Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 352
  1. #121
    I played the original IG but that wasnt a 4x as much as scenario driven adventure.
    Is IG2 a real 4x? Hows the combat?

  2. #122
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    167
    Never played the original, but as far as i know they are very similar. Maybe you're confusing it with another game, this game is not scenario driven.

    Combat is not bad at all. I like how when you invade a planet, you can still do damage even if you lose. For example you can destroy the power grid or the hospital or housing, not just the units.

  3. #123
    Yeah maybe... I played it such a long long time ago. I do remember something about the detail it had on planet attacks.
    Last question there is how well does it hold up graphically in this modern era?

  4. #124
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    836
    Speaking of GalCiv - now that's an acclaimed series that I had consistently bounced off. I just didn't like the variables of the abstraction, I think. Didn't like how important those starbase thingies were. It just wouldn't "click".

  5. #125
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by CrunchyGremlin View Post
    Yeah maybe... I played it such a long long time ago. I do remember something about the detail it had on planet attacks.
    Last question there is how well does it hold up graphically in this modern era?
    Game looks pretty good. Has a distinct visual style and interface. I really like the look of the stars and the starmap. Other stuff is dated obviously, but overall it has a very spacey feel and to me looks more appealing than something like GalCiv2.

  6. #126
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by mouton View Post
    Speaking of GalCiv - now that's an acclaimed series that I had consistently bounced off. I just didn't like the variables of the abstraction, I think. Didn't like how important those starbase thingies were. It just wouldn't "click".
    I definitely think it could have done with a proper tutorial, or even a campaign that isn't utter poo-poo. It is hard to really teach a new player WHY they want those starbases when they aren't a military faction (in fact, they are arguably a LOT more useful when you are trying to get a cultural victory).


    Quote Originally Posted by CrunchyGremlin View Post
    This was your inflated opinionated comment.
    So the random one off bit that has had nothing to do with what we have been discussing for the past page or two? Okay...

    It seems to me that you just want to hear your right and paint a picture of my words that are twisted and misunderstood.
    No, I made it abundantly clear what my point was, repeatedly. But whatever it takes to stop this crap
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  7. #127
    That random bit was a major point of your whole argument.
    Its alright man. I take back my comment about not trusting you.

    Its fun to fight. You can have the game sucks win and thats fine just be careful in what you say about why it sucks. If you please.

  8. #128
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Also, to get away from the crapfest, one might also consider less conventional 4x games like X3 (not X-Rebirth...), Drox Operative or even Escape Velocity: Nova. The "expand" is a bit weaker in a lot of those but it covers every other aspect (and, in some sense, the "expand").
    not so sure I would compare Drox Operative to 4X games mentioned before..

    I had very high expectations of the game and my first 10 hours confirmed I was right. Mostly. In about 15 hours into the game I started wandering 'so, what's next. There is surely something coming, something I'm missing'. You guessed right, it had never come for me.
    Drox excels in options you are given to play with; execution is great as well if you can get over the UI (which is very functional, but too retro-ish to match sci-fi space game imo).

    What Drox lacks then is the depth. I didn't find a reason to continue Drox beyond 20 hours mark (however as I said until then it was great).
    But than - I compare it to CK2 (as only 4X I played) which I have 100+ hours into and can see coming back every know and then.

    Nothing against shorter games I actually prefer those - it just feels disappointing when you decide to stop playing because there isn't more on offer. And I don't think Drox was meant to be played for only few dozens of hours.

  9. #129
    Lesser Hivemind Node frightlever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    617
    huh, what? Somebody mentioned Space Empires 4... I'm told I should be able to play that on Windows 7 64bit but when I try it crashes out for me. Was trying to play the Carriers Mod. Hey ho.

    Space Empires 5 was awful.

    Did we mention Stars!? Loved the resource handling in that game, particularly when they became scarce and you were forced to scavenge derelicts after battles. Again, fairly sure it's unplayable in Windows 7.

  10. #130
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by frightlever View Post
    huh, what? Somebody mentioned Space Empires 4... I'm told I should be able to play that on Windows 7 64bit but when I try it crashes out for me. Was trying to play the Carriers Mod. Hey ho.

    Space Empires 5 was awful.

    Did we mention Stars!? Loved the resource handling in that game, particularly when they became scarce and you were forced to scavenge derelicts after battles. Again, fairly sure it's unplayable in Windows 7.
    Haven't really tried SEIV on Win7, but did you try and piss around with compatibility modes? I know it worked in Vista, and I vaguely recall 7 generally being more compatible in the random tests I did that aren't at all indicative.

