What are you playing now?

[Bos_hybrid]

Starting Consortium, it's kind of interesting, I quit when the game got stuck into giving me a distorted screen as my connection the host body messed up or something

 

It is interesting, but short, and a little bit weird. Would happily buy/kickstart a sequel though.

[Katphood]

Wasteland 2 finished downloading. Just about to start it now! ohboiohboiohboi!

[Tale]

I think I dislike Throne of Bhaal. It's not bad, really, it's just kind of boring. All the fights are either a bunch of dudes with generic +2 weapons that I have to buff up for anyway or a bunch of respawning enemies I just have to swim through.

 

And why is the worldmap smaller? That doesn't even make sense. Sure, make it have less places but at least fill the map screen!

[Bartimaeus]

Europa Universalis 4...or rather, not Europa Universalis 4. I like the underlying mechanics - I really do. It's unlikely I'll be able to ever go back and play a Total War game ever again because of it, in fact - I like the mechanics of Paradox's grand strategy that much more. But...Europa Universalis 4 is just too frustrating to keep playing.

 

The whole technology tree progress tree seems completely screwed - anyone that isn't a Western civilization is screwed over with a moderate (20%) to major (40%/50%) malus for no real reason besides, "durr, not a Western civilization". In addition, rulers having such a huge effect on the technology tree - making progress possibly *three* times faster if you have a great ruler vs a worthless one - is ridiculous, too, especially when you consider the fact that the rulers are just randomly generated numbers that seem to not be reliant on anything to do with what's actually going on, and there's no way to improve them. Again, I like the idea...the execution is just too harsh and arbitrary.

 

Why is it, when I have a complete victory over an enemy, (destroying all of their military as well as occupying all of their territory), I cannot set the terms of the peace agreement? The game makes it unrealistic to annex more than 3-4 territories at once that are not territories you previously owned, (whether historically, in the case of the Roman Empire, or because they were lost in a recent war), but...why do I not have the ability to at least *try* if I so desire, when I have completely destroyed them? Why is it that I cannot decide how long the "truce" between the two nations will last? I don't want a 20 year truce. I want to spend like three to five years integrating the territory I annexed, and then get right back at it. Why would I leave my mortal enemies to build up their military and economy again just so I can fight the same stupid war all over again? It makes no sense.

 

The penalties for not integrated or not being able to integrate a territory are...insane. Making a territory a core province takes like an entire stinking year, and then it takes a few years to possibly *never* to convert a territory to your religion, and then some more time to convert them to your culture if you need to. This is crazy...because in between all of this, you have reduced income from the provinces, and like a 5-20% chance, (depending on innate modifiers of the territory), of there being a huge freaking rebellion each month for every single one of these unintegrated provinces. These rebellions are like one third to one half of my full army - it is literally impossible, especially with the hugely slow manpower regeneration, (how many reserves soldiers you have on hand to either reinforce your active army or is ready to reinforce your active army), to be able to deal with them.

 

What am I doing wrong? Am I supposed to be integrating one province at a time every 20 years or so? I get so bored, playing what were the final fragments of the Roman Empire, after having taken back my core provinces from the Ottoman Empire in a flurry of detail and activity. I don't know what to do besides literally wait twenty years after my first war with them ended to be able to try and take back Anatolia. I am more than ready way before then, but the game gives you so many penalties for trying that it's untenable. This is a day by day process sort of game - it kills me to just set the game at maximum speed and just wait twenty in game years for me to be able to do anything again. I wish the game was in like, weeks or something, instead of individual days...What am I supposed to be doing in between wars? Because, as far as I can see, there is nothing at all to do.

 

Overall, I like the basic game mechanics. A little more fairness - for both the AIs and the player - and a little more freedom would not be out of place, though. All the micro countries seem to exist solely for the sake of getting swallowed up by bigger ones, unless they're vassals...in which case, it's just a matter of meeting the arbitrary requirements for the vassals to be annexed by their lord nation before they're swallowed up peacefully.

[Bokishi]

Getting bored with Destiny, back to Dark Souls 2

[Malcador]

Consortium was a very short game, the C&C does seem interesting at least. Would be a neat game handled by a team with a bigger budget.

