|
V for Vegas posted:Lol everyone pissing and moaning about PDX in this thread will buy CK3 day 1. Love nothing more than the "haha you will buy all their games anyway!" mentality. Projection of the highest order, that.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Lol everyone pissing and moaning about PDX in this thread will buy CK3 day 1. Even if it there are pervasive issues from the QA, staffing and release timing standpoints, I don't think CK3 will suffer too hard from it. Paradox knows all too well it's their gateway product and it's being led by Doomdark. As someone that's put over 2K hours into CK2, everything gameplay-wise they have shown so far Iooks really good (the character art style hasn't fully grown on me, nor has the map's new look). And I don't think Imperator is really indicative of what a CK3 will look like. Imperator's issues stem most of all from its adherence to a design no one liked the first time around and its self-limitation into classical antiquity March of the Eagles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Someone also pointed out to me that Imperator launched with a music DLC that’s supposed to get new tracks with every major update but you have to PAY for it and it didn’t come with the deluxe version of the game. So if you don’t buy that DLC you’re stuck with the release songs forever. That DLC is just the soundtrack to play music outside the game. The new music is in the game but not in the soundtrack yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The mobile game blew up because of stolen assets but I really felt like the big scandal of that game was the cynical way it was aimed at extracting money from whales. I figured they'd just swap out the offending art, but that game is still dead? Boy I hope they didn't pay too much for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
At least all the profits from going public will mean more money for some great games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Lol everyone pissing and moaning about PDX in this thread will buy CK3 day 1. what even is your point here, that because people in the paradox games thread own paradox games and may buy future ones? that people who own paradox games shouldn't complain about the obviously lowering quality ones?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
i for one am NOT excited about the stellaris federation dlc. however gonna day one purchase the hoi4 la resistance dlc. in short dlc purchases are a land of contrasts
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
I haven't bought anything from paradox since Imperator, which I refunded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
I was disappointed in PDX cause of Stellaris and HoI4 but I previously couldn't get into HoI2/3 so I thought fine, they shouldn't make everything just for me. I was somewhat more sad with the way they've approached Imperator Rome. It's clear that Johan still thinks his mana system made better strategy game, maybe it needed some balancing. But he felt he needed to throw away his vision and design a game that he himself wouldn't be happy about. Stellaris and I:R had made me see that now Paradox has a business model to make ever changing games as opposed to good games. With EU4 a lot of things made the game actively worse or less balanced than it was but it was relatively tame; Stellaris devs are ready to switch mechanics turning it into a game that no PC can process in the endgame and AI is incapable of playing. But you get your monthly fill of funny pictures in Stellaris subreddit, people are clearly happy to see new wacky interaction in a game they'll never finish or master.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Still waiting for the space 4x game that's better than MOO2. I get my hopes up from time to time but then go back and play the old poo poo, and, well... masters of orion is basically a masterpiece and I still can't understand how so many attempts have failed to slightly improve it and make better game. Kickstarters, sequels, AAA studios and modders have tried but I still think the original formula works best. Probably because I'm getting old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Still waiting for the space 4x game that's better than MOO2. Endless Space 2. But only if you play in multiplayer cause the AI is impotent. And only if you don't really care about tactical combat. Yeah, those are pretty big "buts".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 09:28
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:At least all the profits from going public will mean more money for some great games.  Asimov posted:Still waiting for the space 4x game that's better than MOO2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 11:27
|
|
|
Poil posted:
moo3 is famous for killing the franchise, moo2 was just that good
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 11:30
|
|
|
Now it's MoO2 thread! MoO2 was famous for its flavourful nature. Usually, space strategy games like Stellaris give you bland technology like better agriculture and Laser 2. And the factions are either overdesigned and too complex to quickly grasp or boring. MoO ripped off Star Trek, Star Wars and probably Dune or something, so it has a lot of everything in it. instead of better agriculture, you invent Biospheres or something. And there aren't that many techs, 40 or so, so they've managed to make them all comprehensible a la Civilization. Races are obvious too, you have hooded invisible guys and guess what, spying is their thing. Big headed dudes are scientists. Bearpeople are ground fighters, catpeople are agile pilots, rockpeople are isolationists and don't care about food. And AI behavior was clearly marked with characterstics like "Xenophobic Technologists" or "Honourable Expansionists" that had a very obvious effect on their behavior so it all had personality. This game didn't feel pressured to include hundreds of buildings and 1000 star maps, so it's to the point and doesn't have random fluff. As I've said, I think only Endless Space 2 had the will to not sell us game with 500 unique technologies, 40 races, and maps with up to 1000 stars (which was the thing that crushed Master of Orion 3) but it had a huge miss with AI that doesn't know how to play the game. I don't mean it's bad, I mean after you figure out the basics you can play the highest difficulty with unfamiliar faction and you'll still decide yourself what type of victory are you getting and when. All the other space strategy games had an approach similar to Stellaris - they're bland and they have a checklist of stuff they have to include.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
