• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What video game are you playing?

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I picked up the expansion mid-week last week, and have had the opportunity to play through one game. I dialed back to Warlord difficulty to get used to new mechanics (I normally play at Prince or King), and played a standard game with Wilhelmina on the new archipelago map. I am not sure I am sold on the loyalty mechanic, especially when it comes to playing on an island based map like archipelago. I never had any problem with loyalty in my own cities, probably because every civ was so isolated from each other. When it came to waging war, however, loyalty became a supreme pain in the ass. I had two civs join together and declare war on me in the mid-late game. One of them was a fairly close neighbor, while the other was half the map away, and I had a friendly relationship with everyone up to this point. I have no idea why they declared war at that point, but these things happen with Civ, so I decided to give the close neighbor (Greece) a bloody nose, and capture their capital while I was at it (their capital was one of the closest cities to my empire).

The initial attack was tough, as we were pretty evenly matched, but with my massive Dutch navy, and a budding air force, I was able to pick off a coastal city to serve as an initial staging area for my invasion. After taking that city, my plan was to knock off the next city up the coast (Athens) to enlarge the staging area, and then plunge inland to take on the landlocked capital of Sparta. I had Athens on the ropes just a few turns after taking the first city, when that initial city suddenly became a Free City. I had started installing a governor a turn or two after taking the city, but the governor did not have a chance to even get settled before this city flipped. First thing that irked me was that the flip itself was bugged. I had most of my navy still within the borders of the city I had taken, including two aircraft carriers loaded down with bombers. I had also moved a fighter plane into the city after taking it. When the city flipped, the fighter disappeared from the game and one of my aircraft carriers had both bombers removed from it, while the other had all both bombers still attached. Of the two bombers that went missing, I found one at my next closest city, the other had been removed from the game along with the fighter. I reloaded a couple turns back and made sure my aircraft carriers were not in the flipping territory, and got my fighter out of the city before the flip, to make things less annoying. Still, I had to deal with a flipped free city, but was not too concerned.

I adjusted my tactics, finished taking out Athens, and then went on to the next coastal city beyond Athens, as I still needed more room for staging units. I got a governor in Athens immediately after taking it, and also set off a general there that was supposed to increase loyalty for the city by 2 every turn. Since I was in a Golden Age, I thought this would solve the loyalty problem in Athens. It did seem to mitigate it a bit, as it took a few more turns for Athens to flip than the previous city, but it did flip just as I was about to take the next city. This frustrated me a great deal, so I razed the third city as soon as I took it. Then I went back to the first city, took it again and razed it. Athens was important to me, it was a large city with a lot of land, and right next to Sparta, so I took it back and tried to keep it happy. By the time I took Sparta, however, I had to deal with Athens flipping about 3 more times. Of course, you can't raze a capital, but if you could, I would have razed everything and walked away, I was that pissed at this new mechanic. Instead, I sued for peace, and got Gorgo to cede both Athens and Sparta. This, and installing governors, was all it took to resolve the loyalty issues, I kept both cities until the end of the game, which I won with a Science victory.

So, I am not all that enamored with the new loyalty mechanic. City flipping is buggy with regards to what happens to your units, and I think the mechanic in general will be an extreme pain in the ass when it comes to going for Domination victories. I feel that this is the primary victory that multiplayer games go toward. It might not be as much of an issue maps with more land (and thus closer civs), but it seems like they are trying to discourage Domination play, which can only serve make nearly all multiplayer games 500 turn slogs to victory.

End game spying was a bit different as well, they seem to have tuned the AI a bit when it comes to spying. Getting to a Space Race victory has always been rather uneventful for me, even at King difficulty the AI would never really go after my spaceship builds, and I would sabotage the hell out of theirs. In this game, the AI civs hit me from all angles as I was closing in on the victory. My governor that provided space race bonuses was targeted constantly, and I could only count on having him for 2 or three turns before he was neutralized again. My space race projects were sabotaged over and over again, even with a counterspy watching the launch pad at all times, the counterspy only blocked one out of about 5 sabotage attempts. In addition to those two angles of attack, I had to deal with about a half dozen uprisings in my second largest city during that end game run, all were orchestrated by spy operations. Fortunately, I put them all down before they got anywhere close to my spaceport.

Wow, that was a lot longer than I intended, and I didn't mean for it all to be negative. I like the dark/golden age mechanic, and governors are decent as well, though I think the limitation to 8 governors might be a problem on larger maps, and the time it takes to establish them in a city is not helpful when it comes to waging war. Next game, I think I will try a domination victory on a map without oceans, and see if my feelings on loyalty remain the same.

It takes a while to get used to.

For example, there are government policies that affect loyalty. One military policy will give you extra loyalty for having a military unit garrisoned in that city. A couple of other policies will increase the loyalty bonuses from governors.