[Tigranes]

Europa Universalis 4...or rather, not Europa Universalis 4. I like the underlying mechanics - I really do. It's unlikely I'll be able to ever go back and play a Total War game ever again because of it, in fact - I like the mechanics of Paradox's grand strategy that much more. But...Europa Universalis 4 is just too frustrating to keep playing.

 

The whole technology tree progress tree seems completely screwed - anyone that isn't a Western civilization is screwed over with a moderate (20%) to major (40%/50%) malus for no real reason besides, "durr, not a Western civilization". In addition, rulers having such a huge effect on the technology tree - making progress possibly *three* times faster if you have a great ruler vs a worthless one - is ridiculous, too, especially when you consider the fact that the rulers are just randomly generated numbers that seem to not be reliant on anything to do with what's actually going on, and there's no way to improve them. Again, I like the idea...the execution is just too harsh and arbitrary.

 

Why is it, when I have a complete victory over an enemy, (destroying all of their military as well as occupying all of their territory), I cannot set the terms of the peace agreement? The game makes it unrealistic to annex more than 3-4 territories at once that are not territories you previously owned, (whether historically, in the case of the Roman Empire, or because they were lost in a recent war), but...why do I not have the ability to at least *try* if I so desire, when I have completely destroyed them? Why is it that I cannot decide how long the "truce" between the two nations will last? I don't want a 20 year truce. I want to spend like three to five years integrating the territory I annexed, and then get right back at it. Why would I leave my mortal enemies to build up their military and economy again just so I can fight the same stupid war all over again? It makes no sense.

 

The penalties for not integrated or not being able to integrate a territory are...insane. Making a territory a core province takes like an entire stinking year, and then it takes a few years to possibly *never* to convert a territory to your religion, and then some more time to convert them to your culture if you need to. This is crazy...because in between all of this, you have reduced income from the provinces, and like a 5-20% chance, (depending on innate modifiers of the territory), of there being a huge freaking rebellion each month for every single one of these unintegrated provinces. These rebellions are like one third to one half of my full army - it is literally impossible, especially with the hugely slow manpower regeneration, (how many reserves soldiers you have on hand to either reinforce your active army or is ready to reinforce your active army), to be able to deal with them.

 

What am I doing wrong? Am I supposed to be integrating one province at a time every 20 years or so? I get so bored, playing what were the final fragments of the Roman Empire, after having taken back my core provinces from the Ottoman Empire in a flurry of detail and activity. I don't know what to do besides literally wait twenty years after my first war with them ended to be able to try and take back Anatolia. I am more than ready way before then, but the game gives you so many penalties for trying that it's untenable. This is a day by day process sort of game - it kills me to just set the game at maximum speed and just wait twenty in game years for me to be able to do anything again. I wish the game was in like, weeks or something, instead of individual days...What am I supposed to be doing in between wars? Because, as far as I can see, there is nothing at all to do.

 

Overall, I like the basic game mechanics. A little more fairness - for both the AIs and the player - and a little more freedom would not be out of place, though. All the micro countries seem to exist solely for the sake of getting swallowed up by bigger ones, unless they're vassals...in which case, it's just a matter of meeting the arbitrary requirements for the vassals to be annexed by their lord nation before they're swallowed up peacefully.

 

Non-Western penalties are a heavy abstraction, since the game necessarily was built around European mechanics and to an extent assumes the supremacy of European ways. It at least gives you a way to 'catch up', and if you play it right it's not at all difficult to catch up enough to start beating Western armies by 1700s. It's not really defensible on any point of historical accuracy, but I sympathise how gargantuan a task it would be to represent it in any other way.

 

You can't entirely annex the country after one war because then you could just annex half of Europe in 50 years. Furthermore, realistically, by this time frame, you didn't have European countries in particular defeating another nation then gobbling the entire thing up. Of course, what should happen is that you can try then you have to deal with a lot of rebellions and other problems (or some kind of anti-Napoleonic alliance), but rebel simulation is much more difficult because EU's primary level of abstraction is sovereign states fighting 'honourable' war in a very Westphalian simulation. 

 

You can always ignore truces and attack them again, at the cost of -3 stab and a lot of brownie points. This, combined with war exhaustion, reflects how unwilling your own population would be, and how pissed other countries would be - but you can do it, and sometimes I've done it to great benefit. Again, this reflects how you didn't have Prussia declare war on Poland, beat them, take a few provinces, then declare war again after 6 months - even if the reasons can't be properly simulated. 

