Cordeos
-
Content count
1563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cordeos
-
-
I think I know what you mean, having played a bunch of Quake Live recently. The pace of the game seems a bit slower (projectiles, running speed) than Quake for sure. It looks closer to Halo, really. The rockets seem very similar to Halo, and the movespeed too. Though of course, it's more likely that Halo is similar to UT than the other way around...
That "frog jumping" kind of movement looks like it would take some getting used to coming from other games. Never seen anyone do single strafe jumps like that, is that a common UT thing? It seems the movespeed penalty on landing is pretty severe so they can't be chained together? Some of those maps look like they would be a blast to play on with QL movement.
I know they have been playing around with the movement a lot, not sure how much is related to the pre-alpha stage the game is in and how much is intentional. They do plan on having low-grav and gamespeed modifiers so you can always tweek it to your hearts content. I havent really played any competative online shooter since battlefield 2, and very little UT since UT2004, so I don't have a fresh sense of how the game should look and feel.
-
Weapons! This is a great example of how the community is contributing to the game, the Devs work with people in the community to design, model, animate for the game. The enforcer and Flak Cannon are moving along nicely.
Gametypes are also being developed by the community. Domination and rocket arena are being developed. Jailbreak, assault and the chaos mod are possible.
They are starting to work on bots.
http://www.unrealtournament.com/blog/unreal-tournament-community-gametypes-and-concept-art/
-
I've been wondering if it would be feasible to take distance and the speed of communication into account. I know that there have been wargames that modelled that, but has anyone ever tried it in a grand strategy game.
Travel times can be a factor, my current Roman Empire game is getting annoying because there is always a war or rebellion somewhere in my empire, constantly moving my armies around in Africa, Russia, Europe and the Middle East gets tiresome. I wish vassals would deal with small rebellions on their own.
-
That's the reason that I quit Hearts of Iron 3. I would rather they leave it ahistoric rather than build a bunch of custom events that make it break in a certain way.
But the game starts as historical and some events that brought down nations are too complex to really put in CK2. You can always play that mod where only counts exist, especially if the next expansion makes it so kingdoms, duchies, empires can be generated anywhere. Ahistorical to the max.
-
Well, two things.
First, Paradox is willing to use scripted events to force some historical events (the rise of Shia Islam, the emergence of melting-pot cultures, the Seljuk and Mongol invasions), but not others. It's not in the design philosophy of the new developers there, who seem to believe in abstract "balance" above all. Most of the event chains are actually quite fragile anyway. The Seljuks never appeared in my 867 Byzantium game, for instance, and Norse culture is still around in 1220.
Second, I find their choice to depict the Abbasids as ahistorically weak and divided frustrating because it shows their obvious awareness of a fact that any person who's played more than a dozen hours of Crusader Kings 2 knows. Empires are impossibly stable. Once you get between twenty and thirty duke-level vassals, you will never get a rebellion again, because each vassal will be discouraged by the money, manpower, and prestige that the rest give you. Lobsters in a bucket, etc. It's ironically the opposite of how empires worked in the Middle Ages and Paradox has slowly begun to acknowledge it. They're even introducing a pair of mechanics in the Charlemagne DLC, a Centralization crown law and a Vassal Limit tech, in order to slow down growth before and after that tipping point, so it's really disappointing that in the same DLC they still have to fudge the historical setting so dramatically.
The other solution would be to make empires less stable, but historically empires have collapsed for many different reasons that can be quite difficult to build into a simulation.
-
I actually didn't have a problem with it at all but I second this.
I also vote in favor! Motion passes?
-
I was actually embarrassed for a lot of the podcast because, having not been used to hearing Anita talk except in a presentational mode, she just sounded like a less ebullient Danielle to me. I had it figured out by the end, but I was miserable there for a bit.
I had the same issue, just had to learn what her voice sounded like instead of just assuming all lady voices on idle thumbs are Danielle. Stupid brain.
-
Your posts aren't really making it seem any less weird to me, unfortunately.
Pretty much the more you learn about the Chinese government, the weirder you feel about ever traveling there or buying things from there. The fact that a government with that level of oppressive power exists in the 21st century is sickening. I'm now excited when things I buy are made in Vietnam.
Edit: I was also very much enjoyed how much Anita fit into the podcast. It was like she has always been on it. More guest hosts!
