Strategy Games 2016 edition

Brevi

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2016, 10:11:23 AM »
I don't know anything about Stellaris yet, other then it looks great. Annie is playing it and we had a great time discovering how all the fucked up alien races can look so cool.

I want to talk about IGN, because I think I know the answer to the mystery! You think IGN is asking the question:
Is this a great game? Is this a solid product?

I believe what they ask is (heck near all gamer magazines at this point):
If an average AMERICAN couch gamer buys this game and plays the first 30 minutes (because attention span of said customer is about that long)... is he gonna have a great time?

Generalization is always bad, but I guess IGN's largest reader base (WITH money to throw) is simply that archetype: american casual gamers.
IGN headquarters are in San Francisco in California, United States.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ign.com
IGN.com statistics: 42.5% USA, second highest is the UK with 5.9%.

Is Stellaris for this audience? I'm not surprised at the 6 out of 10.

EDIT:
Haha! Check our own site!
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/spwned.net

Top Keywords from Search Engines
Which search keywords send traffic to this site?

Keyword   Percent of Search Traffic
  1.  fallout 3 companions   52.83%
  2.  cs go sidestep   9.20%
  3.  moonlight tales skyrim   7.10%
  4.  skyrim how to increase fps   5.95%
  5.  skyrim moonlight tales   3.45%

Fallout 3 companions? What the fuck? :)
lol! It's this thread: http://www.spwned.net/forum/index.php?topic=62.0
17712 Views
The internet is fucked up...
^(O.o)^



Xaviz

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2016, 10:25:31 AM »
well how about the pcgamer one? every review seems to agree the game is near perfect in the beginning but the pacing comes to a screeching halt in the middle to late portion of the game. plus everyone that rates it highly keep talking about how great this game will eventually become. like what? maybe it's because I don't know much about this genre, but if someone told me that about any other game I would just laugh at them. why would I buy something that could eventually become great? if it isn't now, why rate its potential instead of the game in its current form?

either way I don't particularly care, I just linked the 2 lower rated reviews I saw because they both mentioned the same problems, which usually means there's some truth to it. I understand there are people already incredibly invested in this game long before it was out and wasn't going to let any review, good or bad dictate their what they should or shouldn't buy. but for the rest of us, it's good seeing both sides.



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2016, 11:39:40 AM »
It's not unreasonable criticism, most reviews acknowledge it. It's just that the scoring is absurd in the context of other views from the same website and misrepresents the game. I haven't looked at the PCgamer's review as I want to see for myself first although these issues were seen in the streams before release (just got rekt in my first game on hard/ironman). At one point IGN says the AI is too bad, the next he complains because he lost. In the same reviewer's Battlefleet Gothic (he gave it a 7...) review he complains there is too much micro, in the Stellaris review he complains there is too little micro (when one of the main goals of the game was to reduce micro). I think 10/10 reviews similarly misrepresent the game as the game has problems (as did CK2 and EU4 at release). The boring mid game complaint is probably true but at the same time you could have given the same complaint about EU4 and CK2 where you inevitably end up in a situation where you can only stare at the screen while you wait for the AIs change the situation.

I mean really the problem is that the IGN reviewer treated Stellaris as a pure GSG (meaning ridiculous complexity) and compared it to the hallmark of GSG's that is EU4. EU4 has gone through years of complete reworking of core game mechanics not to mention half the depth wasn't there at release. Even more importantly, Stellaris is far more of a 4x which the reviewer obviously doesn't even like. Considering your average IGN audience who might never have played Paradox games or not even other strategy games, is this a reasonable way to review the game? Or should it be put on the same metric as garbage releases like Rome 2 and Starships if the goal of the review is to inform you whether the game is a good purchase or not?

