Snooze

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    43

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Snooze

  1. Posted

    This seems right up the panels alley...

     

    Ultimate General for ipad and PC. Made by Nick Thomadis otherwise knows as Darth Vader, the guy that did all the Darthmods for the Total War games. The pics of UG look great. Devils in the details, I'd love the TMA crew to take a look at the game and see what they think.

     

    *edit* Just noticed its been Greenlit on Steam and sounds like release is not too far away. If TMA do talk to this fellow please ask why no Android release, as an Android gamer I do get tired of good releases passing me by and this looks like a game I would enjoy more on my tablet while cruising around rather than sitting at my PC. I'm getting sick of sitting at my PC :)

  4. Posted

    Galciv 3 has been announced.

     

    I've heard Paxton on Polycast, has he been on TMA before? My brain is saying he may have been but I'm not sure....

     

    Ah yes! After a brief search episode 195: Fallen Enchantress with Derek Paxton.

     

    I must say I am interested. I hope that with Paxton involved the game will move away from its horrible economic system (tax slider that can be moved in increments of 1% each turn). I almost signed up for the Beta access.

     

    Maybe a podcast on it will sway me, you can even say that to Paxton to get him on the show :)

  5. Posted

    I would not say that Dominions has simple mechanics.  In fact, I think it's one of the most mechanically complicated games I've ever played.  I still don't understand most of what is going on.  But I think that complexity is what allows it to get away with such unbalanced factions.  When you have that much stuff going on, you can't cover every contingency, and a nominally weaker nation can hit you from an angle you never saw coming.    

     

    I think its mechanics are quite simple in that the maths for determining everything is pretty easy to understand. There are no complex equations as its generally a bunch of open d6 rolls to see who gets the higher score.

  6. Posted

    Great podcast. As a long time Dom3 player I really enjoyed hearing the developers talk about the game. I could see Tom pushing for a more in depth study of the game and they were not going for it, which of course is ok.

     

    I do feel there could be an in-depth study of the game, it has simple mechanics that combine to become complex in its execution. The nations are imbalanced but in the single player game thats ok because its like in in-built difficulty switch on top of whats already available. For multiplayer I'm sure the fans will create another CBM mod to balance it all out.

     

    A big change has been the way magic works due to increased research costs and more fleshed out early magic, especially for summons as now you can better dump magic gems into summoning units for an early game boost. Its subtle but its there.

     

    Lastly, I love Dominions 3 and 4 (versions I have played) because no other fantasy strategy game excels at creating unique nations and from that a rich game world. The clay and marble armies of MA Agartha vs the freespawn carrion creatures of MA Asphodel vs the freespawn undead hoards of Ermor vs the human bureaucracy of Tien Chi. And so much more.

     

    I've been gaming in one form or another for 30 years, the Dominions series is such an immersive gem achieved not through flashy graphics but great world lore design that seems to come around very rarely.

  8. Posted

    This would be a valid, if self-righteous and passive-aggressive, observation if our complaints overwhelmingly focused on AI and PC performance. But they don't.

     

    So thanks, but no thanks for your condescension. And until everyone playing games is required by law to know how to code and to have shipped a game, I could not possibly care less how hard it is to make a game. Somehow, lots of developers manage to make great ones that don't get beaten up on this show. Creative Assembly didn't.

     

    If you want to listen to people who "deserve" to have opinions about games, I highly recommend Jon Shafer's Game Design Round Table. Jon and Dirk might meet your expectations.

     

    Veni, vidi, vici ipsum

  10. Posted

    Just listened to the cast, yeah CA what have you done?

     

    I think there was a quote somewhere in the cast about a mish-mash of idea's masquerading as game design, great summery.

     

    I remember playing Medieval TW (the first iteration) and they had this great system where spears and pikes got bonuses if they remained in formation. This was great because you would be skimming around the battlefield glancing at your spears/pikes and if they were ordered you knew they were ok, if they were starting to look a jumble then you knew things were going bad and if they had enemy swords amongst them you knew they were stuffed. It was simple and worked visually really well. Then with Rome TW and Medieval 2 TW this was gone and I thought "this is a real step backwards". For me this marked the start of the simplification while increasing complexity (but not necessarily game design) on the strategic map.

     

    Oh CA! What have you done!

  15. Posted

    anyone know how to make this game fun for someone who is actually competent at strategy games?

     

    the AI is absolutely no threat on any difficulty level except deity... and the game just doesn't function anywhere close to how its designed at that level

     

    has anyone found any satisfaction in seeing how quickly you can win instead of whether or not you will win at the end?

     

    I think you will find there is a whole class of players that love to kick an AI's ass in whatever game they play.

     

    I don't yet play on Diety level so I guess I am not competent at computer games.... ;(

  16. Posted

    Moo3 did the following things extremely well that I almost never see in 4X games before and since.....

     

     

    So why does everyone hate it?

     

    Go back to it and take a look at the UI. Look at the planet screens. Its absolutely hideous compared to MoO2.

