Gaming Thread
- Thread starter Liverslapper
- Start date
El Stormo
Member
Not playing, because apparently, and for no reason whatsoever, people in the EU have to wait another two days. This is a disgrace.
I can understand this for retail versions, because they have to ship and all, but on Steam? The game is RIGHT THERE. This is just some arbitrary delay so that all the kids in the home country get to play it before everyone else. Fucking retarded. And I just had two days off, today and tomorrow, and they release it late so that I can start playing when I have night shifts. THANKS GUYS.
I can understand this for retail versions, because they have to ship and all, but on Steam? The game is RIGHT THERE. This is just some arbitrary delay so that all the kids in the home country get to play it before everyone else. Fucking retarded. And I just had two days off, today and tomorrow, and they release it late so that I can start playing when I have night shifts. THANKS GUYS.
ShadowsWithin
Member
lol i'm glad i'm in the states, although in all honesty the guy's in Australia have it was worse than pretty much everyone 
El Stormo
Member
Karmic
speedy meatmonger
meh, games are released on tuesdays in the states, and on fridays in Europe. I don't think they can sell it on different dates, as retail stores would lose customers to it being digitally availabe first, and the stores as a result wouldn't buy the games from the publishers.
Sure it sucks, but that's how it works. I'mma playing the demo for now so I can wait a day or two
El Stormo
Member
Det Som Engang Var
Viking Bastard
El Stormo
Member
True that, but still, it feels completely arbitrary, that's what bothers me.
Besides, retail stores are on their way out anyway.
Besides, retail stores are on their way out anyway.
Det Som Engang Var
Viking Bastard
Man, Persona 4 being one of my favorite games and 3 being really great, I still had low expectations for Persona 2. (Which came out in two parts, the first never coming to America although a fan made English patch was made)
Amazing game. The Joker was an incredible character (way, way cooler and better written than the Batman Joker), and the second to last boss is Adolf Hitler. Not some guy that looks like Hitler, Hitler himself. Awesome.
Amazing game. The Joker was an incredible character (way, way cooler and better written than the Batman Joker), and the second to last boss is Adolf Hitler. Not some guy that looks like Hitler, Hitler himself. Awesome.
El Stormo
Member
Dead Winter
STAHP
El Stormo
Member
El Stormo
Member
First personal impressions of Civ V:
Pros
- Happiness is now divided across your entire empire, and the penalty for a short period of unhappiness is less crippling than the Civs before. Less tedious happiness micromanaging is definitely a good thing. Health is also gone, although I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
- The A.I., even on lower levels, is by no means a pushover. If you don't spend time planning where to place your units, they will make you regret it, unlike in earlier games, where the overall strength of your army was usually deterrent enough.
- The Adopt mechanic is far better than the old Civics system, since now you can customize your civics depending on what you need, instead of always having to choose between sets of bonuses and penalties.
- No more tech trading. I hated that, because Civs always freely distributed techs around, cutting each other ridiculously generous deals, except for the player, who had to bleed through the nose for it. The new research project thing can be similarly abused, but nowhere near as flagrantly.
- Leaders speak their own language. That's a nice thing they implemented.
- Ranged combat makes more sense than before, with ranged units actually being able to attack across tiles.
- Cities are now defended even if a unit doesn't garrison them. That means you don't *have* to garrison each and every city to prevent the enemy from walking right in, and even if you're caught unprepared, your cities will often be able to withstand attacks for a while, so your army can move toward the enemy.
- Jungles can be cleared much earlier in the game, and thank Sid for that! If there's one thing I *hated* about the old Civs, it was all those useless, shitty jungle tiles that you couldn't clear until the Renaissance.
- Hexes are better. I guess.
Cons
- Units cannot stack. What the Hell, Civ? I can kinda understand the reasoning behind it, to make maneuvering more tactical and all, but very often, it's extremely tedious and time-consuming to move units, especially through narrow corridors. And don't get me started about units escorting civilians. Or being unable to garrison multiple units in a city.
- Diplomacy has become completely opaque, and a lot of the things don't make sense (a Civ can hate your guts even though you traded fairly with them, joined together for several research projects, and fought a common enemy together - just because your borders are rubbing up against each other)
- Less strategic goods. I always liked the race that ensued when a new good was revealed.
- Overall, it feels a bit dumbed down. Not as much micromanaging is good, but several things that gave the game more depth (like religion, for instance) have been removed.
- What the Hell is a pact of secrecy? And why do Open Borders pacts always end after a set number of turns? It was more logical to just let them go on indefinitely, until one party cancelled them. The whole diplomacy system feels unintuitive and uncomfortable.
- The AI is still too much geared toward destroying the player instead of winning the game.
