Playing other games

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 5. Apr 19, 20:59

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 5. Apr 19, 01:02
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 26. Mar 19, 18:09
On Subnautica - I've thought about buying it just for all the cool building stuffs and research, but haven't because of sea monsters and jump-scares and deep dark waters and nasty things that have big teeth that will eat you... :) Nope, I have enough nightmare fuel in real-life, don't need more. :)
If that's the only reason you haven't checked it out it would be a shame IMO. I know people like to talk about that particular element, but that's simply because it's "kool" to talk about, but it's hardly the defining trait or what the game is about. Say, if you go on a camping trip and the guide say "beware, Bears sighted in the mountain", that certainly would put you a bit on edge right? And if you're "lucky" enough to run into one, assuming you don't die from a heart attack you will run away and tell "EVERYONE" about it. But ... running into a bear is hardly the point of a camping trip right?
Do you know who doesn't get eaten by bears in the mountains while on a camping trip? The guy who doesn't go camping in the mountains where bears have been sighted, that's who. :)
What I'm trying to say is the "scare" factor in Subnautica is natural rather than manufactured. If you play a horror/thriller game, then everything is designed to scare you, monster put at place you're least expected, event is scripted so that the wind slamp the door shut exactly when the light go out ...etc... In Subnautica the monsters don't specifically come out to hunt you, it's a big ocean, there are fodders and there are predators, they come after you because you enter their "space". It's like if you go into a mountain, then the expectation is to run into a bear. ;)
Oh, I get it - I comprehend the design of the game. Sure, there are dangers there, but there is also a very rewarding reason to go where those dangers are. And, sometimes, those dangers aren't even there. Great!

But, I'm just not up for an "alone in the dark" sort of "survival" game where the dangers are reflected in the end results of experiencing them, like "dying." It's a beautiful game in many respects and it is certainly really "cool." But, it's awful lonely. (From what I have seen.) It might be on my playlist in the future, but I prefer less stress right now, to be honest. And, I like having multiple NPCs and the appearances of not being "alone" in a gaming environment like that. It makes for a lot more of a roleplaying experience that way and I don't think there's much roleplaying support in Subnautica in those respects.

PS - I play it up for the laughs, but I'm not really a very "scared" kind of person. Well, I do not like being dumped in the middle of the friggin' ocean, I suppose. And, yeah, while Black Bears don't really concern me that much, the rest of large bear kind are not to be @^@&'d with... So, yeah, sharks and bears are things that make me "uncomfortable." The rest of nature can go @%^ itself. :) I can take a shower whenever I want. I can release my bowels in quite, private, comfort with a soothing balm afterwards if I should so desire. I can take a bath! I can eat hot food or even purposefully frozen and cold food if I want! I am not covered in dirt, mud, or chiggers and ticks munching and sucking on my flesh. In short - My desire for sweating my butt off or being thrust into a "survival" situation where these things are absent from my in-game life is pretty low... Even though I don't believe I have ever had a game where I had to take a dump while propped up against a tree. :) (I also do not play "The Sims" because "The Sims" is stoopid because it doesn't have sharks and bears trying to eat people... Ironic.)

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 5. Apr 19, 22:59

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 5. Apr 19, 20:59
Do you know who doesn't get eaten by bears in the mountains while on a camping trip? The guy who doesn't go camping in the mountains where bears have been sighted, that's who. :)
And that will also be the person who miss out all the other wonderful experience of a camping trip. :P

For the record I'm not trying to goad you into playing it btw, just by your previous comment I'm just making sure you're not skipping the game due to a misconception of what it is about. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Morkonan » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 03:36

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 5. Apr 19, 22:59
Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 5. Apr 19, 20:59
Do you know who doesn't get eaten by bears in the mountains while on a camping trip? The guy who doesn't go camping in the mountains where bears have been sighted, that's who. :)
And that will also be the person who miss out all the other wonderful experience of a camping trip. :P
See, you're making the assumption that there are "other wonderful experiences of a camping trip." :)

I was talking to a friend about this subject just today. He hates the darn things, too. Back when he was a kid, the relatives would get together and go on "camping trips" where the kids stayed outside in the tents with the bugs and the adults got to sleep in the Airstream... That's "Smart People Camping." And, like he said, "Everyone can go on the camping trip and I'll sit around the fire and all that, but there had better be a hotel nearby." And, I'll add, the first time your own "log" rolls down to squelch up against your own foot, you'll hate camping too. :D
For the record I'm not trying to goad you into playing it btw, just by your previous comment I'm just making sure you're not skipping the game due to a misconception of what it is about. :)
Oh, I know the whole bit. I've watched several "Let's Plays" on it and most of an entire pre-release playthrough. Sure, it's pretty neat and I might get it one day. But, it's not really "my thing" since it's a kind of lonely solo experience. I love single-player games, but a single-player "survival" game really doesn't appeal to me. I do think some of the mechanics are neat and if it were something like a squad-based game or one with multiple NPCs in it, I'd have already bought it.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Playing other games

Post by Ketraar » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 22:53

Its not really a survival game either, yes you can play with the option enabled for nutrition, but you can also turn it off. Its only a thing at the very beginning and serves only to keep the player worried, but you really have to make an effort to die from lack of food. Subnautica is more of an exploration and gathering game with base building elements. Yes there are some creatures that will harm you if you are careless, for most part its just inventory management and experiencing a very beautiful underwater world. I love it and I dont like horror, creepy games either.

