What are you playing?

[Vayra86]

My dad got me into Magic: The Gathering Arena. I've played normal MTG for 11 years and he's played since the mid 90s. I initially dismissed this game as a microtransaction-laden F2P nightmare, but it's actually decent. I've been playing it for a while without spending any real-world money, and I have a decent deck.

Got this completely stupid win today...

Opponent had a blue-white healing deck against my black-white healing deck. They got me down to 5 health before my deck started working, and then this happened...

Card they tried to use before I won was "Warrant" which puts a blocking creature card on top of its owner's library.

Check out Jeskai Cycling meta decks and build it in MTGA. Its super fun to play, cycling cards all the time and proccing effects left and right. I even built a variation of it in IRL paper MTG Pretty cheap!

Mechwarrior V.. I really like some aspects of the game and not a fan of other features.. overall, its a good game imo though

View attachment 163352

If I can give you one bit of advice, make sure you don't burn out from the game before finishing the storyline / getting the highest MW rank because that also unlocks new mechs at the shops and some are really fun to play. Game will just keep on giving random missions at some point, with some sort of reputation progression path but its a bit like Battletech to me, at some point it gets old.

Its just... make sure you get your behind inside an Annihilator, because even if its slow as molasses... dayum son.

 

[Drone]

Completed main ops in MGS Peace Walker. Playing extra ops now.

Sneaking. Sneaking. Sneaking.

Good night, sleep tight.

Avoiding enemy patrol and scout towers

Prison break and CQC

With rank 3 NVG claymore disarmament is so easy. Got S rank on the first try!

 

[Frick]

Started Disco Elysium this morning. Played about an hour and a half and already some of the best stuff I've ever seen in a game has happened.

 

[FinneousPJ]

Civ VI. It's very cool!

 

[dragontamer5788]

Civ VI. It's very cool!

Its got better production value than Civ V, but I think gameplay wise Civ5 > Civ6. Civ6's big issue is that all of the mechanics are "rubberbanding", and anti-growth.

Every time you advance in research or culture, your districts get more expensive to make. Every time you build a settler (or builder), the next settler is more expensive. Every time you advance in an age, all buildings (and some units: like traders) grow in costs. Finally: all multiplicative bonuses are gone. Civ 5 (and earlier) games had Libraries / Universities / Research Centers give multiplicative bonuses to science. Civ6, its a static +3 or +6 bonus to science. Civ6 is "linearized", while Civ5 (and earlier entries) were exponential growth.

Optimizing your builds in Civ6 is a matter of researching the least amount possible before you get your early districts up (ie: keep your first few districts as cheap as possible). Then building early-age units (ie: Warriors and Slingers) which upgrade far more cheaply than trying to produce later units. (Only ~40 gold on standard time to upgrade a slinger -> archer). If you get the 50% cost upgrades civic, the gold/producction tradeoff is even more severe and ridiculous. Army upgrades are the single biggest, gamey, combat trick in the game....

Civ6 simplified the game a lot. It artificially makes disparate players feel close together. (A player could be 3 ages ahead another player... but all of the additional costs from being in a later age slow down production). Its still an advantage to advance through the ages, but far less of an advantage compared to early games. I feel like Civ6 drags things out too much, while the brutal exponential "get ahead of the opponent" rush from Civ5 (and earlier games) was more akin to my style of play.

The combat mechanics are also grossly simplified: gone are "attack" and "defense". We just have "strength" now. Units don't really feel different until you get airplanes.

---------

Its still fun I guess. But... I really don't like a lot of the design decisions made.

 

[Vayra86]

Its got better production value than Civ V, but I think gameplay wise Civ5 > Civ6. Civ6's big issue is that all of the mechanics are "rubberbanding", and anti-growth.

