|
deep dish peat moss posted:I'm super disappointed to see Amplitude going for a historically accurate setting. I'm a huge fan of theirs but might end up skipping this because I'm sick of playing games about history. World building is what they're best at so this feels like Michael Jordan retiring from basketball. World building is lame and sci-fi/fantasy is a massive crutch.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
I hope this project fails and a better game company buys the art assets so it has a chance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:but on the upside, if fame is initially janky but there are some quick easy fixes it won't take months for it to get patched Maybe. The risk of trying to avoid a boring endgame is that they might make the endgame come shockingly early.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Maybe. The risk of trying to avoid a boring endgame is that they might make the endgame come shockingly early. I'm not sure if we are on the same page here. Do you think that hitting a certain fame rating wins the game? Because I'm seeing that you must play out all eras, and then the winner is tallied up. That brings its own problems though. Going to need a lot of balancing to keep the game fun through all ages in every playthrough. Good news is that this is not Firaxis so the developers will actually try to balance upon customer request.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
I don't think that a strength in world building is wasted in a historical game. Frankly I found Civ 5 and Civ 6 to be a little sterile compared to previous games in the series (even though they had much better graphics, Civ IV is ugly but feels like a better built "world.") There's a lot that can be done to make the game fun that have nothing to do with game mechanics and that rest on aesthetics. I miss silly, inconsequential things like the Palace in Civ I and the Throne Room in Civ 2. Also, while there are plenty of historical strategy games, other than Civ, there really aren't any historical 4x games. Space games seem to dominate the 4x genre. And even with the broader context of strategy games, other than Civ I don't think there's any series out there that spans ancient times to modern times. Civ 6 is a much, much better game than 2013's SimCity, but I think there's some comparison there. SimCity was the only game in its genre, and when it released a really bad game it gave room for competition to develop. Civ 6 at least functions better than SimCity, but I believe it has far fewer players than Civ 5. Bring on the competition, I say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
I hope thisd I'd less.svhiy than can't v 6
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
HappyCamperGL posted:I hope thisd I'd less.svhiy than can't v 6 God dammit where were you when I was asking for thread titles
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
prometheusbound2 posted:I don't think that a strength in world building is wasted in a historical game. Frankly I found Civ 5 and Civ 6 to be a little sterile compared to previous games in the series (even though they had much better graphics, Civ IV is ugly but feels like a better built "world.") How so? I don't even think Civ 4 is ugly (it's aged really well imo) but I'm not sure how it's had any better a treatment in world-building than Civ 5. Civ 5 for instance had introductory quotes for each civilisation at the loading screen, Civ 4 did not - that counts as a bit piece of world-building for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:World building is lame and sci-fi/fantasy is a massive crutch. World building is all that matters and sci-fi/fantasy gives the game tonnes more depth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:World building is lame and sci-fi/fantasy is a massive crutch. This is a pretty strange opinion unless you're limiting it to the specific genre of multiple time-era spanning 4x games and even then it's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
Having seen the last few posts-- well,aside from "I hope thisd I'd less.svhiy than can't v 6"-- it's been interesting seeing the breadth of play styles that 4X games need to appeal to. I feel like there's a sort of triangular spectrum thing with pure role-play at one corner, pure sandboxery at the other, and pure number-crunching puzzle-solving at the third. I tend towards the RP corner, so the world-building lore stuff matters a lot to me, while the optimal number-crunching is a nice addition if it "fits" with the story in my head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
I am massively looking forward to this but I'll be somewhat surprised if they actually manage to solve the late game waiting-to-win phenomenon. From the description I don't see how fame actually does that despite their claims, if you get a runaway lead in fame against the AI in the early game, you're probably going to be in a solid enough position come the late game that your opponents have no reasonable prospect of catching up. It's not like you as the player are going to be the hare and just have a nap on getting fame points because you're sure of your victory. I sometimes feel like 4x games are fundamentally designed a bit back to front. The developers come up with really cool ideas, and then try to program an AI that can actually play their cool ideas and tend to fail pretty spectacularly. Paradox, Amplitude and Firaxis games all have this problem, a marginally competent human can defeat AI opponents on an even playing field while the only way to present challenge is to give the AI massive cheated bonuses. I feel like the only things which can really fix that problem would be either to accept that the AI opponents should not be playing the same game as you (e.g. Thea, where the AI opponents are more like RPG monsters), or to start with the question of "what can an AIs actually play well?" first and work backwards from there (which might give combat mechanics more like chess or diplomacy). Then again, complaints of how the AI sucks in all these games never seem to stop fans (me included) actually buying them, so maybe it's not important to actually fix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
Don't worry, when Deepmind gets diverse enough experience you'll never be able to win anything ever again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I'm not sure if we are on the same page here. Do you think that hitting a certain fame rating wins the game? Because I'm seeing that you must play out all eras, and then the winner is tallied up. Oh, I got the impression from the article that the game could end in any era if you got your fame high enough. Just tallying up fame at the end seems like a letdown of a way to end the game, though. Especially if you do boom early. What's the late game for that approach, then? Just being a dick to keep everyone else from rivaling your past glory?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 12:36
|
|
|
Seems like there is a certain number of stars (21) up for grabs each era. So if you manage to grab tons early you'd try to maybe just keep getting enough each era that no one can challenge your stash - or keep switching your allegiances to make sure no one gets big enough to be a significant star-grabber. It really could lead to way more interesting endgame scenarios than just a race to a finish line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
^ this, your ally from the past two eras may be challenging you in fame so you turn on them and attack in late game to ensure your victory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 13:07
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:Seems like there is a certain number of stars (21) up for grabs each era. So if you manage to grab tons early you'd try to maybe just keep getting enough each era that no one can challenge your stash - or keep switching your allegiances to make sure no one gets big enough to be a significant star-grabber. It really could lead to way more interesting endgame scenarios than just a race to a finish line. The flip side of that, though, is the possibility that you'd effectively win the game long before the game actually ends. Civ in my experience is rarely a race to the finish line, someone gains a big advantage in the early to mid game and no one can shake it. What you're talking about is either continuing the snowball, or not so much playing to win anymore as playing to keep anyone else from winning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
The way I understood it is snowballing and getting stars are mutually exclusive to some degree. If you've racked up a ton of points early on, you're going to have to try hard to compete with people later that instead focused on their tech, economy etc. Whereas in Civ you don't really have a tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:World building is lame and sci-fi/fantasy is a massive crutch. This is exactly the problem with Amplitude making a historical-inspired game. They've been all about world building above all else which has cultivated a certain fanbase for their games and now they're making a game with none of the core hook that drew that fanbase in. So they're going to lose out on some of their core fanbase like me because it doesn't have the things I buy their games for in it, and it's probably going to disappoint the wider audience because their games always end up a little bit on the shallow side but propped up by fantastic lore and creative, unique settings
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Razakai posted:The way I understood it is snowballing and getting stars are mutually exclusive to some degree. If you've racked up a ton of points early on, you're going to have to try hard to compete with people later that instead focused on their tech, economy etc. Whereas in Civ you don't really have a tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
We don't know the finer points of how it's going to work yet but if it's the only victory condition then we can probably expect it to be well-balanced. So hopefully there'll never be a situation where after bagging a load of fame you have to grind the next turn button to see the victory screen. You might always be on your toes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:We don't know the finer points of how it's going to work yet but if it's the only victory condition then we can probably expect it to be well-balanced. These are the guys who make the Endless X games, so, uh... probably not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Balance is like the last thing I care about in 4x games so I don't mind
Andrast fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
I'm glad we have another bad thread for 4X games to shitpost in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2019 14:07
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Maybe. The risk of trying to avoid a boring endgame is that they might make the endgame come shockingly early. This is a good thing though. If someone wins, the game should end (after asking the player if they want to keep going, ofc).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
They did a panel at PAX with some sneak peaks at their event system https://m.twitch.tv/videos/474947055?t=02h00m00s Not terribly exciting, mind. Here are some slides   
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
Very similar to ES2. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2019 10:15
|
|
|
New article about the game https://twitter.com/GameSpot/status/1183049757536804864?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 09:28
|
|
|
It's a 4X game that is actually a role-playing game disguised as edutainment software but wait! It is actually a choose-your-own-adventure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
I'm still really confused about Humankind. It sounds intriguing at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:It's a 4X game that is actually a role-playing game disguised as edutainment software but wait! It is actually a choose-your-own-adventure. *mumbles* but I like city builders Developer: YES IT'S THAT TOO For all their bluster about this civ-choosing mechanic, the game is just gonna be a Civilization knockoff and little more. But it's gonna be a good one, a very good one, I reckon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfsBAPFpMU4 New trailer from the game awards
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
That trailer was poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Yeah that sucked. Listening to self-congratulating motherfuckers is not my idea of a good time.
Hryme fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Dec 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 06:41
|
|
|
Graphics were nice, but yikes the doofy voice over and horrible doodly music left me stone cold. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Only thing I got out of that was that cities can become very big I guess. That's a lot of districts built up in the capital city.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I am massively looking forward to this but I'll be somewhat surprised if they actually manage to solve the late game waiting-to-win phenomenon. From the description I don't see how fame actually does that despite their claims, if you get a runaway lead in fame against the AI in the early game, you're probably going to be in a solid enough position come the late game that your opponents have no reasonable prospect of catching up. It's not like you as the player are going to be the hare and just have a nap on getting fame points because you're sure of your victory. It works if all the ways to gain fame do not improve your game position, or better yet require you to make your position worse. Plenty of games demand you dismantle parts of your combo or intentionally accept penalties to earn victory points, which fame effectively is. But if there is a way to easily gain fame and make your civ stronger at the same time, then it's just continuing the snowball.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
I thought that having the narrator be the main character from a late 90s made for TV crime flick was a weird and un-thematic choice, but I’m vaguely interested to see more, so...success?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
Now I'm even more skeptical given the free-form nature of the win conditions, given that they haven't had anything at all to say about the AI yet. I feel like I'm harping on at this point, but it is really key to get it right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
I didn't like the trailer because we didn't really see anything new. And the narrator was stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:58
|
|