Gosh, the year's half gone already. It seems like it just started six
months ago. Well, that just means we all have to double-down on our
gaming in order to make our yearly quotas. Chop-chop!
Shrt
----------------------------------------
* Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator 2
* Alan Wake
* Miasma Chronicles
* Dying Light 2: Stay Human
* WH40K Chaos Gate: Daemon Hunters
Lllllllllloooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggggggggg ----------------------------------------
* Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator 2
"Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator 2" (UEBS2 henceforth, because I'm
lazy) is not a game. Not really. It's more of a software toy. Oh sure,
it has a very basic 'real-time strategy mode', but that seems more
something added in satisfy some 'it's a game, really!' requirement
than something the developers expect anybody to really use.
No, what UEBS2 is all about is mashing your favorite heroes together
(perhaps in some ultimate and epic battle!) and seeing who comes out
on top. Yeah, the game has a bunch of bog-standard units to play
around with -zombies, knights, modern-day soldiers- but the real joy
comes from browsing the Steam workshop, finding cool characters, and
adding them to the roster. In a battle between the Incredible Hulk,
Sauron, and 50 Space Marines, who comes out on top? Try it and find
out!
At least, that's the dream. In execution, the implementation is too
simple; units are largely limited to "run forward", "shoot with
ranged" and "use melee attack". There's nothing in the way of strategy
or AI. There aren't any special abilities that might give one unit
advantage over any other type. It's all very mechanical and samey; the differences are numerical (how many hit-points, how much damage each
attack does) rather than organic. The bugs from Starship Troopers
can't climb up onto taller enemies and stab them in their vulnerable
fleshy bits; zombies can't be programmed to rise up after dying,
vampires don't have the ability to turn to mist (or flee from
crucifixes). In the end, it's a battle of statistics and spreadsheets.
Which isn't really that surprising, since that's what the original
game was too. UEBS2 is mostly a graphics and performance overhaul.
This newest version can now handle hundreds of thousands of units
onscreen at once, which is technically impressive, if not very useful
in application. After all, pitting 1 million zombies against 10,000
soldiers really isn't that different in gameplay from 1000 zombies
versus 10 soldiers; it's just a matter of how long you want to watch.
Still, there are a few other features; there's some neat
water-physics, and you can edit pretty much any unit-type from
directly inside the game. Think that M1A1 Abrams tank is too spongey?
Launch the editor and bump down its hit-points and armor class.
And the game isn't entirely without fun. I had a blast just trying to
find the /perfect/ match-up between units, trying over and over again
to figure out which combination of units made for the most challenging
and cinematic battles. "If I up the number of snipers to 25, move them
onto this ridge, and then push back the enemy trolls so they take six
minutes to arrive on the battlefield, that will give the knights just
enough time to hold back the platoon of Jedi".
Still, I wish the game allowed more abilities and effects. As it
stands, UEBS2 isn't much more than a basic upgrade to the original,
and -as I already owned the first game- the sequel hardly felt worth
the price I paid for it. It's perhaps worth a look just to play around
with (just make sure you have a beefy -and well-cooled!- CPU before
you try) but maybe wait until its on sale first.
* Alan Wake
It's been a while since I've last played "Alan Wake". It's not that I
didn't want to return to the game. Remedy Entertainment's other games -"Quantum Break", "Control", "Max Payne"- are fun, but I've always
liked "Alan Wake" the most of all of their IPs. But the game is
incredibly dependent on its story and atmosphere --it is a horror
game-- and over-familiarity with the narrative strips the game of much
of its effect. You can't be scared if you know exactly what's coming,
after all. So I'd decided to give the game a break, to give me time to forget. Six years ought to be enough, don't you think?
I'd forgotten how cinematic the game was, filled with dramatic camera
swoops and Dutch angles. I don't mean that as a criticism, though; it
isn't overdone and it really adds to the atmosphere and experience.
"Alan Wake" was one of those early games where you really felt that
its gameplay could -with perhaps a little editing- make for an
entertaining movie that was as fun to watch as it is to play. In fact,
"Alan Wake" was one of the first games I ever watched as a YouTube
long-play. The developers have an obvious flair for film-craft.
