shadowtongue

Yah, I agree with louist for the most part, though, I have never even played Sots][, just reading the forums at kerb and seeing some of the game mechanics just made me go 'why???'. Well they made the game for them, not for me, so that's why, on the other hand, if I don't think I would particularly enjoy playing it, why would I give them my money for it? Feel that way about a lot of games lately unfortunately, but hey, I'm savin

Eh... 3D is fine once you get used to it, but there is a bit of an adjustment period. On the other hand, 3D is totally unnecessary in these games and only exists for developers to flex their e-peen. None of that will matter if the game play is good.

Just preface any game name with Stardock's Worked for Sid...

It looks great. The question to me is how quickly do the missions become repetitive, and how quickly do I get annoyed with the 5 man squads. Honestly though, I'd almost rather buy this for a console than the PC, that way I wouldn't be as disappointed if there are issues with game play. Does that make sense to anyone?

Well MoO3 with Bhurics patches and one of the good mods on top is where the game actually becomes enjoyable. I liked the idea of a macro style game, I like the MoO universe (I don't know the DW universe, and frankly, what I saw when I played wasn't interesting enough for me to care about it). MoO3 had some cool ideas/features about how you manage your empire, in particular the DEV plans were really cool, *and* they actually work the way th

The Dom3 of space 4x... Well either you will love it or you will hate it then. I am in the former camp on Dom3, even though I can't play it anymore because the micro gets insanely stupid late game. But the later camp on DW. Granted, I never played the expansions, but I just never quite got the immersion factor I was looking for, can't see spending more money on it at this point. Which is a pity because I think the concept

The thing for me is that I would be quite happy with a MoM clone, that pretty much just cleans up the interface a bit, makes it look nice and shiney and cool, and makes the AI 'competent'. Improving on the classic usually means adding crap that distracts from the simple beauty of what MoM is. Which is in no small part why EWoM turned out to be a steamy pile of feces. FE, I have no opinion on, I've stopped following it because, in

I'm waiting for it to not be on Steam myself.

It wasn't actually Wizardy, but that's the first one I really remember playing A LOT. I think it was actually something called Galactic Empires? Or something like that. You had a galaxy to conquer one planet at a time, and had a time limit of some kind, so you had to plan your production to meet your fleet as you jumped around hitting systems. Simple, elegant, fun. Oh, and it didn't need a zillion patches and DLCs to

Yah... It's funny how people completely miss that one of their biggest reasons for going to kickstart is to get the money to get the art assets done correctly. that said, I'm still not sold on this game at all. Undead as a playable race? Ok, if that's what what your boner is great, I could simply not care less.

Yeah... I can pass then. I was not that impressed back when I 1st played it, if it's not any better now...

Well I didn't say I was the only one, just that I have been doing it for a while now. And, putting my money where my mouth is, or isn't as the case may be. It's fine to say that it's been this way for a long time, it's another thing to actually take action and refuse to preorder or buy on release. MoO3 and GC2 last two games I bought at release. In the end I didn't regret either, but I would have been happier if

I forget... Was the AI ever made competent? Because the last time I played this one, the AI was terribad. I mean you mention this briefly, but just curious if any mods actually made a dent in this issue.

"Designed as a tactical RPG for mobile platforms with a social component,..." Uggghhhh... no thanks

lol... I've been preaching this for over a year. The problem is that the current business model seems to be to push stuff out way before it's ready, because the payoff is still too high that way. Gone are days of clean releases right? That's what everyone has been saying for at least a decade. Well, the only way to change it is to stop rewarding the shitty business practices which allow that.

For me MP is irrelevant. I have no time or patience for it, and while I have done MP on things like Dominions3 (and 2 before), I find that within a certain time frame it moves from 'fun' to 'tedious' and having to get my turns in every day (or otherday) begins to feel like work. So I have to quit. Granted, I care not one whit for RTS or FPS, so those communities don't interest me, and I've never been one for MMOs either, mostly due to the insane

So over the past couple years I've noticed a change in how I approach PC games. I find out about new games coming down the pipe (thanks to this forum in no small part), I do my research, check web sites, read faqs, read forums, occasionally join and ask questions, participate in discussions, ... None of that is any different from what I ever did. The difference is that over the past few years I have stopped acquiring the games at release

No, without Steam those 2 games may (or may not, I mean come one, no Steam doesn't mean there are no alternatives, KickStarters are not Steam exclusives are they?) exist. My contention was with your rather absolute statement on the plight of PC Games without Steam. I have no strong opinion about Steam itself, it is what it is, and either you want to use it or you don't. I'm fine with a majority of people liking it and using it, and I'm fine w

I don't have a problem with the Steam store, hell I've never even put Steam on any system I own. I don't want it and I don' t need it. If you think it's great, great, use it. If others don't want to use it, why do you even begin to care? But I don't think this is really about pros/cons of Steam, at least it isn't to me, because I don't care what they are they are irrelevant to me. This is about

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="19" id="3200341"]My argument is, there is no point in getting rid of steam. It causes me no problems, it instead provides a service. When my computer went down, and I had to rely on my laptop, I decided that I should put some games on it. I could of dragged out all my disk, but decided to put steam and the games on it was much easier, and because my laptop is often not connected to the internet, the offline mode allows me to play all my steam games wit

[quote who="mentalinstra" reply="15" id="3199986"]Exactly. Boycott Steam and go buy all your games at WalMart, Target and Best Buy. Thats really making a statement. Say what you want about DRM and whatnot but purchasing games on Steam is worlds better for the gaming industry than giving Wal-Mart your money.[/quote] I don't think that's the point though, at least it isn't from my pov. Boycotting Steam is really just step one, the real b

Herpes.

You forgot the 'like Steam' part... I'll pass.

Yah, I'm fairly interested in this one as well, but I have to actually see a demo and hang out on the forums for a bit first. Also, it's not clear if it requires Steam or not, since I don't do Steam because it irritates me. Which is a pity in some cases, but oh well, eventually the games get old enough that they get re-released without that part of it, I hope :p

If we can limit the issue to Always Online DRM then we can craft an argument which suggests that AODRM is detrimental to the future of gaming. If said argument can be supported, then we can begin to worry about if it's 'moral' (I'm not so sure that's the right word to use, but if we don't get in a twist about specific meanings for it we can simply apply it generally) to oppose AODRM and to what extent one should champion the cause. And no,