    And the problem is that, like I said, the SE series is just too inconsistent. SE4 is better at some stuff, worse at others. Same with SE5 and SE3 (and probably SE1 and SE2). It just got too annoying to care anymore.

    Even with the Civ series when Civ5 disabled most of the stuff Civ4 had, it was at least mechanically "fundamentally better". It may have had less features, but I could at least be certain that all the features it DID have were solid. Not so much with the SE series.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  11. #131
    Network Hub Granath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    To be fair, the Civ5 folks had the same argument :p
    I dunno what this means.

  12. #132
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Heliocentric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,538
    Civilisation(spelled RIGHT) 5 AI was poo for brained. The die hard Civ-maniacs threw their hands in the air and pleaded to the general population "maybe it will be less crap after expansions". It wasn't but generally the expansions were great for multiplayer features. Civ-maniacs resumed the ideological manifesto of 'Civ is great'.
    I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
    http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/

  13. #133
    Begun these Civ Wars have.

  14. #134
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    186
    4x seems to have turned into a genre for people who are incompetent at strategy games

    it's kind of sad, but other than some multiplayer mode (civ 4 dies in a month. maybe galciv 3 will work) I don't see how the games function at all for people with a brain. the AI is always completely idiotic

    i think all the games should go down the player vs. environment route because developers suck way too much at their job to do the symmetrical empire vs. empire thing properly

  15. #135
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Heliocentric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,538
    God no, empires shouldn't be symmetric, when have wars ever been symmetric? Oh, unless you mean pvp.

    Sword of the Stars Progression Wars solves the AI issue by working to the strengths of the AI (early game Diplomacy and expansion) and completely bypasses the weaknesses (late game mop up, and winning).

    It's twice the game normal sots sp is.
    I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
    http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/

  16. #136
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus vinraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the angry dome
    Posts
    3,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliocentric View Post
    God no, empires shouldn't be symmetric, when have wars ever been symmetric? Oh, unless you mean pvp.

    Sword of the Stars Progression Wars solves the AI issue by working to the strengths of the AI (early game Diplomacy and expansion) and completely bypasses the weaknesses (late game mop up, and winning).

    It's twice the game normal sots sp is.
    I'm Vinraith and I support this message.

    Asymmetric strategy games are, indeed, always the way to go. The brilliance in design of something like AI War or SotS Progression Wars really can't be overstated.

  17. #137
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Heliocentric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    10,538
    We should probably justify our position Vinnybaby.

    As soon as you fall out of sync with a truly symmetric opponent (clicking slower or scouting differently) you can fall into a very basic stack of priorities. Your alignment on the pyramid of rush boom and turtle and the flow of the game. With assymetric conflicts your objectives and priorities are constantly shifting, you can't rely on the familiar build orders and habits quite so easily.

    I've done a terrible job of explaining myself elementally. Let me put it this way, AI doesn't see the game like you do, so why try to simulate that it does? Embrace the differences.
    I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
    http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/

  18. #138
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus vinraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the angry dome
    Posts
    3,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliocentric View Post
    I've done a terrible job of explaining myself elementally. Let me put it this way, AI doesn't see the game like you do, so why try to simulate that it does? Embrace the differences.
    That's certainly the basic idea, yes. An AI will never be able to play a game side designed for a human as well as a human can. Better to design a game side the AI can play well, and let it play that game against a human playing a game side made for humans. Why this kind of design isn't more common in modern strategy games is completely beyond me.

  19. #139
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by vinraith View Post
    That's certainly the basic idea, yes. An AI will never be able to play a game side designed for a human as well as a human can. Better to design a game side the AI can play well, and let it play that game against a human playing a game side made for humans. Why this kind of design isn't more common in modern strategy games is completely beyond me.
    I think because modern strategy game devs just take the approach of "If you want the real game, play online"
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  20. #140
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus vinraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the angry dome
    Posts
    3,837
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    I think because modern strategy game devs just take the approach of "If you want the real game, play online"
    It's certainly the lazier option. Doing single player right is a ground-up decision, and most devs just can't be bothered I suppose. "MP is good enough" is a stupid position for a wide variety of reasons, but it especially doesn't work in the case of the multitude of strategy titles that don't include multiplayer at all.
    Last edited by vinraith; 16-04-2014 at 09:09 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •