Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Pancho Jueves
Aug 20, 2007

BEST FRIENDS!!

Jastiger posted:

I am not sure if this has been brought up, but I wanted to touch on Civ 5. I feel like the game does so many things so right but drops the ball on a few.

One of these is City States. I've been playing a lot of multiplayer games with my buddy and a lot of them are quite fun! But...its frustrating that it always seems to come down to who can buy the most city states. Get the city states, and you win eventually. Also, once you get a hold on a city state its very difficult to hold on to them because of the pay-for-loyalty aspect. Why make a game so dynamic with all of the diplomacy, but have City States pledge allegiance to whoever pays them the most? We have alliances for 300 years and someone builds Big Ben and whoa, we love YOU now, have all our troops! They could have done a lot more with it with not a lot of effort and thats kind of a bummer.

Also, ideologies. The Freedom ideology is so ridiculously over powered. There is hardly ever a reason to go anything but. You get bonuses to city states, increased happiness and growth, bonus production and science from specialists, the list goes on. Autacracy is useful for war and ONLY war, but useful. Order is.....a watered down version of both. It has no bonus for city states and does absolutely nothing for you're growth unless you're a massive sprawling empire. How can they make such important decisions so over and under powered? Another frustration with an otherwise excellent game.

The downside to Freedom is that, in my experience, the AI chooses Order 90% of the time, so you'd better be prepared to make some enemies. Freedom isn't free :911:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Away all Goats
Jul 5, 2005

Goose's rebellion

My problem with Civ 5 is how laughably, terribly bad the AI is at naval combat.

Exhibit A, The smallest military power in the world wrecking a military/navy nearly 3 times its size:
http://imgur.com/a/ndojX

I know the solution is just play on pangea forever, but that is pretty boring quite frankly.

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless
The AI I can get over, I mean it can't be perfect. I just wish it didn't give the AI Happiness bonuses. Happiness is kind of a thing dragging the game down. It punishes players for expanding and conquering whereas the AI does not have this problem. The game would be much more enjoyable if the AI had the same happiness penalties and needs as the player does since so much of what makes a solid strategy is the happiness effect on enemy civilizations.

The Moon Monster
Dec 30, 2005

Flesnolk posted:

Does every important historical figure have to be an Assassin or Templar? poo poo got boring quick and also I don't like the idea that nobody on Earth that isn't in on Conspiracy A or Conspiracy B and/or a descendent of Alien Jesus can ever be worth anything or do anything important.

I hated the Diablo III ~*nephilim*~ thing for a similar reason. The PCs were way cooler when they were just really badass humans.

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010
Pillbug

Jastiger posted:

The AI I can get over, I mean it can't be perfect. I just wish it didn't give the AI Happiness bonuses. Happiness is kind of a thing dragging the game down. It punishes players for expanding and conquering whereas the AI does not have this problem. The game would be much more enjoyable if the AI had the same happiness penalties and needs as the player does since so much of what makes a solid strategy is the happiness effect on enemy civilizations.

Yeah, Civ V really punished building a lot of cities. It wasn't like that was a really overpowered strategy, since if you tried to do it early it would heavily slow your existing cities' growth because settlers used food to build in addition to production. If you wanted to go expansive, there weren't enough options to really mitigate the penalty in exchange for something else. You just got hosed.

Also, it's not a game, per se, but the Steam Client is a piece of garbage that really needs fixing, even if the rest of the service is pretty awesome. It's somehow gotten worse as they've updated it. I do all my purchasing through the browser since it works so slow in the program.

...of SCIENCE!
Apr 26, 2008

by Fluffdaddy

Flesnolk posted:

Yeah, the modern parts of the story are pretty poo poo, but overall I thought Ubisoft took what was presented in AC1 and ran way too far with it. Does literally every accomplishment in human history that was worth anything have to be because of the Precursors/their artefacts? Does every important historical figure have to be an Assassin or Templar? poo poo got boring quick and also I don't like the idea that nobody on Earth that isn't in on Conspiracy A or Conspiracy B and/or a descendent of Alien Jesus can ever be worth anything or do anything important.

I kind of liked it because going whole-hog with that kind of thing is way more fun than being serious and "realistic" with it.

poptart_fairy
Apr 8, 2009

by R. Guyovich
Metal Gear Rising is a fantastic game, but the camera is absolutely maddening. On the higher difficulties you live or die based on your ability to dodge and parry which is very well balanced...until the camera decides you really, really, really want to look at a wall or have a bout of sickness brought on by spinning out of control. It's annoying to lose half your health to that.

Dwarf
Oct 21, 2010

Jastiger posted:

Yeah I meant Civ 5! Sorry!


That is how it is with City States. You get a few and steam roll them all or you just get into an endless bidding war with other players/civs for them. Its especially frustrating when the ideologies give bonuses to city states and they are the main way you win. There should be a little extra depth there, I think.

And as Tiggum said, its just clear that some ideology policies are just simply BETTER. Half unhappiness from specialists is HUGE and is unmatched in any other ideology. It sounds like a great idea, but they implemented it poorly I think.

The World Council makes a lot of sense, I think, I just wish they changed the way the votes worked from city states and gave you the ability to go "rogue" and have everyone hate you if you wanted to.

When I set up games, I just make no City-states. Bullshit little cities that just hog a resource spot I could've used :argh:!

...of SCIENCE!
Apr 26, 2008

by Fluffdaddy

poptart_fairy posted:

Metal Gear Rising is a fantastic game, but the camera is absolutely maddening. On the higher difficulties you live or die based on your ability to dodge and parry which is very well balanced...until the camera decides you really, really, really want to look at a wall or have a bout of sickness brought on by spinning out of control. It's annoying to lose half your health to that.

It's sad, because God Hand had a perfect camera system for that kind of game (it was always a fixed distance behind you, even if it had to clip through level geometry) but critics complained about it so now Platinum's game have less effective cameras in the name of immersion.

I love Metal Gear Rising too, but its troubled development shows in how front-loaded it is; the game is 7 chapters long and the last 3 chapters are about as long as one of the preceding chapters. Also the stealth sections are all really awkward and feel like something Kojima insisted on in the name of being true to the franchise rather than an organic addition to the game, especially considering that successfully stealthing the game will actually lock you out of ranked fights and hurt your overall ranking.

Leal
Oct 2, 2009
I hate how you cannot raze city states nor capitals. If they're in a lovely area you have a useless or inefficient city. I remember how much it ate away at me when I captured a city state that if it were just a single hex to the left it would of been the perfect spot fuuuuuck why couldn't it of been that one spot why can't I just raze this and build another city nearby god dammit.

Celery Face
Feb 18, 2012

Leal posted:

I hate how you cannot raze city states nor capitals. If they're in a lovely area you have a useless or inefficient city. I remember how much it ate away at me when I captured a city state that if it were just a single hex to the left it would of been the perfect spot fuuuuuck why couldn't it of been that one spot why can't I just raze this and build another city nearby god dammit.
You can't raze holy cities either. It sucks if your enemy founds their religion in the rear end-end of nowhere.

Cleretic
Feb 3, 2010


Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

Jastiger posted:

The World Council makes a lot of sense, I think, I just wish they changed the way the votes worked from city states and gave you the ability to go "rogue" and have everyone hate you if you wanted to.

Apparently they tried that in testing, and it just didn't work. Striking out against the World Congress was just too powerful, to the point where there wasn't much reason not to do it no matter how many penalties they put on it.

I find that City-states are rarely too bad an issue unless the game includes a civ that really goes for them. It's very easy for Greece especially to go runaway with city-state support (Venice can probably do it well too, I've never played against an AI Venice), and once they get rolling it's very hard to stop them.

Action Tortoise
Feb 18, 2012

A wolf howls.
I know how he feels.

...of SCIENCE! posted:

It's sad, because God Hand had a perfect camera system for that kind of game (it was always a fixed distance behind you, even if it had to clip through level geometry) but critics complained about it so now Platinum's game have less effective cameras in the name of immersion.

