Video Games: Thread Simulator 2016

[Werthead]

The Mad Max videogame (henceforth known as Mad Max in a Balloon) is quite fun and rather bizarrely addictive. These "hoover 'em up" icon games have spread like wildfire in the last few years and they're starting to get a bit dull (Watch_Dogs wasn't great, Shadows of Mordor didn't work because both of the maps were miniscule, Far Cry 4 was all right but too similar to 3), but for some reason with Mad Max it really works. The wasteland setting, Avalanche's excellent handle on what makes these games fun rather than chores and the satisfying combat all combine into something pretty cool, along with the upgradeable vehicle and the crazy-arse characters and dialogue that sounds like it's come off an actual film.

The main downside is that there is probably way too much to do. You could spend 100 hours on this game easily, but I think it'd get way too repetitive to justify it. Also the game is probably a bit too generous in the rewards it dishes out. The skill trees and car and armour upgrades are simply far too easy to max out.

[SkynJay]

Civ6 is the first game I have pre ordered since Warcraft 3.  I'm loving it thus far.  Like Fez said it feels like I bought two expansions already.  Still trying to figure some stuff out, and there has to be some tweeks to the AI (stuck in an ever war with China because they won settle for peace without crazy concessions even as I dominate them).

 

But city-states feel right it's time, Rome''s surprise attack on me was truly unexpected and awesome, and global happiness is just a bad memory.

[Jace, Extat]

I like that war is no longer absolutely crippling, I don't know what specifically they changed but I'm much more willing to keep standing armies and use them now.

[SkynJay]

Since Civ2 I have been a Wonder hoarder who then goes for domination late game with tanks and stuff.  Early War is so much better now.

[Kalbear]

55 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I like that war is no longer absolutely crippling, I don't know what specifically they changed but I'm much more willing to keep standing armies and use them now.

Wait. I was told war never changes

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Wait. I was told war never changes

I wish that opening line would change.

[Fez]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Wait. I was told war never changes

Ron Perlman lied to you so to that you'd get complacent and miss his sneak attack to take the only city in the world with access to niter.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Ron Perlman lied to you so to that you'd get complacent and miss his sneak attack to take the only city in the world with access to niter.

 MOTHER FUCK

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

16 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I like that war is no longer absolutely crippling, I don't know what specifically they changed but I'm much more willing to keep standing armies and use them now.

I always found that incredibly annoying about Civ 5, so this is good news. May pick this game up soon.

[A True Kaniggit]

I like that they made it so I can finally raze city-states to the ground. The fact that I couldn't destroy them annoyed me so much in 5 that most of the time I didn't include them in my matches. 

Edit: And I'm a little slow on the uptake. Apparently your city center doesn't have to be next to the ocean for it to have a harbor. 

[Slurktan]

9 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Apparently your city center doesn't have to be next to the ocean for it to have a harbor. 

You want your cities next to fresh water pretty much always in 6.  It's quite a change,

[Jace, Extat]

I'm a little annoyed at how few Civs there are, and there's 2 damn Greece's!!! And they're exactly the fucking same!

Feels a bit cheap.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Really enjoying Civ 6, although it doesn't feel massively different to Civ 5 to me. The subtle changes they have made are welcomed however, I think Districts are a good idea, and I get more of a sense of being able to 'role play' my civ more than ever.  Previously I always felt like there was an optimal way to set your civ up and if you deviated from that you were essentially holding yourself back. I really like this system of getting better at the stuff you do more of 'Eureka' moments. That is a great idea.

So now my Russian Empire is specialised  on heavy production and military strength, because I played like a civ that builds big armies and digs things out of the ground. My British save was awesome at seafaring because I spent a lot of time on naval pursuits. 

[KiDisaster]

7 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm a little annoyed at how few Civs there are, and there's 2 damn Greece's!!! And they're exactly the fucking same!

Feels a bit cheap.

They have different special abilities. Gorgo's gives you culture every time you kill an enemy unit and is awesome, Pericles' has something to do with city states. I think it's pretty cool to have multiple leaders for the same Civ. I think they're going to be adding more along with new Civs in DLC/expansions. 

8 hours ago, Slurktan said:

You want your cities next to fresh water pretty much always in 6.  It's quite a change,

You can build aqueducts to make up for the lost housing though. 

[Ded As Ned]

Anybody going to pickup Skyrim SE?  My "kids" are getting a PS4 for christmas, and I'd love to play this at the higher resolutions, but the fact you can't import your saves/characters is a big turnoff for me.  (I'm still trudging along on the PS3... up to about level 20.  Apparently I progressed the main storyline way too far-too soon, so now I'm having to go back and work through all the side quests I've missed. Really wish I hadn't unleashed the dragons as soon as I did, because now every time I have to travel somewhere new it's a major PITA.  )

[Fez]

9 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm a little annoyed at how few Civs there are, and there's 2 damn Greece's!!! And they're exactly the fucking same!

