Videogames Thread: Steaming Ahead

[polishgenius]

Speaking of 2D Mario, Wonder comes out this week and I'm really hoping it gives the series a shot in the arm after a decade+ of rather stagnant New SMB stuff, which just seemed to be mechanical, assembly-line stuff created because Nintendo have to make 2D Mario rather than because anyone was really invested. The early signs for Wonder are that it's a much more joyful affair.

 

Also: Sonic Superstars also comes out this week, a few days earlier, and I want to know which genius or Sega thought that release timing was a good idea. 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Most of the RTS space was taken over by MOBA games (DOTA, League of Legends, etc.). They are a continuation of the trends set by the hero-focused RTS games like Warcraft 3. There are still some indie RTS games that release now and then, but I think the biggest RTS game right now is probably actually AoE 2. It always retained some popularity, but got a big boost when the 2019 definitive edition came out; and has gotten 4 new expansions released since then. 

Age of Empires II is another good shout for "oldest game that still holds up really well today," with even StarCraft (from a year earlier) not doing as well due to its stodgy UI and interface (not fixed in the remaster).

Company of Heroes III was a recent RTS, though it had a middling reception at best and apparently underperformed in sales, and Homeworld 3 is due out in early 2024.

[IlyaP]

The recently-released Star Trek: Infinite is also partly an rts, as I understand it?

[Ser Not Appearing]

4 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Speaking of 2D Mario, Wonder comes out this week and I'm really hoping it gives the series a shot in the arm after a decade+ of rather stagnant New SMB stuff, which just seemed to be mechanical, assembly-line stuff created because Nintendo have to make 2D Mario rather than because anyone was really invested. The early signs for Wonder are that it's a much more joyful affair.

Am I crazy or is the animation in Wonder kinda off. I can't articulate why but it feels like a Mario knock off, even just with the textures on character models.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Playing 4-player co-op BG3 with my family. I wish there was a reliable mod that allowed us to have 5 party members so we can do the NPC personal quests. But it's pretty fun none-the-less. One problem, in our last session we hit a game save bug where auto-, quick, and manual saves were failing to save, lots of wasted time replaying some bits. Hopefully it was just a session thing and it won't be a problem in future sessions.

My son is playing a Barbarian, and, well since barbarians don't need armour he's decided that Maurice the githyanki Barbarian will go the full Monty. Some cut scene camera angles have been...surprising.

Edited October 14, 2023 by The Anti-Targ

[Corvinus85]

I have 119 minutes of gameplay in Total War: Pharaoh, so I'm at the decision precipice to return the game or not. As expected it's Troy in much of its gameplay.

They did add some interesting campaign mechanics, like the court system, going for some sort of legacy, pillars of civilization which mark the state of the collapse of the period, and outposts that offer various bonuses and some can be garrisoned. While the map is again gorgeous, a lot of the features are small, like cities and outposts are small, along with the resource icons that serve as a guide to know what settlement you may wish to conquer. In fact, the campaign UI has a lot of small icons; I would say it's among the worst UIs in recent TW games.

On the battle side there isn't much improvement. Mind you it's entirely historical, so really it's the how Troy battles go but without any added magic or mythic creatures. The added dynamic weather gives a bit of extra challenge, but that's it. Some reviewers have noted that the battles have been slowed down, but that doesn't mean anything if you neither the player not the AI can attempt to use some more complex tactics. The missile troops also seem to have an issue to wanting to get closer to shoot at enemies than they really need to, which often gets them involved in melee.

It may also be one of the smallest TW games out there. I'm not entirely sure how large the campaign map is, but it doesn't have anywhere near as many factions as most other games. Of course, that makes the turns go faster, but that's the only silver lining I can think of. There are only 8 playable factions at this time, split between 3 cultures, so I don't expect much replayability. And this is the primary reason why I don't consider it to be worthy of its sale price. Sure, prices have gone up, but while a AAA game may cost $70 today, this smaller game isn't worth being just $10 cheaper.

[Durckad]

18 hours ago, IlyaP said:

The recently-released Star Trek: Infinite is also partly an rts, as I understand it?