There is no MP/Coop though, still worth it.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 13. Apr 19, 00:26

Head up, Anno 1800 is available as open Beta during April 12-14 (this weekend). You can get it via the Uplay launcher.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Apr 19, 03:34

So here is an update: it's less of an open Beta but a Demo, since the game launches today. I estimate about 60-70% of the contents were available in the demos. After spending a weekend playing it ... my tl;dr version is this:

- If I had to pay $60 for that demo, it would be still probably worth it. To think there gonna be 2 more tiers to be unlocked in the full game just make me griddy.

The long version.

I remember seeing quite a few people on here mentioned they like 1404, and if you are like most, you probably didn't like the last 2 modern entry 2070 and 2250. Glamouring about the good ole's day of 1404 is a common sentiment among fans. So 1800 goes back to this root, not only with just a bang, but it feels like it launch a freaking genesis torpedo and terraform the whole thing.

- This is the best visual looking city builder I have ever seen. And I'm not just talking about the technical aspect like textures and such, but also artistry it gets the feeling, ambient, and atmosphere just right.

And the reason I mentioned it first because that visual didn't come at the cost of:

- Gameplay: the game was everything 1404 were ... on steroid. Full AI is back, actual inters sector and inter region traffics is back, off map exploration is back. The got rid of land combat which one of the most annoying things. Decoration now have both visual and functional value to your island, not just something you build out of bored after getting rich. But the most siginificant change is to the citizen level system. Anno games has a meme that you just fatten up a bunch of "unemployed so you can tax them!", so it's always about push as much of your pop to the max level as possible. As a result Anno games always have a vertical, inverse pyramid progression. Your bottom get shrink to almost nothing as you level up. In 1800 all your citizens has a role now, farms can only be run by ... farmers, workers are needed for factories, artisans are needed for crafting ...etc... So as your city grow bigger and need more food, that means you need more farmers, not less. This mean cities are now advance both vertically and horizontally, and I must says it's fantastic in a way that I never thought possible for an ANNO game. It's a radical change but I'm happy with it. What I considered a mid level cities now are already twice as big as an endgame Cathedral city in 1404. :o

- Performance: I played long enough to get the cheeky break messages that fan of 1404 would know. The one at 12h said "12 Hours? It's better than 1404, right?". Most game will start seeing a performance drop or slow down at this point, but the game still rolls on as if it was just started.

So 1800 delivered what I missed about 1404, it removes what I hated about 1404, it gives me the change I wanted from 1404, and it also gives me what I never thought I would want before, and it took the only good things (what little there were) from 2070 and 2250 and put them here (environment effect, multi region plays, employments ...) . I think it has been a long times since a demo make me dropped $60 for the actual game with zero hesitation. I still played 1400 on and off since it was released 10 years ago, so here hoping for another 10. Or at least I know what I gonna play for the next months or two :D
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Playing other games

Post by Ketraar » Tue, 16. Apr 19, 12:46

Had a good go at it during public beta and overall its a good Anno. Its similar to "classic" Anno, such as 1701, which is both good and not so good. As it has most of the same mechanics and strategies, but with better graphics. The main thing I think will be what makes a difference is the advancement in eras, which I didnt manage to achieve, but sounds like it will make the late game more interesting.

There are also some nice QoL features that make planing much easier, here the blue-print mode, where you can place all the buildings for free and only actualy build them when you have the materials or you feel its needed, so you can plan ahead what you may need in future. Sadly this is only true for unlocked buildings, which is unfortunate, especially in sandbox I really would have liked to be able to place blueprint even for locked buildings and not have to look up online how much space they take to plan ahead.

Trade is still very simple and really unbalanced against the player, prices are not dynamic at all and buying things is hugely expensive compared to selling the same items. I get they want player to expand and produce stuff on their own, but as its now, there is no real incentive to trade, maybe its by design.

AI is still odd and also not very dynamic, missions are meh. The expeditions though are interesting, while they could use some love in the presentation, had to look up online which wares contribute to what, still they can be entertaining and have some stuff of interest especially later on. Having sort of colonization is OKish but provides just more islands to manage and the back and forth is a bit annoying at times, 2070 had a better system in place to trade between regions as one could set up supply lines unlike in 1800.

All in all its a very fun game for people that like managing stuff, for me the price tag is too high (8% of an average monthly income here) so I will wait until it gets affordable.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Apr 19, 16:31

Ketraar wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 12:46
There are also some nice QoL features that make planing much easier, here the blue-print mode, where you can place all the buildings for free and only actualy build them when you have the materials or you feel its needed, so you can plan ahead what you may need in future. Sadly this is only true for unlocked buildings, which is unfortunate, especially in sandbox I really would have liked to be able to place blueprint even for locked buildings and not have to look up online how much space they take to plan ahead.
One of the other QoL thing (and IMO even more important) is you can build farm-field in whatever shape you want now. I know people still want to build min/max block production for now like past Anno, but I'm finding out more and more it's actually better to build thing organically, the field can be used to fill whatever gap you have and thus still maximize space efficiency but without the repetitive/rigid design. And since boosts are applied locally via the trade union building instead of island wide in the warehouse, it's much better to separate your production building from material building so as many them can be boosted at the same time.
Trade is still very simple and really unbalanced against the player, prices are not dynamic at all and buying things is hugely expensive compared to selling the same items.
There a niche you can find. Like making Soap and sell it to the prison island give a lots of money. It's actually cheaper and more efficient to buy steel from the lord instead of producing yourself. Different NPC station has different demand, and I think it changes by era.
I get they want player to expand and produce stuff on their own, but as its now, there is no real incentive to trade, maybe its by design.
Eh there are plenty incentive to trade, even more so in the past. There is the usual "fertility" need, but I feel it's easier to spread out your population because like I said above you actually need population to work now. And put all different workforce in one island make run out of space FAST. I find myself grabbing a third island pretty early now, not for some fertility I dont have, but for space. If you have say .... 10000 people, putting down enough farm to feed that pop and enough housing for all those farmers take up a lot of space. Having an island exclusively to farmer not only reduce the strain on the main island, but it also make it a lot easier to manage, since if I only have farmer on it.