Feels a bit cheap.

It is cool though how they switched up a lot of the leaders and used more obscure ones. Like France. France is almost always led by Napoleon in Civ games, with Charles de Gaul, Louis XIV, and Joan of Arc making cameo appearances. Now its Catherine de Medici of all people.

[KiDisaster]

1 hour ago, Ded As Ned said:

Anybody going to pickup Skyrim SE?  My "kids" are getting a PS4 for christmas, and I'd love to play this at the higher resolutions, but the fact you can't import your saves/characters is a big turnoff for me.  (I'm still trudging along on the PS3... up to about level 20.  Apparently I progressed the main storyline way too far-too soon, so now I'm having to go back and work through all the side quests I've missed. Really wish I hadn't unleashed the dragons as soon as I did, because now every time I have to travel somewhere new it's a major PITA.  )

I think I get it for free on Steam because I own the base game and all the DLC. It's kinda pointless on PC though. 

Really cool that consoles are finally getting mods available. 

[Ded As Ned]

15 minutes ago, KiDisaster said:

I think I get it for free on Steam because I own the base game and all the DLC. It's kinda pointless on PC though. 

Really cool that consoles are finally getting mods available. 

This is one of the reasons I keep considering building myself a gaming PC.  I always end up justifying the money towards something more utilitarian (like new tires, car repairs, clothing, food, etc.)... but it really sucks all the games I own on the PS3 that I also want to play on the PS4 I'm going to have to purchase again, or just keep playing them on the PS3.  I get that I'm really late to the party in upgrading, but with a PC this would be a non-issue.

Anyway, Re: Skyrim... if I could keep my character across the PS3/PS4 versions and keep going I would buy it in a heartbeat.  For now I'll be on the fence.  I'm generally not one to replay these long haul games more than once every few years or more.  If I enjoy them enough. 

[Reny of Storms End]

11 minutes ago, Ded As Ned said:

This is one of the reasons I keep considering building myself a gaming PC.  I always end up justifying the money towards something more utilitarian (like new tires, car repairs, clothing, food, etc.)... but it really sucks all the games I own on the PS3 that I also want to play on the PS4 I'm going to have to purchase again, or just keep playing them on the PS3.  I get that I'm really late to the party in upgrading, but with a PC this would be a non-issue.

Anyway, Re: Skyrim... if I could keep my character across the PS3/PS4 versions and keep going I would buy it in a heartbeat.  For now I'll be on the fence.  I'm generally not one to replay these long haul games more than once every few years or more.  If I enjoy them enough. 

Once you buy the PS4 get a PS Now subscription (separate from PS Plus) and you can play streaming versions of older games on your console. I've never utilized it, but my roommate has and he never mentioned any problems. The games aren't remastered or anything like that, but they have a pretty large library of games to choose from. 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 23/10/2016 at 2:51 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

Okay, having dived into Rise of the Tomb Raider a bit more I think it's a really good game but I think it's definitely a marked step down from the previous one.

1. The absence of Lara's supporting cast except for Jonah: Basically, Lara is suddenly a lone wolf in this game and the aspect of her supporting cast on the island had humanized her a great deal. The previous game had done a lot to make her more than shapely Super Mario and now suddenly she's back to being a person shooting a large number of people to steal ancient relics. I also strongly miss Sam who was nicely confirmed as Lara's bestie.

2. The quest for the Divine Source is never quite as pressing: Lara in the previous game was working on survival and attempting to help her friends. Here, there's a handwave she's trying to help redeem her father's reputation but it feels shoe-horned in from the Angelina Jolie movie. There's never really a good explanation for why Lara is so desperate to recover the Not-Holy Grail.

3. The villains are less compelling and kind of reak of anti-Catholicism: So, the Vatican has a hidden army of EVIL Knights Templar wannabees who are psychotic religious fanatics. They're after the Divine Source and Lara has to stop them. They're also potentially the people who killed her father. Matthias and the Solari at least had the reasonable justification they're trying to get off Hell IslandTM.

4. Quite a bit of this feels a bit familiar: It feels in many ways like a reskin of the previous game with Lara vs. an army of religious fanatics as well as a bunch of supernatural monsters. I know that's the nature of sequels but they could have gone in quite a few different directions.

 

On 23/10/2016 at 10:17 AM, Pony Queen Jace said:

I never finished it, I loved the first one and was literally the only person at the 'midnight' (happened at 9 pm) release who was there for Tomb Raider instead of Fallout 4, but it just felt... stale.

Well that dampens my enthusiasm a bit. Being I'm only just in the market for RoTTR having waited a year for it to come to PS4, hearing people who really liked the reboot being less enthused by the sequel to the reboot is a concern. I liked the reboot but I didn't gush over it. I think I still owe it to myself to play it though.