- City states providing quests is nice, but on the whole, city states are unnecessary and annoying, especially since you have to either manually (and tediously) guide your units around them, or have to endure those annoying "Trespassing" messages every turn.
- Where are the resource indicators? I like being able to quickly scan resources on the map occasionally, since I often look from a very high viewpoint. Now it's been replaced with this ugly, unworkable strategic map. Bah.
I'll probably think of more later on.
Pros
- Happiness is now divided across your entire empire, and the penalty for a short period of unhappiness is less crippling than the Civs before. Less tedious happiness micromanaging is definitely a good thing. Health is also gone, although I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
- The A.I., even on lower levels, is by no means a pushover. If you don't spend time planning where to place your units, they will make you regret it, unlike in earlier games, where the overall strength of your army was usually deterrent enough.
- The Adopt mechanic is far better than the old Civics system, since now you can customize your civics depending on what you need, instead of always having to choose between sets of bonuses and penalties.
- No more tech trading. I hated that, because Civs always freely distributed techs around, cutting each other ridiculously generous deals, except for the player, who had to bleed through the nose for it. The new research project thing can be similarly abused, but nowhere near as flagrantly.
- Leaders speak their own language. That's a nice thing they implemented.
- Ranged combat makes more sense than before, with ranged units actually being able to attack across tiles.
- Cities are now defended even if a unit doesn't garrison them. That means you don't *have* to garrison each and every city to prevent the enemy from walking right in, and even if you're caught unprepared, your cities will often be able to withstand attacks for a while, so your army can move toward the enemy.
- Jungles can be cleared much earlier in the game, and thank Sid for that! If there's one thing I *hated* about the old Civs, it was all those useless, shitty jungle tiles that you couldn't clear until the Renaissance.
- Hexes are better. I guess.
Cons
- Units cannot stack. What the Hell, Civ? I can kinda understand the reasoning behind it, to make maneuvering more tactical and all, but very often, it's extremely tedious and time-consuming to move units, especially through narrow corridors. And don't get me started about units escorting civilians. Or being unable to garrison multiple units in a city.
- Diplomacy has become completely opaque, and a lot of the things don't make sense (a Civ can hate your guts even though you traded fairly with them, joined together for several research projects, and fought a common enemy together - just because your borders are rubbing up against each other)
- Less strategic goods. I always liked the race that ensued when a new good was revealed.
- Overall, it feels a bit dumbed down. Not as much micromanaging is good, but several things that gave the game more depth (like religion, for instance) have been removed.
- What the Hell is a pact of secrecy? And why do Open Borders pacts always end after a set number of turns? It was more logical to just let them go on indefinitely, until one party cancelled them. The whole diplomacy system feels unintuitive and uncomfortable.
- The AI is still too much geared toward destroying the player instead of winning the game.
- City states providing quests is nice, but on the whole, city states are unnecessary and annoying, especially since you have to either manually (and tediously) guide your units around them, or have to endure those annoying "Trespassing" messages every turn.
- Where are the resource indicators? I like being able to quickly scan resources on the map occasionally, since I often look from a very high viewpoint. Now it's been replaced with this ugly, unworkable strategic map. Bah.
I'll probably think of more later on.
EricT
Don't you ever get...
I prefer squares...
That said, I have really no qualms with it, especially considering I haven't purchased it yet and have been playing it on my friends steam account.
That said, I have really no qualms with it, especially considering I haven't purchased it yet and have been playing it on my friends steam account.
EricT
Don't you ever get...
In other news, the Arcana: Gothic 4 demo is very questionable for gothic fans ( a lot of staples to the series are MIA, unknown whether that shit will be in the full game or not), but is still a solid RPG experience despite some of the most horrid voice acting ever to grace a demo.
Det Som Engang Var
Viking Bastard
Was it only questionable in the sense of missing series staples? Anything else bad?
I really need this game to come out so I can get my weeaboo fix. And as usual the team is pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with in the US, although this trailer is much more mild compared to the longer one.
In any case, it looks darker than Nocturne, more perverted than Persona, and more fucked up than insert Atlus game here.
I really need this game to come out so I can get my weeaboo fix. And as usual the team is pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with in the US, although this trailer is much more mild compared to the longer one.
In any case, it looks darker than Nocturne, more perverted than Persona, and more fucked up than insert Atlus game here.
Last edited by a moderator:
El Stormo
Member
Not even with the one-unit-per-tile limit? In Civ IV, moving a large army around, meant gathering them all in one place, shift-clicking and sending them on their merry way. Now you have to order each and every individual unit to their destination, making sure that they don't bump into each other or finish on the same tile. That's just retarded.
EricT
Don't you ever get...
Similar threads