The gameplay is, arguably, the weakest part of the experience. It's
generally satisfying but there's a certain lack of variety --in
monsters, in situations, in weapons-- that makes the game drag a bit.
The individual combats are fun --even thrilling-- but by the end of
each level there's more a sense of exhaustion than achievement.
Defeating one bunch of baddies only to stumble soon thereafter upon
the next, my typical reaction isn't one of fear but tired ennui;
didn't I just leave this party?
But if the fights are monotonous, the game excels at its presentation
and exploration. Despite the aging engine, the world still looks
gorgeous (if a bit washed out) and the sound design is terrific.
Walking through the haunted woods of Washington, it is downright
creepy and you will be whirling about looking to see what made those crackling noises in the bushes behind you!
The story itself isn't exceptional, but it's well told. I'd forgotten
how the game divided itself into episodic chapters; separating each
level as if they were installments in an HBO mini-series. It makes for
good stopping points, and the recap at each level start not only
reminds you what to do but also helps build up the story and ambience.
Overall, a fun experience, one well worth waiting for; "Alan Wake" is
a game that has defied the years and remains a very satisfying
experience even after all these years.
* Miasma Chronicles
So, what exactly is "The Miasma Chronicles"? I guess it's best
described as a top-down CRPG. I mean, it has stats and quests and
inventory and all the usual paraphernalia we associate with that
genre. But if I sound a bit uncertain about that, it's because it
doesn't really /feel/ like a role-playing game. It feels a lot more
like a tactical strategy game. In fact, you know what this game most
reminds me of? "Fallout: Tactics", perhaps by way of Saturday morning cartoons.
Which isn't really a very complimentary description, I know. But the
combat system really seems to have been the priority of the developers
over the role-playing elements. The RPG aspects of the game are fairly shallow; you're assigned your characters, you don't really have any
control over the direction of the quest, and there's very little for
you to do in this game /except/ run around and kill the baddies. The
story itself is extremely sophomoric, the characters are extremely
one-note (and sort of annoying to be around, when it comes right down
to it), and while the setting is interesting --in a popcorn movie turn-off-your-brain sort of way-- it isn't well developed. It's got
the depth of a 1980s toy-cartoon.
The combat system is a bit better in design but it's not particularly
deep either. There's a lack of weapon variety (there are only assault
rifles, shotguns, snipers, and bouncy-grenade launcher things). You've
only a limited number of in-combat options, especially at the start of
the game (the late game finally offers some skills that shake up the
combat a bit, but it takes a lot of dull fighting to get there). The
AI isn't particularly clever. The most novel thing about the fighting
is that if you one-shot snipe a character where the other monsters
can't see him, you can often avoid combats altogether (or at least
push off the inevitable fights until you've significantly reduced the baddies' numbers). It actually makes stealth a useful function. Unfortunately, there's only one silenced weapon that enables this
feature, so you're /always/ going to have a character carrying it.
But here's the rub. See, normally this is where I'd comment on how the
games reflects a lack of focus, or resources, or talent on the part of
the developers. That --while the game isn't necessarily good-- it
shows a lot of potential that given better focus (or money, or time,
or skill) could have been a contender.
But that's not the case here. Because, for all its many flaws and my
general unhappiness with the title, a) I don't think the game itself
is bad, and b) I think the end result is exactly the game the
developers wanted to make. I think the developers had a vision for the
game: simplistic story, cookie-cutter characters, very basic XCom
style gameplay with a few role-playing trappings taped on. I think
they had an idea for a game, one they hoped that a certain audience
would appreciate, and I think they nailed it perfectly.
Now, I don't happen to be a member of that audience. And I also think
that most people looking at this game --especially those spoiled by
more robust RPGs and tactical-strategy games-- will be equally
disappointed. We've all been spoiled by modern titles like "Baldurs
Gate 3" and "XCOM" with their myriad of options and well-thought out
worlds. "The Myriad Chronicles" feels extremely dated in comparison; something that would have wowed us in the 90s and been perfectly
adequate in the 200s, but feels weirdly simplistic today. But I
suspect there's an audience for this sort of game; that the dev's
target this audience and they hit that target perfectly. So I can
hardly say this is a bad game.