     

    It like playing a funky spreadsheet thats kicking you in the balls for trying.

  18. Posted

    Yeah, even if Civ 5 were to totally open up at this point I get the impression that the modding community feels a little burned by this version of Civ, and has moved on. A real shame.

    That is really sad. Civ V has nowhere near the quality mods that Civ IV has. I would have liked a successor to Fall from Heaven. Not Fallen Heroes as thats a different lore.

  19. Posted

    Snooze, I didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out.  Sorry about that.  But their review didn't really tell me anything other than that they were out of their depth and they were passing along marketing copy.  They basically described a game, and they had no meaningful insight into that game.  So annoying.  But I do appreciate you passing along the link and I also appreciate that they didn't just slag it.

     

    I was once told to die in a gasoline fire.  I like that the guy specified what kind of fire, but he should have given it more thought.  For instance, a grease fire would have been a more ignoble fate.

     

       -Tom

     

    Hey, I thought it was a terrible review too :)

     

    I sometimes watch the show less for their review scores but more just because I'm interested in gaming and in many ways its entertaining. Their review of W:AB for anyone interested in strategy was very poor. I did like to their credit they tried to be positive about it because it is a game that warrents it.

     

    I think you review honestly but in doing so you make yourself an internet villian. To some you are a Robin Hood but to the most vocal it seems a villian. You also don't fit neatly into the percentage way of scoring and this also makes you a target when people try to relate your score in the percentage way. If you were a movie critic all this would be fine, its because your a game critic I believe for many people its not.

     

    Good luck with trying to change the internet....

  21. Posted

    The positive is that they could have trashed what is a good game and deprive Eugen of sales because they are utterly hopeless at it. Instead they aknowledged they were crap, didn't really understand the game and gave it an ok score for what they didn't get but was there.

     

    I did like that part of the review was on how in their online games they were told to die of disease. Were they reviewing the game or the insults? If so I'd only give the insults one star. It lacked originality and takes trolling nowhere.

  23. Posted

    If I drop 10 bucks on a game that doesn't wow me, I don't get too upset. When COH2 is 60 bucks and I'm not thrilled with it, it stings so much worse. (though COH2 probably extra stings because I wanted it to be amazing. If Rome 2 isn't great, this could be my least favorite gaming year ever).

     

    The games industry is in a much more diverse place than in the past too. You can be more discerning and still have so much to do. When I was a kid if I didn't like certain big games, I was out of games to play instantly. Now, there are so many games and genres that we get to be discerning and still not have enough time. 

     

    I'm expecting Rome 2 to be visually exciting but due to the combat ultimately dull. Heavy infantry in centre, check. Cavalry on flanks, check. Skirmishers running around giving me headaches, check. I'm expecting a severe case of "been there, done that".

  24. Posted

    I was surprised by how little desire to play the game I had after buying it and playing it very little. I was really looking forward to blowing off work a bit and crushing the eastern front. After a couple of the maps, I was left super bummed and just left the game behind.

     

    I don't know if the game is good or bad. But there are too many good games out there for me to dig deep into this game. Both my wallet and psyche are bummed about this game quite a bit.

     

    I have similar feelings about games these days. I can still get excited for new releases but am aware that often the experience does not live up to the hype. I'm not sure if this is because I am becoming a more discerning gamer or gaming itself is not what I'm as much into. If its the latter, believe me I am resisting the change :)

  25. Posted

    Good post, Snooze, but this last bit undermines what you've said.  So the rating is wrong?  I'm wrong when I use the rating that indicates "I didn't like it"?

     

    Just because you have a different opinion about something doesn't make either of us wrong.  You can tell me I'm wrong if I say something like "Venice isn't one of the new playable civilizations" or "Brave New World doesn't have trade routes" or "The AI is competent".  But when it comes to whether each of us liked or didn't like the game -- the actual rating, in other words -- neither of us can be wrong.

     

    That said, I'm glad to hear you "really like" Brave New World.  It's *always* a good thing when someone enjoys a game.

     

        -Tom

     

    I agree, neither of us are wrong because ultimately its all subjective. A poor choice of words on my behalf. I put the last part in to show that despite showing how you do provide a positive discussion in an industry somewhat lacking in ethics (ie sites reviewing games that pay advertising giving generic 80-90% scores) I do disagree with what you say sometimes.

     

     

    So when talking about a game in a review you're trying to be objective - you list valid points such that everyone can agree or disagree and point out where you were wrong. But then you give subjective score which just states that you as an individual liked/disliked a game. Any other person might like a given game and would give it 5 stars and would be completely correct because it's just a matter of taste.

    I think that most people look at review score of a game critic as objective thing, not subjective. Most people look at game score and think whether they would like it based on the score. I do it and I hate it, but I do it nonetheless. The score gives immediate information about the game quality. It's a fact that game industry pays attention to scores. And based on your score as objective  thing nobody should play CoH2.

    subjective: "I hate it"

    objective: "You will hate it"

     

    Everyone is a critic, you just need to find a critic with similar tastes to you :)