Another reason is the Cultural/Visual rating, since there is tourism now. Eventually you want to move out the ugly industry like pig farm, butchery or polluted like steel mill out of your main island, since having a lot of those will tank your cultural and environment rating no matter how much beautification you put down.

Having sort of colonization is OKish but provides just more islands to manage and the back and forth is a bit annoying at times, 2070 had a better system in place to trade between regions as one could set up supply lines unlike in 1800.
Something like that come with the level 4 tech civilization, you'll have a ferry terminal to ship workers around if you don't want to establish satellite population center.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Playing other games

Post by Ketraar » Tue, 16. Apr 19, 17:05

Also something that I wondered and didnt get, why can I in the "old world" have access to all unlocked buildings in any island regardless of pop. In the "new world" though on a second island I was locked out of tier 2 buildings and hat to "grow" tier 2 pop on that specific island even though I had it unlocked on the main one in that area. Maybe I was missing something as I was not able to play much on the new world part.

WRT to fertility trade, in the new world area only 1 island hat sugar cane and the AI I happen to be ally claimed it, then went to build anything else but sugar cane production. :sceptic:

Also another thing that irritated me, was the pirates, they are annoying as hell. They keep demanding me to pay 70k or more for a ceasefire, even though I'm about to destroy their base. Also whats with the shares, why do I buy shares for 50k and the next minute they are worth 10k if I want to sell them? Maybe this would be explained in the plot portion...

MFG

Ketraar
Image

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 16. Apr 19, 19:17

I loved Anno 1404 Venice. (Anno 1404- Dawn of Discovery:Venice in the US. Why the name change? 'Cause 'Murica?)

I haven't bought a successor Anno title though. Why? "Always Live" crap and their launcher and junk and blah blah... Yeah, I know I could play the futuristic Anno and still get "most" of the benefits without an always-on requirement. But... seriously, screw that.

Is this title "Live" only? A cut-down version when you're not connected? If so, it'll never be on my PC and that's a shame.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 16. Apr 19, 23:45

Ketraar wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 17:05
WRT to fertility trade, in the new world area only 1 island hat sugar cane and the AI I happen to be ally claimed it, then went to build anything else but sugar cane production. :sceptic:
FYI, fertility seeds are still in the game. You may have missed it because they are rarer now, and they're deployed via the Trade Union.

My alliance with a AI almost made me lose the game in the beta though. So the princess has been nice and all, give me free gift and all that. So when she asks for an ally I just accept it. Later she end up in a war with another AI (with the biggest fleet!) and dragged me into it. That other AI obliterated all the ships I have in both worlds, thankfully it wasn't aggressively going after my island. It made me realize there is another level of depth in this game. In previous game you only have one world, so as long as you have a big enough force you can move that "stack of death" around to plug any gap or ditch out punishment quickly as need. 2205 introduced multi-regions but also remove battle almost completely, so it never crossed my mind what happens when you have to split your force across many worlds. It wasn't like I was defenseless, we have comparable navy but since I took most of mine to the new World during the expansion, the AI wiped the floor with me in the old world, and I couldn't recall my ship back fast enough. I think going up into a war with one or two aggressive AI may be fun in the future ... in a painful kind of way, especially when the game will eventually have two more bio-mes.

Ketraar wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 12:46
The expeditions though are interesting, while they could use some love in the presentation, had to look up online which wares contribute to what, still they can be entertaining and have some stuff of interest especially later on. Having sort of colonization is OKish but provides just more islands to manage and the back and forth is a bit annoying at times, 2070 had a better system in place to trade between regions as one could set up supply lines unlike in 1800.
I actually like the expedition as they are now. Like you said there isn't much to see when it's underway, but I have a lot of fun "preparing" for one and excited for the "reward" it offers. The only ware I load to my ship for expedition is food, and I make a point of going around AI's harbors to hunt for the specialists with the necessary skills. By the end of the beta I have a warehouse full of different specialist two switch in and out depending on the kind of expedition, which I head-cannon as my "retainers". I either use the loot for my Museum/Zoo or sell them and think myself as running a side business of an exotic animal/relic traders. It's enough to help break the monotony of building my settlement, but not enough as a distraction, which I like. And the Museum/Zoo is available at 3rd tier, I wonder if the 4th and 5th tier will add even more stuffs to it. (Will know by tonight).

Also whats with the shares, why do I buy shares for 50k and the next minute they are worth 10k if I want to sell them? Maybe this would be explained in the plot portion...
Feel like that's the weakest of the feature so far, it's just sort of carried over from 1404 with little purpose. Thanks to the slow land combat it was anal to conquer an island in 1404, I think due to that complain they introduced that mechanic in the Venice expansion pack, as a quicker, less painful but more expensive way to take over an island. Since there is no more land combat in 1800, it's just sort of ... doing nothing. Hope they will flesh it out a bit more. The way it was done in 2275 was ok, because the share let you earn a portion of your opponent profit.
Last edited by Mightysword on Wed, 17. Apr 19, 00:03, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 17. Apr 19, 00:01

Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 19:17
Yeah, I know I could play the futuristic Anno and still get "most" of the benefits without an always-on requirement ...
That is correct . So ...
But... seriously, screw that.
Why though? Just because ?