It's just not a game for me.
* Dying Light 2: Stay Human
I can't I was excited about playing "Dying Light 2". The original game
was fine; flawed, but entertaining, and it had satisfied my itch for a first-person-parkour-game-with-zombies well enough that I'd no need
for a sequel. But seeing as "Dying Light 2" /was/ in my library and
the first game wasn't /too/ bad (except maybe for its ending), why not
give it a try?
First impressions were /not/ positive. While not an ugly game, its
visuals did not impress me, even with all the settings set to ultra
and with ray-tracing on. The game looks /old/ in a way that even some ten-year old games don't. I'm sure it checks all the boxes for
required features, but it's hard to see that it's doing anything
special. The textures aren't especially sharp, the models are
sometimes simpler than I'd expect, and the lighting --whatever it
claims about using ray-tracing-- isn't impressing me in the least.
It's not a potato-game, but neither does it stand out visually either.
But visuals don't matter if the gameplay is solid, right? But here too
"Dying Light 2" is found lacking. The parkour and combat in the first
game weren't spectacular, but their combination were solid enough to
make for a unique experience, especially after you leveled up a bit
and added a few tricks to your tool belt. Once you had the right
skills, the mixture of fluid movement and quick melee fights allowed
for some impressive tricks. And while this sequel tries to replicate
the first game's mechanics, it lacks the smoothness of its
predecessor. The combat animations feel clumsy --melee strikes
sometimes get inexplicably blocked or miss despite visually making
contact-- and the parkour maneuvers can be stopped by the smallest of obstacles. There's no /flow/ to the game; too often the clunky
gameplay stops you in your tracks for no obvious reason, and it feels
like you've run into a brick wall. Considering a lot of this game
revolves around smooth and constant movement, this is a significant
flaw.
But even when the mechanics work as they should, the game isn't very /interesting/. The game is extremely repetitive, whether in its
monsters, or weapons, or the blocks that make up the map, or the
fighting or the quests. Too much of the game feels like make-work; an
endless grind of side-missions and collectibles and 'go there fetch
that' assignments. It's not that the game is lacking in options, but
you'll have done almost all of them at least once by the first hour of
the game, and after that it's just doing it over and over again. The
game reminds me a lot of a Ubisoft open-world experience... except
done with a lot less panache and skill.
And it's not as if there's really anything to keep the interest level
high. The story and characters --and even the setting-- are lazy and
cliche. The voice acting and soundtrack are average at best. The loot
is boring. The crafting is annoying. The addition of a paraglider
mechanic feels unnecessary and unrealistic. The level design isn't
very exciting. There's even a host of bugs --getting stuck in the
level geometry is stupidly easy-- just to make things even less
enjoyable. There's no 'Wow!' factor to this game. It's a
paint-by-numbers open-world game that's completely unrewarding to
play.
Flawed as the original game was, I'd still recommend that people at
least /try/ the first "Dying Light" game. But this sequel? It isn't
even worth the time --much less the money-- to install. It's got
nothing original to say, and it's poorly designed to boot.
* Warhammer 40,000: Chaos Gate - Daemon Hunters
I really didn't know what to expect going into this game. I was
familiar with the Warhammer 40K license of course; I'd even played the
1996 strategy game this title is a nominal follow-up to. I knew it was
a turn-based tactical combat game too. But beyond that? I was going in
blind.
The first thing that struck me were the visuals. While not doing
anything 'high-end', the game makes excellent use of its assets. The
models are deliciously detailed, and the terrain is gorgeous (well,
gorgeous in a grim-dark eternal war sort of way, anyhow). The
animations are filled with lots of fun embellishments, and overall the graphics well capture the moody, gothic feel of the setting incredibly
well.
The gameplay, on the other hand, not so much. The actual tactical
combat is okay, but not without its flaws. So long as you can get into
range, hits are almost always assured (none of that RNG "100% hit
chance but you still miss" nonsense from XCom here), although damage
and effects varies depending on range and buffs. This makes the fights
a matter of attrition; grinding down the enemy hit-points faster than
they can do the same to you. It's all about getting your soldiers into
firing positions first, and taking out the bad guy before he can
retaliate. The goal is to kill (or at least temporarily disable) any
foes in range before your turn is up. However, this reveals a flaw in
the game; such tactics require extreme mobility and maneuverability,
and neither the mechanics nor the map really assist this. Fortunately,
the AI is not too aggressive (at least not on normal difficulty) and
often it doesn't even activate units until you first spot them. Still,
it means a lot of the battles are spent moving your units slowly
forward across maps that are too large for their own good.
