Corvinus

Video Games: May the force of your wallet be with you

406 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, Corvinus said:

A standalone total war game set in the British Isles starting in 878 AD. One of things CA will be making in the foreseeable future is a bunch of games that are standalone, but revisit a part of an era we've seen before. This one will probably look close to Attila. Think Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, but with Total War.

What I'm hoping for is very specific mechanics for each of these games that breaks the Total War template a little bit more. Right now they introduce some small changes to the mechanic which makes gameplay a tiny bit different, but overall it feels like exactly the same game every time. Maybe these games will give them more freedom to do something more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I don't get it. What is this thing again?

A good comparison is Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai. According to CA, both of those games would now be a "Total War Saga" title. They're just ultra-focused versions of existing games with fewer factions, but otherwise they're still "proper" Total War games.

 

Quote

 

What I'm hoping for is very specific mechanics for each of these games that breaks the Total War template a little bit more. Right now they introduce some small changes to the mechanic which makes gameplay a tiny bit different, but overall it feels like exactly the same game every time. Maybe these games will give them more freedom to do something more interesting.

 

I think this conversation has been had before but I don't see how they would do this. Some fans want the strategy layer stripped back even more than in the Warhammers and the focus shifted to the battles. Other fans want the battles stripped back and the grand strategy layer made far more complex, intense and detailed, something more like Civilisation and Endless Legend, or even Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis.

CA I think are being conservative in how they approach things as they want to maintain that sweet spot between the two demands.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Werthead said:

A good comparison is Napoleon and Fall of the Samurai. According to CA, both of those games would now be a "Total War Saga" title. They're just ultra-focused versions of existing games with fewer factions, but otherwise they're still "proper" Total War games.

 

I think this conversation has been had before but I don't see how they would do this. Some fans want the strategy layer stripped back even more than in the Warhammers and the focus shifted to the battles. Other fans want the battles stripped back and the grand strategy layer made far more complex, intense and detailed, something more like Civilisation and Endless Legend, or even Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis.

CA I think are being conservative in how they approach things as they want to maintain that sweet spot between the two demands.

My personal preference would be something more akin to EU4 or CK with Total War battles, but I know that will never happen. There is definitely scope for building in more politics and personal intrigue into the games I think, to really make it feel like you are in charge of a region or country rather than making simplistic choices about what 4 slots to fill up in your building browser. Warhammer gave us a simplistic, more streamlined version of the game and now I want to go back the other direction. 

Maybe they are limited by the engine however, I see them reusing the same mechanics over and over again, just renaming them or giving them a lair of paint to make you not notice what is happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

My personal preference would be something more akin to EU4 or CK with Total War battles, but I know that will never happen. There is definitely scope for building in more politics and personal intrigue into the games I think, to really make it feel like you are in charge of a region or country rather than making simplistic choices about what 4 slots to fill up in your building browser. Warhammer gave us a simplistic, more streamlined version of the game and now I want to go back the other direction. 

Maybe they are limited by the engine however, I see them reusing the same mechanics over and over again, just renaming them or giving them a lair of paint to make you not notice what is happening. 

My problem with the TW games is that after a point you'll never be in any danger again and any challenge is entirely self-imposed. Even against factions like the Huns or Chaos it's usually pretty easy to beat them as long as you aren't right where they spawn. CK2 gets around that (to a degree) by only letting you efficiently manage a certain amount of land and the rest needs to be delegated to vassals, which can be just as troubling as foreign rulers. So a smaller, tightly-run kingdom might be more effective than a sprawling empire where independently-minded vassals make trouble for you. I'd like it if governors were converted to dukes (or w/e) where the position was inherited rather than appointed, and they weren't just extensions of the player (as they currently are) but not so independent and disloyal as to be useless, like tributaries are in Attila.