See also Sword of the Stars for being a very good game for keeping things simple and the sequel badly misreading that. MoO2, XCOM, JA2: all the games that people remember as absolute classics that people struggle to replicate for some reason are that way because secretly the mechanics are actually quite shallow or janky or unbalanced or just plain bad, but it didn't matter because they had character. People try to replicate the mechanics but not the soul and are surprised when they end up with something terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Still waiting for the space 4x game that's better than MOO2. Space Empires 4. Be warned it's not MUCH more recent than MOO2 so infinite colony syndrome, basic tile graphics, and no resolution support for wide/large screens are all in full effect. The AI's not great at the game but makes up for it via a combo of cheating and being super aggressive. If only Space Empires 5 hadn't been lousy, we might've gotten a 6.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Now it's MoO2 thread! I second the motion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
I liked Klackons the most. Eventually you get over the technology malus and embrace the more bugs = more better philosophy. e: lol I thought this was in the Stellaris thread, not the Paradox general thread!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
MOO2 was slightly before my time. Is it worth playing nowadays or no? It’s like 3 bucks on steam. Also how much of it nostalgia goggles? I have my fondest Paradox memories of EU2 but I am cognizant enough to realize I’d hate it if I went back. Planning wars around when your nation’s best general will spawn. Spending the first 50 years as Austria fastforwarding. sliders 1419 was the best start date though. Either set it far enough back for some real Hundred Years‘ War, Timurid, and Saving Byzantium action or start it in 1454.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
I first played moo2 around 2011-12 and it's my favorite space 4x. It's just old enough to have that retro charm but not so old that its age drags it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
MOO1 was better 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:MOO1 was better 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Hot take: I played the MOO / MOO4 by Wargaming and I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
As someone who didn’t play MoO2 until just a few years back: it’s fine. I think the comments that the genre hasn’t really advanced past it are fair, but I don’t think it’s any more essential than any other entries at this point.Chomp8645 posted:Hot take: I played the MOO / MOO4 by Wargaming and I liked it. I remember playing it and not hating it, but nothing else. Probably not a great sign. Oh, I think it took forever to load? Yeah, just a massive chore to open and play, and for an experience not radically different from what you could get elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:MOO1 was better Correct. Moo1 is vastly superior. It's tighter, way better balanced, and remains a challenge to this day. Its amazing design is only really noticeable if you play a lot of it and get into the harder difficulties. The AI actually is a challenge and there's so many simple but clever little mechanics that can keep the game interesting up until the end. The economy is simple enough that the AI can handle it. The tactical combat while much more simple than moo2's is way more balanced presenting ongoing interesting choices without single best/correct answer. The diplomacy is surprisingly well developed with results that make sense. If you are too aggressive at the start and make enemies there's a good chance who ever's in 2nd place will get the other powers to rally behind them to take you down, so there's almost an EU4 coalition/badboy mechanic that can sometimes really effectively counter run-away victories. I'll continue to stand by my take that Moo1 is still by far the best space 4X and the reason the genre is so stuck and lovely in modern times is that everyone keeps cribbing from the unbalanced mess of moo2 rather than the tight challenging near perfection of Moo1
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:As someone who didn’t play MoO2 until just a few years back: it’s fine. I think the comments that the genre hasn’t really advanced past it are fair, MOO and MOO2 is approximately 100% of the reason ship design is shoved into every space 4x regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. Looking at you, Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
I need to get the MoO1+2 collection on GOG, I have a disc for 2 so I should still be able to get it that way. I love 2, but it's been a long time since I played 1, I'd like to try it out again some time (last time MoO came up the defenders of 1 reminded me that I think I was like, single digits old last time I played it and I barely remember it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:MOO and MOO2 is approximately 100% of the reason ship design is shoved into every space 4x regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. MOO2 is also responsible for Stellaris having a character leader system even though 99% of the time leaders are just a small stat bonus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:MOO and MOO2 is approximately 100% of the reason ship design is shoved into every space 4x regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. Same for tactical combat. It made much more sense in MoO1 which was more in line with games like Heroes or Warlords. And I agree that MoO1 deserves a lot more praise. It has a very brief design and it feels like XCOM 2012 - it feels as refreshing as dropping system with 54 Action Points in favour of just 2 but important ones, if you know what I mean. It feels like a game made after all the 4X typical bullshit feature creep, not before it. MoO2 was just Civilization (or rather Master of Magic) in Space.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:MOO and MOO2 is approximately 100% of the reason ship design is shoved into every space 4x regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. I was thinking, the other day, about SMAC's unit designer, and its merits relative to other unit designers. The interesting thing about the one in SMAC is that it asks the player relatively few questions, and most of them have very straightforward answers. Weapon? Armour? Reactor? Your options are all points on a linear cost/power progression, and usually you want the best unless you need a cheap filler unit. It's not particularly engaging but it's not particularly demanding, either. Chassis is a little more involved, but it's also vastly more meaningful- it determines how the unit moves, and thus defines how it handles at the strategic level. Where it gets interesting is the abilities part. There are a whole bunch of them, and they're all pretty interesting even if they're not that useful. It's just, here's a list of cool poo poo this unit could be about, pick two. Most importantly, none of them are points on a gradient- each of them is only ability that's about whatever it's about. That makes the choice feel chunky (meaning, not mushy) and significant, even if it ends up not being that impactful. I want to think this combination of minimum buy in for maximum pay off combined with a wide variety of cool, distinct options is a winner, even if SMAC's warfare was complex enough to make it work. Worth revisiting. Compare to Stellaris, where you have to fill thirty slots to make a battleship and your choices are "good at shooting green health bars" vs "good at shooting blue health bars". Or Star Ruler 2 and its ilk, which don't even have the decency to give you slots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