In the end none of this really surprises me. If the game has problems in the release version, it obviously should be called out for it. It's not really a problem for me personally. Paradox will continue the development of the game for years and it's not a case of token patches fixing a bug in some dialogue or a small content dlc as you might expect in AAA games. They will literally rip out mechanics that don't end up working or add completely new aspect to the game. For the next patch they are already implementing features from EU4 that people are missing. Doesn't excuse a poor state of the release product (if true) but it is what it is when you get into Paradox games.

Fact is that Stellaris is a unique game that has no direct counterpart in any game released previously. There has never been a 4x game that allows this type of freedom that let's you play literally as any scifi trope from tv shows or movies. Distant Worlds is the only reasonable comparison and boy would I love to see the IGN reviewer's opinion on that game. It has the same problems that the IGN guy complained about, just hundredfold worse. Yet DW is considered a masterpiece of 4x games.



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2016, 01:12:42 PM »
I don't know anything about Stellaris yet, other then it looks great. Annie is playing it and we had a great time discovering how all the fucked up alien races can look so cool.

I want to talk about IGN, because I think I know the answer to the mystery! You think IGN is asking the question:
Is this a great game? Is this a solid product?

I believe what they ask is (heck near all gamer magazines at this point):
If an average AMERICAN couch gamer buys this game and plays the first 30 minutes (because attention span of said customer is about that long)... is he gonna have a great time?

Generalization is always bad, but I guess IGN's largest reader base (WITH money to throw) is simply that archetype: american casual gamers.
IGN headquarters are in San Francisco in California, United States.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ign.com
IGN.com statistics: 42.5% USA, second highest is the UK with 5.9%.

Is Stellaris for this audience? I'm not surprised at the 6 out of 10.

It's reaaaally hard to not throw out jokes about IGN getting paid off by publishers. Looking forward to their 10/10 score for No Man's Sky. Sony's got deep pockets, kappa. So does CA apparently because of their 8.8 Rome 2 score. Absolutely broken and a buggy mess at release with shit for gameplay yet it gets a free pass while Stellaris is put below Starships of all the fucking games.

Wasn't expecting you guys to get into Stellaris though which is cool. :D I recommend using the in game browser that goes straight to the wiki for stuff that's not clear in game. Also, turn on the details mapmode from the lower right corner to see stuff on the galaxy map. The hotkeys are also good. Q to focus camera on anything you select, E to toggle system/galaxy view. B to send any fleet to the closest dock so you save energy credits. The soundtrack is really great but it will get repetitive after hours of playing. Then it's time to tune into http://epicmusictime.com/!



Brevi

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2016, 01:14:39 PM »
Thing is... he could have gave it a 7.5 which would reflect better to what is written by Melrax. 6.3 is way too low,  barely better then your average worthless game. I just hate IGN, so I'm biased. ^^

They gave Alien: Isolation a fucking 5.9 out of 10 calling it "Mediocre".
http://uk.ign.com/games/alien-isolation/pc-132341

PC Gamer: 93 out of 100 calling it 'The game the Alien series has always deserved.'
http://www.pcgamer.com/alien-isolation-review/

Fuck IGN.

Btw PC Gamer for Stellaris: 70 out of 100
http://www.pcgamer.com/stellaris-review/

There we go.
^(O.o)^



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2016, 01:48:36 PM »
I mean if I wanted to masturbate over scores, there's https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/4ijfh9/review_megathread/ with majority at 9 or more and what reason do I have to believe two reviews with low score over all of these when their reasons could range from ignorance to paid reviews to clickbaiting? And there's 'overwhelmingly positive' score for it on steam which a far better way of actually determining a "score" for any game (but if I wanted to play the devil's advocate, I'd also point out that most of those reviews haven't played the game long enough for a proper review). Really I wish scores would just die out.



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2016, 01:00:27 AM »
Alright, so having played 20 hours and having read the PCgamer review, I can say the criticism isn't wrong really. But again I have to wonder what he would say about a campaign of EU4 where you stare at the screen as 50 years roll by with your hands tied by AIs making super alliances cockblocking your every move. What about a campaign of CK2 which even after 4 years of DLCs it still always ends in you steamrolling through the map because the AIs never threatens you unless you decide to roleplay a maniacal tyrant?

