sclpls

So one of my favorite things to do in this game is mind control an Andromedon, and have it run through walls as needed. Creating walls with its basic movement is a real thing of joy for me.

Lower wages are just the tip of the iceberg for the differences between employees and independent contractors. There are also issues like benefits, safety regulations, and protection from legal liability (this final point is especially important for companies like Uber) that cover employees that do not extend to independent contractors. And you're absolutely right that this method of adopting legal fictions is a hallmark feature of the current crop of SF/Silicon Valley tech companies, and it makes me sick to my stomach thinking about this stuff. What's especially frustrating is these tactics seems completely immune to political change. The difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to labor regulations that protect workers is a party that is absolutely complacent, and one that is actively working to dismantle what few protections exist.

I need to jump back into this now that it is out of Early Access!

Yeah I basically agree with Andrew's analysis of the teams most likely to win the Shanghai Major except that I think he is vastly underrating EHOME's chances, and maybe slightly overrating OG's chances. While I made a prediction of EG winning the tournament, I find the arguments that EHOME is the favorite to be very persuasive. OG are still a very strong team, but I think there are a couple of teams that have their number and should be able to knock them out. Alliance look incredibly strong, but teams also know exactly how they are going to be running their game, so the big question is whether they can get countered (cue that old Alliance meme). I really expect them to be like CDEC at TI5 and have a great run where they end up in 2nd place. EHOME and EG hae very similar strengths as teams, so I'm really not sure who wins in that matchup if they both go the grand finals. I think I favor EHOME in that scenario, but I'm not convinced that they will be facing each other in the grand finals (see Alliance).

If you're just interested in walking around I think Golden Gate park is a good call. You can do the DeYoung museum, which is a decent enough art museum, but even if you're not interested in art, it's worth finding the elevator to the top floor where you get a spectacular panorama view of the city. I believe you can go there without admission into the museum itself, but its been awhile so I could be misremembering that. Eating well is extremely easy. Avoid newer restaurants because they have more expensive commercial leases, and the price of entrees reflect that. I generally steer visitors towards Burmese restaurants because that isn't a cuisine you really see in other American cities. The Bay Area also has a lot of Filipino restaurants which are great for adventurous eaters, but I've found a lot of Americans get weirded out by it. Burmese food more closely resembles Thai so people are generally more familiar with it, but do try the specialty dishes like tea leaf salad, and samusa soup. Burma Super Star in the Richmond is probably the most well known one, but their nearby sister restaurant B-Star cafe is just as good, and slightly more affordable and has shorter lines. Other good cheap dining options would include taquerias in the Mission. If you're up around the piers I think the Exploratorium is a pretty cool museum.

I think the L4D2 comparison is apt. On the most recent episode of the Crate & Crowbar one of the panelists had a negative experience with XCOM 2, but the rest were pretty high on the game. Their explanation for what was good about XCOM 2 was that the game forced you to improvise constantly, and I agree with that analysis and that's what I love about it. A game like Invisible Inc. is probably better suited for control freaks who want to make the most optimal moves possible, and execute everything perfectly. XCOM 2 leaves you with uncertainty and almost never enough time to perform the optimal move. For some people that becomes incredibly frustrating, but I find it very exciting.

I was really surprised to hear that Tyriq came to roguelikes later on because his game is definitely in tune with the design sensibilities in a way that I haven't seen other games that mash up procedural generation & permadeath with another genre. When I first played Catacomb Kids my first thought was, "wow, whoever made this felt like Spelunky wasn't a serious enough platformer, or a serious enough roguelike!"

Nick was almost certainly referring to Xenonauts although as Gormongous pointed out he was mistaking the simple graphics for a simple game, when actually its complexity is similar to the original X-COM.

Travels in Hyperreality is amazing for starting the trend of European intellectuals observing Disneyland and finding it symptomatic of American culture writ large (Baudrillard is another giant of this particular genre). I also seem to recall that collection having an excellent essay about the semiotics of clothes.

Not having read the manual and commentary for Sekigahara I can't speak to the depth of that explanation, but in general I've been extremely impressed with the designer notes for GMT games and the length the designers go to explaining their reasoning for why the mechanics the way they are.It's something I wish we would see a little more of in board gaming outside the war game space.

One thing that gets lost a lot in online conversations is sometimes people are going to talk in off the cuff ways, and I think that should be okay especially when it comes to evaluating creative output (it is less acceptable when we are discussing real world issues that affect real people). I see a statement like that from Jonathan Blow and I think he is making some ridiculous statements, but that's okay because he doesn't owe me an explanation of all his critical assumptions about what's important and why something works or doesn't work. I also think games are pluralistic enough that it is healthy for people that have different ideas about what is good about them.

I think you're really onto something Fhunzoag & itchyeyes. The thing about XCOM's opaqueness is it is partially a deliberate design decision. In both games the research tree is different from the one in Civ because it never explains to the player what the benefits of that decision are, and that's done for thematic reasons. So the knowledge the player brings to the replay is incredibly important, and that aspect of the design makes XCOM more like a roguelike than a strategy game. Now I think XCOM goes too far with stuff like that, and a lot of things feel underexplained to me. But that never really bothered me, and I'm happy to experiment with stuff to try and figure things out (I also, it should be said, am perfectly comfortable save scumming until I have a firmer grasp on how the game ticks). Players comfortable with roguelike style designs can have a harmonious experience with XCOM 2, but I can see that bothering people that don't agree to those types of expectations from the player.

Alright, you guys got me. I ordered another war game.

I had no problems with the game performance (playing on a desktop, not a laptop). The game itself is... not great. But it does justice to the world of Philip K. Dick I think, warts (i.e. misogyny) and all... I think I would have been okay with a hidden object game to facilitate exploring an interesting world, but finding the hidden objects was like the worst version of pixel hunting I've encountered in a long time.

Yeah, intel is listed as one of the different types of resources available in the strategic map. But a popup the first time you're in the strategy map listing the things intel is used for ("1. Making contact with resistance cells, 2. Buying stuff on the black market, 3. Revealing dark events") would make a big difference for first impressions. A new player still wouldn't necessarily know how to properly value it, but at least you would know what it is used for.

Anyone else playing this? I never got along with the prior game, Frozen Synapse, as it was just too hard for me to play well. This game feels way less fiddly without sacrificing any tactical depth, so I'm really stoked on it! The writing for the single player campaign is top notch. If anyone is interested in playing multiplayer let me know and lets try to make this happen.

According to this RPS guide there isn't any overwatch aim penalty when you fire from concealment: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/02/12/xcom2-guide-tips/ Since the game doesn't actually explain that anywhere, I have no idea whether that is true or not. But if so it is always a good idea to fire from overwatch. Otherwise after the first shot the enemies will run to cover and be harder to hit. Even if it is not true it is still probably worth it just because the aim penalty for overwatch is less severe than the penalty for firing against a target that is in cover. Using your concealment effectively to setup an effective ambush as usually the difference between having to deal with 3 enemies at once instead of 6 in my experience. So it seems important to me!

Yeah this was my thought as well. As far as a low investment tactics game with a great board game-y feel I definitely recommend the game Julian Gollop recently made, Chaos Reborn.

I picked it up yesterday, and I'll play it at some point this weekend. Very excited about this!

Although the character switch only happens in the DLC, the multiple perspectives in Dishonored resulted in some very powerful storytelling. I am excited to see what they do with this in Dishonored 2.

I definitely liked all the RPG stuff back when I played the game in 1999, but yeah, looking at it now it does seem like the weakest part of the game. There is some reason to believe they might strip away those RPG elements because they were tacked on to cope with the limitations of the game engine. So I wouldn't think that anyone really believes that the RPG systems are an important "pillar" of a System Shock game.

I really need to try a soldier run through just for completeness sake. I've had three successful completions of the game, but never as a soldier character.

More good news, Warren Spector is on board! http://www.pcgamer.com/warren-spector-joining-otherside-to-lead-system-shock-3/

I enjoyed the episode even if I think Rob and Dave were spectacularly wrong. Disagreeing with people can be fun! I think it was unfortunate that Jonathan seemed to have a tough time getting a word in though. I don't actually remember anything he really said about the game other than liking it.

Yeahhh... just when I got to fully upgraded gear and figured the rest of the game would be a walk in the park I have encountered some truly gnarly enemies.