 

Coring, converting culture/religion are actually I think excellent mechanics, and one of the first things modders usually do is make it take longer. Right now it is actually far too easy and unrealistic. You fight France, take a big chunk of their land (even 3-4 provinces, including high income ones, makes a huge difference in your country's future), then after 5 years or so, that area is now fully loyal to you? Actually, it's much more reasonable, both historically and for gameplay, that those regions will continue for years and years to pay less tax, simmer with rebellious intent, possibly try to return to French arms, etc. 

 

What it sounds like you are doing is you have a very single minded goal of where you want to attack and what you want, and you know you have the military strength and money, and you're pissed it's taking so long. 

(1) There's a lot of things you can do besides, say, continue conquering the rest of Anatolia. Historically, any rapid-fire expansion in one direction has tended to meet with a lot of resistance, internally or externally, and you end up losing half of that overextension anyway. There's trade; colonisation; maybe other places you can attack; and so on. It's not realistic that the entire world - including your own people's war exhaustion or your recently conquered people's belligerence or your neighbours' perceptions - would bend to your will and say, go on, just keep beating the crap out of that other dude every 2 years and conquering like a maniac. 

 

(2) If you really have nothing to do at any given point, on highest speed 20 years takes, what, 10 minutes? Why does it 'kill you' to do that? You're not meant to have something exciting to do every single day between 1452 and 1815, that would be crazy. 

 

The game does have a lot of limitations (rebel mechanics, Westernisation mechanics, etc), but it is a very in depth game. If you try to play it as a 'blobber' where you are set on conquering X region and you really want to paint that map now, which is how most of us start playing EU games, there's a limit to how much fun you can get out of that. Beyond that you discover that it can be great fun to, say, play a Indian 2-prov and get on a race to unite India and defend against Western invaders, or to play a Dutch OPM and never expand, use your diplomatic alliances to avoid being killed by Burgundy, and build up a great colonial empire; or, instead of gradually expanding and winning every war, create challenges where you lose wars and give up provinces too. 

[Zoraptor]

Buy Victoria II, install PDM, never go back to EUIV. Problem solved.

 

Or not, as Tigranes says abstraction is inevitable and there's plenty in Vic II as well. EU is a game that unfolds over hundreds of years, if it were possible to achieve goals in fifty years people would end the game in 1500 rather than 1800 because if there's one thing that really is boring in an EU game it's having a large, unassailable empire and nothing much more to do with it. If you sweat the amount of in game time something takes it probably is not the game for you whatever else, it's simply a slow game in terms of in game time. I always found it annoying that so much of the modelling of important stuff was abstracted and that things that happened historically were effectively impossible to achieve in game, and they were typically the really big and significant ones like the Ottos conquering the Mamelukes in a couple of years and thus becoming the power in the eastern Med for two centuries or are handled by unique mechanics that don't apply elsewhere (typical for something like the Burgundy succession, though more often found in mods). There is a choice between determinism and mimicing history because it happened and a more organic approach, both have disadvantages- I still remember well in EU2 a single province Poland sacked Moscow because that is what happened historically. The whole thing is also not helped by Paradox's current obsession with catering to the 20% of their customer base that has ever played MP and balancing things for MP only (or not balancing/ testing at all), which is where the super long truces come from.

[AGX-17]

Shadowrun: Dragonfall: Director's: Colon-err, Cut. I get the feeling the only reason it exists is to be a smartphone/tablet app and PC release is more of an afterthought than a primary intention. Still, the added content and character growth/customization for companions is a much bigger plus than the new UI meant for touch screens.

Edited September 22, 2014 by AGX-17

[mkreku]

Started playing Spec Ops: The Line the other night. I've read some positive reviews about it, both professional and user.

 

And now I hate people. It's just a ****ty corridor shooter with dude bro soldiers shouting cliches at each other. I've played a few hours but it's just so bad! What on earth did people see in this game?! It. ****ing. Sucks.

 

And to everyone who recommended it: I hate you all.

