What VIDEO GAME(s) have you been playing?

re: Into the Breach, the game is fucking hard once you move past the first bot group. I beat the game the first time with the first group, their basic method of dealing damage is fairly comprehensible. Then I moved to the second group, whose main mechanic is covering people with electric smoke. hoo boy, much, much more difficult for me. You have to really wrap your mind around doing damage in this really indirect way.

I hated Civ VI when I tried it.

The main reason is that it's far more complex and fiddlier than all other games in the franchise but not more interesting. You now have two different tech trees, now buildings go on the map and there's this shuffling of "policies" in and out that gives you a +1 here or a -1 there but no more actual decisions. The game is still very much about snowballing and beating the crap of your two closes enemies with a couple archers.

In fact, it's easier than ever because balance is poor and Civ VI falls into the oldest pitfalls of the franchise. Why isn't there any penalty for building dozens of cities? Infinite city sprawl has always been an issue, why bring it back? It's like a new Magic: The Gathering designer thinking "You know what the game needs? Artifacts that give you mana and paying life for cards".

And this complexity and poor balance only highlights the biggest issue of the franchise: They are computer games that aren't designed for computers to be able to play them. The AI is idiotic and cannot be made smart because of the way the game is designed. Just the calculation of the hexes in the overworld map is an herculean task. And hey, it doesn't matter how good the game is if you play it against colluding, irrational idiots.

I must admit, that I was also bothered by the awful depiction of Philip II. When I first tried the game, my Greek friend told me that I wouldn't like how he and Spain were depicted in the game. And I didn't because he's a collection of Black Legend stereotypes about Spaniards that I'm very tired about. Extroverted, boastful, obssessed with religion and honour and so on. He even offers you churros at some point, logic or historicity be dammed. None of this is minimally accurate, Philip II was, by all accounts, an introevrted, shy, very serious man. He worked in an obssessive manner and avoided honour matters.

In other words, his depiction of the game would have been as if Roosevelt had come out, guns blazin', while chewing out a burger and asking you if your oil-rich country wants some democracy.

Just shameful.

On the advice of a friend at work, I picked up an older game for the PS4, Dungeon Quest Builders. Complete digital crack for her. Admittedly, it is addictive and you can easily while away the time playing it. You are charged with rebuilding a lost city and attracting inhabitants while defending it from wandering monsters. It is like Minecraft with a bit of a plot. It hits the part of my wife's brain that compels her to put things in order.

Erik Twice wrote:
I must admit, that I was also bothered by the awful depiction of Philip II. When I first tried the game, my Greek friend told me that I wouldn't like how he and Spain were depicted in the game. And I didn't because he's a collection of Black Legend stereotypes about Spaniards that I'm very tired about. Extroverted, boastful, obssessed with religion and honour and so on. He even offers you churros at some point, logic or historicity be dammed. None of this is minimally accurate, Philip II was, by all accounts, an introevrted, shy, very serious man. He worked in an obssessive manner and avoided honour matters.

In other words, his depiction of the game would have been as if Roosevelt had come out, guns blazin', while chewing out a burger and asking you if your oil-rich country wants some democracy.

Just shameful.

I wish they had depicted Roosevelt this way! But yeah, imagine that, depicting a EUROPEAN leader that way for once. But naw, I'm with you, they should either depict everyone comically nasty stereotyped or, ideally, nobody.

Obviously I like the game more than you do. I felt like Civ V was extremely well balanced but only for a playstyle where you immediately pick your victory condition and then drive single mindedly toward it with no possibility of minor shifts lest you lose. Which is not my favorite thing about Civ.

re: Civ and leader inclusion and stereotyping, there was an interesting discussion about Civ itself and what it says about the arc of history recently around Poundmaker and the Cree tribe objecting to his inclusion in the game---but on grounds rooted in actually understanding what the game of Civ is, which was very cool. Basically whether every culture is even appropriate for the supremacist/colonialist version of history civ ("winning") tells: www.polygon.com/2018/1/4/16850906/cree-n...ization-6-poundmaker

I really wish someone else would try a Civilization pc game. If I designer, I would like to see something more like a co-op board game or roguelike where you have to squeeze the most out of a terrible position rather than just rush science or culture to win. Or something like Crusader Kings, where inevitably, your character (or empire) dies and declines forcing you to rebuild. It would be so much more dynamic and interesting.

Most of all, I want to see Civ games get away from the essentialized leaders and civilizations, but for civs to grow by adapting to their situations.

That said, I haven't play VI, and really only played V after getting it in a sale. I liked it decent enough, but I was also living abroad by myself without a ton to do when I was playing it the most. I didn't play it once I came back to the US. I would pretty much always prefer to play a Paradox game.

I think I'm there with you Orlok, beyond the other things that Paradox does that are different, their most revolutionary is reducing the emphasis on winning.