Keep taking cities, and be prepared to go back and re-capture cities that flip on you. Eventually, you'll get enough cities that the loyalty works in your favor and against the opponent (provided there isn't another civ exerting pressure on you both).

I generally play on continents on huge maps, so I will only bother with invasions of civs that share a border with me. That way the loyalty from my own cities helps with the early stages of the invasion. I have yet to try invading another continent yet.

Addendum: the military governor (Victor the Castellan) can transfer to a new city in 3 turns instead of 5. That can be a critical piece of information during the early stages of conquering another civilization's cities.

He is generally the best governor to send to a newly conquered city (or your own new cities as well), not only because of the 3 turn transfer, but also due to the promotions you can load him up with. It is worth noting, however, that he is the governor I was transferring to the conquered cities on the archipelago map where I was having loyalty problems.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,883
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
BattleTech mechs its way to release on April 24th

Oh, for fucks sake! It was highly optimistic of me I know, that when HBS said "April release" it could mean the start of April. But I just bought the Battle Isle pack on GOG, so that will tie me over until then. Man, I forgot how bad the acting/dubbing in BI3 was. Entertaining in a The Room kinda way.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
I play solitaire on my phone while I wait for my wife.



I tend to play it a lot.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I play solitaire on my phone while I wait for my wife.



I tend to play it a lot.

Flow is my waiting-game-of-choice.

Mmm... I can't get to the app store at work. Anyway, you connect the dots without overlapping the lines. It's a problem solving game, and there are several variations.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Some time ago I purchased Fallout 4 and was disappointed to learn that my pc at that time couldn't quite handle it. But it works quite well on this laptop, so now I'm lost in post-apocalyptic Boston.
 

Philos

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
1,451
Location
UK South West
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Some time ago I purchased Fallout 4 and was disappointed to learn that my pc at that time couldn't quite handle it. But it works quite well on this laptop, so now I'm lost in post-apocalyptic Boston.

braces,

I've always found Fallout a bit clunky; all that shooting bits of people and stuff.

Just enjoying Far Cry Primal tonight. :)

A.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Some time ago I purchased Fallout 4 and was disappointed to learn that my pc at that time couldn't quite handle it. But it works quite well on this laptop, so now I'm lost in post-apocalyptic Boston.

I don't know how far into FO4 you are. My recommendation is to pretty much ignore the main storyline once you've found Diamond City. The game is more enjoyable without the main story, IMO. Also, true to Bethesda form... the DLCs are all better than the main story, and I highly recommend all of them.

Spoiler includes some vague but very specific recommendations for 2 of the DLCs. Don't read if you don't want to know. :D

If you start out on Far Harbor, I recommend taking Nick with you as a companion. And if you decide to do the Nuke-World DLC, I suggest NOT starting any of the Minutemen quests - that means DON'T talk to Preston Garvey after fixing up Sanctuary.

 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Addendum: the military governor (Victor the Castellan) can transfer to a new city in 3 turns instead of 5. That can be a critical piece of information during the early stages of conquering another civilization's cities.

He is generally the best governor to send to a newly conquered city (or your own new cities as well), not only because of the 3 turn transfer, but also due to the promotions you can load him up with. It is worth noting, however, that he is the governor I was transferring to the conquered cities on the archipelago map where I was having loyalty problems.

I have not tried conquering cities on another continent unless it was very close to a continent I owned such that my existing cities were able to exert loyalty pressure from my existing cities. I'm not even sure if it's possible to conquer a nation on a far away continent unless maybe it's early in the game.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I picked up the expansion mid-week last week, and have had the opportunity to play through one game. I dialed back to Warlord difficulty to get used to new mechanics (I normally play at Prince or King), and played a standard game with Wilhelmina on the new archipelago map. I am not sure I am sold on the loyalty mechanic, especially when it comes to playing on an island based map like archipelago. I never had any problem with loyalty in my own cities, probably because every civ was so isolated from each other. When it came to waging war, however, loyalty became a supreme pain in the ass. I had two civs join together and declare war on me in the mid-late game. One of them was a fairly close neighbor, while the other was half the map away, and I had a friendly relationship with everyone up to this point. I have no idea why they declared war at that point, but these things happen with Civ, so I decided to give the close neighbor (Greece) a bloody nose, and capture their capital while I was at it (their capital was one of the closest cities to my empire).

The initial attack was tough, as we were pretty evenly matched, but with my massive Dutch navy, and a budding air force, I was able to pick off a coastal city to serve as an initial staging area for my invasion. After taking that city, my plan was to knock off the next city up the coast (Athens) to enlarge the staging area, and then plunge inland to take on the landlocked capital of Sparta. I had Athens on the ropes just a few turns after taking the first city, when that initial city suddenly became a Free City. I had started installing a governor a turn or two after taking the city, but the governor did not have a chance to even get settled before this city flipped. First thing that irked me was that the flip itself was bugged. I had most of my navy still within the borders of the city I had taken, including two aircraft carriers loaded down with bombers. I had also moved a fighter plane into the city after taking it. When the city flipped, the fighter disappeared from the game and one of my aircraft carriers had both bombers removed from it, while the other had all both bombers still attached. Of the two bombers that went missing, I found one at my next closest city, the other had been removed from the game along with the fighter. I reloaded a couple turns back and made sure my aircraft carriers were not in the flipping territory, and got my fighter out of the city before the flip, to make things less annoying. Still, I had to deal with a flipped free city, but was not too concerned.