- The online component of 2070 is a council voting. Every week you can vote for a leader you want, and the one with most vote with apply a faction bonus (just some minor buff) to every player. There is also a weekly challenge you can do to get brownie point to unlock cosmetic stuff in your profile. But neither of those really need you to be "always" on. In fact, I played most of 2070 offline because I have an expansion worth of content of mods, which prevent me syncing into the server.

- 2275 is even more bare-bone in term of online. All it offers is a global market where you can buy and sell your stuffs with a "fluctuate" pricing base on supply and demand. Not going online just mean the price revert to default and stay fixed.


Either way, Uplay does have an "off-line mode" that you can turn on to stay off the net, it only asks you to be on to authenticate the game (kinda like how Steam does it). It doesn't ask you to permanently stay on to play, and haven't done so in years. (In fact I know that's what people did this weekend so they can play the Beta for longer after the official period ended). Uplay used to be pretty draconian, but that's like ... years or even a decade ago. These days it's not really that different from Steam or other online distribution platform. A lot of the complain about it is more like people beating a deadhorse. In fact, it doesn't even automatically start when your computer is booted by default, and you can close it even faster than Steam.

Now, both are not very good game comparing to 1404, with 2275 even worse than 2070 and I think that's the reason why they earn a lot of hate. 2275 was just flat out a badly designed game, but the online component is hardly worth a mention. It's kinda like things always sound 100x worse than it is when Trump says or do it, because we all love Trump to death ;)

Remember that post you just make recently in the election thread on "it's all a lie". I agree with what you said there, and for some reason this post of yours just remind me of what you said in that post, take a guess why :P

I loved Anno 1404 Venice. (Anno 1404- Dawn of Discovery:Venice in the US.
Then, barring other issues you would love 1800, assuming your toaster can run it. It has pretty everything I remember and love about 1404 and offer just as many good things on its own. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Playing other games

Post by pjknibbs » Wed, 17. Apr 19, 08:25

2275? I thought the "thing" with the Anno games was that the digits of the year always add up to 9?

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 17. Apr 19, 14:55

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Apr 19, 00:01
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 19:17
Yeah, I know I could play the futuristic Anno and still get "most" of the benefits without an always-on requirement ...
That is correct . So ...
There's no practical reason for it.
But... seriously, screw that.
Why though? Just because ?
Because it's a single-player game and there's no reason to require it to be online except for reasons other than gaming.
- The online component of 2070 is a council voting. Every week you can vote for a leader you want, and the one with most vote with apply a faction bonus (just some minor buff) to every player. There is also a weekly challenge you can do to get brownie point to unlock cosmetic stuff in your profile. But neither of those really need you to be "always" on. In fact, I played most of 2070 offline because I have an expansion worth of content of mods, which prevent me syncing into the server.
When I first checked it out, there were isssues with not having full access to your base ship thingie whatsits. Sorry I can't remember the name/use, but I never got the game after seeing how they had purposefully hamstrung it for offline play.
- 2275 is even more bare-bone in term of online. All it offers is a global market where you can buy and sell your stuffs with a "fluctuate" pricing base on supply and demand. Not going online just mean the price revert to default and stay fixed.
And... why? They had to force you online to update your market prices because... why?
Either way, Uplay does have an "off-line mode" that you can turn on to stay off the net, it only asks you to be on to authenticate the game (kinda like how Steam does it).
Never used UPlay because of all the controversy and crap. One piece of software I have to "worship" if I want to play PC games is enough.
..Remember that post you just make recently in the election thread on "it's all a lie". I agree with what you said there, and for some reason this post of yours just remind me of what you said in that post, take a guess why :P
But, I didn't lie. :) I wrote how I felt about the issue.

I don't like "live, sign-in, register your credit-card with our online marketplace, online verify, validate, mandatory modcheck, blah, blah..." Unfortunately, some companies are determined to do all they can to exploit fans however they can. UPlay did get a crappy rep and Ubisoft has been trying really hard to be the "most hated publisher" in the "AAA" market.

I loved Anno 1404 Venice. (Anno 1404- Dawn of Discovery:Venice in the US.
Then, barring other issues you would love 1800, assuming your toaster can run it. It has pretty everything I remember and love about 1404 and offer just as many good things on its own. :)
[/quote]

Only available on Epic Games, right? /sigh... Will wait for it to hit GoG. :) (I don't think my potato-pc could run it. Haven't upgraded yet because I'm a lazy bartard.)
PS - Been playing Kenshi just about every night, too. I can still point at my PC and claim it can still... PC. :) And, Kenshi runs like somebody kicked a mailbox full of cats, anyway, so I don't feel so bad when I compare my performance to people running top-end rigs. :)

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 17. Apr 19, 15:27

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 17. Apr 19, 14:55
- 2275 is even more bare-bone in term of online. All it offers is a global market where you can buy and sell your stuffs with a "fluctuate" pricing base on supply and demand. Not going online just mean the price revert to default and stay fixed.
And... why? They had to force you online to update your market prices because... why?
Dude, that's like asking "why do I need to be online to play multiplayer?". :sceptic:

The price fluctuates because of the players who on that market. Price goes up if a lot of players buying the samething, it goes down if lots of player selling the samething to the market. The "game" doesn't "force" you, you do it assuming because you want to have that dynamic interaction with other players ... which naturally means you have to connect to a portal one way or another. "OMG THIS GAME FORCE ME TO GO ONLINE TO PLAY ONLINE, WHAT"S WRONG WITH IT!?!?".

Answer: eh there is nothing wrong with it. :roll:

And notice how after I presented with you with the fact as someone who actually played them, you still hardcore cling to it. tl;dr: none of the ANNO tittle requires you to be "always on", and neither it downgrade your experience for not doing so. And no, not letting you play "online" for "not being" online is not downgrading it. That's just a silly complain.