star ruler 2 owned though since our could make a giant doomstation then fling into your opponents empire and use it as a beachhead
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
I wish they’d add more visual indicators that your star system or whatever is getting stronger. Like have visible space docks orbiting little dudes flying around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:See also Sword of the Stars for being a very good game for keeping things simple and the sequel badly misreading that. Yeah these games mostly aren't that good when you look at them objectively, they just have great atmosphere and mostly manage to cover up the jank when played casually. SMAC is an even better example for me, I like to tell people that it's my favourite game ever but I also can't play it because it's unbalanced as gently caress and the AI is garbage
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
SMAC AI is ok if you handicap yourself by forgetting that supply crawlers exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Yeah these games mostly aren't that good when you look at them objectively, they just have great atmosphere and mostly manage to cover up the jank when played casually. SMAC is an even better example for me, I like to tell people that it's my favourite game ever but I also can't play it because it's unbalanced as gently caress and the AI is garbage I need to roll that opinion back a bit - those games all do something amazingly well or they wouldn't be remembered, it's just that plus the atmosphere plus a sprinkle of landing at the right moment which makes them remembered and means the bits that don't quite work or which ten years later you wouldn't build that way because the art of game design has moved on aren't what people remember.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
SMAC's AI isn't amazing but I honestly can't think of any 4Xs that do better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Moo1 and SOTS are the most enjoyable 4x games I've played so far. One has cool realtime tactical combat and the other has turn based tactical combat. Both have just the right level of empire management to work with the rest of the game and offer meaningful strategic choices without pointless micro. They have a ship builder that makes sense in relation to the combat system as well. They also don't model internal strife within the empires which, for my preferences, is a huge win. There's other games that do internal space unrest for those that enjoy it, I don't so these games appeal to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I need to roll that opinion back a bit - those games all do something amazingly well or they wouldn't be remembered, it's just that plus the atmosphere plus a sprinkle of landing at the right moment which makes them remembered and means the bits that don't quite work or which ten years later you wouldn't build that way because the art of game design has moved on aren't what people remember. Yeah that's the thing, like JA2, SMAC, original X-Com, they are actually still playable today (I never played MoO2 so I don't know about that one). It's just that you will miss a lot of modern conveniences we've gotten used to. They still hold up as games but design has moved on and it's hard to jump back. It's why people keep trying to make sequels or spiritual successors; they want to try to recapture that lightning in a bottle in a way that will be more appealing to a modern audience. The problem is they always tend to drill down on specific aspects of the original game that they think was the magic X-factor that made everyone like it, but really they're holistic products and you can't just pick out one or two elements and have it feel like the same game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah that's the thing, like JA2, SMAC, original X-Com, they are actually still playable today (I never played MoO2 so I don't know about that one). It's just that you will miss a lot of modern conveniences we've gotten used to. They still hold up as games but design has moved on and it's hard to jump back. It's why people keep trying to make sequels or spiritual successors but they always tend to drill down on specific aspects of the original game that they think was the magic X-factor that made everyone like it, but really they're holistic products and you can't just pick out one or two elements and have it feel like the same game. The endless remakes are very much a thing and they don't seem to be going away. On a more philosophical note, I find it odd that small teams of 5-20 people could create wholly novel gameplay and experiences in the 1990s. This was brand new gameplay that had never been seen before. Xcom and JA2 had to forge the way for tactical games, MOO had to figure out how to make space 4x work, and SOTS had to figure out how to merge the realtime tactical and strategic gameplay. And yet whenever people go to remake them they add a bunch of bells and whistles and miss the point on the gameplay. In many cases the remade games are less enjoyable than the original because they're streamlined in the wrong way or reimagine mechanics with unfortunate implementations. And forget expanding or extending the original game in newer directions, you can't even just get a glossy remake of the original. On some level, the idea that 20 years after the original games people would be making prettier, shittier versions of the exact same game is really bizarre. We reached the high point of "making new strategy games" in the 90s apparently. Paradox was like the one exception to that but yeah... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
A lot of genres just kinda died after the 90s for some reason, and it took a long while for them to come back in a reasonable capacity. New XCOM really spurred a larger-scale revival of turn-based strategy. I like digging up and playing older games, but there are a lot of quality of life improvements in newer games that it can be hard to go without. Other genres that died out for a little while are space sims, adventure games, and even sidescrolling platformers laid fallow for a little while before coming back with a vengeance. I think MMORPGs are mostly dead right now too. It's odd how the industry ebbs and flows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 02:53
|
|
