What video games have you been playing V: the return of the subtitle

[GoodSarmatian]

I was just wondering if anyone here had taken the plunge on the new game. I can't really afford it right now, and I'm not totally convinced my machine can handle it as well as I'd like. Maybe I should fire up Human Revolution again. It's been a while since I played it.

I'm waiting for two reasons:

1.) The hardware requirements are really high and I'll either have to upgrade or wait for a patch that improves performance.

2.) Most reviews from sources I trust agree that while there are many gameplay improvements, the story doesn't really go anywhere and ends rather abruptly. I've avoided spoilers, but there seems to be a lot of "I can't tell you right now". Apparently the game is so desperate to get you to buy DLC and sequels that it refuses to resolve any plot points.
Typical GOTY edition candidate.

 

[trader/warrior]

Aaand I hit a seemingly unpreventable ctd on turn 30 of my total war campaign. Saw people on the forums with the same issue only they were hundreds of turns in. Just my luck.

Now on to try Europa Barbarorum II then I guess.

 

[Commodore]

Anybody here played Power & Revolution: Geopolitical Simulator 4? I've been looking for a game that allows you to build and lead a revolution from the ground up and this game keeps popping up. I'm curious to see if anyone here has played it.

If you have, what are your overall impressions of the game? Do you think it would satisfy someone who really is just looking for a revolution simulator? If not, do you know of any games that would?

 

[Lohrenswald]

I actually have Just cause 2, I should try to get back into it, but I haven't played for over half a year so I'm sorta out of it

So I did that. It's great fun, but kinda hard sometimes, and I've forgotten a lot of the story lol

 

[Takhisis]

If you are after the open world romping around with weapons, driving and flying rather than the GTA stories, I would suggest the Just Cause and Saints Row series. Gets old pretty quick, but the itch to play it again always comes back. Other than the newest Just Cause, I expect they are all less performance heavy than GTA IV too.

Currently playing Medieval TW 2 with the Stainless Steel + Historical Improvement mod as Norman Sicily. Pretty cool. Always surprised at just how bad the battle AI is in total war games though, I'm on Very Hard/Very Hard difficulty with all sorts of AI "improvement" mods but never lost more than 200-300 men while exterminating much larger forces than mine. They just do so many mind numbingly stupid things in battle, and as an old obsessed MTW 1 competetive multiplayer battler I just can't bring myself to intentionally play badly.

Well, it is a Total War AI. I remember that, a few years ago, I decided to replay Rome: Total War with the Macedonians. The Romans kept throwing people at one tiny city of mine in which I purposefully left easily-breachable wooden walls/pallisades. They never tried to starve me out, never tried to bombard my troops, nothing. Just built battering rams, broke open my gates and poked a hole in the pallisades, and charged head-on into a half-moon formation of phalangites backed by levy pikemen. It worked every time. For me. Meanwhile I conquered Thrace, the Ægean and Cyrenaica.

Ever since then, they have not improved.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well, it is a Total War AI.

Well, the Civ AI won't be joining MENSA either. In fact, gaming AI overall seems to have stalled about 20 years ago. I tend to assume it's because the games themselves have gotten more complicated, but I dunno.

 

[Commodore]

Well, the Civ AI won't be joining MENSA either. In fact, gaming AI overall seems to have stalled about 20 years ago. I tend to assume it's because the games themselves have gotten more complicated, but I dunno.

I think game AI peaked around the early to mid 2000s. It was around that time that game developers started focusing more on creating more impressive visuals and multiplayer experiences and sort of let AI development fall to the wayside.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think game AI peaked around the early to mid 2000s. It was around that time that game developers started focusing more on creating more impressive visuals and multiplayer experiences and sort of let AI development fall to the wayside.

Yeah, graphics have advanced a lot, as have the story-focused games.

I'm not so sure about "multiplayer experiences", but I guess I haven't played too many multiplayer games the last few years. There was a time when I was playing MMORPGs 'til my eyes were bleeding, but their evolution seemed to really stall and all the games were largely the same. Designers would insist they weren't making "WoW with a ______ skin" and then they'd do exactly that. I played Company of Heroes and World of Tanks a lot, and each had their strengths and weaknesses. I didn't play Company of Heroes II enough to know if they'd progressed. World of Warplanes and World of Warships didn't seem to take the ball down the field very much, although I didn't play either one a whole lot.

I wonder if AI development might have suffered from the trend in gaming toward making games easier.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Anyone else get burned by No Man's Sky?

I heard about the game when it was first announced but didn't follow it after that. So I missed the hype train and am therefore not nearly as butthurt as many are. Even still, the game was not worth $60, not even close.

 

[trader/warrior]

Ever since then, they have not improved.

Worst thing is how every TW (at least the non-gunpowder ones) always have more and more siege battles, when making an AI that can handle them without doing completely bizarre things clearly requires some sort of hyper-advanced quantum AI. Not to mention that the armies can only ever cover 1/10th of the walls at a time but the cities get bigger and bigger.


Past turn 50 as Celtiberians in EB2 now and having an absolute blast so far unlike any TW game I can remember since ages.

Really impressive just how built from the ground up it feels compared to SS which is more like M2TW with a ton of stuff piled on. Unit movement feels completely different and fluid, units rout and regroup a lot more for more dynamic battles. Attention to historical detail and flavor text is just at unreal levels.

Enemies, both independent rebels and civs seem boosted to ridiculous levels to resist the player, random independent provinces more than 1.5 stacks when I can support about one with my 4 provinces I got so far (After 50 turns, expanding from 1 starting as fast as I could, game pace also seems much slower which I like).

Only complaints; Battles, particularly sieges tank my fps on turned down settings. Never had that at all with any other mod. And the UI looks like something only a modder could think looks decent.