Every time you advance in research or culture, your districts get more expensive to make. Every time you build a settler (or builder), the next settler is more expensive. Every time you advance in an age, all buildings (and some units: like traders) grow in costs. Finally: all multiplicative bonuses are gone. Civ 5 (and earlier) games had Libraries / Universities / Research Centers give multiplicative bonuses to science. Civ6, its a static +3 or +6 bonus to science. Civ6 is "linearized", while Civ5 (and earlier entries) were exponential growth.

Optimizing your builds in Civ6 is a matter of researching the least amount possible before you get your early districts up (ie: keep your first few districts as cheap as possible). Then building early-age units (ie: Warriors and Slingers) which upgrade far more cheaply than trying to produce later units. (Only ~40 gold on standard time to upgrade a slinger -> archer). If you get the 50% cost upgrades civic, the gold/producction tradeoff is even more severe and ridiculous. Army upgrades are the single biggest, gamey, combat trick in the game....

Civ6 simplified the game a lot. It artificially makes disparate players feel close together. (A player could be 3 ages ahead another player... but all of the additional costs from being in a later age slow down production). Its still an advantage to advance through the ages, but far less of an advantage compared to early games. I feel like Civ6 drags things out too much, while the brutal exponential "get ahead of the opponent" rush from Civ5 (and earlier games) was more akin to my style of play.

The combat mechanics are also grossly simplified: gone are "attack" and "defense". We just have "strength" now. Units don't really feel different until you get airplanes.

---------

Its still fun I guess. But... I really don't like a lot of the design decisions made.

Damn I've never seen the difference between Civ V and VI explained so well. That is exactly it. Civ 6 penalizes you for being brilliant, playing the rules to any extreme to gain advantage. Civ V allows you to actually do it. I get a similar feeling from VI as I do from your average grindy online game: the balance is such that you can never truly excel, gotta keep your epeen in check. Its the exact difference between the charm of early WoW when there were like two guys on a server with a unique staff, and the later expansions when everyone had to be special. Which means nobody is and the game becomes a carrot chase.

 

[BlaezaLite]

COD mobile via bluestacks. Better than Modern Warfare.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Fired up Steam the other day after a long 5 year break. Played MOWAS2, my old team had long disbanded and the game is seen as abandonware although a good few still play.
Though I'd try my rusty self at an MP game. 3v3 with some stranger hosting. Had a Hitler fanatic shouting 'Heil Hitler' throughout along with other Nazi stuff.
Now I remember why I ditched the game 5 years ago........

 

[dragontamer5788]

Civ 6 penalizes you for being brilliant, playing the rules to any extreme to gain advantage.

I mean, I'm going to abuse the rules to my advantage regardless. But I feel disgusting about it. Optimal play in Civ6 means purposefully delaying technologies (minimizing the cost of districts), and playing funny games with the 50% unit upgrade cost card. Let me elaborate on the upgrade issue.

A Musketman costs 960 gold. (In line with the 240 production, with the typical 4x production gold cost universal in this game).

A Warrior costs 160 gold, and only 220 gold to upgrade to a Musketman. If you have the 50% upgrade civic card, only 110 gold to upgrade. Warriors also have 0-maintenance, so you can keep them around without any penalties to your gold.

------

This isn't "brilliance", clicking on warriors in the early game and upgrading them later. Its practically an exploit, and doesn't feel strategic at all. You can grossly improve your army composition by delaying your Gunpowder / Iron advancement, buying a bunch of warriors, then hitting the boost (buy an Armory. Pretty easy actually), and then buying a bunch of cheap Musketmen due to gaming the boost timing.

-------

High-level Civ5 (and earlier) play revolved around building optimal roads with your workers (getting settlers to the ideal location a turn or 2 earlier). Saving a turn with subtle plays that really adds up to a huge advantage later on. High-level Civ6 is basically revolving around exploit-loops around cheap Musketmen. Its just not as fun IMO.

 

[FinneousPJ]

Its got better production value than Civ V, but I think gameplay wise Civ5 > Civ6. Civ6's big issue is that all of the mechanics are "rubberbanding", and anti-growth.