-
For those of you who were wondering how Paradox was going to balance the Abbasid Caliphate, a strong and centralized power that was at its greatest extent in 769, covering nearly a quarter of the in-game map, the answer is... well, they'll just make it ahistorically weak and give random border kingdoms independence just because they can't be bothered to find an anti-blobbing mechanic that works. For reference, here is the actual extent of Abbasid power in 750 (with 786 being the actual height):
And here is what Paradox thinks is an accurate reflection of this. Observant people will note that, besides Egypt, there is little practical difference between the Abbasids in 769 and in 867. So much for a century of decay, right? I think I might just have too much knowledge of this historical period to enjoy this game like I used to, which is sobering because I'm not even halfway through my dissertation.
Seems like they could just set up some specific events/targeted penalties for the Abbasids that cause them to be unable to expand properly. The best example of a forced event i remember in a paradox game is Italian Unification in Victoria, I can never get it to stop. So they have done it before.
-
A lot of map previews this week! Some made by the devs, others by the community. They look really pretty even without much texturing and lighting.
-
Science:
New York Times Science Times: Solid weekly Science News podcast.
BBC Inside Science: Ditto
The Infinite Monkey Cage: A fantastic BBC Science discussion with jokes. When does a strawberry truly die?
Comedy:
The Bugle: John Oliver and Andy Zoltsman host an amazing news podcast. Its a darker version of The Daily Show.
News:
Carnegie Council Podcast: Fantastic indepth discussions of current events, from experts in the field.
New Yorker Political Scene: Weekly discussion of political news in the US.
RAND congressional briefings: Hear smart people talk about important things.
The World Next Week: Discussion of important events, summits, etc that will be happening next week,
Misc:
BBC In Our Time: A discussion program that picks one topic and really fleshes it out, previous episodes include: the sun, the talmud, the Sino-Japanese war.
-
Any game I have already played, doesn't have important dialog or I'm just straight up ignoring the story (Saints Row 4), i listen to Podcasts and audiobooks during. I also make sure to turn off ingame music as it gets distracting having too many noise sources at once.
-
I'm just excited they seem to be making all the bonuses useful. I ended up playing a small number of the factions in Civ5 because their bonuses fit my play style and there were some Civs that had useless specials. Now that I get to customize more, i will probably play around more with aspects of the game I would have otherwise ignored.
-
My point about historical accuracy was not that GoT itself is historically accurate, but many of the elements of the show are. I agree that "it happened in history, so its ok" is a bad argument. What I was trying to say is that sexism happened and is happening and we should be able to discuss it through media. GoT has female rulers, it has more enlightened characters, but to pretend that women had equality with men in the middle ages is ridiculous (women still don't have equally). I just worry that the arguments I am hearing are leaning towards never representing anything bad ever, even when it is showing how bad that thing is.
Also I'm confused about what "just a plot point" means.
EDIT: Example of why I think historical accuracy in media is important: One of the things I hate about pirates representation in most media is how inaccurate it is. They were by and large terrible violent people and they are always shown as loveable rogues who don't constantly rape, murder and steal. While there were a very small number of female pirates historically, its nothing like what is represented in media. I would like an accurate movie portrayal over Pirates of the Caribbean any day.
Similarly fantasy/medieval media rarely shows how terrible life was for the vast majority of humanity. They lived on farms as practically slaves, they were drafted to fight in wars they didn't care about, their families were killed by other armies, their farms burned and they died in droves. Meanwhile the Aristocracy lived in huge houses wasting tons of wealth on feasts. Part of representing historic eras should include showing the bad side.
-
Have you looked for it? The week after it occurred every major news site ran some kind of critical story on the rape scene. These aren't obscure tumblrs:
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/29/game-of-thrones-racism-sexism-rape
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/04/21/does-game-of-thrones-have-a-misogyny-problem/
http://www.avclub.com/article/rape-thrones-203499
Also, as somebody who likes some dumb/ignorant shit, it's also possible to be aware and critical of the things you like.
The issue i have with the complains about Game of Thrones sexism, is that the sexism is historically accurate and I feel its being portrayed in a way that makes people uncomfortable. We cannot have a media space where representing sexism is never allowed. Its a thing that happened and is still happening and is bad, but we can't just have blanket no sexism ever in media. We can attack media that glorifies sexism and violence against women, but I don't believe GoT does that. The violence is nasty, the rape is nasty, its a dark show about dark things.
There is a point to be made that video games, tv shows, movies, music, comic books etc have such terrible representations of women in general that even when a legitimate point is being made the vast majority of horrible portrays override it. I however don't believe that we shouldn't try to represent things accurately because most people suck at representing it. We can't just sit around and wait for popular culture to figure women's rights out before producing anything that looks at bad things that happen to women.