Some screens that were squished to non-widescreen by the built in screenshot function:

Spoiler :

Acceptable losses... (yes, I lost that battle )

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[Commodore]

Anyone else get burned by No Man's Sky?

I heard about the game when it was first announced but didn't follow it after that. So I missed the hype train and am therefore not nearly as butthurt as many are. Even still, the game was not worth $60, not even close.

You should try Empyrion. I bought it but haven't played it yet. Everything I read though describes it as No Man's Sky but with actual content. It also came out about a year before No Man's Sky.

 

[Lexicus]

I seent the hype train on No Man's Sky, and was pretty excited for it, but I wait to buy any game until after it's been out for a while, both because they get cheaper and to see what people think of it.

It's kind of funny, because I was thinking of No Man's Sky would hopefully be like Spore but good, but it seems they actually managed to take a step backwards from where Spore was.

Ah well, I can laugh, because I didn't buy the game.

 

[Commodore]

I seent the hype train on No Man's Sky, and was pretty excited for it, but I wait to buy any game until after it's been out for a while, both because they get cheaper and to see what people think of it.

It's kind of funny, because I was thinking of No Man's Sky would hopefully be like Spore but good, but it seems they actually managed to take a step backwards from where Spore was.

Ah well, I can laugh, because I didn't buy the game.

I didn't buy it either because I avoid games that are hyped up. To me, if a game is hyped up that tells me it's probably a bad game and the devs are just trying get people excited about it so as many people as possible buy it before everyone finds out what a piece of garbage it is.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, the Civ AI won't be joining MENSA either. In fact, gaming AI overall seems to have stalled about 20 years ago. I tend to assume it's because the games themselves have gotten more complicated, but I dunno.

I think game AI peaked around the early to mid 2000s. It was around that time that game developers started focusing more on creating more impressive visuals and multiplayer experiences and sort of let AI development fall to the wayside.

Probably earlier. I still have a copy of Dune II available.

Dune II's AI (from 1992, I think) sends waves after wave, straight at my base. I just build a line of walls and turrets with some units there.

Rome: Total War's AI (mid-2000s) sends armies at my nearest city in as straight a line as possible. Every time they are massacred at the exact same spot.

 

[Commodore]

Probably earlier. I still have a copy of Dune II available.

Dune II's AI (from 1992, I think) sends waves after wave, straight at my base. I just build a line of walls and turrets with some units there.

Rome: Total War's AI (mid-2000s) sends armies at my nearest city in as straight a line as possible. Every time they are massacred at the exact same spot.

I wouldn't use Total War AI as the benchmark for AI advancement in games. There are games out there like Galactic Civilizations 2, which still has the best AI I've seen in a strategy game.

 

[Takhisis]

Ah, I've never played them.

As someone who still keeps playing UFO: Enemy Unknown, I think you can tell I prefer gameplay over graphics.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Just played a few hours of Day of Defeat: Source. I think I can still safely say it's one of the only multiplayer FPS games I actually enjoy.

 

[Ajidica]

I think game AI peaked around the early to mid 2000s. It was around that time that game developers started focusing more on creating more impressive visuals and multiplayer experiences and sort of let AI development fall to the wayside.

I'm not entirely sure. As much maligned as Bethesda's NPC AI is, having played Morrowind recently I can confirm its AI isn't capable of doing much more that running at you or casting some useless spells. (You want to cast a 5 point shield spell that lasts 10 seconds while I whack you with a Dwemer Battleaxe? Sure, that is one more dead Ash Vampire.) In comparison the Skyrim AI that uses spells, dodges, blocks, attempts to flank me, and uses potions relatively intelligently is a godsend.
Even for strategy AIs, I would say in general they are better but suffer from the fact players don't want a "perfect" AI but rather one that behaves like a human. I was reading a blog post by the Civ4 designer and he commented how the most difficult thing about the Civ4 AI was programming it to behave vaguely like a human. Programming it to follow a single optimal strategy would produce a strong AI but wouldn't be that fun to play against.
While some AI are pretty terrible, some are also quite decent. I've been quite impressed with the Attila Total War AI. As long as I try and avoid intentionally exploiting the AI, it generally fields a balanced army and knows the difference between shock cavalry, skirmishers, and infantry - and can generally avoid suiciding cavalry into readied Auxilia Palatina. Which compared to the Medieval 2 bum-rush or Empire's square-dancing musketeers is a substantial improvement. I've actually lost a battle to the AI in Attila with my Roman field army that was only about 30% my fault. (I was over-eager with my cavalry and skirmishers so the AI wiped them out. I tried to quickly close the gap between their skirmishers and my Comitatenses to draw the AI into a battle my infantry would surely win but the skirmishers kept withdrawing and their cavalry kept flanking me forcing me to turn my units to avoid a rear cavalry charge - which opened them up for a javelin volley.

 

[trader/warrior]

I'm not entirely sure. As much maligned as Bethesda's NPC AI is, having played Morrowind recently I can confirm its AI isn't capable of doing much more that running at you or casting some useless spells. (You want to cast a 5 point shield spell that lasts 10 seconds while I whack you with a Dwemer Battleaxe? Sure, that is one more dead Ash Vampire.) In comparison the Skyrim AI that uses spells, dodges, blocks, attempts to flank me, and uses potions relatively intelligently is a godsend.

Skyrim is also a good example of just how taxing relatively basic AI still can be on modern hardware. Having all those active AI's walking around in cities is pretty much the reason for closed cities with loading screens (IIRC), and a lot of other limitations on amounts of enemies and such. Compare that with other open worlds like GTA and Assasins Creed that use procedurally generated braindead crowds which give a much more lively atmosphere, but doesn't have all persistent characters like TES.

 

[Yeekim]

I think the Witcher 3 hits a pretty good balance in this regard...