I adjusted my tactics, finished taking out Athens, and then went on to the next coastal city beyond Athens, as I still needed more room for staging units. I got a governor in Athens immediately after taking it, and also set off a general there that was supposed to increase loyalty for the city by 2 every turn. Since I was in a Golden Age, I thought this would solve the loyalty problem in Athens. It did seem to mitigate it a bit, as it took a few more turns for Athens to flip than the previous city, but it did flip just as I was about to take the next city. This frustrated me a great deal, so I razed the third city as soon as I took it. Then I went back to the first city, took it again and razed it. Athens was important to me, it was a large city with a lot of land, and right next to Sparta, so I took it back and tried to keep it happy. By the time I took Sparta, however, I had to deal with Athens flipping about 3 more times. Of course, you can't raze a capital, but if you could, I would have razed everything and walked away, I was that pissed at this new mechanic. Instead, I sued for peace, and got Gorgo to cede both Athens and Sparta. This, and installing governors, was all it took to resolve the loyalty issues, I kept both cities until the end of the game, which I won with a Science victory.

So, I am not all that enamored with the new loyalty mechanic. City flipping is buggy with regards to what happens to your units, and I think the mechanic in general will be an extreme pain in the ass when it comes to going for Domination victories. I feel that this is the primary victory that multiplayer games go toward. It might not be as much of an issue maps with more land (and thus closer civs), but it seems like they are trying to discourage Domination play, which can only serve make nearly all multiplayer games 500 turn slogs to victory.

End game spying was a bit different as well, they seem to have tuned the AI a bit when it comes to spying. Getting to a Space Race victory has always been rather uneventful for me, even at King difficulty the AI would never really go after my spaceship builds, and I would sabotage the hell out of theirs. In this game, the AI civs hit me from all angles as I was closing in on the victory. My governor that provided space race bonuses was targeted constantly, and I could only count on having him for 2 or three turns before he was neutralized again. My space race projects were sabotaged over and over again, even with a counterspy watching the launch pad at all times, the counterspy only blocked one out of about 5 sabotage attempts. In addition to those two angles of attack, I had to deal with about a half dozen uprisings in my second largest city during that end game run, all were orchestrated by spy operations. Fortunately, I put them all down before they got anywhere close to my spaceport.

Wow, that was a lot longer than I intended, and I didn't mean for it all to be negative. I like the dark/golden age mechanic, and governors are decent as well, though I think the limitation to 8 governors might be a problem on larger maps, and the time it takes to establish them in a city is not helpful when it comes to waging war. Next game, I think I will try a domination victory on a map without oceans, and see if my feelings on loyalty remain the same.

It takes a while to get used to.

For example, there are government policies that affect loyalty. One military policy will give you extra loyalty for having a military unit garrisoned in that city. A couple of other policies will increase the loyalty bonuses from governors.

Keep taking cities, and be prepared to go back and re-capture cities that flip on you. Eventually, you'll get enough cities that the loyalty works in your favor and against the opponent (provided there isn't another civ exerting pressure on you both).

I generally play on continents on huge maps, so I will only bother with invasions of civs that share a border with me. That way the loyalty from my own cities helps with the early stages of the invasion. I have yet to try invading another continent yet.

It seems the archipelago map is a bad choice for a domination victory. I have played a few games on maps with less ocean to worry about, and did not have the same problem with loyalty. The first one was on a small Pangea map, and I was specifically going for a domination victory to test out the loyalty system. By attacking cities close to my own, and slowly working my way through my opponents while paying attention to their loyalty, I actually had my opponents last few cities cities flipping their loyalty to me. I also made sure I took loyalty culture slots when available, and designed my religion with loyalty in mind. I actually ended with a religious victory in that game just before I was about to lay siege to the last capitol I needed to take for domination. The next two games were on a standard continents map where I did get the domination victory, and a Europe map that I won with a science victory. Those last two were also on Prince difficulty, rather than Warlord. Now that I know how to handle loyalty, I feel like I might be able to take a stab at domination on an archipelago or island map, or ramp the difficulty up to King.

I am finding that I like the expansion, and my biggest gripe right now is that you are limited to only 8 governors. I would like to see the number of possible governors tied to the size of the map. That is a minor nit to pick, though, as I find the gameplay generally improved in that I do have to pay a bit more attention to what is happening in my cities.