It just seems so strange how civ does it. Random map with civilization's randomly scattered around. What? You aren't randomly placed in a region that coincides with your civilizations ingrained bonuses? Fuck you, then.

I'm not saying Paradox games are perfect, but they make it hard to go back to civ. I would however like to see them face some competition, as I fear they've become a bit lazy.

I agree on the laziness, the paradox business model could easily get much dicier than it already is re: DLC and expansions. They are absolutely running games as a service.

So, not to go on about this, there are a lot of reasons to like civ 5 better and not like civ at all, but what you're referring to is one of the things that civ 6 does well---your cities (though not your civ as a whole, as you point out) are very contextual to the region/space they're in. If you're in floodplains with a few desert tiles, you can build pyramids. You can't if you started your city in the woods---they need that tile. Or mountains matter more; holy and science districts get big bonuses in cities near mountains. Same with the religions you found, you'l want to pick bonuses for it that make sense for the region you are in and plan you have going forward. Or, as a more meta example, the housing system really does mean that that your non-river cities are going to be pretty small and feeble until aqueducts and some later game tech enter. Civ has always encouraged you to build near rivers because of their food output, but the game uses another system to really emphasize this factor in 6.

Gary Sax wrote: I wish they had depicted Roosevelt this way! But yeah, imagine that, depicting a EUROPEAN leader that way for once. But naw, I'm with you, they should either depict everyone comically nasty stereotyped or, ideally, nobody.

It's just...it's not just once, they are are extremely old stereotypes arising from Dutch and British propaganda and that are the default way Americans and Anglosaxon culture as a whole depict Spaniards and Spain in all facets. Every movie, every game, every book depicts Spaniards this way and it's tiring and actually kind of obnoxious.

Obviously I like the game more than you do. I felt like Civ V was extremely well balanced but only for a playstyle where you immediately pick your victory condition and then drive single mindedly toward it with no possibility of minor shifts lest you lose. Which is not my favorite thing about Civ.

It is very much true. I'm of the opinion that there are only three kinds of Civs: Those that are geared towards certain pacifist victories (Korea, Babylon, Venice, Egypt), those that work their way up to a powerful Chilvary unit and then win (Arabia) and those that simply flail around because their bonuses do not lead to any goals (Carthage, Denmark, Japan)

Ultimately, I think this is an inherent problem with Sid Meier's Civilization: The game way the game is meant to be played is not the way it's won. And the reason for that is that technology, warfare and culture are not so much tools you can use to win the game as they are speedbumbs on the way to winning. Civilization fans often say "fill the buckets gameplay" to refer to science and development and that's probably harsher than they intend to be, but it's kind of true.

To be honest, I'm no longer convinced that the Sid Meier Civilization games are actually great. They used to be these huge favourites of mine but, man, after playing boardgames I can't help but see all the flaws.

re: Civ and leader inclusion and stereotyping, there was an interesting discussion about Civ itself and what it says about the arc of history recently around Poundmaker and the Cree tribe objecting to his inclusion in the game---but on grounds rooted in actually understanding what the game of Civ is, which was very cool. Basically whether every culture is even appropriate for the supremacist/colonialist version of history civ ("winning") tells: www.polygon.com/2018/1/4/16850906/cree-n...ization-6-poundmaker

I've actually read about it but I can't comment much because I haven't played with the expansion/DLC. That said, it seems to stem mostly from a conceptual idea of what games are, kind of like "How can you enjoy playing as Hitler/representing war?".

I bought Stellaris. I hope your happy Sax!

You're, you illiterate bastard

ThirstyMan wrote: You're, you illiterate bastard

Do you even speak American, Bro?

repoman wrote: I bought Stellaris. I hope your happy Sax!

I just hope you like it! Making purchasing recommendations people actually follow scares the shit out of me...

Also, it's a crazy dense interface so hit me up in that other thread if anything isn't clear.

Gary Sax wrote: re: Into the Breach, the game is fucking hard once you move past the first bot group. I beat the game the first time with the first group, their basic method of dealing damage is fairly comprehensible. Then I moved to the second group, whose main mechanic is covering people with electric smoke. hoo boy, much, much more difficult for me. You have to really wrap your mind around doing damage in this really indirect way.

So i found a way to play it, and it's great. The funny thing is that the smoke team is the one that I got my first victory with- it's not so much about using the smoke to deal damage as it is to stop enemies that you'd otherwise not be able to deal with. Their ranged mech is insane, and the smoke that it fires out of its exhaust when it fires can pull double duty by putting a stop to guys while killing stuff. I found that the first group just didn't do enough damage or have enough control for me. I had a lot of trouble dealing with big threats with them. Most of the other squads that I've tried have one really hard to use/niche character that I don't really like, but the Rust Hulks clicked for me.

I've heard someone else say the rust group was much easier for them too! Just goes to show you that people think differently spatially.