Not really. It's based on Stellaris which is more 4X with real-time elements. Basically, the game proceeds in "real time," not turns like most 4X games, but you can pause (or increase/decrease the game speed) at any time to issue orders and muck around with stuff. Also combat requires far less direct control and twitch-reflexes with the strategy coming down more to how you've built your ships, assembled your fleets, and other broad choices you've made. Stellaris is a fantastic game but it's not really an RTS.

Note, I have not played Infinite (but I will, oh yes I will...) so I'm not sure exactly how much different it is from Stellaris, but everything I've read and heard is that it uses much of the same foundation with some tweaks to make it more Star Trek-like.

[Corvinus85]

More on Total War: Pharaoh - worst launch of a TW game ever, at least since Steam exists. Only over 5000 players at launch. I still haven't decided whether to return it or not; I haven't played any more.

[IlyaP]

Totally wondering if anyone here might be able to answer this query: has the music in Diablo 2: Resurrected changed somehow? I get the feeling that either the audio has been remastered or rerecorded and that one or two new tracks might have been added? 

Are there any D2 fans here who can speak to this at all? 

Also: now that Diablo 4 is coming to Steam, does this mean Diablo 1-3 will also make its way there as well? Or does the fact that Sierra made the Hellfire expansion, which is apparently (still?!) an unresolved legal issue mean that won't likely happen any time soon? 

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, IlyaP said:

Totally wondering if anyone here might be able to answer this query: has the music in Diablo 2: Resurrected changed somehow? I get the feeling that either the audio has been remastered or rerecorded and that one or two new tracks might have been added? 

Are there any D2 fans here who can speak to this at all? 

Also: now that Diablo 4 is coming to Steam, does this mean Diablo 1-3 will also make its way there as well? Or does the fact that Sierra made the Hellfire expansion, which is apparently (still?!) an unresolved legal issue mean that won't likely happen any time soon? 

I think D1 and Hellfire are available on GoG IIRC

[IlyaP]

26 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I think D1 and Hellfire are available on GoG IIRC

Correct - they are. 

Made me suddenly wonder if the recent Activision-Blizzard sale to Microsoft would change the presence of their games on Steam (and hopefully GoG!), a la Diablo 4...

[Heartofice]

11 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

More on Total War: Pharaoh - worst launch of a TW game ever, at least since Steam exists. Only over 5000 players at launch. I still haven't decided whether to return it or not; I haven't played any more.

Seems like an enormous disaster for CA. There are more people playing the old historical titles than Pharaoh, that's bad. Sounds like it's a combination of factors, but mainly it's the price and it's a title that nobody wanted, and it's less an historical title than it is a Saga game, which just aren't popular.

I'm half worried and half pleased by this news. It could be that this leads to big layoffs in the dev teams and they just downscale everything, or it could be that it's the kick up the arse that they needed. But then this is hardly new for CA, Thrones of Britannia was a dumpster fire, the whole Troy thing and Epic stores was just a mess, and Warhammer 3 has been one issue after another. That's not even going back to Rome 2 and anything before that. In fact when you think about it, it really has been a total shit show for a long time.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Seems like an enormous disaster for CA. There are more people playing the old historical titles than Pharaoh, that's bad. Sounds like it's a combination of factors, but mainly it's the price and it's a title that nobody wanted, and it's less an historical title than it is a Saga game, which just aren't popular.

I'm half worried and half pleased by this news. It could be that this leads to big layoffs in the dev teams and they just downscale everything, or it could be that it's the kick up the arse that they needed. But then this is hardly new for CA, Thrones of Britannia was a dumpster fire, the whole Troy thing and Epic stores was just a mess, and Warhammer 3 has been one issue after another. That's not even going back to Rome 2 and anything before that. In fact when you think about it, it really has been a total shit show for a long time.

Yeah im still playing Empire Total War Darthmod and Shogun 2, havent bought a CW game since then. Wont buy until they give us a fully fledged, pure historical game again

[Corvinus85]

54 minutes ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Yeah im still playing Empire Total War Darthmod and Shogun 2, havent bought a CW game since then. Wont buy until they give us a fully fledged, pure historical game again

Rome II and Attila are fully fledged historical games. Thrones of Britannia is a smaller one, too. Three Kingdoms can be considered historical if you play the Records mode, where the characters are not superhuman and they need to have bodyguards. (Troy has this mode, too, but granted it's more lackluster than the full mythos one)

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

22 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Rome II and Attila are fully fledged historical games. Thrones of Britannia is a smaller one, too. Three Kingdoms can be considered historical if you play the Records mode, where the characters are not superhuman and they need to have bodyguards. (Troy has this mode, too, but granted it's more lackluster than the full mythos one)

Well i avoided Rome because of the bugs but yeah let me make a slight correction- im basically waiting for Medieval 3 or Empire 2  Am i the only one who wants TW games set in the Modern Era? (19th Century - Cold War) 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II

[Heartofice]

I really liked Attila and Rome 2 (eventually), and you missed out on Napoleon which I think is a step up from Empire in a lot of ways. 