Yeah, if you plan on conquering other nations (very helpful for a science victory since more citizens = more science), getting those loyalty-related cards in your government is critical.

- - - Updated - - -

I play solitaire on my phone while I wait for my wife.



I tend to play it a lot.

You need more digital books, sir!

I rarely play games on mobile devices anymore, but books will always be the best time killer.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.
I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.
I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.FFIV_GP

I actually bought FF4, and FF4 definitely doesn't have microtransactions in it, but still I have barely touched it. On the rare occasions I play anything on a phone or tablet, it's solitaire, mah jong, or Bejeweled.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.
Yeah, I pretty much refuse to play any games with microtransactions. I will pay money for a game that I enjoy - like Quell and its variations, or Flow and its variations. And I don't mind games that have optional buy-ups to remove adds, or to speed up acquisition of stuff. For example, I do play Te Elder Scrolls Legends card game, and I really enjoy it... and I don't have to pay to play. Some people are willing to shell out large sums of money to get fancy paint jobs on their cards, or to buy lots of packs and increase their odds of getting rare cards... but you can also buy card packs with in-game money. And so far, I don't usually feel disadvantaged by not having paid cash for anything. Every now and then I run across someone who has clearly invested far too much money into the game... but it doesn't seem to happen all that often so it's fine by me.

On the other hand, there are things like Candy Crush and its ilk, where you absolutely hit a cliff that you can't get past unless you pay real life money for more cheats or hints or whatever. And those games can burn in a hell of their own invention as far as I'm concerned. They are sucktastic. Plus, that stupid model made its way into Bethesda's brains and is responsible for the horrible abomination that is Elder Scrolls Online. Grr.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.
I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.FFIV_GP

I actually bought FF4, and FF4 definitely doesn't have microtransactions in it, but still I have barely touched it. On the rare occasions I play anything on a phone or tablet, it's solitaire, mah jong, or Bejeweled.

I've tried several times... and I just can't get into any of the Final Fantasy games. I don't know what it is, it just doesn't hook me.
 

Terrell

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,166
Location
Winter Garden, Florida
Basic Beliefs
socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
Some time ago I purchased Fallout 4 and was disappointed to learn that my pc at that time couldn't quite handle it. But it works quite well on this laptop, so now I'm lost in post-apocalyptic Boston.

If you haven't already; don't forget to try mods for Fallout 4. Same applies to Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, & Fallout New Vegas. Hopefully this time next year we'll be doing that with another BGS game. ;)
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Yeah, I pretty much refuse to play any games with microtransactions. I will pay money for a game that I enjoy - like Quell and its variations, or Flow and its variations. And I don't mind games that have optional buy-ups to remove adds, or to speed up acquisition of stuff. For example, I do play Te Elder Scrolls Legends card game, and I really enjoy it... and I don't have to pay to play. Some people are willing to shell out large sums of money to get fancy paint jobs on their cards, or to buy lots of packs and increase their odds of getting rare cards... but you can also buy card packs with in-game money. And so far, I don't usually feel disadvantaged by not having paid cash for anything. Every now and then I run across someone who has clearly invested far too much money into the game... but it doesn't seem to happen all that often so it's fine by me.

On the other hand, there are things like Candy Crush and its ilk, where you absolutely hit a cliff that you can't get past unless you pay real life money for more cheats or hints or whatever. And those games can burn in a hell of their own invention as far as I'm concerned. They are sucktastic. Plus, that stupid model made its way into Bethesda's brains and is responsible for the horrible abomination that is Elder Scrolls Online. Grr.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.
I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.FFIV_GP

I actually bought FF4, and FF4 definitely doesn't have microtransactions in it, but still I have barely touched it. On the rare occasions I play anything on a phone or tablet, it's solitaire, mah jong, or Bejeweled.

I've tried several times... and I just can't get into any of the Final Fantasy games. I don't know what it is, it just doesn't hook me.

I loved 7 and 3. I haven't tried any of the others.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
So Genghis Khan was introduced to Civilization 6 with the Rise and Fall expansion:

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Genghis_Khan_(Civ6)

I am usually going for a science victory when I play, so anytime someone declares war on me, I'm not going to accept peace until I have conquered every city of the other nation and driven them from existence. I do this because for a science victory, it helps a lot to have as large a population as possible, and conquering someone else's cities allows one to grow faster than one could through settlement alone.

But whenever Genghis declares war on me (provided he's not on a distant continent, thus making conquest impractical), I feel morally obligated by history to keep the war going until Mongolia is driven out of the game entirely. :D

Lamentations of their wimmen an' all that.
 

Mumbles

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
1,585
Location
Maryland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I loved 7 and 3. I haven't tried any of the others.

3 for SNES, or for Famicom?

Yes, this matters a lot, for some rather stupid Japan-> US import issues...

