|
Agean90 posted:Only the inside. The facade is free! The facade is actually
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Sulla posted:Part 2 just went up today: This is all I can think about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gy9hJauXns
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 01:49
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:This is all I can think about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Gy9hJauXns The art stuff and UI is pretty rough, but don't they usually leave that stuff for last anyway? The game does have some interesting concepts though (single settlement, dwindling resources forcing the player to move on after a while, changing seasons etc).. Plus the guy was lead designer for Civ V, so even though I didn't really enjoy that one too much myself at least he *seems* to know what he's doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
I don't really have a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, Civ5 was terrible. On the other hand, he does seem to agree with everybody on what went so badly wrong. Especially in map size and generation algorithm, which was my big complaint. I'm interested, I just won't care until it's a little closer to complete and the UI gets some love. UI is a very iterative process anyway, so I'm not counting it as a real strike against it yet. If his historical mode can actually play out like history did, I'll be all over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:On the one hand, Civ5 was terrible. Got a lot better though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:Pfft, only because you wouldn't give me enough time to finish it at my own pace. No you have to learn to drink quickly, that way whenever Wiz goes to buy himself another beer you can force him into buying another one for you with the argument "You are already standing up". Good trick to know, for next time. Always works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Groogy posted:No you have to learn to drink quickly, that way whenever Wiz goes to buy himself another beer you can force him into buying another one for you with the argument "You are already standing up". Good trick to know, for next time. Always works. To use that trick you'd have to stop fleeing the bar at 17:10 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
There's a lot of tough drinking talk here from someone who never went through bacon vodka initiation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
It's never too late.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Wiz posted:To use that trick you'd have to stop fleeing the bar at 17:10 though. Darkrenown posted:There's a lot of tough drinking talk here from someone who never went through bacon vodka initiation. Hey I'm game for it, hit me up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:There's a lot of tough drinking talk here from someone who never went through bacon vodka initiation. Not my fault you guys are all bluster and no bacon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I don't really have a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, Civ5 was terrible. On the other hand, he does seem to agree with everybody on what went so badly wrong. Especially in map size and generation algorithm, which was my big complaint. Civ5 is a legit good game if you have the expansions. Like, really good. I have absolutely no idea how much of that was Jon Shafer's fault though, when he left and how many of the good and bad ideas were his. That video looks pretty cool from the little of it I saw, though. I like it that he comes across a bug periodically and is just like "haha, alpha version, oh well."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
I backed ATG really early because Jon Shafer and it was a really original concept, but as with all my KS'd projects I don't really look into them until they're completely finished. Come to think, I don't think I've ever even played Wasteland 2 yet. It's like blowing your money on Steam, in advance!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Civ5 is a legit good game if you have the expansions. Like, really good. No, actually the last expansion completely broke the game, so that the best strategy is always to build exactly four cities and then hit end turn a million times. It's a terrible game. For some paradox content, does someone have a link to that how to do DH AAR? I feel like starting it up again but I always seem to lose against the USSR. Morholt fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Morholt posted:No, actually the last expansion completely broke the game, so that the best strategy is always to build exactly four cities and then hit end turn a million times. It's a terrible game. I will never for the life of me understand Civ minmaxers. I guess that's why I eventually migrated to Paradox: I'm more about aimless dickery and roleplaying, and just the building of a country, than "I'm gonna do this bizarre and unfun thing to maximize my win points".
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Morholt posted:No, actually the last expansion completely broke the game, so that the best strategy is always to build exactly four cities and then hit end turn a million times. It's a terrible game. Good. I always hated managing a million cities. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Civ 5 is cool and good and fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
What I really want is for Paradox devs to start openly praising Civ 5 so that all their forumers go nuts about casuals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:What I really want is for Paradox devs to start openly praising Civ 5 so that all their forumers go nuts about casuals. Wouldn't it be better if the announced they're releases would only for Facebook and mobile devices in the future?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Wouldn't it be better if the announced they're releases would only for Facebook and mobile devices in the future? Yeah but you can at least say "We decided to take some design cues from successful strategy games like Civilization 5" and have it be true and believable. The trick is to coax the crazy out, not bash it over the head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I don't really have a strong opinion either way. On the one hand, Civ5 was terrible. To be fair, Civ4 was just as awful as Civ5 on release as well. The thing is that they both started to become good after the expansions were released. Civilization games are usually bad until they get around to making the first few expansions, at which point they are actually worth buying. It's still a pretty silly and possibly really cynical way of selling games, buts its not like Fraxis can't make a good game. They just need 2 expansions to do it. At the Gates looks cool, but my skepticism of the whole early access system makes me err on the side of not getting into the alpha. I also don't like how Shafer seems to ape terrible youtubers in his videos of the game with the whole "comical" voices and occasional overreactions, which makes it a little difficult for me to pay attention to the whole thing. I'm still interested in the game though, and I'll probably buy it when its released if it turns out to be good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:What I really want is for Paradox devs to start openly praising Civ 5 so that all their forumers go nuts about casuals. No need, the transition from EU3 to EU4 already made our games casual according to some. You know because everybody who starts up the game for the first time immediately understands that your economy rests upon how stable your realm is which is affected by the Stability, Disaster system, Autonomy system and whatever random crap I've forgotten all in one. Real hardcore games are when you can see literally the peasant pay you tax and look into his mind and see why he is giving you less tax this month...