And @Pjk, yes that was a mistake, it's 2205. Blame the game to be too forgetable :P
But, I didn't lie. :) I wrote how I felt about the issue.
That's not the issue, I'm sure the other two posters you replied to posted how they felt about the issue as well. The problem is while the feeling may be genuine, it was based on misconception, bias assumption and wapred projections that land pretty far from the fact. :P
- Never used UPlay because of all the controversy and crap. One piece of software I have to "worship" if I want to play PC games is enough.

- I don't like "live, sign-in, register your credit-card with our online marketplace, online verify, validate, mandatory modcheck, blah, blah..." Unfortunately, some companies are determined to do all they can to exploit fans however they can. UPlay did get a crappy rep and Ubisoft has been trying really hard to be the "most hated publisher" in the "AAA" market.

- Only available on Epic Games, right?
- Like I said, that's a stigma from about a decade ago. Steam didn't have offline mode the day it was launched did it?

- I bought the game yesterday from Uplay, using paypal, Ubisoft didn't get my credit info. Also why you made mandatory modcheck sound like it's an issue? Any game with let you connect to a server does that to prevent cheaters. If it detected your game is modified, it just doesn't connect you to the server (which to you may actually be a good thing, you don't want it to happen anyway right?), it doesn't stop you from playing or downgrade your game. I mean ... Steam disable achievement on mod game, and you can't log in multiplay if you game is modified ... how that's an issue with Uplay?

- It was available on Steam until yesterday to become an Epic 1 year exclusive, we already know that months in advance. It'll come back to STeam again, but people who bought it on steam still have access and any future DLC. I bought mine from Uplay.

I used to hate Uplay too, and it's not like I love it now, I just no longer have issue with it. This is less about me defending it, more about correcting wrongful and misinformed info based on old/outdated knowledge.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 19. Apr 19, 00:28

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 17. Apr 19, 15:27
Dude, that's like asking "why do I need to be online to play multiplayer?". :sceptic:
So, it's a multiplayer game, then?
And notice how after I presented with you with the fact as someone who actually played them, you still hardcore cling to it. tl;dr: none of the ANNO tittle requires you to be "always on", and neither it downgrade your experience for not doing so. And no, not letting you play "online" for "not being" online is not downgrading it. That's just a silly complain.
Are you saying that if I played Anno 2070 offline I would get to retain the upgrades to my Ark ship?

https://anno2070.fandom.com/wiki/Ark

I assume that wiki is lying, since you can't be overstating something or clinging to a misconception in your zeal.

I have no knowledge of the latest Anno game since I stopped pursuing Anno after Ubisoft moved to design their games for ever more senseless online requirements.
- I bought the game yesterday from Uplay, using paypal, Ubisoft didn't get my credit info. Also why you made mandatory modcheck sound like it's an issue? Any game with let you connect to a server does that to prevent cheaters. If it detected your game is modified, it just doesn't connect you to the server (which to you may actually be a good thing, you don't want it to happen anyway right?), it doesn't stop you from playing or downgrade your game. I mean ... Steam disable achievement on mod game, and you can't log in multiplay if you game is modified ... how that's an issue with Uplay?
So, you're saying this is a competitive multiplayer game that checks to be sure players aren't cheating?
I used to hate Uplay too, and it's not like I love it now, I just no longer have issue with it. This is less about me defending it, more about correcting wrongful and misinformed info based on old/outdated knowledge.
What was the misinformed info I presented that stretches beyond mere "opinion" into the dangerous realms of wartime propaganda you seem to wish to rise up against?

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 19. Apr 19, 01:49

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 19. Apr 19, 00:28
So, it's a multiplayer game, then?
No it is not a multiplayer game.

In full context:
Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 17. Apr 19, 14:55
- 2275 is even more bare-bone in term of online. All it offers is a global market where you can buy and sell your stuffs with a "fluctuate" pricing base on supply and demand. Not going online just mean the price revert to default and stay fixed.
And... why? They had to force you online to update your market prices because... why?
I was explaining to you how the online market in 2205 works. Your inquest is kinda like you are complaining about a game that is 99% Single, and a 1% online aspect comes from a leaderboard. It's like you complain about a SP shouldn't have a leaderboard, and complain about you have to log in to have your score upload, and then make a case why you shouldn't have to do it. That's why I thought it was a silly argument. If you don't care about that feature, you don't have to log in, what I read is you seem to want "I want to have my stat on the leaderboard but shouldn't require to go online to upload it". If that qualified as "multiplayer" to you, then yeah I guess it's a multiplayer.

The point is: if you don't care about that's online component, it wouldn't matter to you anyway. But if you care about playing online, then you should accept the requirement that come with it. But this is more like a case that you want to complain simply because it is "there". I don't like to complain for the shake of complaining. :sceptic:

Are you saying that if I played Anno 2070 offline I would get to retain the upgrades to my Ark ship?

https://anno2070.fandom.com/wiki/Ark

I assume that wiki is lying, since you can't be overstating something or clinging to a misconception in your zeal.
No, it's not lying. But here is the different between a man who eat a steak and know what it tastes like, and a man who watch a video of someone eating a steak and believe he know exactly how it tastes like. The Ark in Anno 2070 functions mostly an ingame cheat device.

- Storage: say you decided you "finish" with your current map and want to start a new game. You can load up items in your warehouse and carry them to your next game and get a head start. Against who? A bunch of non-existent AI. Really, I think it takes less effort to cheat 10,000,000 credits and it would accomplish the same thing.

-Upgrade: most of the upgrade you can carry with your ark around can still be acquire during a normal gaming section, you just have to research and craft them normally.

It's better to think it's more like an incentive to connect, rather punish you for not doing so. A fully upgraded ARK basically put you beyond the rule of the game, and I didn't care for it. Even without going online the Ark still functional, you can still slot it with upgrade, you can still request supply/reinforcement from it, it's just not easy mode. I'm a purist Annoholist, I don't care about "trading with other players", I don't care about "getting a head start", and I don't care about "have overpower boosters at the beginning". So for me it's not even "having minimum impact on gamplay", It's actually "having zero impact" on gameplay. I don't complain just because "it's there". 90% of my time with 2070 were played entirely offline.
So, you're saying this is a competitive multiplayer game that checks to be sure players aren't cheating?
Sigh, this is such a strawman argument that I wouldn't be able to remain courteous and answer it, so I won't. You're making a strawman argument and you know it. If your mind is set that way, I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise.

You know, even if you want that fully upgrade ark, you only need to connect it when you start your new game, after that you can yank the cable off your wall and the game won't care. I mentioned people even used Uplay offline mode to "cheat" the system and played pass the time when the Beta supposed to close, it has becomes that "lax" about it. In fact, out of the 3 platforms I have on my computer right now: Steam, Origin, Uplay is actually the least visible among them.

The reason Uplay got a really bad name dated back a long time ago, when their "always on" requirement was draconian. Not only you have to be connected to start the game, the game constantly check for connection, the moment it loses connection it kicks you out of the game, full stop. They faced intense backlash then, and rightly so. I wouldn't blame anyone if they decided to boycott it then, I was one of them. But like I said that was a long time ago, and these days some people still use that stick to beat up a death horse. And you know people always make issues sound 100x worse than it is when they presented it under prejudice. That's why you remind me of your other post, not because some conspiracy. The people you responded may have amplified their view into the extreme hyperbolic, but there a grain salt of truth to what they said, and there are valid reason for their view, it doesn't mean the views are reasonable. I wouldn't recommend anyone to play 2070 or 2205, because they are not good ANNO games. But if you end up playing them, I bet you would change your complains or at least have a new perspective about them, like "people made a big deal out of THIS" ? ;)

I intended to replay to this a while back:
Morkonan wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 03:36
See, you're making the assumption that there are "other wonderful experiences of a camping trip." :)
Not "assume", know. Because I'm someone who actually went to the actual camping trip, and not just watch a video or heard someone talk about it. ;)

Anyway. To answer your original post:
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 19:17
Is this title "Live" only? A cut-down version when you're not connected? If so, it'll never be on my PC and that's a shame.
You should gather enough so far from my replies that the answer to both your question is no. In fact, the historical trend clearly show they're moving away from it from each tittle. 2070 with the Ark things is probably most intergrated, 2205 is bare minimum (if you care about it), and so far 1800 you only go online if you want to play multiplayer.

Anyway that's it from me for this argument, I shouldn't even start it in the first place. I prefer talking about much I am enjoying 1800. :D
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 19. Apr 19, 02:46

So I finally reached the same point I was in the Beta - fully upgrade tier 3 (Artisan), and hit the 4th tier (Engineer). I was disappointed when I saw how short the building list is, much shorter than the previous tiers. I thought "maybe that's why they didn't include this in the beta, people would be disappointed".

That was 2 days ago, and I'm still at the 4th tier. Holy crap, now I understand why I heard the people in the closed Beta said "the game really start once you hit the 4th tier". My earlier assumption the Beta already contain 60%-70% of the game in the first 3 tiers turn out to be wrong. Because in the past moving up the tier doesn't really change the game mechanic, you just become more fanciful. In 1800, tier 4 introduces one new resource: oil. And the tl;dr version of this post is: it changes the game as much as oil changed our world in real life. If you want the longer version, read on :D

- Oil is a unique resource that has a separate method to collect, transport, and utilize. It has it own warehouse, but the best (or worst) part of it is you have to build a rail network to transport it around your island. So I built this beautiful beautiful Victorian cities like the stuffs came out of your dream ... and now the games tell me I gonna built a rail right through it! :x I think now I understand what cityplaner have to deal with when they try to build new project on developed land. At first I found that annoying. I ask "why oil has to be collected like this and not just like any other resource", I thought the game just try to be complicate for no reason.

- Turn out it has a reason. Because you use oil fuel your power plant, and factories that receive this juice basically go super saiyan. From my previous I mentioned the new labour mechanic meaning up until this point the game is a dedicate act in balancing your workforce. Now suddenly you can produce the same amount with half of the workforce, or making twice as much. It's like all the farmer and worker tried to hard to be clever, optimizing layout to squeeze in that extra 1% or 2% extra production. Now the engineers come in and laugh "haha, that's cute, but let me show you what REAL POWER (pun intended) looks like". It's not cheap to run a powerplant, and you only have enough oil to maintain one, or two if you lucky. So not only my City has to be rescaped to accommodate the rail network, my entire industry that scatter around are also uprooted and concentrate around the power plant. Then it hits me ... this must be what most cities go through during the industrialization age. So here the game success at giving me that authentic experience of the transformation, and not just a new skin for my city. And you need it to make Steam ships, which is a class above the sail stuffs you have. Faster, better load, more resilience, and carry a much larger payload of freedom on their deck! :D

- Then they say power corrupt right? It really does. Remember I said days ago about keeping pollution away from your city for tourism ... after witness "real power", I was like ****** the environment, efficiency is king! I think the developer expected exactly that, so they have this cheeky achievement in the game.