(I've played just about all of them - not necessarily the best jRPGs, but I do wish they'd get back to the ATB battles and bring back FF Tactics, instead of the fairly clumsy real-time battle stuff.)
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I loved 7 and 3. I haven't tried any of the others.

3 for SNES, or for Famicom?

Yes, this matters a lot, for some rather stupid Japan-> US import issues...

(I've played just about all of them - not necessarily the best jRPGs, but I do wish they'd get back to the ATB battles and bring back FF Tactics, instead of the fairly clumsy real-time battle stuff.)

Android, which I believe was a port of a Gameboy release that got a 3D facelift over the original.

- - - Updated - - -

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Thanks for the explanation :) I'm less concerned about cartoonishness of the graphics (I still love Ratchet & Clank, after all). It really is the turn-based, limited immersion aspect that killed me the few times I tried Final Fantasy.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

Computer RPGs are divided into JRPG and Western RPGs even though these days there are perfectly good JRPGs made in the West and good Western RPGs made in Japan. Western RPGs generally allow for more customization and are more open-ended (think sandbox). In a JRPG, the characters are all pre-made, and come with their own distinct look, personality, name, etc. You don't get to pick those things. Furthermore, the story itself is very linear.

The tradeoff is that the JRPG allows for much more complicated stories. In a Western RPG, the player has all the control, and so the game devs can't possibly produce stories as detailed and complex and well thought-out as what you might find in a JRPG. Sure, in a Western RPG, you get to feel like you are the author of your own story, but the truth is you're not as good at writing stories as the writers a game developer is likely to hire.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Turn-based vs realtime has nothing to do with JRPG vs Western RPG. JRPG may have resisted going to realtime longer, but that's the only difference in combat mechanics.

Speaking of mechanics, Western RPGs are more likely to use mechanics based on a pen & paper D20 system, while the JRPGs tend to be a bit more, well, experimental when it comes to mechanics. Goodness knows the Final Fantasy franchise seems to completely rework combat mechanics and character mechanics with each incarnation.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.
It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

Computer RPGs are divided into JRPG and Western RPGs even though these days there are perfectly good JRPGs made in the West and good Western RPGs made in Japan. Western RPGs generally allow for more customization and are more open-ended (think sandbox). In a JRPG, the characters are all pre-made, and come with their own distinct look, personality, name, etc. You don't get to pick those things. Furthermore, the story itself is very linear.

The tradeoff is that the JRPG allows for much more complicated stories. In a Western RPG, the player has all the control, and so the game devs can't possibly produce stories as detailed and complex and well thought-out as what you might find in a JRPG. Sure, in a Western RPG, you get to feel like you are the author of your own story, but the truth is you're not as good at writing stories as the writers a game developer is likely to hire.

I don't mind limited customization if the story line is good. For example, I absolultey loved Horizon Zero Dawn, which has almost zero customization, as well as a fairly linear storyline with only short side quests involved. But the story was so incredibly compelling that I didn't care. Similarly, I'm a fan of The Witcher, which also has no real customization and a fairly linear storyline. On the other end of things, I love Fallout and Elder Scrolls, where the main plot is quite weak, but the exploration is fantastic and very immersive. In the middle, of course, are things like Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

I think it really is the turn-based aspect of it that I find dissatisfying. Honestly, I think that's part of why I never managed to get into D&D or similar dice-based role playing. Even though the ideas really appealed to me, I simply lost immersion while waiting for everyone else to have their turn.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Turn-based vs realtime has nothing to do with JRPG vs Western RPG. JRPG may have resisted going to realtime longer, but that's the only difference in combat mechanics.

^Two sentences which directly contradict one another.

Also, note that I used the phrasing "relied more on turn based combat", which indicates that turn based combat is not a hard rule for JRPGs. There were certainly outliers, like Zelda, but the turn based combat style of the early Final Fantasy games was pretty much a template for JRPGs for many years.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Turn-based vs realtime has nothing to do with JRPG vs Western RPG. JRPG may have resisted going to realtime longer, but that's the only difference in combat mechanics.

^Two sentences which directly contradict one another.

Also, note that I used the phrasing "relied more on turn based combat", which indicates that turn based combat is not a hard rule for JRPGs. There were certainly outliers, like Zelda, but the turn based combat style of the early Final Fantasy games was pretty much a template for JRPGs for many years.

I've always preferred turn-based mechanics. Half the reason I started playing RPG games in the first place is that I didn't need lightning-fast reflexes to do well at them. I hate that most RPG games require arcade/console-style reflexes and whatnot. Meh.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Diablo 3 lets me get around having bad reflexes thanks to the summoner/pet class witch doctor.

Many of the attacks of the witch doctor are so absurd that I grin from ear to ear while playing. My current seasonal character is using a primary attack that involves hurling spider-filled pottery at my enemies.

Did I mention the rain-of-frogs attack?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
^Two sentences which directly contradict one another.