[GhostofAnakin]

Still playing Destiny.  Finally have my Warlock all decked out in blue items for every inventory slot.  The missing piece was the boots, which I finally unlocked after doing a strike.  I even have a legendary (purple) gun.

 

Strangely enough, I was rewarded with an armor chest plate that only Titans can use.  It's useless to me unless I ever create a Titan character.

[Tale]

How is Destiny if you're not big on loot collecting?

 

And by "not big" I mean "sees it as a detriment to otherwise good games that have it."

[GhostofAnakin]

Eh, up until Level 20, it doesn't really matter that much.  You can get by with weapons you just randomly pick up along the way.  Some of the guns/armor I had that wasn't blue was as good or better than the ones I had that were.  But after Level 20, you sort of need it to level up more as you need to find armor components with a "Light" score to raise your level up past 20.

 

The campaign/co-op reminds me a lot of Borderlands 2.  The MP reminds me of Halo.  So if you loved/hated those games, you'll love/hate Destiny.

[Tigranes]

Started playing Spec Ops: The Line the other night. I've read some positive reviews about it, both professional and user.

 

And now I hate people. It's just a ****ty corridor shooter with dude bro soldiers shouting cliches at each other. I've played a few hours but it's just so bad! What on earth did people see in this game?! It. ****ing. Sucks.

 

And to everyone who recommended it: I hate you all.

 

You have only yourself to blame, really.

[Bartimaeus]

I guess I feel like, when I'm playing a strategy game, especially a strategy game like this, that when I don't have a goal, or when I'm not doing anything, I'm screwing up. I spend the first ten years of my campaign in an almost OCD-like fit, first destroying Venice's and its vassals' navies, then occupying all of its territory to take all of their non-Italian land, (most of which is Orthodox and Greek to begin with, with the exception of Dalmatia). At that point, while I have a rather weak army, especially after beating Venice down whose army is difficult to beat, I have either the first or second most powerful navy in the world, and nearly all of my territory is only accessible via the Ottoman Empire, and who's gonna screw with them to get to me? So, ironically, even with them as my rival, the Ottomans are actually a sort of great shield to me while I'm weak, as nobody can really touch me via the Mediterranean due to my naval strength, and the Ottomans themselves are too busy with other stuff to bother with their Greek problem - that, or their ruler has died and they only have a regency council and can't deliberately make war to begin with.

 

The next part depends on what exactly's going on, but usually I rest for at least two years while building my army up to the new force limit thanks to the Venetian territory gains. Depending on how long this takes, I might annex my vassal, Athens, while I'm waiting. Between this, I'm making claims on the Ottoman territory that I can, as well as making friends with Eastern Europe, particularly the other Orthodox nations nearby, (Serbia and Wallachia in particular). If the Ottoman Empire fails to go to war with any major nation, (or even the one territory nations in Anatolia), I will take some extra time to build up gold reserves and then to train an army far beyond my normal force limit so that I can deal with both the Ottoman and Crimean armies, (whom the Ottomans *always* ally with, at least that I've ever seen). The extra gold reserve is because even without normal casualties, I'll be running a deficit after my army is completely trained. If they *do* go to war with a major nation, I will usually say screw it and form a temporary alliance with whatever opposing major player there is in the war, and try to occupy as much territory I can before they reach a peace...at which point the Ottomans are exhausted with war and can't much deal with me.

 

From that war, I take back all of Greece and the Balkans with the stupid exception of the Ottoman's capital, which is right in front of Constantinople, (hey, another thing I forgot to complain about - not being able to annex capitals unless you're completely annexing the entire nation - stupid as heck, particularly if the territory is one of your freaking cores).

 

At this point, I vassalize Wallachia, as I'd rather not go to war with them right after the previous, but I'd also like to have a shield of sorts. I vassalize Serbia...if I can. If they make me their rival, I have a...short war with them. Otherwise, they're just a normal ally. Then what? Make Trebizond a top ally if I haven't already for future vassalization and annexation...um...maybe take back Genoan Crimea because it's Greek and Orthodox and would be easy to integrate? Annex Cyprus because the Mamluks are too scared of my navy to back up their guarantee of the Knights, and Cyprus is, again, Greek and Orthodox as well as one of my core territories for historical reasons? At this point, I'm making a *huge* amount of money because navies are relatively cheap - even large ones - and I only have a moderate army for my nation size, (around 20k, 30k at max), that's backed up with the force of my other Orthodox allies as well as my extremely strong economy that would let me make a much larger army pretty much instantly if I needed to, even if it were in the form of mercenaries. I'm usually in first or second place in the scores at this point.