-
50 minutes of "gameplay", go over the customization options you pick before the game starts. sponsor (big bonus), colonists (supplement bonus), ship (starting bonus), cargo (other starting bonus) and what kind of planet you are going to. They also look at the map customization options.
After 32 minutes they finally get to the actual game. You get to pick your starting your location from a small radius (can be modified with a start bonus). Neat stuff to see, but I want to know about mid and endgame.
-
The only true evil in STALKER is snorks. CURSE THEM!
-
I quit Saints Row 3, something about the saints row games is very unstable and it keeps crashing. The game is fine, nothing special, so I don't really feel the need to keep playing despite the instability, like I do with Bethesda or STALKER games. I started playing Saints Row 4, which at least has some neat superpower game play, but it also crashed. We will see how long this lasts.
-
The discuss how to play the pre-Alpha version of the game, and what kind of feedback they want from it.
More details about what they want for competitive play.
Possibilities for in game music and sound.
-
I totally played Duke Nukem 3D and Shadow Warrior way too early. My parents never really took an interest in what I was playing until GTA vice city came out around the same time we found out about my older brothers drug problem. Only game I was ever told not to get or play.
-
The sexism was the icing on the cake of my hatred of this game. I have played every Hitman game since Codename 47 and while all the games had some sexual elements, strip club levels and the occasional prostitute, there was nothing even close to the level of what was going on in Absolution.
I have seen people talking about how they liked the mechanics in this game more than Blood Money, I agree, but without good levels to use them in they fell flat.
I can only remember a few levels from the previous four games that didn't have an assassination as the primary objective. There were so many levels of Absolution that had you sneak down essentially a hallway. So many levels where you are totally surrounded by guards. This felt like Hitman combined with Splinter Cell Conviction. Instinct mode was a totally unnecessary addition and I only started using it when i got frustrated with the badness of the game and just shot my way through it.
The chinatown level is really the only one where I felt like there wasn't one designated path to completion. And they reused the level lol. Hitman levels should be large, multi path levels that give you plenty of options. Your mission objective should always involve assassination.
I need to go back and play Contracts and Blood Money so I can clean Absolution out of my system.
/rant
-
Player choice doesn't have to mean branching narrative. For me the biggest thing I want in games is choice in how I play and explore. RPGs have always been good for this. You can be sneaky, a big axe swinging brute, a mage etc. I also enjoy games that don't force me to do things in a specific order, at specific times. For example Mass Effect 2 has tons of branching, but very little freedom. There is pretty much one order all the missions should be done in, and the morality system is the standard super good/super bad dichotomy. Dragon Age Origin is possibly the only game I have played with branching choices had non-obvious outcomes. (Especially with the dwarves.)
As for games being too linear, look at STALKER vs Metro 2033. Stalker is a bunch of linked open maps that you can explore as you want, do side quests, set up ambushes, and play how you want (Snipe, close range, stealth). Metro 2033 essentially just pushes you down a world of hallways and tunnels, even when you are on the surface. These games have similar themes but have totally different amounts of player choice/freedom.
-
From what I've read, lifetime insurance is more of a luxury than a necessity for the persistent universe part of the game. Devs have said that the game will offer insurance for in-game currency, and that this would be a relatively small cost. Basically, those with LTI (if it works as currently advertised) are avoiding a small tax on in-game earnings rather than gaining a huge advantage over those without it. That said, I totally understand your skepticism. They very well could screw up their game's economy by making insurance costs too high or making it too hard to replace an uninsured ship.
Then again, I'd be much more concerned about how a significant number of players are going to start with the in-game equivalent of a star destroyer while most of us will be using what amounts to a space-faring Smart Car.
It just makes me think of playing Skyrim Vs playing previous Bethesda games. Skyrim removed item degradation and I was able to save up money so much faster than when I constantly have to repair and replace items. It also changes how I played because I never had to worry about items breaking while I was out fighting.
The starting with better ships will also be an issue, but I think the effect of that is that some players will be able to advance though the early game much faster than others. Might make PvP really unbalanced for a while as well.
-
Well it will definitely effect the economy as some people will have free replacement of ships. also might change how they behave because they will never risk losing the ship when it is destroyed. You are right that we don't know right now, but considering the Devs are no longer offering lifetime insurance, I think its safe to say they don't want it to be too widespread.
Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth
in Strategy Game Discussion
Posted
The first time its on sale 50% off i will totally grab it