Also, note that I used the phrasing "relied more on turn based combat", which indicates that turn based combat is not a hard rule for JRPGs. There were certainly outliers, like Zelda, but the turn based combat style of the early Final Fantasy games was pretty much a template for JRPGs for many years.

I've always preferred turn-based mechanics. Half the reason I started playing RPG games in the first place is that I didn't need lightning-fast reflexes to do well at them. I hate that most RPG games require arcade/console-style reflexes and whatnot. Meh.
A sudden image of a real military battle taking place via the mechanics of an RPG, with soldiers in close proximity jumping and firing guns at the same time... some other guy having a missile launching machine gun blasting away because he had a cheat code.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Maybe so, but turn-based makes games more accessible to me, and most modern RPGs eschew turn-based mechanics.

Ah well, there's always Civilization games. :D
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Maybe so, but turn-based makes games more accessible to me, and most modern RPGs eschew turn-based mechanics.

Ah well, there's always Civilization games. :D

:D honestly, I split the difference. I really dislike first person shooters... because I aim for shit and all I do is die. So I stick with games that are fairly immersive, and don't have a turn-based approach to disrupt the experience... but I very strongly prefer games that either lock-on/auto-aim or have an 'easy' setting (or both!). The lock on is about the only reason I ever made it through Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 2... but even with that feature I never did finish DS1, and I haven't really even started DS3 yet. I downloaded it, and I made a character, and I wandered around the beginning... and then I hit the very first mini-boss before you even gain entry to the real game. That bastard killed me, and I shelved the game for a bit.

Realistically, it's probably going to be months, maybe over a year, before I give DS3 a shot. For whatever reason, that particular game creates a lot of tension and stress in me. That's great for really getting into the game... but it's problematic when I have a lot of other real-life stress and anxiety. I honestly think it would be bad for my health to add that game on top of my other anxieties right now. Hell, those other anxieties are bad for my health already, so...
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Maybe so, but turn-based makes games more accessible to me, and most modern RPGs eschew turn-based mechanics.

Ah well, there's always Civilization games. :D

:D honestly, I split the difference. I really dislike first person shooters... because I aim for shit and all I do is die. So I stick with games that are fairly immersive, and don't have a turn-based approach to disrupt the experience... but I very strongly prefer games that either lock-on/auto-aim or have an 'easy' setting (or both!). The lock on is about the only reason I ever made it through Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 2... but even with that feature I never did finish DS1, and I haven't really even started DS3 yet. I downloaded it, and I made a character, and I wandered around the beginning... and then I hit the very first mini-boss before you even gain entry to the real game. That bastard killed me, and I shelved the game for a bit.

Realistically, it's probably going to be months, maybe over a year, before I give DS3 a shot. For whatever reason, that particular game creates a lot of tension and stress in me. That's great for really getting into the game... but it's problematic when I have a lot of other real-life stress and anxiety. I honestly think it would be bad for my health to add that game on top of my other anxieties right now. Hell, those other anxieties are bad for my health already, so...

Games that trigger a higher heart rate also interfere with my sleeping patterns. It took me decades to figure that out. :(

I no longer play MMORPGs because of that relatively recent discovery about myself.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Games that trigger a higher heart rate also interfere with my sleeping patterns. It took me decades to figure that out. :(

I no longer play MMORPGs because of that relatively recent discovery about myself.
:hug: I understand. There's a reason I don't play any horror based games, and why I really hate the timed sections of things like Tomb Raider where you have to hit the keys exactly right or start all over again!
 

Terrell

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,166
Location
Winter Garden, Florida
Basic Beliefs
socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
Games that trigger a higher heart rate also interfere with my sleeping patterns. It took me decades to figure that out. :(

I no longer play MMORPGs because of that relatively recent discovery about myself.
:hug: I understand. There's a reason I don't play any horror based games, and why I really hate the timed sections of things like Tomb Raider where you have to hit the keys exactly right or start all over again!

I remember that from one of the older Tomb Raider games. Towards the end of Angel of Darkness you start a board underwater, with spikes coming out of the wall, that you have to swim by. You can't swim above or below them as the channel is too narrow. Lara can only hold her breath for so long before she drowns. There are areas where she can surface for air there is also a rebreather to be found later in the board but it doesn't last long when you use it. If you exploit a glitch earlier in the game, you can get 2 gas masks in the Louvre instead of one. The extra one can help with the underwater board. IIRC you have to use one of the gas masks when exiting the Louvre. The gas mask also lasts longer than the rebreather. You go through the Louvre twice. Once on the way to the tomb, once back. Use the exploit on the way to the tomb, if I recall correctly.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Games that trigger a higher heart rate also interfere with my sleeping patterns. It took me decades to figure that out. :(

I no longer play MMORPGs because of that relatively recent discovery about myself.
:hug: I understand. There's a reason I don't play any horror based games, and why I really hate the timed sections of things like Tomb Raider where you have to hit the keys exactly right or start all over again!

I remember that from one of the older Tomb Raider games. Towards the end of Angel of Darkness you start a board underwater, with spikes coming out of the wall, that you have to swim by. You can't swim above or below them as the channel is too narrow. Lara can only hold her breath for so long before she drowns. There are areas where she can surface for air there is also a rebreather to be found later in the board but it doesn't last long when you use it. If you exploit a glitch earlier in the game, you can get 2 gas masks in the Louvre instead of one. The extra one can help with the underwater board. IIRC you have to use one of the gas masks when exiting the Louvre. The gas mask also lasts longer than the rebreather. You go through the Louvre twice. Once on the way to the tomb, once back. Use the exploit on the way to the tomb, if I recall correctly.

I used to have Angel of Darkness, and it disappeared somewhere along the way. I enjoyed that one, even though it went a fair bit sideways from the rest of the franchise. It had different mechanics and a fairly different thematic feel to the story. But I still enjoyed it. I vaguely recall it getting bad reviews and not being much liked by Tomb Raider fans.

And yeah, I remember the evil spiky waterway of infinite repeats.

I think the only ones I found more irritating are in TR: Legend. In particular...
1) The motorcycle ride through the desert while trying to shoot at bad guys in trucks AND jump over obstacles AND pick up health packs AND avoid hitting things because it makes you dead AND hit the jump over the train just right AND jump the burning bridge just right AND... so on
2) In the Russian lab with the hanging tesla balls that you have to magnetically pull and push in the right order, but which are a pain to get a lock on... all while being attacked by a monster that you cannot actually hurt but can only defeat by interacting with the tesla balls that you can't get hold of because the damned monster breaks your lock-on once you've finally managed to get lined up right!
 

Terrell

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,166
Location
Winter Garden, Florida
Basic Beliefs
socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
I remember that from one of the older Tomb Raider games. Towards the end of Angel of Darkness you start a board underwater, with spikes coming out of the wall, that you have to swim by. You can't swim above or below them as the channel is too narrow. Lara can only hold her breath for so long before she drowns. There are areas where she can surface for air there is also a rebreather to be found later in the board but it doesn't last long when you use it. If you exploit a glitch earlier in the game, you can get 2 gas masks in the Louvre instead of one. The extra one can help with the underwater board. IIRC you have to use one of the gas masks when exiting the Louvre. The gas mask also lasts longer than the rebreather. You go through the Louvre twice. Once on the way to the tomb, once back. Use the exploit on the way to the tomb, if I recall correctly.

I used to have Angel of Darkness, and it disappeared somewhere along the way. I enjoyed that one, even though it went a fair bit sideways from the rest of the franchise. It had different mechanics and a fairly different thematic feel to the story. But I still enjoyed it. I vaguely recall it getting bad reviews and not being much liked by Tomb Raider fans.

And yeah, I remember the evil spiky waterway of infinite repeats.

I think the only ones I found more irritating are in TR: Legend. In particular...
1) The motorcycle ride through the desert while trying to shoot at bad guys in trucks AND jump over obstacles AND pick up health packs AND avoid hitting things because it makes you dead AND hit the jump over the train just right AND jump the burning bridge just right AND... so on
2) In the Russian lab with the hanging tesla balls that you have to magnetically pull and push in the right order, but which are a pain to get a lock on... all while being attacked by a monster that you cannot actually hurt but can only defeat by interacting with the tesla balls that you can't get hold of because the damned monster breaks your lock-on once you've finally managed to get lined up right!

Took a long time to kill that ghost/boss at the end of the tomb, but he wasn't that tough other than getting your shots to hit. When not shooting I had Lara crawl around on her belly. To deal with "The Cleaner" was a PITA too. I used the ammo glitch in that room starting with the 2nd try. Read about it online. I also found that bug/boss that had to be fought with Kurtis to be a pain, but generally I didn't like Kurtis to begin with. Not a good way to start by taking all of Lara's weapons at the Museum and he felt awkward to control. Would have been easier to deal with "the cleaner" with more weapons to use.

The "Camera changes view" thing that you couldn't turn off was also a PITA. Overall it was a good game, otherwise I wouldn't have played long enough to beat the Nephilim at the end. I got it with a piece of equipment I'd bought for my PC. I can't remember if it was a new Sound Blaster Audigy 2, or if it was a NVIDIA GeForce GPU.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,283
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
I've been playing CounterStrike regularly since 2001. I've been playing World of Warships for about a month, and I've been playing Pokemon: Magikarp Jump for a week.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't think anyone likes "quick time events" as they're called.

Nice to have a name for that torture I suppose. Are the game designers just masochists?

They are sort of like plot devices, insofar as they fill a realism gap. I don't like those devices either.
There is a commercial fishing game I have been eyeing on Steam, but it seems filled with "mini games" like that.
Sometimes there needs to be a way to put something that is not entirely random, and somewhat skill-based, in the way of the game being "too easy".

