[garygreen]

been playing stellaris when i have the time.  i would recommend it to anyone who likes the 4x genre and/or anyone who likes paradox games.  it's rather barebones right now (although still very fun), but eu4 wasn't built in a day.  they've got a solid platform to do what paradox does best and methodically churn out years of spectacular updates and dlc based on what the community actually asks for.  it's really fun now, and it's only going to get better over time.

[Rama Set]

What is the 4x genre and what is a paradox game?

[garygreen]

What is the 4x genre and what is a paradox game?

confusing lack of capitalization.  4x is basically the genre for strategy games like civilization.  expand, explore, something, something else, can't remember.

paradox interactive is my favorite video game developer/publisher.  they made crusader kings and europa universalis, and they've had their hands in some other quality titles like cities: skylines.  but grand strategy games like eu and ck are their bread and butter.  ck2 might be my favorite game ever, mostly because of the exceptionally amazing game of thrones mod.  srsly it's "littlefinger: the video game" set in a completely canonical planetos.  it's awesome.

[George]

Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.

[garygreen]

Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate exfoliate.

fixd

[beardo]

o

I've never heard of that game before. What is it about? It sounds like a minimalistic indie game or something.

Are you daft? I was responding to The Terror.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Just finished Mass Effect 2 for the first time. Arrived too late to save most of the crew apart from Doctor Chakwas, the Scottish engineer, and a couple of unnamed crew, but kept all but one of my team alive during the Suicide Mission (I had Samara lead the second fire team - I thought they'd need a powerful biotic to deal with the bug things.)

All in all, ME2 felt like a natural extension to ME, with a much improved weapon and upgrade system. One downside, I felt, was the combat which felt far too restrictive and far too dependant on cover mechanics. Also, the hub areas felt really small and needed the big sprawling areas like the Presidium.

[rooster]

One downside, I felt, was the combat which felt far too restrictive and far too dependant on cover mechanics. Also, the hub areas felt really small and needed the big sprawling areas like the Presidium.

Agreed. This, and the weaker story, is why my favorite is still the first one.

Also, you have so many companions and have to gain their loyalty. It felt like such a chore.

[The Terror]

The nice thing about Mass Effect 2 is that if you don't like any of your companions, you can always try to get them killed in the final mission.

[George]

On beardo's recommendation, I played DOOM.  It's great!  I'm really glad that they kept true to the characteristics of the older games in the series, and didn't try to emulate modern shooters by including recharging health, a two-weapon limit, reloading, and the like.  Or, for that matter, a lengthy intro mission that just has you walking around in a safe area while a bunch of NPCs talk to you.  Seriously, why the fuck has that last one become so common in shooters?  It's not like they can't have a story or anything, but there are other ways to deliver exposition than just putting the action on hold for ten or fifteen minutes at the start of the game so the characters can explain it all to you.

The only (minor) problem that I had with the game is that the villain was completely pointless.  Technically, yeah, she set everything into motion, but as far as the gameplay goes, she's meaningless.  You barely interact with her at all throughout the game, and whenever she appeared in a hologram or was mentioned in dialogue, she might as well have been just randomly popping up to say "oh btw I exist."  There was no need to include her in the game.  If they wanted to give us a villain, then they should have gone all out and given us an awesome villain, not a great big nothing.

[beardo]

Or, for that matter, a lengthy intro mission that just has you walking around in a safe area while a bunch of NPCs talk to you.  Seriously, why the fuck has that last one become so common in shooters?

So that the player can enjoy a
CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE

[Ghost Spaghetti]

I always understood it to be a way of having a safe space to play with the controls, work out the mechanics, what have you.

[Crudblud]

I always understood it to be a way of having a safe space to play with the controls, work out the mechanics, what have you CONSOLE TIER PUSSY SHIT FOR BABIES

If the player is not dropping motherfuckers within five seconds of loading the first level, the game is bad and the developers should be tarred, feathered, and paraded through the main thoroughfares of major cities while being pelted with rotten fruit and vegetables for their shameful behaviour.

[beardo]

Crudblud gets it.

[juner]

SU and I are playing through Snatcher (aka literally the best game ever made anywhere ever).

[Crudblud]

SU and I are playing through Snatcher (aka literally the best game ever made anywhere ever).

junker knows how to woo the ladies.

[Fortuna]

The last time I played Skyrim was on my friend's PS3. I have a hankering to play it through again, but I don't want to pirate it and I don't want to spend $20, so I'll have to wait for Steam's Winter sale.

[George]

I'm playing the early access version of We Happy Few.  I've been interested in this game ever since I saw its awesome trailer last year:



People who only saw this trailer and didn't look for any more information beyond that may have gotten the wrong impression on what kind of game this is.  It's not a linear, tightly-written action-adventure in the vein of BioShock, but a survival game where you have to scrounge for supplies, manage your hunger, thirst, fatigue, and health, and generally try to stay under the radar.  That doesn't mean there won't be an engaging story worthy of the trippy premise and setting, but it hasn't been included in the early access.  Actually, what makes it worse is that they did include the prologue - and then awkwardly dropped the whole story and dumped you in the overworld for you to play around in.  They would have been better off skipping everything story-related and simply having you test the gameplay.  Anyway, unless you're incredibly hyped for this game and want to play any version of it as soon as you can, there are too many rough edges for me to really recommend paying for it now.  There's a fun and unique game in there somewhere, but it hasn't quite manifested yet.

[Snupes]

Well, yeah, it's an early access game for a reason. It's a work-in-progress and a way for them to find flaws in the game and refine it. I always liken it to beta testing a game. You're not there to get the full experience of the finished product, you're there to help soften those rough edges and help the dev find issues.

At least, that's how I've always seen it.

[Crudblud]

Well, yeah, it's an early access game for a reason. It's a work-in-progress and a way for them to find flaws in the game and refine it. I always liken it to beta testing a game. You're not there to get the full experience of the finished product, you're there to help soften those rough edges and help the dev find issues.

At least, that's how I've always seen it.

Yeah, but at the same time a lot of this "testing" has to be paid for by the tester. Instead of a traditional beta testing programme in which volunteers play the game for free — the lack of financial recompense being intended to disincentivise dishonestly positive feedback — there is what seems to me to be a cynical cashgrab by which people are fobbed off with an incomplete article. Granted, they aren't being asked to pay retail price, but in my opinion, consumers should not be asked to fork over a considerable percentage of retail price in order to "test" an unfinished game. If the deal is that the consumer, in exchange for their money and time, gets a free copy of the finished game, that's more reasonable, but I would still say it's better that no money changes hands before the actual release of the game, not just for the consumer but for the developer. If the whole point of having beta testing involve no monetary impetus is to avoid incentivising testers to gloss over issues (although this doesn't quite match up with video game journalism's long-standing history of payola), I think it stands to reason that having them pay for the privilege of testing could also result in the moderation/manipulation, whether conscious or not, of feedback. I'm not saying this holds true in the case of We Happy Few, because it seems like most people are just disappointed that the game isn't Bioshock with an Orwellian/Huxleyan bent, but I can only imagine that this disappointment has been amplified in quite a few instances by the transaction of money.