- Then no matter how much you do, there can only be so many factories you can jam around a powerplant, and you don't have enough oil to run a second. I have always been a pacifist annoholist ... for the last 10 year. My game is always "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone", my military is always meant for only defense. But now, I want a 2nd powerplant, and a third ... and maybe a fourth. After all I'm not even at the point where I have to supply electricity to household (which I will have to eventually). And my "peaceful" neighbor have a lot of oil that she doesn't seem to use ... I'm ashamed to admit this, but I have been living in the US for 18 years now, and call myself an American for 13 of those. But only now, it takes a freaking videogame to grant me this connection to Uncle Sam, and appreciate the evil he has to bear for my benefit. Here is a song to celebrate the occasion: When America discovered that Bee has oil. :twisted:


Another point about about the multiworlds system. Anyone played 1404 remember eventually our empire is maintaining by a network of trading ship ferrying stuffs around island, usually in small amount. The dual world means it takes a lot longer to move stuffs now, and usually in large quantities. So imagine when your ship arriving from the new world, carried hundred of tons of silk, coffee, rum and the freaking pirates got to it first. :evil: . At first I didn't think much about it, ships got blew up all the time in 1404, just build another to replace it. Except, it takes a long time to build, sent it across the ocean, load, and wait for it to cross the ocean again ... by the time the new ship arrive, the supply were long gone and my city were already in full crisis mode. I thought it would make a good "No deal Brexit" simulation. :mrgreen: . I don't know what the Swiss was thinking about their recent decision of stop stockpiling coffee. It may have no nutrition value, but I can confirm people get super-pissed about not having it for some reason. :shock:


So I'm wondering what the last tier of civilization (Investor) will offer, seeing how the game make a point of capturing the spirit of each era above just some cosmetic change, I wouldn't be surprise if there will be some capitalist shitthousery theme there. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 19. Apr 19, 03:06

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 19. Apr 19, 01:49
No it is not a multiplayer game.
...

I was explaining to you how the online market in 2205 works. Your inquest is kinda like you are complaining about a game that is 99% Single, and a 1% online aspect comes from a leaderboard.
And, the need for that "1%?" A "leaderboard?" Because... why? You don't see that as a "feature" that was shoehorned in as an excuse for "online play?"
It's like you complain about a SP shouldn't have a leaderboard, and complain about you have to log in to have your score upload, and then make a case why you shouldn't have to do it. That's why I thought it was a silly argument. If you don't care about that feature, you don't have to log in, what I read is you seem to want "I want to have my stat on the leaderboard but shouldn't require to go online to upload it". If that qualified as "multiplayer" to you, then yeah I guess it's a multiplayer.
I wouldn't care at all about having my awesome achievements uploaded to a "leaderboard."
The point is: if you don't care about that's online component, it wouldn't matter to you anyway. But if you care about playing online, then you should accept the requirement that come with it. But this is more like a case that you want to complain simply because it is "there". I don't like to complain for the shake of complaining. :sceptic:
I'm complaining that there should be no need for anyone playing a "Single Player Game" to have to log-in online, at least not for a game genre like Anno. It makes no sense at all unless the publisher/dev wants to push/encourage or require "online" sessions for other reasons.

No, it's not lying. But here is the different between a man who eat a steak and know what it tastes like, and a man who watch a video of someone eating a steak and believe he know exactly how it tastes like. The Ark in Anno 2070 functions mostly an ingame cheat device.

- Storage: say you decided you "finish" with your current map and want to start a new game. You can load up items in your warehouse and carry them to your next game and get a head start. Against who? A bunch of non-existent AI. Really, I think it takes less effort to cheat 10,000,000 credits and it would accomplish the same thing.

-Upgrade: most of the upgrade you can carry with your ark around can still be acquire during a normal gaming section, you just have to research and craft them normally.

It's better to think it's more like an incentive to connect, rather punish you for not doing so. A fully upgraded ARK basically put you beyond the rule of the game, and I didn't care for it. Even without going online the Ark still functional, you can still slot it with upgrade, you can still request supply/reinforcement from it, it's just not easy mode. I'm a purist Annoholist, I don't care about "trading with other players", I don't care about "getting a head start", and I don't care about "have overpower boosters at the beginning". So for me it's not even "having minimum impact on gamplay", It's actually "having zero impact" on gameplay. I don't complain just because "it's there". 90% of my time with 2070 were played entirely offline.
But, I still can't get access to upgrades to my Ark that I acquire during my own play if I don't go online, right? I don't get access to this game asset that others can enjoy when they're online?
So, you're saying this is a competitive multiplayer game that checks to be sure players aren't cheating?
Sigh, this is such a strawman argument that I wouldn't be able to remain courteous and answer it, so I won't. You're making a strawman argument and you know it. If your mind is set that way, I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise.
You brought up "cheat detection" and I am wondering why there's "cheat detection" involved at all if the game isn't a competitive multiplayer type of game.
The reason Uplay got a really bad name dated back a long time ago, when their "always on" requirement was draconian. Not only you have to be connected to start the game, the game constantly check for connection, the moment it loses connection it kicks you out of the game, full stop. They faced intense backlash then, and rightly so. I wouldn't blame anyone if they decided to boycott it then, I was one of them. But like I said that was a long time ago, and these days some people still use that stick to beat up a death horse.
It's far more than an old stick beating a dead horse conversation, these days. It's a pretty darn big discussion about "always online" requirements that publishers are pushing in order to get more access to gamer's data, social connections, forming customer bases and marketing not only in-game purchases but entire storefronts and exploiting their game offers in order to encourage and require online components to further all these things.

So, I wonder why a game adds an unnecessary "1%" component it then uses as an excuse to require logins and online components. And, it's the act of removing game elements for offline users to encourage online participation that I decided i would no longer support by refusing to buy any Anno/Ubisoft title because of that.