Groogy fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:To be fair, Civ4 was just as awful as Civ5 on release as well. The thing is that they both started to become good after the expansions were released. Civilization games are usually bad until they get around to making the first few expansions, at which point they are actually worth buying. It's still a pretty silly and possibly really cynical way of selling games, buts its not like Fraxis can't make a good game. They just need 2 expansions to do it. Counterpoint: Civ IV vanilla was both better than Civ V vanilla, Civ V with both expansions, and Civ IV with both expansions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Civ games all have really good ideas but Civ IV was the only one that was seriously balanced at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Real hardcore games are when you can see literally the peasant pay you tax and look into his mind and see why he is giving you less tax this month... Island Fortress, a game where you indirectly manage the minutely-detailed lives of every single Londoner throughout the Blitz as you try to plan out a series of underground shelters, repair works, and tea resupply lines in order to prevent your Londoners from getting murdered by bombs or tantruming and going into fell moods would be pretty sweet. Also, completely insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Hopping on the Civ5 is The Worst Game bandwagon. I think its expansions made it worse as time went on, but I stopped throwing money and effort away after Brave New World or whatever it was. Is there a Civ5 thread? I dont know if I have seen one but I havent surfed the games thread list in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Civ 5 is pretty fun, sorry grognards
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
civ 5 is both fun and bad e: Seriously, it's fun because it has a lot of good ideas (minor power diplomacy, unique faction bonuses, less micromanagement, more involved combat, better UI) but also bad because it's broken as poo poo and the AI is atrocious StashAugustine fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Civ N > 2 is bad because it's not SMAC 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Real hardcore games are when you can see literally the peasant pay you tax and look into his mind and see why he is giving you less tax this month... Victoria 3 confirmed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Civ 5 has baller as gently caress music and I feel that more games should have a chorus of Zulu cheering for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:civ 5 is both fun and bad correct. as a person who has played many paradox games (e.g. victoria/ii), I enjoyed civ v a lot, after the expansions. doesn't mean it's not broken as hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Civ 3 was amazing just for being able to conquer the world forever with spears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:correct. I used to be mad@civ because Paradox games gave me what I wanted a lot more, but then I realized that Civ 5 was just trying to do something different. And it does that different thing pretty well. Paradox games excel at presenting a historical sandbox as a set of existing relationships that you use/change/exploit to have fun. Civ 5 is more of a "blank slate" where the pleasure derives from building something from nothing. In that regard, it does well. Civ 5 is more fun than EU4 fantasia (which is the only EU4 equivalent I can think of), just like EU4 is more fun than Civ 5's historical scenarios (which I imagine would be the reverse analog).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:civ 5 is both fun and bad Hex-based combat is awesome; Civ5's Hex-based combat is loving awful and whoever thought of it needs to be shot. Combat needs to A.) not be annihilation based and B.) not be "tactical" on a "strategic" map. I'm going to stop talking about it unless it is in comparison to a Paradox title though because this is a Paradox thread and Paradox is awesome and makes fun games, unlike Firaxis. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Bonus round: Paradox games are also bad and fun 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Hex-based combat is awesome; Civ5's Hex-based combat is loving awful and whoever thought of it needs to be shot. Combat needs to A.) not be annihilation based and B.) not be "tactical" on a "strategic" map. Combat has always been bad in Civ. Part of the problem is time scale. One of the concepts of Civ's design is that every action takes place in the same time scale - contrast this with I think that keeping everything on the same scale is admirable. It is elegant. But when it's mishandled, you get a lot of problems, like every war lasting centuries. Civ 5 becomes a frustrating game about turtling primarily because the time scale involved is really incompatible with its combat system. I don't know how Civ can change that metaphor to make it click better with the rest of the game (which is pretty solid, in my opinion. Its tech/resource management/city-building are generally pretty fun), but until they do, combat will be the worst part of the game. I prefer to play peaceful civ games if only to avoid the grinding morass that is combat of any sort. In contrast, wars in EU4 are super fun... although EU4 definitely does less on the economic/industrial/technological game front. They still take unusually long, though. Too many non-naval wars still end in the complete annihilation of both sides' manpower in a two-decade struggle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Bonus round: Paradox games are also bad and fun This was more or less indisputable before CK2, I don't see the controversy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Morholt posted:No, actually the last expansion completely broke the game, so that the best strategy is always to build exactly four cities and then hit end turn a million times. It's a terrible game. Here's my civ mod that fixes your problem with it My Germany AAR starts halfway down this page
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Dibujante posted:Combat has always been bad in Civ. Part of the problem is time scale. One of the concepts of Civ's design is that every action takes place in the same time scale - contrast this with I agree with you completely. I like that EU4, and pretty much all of the Paradox games, offer different solutions to problems you face when at war. You can siege a province by simply sitting on it, you can assault it, and you can even ignore it without too much consequence. In Civ5 you cannot "siege" a city, you can simply run up to it and assault it, likely losing units that take decades to produce and move to the front in the process. The big problem here is that Cities have a ranged attack. Cities having a ranged attack is possibly the stupidest mechanic I have ever seen in a videogame or boardgame and is completely unforgivable. There is no equivalent in a Paradox game and that is part of what makes them so good, and part of why I wish there was a random map generator that also generated random countries in Paradox games of all flavors. I want this so I can play a Civ-style game without needing to play Civ loving 5, because the concept is cool but the implementation in Civ5 is so incredibly bad. end rant
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:13
|
|