Every time you advance in research or culture, your districts get more expensive to make. Every time you build a settler (or builder), the next settler is more expensive. Every time you advance in an age, all buildings (and some units: like traders) grow in costs. Finally: all multiplicative bonuses are gone. Civ 5 (and earlier) games had Libraries / Universities / Research Centers give multiplicative bonuses to science. Civ6, its a static +3 or +6 bonus to science. Civ6 is "linearized", while Civ5 (and earlier entries) were exponential growth.

Optimizing your builds in Civ6 is a matter of researching the least amount possible before you get your early districts up (ie: keep your first few districts as cheap as possible). Then building early-age units (ie: Warriors and Slingers) which upgrade far more cheaply than trying to produce later units. (Only ~40 gold on standard time to upgrade a slinger -> archer). If you get the 50% cost upgrades civic, the gold/producction tradeoff is even more severe and ridiculous. Army upgrades are the single biggest, gamey, combat trick in the game....

Civ6 simplified the game a lot. It artificially makes disparate players feel close together. (A player could be 3 ages ahead another player... but all of the additional costs from being in a later age slow down production). Its still an advantage to advance through the ages, but far less of an advantage compared to early games. I feel like Civ6 drags things out too much, while the brutal exponential "get ahead of the opponent" rush from Civ5 (and earlier games) was more akin to my style of play.

The combat mechanics are also grossly simplified: gone are "attack" and "defense". We just have "strength" now. Units don't really feel different until you get airplanes.

---------

Its still fun I guess. But... I really don't like a lot of the design decisions made.

Yeah I mostly agree. Although Civ5 was also anti-growth the way it discouraged founding more cities (IIRC I haven't played in ages).

I also miss the multiplicative bonuses though. They still exist but are mainly restricted to wonders and policies.

Still, people (me included) liked Civ4 better when 5 came out. That's just the way people function. Gotta get with the times eventually.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Still, people (me included) liked Civ4 better when 5 came out. That's just the way people function. Gotta get with the times eventually.

Civ4 is actually my most hated Civ from a gameplay perspective.

Well... "hated" is a bit strong. Lenard Nemoy was the best narrator for the entire damn series, and Civ4 might have better music than Civ6. As far as production value goes, Civ4 and Civ6 are the best, maybe Civ4 has slightly better music, while Civ6 has modern graphics which are truly epic.

Gameplay wise... Civ4 was an awful, awful, awful experiment into "no-stack kills". Anyone who played Civ2 or Civ3 from back then wanted something like Civ4 to happen. Stack kills just... "never made sense". Civ4 fixed that, stacks killed one at a time, kinda like Risk-rules, or many other games.

The problem is that Civ4's tactics degenerated into "Ball of Death". Sure, there were catapults / bombards to deal damage to a stack, but for the most part, a 20+ stack of riflemen or musketeers was impossible to deal with by midgame. The only way to beat a 20+ stack of musketeers in Civ4 was to build your own 20+ stack. Then you danced around each other, waiting for someone to take the terrain advantage before going in for the kill.

Turns out that "Stack kills" from Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3 was a better game. It doesn't make sense... but... it really was better somehow. Civ4 gave the civilization community what we wanted, and it turned out to be an awful decision.

------

Civ5 was conservative: it kept most of the old Civ mechanics. It removed stacks entirely (forcing units to move one-at-a-time). I think I still like Civ2 better actually. (I skipped Civ3 and have to defer). Civ2 might be the best Civ ever made, but Civ5 is a damn close 2nd place. Unfortunately, Civ5 had some of the weakest production value. I honestly don't remember the music or narration at all. Civ5's music / narrator was just far worse than Civ4 or Civ6.

So I guess... of the Civ's I've played:

Gameplay: Civ 2 > Civ5 > Civ6 > Civ4.

Production (Music / Graphics): Civ4 == Civ6 > Civ5 > Civ2.

Civ1 is... just a bad version of Civ2. Every aspect of Civ1 was improved in Civ2.

 

[FinneousPJ]

Civ4 is actually my most hated Civ from a gameplay perspective.

Well... "hated" is a bit strong. Lenard Nemoy was the best narrator for the entire damn series, and Civ4 might have better music than Civ6. As far as production value goes, Civ4 and Civ6 are the best, maybe Civ4 has slightly better music, while Civ6 has modern graphics which are truly epic.

Gameplay wise... Civ4 was an awful, awful, awful experiment into "no-stack kills". Anyone who played Civ2 or Civ3 from back then wanted something like Civ4 to happen. Stack kills just... "never made sense". Civ4 fixed that, stacks killed one at a time, kinda like Risk-rules, or many other games.

The problem is that Civ4's tactics degenerated into "Ball of Death". Sure, there were catapults / bombards to deal damage to a stack, but for the most part, a 20+ stack of riflemen or musketeers was impossible to deal with by midgame. The only way to beat a 20+ stack of musketeers in Civ4 was to build your own 20+ stack. Then you danced around each other, waiting for someone to take the terrain advantage before going in for the kill.

Turns out that "Stack kills" from Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3 was a better game. It doesn't make sense... but... it really was better somehow. Civ4 gave the civilization community what we wanted, and it turned out to be an awful decision.

------

Civ5 was conservative: it kept most of the old Civ mechanics. It removed stacks entirely (forcing units to move one-at-a-time). I think I still like Civ2 better actually. (I skipped Civ3 and have to defer). Civ2 might be the best Civ ever made, but Civ5 is a damn close 2nd place. Unfortunately, Civ5 had some of the weakest production value. I honestly don't remember the music or narration at all. Civ5's music / narrator was just far worse than Civ4 or Civ6.

So I guess... of the Civ's I've played:

Gameplay: Civ 2 > Civ5 > Civ6 > Civ4.

Production (Music / Graphics): Civ4 == Civ6 > Civ5 > Civ2.

Civ1 is... just a bad version of Civ2. Every aspect of Civ1 was improved in Civ2.

As I recall, the lack of stacks and the hex grid were quite controversial back then. Moving your units certainly did feel awkward at first. Nevertheless we got used to it and nowadays I'm used to Civ6 as well.

What do you think should be the key improvements come Civ7?

 

[dragontamer5788]

As I recall, the lack of stacks and the hex grid were quite controversial back then. Moving your units certainly did feel awkward at first. Nevertheless we got used to it and nowadays I'm used to Civ6 as well.

That's true. I do miss the numpad method of moving, but numpad only really makes sense on a square-grid.

What do you think should be the key improvements come Civ7?

I'd be happy if they remade most of Civ2, with maybe the culture / boarder system from Civ6, as well as airplanes / air combat from Civ6. Stacks, Stack-kills, Attack/Defense/Firepower, and all. Stuff to remove from Civ2 would be rapture-based growth (Civ2-5 were "exponential growth" systems already. Having growth opportunities above-and-beyond the exponential growth is nonsensical and too fast. Rapture is too strong and game-centralizing).

-----------

But that's a bit unrealistic. For a more possible suggestion...

I know that Civ6 tried to simplify the happiness system into amenities, but... its really not easier at all. Just bring it back to the roots. 2-luxuries fix an unhappy citizen. Some buildings (temple, Colosseum, cathedral) fix unhappy citizens. Trying to tie amenities into specific squares (ie: Spice / Mercury / etc. etc.) is really wonky and very few people seem to understand it. The entire amenities system is a bust IMO. They need to rework that from scratch.

In broad strokes, I think I see what they're trying to do with amenities. A citizen's "states" and "priorities" with luxuries was also wonky (luxuries are given to happy citizens first, before making unhappy citizens normal. And "Long Live the King" day mechanics always were). But despite their efforts, Civ6 didn't do anything to make amenities / luxuries easier to understand. And instead, they've broken the careful balance from earlier games. Civ5's experiment with global luxuries and tile-based luxuries (inherited by Civ6) is kind of too wonky.