If nothing else they should bring back some diplomatic options from earlier games, like giving/receiving regions in exchange for peace, money or military assistance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

My problem with the TW games is that after a point you'll never be in any danger again and any challenge is entirely self-imposed. Even against factions like the Huns or Chaos it's usually pretty easy to beat them as long as you aren't right where they spawn. CK2 gets around that (to a degree) by only letting you efficiently manage a certain amount of land and the rest needs to be delegated to vassals, which can be just as troubling as foreign rulers. So a smaller, tightly-run kingdom might be more effective than a sprawling empire where independently-minded vassals make trouble for you. I'd like it if governors were converted to dukes (or w/e) where the position was inherited rather than appointed, and they weren't just extensions of the player (as they currently are) but not so independent and disloyal as to be useless, like tributaries are in Attila.

If nothing else they should bring back some diplomatic options from earlier games, like giving/receiving regions in exchange for peace, money or military assistance. 

Yeah steamrolling has always been an issue in TW games. Once your empire is big enough its just easy and mostly it gets really boring to complete. They have made numerous attempts at fixing this, with the Vortex in WH2 for instance, but the issue still remains. It should be that large empires are hard to maintain and so end up being prone to civil wars and breakages, and I guess they have tried to do that before as well.

I know it sounds silly but I prefer these games when they aren't just about endless wars or building massive empires. I've enjoyed wood elf campaigns where I've sat in my little forest and tried to go out and fight evil forces without expanding for instance. Anything to play the game differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave up on my trial of Battlefront II. Starfighters are really unwieldy with mouse & keyboard. After the dozenth time I slammed into Death Star debris, in the campaign, I called it quits. Also, the campaign was the only part of the game that actually interested me, but then I realized that I don't like playing as a Nazi soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still on Elite: Dangerous.  I've got 25mil in the bank but have ran out of desired upgrades for my Cobra MK III... she's been a good ship, and I'm not gonna sell her for now.  I originally had my eye on a Federal Dropship and earned the midshipman rank to purchase it... but have decided instead to go with a decked out Asp Explorer and probably step up to the federal assault ship once I have enough rank... or I might change my mind again before I get the dough to move up further.  I've got some time before I'm at that point.

I've got myself allied status in a few systems now and earning some big bucks for some really fun missions. On the road for work this week so once I get home tomorrow I'm gonna get the Asp and see how I like it.  I haven't done much exploration (battle/recon missions is where I've found the most enjoyment so far), but I might give it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Drunkard said:

My problem with the TW games is that after a point you'll never be in any danger again and any challenge is entirely self-imposed. Even against factions like the Huns or Chaos it's usually pretty easy to beat them as long as you aren't right where they spawn. CK2 gets around that (to a degree) by only letting you efficiently manage a certain amount of land and the rest needs to be delegated to vassals, which can be just as troubling as foreign rulers. So a smaller, tightly-run kingdom might be more effective than a sprawling empire where independently-minded vassals make trouble for you. I'd like it if governors were converted to dukes (or w/e) where the position was inherited rather than appointed, and they weren't just extensions of the player (as they currently are) but not so independent and disloyal as to be useless, like tributaries are in Attila.

If nothing else they should bring back some diplomatic options from earlier games, like giving/receiving regions in exchange for peace, money or military assistance. 

Amid a bunch of good posts with a bunch of good points, that last is what I'm focused on. I have no idea why we can't deal regions anymore. I'd much rather 'peacefully' assume control over a few pieces of the Sassanids than be forced to burn out every Persian noble on the earth. If it was properly done, peace could actually be achieved at times without being forced into ruinous wars that get tedious and unfun.

Hell, it's more fun to have to consider ceding border territories to appease upstarts if you have a lot of different wars to maintain.

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

I gave up on my trial of Battlefront II. Starfighters are really unwieldy with mouse & keyboard. After the dozenth time I slammed into Death Star debris, in the campaign, I called it quits. Also, the campaign was the only part of the game that actually interested me, but then I realized that I don't like playing as a Nazi soldier.