I love Metal Gear Rising too, but its troubled development shows in how front-loaded it is; the game is 7 chapters long and the last 3 chapters are about as long as one of the preceding chapters. Also the stealth sections are all really awkward and feel like something Kojima insisted on in the name of being true to the franchise rather than an organic addition to the game, especially considering that successfully stealthing the game will actually lock you out of ranked fights and hurt your overall ranking.

Aren't one of the ranked fights during the point when Raiden hears the thoughts of all the faceless soldiers he's killed and he can't do anything but swipe blindly in front of him?

...of SCIENCE!
Apr 26, 2008

by Fluffdaddy

Action Tortoise posted:

Aren't one of the ranked fights during the point when Raiden hears the thoughts of all the faceless soldiers he's killed and he can't do anything but swipe blindly in front of him?

Yes. Counter-intuitively if you avoid combat like the game tells you to then you get a poor ranking, but slowly shuffling around and bashing every single soldier to death as they beg for mercy gets you a higher one.

WickedHate
Aug 1, 2013

by Lowtax
That sequence was my thing dragging the game down, because despite the point of the scene there wasn't really a way to avoid fighting soldiers then or afterwards.

Cuntellectual
Aug 6, 2010
There's stealth but it's impractical and doesn't always work.

Roro posted:

I finally got a WiiU, and I'm enjoying playing WW, but I'm a little disappointed that they didn't implement the ability to write nots on your map like PH did. There's a bunch of interesting facts that the Fishmen tell you, and I always forget them but I refuse to keep a pile of bait just to hear whatever funny or useful thing they have to say again.

Why the heck did they get rid of the tingle tuner. They had the Wii U tablet!


Unrelated:

Fallout 4 really needs horses.

Cuntellectual has a new favorite as of 06:19 on Jun 29, 2014

AMISH FRIED PIES
Mar 6, 2009

by Nyc_Tattoo

Cleretic posted:

Apparently they tried that in testing, and it just didn't work. Striking out against the World Congress was just too powerful, to the point where there wasn't much reason not to do it no matter how many penalties they put on it.

So at least it's realistic, if the U.N. is any guide.

Tiggum
Oct 24, 2007

Your life and your quest end here.


Dwarf posted:

When I set up games, I just make no City-states. Bullshit little cities that just hog a resource spot I could've used :argh:!
City states are the easiest way to get all the resources you could possibly want though. As your ally they grant you all their resources, so you basically have half the globe covered if you ally with them all (which you should).

Cleretic posted:

I find that City-states are rarely too bad an issue unless the game includes a civ that really goes for them. It's very easy for Greece especially to go runaway with city-state support (Venice can probably do it well too, I've never played against an AI Venice), and once they get rolling it's very hard to stop them.
That's why I always play as Greece. Some other civs get bonuses that sound like they might be good, but given how important city states are I just can't see a good reason to not choose Greece.

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Cleretic posted:

Apparently they tried that in testing, and it just didn't work. Striking out against the World Congress was just too powerful, to the point where there wasn't much reason not to do it no matter how many penalties they put on it.

I find that City-states are rarely too bad an issue unless the game includes a civ that really goes for them. It's very easy for Greece especially to go runaway with city-state support (Venice can probably do it well too, I've never played against an AI Venice), and once they get rolling it's very hard to stop them.

Really? Massive unhappiness penalties, embargoes, and permanent war with everyone wasn't enough of a disadvantage? What kind of penalty did they give, no one likes you, boo hoo?

Striking against the World Congress should be a Thing, but it should be a really difficult thing to the point where if you're doing it, you better have a drat good reason to do it. Otherwise it's just a quick way to a game over for you.

Bah Civ 5 does so many things decent enough but drops the ball on so many excellent ideas that they started to implement.

Mokinokaro
Sep 11, 2001

At the end of everything, hold onto anything



Fun Shoe
It's a series tradition at this point. Remember corporations in Beyond the Sword?

