sclpls

sell the tasty aliens

Although I'm skeptical about the Mass Effect style combat, I am looking forward to the setting for this game. I love the artwork for the old Mars Attacks! collectible cards, and also that X-Files episodes that took place back in the 50s or 60s or whatever.

I didn't make any comments about the genre's ability to change. I've played (but never finished) other JRPGs like the Persona games and Xenoblade Chronicles that people say are innovative, and Ni No Kuni is the game I've enjoyed the most out of all of them. It doesn't change the fact that these games involve conventions that don't engage me in the same way they used to.

Different accents or languages would have been a really nice touch, that was one of my favorite flavor features of Civ 5. As far as stunning aliens goes:

It's also interesting that game developers are in a tough spot with planning out DLC because a lot of people resent the idea of developers working on DLC prior to release, but then if they don't get started on things until after the release it can potentially take awhile (because when is development ever ahead of schedule?), and then people wonder why it is taking so long. Based on everything I've read I think Firaxis was really uncertain about what the reception for the game would be like, so they were cautious about post-releases, which I think is sensible.

Based on everything we've heard from Jake Solomon in post-release interviews it seems like there will be some robust DLC package that comes out in the future (hopefully this year).

I think this game is the nail in the coffin for my JRPG experiences. I'm enjoying the game overall, but it is also reminding me of a lot of game design stuff that I really dislike that come with the genre.

Just a quick factual correction: LA Noire takes place post-WWII so its in the late 40s, not 30s. Just bringing that up since you guys got into a brief disagreement about the elderly fellow that checked the game out. Tammany Hall sounds cool, but I am definitely wary of king maker game designs.

I really hope this isn't the first step towards the XBL-ification of Steam. I'd like the interface to stay as simple & clean as possible...

This was an excellent topic, and there are so many different points to discuss it is difficult to know where to begin... There are a couple of really good points raised in this episode that I hadn't considered before. 1. Rob's point about game designers for this genre not really understanding how to scale their games properly and treating a massive, epic scope in the most literal way (huge maps). I think the board game Eclipse, briefly mentioned, is probably the best expression of the generic 4x space game. It limits itself to 9 turns, and that compressed experience keeps all the decision making in that game interesting, and avoids overstaying its welcome (you get 1 or 2 opportunities for an "epic" space battle, not 50). 2.How the codification of the genre really makes the 4x game design look increasingly odd. What is a (comparatively) more natural fit for the Civilization series looks increasingly bizarre with each 4x space iteration. For example, why does every 4x space game have to have a tax rate system where lower taxes means a more productive society? I resent the idea that in the space-faring future the only sort of society we'll see anywhere in the universe will be these bizarre, paradoxical autocratic-libertarian empires. The game Bruce mentioned, Emperor of the Fading Suns, sounds really fascinating, and it is a shame the AI can't play the game. What is great about science fiction is the ability to explore, novel speculative ideas; different sorts of what if? scenarios.You never see these games try to capture that novel spirit, and instead it is just a retread of the same old game ideas & concepts. I think more game designers trying to make sci-fi strategy games would greatly benefit from spending the time dreaming up a couple of various fantastical what if scenarios, and then thinking about how that would impact the game design. That really should be the baseline for any sort of science fiction game, it is really disappointing that that seems to be entirely absent from these games; Alpha Centauri & Emperor of the Fading Suns excepted. Also, I'm in the lucky position of not actually enjoying Paradox games, but very much enjoying listening to other people talking about Paradox games, so I should be in good shape for this next month of podcasting...

Game of Thrones is a good recommendation, and I'm speaking as someone with zero interest in reading the books/watching the TV show, I enjoy it purely for its board game mechanics. Archipelago is a recent game that came out that has sort of novel mechanics that involve balancing cooperative/competitive elements that I don't believe entirely work, but could be a fun game depending on your group. A very different sort of game, but one that I enjoy quite a bit is Inca Empire. It's purely competitive, but there are some interesting opportunities for negotiation. You take control of one of the four provinces, and set on building roads and expanding the empire, and then the game ends when Pizarro shows up. But there is a phase of each turn called the Sun Phase where players place cards down on a board, and then reveal them. The cards have either beneficial or harmful effects but the key thing about them is they will only effect two players. So you have to decide who to help out (besides yourself), and who to screw over, and that creates some really fascinating dynamics.

That is a weird requirement, and unfortunate, it's a really lovely game and anyone that appreciates the bright graphics of a classic Sid Meier/Firaxis title should definitely check it out. The free-to-play model for this game doesn't bother me either, I feel like I got an excellent game for $4.

The interesting thing is it definitely seems like big budget Hollywood type movies are losing that sense of locality in favor of more generic settings (big NY type city without any defining characteristics, random California suburb, etc.) I think this partly has to do with how local sales are becoming a smaller piece of the pie for the movie industry, so fidelty to expressing the uniqueness of a locale becomes less important. You can look at an old comedy like Risky Business, and that movie just does an amazing job of capturing all these details about Philadelphia even though there isn't anything in the plot that makes the location particularly important. I don't think you would see the same thing today.

Great episode. I'm glad to hear Sean found another game he likes, and that it's XCOM. I totally get wanting to play it on iPad because one of the games great features is how it gets you quickly in and out of the action, and that seems really conducive to mobile play. I also hope to hear more updates about Risk Legacy. It's a game I find fascinating and enjoy hearing other people talk about it, but I don't think I could play it because of ingrained board gamer preconceptions where I find the idea of destroying game components taboo. My experience with collectibles in games is I usually begin the process, but usually give it up fairly quickly as I grow bored/annoyed. The one exception was Brutal Legend, where I became somewhat obsessed with trying to get all the soundtracks for the car so I could curate the perfect mixtape.

I'd still be playing it if the last mission wasn't so tedious after multiple playthroughs ;-)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the initial annoying bugs have been fixed in XCOM at this point, so yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to pick it up sometime this year...

Also, happy Dishonored 4/20!

The AFK thing sounds annoying. I like all of Iron Helmet's web games a lot, but they all do suffer from the same problem that if a player decides to just give up that can really tip the scales of the game. That can happen in board games too, but its less likely when everyone is together at the table as opposed to a weeks long game played over the internet. I remember playing Blight of the Immortals, which is their semi-cooperative fantasy game where you are fighting off hoards of undead monsters, and the object is to get the highest kill score. I remember playing a game where one of the players who had a substantial army decided he/she was dropping out of the game, and sent a message saying whoever responded first would get those armies transferred. I was the first person to respond, and was able to wipe the board pretty easily at that point, but it was definitely a hollow victory. I'm glad you mentioned Sleeping Dogs. I picked the game up a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't taken a crack at it yet. Looking forward to checking it out since I've heard so many different evaluations of the game.

Like a lot of other people, I'm also of two minds about this. If it helps games get funded that otherwise might not have, and help make the final product more polished than it otherwise would have been then that's a win-win for everyone. However the cynic in me is also wary of how less scrupulous developers might approach this... Tom brought up the excellent hypothetical of releasing a perpetual "beta" that never really reaches a final state of polish. So hopefully we won't see this development trend turn into something sour because I do think there is a lot of potential. I'm like Tom, and generally have no interest in early releases, although I did get the alpha for At the Gates. I'm not really sure what made that different from other kickstarter games I've backed, but for some reason I found the idea of watching that game develop to be a much more interesting prospect than other games I might play, perhaps because Jon is an interesting and eloquent enough guy to listen to when he discusses game design.

I'm definitely interested in this game because of the Chicago setting. If they get it right it should be fun to explore because for my money Chicago has the best architecture of any American city. I'm not so concerned with how crazy violent or nonviolent it is just because I'm looking for games that just present a cool space to exist in for awhile.

Warning: Can't unsee

I actually think Nintendo's decision to drop out of E3 makes a lot of sense. When the WiiU was announced at E3 in 2011, investors realized that Nintendo had lost their minds, and their stock plummeted as a result. Now that the WiiU is out, and has thus far been a disaster people are going to want some good answers. If you don't have any good answers then the best option is silence.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but intuitively it seems like pro 2v2 would devolve into extremely defensive, and uninteresting to watch play. Like, why would you want to make the first move if that would expose you to attacks from the other players. When playing against friends or just at a more casual level though it's pretty awesome.

I would get in on the NP2 game going on here, but I leave for vacation with my fiancee in about a week, and don't want to wreck the experience by being an obsessive/compulsive weirdo. The Game Design Roundtable Podcast recently had a discussion about Diplomacy in honor of the passing of the game designer. They had a guy who plays at the higher level, and it was interesting hearing him talk about how at the higher level there's a lot less revenge-motivated play where someone might backstab someone else, and after a turn or two the person will be like, "okay, I see why you did that, but lets just forget about it and move on", which is like something that never happens when you are playing against your friends, and you're just fuming at what an asshole they are. Really cool discussion, and I would recommend that episode to anyone that enjoys (if that's the right word) these types of backstabbing games.

Except there are certain times when the SHIV is so crucial. For example, it can't get mind controlled.