 

After all that, I...am at a loss as to what to do. I spent a huge amount of effort into making sure the two previous big wars went right and now...I don't have much anything left to do. I've either made war with or allies out of all my neighbors. Should I try...expanding into Italy? After everything I'd done previously, the game just feels really weak and like it has ground to a standstill. I'm supposed to just sit around for a few decades to continue my previous wars or annex the allies I've made, or..? I see everyone continuing to make war with each other, and their naval forces moving all over the map, and I'm just sitting here twiddling my thumbs, waiting for an arbitrary amount of time to pass to continue my affairs. I restarted my game about five times, and each time, I got to this point where I started feeling really uncomfortable with how things were going, even though everything had gone to plan.

 

RE: Integration: Like I said, I like the mechanics. I just think...they're too extreme. I can't cope with multiple rebellions of ten thousand men strong armies when my army is only twenty thousand strong. Why are rebellions for larger countries so much bigger than they are for smaller ones? I got a rebellion in Dalmatia once, before I took back the Ottoman territories, and it was like 4, 5 thousand strong. I get one after getting my territory back, and it's at least twice as large! This would make sense...if rebellions were more of an entire national thing - you know, get one in a particular area and it covers that entire area and makes it so there can't be more for a while after you put it down - but it's per freaking territory, so let's keep it tied to individual territory strength, as multiple rebellions can make your entire country fold when it makes absolutely no sense for it to.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

Started playing Spec Ops: The Line the other night. I've read some positive reviews about it, both professional and user.

 

And now I hate people. It's just a ****ty corridor shooter with dude bro soldiers shouting cliches at each other. I've played a few hours but it's just so bad! What on earth did people see in this game?! It. ****ing. Sucks.

 

And to everyone who recommended it: I hate you all.

*smug*

 

Hey man, I told you. I think I said it on more than one occasion, in fact, in this particular topic...er...particular series of topics, I guess. Haha. It's just not very good, in any particular way! Story is some of the most heavy-handed, railroaded garbage I've had to sit through in years, and the actual gameplay is...yeah, not very good. It's more of a political statement than a decent game, IMO. Should've been a movie instead. Even then, I probably wouldn't like it, but at least I'd understand it.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[Katphood]

The 2 hours I've put in Wasteland 2 have very rewarding so far. Don't know about you guys but the game does remind me a lot of Fallout 1 & 2. 

[Volourn]

Yup. And, despite issues, it's friggin' awesome because of it.

[Katphood]

The only thing that annoyed me a little was the camera. Rotating the camera around your characters can be a pain sometimes.

[nipsen]

Story is some of the most heavy-handed, railroaded garbage I've had to sit through in years, and the actual gameplay is...yeah, not very good. It's more of a political statement than a decent game, IMO. Should've been a movie instead. Even then, I probably wouldn't like it, but at least I'd understand it.

 

Mm. A film, like Apocalypse Now. Or maybe a book! Like Heart of Darkness! I think you may be on to something here! 

 

Of course, both of those are more like political statements than either books or films, so that obviously would draw things down a bit for you.

 

 

Started playing Spec Ops: The Line the other night. I've read some positive reviews about it, both professional and user.

 

And now I hate people. It's just a ****ty corridor shooter with dude bro soldiers shouting cliches at each other. I've played a few hours but it's just so bad! What on earth did people see in this game?! It. ****ing. Sucks.

 

And to everyone who recommended it: I hate you all.

 

You have only yourself to blame, really.

 

And your lack of cultural sense.

 

---

 

Currently playing Warframe for some reason. I think what makes it fun to go back to is that the slot and upgrade system is so convoluted that you don't seem to run into people who have exactly the same setup as you. Also, you can beat guns with swords if you're clever. Which is awesome.

[BruceVC]

Started playing Spec Ops: The Line the other night. I've read some positive reviews about it, both professional and user.

 

And now I hate people. It's just a ****ty corridor shooter with dude bro soldiers shouting cliches at each other. I've played a few hours but it's just so bad! What on earth did people see in this game?! It. ****ing. Sucks.