What he says is not incorrect yet it's not unlike the other Paradox games either. Funny as it may sound, sandbox games by design lead to anything from extreme boredom to an absolute fuckfest of insanity depeding on how the game feels like playing out on that day. If Stellaris is tipped on the side of boredom then it's an easy thing to change for the devs (or the modders).

For me Stellaris is absolutely the best and most fun 4x I have played even in the current state, period. Far above Endless Space for instance and a big part of why is that there's just so many fucking cool mechanics in the game to play around with. My problem is that it's just rough at the moment as not even the first patches have landed. It's not an outright unplayable buggy mess (like the latest Batman or something) but it's the little things that pop up as you try micromanaging your sectors and your pops... the game just doesn't let you do certain things that you should be able to. No mapmodes yet the game obviously needs them. Minor bugs in an otherwise great UI. It seems like the game was basically semi-rushed to be released ahead of HOI4 for whatever reason and so they left some things half done and started polishing the game for release.

So how do I score a game that is the best in it's genre yet needs work to really show what it can do? I don't fucking know. :D Would I recommend it to a fan of 4x games who is familiar with the reality of how they are developed AKA full of annoying minor bugs and in need of major rebalancing? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to a person who is looking for either CK2 or EU4 in space? Not at all and I don't understand how these people expected anything like them because the developers certainly never kept their motives hidden. Would I recommend it to a random bystander who might be interested in strategy games? Don't fucking know... I've been playing Paradox games since the first one the released in 99 as well as 4x games so I have no idea what they would even expect.



Brevi

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2016, 09:09:58 PM »
I will buy Stellaris too, but I think I will wait until I get bored with Doom. By then it will hopefully have all them patches and maybe even a DLC or two.

There is an insect race that looks just like the Shadows from Babylon 5. I'm so picking them! :D
^(O.o)^



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2016, 09:55:07 PM »
My first game closely resembled the Earth-Mimbari war. :P Except they didn't stop at Earth and proceeded to slaughter the entire population by orbital bombardment. :|



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2016, 11:55:18 PM »
Holy mother of all space battles.




Whoever thought adding a bunch of flashing effects and circles on EVERY ship was a good idea lols? Was simple enough to mod them away and it didn't even break achievements (I hope).







Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2016, 11:30:18 AM »
I will never ever get bored of fleet battles in this game. So many weapon types, such cool ship designs compared to a lot of space games out there. I had to create two mods to fix the visuals tho:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=687037851
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=683121431




Also working on my 'space UN' mod (quoted post from the forums):
Spoiler for Hiden:
Quote
STATUS: Work in progress.

Something I've been playing around with. I wanted to implement a mechanic similar to the UN elections from Civ 4. I'm not sure how well it fits into the gameplay yet but I think I got it working mostly properly aside from a couple of issues.

It's supposed to be more of a flavor thing for mid/late game with small modifiers giving bonuses to various things and so on. Also, it's not meant to make empires love each other even more and to make the game more boring, quite the opposite if I can manage it.

Basic mechanics:

1. A rare tech is researched which enables a project if that empire was the first to research it. The project is completed. The 'Galactic Council' is founded where the founder starts as the president and automatically sends out invites to every known empire. After everyone has been invited, the founder's presidency term start.

2. Every 2(?) years the presidency rotates around the council members. Everyone is placed in queue that ensures that the presidency rotates through every member before starting over again. New presidents and new members are placed last in the queue etc.

3. Once during each member's presidency, they will get to call a vote on something. Each member gets one vote per 10 pops. A vote is passed if it is supported by a 66% majority.

4. Any council member is free to defy anything voted through by the council but it will give a negative empire modifier and a negative opinion modifiers from the council members. They can also choose to secede from the council which will really piss them off.