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008

by FactsAreUseless

Mokinokaro posted:

It's a series tradition at this point. Remember corporations in Beyond the Sword?

Actually I do. Yeah. They have so many GREAT ideas but just fall short. I feel like they don't really play test their games enough. I feel like they have these great ideas and say "Yeah that would be great, lets do that" then they kick it out the door without having people play through.

Cleretic
Feb 3, 2010


Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

Jastiger posted:

Really? Massive unhappiness penalties, embargoes, and permanent war with everyone wasn't enough of a disadvantage? What kind of penalty did they give, no one likes you, boo hoo?

Striking against the World Congress should be a Thing, but it should be a really difficult thing to the point where if you're doing it, you better have a drat good reason to do it. Otherwise it's just a quick way to a game over for you.

Bah Civ 5 does so many things decent enough but drops the ball on so many excellent ideas that they started to implement.

I'm not sure on the logic, but I can definitely see having 'going rogue' as an option being bad for balancing. The most important effect of the World Congress is to give lesser players some agency in the game; you might not have the ability to get up and start smashing the leading player, but you can put some effort towards securing city-states and getting enough clout to push through ways to slow them down.

If there was a way to just leave the World Congress, then that would defeat the purpose. The only guy that would benefit from that is the one that was far enough ahead to cop the penalties. If he's rendered immune to the World Congress by rebelling, then there's nothing those smaller civs can do to influence him. He won't pay the standing army tax, he won't adhere to nuclear non-proliferation, he's probably self-sufficient enough to not need trades, so there's nothing anybody can really do about them.

The World Congress isn't perfect, but I think that removing the rebelling option was a good idea.

bunnyofdoom
Mar 29, 2008

Jaxxon: Still not the stupidest thing from the expanded universe.



Mokinokaro posted:

It's a series tradition at this point. Remember corporations in Beyond the Sword?

No. Enlighten me please?

Lord Lambeth
Dec 7, 2011


Anatharon posted:


Fallout 4 really needs horses.

They sucked in skyrim, I don't know how they would make fallout any better.

Cuntellectual
Aug 6, 2010

Lord Lambeth posted:

They sucked in skyrim, I don't know how they would make fallout any better.

Not taking forever to walk places you haven't found?

Mokinokaro
Sep 11, 2001

At the end of everything, hold onto anything



Fun Shoe

bunnyofdoom posted:

No. Enlighten me please?

Corporations were a heavily shoehorned idea in Beyond the Sword (2nd expansion to Civ IV.) Essentially they were a reskinned religion that affected production rather than happiness.

They weren't a bad idea on their own (except for just being a reskin of a an existing mechanic) but the way they were actually implemented in the game was terrible. The manual barely explained them and, as the in game UI didn't give any corporation system feedbackl until you dug several levels in, they were pretty much a complete mystery to most players when introduced.

They were a really, really barebones implementation of an interesting idea (big multinational corporations that existed across borders and gave benefits to all members.)

Roro
Oct 9, 2012

HOO'S HEAD GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND?

Anatharon posted:

Why the heck did they get rid of the tingle tuner. They had the Wii U tablet!

Because now they have Tingle Bottles! So you can spend ages collecting them only to find out that instead of high-quality boss pictures to turn into figurines, you have a bunch of snaps of Zelda/Medli/Mila with people saying how much said female character wants to gently caress them/Link.
I wish I was joking, I really do.

Lord Lambeth
Dec 7, 2011


Anatharon posted:

Not taking forever to walk places you haven't found?

In vanilla Skyrim the horses are incredibly slow.

Punished Chuck
Dec 27, 2010

Lord Lambeth posted:

In vanilla Skyrim the horses are incredibly slow.

Horses in Skyrim are for climbing mountains, not getting from A to B quicker. I don't know if that's how Bethesda intended it, but those fuckers can climb practically anything short of a 90° angle so you don't have to "climb" mountains by circle-strafing around the side of it while constantly jumping up and down like a deranged clown.