Outside the tactical combat, there's also a strategic battle game
where you maneuver your battle cruiser full of space-knights across
the cosmos, collecting resources, researching skills and rebuilding
your defenses. I grok the concept the developers were chasing after
--it offers some freedom of choice as to which battles you take on
next, and adds an extra level of pressure as you are sometimes forced
to deploy before you're ready-- but too many of the battles are procedurally-generated clones of one another, and the whole experience quickly degrades into a tiresome, repetitive grind. I'd have much
preferred a more curated, better-paced selection of hand-picked
missions to this semi-random allotment and ultimately pointless
strategy.
"Daemon Hunters" also suffers from a certain lack of variety. The
first half of the game, you'll mostly be facing off against the same
small handful of enemies on the same small handful of map-types and it quickly becomes dull. The second half of the game does start mixing it
up a bit, but the enemy variety never becomes particularly large, and
by the end of the game I was quite tired of seeing the same terrain
assets used again and again. This being a Games Workshop license, I
assume that variety /can/ be had... but only with the purchase of
additional DLC. But the base game didn't inspire me enough to pay for
more of it, or even look at what was on offer.
On the plus side, the characters and story were fun and well told.
Well, for a Warhammer 40K license, anyway; the characters are hammy
and the story is ridiculous and filled with tropes and cliches, but
it's amusing in a comic-book sort of way. Far more than the gameplay,
wanting to see how the story ended was what kept me playing to the
end. Above average voice-acting and an enjoyable soundtrack helped
there too.
Overall, I enjoyed "Daemon Hunters", but only just. It's an average
game; a few high points here, a few low. Even as fan of the license
and tactical combat games, I couldn't recommend this as a game you'd
rush to buy. But if you have an interest in the genre, and happen to
have it in your library (I got mine as part of a HumbleChoice bundle),
it's not a bad way to pass the time. Just don't expect too much from
it.
----------------------------------------
So that's my month's worth of gaming. Five up, five down. Some good,
some not; some smack in the middle. An average month all around.
And what about you? How did you spend the last thirty? Did you play
great games, or stinkers? In other words:
What Have You Been Playing... IN JUNE 2024?
Gosh, the year's half gone already. It seems like it just started six
months ago. Well, that just means we all have to double-down on our
gaming in order to make our yearly quotas. Chop-chop!
* Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator 2
And what about you? How did you spend the last thirty? Did you play
great games, or stinkers? In other words:
What Have You Been Playing... IN JUNE 2024?
* Alan Wake
It's been a while since I've last played "Alan Wake". It's not that I
didn't want to return to the game. Remedy Entertainment's other games >-"Quantum Break", "Control", "Max Payne"- are fun, but I've always
liked "Alan Wake" the most of all of their IPs. But the game is
incredibly dependent on its story and atmosphere --it is a horror
game-- and over-familiarity with the narrative strips the game of much
of its effect. You can't be scared if you know exactly what's coming,
after all. So I'd decided to give the game a break, to give me time to >forget. Six years ought to be enough, don't you think?
I'd forgotten how cinematic the game was, filled with dramatic camera
swoops and Dutch angles. I don't mean that as a criticism, though; it
isn't overdone and it really adds to the atmosphere and experience.
"Alan Wake" was one of those early games where you really felt that
its gameplay could -with perhaps a little editing- make for an
entertaining movie that was as fun to watch as it is to play. In fact,
"Alan Wake" was one of the first games I ever watched as a YouTube
long-play. The developers have an obvious flair for film-craft.
The gameplay is, arguably, the weakest part of the experience. It's
generally satisfying but there's a certain lack of variety --in
monsters, in situations, in weapons-- that makes the game drag a bit.
The individual combats are fun --even thrilling-- but by the end of
each level there's more a sense of exhaustion than achievement.