Civ6's "builder" system is kind of braindead IMO. I really don't like it. But if their goal was stopping exponential-growth strategies, it works. I just fundamentally disagree with that design decision...

 

[Rahnak]

Finished Watch Dogs yesterday, good game. I really enjoyed the hacking twist on the GTA-style. Probably one of the first open world games where I just did the story missions (except for a few side/collectibles early on) and that was pretty satisfying since the vast majority of open world games completely destroy any sense of urgency in the narrative.
Also good to see that it didn't have a pretty/good ending, although personally I would've taken it further a notch.

Next up I think I'll play Mutant Year Zero: Road to Eden but I haven't fully commited to it.

 

[Chomiq]

Hell, remember when I said I was about to finish persona 4 golden? It's one week later, dozen of hours passed ingame and I'm just getting started with true ending.

Everyone is lvl 97-99 so I'm mopping up mobs like they're nothing.

 

[metalfiber]

I started and finished DOOM. I felt as if it the was a little claustrophobic to me. The battle grounds were a little on the small side for the most part. It was hard to put together a real acrobatic way of fighting without falling to your death in most fights. DOOMGUY also moved a little slow except with the haste powerup. In fact it seemed the game relied to much on powerups and health pickups to progress. I'd much rather had seen a Rage 2's wide open layout with a DOOM theme.

I all so started and finished The Observer, an Epic free game. Imagine a bunch of psychopaths mixing together LSD, magic mushrooms, and peyote together. Then eating, smoking, and injecting the concoction at the same time. While in the throes of death from that concoction they programmed a video game and named it The Observer. It's not just going down a rabbit hole, it's going down a black hole with a rabbit in it. In other words, it was a good little trip on the frayed ends of sanity.

The game that really surprised me is the one i'm playing now, Sherlock Holmes The Devil's Daughter. I guess i was ready for a good puzzle game. Puzzles are getting so few and far between in games nowadays. All kinds of puzzles are represented here, from Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Dragon Age, and others to name a few. I picked up two Sherlock games, Doom, and DMC5 in the Steam summer sale. The Sherlock games are normally cheap anyhow if you like puzzles.

My dear Watson, was that a young woman wearing a blue shirt and khaki shorts that just ran past us?

 

[AlejoZ]

F.E.A.R. 2

 

[ne6togadno]

finally arsed myself to replace coal power with fuel (biofuel in current factory). this will become raw material processing plant when main factory is ready.


working on 750m3/min turbofuel setup for powering main factory (~24GW when fully utilized).

refineries. i see refineries everywhere.
42 more to go till it's finished

 

[Drone]

@AlejoZ F.E.A.R. 2 is a true masterpiece. F.E.A.R. is a breakthrough and F3AR is just a good game.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Fired up Steam the other day after a long 5 year break.

That's a long break!

 

[Chomiq]

Finished P4G for real now, took 101 hours. Went for Yukiko in romance line but my heart goes for Mariko, with her "shutupIhateyouyoustupidjerk! StupidIhateyoublockhead ".

 

[Hemmingstamp]

That's a long break!

It had to be done because it was taking up all of my spare time. Anyway, the game was broken and many started playing other games.
And listening to the Hitler fanatic spew his crap out (Plenty of them on Steam) made me realise I was right to dump it the first time around. Can't say I'll be going back any time soon.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It had to be done because it was taking up all of my spare time. Anyway, the game was broken and many started playing other games.
And listening to the Hitler fanatic spew his crap out (Plenty of them on Steam) made me realise I was right to dump it the first time around. Can't say I'll be going back any time soon.

GOG.com my friend. All the DRM-free gaming goodness, none of the fascist BS!! The selection is a bit smaller, but the quality is better.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

GOG.com my friend. All the DRM-free gaming goodness, none of the fascist BS!! The selection is a bit smaller, but the quality is better.

Bookmarked. Thanks!

 

[AlwaysHope]

Skyrim SE with 1 mod on legendary difficulty.!
Can't wait for TES VI....