcher, how is it? I heard it has quite a few bugs and that the stats system is a little bit too similar to Oblivion's (i.e. you can max out all your stats). What game could it be compared to?

[TevashSzat]

Speaking of The Witcher, how is it? I heard it has quite a few bugs and that the stats system is a little bit too similar to Oblivion's (i.e. you can max out all your stats). What game could it be compared to?

The stats systems is extremely different from Oblivion. You can't max them out at all. I vaguely remember maxing out at most maybe 4 different "trees" of skills.

The game is pretty good. You can't really compare it to any game since it has a very different style. It is linear in the sense that there are "acts" that you must go through in order. The main story line within each act must be completed before moving on to the next one. It is not linear in the sense that there is a ton of sidequests that you may do and there are usually quite a few areas to explore in each act.

I suppose, it is somewhat similar to Neverwinter Night's campaign system

[FactionHeir]

Speaking of The Witcher, how is it? I heard it has quite a few bugs and that the stats system is a little bit too similar to Oblivion's (i.e. you can max out all your stats). What game could it be compared to?

Bugs, not too many left (I run a bug list on the witcher wiki (really up to 1.3) if you are interested though, but haven't been able to reproduce several of them in the EE).
Stat system is fairly unique. It is true that you can max out most of the tree, but not all (again, I did a bit of numbercrunching on the wiki in that regard) and of course you are welcome to run my talent point balance (or rather: reduction) mod which makes choices a bit tougher. There's also mods from other people adding an insane difficulty mod if that's your thing

As for comparing it, its probably something of a mix between NWN, Diablo and Morrowind and polished.
In terms of quests, there's a lot of them and some go across several acts. You also got a potion/oil brewing system and several of your decisions impact the way the game progresses.

Note that some people experience issues running it on Vista, but a patch is slated for the start of January to address these.

Disclaimer: I am biased, sue me

[Zenicetus]

Speaking of The Witcher, how is it? I heard it has quite a few bugs and that the stats system is a little bit too similar to Oblivion's (i.e. you can max out all your stats). What game could it be compared to?

It's similar in some ways to recent games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Fallout 3 that combine combat with storyline and character advancement. On the scale of FPS to RPG, it leans much more towards being a traditional RPG. There is combat, but also lots of interaction with NPC's to advance the plot. Those other games I mentioned feel more like shooters wrapped inside an "RPG Lite" shell. You spend more time in combat than you do dealing with character and plot elements. That's basically reversed in the Witcher. If you don't like spending lots of time running around to talk to different people, interspersed with occasional flurries of combat, you might not like the game. For me, it's a nice change of pace between playing the FPS/RPG hybrids.

The main thing it has going for it is the dark, medieval setting of the game. I've heard it described as "fantasy noir." The game mechanics like the skill system, crafting of potions etc. all have a unique flavor too. It's definitely not your cookie-cutter fantasy game. I think it's worth playing just to see how typical fantasy ideas can be re-worked with a different flavor. The moral choices you have to make are often more nuanced than simple good vs. evil stereotypes. There's a sense that most of the NPC's are basically looking out for themselves, with varying agendas and conflicts, and not many true "good guys" in the game. That's where that film noir feeling comes in. Your character is sort of the Humphrey Bogart detective type, trying to follow leads that will eventually advance the plot line, and not really interested in being a hero to everyone... although he may end up doing heroic things in spite of himself.

The only minor gripe I have is with the balance of the difficulty settings. At Medium difficulty, the generic combat encounters (most of what you'll be doing) can seem a little too easy, once you figure out the combat system and learn how to craft potions and oils. However, there are still a couple of boss-level encounters that can be very tough to get through. Those can be almost impossible (for me, at least) if you ramp the game up to Hard level, to make the generic encounters more challenging. The real flaw is that this is one of those games where you're stuck with the difficulty setting you make at the start of the campaign. You can't change it mid-game to get past a rough patch. I still enjoyed playing through at Medium difficulty, mostly for the atmosphere and storyline.

On a technical level, the EE version seems pretty solid. No obvious bugs in the quests. I had one or two crashes to desktop, but the save system is good, and those seemed random.

[TevashSzat]

Quick Question @Crossloper

How old do you want the game to be? Do you have some hardware limits?

I might go through the games from the past year or so and I can make up a list for you if you give me some parameters

[Shieldmaiden]

Have you tried Galactic Civilizations 2? It's the best strategy game I've played in the last few years. It's pure strategy; turn-based, with no tactical layer (you don't control ships in space battles). There is a campaign, but it's really just a trainer for the game mechanics. It's basically a sandbox strategy game, where you can set up different-sized, randomized game maps. The AI is very good, and the last expansion adds unique tech trees for each race. Don't get it without that expansion (Twilight of the Arnor). No copy protection, although you have to register and use their online service for updates.

I'm thinking of buying Galactic Civilizations 2: Ultimate Edition for Christmas.

Does it feel like Master of Orion 2? Cos if yes warp 10 captain

[Zenicetus]

I'm thinking of buying Galactic Civilizations 2: Ultimate Edition for Christmas.

Does it feel like Master of Orion 2? Cos if yes warp 10 captain

Well, it doesn't have tactical ship combat where you can control individual ships and determine the outcome. You're in charge of strategy -- you decide what types of ships to construct (and there is a great custom ship building module!), how many to put in a fleet, where those ships should be deployed for offense or defense. You can decide whether to initiate a battle if you have the movement points to reach an enemy fleet or target. When a battle starts, the results are auto-calculated by comparing stats of the two fleets. You can then watch a 3D movie of the actual battle, but the results are pre-determined by number crunching. So it lacks that hands-on space battle element in MOO, but I think it makes up for it with the overall depth of the game and AI quality.

Also, space battles aren't always central to winning a GalCiv2 game. There are two military-intensive paths: either raw territorial conquest through planetary invasion, or capturing and defending special resources scattered across the galaxy (which upsets all the other races when you get far enough down that path). Both require a lot of space combat. But there are also two other ways to win the game: cultural domination where you "flip" planetary systems to your side because you're just too cool and everyone likes your culture, or going far enough down the path of science research to reach a God-like state that triggers the tech win condition. Both of those win conditions require a strong military to keep other races off your back. However, I've played through a few games where it basically meant designing and building the right kind of ships to intimidate the other races, playing some background diplomatic games (like getting other races to go to war with each other), and never had to fight any major battles myself.