As a newbe VR game programmer, I have been creating mini games to add realism to certain activities that, in traditional 3D games that have just been a click to open a door or whatever, be actual physical activities (beyond reaching for the handle and pulling). One example is a lock picking simulation I made as part of a larger experience... no need to search the dungeon for the red key to open the red door... no... pick the lock if you have the (actual) skill. It takes three of your fingers moving independently, and the physical feel (haptics) of the virtual pins to get the door open.
Unfortunately, it's still too hard for most people that have tried it so far.
..and that's precisely why those "twitch" mini games are sometimes used. But I'm going to keep refining my picking simulation because I still think it has promise.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,883
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
So, I started playing BattleTech since Thursday. Steam has informed me that I have played it for 67 hours over the last 4 days, which sounds disturbingly accurate.

The game nailed the regressive nature of the Third Succession War, where battles were sometimes fought over spare parts Mecha Mad Max style. The storyline in the campaign was pretty good. Making the Taurian Concordat the big bad in the campaign just illustrated the scale of the Battletech universe. It is also the first Battletech/Mechwarrior game that did mech customization (possibly with the exception of MW:O) in such a way that you had to decide which chassis does a particular job instead of boating 4 100 ton mechs and charging through. I cannot think how a more accurate transition of the tabletop game into a video game can be accomplished. I've seen a lot of people comparing this game to X-Com, but that feels lazy and disingenuous. The two games BattleTech reminded me of the most were The Crescent Hawks Revenge (obviously) and 1990's Battle Isle 2 updated with modern graphics and a friendlier UI. I already know I'm going to purchase any DLC for this game, and I don't know if any are even in the works. For me, this game is staying on my hard drive just like KOTOR 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Rome: Total War. It will never get repetitive for me.

BUT...

The fucking loading times are painful! This game has replaced Fallout 4 for me as most frustrating in terms of waiting for maps to load. Performance and frame rates drop off at some pretty random moments and the load/save menus are pretty abysmal. I didn't savescum at all in this game (unlike, say X-Com), not because I prefer Ironman play, but I didn't want to waste 5 minutes reloading simply because my Spider crippled itself trying to do a DFA. I can forgive the subpar and unskippable cutscenes, along with it being text heavy in-game (It's a kickstarter so some corners had to be cut), but the core mechanics of the game are still very rough, and doesn't come close to justifying the min spec requirements. Coupled with the high price, I can't recommend this game unless you are an avid BattleTech fan, in which case I would definately suggest grabbing it and hope for a patch in the next couple of months.
 

Malintent

Veteran Member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
3,651
Location
New York
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
a couple of friends of mine have been playing Battletech exclusively lately. They are loving it... I'll prolly try it out next time it goes on a significant sale.

however, another group of friends is getting into Guns of Icarus. I know almost nothing about it. Anyone play that with an opinion?
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
I usually play on the lowest difficulty because I only want science victories, and it takes me too damn long to win when I go for science.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,232
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I got Far Cry 5 for my birthday. This is a stretch for me, it's a lot more like a first-person shooter than I usually go for. But the premise was something I found appealing, and I've got to admit that it's really, really, strikingly beautiful. The landscapes and the people are extremely well done. I haven't made it very far yet... but hey - I only died three times during the opening scene! And I've got most of the first island cleared already!
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Soooooo....

The Steam Link device failed. Now they are introducing a Steam Link app for iOS and Android. You can stream games from a computer to your phone or tablet provided your network can handle it. I installed the beta app, and it seems to expect you to have a game controller of some kind.
 

Terrell

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,166
Location
Winter Garden, Florida
Basic Beliefs
socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
Soooooo....

The Steam Link device failed. Now they are introducing a Steam Link app for iOS and Android. You can stream games from a computer to your phone or tablet provided your network can handle it. I installed the beta app, and it seems to expect you to have a game controller of some kind.

There are YouTube videos on how to pair an XB1 controller to an Android phone. I haven't tried them myself, haven't had reason to, but it's something you might want to try out if you haven't already.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Soooooo....

The Steam Link device failed. Now they are introducing a Steam Link app for iOS and Android. You can stream games from a computer to your phone or tablet provided your network can handle it. I installed the beta app, and it seems to expect you to have a game controller of some kind.

There are YouTube videos on how to pair an XB1 controller to an Android phone. I haven't tried them myself, haven't had reason to, but it's something you might want to try out if you haven't already.

I was able to stream Civ 6 with a bluetooth keyboard and the touchscreen, although it was dicey because the tablet made everything so tiny! I suppose I could pair a bluetooth mouse or get a bluetooth keyboard with a trackpad or get one of those stylus thingies, but I'm not sure how much Civ I want to play when everything is that tiny and dark.

But I bet FF7 would be great with a console controller.
 
Top Bottom