It was a decision based on principle. You are, of course free to argue against that principle, but the things you put forth as reasons for online play make my principle seem that much more valid. They're not "critical components" of gameplay, are they? That you can just unplug or don't need them or they're only "1%" of the game or it's only stupid "leaderboard" stuff... That underscores my point, right?

You, yourself, stated that they're only there to encourage online participation... And, I am maintaining that's a needless component which you have verified through your examples.
And you know people always make issues sound 100x worse than it is when they presented it under prejudice. That's why you remind me of your other post, not because some conspiracy. The people you responded may have amplified their view into the extreme hyperbolic, but there a grain salt of truth to what they said, and there are valid reason for their view, it doesn't mean the views are reasonable. I wouldn't recommend anyone to play 2070 or 2205, because they are not good ANNO games. But if you end up playing them, I bet you would change your complains or at least have a new perspective about them, like "people made a big deal out of THIS" ? ;)
What are you arguing against, "me" or what I wrote in my above post?

Seriously? If you're just arguing so that you can argue against "me" do you expect me to then engage in such a discussion? Argue the points or not at all, don't make it personal.

I intended to replay to this a while back:
Morkonan wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 03:36
Not "assume", know. Because I'm someone who actually went to the actual camping trip, and not just watch a video or heard someone talk about it. ;)
... Are you saying that you somehow "know" I have never been on a camping trip? WTF have you lost your mind?
Anyway. To answer your original post:
For realz? Who woulda thunked it?
Morkonan wrote:
Tue, 16. Apr 19, 19:17
Is this title "Live" only? A cut-down version when you're not connected? If so, it'll never be on my PC and that's a shame.
...Anyway that's it from me for this argument, I shouldn't even start it in the first place. I prefer talking about much I am enjoying 1800. :D
You're welcome to enjoy it. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when someone needlessly requires an online component for a game that doesn't have sufficient justification for that. Their latest Anno games all have these components and it's just... bad for gaming in general. IF there was a significant reason for it, I wouldn't mind. But, there isn't one no matter how many shoehorned excuses they try to put in the game to justify it. Therefore, no sale to me.

But, if you like it, that's great! I'm happy if you're happy with it.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Playing other games

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 19. Apr 19, 03:32

So, I wonder why a game adds an unnecessary "1%" component it then uses as an excuse to require logins and online components. And, it's the act of removing game elements for offline users to encourage online participation that I decided i would no longer support by refusing to buy any Anno/Ubisoft title because of that.
And what I am saying I don't see why this is a problem. If the game is 100% singleplay like you said, something like a leaderboard wouldn't exist anyway. And if you don't really care about it, then you don't have to go online to participate in it. So if you are someone who doesn't care about something about a leaderboard it wouldn't matter for you whether it's there or not. It's just seem to be you are angry simply because it's there as an option.

And what wrong with providing incentive for people to do something you want them to do, you mean you never do it before in your life? Say you maybe a very good father who are able to convince his children that doing their homework is good for them, and they should do it on their own without extra encouragement. Well good for you ... but what's wrong with parents who say "hey, finish your homework early and do an extra set of problem and I'll treat you to ice cream!" I'm sitting here with the image of you being someone getting angry at the other father saying "YOU ARE SPOILING YOUR KIDS THAT WAY, IN PRINCIPAL YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT!".

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 19. Apr 19, 03:06
You're welcome to enjoy it. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when someone needlessly requires an online component for a game that doesn't have sufficient justification for that. Their latest Anno games all have these components and it's just... bad for gaming in general. IF there was a significant reason for it, I wouldn't mind. But, there isn't one no matter how many shoehorned excuses they try to put in the game to justify it. Therefore, no sale to me.

But, if you like it, that's great! I'm happy if you're happy with it.
And this is why it's a good idea to drop the argument, it's clearly demonstrated here all the points get all so mixed up, for one reason or another I believe this is about "make a point" to disagree rather than just "talk about it". Let me straiten it out for you:

- Their latest Anno is 1800, and it has none of the stuffs you have problem. That is the game I'm enjoying.
- Anno 2070 (the one with the ark) was released in 2011.
- Anno 2205 was released in 2015 (which is a 99% SP and 1%multiplayer OPTIONAL component).

And I had repeatedly state I don't like both 2070 and 2205.

To make it clear, I'm not goading you or anyone into playing any game. I like 1800, and I remember a lot of people like 1404, so I want to spread the love. Just like when we talk about Subnautica, when you make a statement about not playing the game for "certain" reasons, I just want to make sure it's not under the wrong assumption, and I'm simply doing that out of concern as a fellow gaming enthusiast. If you play 1800 one day, I think you will like it. And if you decide not to play it "because what Ubisoft did in that past" then that's fine too, as long as it's not "I won't touch 1800 because it has all these evil features I think it has!

About your other sentiments ... heh, I'm not as old as you but I'm way past that part. Nowadays, the only things I care about gaming is "can I enjoy it" or not, after all it's entertainment, and getting pissy about entertainment seem to be ... unhealthy. I'm passed the part of either being a "fan" or being an "activist". Give me something I want to play, and you will get my money. The industry and market can sort itself out if anyone try to go too far. After all, it's hardly a monopoly market, the competition is fierce. You can see this at the length and pain Epic is taking to grab the share from Steam, and like I said, Uplay once tried to go far, and it was forced to repent, and after they do, I don't care about holding a grudge. I notice you mention the word "principal", and I wonder if you remember discussions we had and pass years about what is a principal. If you do then you would remember my view on principal is quite different then yours. For me, gaming is too cheap of a place to apply "principal". ;)
Last edited by Mightysword on Fri, 19. Apr 19, 03:42, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”