Vote options:
These could be anything. I've just implement a couple of random things:

1. Expand the council. The current president sends out invites to any empire known to him.

2. Free Trade Agreement. An empire modifier with credit bonus and more ethics drift.

3. Set a council policy for 10 years. Ban/adopt slavery, migration, bombardment etc.
Three free patches coming up:
Spoiler for Hiden:
Quote
"CLARKE" HIGHLIGHTS
-Fixes to the Ethic Divergence and Convergence issues. Currently, Pops tend to get more and more neutral (they lose Ethics, but rarely gain new ones.)
-The End of Combat Summary. This screen looks bad and also doesn’t tell you what you need to know in order to revise your ship designs, etc.
-Sector Management GUI: There are many issues with this, and we will try to get most of them fixed.
-Diplomacy GUI issues. This includes the Diplomatic Pop-Ups when other empires contact you, but also more and better looking Notifications, and more informative tooltips on wars, etc.
-AI improvements: Notably the Sector AI, but also plenty of other things. This kind of work is never "finished"...
-Myriads of bug fixes and smaller GUI improvements.
-Late game crises bugs. There were some nasty bugs in there, blocking certain subplots and various surprising developments.
-EDIT: Remaining Performance Issues. We know about them; they might even be hotfixed before Clarke.
-EDIT: Corvettes are too good.
Spoiler for Hiden:
Quote
"ASIMOV" HIGHLIGHTS (NOT SET IN STONE!)
-Border Access Revision: Borders are now open to your ships by default, although empires can choose to Close their borders for another empire (lowering your relations, of course.)
-Tributaries: New diplomatic status and corresponding war goals.
-Joint Declarations of War: You can ask other empires to join you for a temporary alliance in a war against a specific target. Defensive Pacts.
-Harder to form and maintain proper Alliances.
-More war goals: Humiliate, Open Borders, Make Tributary, etc.
-Emancipation Faction. We had to cut this one at the last minute. Needs redesign.
-Diplomatic Map Mode. Much requested!
-Diplomatic Incidents: This is a whole class of new scripted events that causes more interaction with the other empires.
Spoiler for Hiden:
Quote
CURRENT "HEINLEIN" INTENTIONS
-Sector and Faction Politics: We are working on a design for this. I always wanted to make Factions more closely tied to Sectors, for example...
-Federation and Alliance Politics: As a player, you need more ways of interacting with the other members, push your will through, and get elected, etc.
-Giving Directions to Allies and Subject States.
-Strategic Resource Overhaul: You should need these and search for them far and wide. They should be extremely important.
-Battleship Class Weapons. Some Battleship front sections will be repurposed for an XL size weapon slot. There are currently four ship sizes but only three sizes to weapons, creating an imbalance. Also, Battleships should have fewer small weapon slots and have to rely on screens of smaller ships.
-Fleet Combat Mechanics: Formations and/or more complex ship behavior is needed.
-Mid-game scripted content: Guarded “treasures”, mid-game crises, colony events, etc.
-Living Solar Systems: Little civilian ships moving around, etc.



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2016, 07:02:04 PM »



Xaviz

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2016, 11:16:59 PM »
DEATH TO AMERICA!



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2016, 02:24:53 PM »
Quote
I find myself shocked, giving this game a negative review, but here we are. Been a fan of total war since the original Medieval, and own all of them except Attila. This game, while pretty with lots of cool Warhammer lore, is a step backwards.

The campaign map is even more simplified than Rome, the AI suffers from several deficiencies, first of which is an inordinate amount of attention on the player (Ork raiders bypassing weak AI settlements, sometimes several, to wreak havoc in your province). And again, an old problem has yet to be corrected, the ability of the AI to have MASSIVE armies with a single territory under their control. On higher difficulties, the AI is blatanly abusive of mechanics (It can outrun you and it knows it). The hero system is not very intuitive, nor is there much help on the matter.