How'd you get your hands on this mess? I thought it came out tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Amid a bunch of good posts with a bunch of good points, that last is what I'm focused on. I have no idea why we can't deal regions anymore. I'd much rather 'peacefully' assume control over a few pieces of the Sassanids than be forced to burn out every Persian noble on the earth. If it was properly done, peace could actually be achieved at times without being forced into ruinous wars that get tedious and unfun.

Hell, it's more fun to have to consider ceding border territories to appease upstarts if you have a lot of different wars to maintain.

How'd you get your hands on this mess? I thought it came out tomorrow.

Origin Access

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corvinus said:

Origin Access

They gave you the whole game? That's schwifty. My computer is a bit creaky to run that. Shame, I'm curious to play it but I don't want to give EA my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

They gave you the whole game? That's schwifty. My computer is a bit creaky to run that. Shame, I'm curious to play it but I don't want to give EA my money.

for 10 hours, and I signed up for a 1-month subscription which costs $5, but I already cancelled it. I can still play until it expires.

Also, totally agree with you on the TW diplomacy thing. We need to be able to trade regions again. TW hasn't had a decent diplomacy system since Shogun 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing Empire and the diplomacy system is surprisingly robust, plus the AI makes good use of it. The key to victory as England is keeping France and Spain off your back as long as humanly possible whilst you mop up the Pirates of the Caribbean (who are an actual faction, which is hilarious), invade India and build up forces in England for the eventual war. Unfortunately I got sucked into a side-war with Sweden and I can't get out of it after taking Norway (I think I'm going to have to go all-in and knock out Sweden itself). I'm also in a grindy side-conflict with Persia. Being able to exchange territories is a pretty good way of making peace.

Where did they lose the territories thing? I've played Shogun 2 and Rome 2, but only briefly apiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New updates for EU IV and CK II out today. I'm not paying for the DLC right now, but both games did get some free updates as well. I was going to start off with CK II, create Burgundy and have it become the dominant power in the Mediterranean. But I've changed my mind. Instead I think I'll have Brandenburg in EU IV first form Prussia, then Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Werthead said:

I'm playing Empire and the diplomacy system is surprisingly robust, plus the AI makes good use of it. The key to victory as England is keeping France and Spain off your back as long as humanly possible whilst you mop up the Pirates of the Caribbean (who are an actual faction, which is hilarious), invade India and build up forces in England for the eventual war. Unfortunately I got sucked into a side-war with Sweden and I can't get out of it after taking Norway (I think I'm going to have to go all-in and knock out Sweden itself). I'm also in a grindy side-conflict with Persia. Being able to exchange territories is a pretty good way of making peace.

Where did they lose the territories thing? I've played Shogun 2 and Rome 2, but only briefly apiece.

Really called Pirates of the Caribbean? Should have been called Pirates' Republic.

Rome 2 definitely does not have the territory give away thing. I don't remember if Shogun 2 does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Really called Pirates of the Caribbean? Should have been called Pirates' Republic.

Rome 2 definitely does not have the territory give away thing. I don't remember if Shogun 2 does.

No, they're just called "Pirates". But they're in the Caribbean. The Mediterranean equivalent are the Barbary Pirates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider me stunned.  :stunned: 

Battlefront 2 to disable in game purchases.

Quote

But as we approach the worldwide launch, it's clear that many of you feel there are still challenges in the design. We’ve heard the concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages. And we’ve heard that this is overshadowing an otherwise great game. This was never our intention. Sorry we didn’t get this right.

We hear you loud and clear, so we’re turning off all in-game purchases. We will now spend more time listening, adjusting, balancing and tuning. This means that the option to purchase crystals in the game is now offline, and all progression will be earned through gameplay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

They will just make "expansions" instead. You can't complain if the expansion is required to play in the first place and they just need to maintain the playerbase until they release their next rehash.

Never played the game but yes I'm sure they will find another method to make money out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.