ive been a pc gamer for 2 decades now.  the only thing that draws me to consoles is price.  in some cases i can argue that the community doesn't hack as much, but in playing Modern Warfare 2 on XBox, i know thats not true.

As soon as a hack is discovered it is exploited to the point that game becomes "unfun".  of course the happens in the pc world too.

It's kind of a stretch including elemental in the company of those games.

PC games are always going to be there though. The PC is infinitely more flexible and free. It's much hard to experiment or try new things on a console because of the bureaucracy, costs and politics involved.

I'm just saying the other games listed are part of hallowed franchises and the companies themselves are known for putting out the best of the best games for a long time now.

Stardock hasn't really cracked the top 100 of the best games in the past few years, let alone longer than that.

Elemental could be an amazing game, but we'll see won't we?

I'd say for a first title, Sins was a great attempt. But it's a flawed game and Stardock didn't really develop it, did they?

And as for Galactic Civilizations II, definitely not.

Yeah its funny how perceptions can alter reality like that.

Actually this a is a great place to continue my rant about hype and good games.

I can remember the hype about certain games better than I can remember the game itself, this plays into the feeling that the game was "massive" and succsesful and therefor REALLY GOOD. But thats false. There are plenty of unsuccsesful good games, they don't have the graphics or the marketing or maybe they are a little rough around the edges for "cool" gaming sites to take seriously. Either way quality is judged by many to be a linear equation to sales (i.e. succsess). I don't do that. Most people I consider intelligent don't do that. Quality is not mutually exclusive with succsess but often results in it.

So going back to this, you totaly can put titles like GalCivII, Mount & Blade or Arma 2 along side the mega sellers in terms of quality. (Im using released stuff because I know its quality.)

And if your talking about sales, I need to go get my suit - I didn't realise we were in a business meeting.

I mean, do you really think galactic civilizations was better than: Deus Ex, Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape: Torment, Diablo II, etc, etc.

Your "reality" is obviously seriously flawed in this case.

Wow you just picked 5 of the best games in all of human history. Because a game can't be good unless it beats the aboslute best that isn't even in its catagory! "Yeah you silly modern day artists! Unless you can beat all those 'greats' from hundreds of years ago you SUCK!!! LOL! N00BS!"

Good one.

Of course all those games you mentioned SUCK HARD compared to UFO Enemy Unknown.

According to Metacritic GalCiv II is in the top 100 games. 

Are they fanboys too?

The real one?

I would be amazed if elemental comes close to achieving the sales level of a civilization game, or having the same awareness or recognition levels at the moment as the civilization series.

It might be a similar type of game, it might gain a better critical reception(+be a better game), but only the most ardent fan would expect it to sell as much as a civilization game/be as popular as one. Not to say it hasn't got a chance, but the odds are certainly against it.

My interest in this topic is really piqued now. 

So other than the Civilization series, what other turn based strategy games would you consider as good or better than the Galactic Civilizations series? 

Editing for less confusion:

WoW Cata will sell huge, so will Starcraft 2, DRM Up your ASSassins Credd 2 and Splinter Cell convition will sell pretty well on PC too (unless DRM bites into sales).

But in terms of quality for me its Arma2 Operation Arrowhead then Cataclysm then the good stratergy games (not Starcraft 2).