Quoting: MGOidDeep Silver may be Linux friendly, but Techland is not so much.

Eh, a company that launched Linux ports is Linux friendly in my book. If you want an example for a Linux unfriendly company, look at Blizzard. They flat out told people to use Windows if they want to play their games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I would be absolutely thrilled if it's Doom. Not because I care for the title (I don't), but seeing Bethesda supporting Linux would make me hop in circles like a bunny, as this would open up hopes to see Fallout and Skyrim ported as well. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910Just need epic to push Vulkan more now

Seeing how critical Epic Games has been of Microsoft lately, throwing their weight behind Vulkan should be a fairly natural thing for them to do.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I have never played a stealth game before, but this one has me interested for being on Linux and featuring a girl player character for a change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Will absolutely buy this. :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: seven... if the linux support is good....

i left amd cpu and gpu behind me years ago and my life only got better, that said is not healthy for the market with one brand monoplizing the shit out of said market. so i aplaud their efforts

Yeah, absolutely this. Monopolies are bad. But Linux users already know that! :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wojtek88With your logic India is the second most powerful country in the world. Do you really believe it?

I said "Size matters", not "ONLY size matters". India is lagging behind in development, that's the only reason why they are not considered a world power. Yet. They will be one day with absolute certainty. Like China, that's arguably now the second most powerful country in the world and will be #1 very soon - but has been a developing nation only a few decades ago.
You can safely say that size is -prerequisite- for being powerful, though. All major powers in the world are also large in terms of population. You can be large without being powerful (India, Brazil, Indonesia etc), but you cannot be powerful without being reasonably large.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: hummer010Size = power isn't really true. Canada is the second largest country in the world, but we certainly aren't the second most powerful. I'd say it's more of a combination of size, population and perceived economic & military clout that defines power.

The goal of a nation like Switzerland would be to survive and prosper despite their geographical limitations.

I meant size as in size of population, not area. The US is four times larger in terms of population than the second largest western nation (Germany), so that's THE source of its power. And really - Civ reflects the "size matters" reality just nicely. Go large or go home. Like in real life. What Civ could do better is translating different population -density- to the game. Germany actually appears much smaller on a map than it really is (in terms of population). In Civ, nations tend to be pretty much evenly dense, which is not the case in reality.

Btw. Civ already has the "just survive" goal. You get the "ok, you made it" message. It just...doesn't feel like a victory. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: KimyrielleI am however, genuinely curious what can still done to Civ to improve it.

It's hardly an immaculate concept -- from the ground up, there's so much to improve, to make it worthy of the name 'civilization', as it were. Sure, the core design has to 'gameify' a huge range of social-political dynamics; nevertheless it takes a bit too much for granted.

To begin with, you assume a godlike dictatorship of a nation-state back in 4000BC. Money pretty much has its 20th century significance from the start.

There's quite a bit of the designers' own political leanings informing the design -- in one of the past Civs, the stock exchange increased overall happiness in a city, for instance. And unless you're building an expansionist empire, you can't really aspire to any of the victory types.

You can argue for sure that the game glorifies both capitalism and imperialism with some of its designs. And yes, to make your civilization able to prosper you need to expand. But tbh, size DOES matter in real life international relations. The US is powerful, Switzerland isn't. For the simple reason that one country is large and the other isn't. Power in real life has nothing to do with how "great" a nation is. It's just a function of size. Translating this simple truth into a game where you compete against other nations to become the most powerful one, it makes sense that expansion is needed, no? They sure could relax the ultimate goal to be the "best" nation, but what would the new victory conditions be, then? What would be the goal in Civ for a nation like Switzerland?

I do agree with it being silly that the stock exchange creates happiness. It should create wealth and that's all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I love the Civ series and have played every single game so far. It's great news to see this game announced and for Linux to beat!

I am however, genuinely curious what can still done to Civ to improve it. The last big and much needed improvement to the series was overhauling the outdated combat system in Civ V. I actually fail to see what features could move the series forward at this point, though. At least I hope it won't just be a graphics update, like the EA's yearly FIFA games. *giggles*

View this comment - View article - View full comments