Attila made me think that one of the issues with Warhammer is that you always start small and then grow, but the best campaign of Attila was the Western Roman Empire, because you literally are retreating and losing territory and the early game is about running back and consolidating, or trying to defend a large weak empire from numerous sides. 

Anyway, yes I would very much like them to go back to doing proper historical games, not this mish mash that Troy and Pharaoh are. Playing as one immortal character instead of a nation feels wrong. I don't know why they did it like that.

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Well i avoided Rome because of the bugs but yeah let me make a slight correction- im basically waiting for Medieval 3 or Empire 2  Am i the only one who wants TW games set in the Modern Era? (19th Century - Cold War) 

The complexities of modern economics would make playing a Total War game in the 19th-20th centuries feel bare bones. The game would really have to be focused on a world war only, or a small period of time, but I'm not sure I trust CA in doing justice to a WWI or WWII game.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I really liked Attila and Rome 2 (eventually), and you missed out on Napoleon which I think is a step up from Empire in a lot of ways. 

I liked Attila, too, for the atmosphere and most factions. Rome 2 has developed nicely thanks to a multitude of updates and DLCs. And it has some strong mods, like Divide et Imperia which overhauls the entire game and makes it more challenging.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Attila made me think that one of the issues with Warhammer is that you always start small and then grow, but the best campaign of Attila was the Western Roman Empire, because you literally are retreating and losing territory and the early game is about running back and consolidating, or trying to defend a large weak empire from numerous sides. 

Anyway, yes I would very much like them to go back to doing proper historical games, not this mish mash that Troy and Pharaoh are. Playing as one immortal character instead of a nation feels wrong. I don't know why they did it like that.

They caught the RPG bug.  Starting with Warhammer I, there has been a significant focus on characters, which has continued all the way to Pharaoh. Maybe that's why you start small with every faction. Just like in any RPG game where your character starts with few skills, your faction needs to start small to develop as you progress. I'm not justifying anything here, just an attempted explanation at their mindset.

[The Anti-Targ]

Not having played any TW game other than Warhammer I'm completely used to RPG progression and I don't know anything else. It's pretty much the sum total of my experience with RTS/TBS games. I can see why people used to starting out a TW game as a full powered empire, or at least a well developed kingdom / principality would get frustrated if CA turned everything into the Warhammer RPG-style start as weak as you're ever going to be.

[Heartofice]

Another thing from previous Total War titles that I’ve seen discussed is that you didn’t always have good generals to lead your army. Sometimes your generals were just bad and there was nothing you could do about it. Think it was like that in Medieval. 
 

Either way, I don’t like the levelling system in Warhammer. Again it fits into the mechanic of ‘JUST FIGHT MOOOORE’ , because there are no real decisions or flavour when it comes to levelling up, you can pretty much get everything if you level up enough. The whole game is really not a matter of tactics but just having as many battles as possible, which feels very gamey. 

[horangi]

10 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

The complexities of modern economics would make playing a Total War game in the 19th-20th centuries feel bare bones. The game would really have to be focused on a world war only, or a small period of time, but I'm not sure I trust CA in doing justice to a WWI or WWII game.

 

I'd also think the nature of modern war doesn't lend itself to the small line formation battle mechanisms that the TW series uses.  You can get away with that type of modern battle with a RTS at a small scale like Company of Heroes where you have at best squad sized units who can occupy a single location.  However that would make the strategic aspects of running a faction untenable.  You could have extremely abstract characters representing company sized units and no attempt for realism like Starcraft or C&C in a fantasy battlefield.  Or a Hearts of Iron-like hundreds of miles-wide strategic front and become a paradox game's concept of real time measured in hours or days.