Combat has also suffered from over simplification. Gone are your unit formations (you only have two, misssle front, missle rear). Combat is also incredibly fast. It may be nitpicky, but I really liked zooming in on close combat and watching the models kick the tar out of each other in amusing ways. Now, units are destroyed and flee at such a pace as it makes enjoying the scene practically impossible. Elsewhere it has been mentioned that there is some sort of mechanic that buffs armies that have greater numbers than their foes. In the days of yore, a well thought out defense, making use of terrain, unit strengths, and cover meant you could outwit and defeat a much larger and better equipped force, or at least bloody their noses enough to slow them down. Now, if you are outnumbered, the battles are incredibly lopsided, no matter what you do. This mechanic plays in your favor as well. A small AI force can be routed almost instantly, and you will take minimal casualties. One final mention on battles, ranged weapons and artillery are DEVASTATINGLY accurate. Not only are they accurate, but they are an absolute menace, to you or the AI. Artillery can wipe out entire units long before they ever engage, and fire with accuracy that would make an olympic marksman green at the gills, regardles of cover.

Diplomacy, while always the whipping child of Total War, has been oversimplified again. They were going a good direction with Empire and Shogun II, I was hoping they would refine it, but instead it has essentially returned to Medieval II, without the diplomat units. AI regions do not support each other, or seem to care that you are slaughtering their Bretonnian brethren while you trade with them and grant military access. Your allies bail on you at the first sign of invasion. This is all run of the mill for the Total War Franchise, but the step backward in developement is a disappointment.

This is the first review I have ever written, but the disappointment in this game was quite disheartening. I love Total War, but this feels like a beta at best, and with some major internal mechanical flaws. I hope it gets better, but so far this is the only Total War game to let me down and feel like I wasted money.

All I need to know to avoid this game like the plague. This and watching a stream for 30min of someone who was already autoresolving every battle and raging at some annoying grudge system in the campaign mode. Now, the game has a few good things going for it. It's Warhammer. It has a lot of apparently diverse factions to play. That's about it. I couldn't tell the difference in the battles between this and all the other Total War games in terms of gameplay. You would think that being Warhammer, there would be something SUBSTATIALLY new at least. The only reason to play this game is because you can watch the same old Total War but with some slightly cooler warhammer textures but I know I would quit the game after 2 days.

It's the same old story but somehow even less. Visually it's nowhere near as impressive as the marketing screenshots would suggest. Show me a random zoomed out screen of this and Shogun 2 and it would be the same. The animations are worse than in previous games, there's no blood (WTF - it's warhammer), everything has been simplified and the combat runs at arcade speeds yet again and on it goes. And then there's the Chaos DLC (adds completely new playstyle, dozens of units etc.) which you won't get unless you preordered a franchise with a notoriously shitty history. No doubt it'll be up for 15 bucks later.

Fuck the campaign mode, give me Warhammer Dark Omen 2 with just the tactical battles and an actually competent tactical AI.



Melrax

Re: Strategy Games 2016 edition
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2016, 01:54:00 PM »


Hearts of Iron IV just a week away, time to get hyped.

Review predictions: IGN plays one game with Albania, complains how there is nothing you can do. PCGamer picks USA and complains how the game is too easy. 1/10.

Alright, serious predictions:

-This is the flagship title for Paradox even though Stellaris was more advertised and probably sells more than HOI4. HOI4 development was started before Stellaris and it will be released after Stellaris so it won't feel as rushed.

-I'm not convinced the AI will give you much challenge at normal difficulty. I'll probably mod in a custom difficulty as I have in every HOI.

-Balance issues and some broken mechanics are 100% a given since this is a sandbox game.

-Reviews will range from casual people complaining how the game is too confusing to people who complain how you don't have to micro 500 units one by one or study 20 different map modes to see why your unit won't move.