Defeating one bunch of baddies only to stumble soon thereafter upon
the next, my typical reaction isn't one of fear but tired ennui;
didn't I just leave this party?
But if the fights are monotonous, the game excels at its presentation
and exploration. Despite the aging engine, the world still looks
gorgeous (if a bit washed out) and the sound design is terrific.
Walking through the haunted woods of Washington, it is downright
creepy and you will be whirling about looking to see what made those >crackling noises in the bushes behind you!
The story itself isn't exceptional, but it's well told. I'd forgotten
how the game divided itself into episodic chapters; separating each
level as if they were installments in an HBO mini-series. It makes for
good stopping points, and the recap at each level start not only
reminds you what to do but also helps build up the story and ambience.
Overall, a fun experience, one well worth waiting for; "Alan Wake" is
a game that has defied the years and remains a very satisfying
experience even after all these years.
Gosh, the year's half gone already. It seems like it just started six...
months ago. Well, that just means we all have to double-down on our
gaming in order to make our yearly quotas. Chop-chop!
great games, or stinkers? In other words:
What Have You Been Playing... IN JUNE 2024?--
Which Alan Wake Spalls?I'm probably referring to the first one.
I finished Diablo 4's main campaign. I started playing EVE Online. :P
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Gosh, the year's half gone already. It seems like it just started six...
months ago. Well, that just means we all have to double-down on our
gaming in order to make our yearly quotas. Chop-chop!
great games, or stinkers? In other words:
What Have You Been Playing... IN JUNE 2024?
Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote at 18:46 this Tuesday (GMT):
I finished Diablo 4's main campaign. I started playing EVE Online. :P
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Gosh, the year's half gone already. It seems like it just started six...
months ago. Well, that just means we all have to double-down on our
gaming in order to make our yearly quotas. Chop-chop!
great games, or stinkers? In other words:
What Have You Been Playing... IN JUNE 2024?
What's EVE online?
What's EVE online?
EVE online is not my favorite MMO but I come back to it every so
often.
On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 14:11:45 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:30:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 >><candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:
What's EVE online?
A PvP centric MMORPG set in space. But the PvP aspect can be avoided
for the most part if you stay in certain areas of the game. EVE is
known for having a difficult learning curve. It has been around since
the early 2000s. I think it is older then World of Warcraft.
The game is fairly unique as far as MMOs go. For instance, leveling is >>handled differently in EVE then in other MMOs. All skills are learned
in real time. A skill could take anywhere from minutes to weeks to
learn. (And probably longer for some skills). There are a ton of
skills to learn but you only need the ones that correspond to whatever >>career path you take your character on. You continue learning these
skills even if you are offline.
EVE online is not my favorite MMO but I come back to it every so
often.
As a game, "EVE Online" is not for everyone... or even most people.
It's biggest strength has never been its gameplay, but its userbase
and how they interact with the world. There are users -or groups of
users- who all but own certain regions of the game universe; if they
don't want you in their territory, you're not getting in (or, well,
maybe you'll get in but you probably won't get out). It's the
interactions of these groups -virtualized nations- that makes the game
so intriguing. And the spectacle when these groups clash -literally
pitting warships that cost thousands of dollars real-money apiece!- in
fiery battle is something to see.
But this same complexity of interactions can make it difficult for the average user to get into the game. It's not the sort of thing you can (easily) play solo, or even with a small group of friends. There's a
lot of grind and if you don't dedicate yourself to the game, you won't
get very far. If you put mobile experiences on one side as 'casual'
games, "EVE Online" is about as far on the other side as you can get.
It's the anti-casual game; hardcore players only.
"EVE Online" is one of those games I have /repeatedly/ tried to get
into, and every time retreated bruised and dazed. It's a fascinating -
and so far successful - experiment in an MMO where players have actual
agency in how the virtual world they inhabit develops... but it isn't
for everyone.
Overall, a fun experience, one well worth waiting for; "Alan Wake" is
a game that has defied the years and remains a very satisfying
experience even after all these years.
What Have You Been Playing... IN JUNE 2024?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 167:08:56 |
| Calls: | 9,594 |
| Files: | 13,676 |
| Messages: | 6,149,663 |