The Skyrim 2K texture pack is... okay. It's EXTREMELY incomplete though, and last I checked the creator wasn't doing much in the way of updates. The textures that are replaced are wonderfully done though, I do recommend it.

And just for reference, the 2K textures are only about 1.5GB, whereas WMC's complete texture pack for New Vegas is 7GB. That should tell you how incomplete the 2K pack is.

Originally Posted by chapnis Never played any Civ games. Civ III worth getting for a dollar?

Yes. Obviously the graphics aren't current but it still looks good and the gameplay is fundamentally the same. Nice way to test if you'd like the franchise.

Originally Posted by chapnis Never played any Civ games. Civ III worth getting for a dollar?

I would say it is the worst Civ, but still worth a dollar sure.

Originally Posted by Mooby Yes. Obviously the graphics aren't current but it still looks good and the gameplay is fundamentally the same. Nice way to test if you'd like the franchise.

This is true, but if you like three, I'd recommend updating to IV as soon as possible. I believe it to be the best in the series, and I'm not alone.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

'Worst' is relative, though. Arguably you could say the first was the worst as it was the birth of the franchise and doesn't have as many features as the later ones. Honestly there aren't many significant differences between Civ 3 and Civ 4(gameplay wise). Civ 5 I can't attest to but everything I've seen of it doesn't make me believe it's any better.

Saying 'worst Civ game' is like saying 'ugliest supermodel.'

Originally Posted by CKEStriker really contemplating if i should get skyrim....will this be the cheapest?

i picked it up from black friday for $10 at the microsoft store(came with a steam key) and it is one of the best purchases I have ever made.

Yeah, I've heard it's the worst one. But no point in spending 7.50 if I might not like it. Probably pick up Civ III for a dollar now and if I like it get IV/V a bit later on. Thanks for the input.

Originally Posted by bobphone 260?!

I really don't get your comment. I spelled it out clearly gtx 260 in my four year old PC.
Specifically the superclocked model here.
http://www.evga.com/articles/00429/

Yes, it's old, but it runs Skyrim & BL2 ~45FPS @1920x1200 at default settings.

Is the Civ 5 GOTY upgrade worth the $5? I have the base game and G&K ($3.15 at GMG right now).

Originally Posted by Idiotekque The Skyrim 2K texture pack is... okay. It's EXTREMELY incomplete though, and last I checked the creator wasn't doing much in the way of updates. The textures that are replaced are wonderfully done though, I do recommend it. And just for reference, the 2K textures are only about 1.5GB, whereas WMC's complete texture pack for New Vegas is 7GB. That should tell you how incomplete the 2K pack is.

There's other ones you can get to fill in the gaps but yeah it's a whole process. Anybody who has modded ES games in the past should be used to that though.

There's a guide called STEP (Skyrim Total Enhancement Project) that tells you what texture Mods to install and in what order but get an older revision because the latest one removed that Skyrim rewhatsit pack.

Originally Posted by Idiotekque The Skyrim 2K texture pack is... okay. It's EXTREMELY incomplete though, and last I checked the creator wasn't doing much in the way of updates. The textures that are replaced are wonderfully done though, I do recommend it. And just for reference, the 2K textures are only about 1.5GB, whereas WMC's complete texture pack for New Vegas is 7GB. That should tell you how incomplete the 2K pack is.

Your talking about a different mod. The author says to install the 2K version on top of the official free HD texture pack from Bethesda to fill it out. The 2k version of Skyrim Realistic Overhaul weighs in at 5.6 gigs. Your confusing mods. 2k references the size of the texture, but there is also a mod that uses "2k" in name (several, actually).

EDIT: Link to what Motoki referenced above:
S.T.E.P. Project Wiki
S.T.E.P. at nexus

Originally Posted by Mooby 'Worst' is relative, though. Arguably you could say the first was the worst as it was the birth of the franchise and doesn't have as many features as the later ones. Honestly there aren't many significant differences between Civ 3 and Civ 4(gameplay wise). Civ 5 I can't attest to but everything I've seen of it doesn't make me believe it's any better. Saying 'worst Civ game' is like saying 'ugliest supermodel.'

They have drastically changed the combat system for civ 5:

in civ 4 you could move all of your units onto one square next to an enemy city and have them attack at once in one giant stack. You only get one unit per hex(civ v uses hexes, not squares) and so you cant stack units any more. I like the combat in part 5 a lot.

Most of the strat games I play, even on the hardest difficulty, become really easy after you get a couple of cities and have really weak AI(like the total war series, or the romance of the 3 kingdoms series).

On the harder difficulties, in the civ games, the AI gets some huge boosts so that the game is in question every step of the way and every decision you make is critical. I can usually win on the king setting, but if i fall behind, it can be a really difficult task to catch up.

Originally Posted by nosferatu51 Is the Civ 5 GOTY upgrade worth the $5? I have the base game and G&K ($3.15 at GMG right now).

100% yes without hesitation, especially at that price because it probably won't hit that price again by itself.

Sorry thought you meant G&K.

GOTY upgrade?

Eh

Originally Posted by chapnis Never played any Civ games. Civ III worth getting for a dollar?

Civ III has a bad rep. I'd recommend FreeCiv for the classic CIv 1+2 experience.

Originally Posted by nosferatu51 Is the Civ 5 GOTY upgrade worth the $5? I have the base game and G&K ($3.15 at GMG right now).

From what I understand, only if you like playing scenarios. I'd be interesting in hearing more answers to this.

Originally Posted by nosferatu51 Is the Civ 5 GOTY upgrade worth the $5? I have the base game and G&K ($3.15 at GMG right now).

YES. it adds a lot of civs(each civ have their own advantages, their own music, just adds a lot of replay value) and there are 2 other expansions included(they were OK, i prefer the base game to be honest)

Oh well, I got Civ III so at the worst I've wasted a dollar

Originally Posted by Motoki 100% yes without hesitation, especially at that price because it probably won't hit that price again by itself. Sorry thought you meant G&K. GOTY upgrade? Eh

As I said, G&K is actually at a better price than that right now $4 something at GreenManGaming, then use their 30% discount and it comes out to like $3.15. THAT looked like too much of a steal and I said yes. The GOTY update at $5 looked like it was just scenarios and a couple new civs that I wasn't sure were worth it.

Originally Posted by dracula YES. it adds a lot of civs(each civ have their own advantages, their own music, just adds a lot of replay value) and there are 2 other expansions included(they were OK, i prefer the base game to be honest)

So for someone who hasn't played much of it at all yet and will likely never exhaust the base content, that's a no? Can't imagine balance lets any of those addon civs stand out as a must have.

Originally Posted by Mooby Saying 'worst Civ game' is like saying 'ugliest supermodel.'

Did someone mention Mission Runway?

Originally Posted by Mooby 'Worst' is relative, though. Arguably you could say the first was the worst as it was the birth of the franchise and doesn't have as many features as the later ones. Honestly there aren't many significant differences between Civ 3 and Civ 4(gameplay wise). Civ 5 I can't attest to but everything I've seen of it doesn't make me believe it's any better. Saying 'worst Civ game' is like saying 'ugliest supermodel.'

Thank you, I know understand that opinions are different person to person.

I say it is the worst because I felt like it did nothing for the franchise. That and it was the one I had the least fun in. So since games are for entertainment purposes and it was the one I enjoyed the least it is the worst one. And while this is entirely unnecessary I guess I should point out that this is my opinion and it may not reflect yours.

Originally Posted by Sniperek There was bad civ game?

No, hence the use of the word 'worst'. It is the worst because it is sub par to the other Civs, but is still a good game.

Language... its not that hard!

EDIT: Also it should be known that it is the 'worst' Civ in my opinion because I had already played Civ 1 & 2. Had I not played either of those I would not have had any expectations going into Civ 3.

Originally Posted by chapnis Never played any Civ games. Civ III worth getting for a dollar?

Bought Civ 3 during the last sale. It is the only Civ game I have played. Took a bit to figure everything out, but I've put 38 hours into it an haven't finished a playthrough yet. Tons of fun. I'm slowly capturing the entire map. Probably the best dollar I've ever spent.