I will agree that FO4 needs horses or at least some kind of transportation, though, I didn't mind it too much in FO3 but the majority of New Vegas's overworld is just featureless desert and that gets real boring, real fast.

Philippe
Aug 9, 2013

(she/her)

Perhaps not horses, then, but a drat sprint function.

Mokinokaro
Sep 11, 2001

At the end of everything, hold onto anything



Fun Shoe

Lord Lambeth posted:

In vanilla Skyrim the horses are incredibly slow.

Yeah, Skyrim horses are built to let you carry more stuff (you can fast travel no matter your encumbrance while on one) not for speed.

vainman
Nov 2, 2012

I find your lack of faith... disturbing
Its been awhile but I thought the point of the horse in Skyrim was that you could fast travel with one even when you're over-encumbered

Roro
Oct 9, 2012

HOO'S HEAD GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND?

vainman posted:

Its been awhile but I thought the point of the horse in Skyrim was that you could fast travel with one even when you're over-encumbered

Pretty much. I am almost 100% certain that's why they added the summon horse, so you could lumber out of a dungeon then teleport to town without staggering down a hill.

scarycave
Oct 9, 2012

Dominic Beegan:
Exterminator For Hire

Anatharon posted:

Unrelated:

Fallout 4 really needs horses.

Horses are dead. We need either motorcycles or Highwayman.

Action Tortoise
Feb 18, 2012

A wolf howls.
I know how he feels.

Anatharon posted:

There's stealth but it's impractical and doesn't always work.


Why the heck did they get rid of the tingle tuner. They had the Wii U tablet!


Unrelated:

Fallout 4 really needs horses.

Wasn't that the point of having Brahmins in Fallout until 3 got poo poo just for having them in the game?

scarycave
Oct 9, 2012

Dominic Beegan:
Exterminator For Hire

Action Tortoise posted:

Wasn't that the point of having Brahmins in Fallout until 3 got poo poo just for having them in the game?

They carry items as a mobile container in FO3, but no one ever rides them.
They pretty much pull wagons in the older ones for Caravans, and aside from that and the one you can get as a follower (in that area if you choose not to sell it for meat), they don't really do anything else, except explode.

I could have missed something though.

Byzantine
Sep 1, 2007

Horses went extinct (in North America at least) after the War in Fallout.

Motorcycles/the car would be cool, but I can't help but think some flavor would be lost if you go barreling down the highways running over bandits and ghouls and deathclaws.

...of SCIENCE!
Apr 26, 2008

by Fluffdaddy

LoonShia posted:

Perhaps not horses, then, but a drat sprint function.

There are tons of mods that do this and it's pretty great. They usually balance it by making sprinting drain your AP.

kazil
Jul 24, 2005

A fancy little mouse🐁!

Byzantine posted:

Horses went extinct (in North America at least) after the War in Fallout.

Motorcycles/the car would be cool, but I can't help but think some flavor would be lost if you go barreling down the highways running over bandits and ghouls and deathclaws.

Fallout 4: Borderlands

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dr Christmas
Apr 24, 2010

Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻
I just got my first taste of the truely insane enemy level scaling in Borderlands 2's Ultimate Vault Hunter difficulty. Holy crap, the complainers weren't kidding.

I was a level 52 (slightly over the original max level) commando who has a skill at the top of one of the trees that causes a gigantic nuclear explosion when I deploy my turret, and a bunch of rare and a few epic level 50 weapons and a legendary level 50 incindiary sniper rifle. The only weapon I have that can reliably kill enemies is an epic rocket launcher. No, even the turret nuke can't. My shield is a kind that slightly decreases your maximum health in exchange for a very large shield capacity, and it still goes down in a stray hit. I decided "screw this" during a sequence in the beginning where you blast at a few waves of enemies with a giant turret that previously splattered groups of enemies in one hit. Even that couldn't reliably kill enemies, and often threw them to where I couldn't hit them. I was invulnerable in the turret, but goddamn.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply