Video Games: No Man's Pie

[Werthead]

It looks like the entire Mass Effect Trilogy is going to be remastered.

Normally I'd say it's unnecessary - ME2 and 3 look pretty good still - but ME1 is in dire need of updating. It doesn't work without some fiddling on PC, the controls, UI and shooting are a bit ropey compared to the later two games and the ELEVATORS OF LOADING AND EXPOSITION need to be amended, quickly.

I doubt they'll move all three games onto Frostbite, but the beauty of the Unreal Engine is how malleable it is and how well they can update it.

On 15/08/2016 at 7:47 PM, Talleyrand said:

Mafia II was 80% off on steam which seemed like a fair deal and I remember enjoying the first one so I bought it. Enjoying it so far, seems to be hitting most the beats for a Mafia story with more than a couple obvious influences/homages/rip-offs of popular films and tropes but it's not totally cliche.

And it's not a GTA clone like I'd feared which was made rather clear when I got a fine for speeding in the first 20 minutes of playing.

It's not a patch on the first game, but it's okay. Definitely not a GTA clone and the shooting is decent, whilst it looks brilliant. But it not a very distinctive game in terms of atmosphere and the story and characters suck massively compared to the first game (which remains absolutely brilliant).

Mafia III is looking pretty decent at the moment though. That'll be very tempting on release.

[The Anti-Targ]

A remaster of ME1 isn't really going to improve those less good elements much, except it will look a bit better. I'm not likely to pick up the remaster, I'm just hanging out for ME4.

[Azzanadra]

RE No Man's Sky: A redditor compiled all the features that were advertised or alluded to being in game but did not make it: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y046e/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/

This whole debacle with NMS has forced an interesting quetsion, I didn't buy into the hype personally but even I did not anticipate this level of a dumpster fire.

 

In other news, the new Deus Ex is coming in a week, and if my avatar is anything to go by, I am very exited for what was one of my favourite games last generation. Early impressions are either saying that its like Human Revolution but better or just as good, in either case I would be stoked. 

[The Drunkard]

"To the No Man's Sky Haters... Tread Lightly"

Shame about the game though. I thought the original trailer looked really cool. 

My Suebian campaign in Attila took a turn. Built a fleet and another couple of armies to invade the ERE, but then Attila rocked up and I've been fighting him in northern Italy since. Horse archers are a fucking menace. They ended up taking and sacking Genoa, which I'm going to blame on the map allowing them to stand on a little area that lets them shoot down onto the walls at one section, which they took advantage of and wiped out a lot of my archers and spearmen. 

[Talleyrand]

I keep on wanting to play Attila more as it made quite a few good improvements on Rome 2 but running on my comp the end turns just take so goddamn long that unless I play Charlemagne which is more bearable I just can't be  arsed sitting through it time and time again.

[Rhom]

7 hours ago, Azzanadra said:

RE No Man's Sky: A redditor compiled all the features that were advertised or alluded to being in game but did not make it: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y046e/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/

This whole debacle with NMS has forced an interesting quetsion, I didn't buy into the hype personally but even I did not anticipate this level of a dumpster fire.

 

In other news, the new Deus Ex is coming in a week, and if my avatar is anything to go by, I am very exited for what was one of my favourite games last generation. Early impressions are either saying that its like Human Revolution but better or just as good, in either case I would be stoked. 

The list was deleted when I clicked on it.  Too bad.

I played it some more yesterday... not entirely sure why.  I think its more the incremental progress aspect that so many games have tapped into these days.    

[Jasta11]

10 hours ago, Azzanadra said:

RE No Man's Sky: A redditor compiled all the features that were advertised or alluded to being in game but did not make it: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/4y046e/wheres_the_nms_we_were_sold_on_heres_a_big_list/

This whole debacle with NMS has forced an interesting quetsion, I didn't buy into the hype personally but even I did not anticipate this level of a dumpster fire.

Yikes, I'll say it with the guy, this is some Colonial Marines level of BS. The outrage over this is completely justified. A few features being cut is one thing, but it looks like half the game was ripped off to leave nothing but a shallow experience, months from launch. Really sad.

This is another lesson on the dangers of hype, however. The developpers aren't the only ones to blame. The is a sizeable amount of people who filled in the blanks left by Murray with all their hopes and dreams, so that even IF this game actually ended up feature complete, some level of disappointment was always going to remain since some people (literally!) thought the game promised them the universe.

It's a recurring problem with indie games and Kickstarted ones, I feel. So many people want so many features, it's very hard to include them all. And many people also fall in love with the idea of a game, rather than the actual game that's going to be released. Which of course further fuels the hype and pre-order culture, and, well, we see the results. Totalbiscuit explains it quite well in his latest video.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Wow, thats really awful about No Mans Sky, although its been getting some decent if rather mediocre reviews from what I've been seeing. I think that the difference is that it probably feels like an amazing game until you really get into it, at which point you realise that it lacks a lot of the depth you imagined was there. I've come across many games like that, initially thinking there was something incredible laying in there, but then realising the actual gameplay is monotonous and linear. I had a similar feeling with Fallout 4, which gives the appearance of depth but really is pretty shallow in terms of what you do (survival mode helped to reignite my interest in it)

But as for this, it seems like a bad case of the Peter Molyneuxs. Over promising and under delivering. Seemingly the only way to get peoples interest up in these games is to make big statements early on and then you've got an instant fanbase. But then once you have deadlines, start running out of cash, you realise you can't get it made. Its kind of sad. But then I've played plenty of games where I've had to wait a couple of years for it to be patched up to a reasonable level to be playable.

Total War Attila being one of them!
 

5 hours ago, Talleyrand said:

I keep on wanting to play Attila more as it made quite a few good improvements on Rome 2 but running on my comp the end turns just take so goddamn long that unless I play Charlemagne which is more bearable I just can't be  arsed sitting through it time and time again.

I bought Charlemagne but found it very difficult to be motivated to play it. Now I've got Warhammer I'm not sure I can ever go back to the older games. Although logically I like all the resource decisions and empire building, now I've come back from the more simplistic Warhammer, the old games seem so clunky and overly complex without being interesting. Plus the battles all feel the same, Spears hit spears, Cavalry flanks.. end game. ZZZZ. 

 

[Jasta11]

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

 

I bought Charlemagne but found it very difficult to be motivated to play it. Now I've got Warhammer I'm not sure I can ever go back to the older games. Although logically I like all the resource decisions and empire building, now I've come back from the more simplistic Warhammer, the old games seem so clunky and overly complex without being interesting. Plus the battles all feel the same, Spears hit spears, Cavalry flanks.. end game. ZZZZ. 

 

Yeah, it's the bane of older Total Wars. Until we actually got something different, it was fine, but when Warhammer added cool stuff like monsters, zombies, magic, heroes and flying units to the mix, it's hard to go back to the same old hammer and anvil tactics against the same old humans with spears and funny hats.

And I often found the campaign map portion of Total Wars to be... I don't know, a bit of a waste of time? I'm not here to balance sanitation and keep 2 unit armies in every settlement to avoid rebellions. There are many other games that do it, and do it better. I'm here to fight the massive real-time battles that make Total War unique. If I want an in-depth historical simulatior, Paradox games are that way ->.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

Yeah, it's the bane of older Total Wars. Until we actually got something different, it was fine, but when Warhammer added cool stuff like monsters, zombies, magic, heroes and flying units to the mix, it's hard to go back to the same old hammer and anvil tactics against the same old humans with spears and funny hats.

And I often found the campaign map portion of Total Wars to be... I don't know, a bit of a waste of time? I'm not here to balance sanitation and keep 2 unit armies in every settlement to avoid rebellions. There are many other games that do it, and do it better. I'm here to fight the massive real-time battles that make Total War unique. If I want an in-depth historical simulatior, Paradox games are that way ->.

I know what you mean. I love the idea of those Paradox games and stuff like Civ 5.. But once you mix it into total war games it leaves a lot to be desired. Suddenly it all just becomes a massive chore, and there are almost no battles.

Think Napoleon was my fave of the old games because you actually feel like you are in charge of a military campaign. 

Total war has never really got past the old risk board style map however, that was much better than the 'real time' map. 

Warhammer adds so much fun to itself , something that was really missing. Ironically its stuff that was in Rome 1, but I think the devs paid too much attention to hard core fans wanting realism. 

[The Drunkard]

9 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

And I often found the campaign map portion of Total Wars to be... I don't know, a bit of a waste of time? I'm not here to balance sanitation and keep 2 unit armies in every settlement to avoid rebellions. There are many other games that do it, and do it better. I'm here to fight the massive real-time battles that make Total War unique. If I want an in-depth historical simulatior, Paradox games are that way ->.

Yeah, but in my experience the campaign map puts you into scenarios that you (probably) wouldn't ever create just doing custom matches, and, while I can give sanitation and fertility a miss, having to keep an eye on diplomacy and larger scale strategy seems pretty fundamental.

[Jace, Extat]

I loves Attila and have no interest in Warhammer. I like the campaign map especially, as it let's me feel like a real conqueror, governing and maintaining what I've captured. I really hope they don't do this Warhammer stuff forever. I'd do terrible things for a Medieval 3. I tried to play 2 last week but it's just too dated next to Attila.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I think if the features they added actually worked as suggested they could be some phenomenal games. Empire total war would have been my absolute favourite, I loved trying to create a modern Turkish empire based on rationalism , or creating German colonies based on factory power.

But the actual mechanics of the game were rather tedious, battles quite similar and there didn't ever feel like the world had changed much around me. It was also littered with bugs and was actually quite ugly. 

Rome 2 had some great ideas but never followed through on them, too much emphasis on balancing tiny numbers and tedious building. 

Thats why for some reason war hammer works, it removed all the stuff they couldn't do well and added restrictions which meant the game worked better. I thought I'd hate it as well because of your above reasons but I dont

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I still play Medieval II. Partly because my laptop can't run any of the new ones very well, but mostly because it's damn fun.

1 hour ago, The Drunkard said:

Yeah, but in my experience the campaign map puts you into scenarios that you (probably) wouldn't ever create just doing custom matches, and, while I can give sanitation and fertility a miss, having to keep an eye on diplomacy and larger scale strategy seems pretty fundamental.

I agree with this. There are no stakes in custom battles. Knowing the wider context of the battle really increases the immersion for me.

[Werthead]

3 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I loves Attila and have no interest in Warhammer. I like the campaign map especially, as it let's me feel like a real conqueror, governing and maintaining what I've captured. I really hope they don't do this Warhammer stuff forever. I'd do terrible things for a Medieval 3. I tried to play 2 last week but it's just too dated next to Attila.

Creative Assembly have two teams, one of which will do the second and third Warhammer episodes. Their other team is doing the next historical game.

It's not been made clear if they're going to overlap the releases or keep them separate. I think we're getting the second and third Warhammer games in 2017 and 2018, so the next historical game would either have to come out between them or be held back until late 2018 or even 2019. Which given the need for better polish compared to Rome II is probably no bad thing.

I also think that the time is ripe for a Medieval III. It's been ten years this year since Medieval II. Although I think II is certainly still perfectly playable, especially modded up. I would want Medieval III to drop all this province stuff and this crap about not being able to send 50 pikemen ten miles along the coast without commissioning an experienced general to hold their hand. That's some kind of bullshit right there which really made playing Rome II and Warhammer far more of a chore than it should be.

[Werthead]

This Kotaku review of No Man's Sky seems to be quite on-point. The reviewer tried playing the game as a game the first time out and found himself hating it. When he switched to PC he took a completely different approach and ended up really enjoying it. Interesting.

[Jace, Extat]

Thanks for the info, Wert. Do you know anything about Star Citizen other than we'll never see it?

[Talleyrand]

Total War is consistently my more annoying kind of sequel. The type that might not be more fun to play than it's predecessor but makes enough small improvements that going back and playing older entries to the series annoying. 

Medieval 2 might be the one I sank the most hours into but going back it just feels clunky to play. Equally as fun as Shogun is it makes me miss some of the newer innovations and improvements that showed up in Rome and Warhammer.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 hours ago, Talleyrand said:

Total War is consistently my more annoying kind of sequel. The type that might not be more fun to play than it's predecessor but makes enough small improvements that going back and playing older entries to the series annoying. 

Medieval 2 might be the one I sank the most hours into but going back it just feels clunky to play. Equally as fun as Shogun is it makes me miss some of the newer innovations and improvements that showed up in Rome and Warhammer.

Med 2 was definitely the best IMO, like you I sunk hundreds of hours into it. I think its the sheer variety in the game that really made me keep going back to it. Each faction was very different and the challenge was different each time. Playing as the Turks was different to playing as the English or French, or Egyptians, or Byzantines. It was an interesting time period as well and the technological advances meant that you would have wildly different armies by the end than you did at the start. For instances as the Ottomans I started with crappy peasants and horse archers and finished off with huge cannons and jannisary gunners. Compare that to Rome 2 where you start with one type of sword infantry and end with another slightly better one. 

 

[Werthead]

Medieval II also had by far the best expansion (Kingdoms is basically four large expansions rolled into one) and of course the best mods, by far. The mods for the later game are really nothing more than fiddling around the margins since CA locked out the really cool stuff.

Quote

Thanks for the info, Wert. Do you know anything about Star Citizen other than we'll never see it?

I suspect we'll see it - I mea, you can play it right now - but it's going to fall far short of Chris Roberts's promises and probably be just meh (shades of Freelancer all over again). There's also the prospect of major legal shitstorms with the pricing model.

I have little interest in SC itself, but I'm really hoping that Squadron 42 gets off the ground and is really good. Erin Roberts is actually a really good game designer and doesn't have his brother's tendency to over-promise and under-deliver.