 

And to everyone who recommended it: I hate you all.

 

I have to confess I played this game about 3 months ago and I really enjoyed it. There are certain choices you need to consider that make the game different, like whether to use Napalm, and the narrative is compelling. But end of the day aren't all shooters really the same? You get different weapons and progress through a series of maps towards an end goal. What were you expecting that has you so disappointed?

[Bartimaeus]

I have to confess I played this game about 3 months ago and I really enjoyed it. There are certain choices you need to consider that make the game different, like whether to use Napalm, and the narrative is compelling. But end of the day aren't all shooters really the same? You get different weapons and progress through a series of maps towards an end goal. What were you expecting that has you so disappointed?

Narrative? Compelling? Uh...yeah, sure. We killed hundreds of militants to get to where we are right now, but, hey, there are like maybe three dozen more dudes ahead, and there's this neat white phosphorous cannon sitting over here...how could we resist? Also, we're not actually going to take a look to see if they're actually really militants, even though they currently haven't even spotted us yet! "Oh my gosh, we are such horrible people! The indiscriminate killing of the other hundred dudes before this clearly did not show that maybe there's something wrong with war and possibly us if you pay any heed at all to our normal societal values!" In my books, this kind of narrative would be laughable, not compelling. It's the kind of narrative almost any action game could show if it really wanted to, but it doesn't because it'd be ridiculous, not to mention tedious and preachy...all three of which the game very neatly exemplify.

 

The fact that the basic gameplay was pretty boring didn't help much either. That seems to be true of every corridor third person shooter I've ever played, though, so maybe I'm a little biased.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

I have to confess I played this game about 3 months ago and I really enjoyed it. There are certain choices you need to consider that make the game different, like whether to use Napalm, and the narrative is compelling. But end of the day aren't all shooters really the same? You get different weapons and progress through a series of maps towards an end goal. What were you expecting that has you so disappointed?

Narrative? Compelling? Uh...yeah, sure. We killed hundreds of militants to get to where we are right now, but, hey, there are like maybe three dozen more dudes ahead, and there's this neat white phosphorous cannon sitting over here...how could we resist? Also, we're not actually going to take a look to see if they're actually really militants, even though they currently haven't even spotted us yet! "Oh my gosh, we are such horrible people! The indiscriminate killing of the other hundred dudes before this clearly did not show that maybe there's something wrong with war and possibly us if you pay any heed at all to our normal societal values!" In my books, this kind of narrative would be laughable, not compelling. It's the kind of narrative almost any action game could show if it really wanted to, but it doesn't because it'd be ridiculous, not to mention tedious and preachy...all three of which the game very neatly exemplify.

 

The fact that the basic gameplay was pretty boring didn't help much either. That seems to be true of every corridor third person shooter I've ever played, though, so maybe I'm a little biased.

 

 

Barti when you put  it like that it does make the game sound a bit silly, but you are also only discussing the negative

[Bartimaeus]

That's because I didn't much see any. You know what was really annoying about that whole white phosphorous thing, too? I didn't want to do it from the get go. It's not like doing the whole shooting bit was exactly hard, so why would I start shooting white phosphorous at what were clearly not combatants on the radar? You could literally see that they looked like normal citizens or refugees or whatever right on the radar thing where you were aiming the white phosphorous! But you're not given a choice - I didn't do anything at first, but the game won't progress if you don't start shooting the stupid thing.

 

And, like I said, it didn't help I didn't like the basic gameplay. I also loathed the characters and the overdone voice acting - the main character was especially ridiculous. Everything he said felt so forceful and over the top...like he was shouting to a huge audience. And the things he said were just...stupid sounding. And that's never minding the obligatory fairly stereotypical black guy. All three of those guys drove me insane. So, er, what the heck did you like about it? lol

Edited September 23, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

. So, er, what the heck did you like about it? lol

 

 

Well after your  indictment of the game I have to say ....nothing

 

No, I did think the narrative was interesting. The constant questions ..where was the Colonel....what had happened to him

 

Also I enjoyed the usage of some of the weapons, like sniping. But I suppose that's common to most shooters. But I do agree now that you mention it that  some parts of the game were illogical