Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: eldakingThere doesn't seem to be a common reason, it is just something that is done badly.

There is not a single good reason for these launchers to exist in the first place. It's just lazy software engineering. Nothing they do couldn't be done just as well in the main application (and/or in Steam, which most Paradox games require anyway). Their most common use case is to adjust the configuration in some fashion, which most people do exactly once after installing a game and then never again. Even if that would require a game restart, it would still be preferable to having the deal with an useless extra step every single time you start the game. Really, what's next? A launcher to launch a launcher?

I can see some functionality, though not all games actually use them - loading mods, launching directly a save game to speed load times, changing settings or browsing game content without having to open the full screen main application, a confirmation before loading all the game files, some multiplayer options, launching different game modes/versions. Also some more contentious reasons: as a way to show ads/news to the player, or connect multiple games by same developer.

It is kind of like the main menu, which is a standard that I'd say is quite positive in general - launching directly into a new game/last save is quite bad. But main menus don't do all things well, so people created a new menu, but did a shitty one this time - more ads, breaks more often, less useful. Or maybe we could think of it as a GUI version of launch options/arguments? Instead of "game -l savefile -c --ironman" or something, it opens a new window.

I'd say the new launcher for Paradox games is generally positive, because of how the games were built - in EU4, reloading a save or even going back to the main menu requires exiting the game completely and starting it again, and the process is quite slow. Lots of mods and DLC to manage, and they want to replicate Steam functionality (like mods and multiplayer and DLC management, possibly achievements or whatever) so they can sell it on other stores as well (which I think is good). Also the previous launchers sucked, so apart from compatibility it is an improvement.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MayeulCAh, now is Stardock could do the same and provide a regular, SDL2-based launcher, maybe we'd have less issues with steamplay. Most of their titles are plagued with launcher issues on protondb (luckily, it can be bypassed with /nolauncher).

One thing that baffles me is how many games have launchers or splash screens that are less compatible with wine than the main program.

They make an entire game using best practices and engines that implement multi-platform. And then they make a menu with a few buttons and content pulled from their website, and it breaks. Not sure exactly why it happens - sometimes it uses some Microsoft libraries/fonts or relies on internet explorer, sometimes they use a different media format, sometimes it just doesn't deal with file paths correctly, or maybe they are just pulling more dependencies for this tiny static screen. There doesn't seem to be a common reason, it is just something that is done badly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

About "classic" RTS, one of favorites was Rise of Nations. It borrowed a lot from 4X games, and had some nice strategic layer as well. Works with wine/proton (might require a few workarounds), if anyone would like to try.

For me, the point when RTS as a genre went wrong was when they started "streamlining" the games for online play. Like how they simplified the economy so that people could focus on "micro": a lot fewer different resources, and often obtained by controlling strategic map locations to get resources/units instead of managing your home base, for example. Or how the UI slowly changed to avoid needing to move the screen back to the home base, how unit leveling became a big thing (so that you had to fight early to farm xp, and protect your veterans), how walls started vanishing (because turtling made for slow online games), how games moved deeper into squad-based and unit specialization (to prevent mass-building the same unit to dominate), how more physics simulation for terrain/projectiles made the games require even more micro, etc...

None of those changes were damning on their own, and some of the earlier titles still of this "wave" were quite good (like Battle for the Middle Earth 1 and 2, that were mentioned, or the Star Wars adaptation Empire at War, or Warcraft 3). But eventually, the changes accumulated (in a very, very gradual process) and the games kind of fell apart for me (many people still enjoyed them, though).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Nezchan

Quoting: eldaking

Quoting: TheSHEEEPRTS games were the multiplayer hotness once, a long time ago, which probably won't happen again. But the genre goes a lot beyond competitive multiplayer, and there could be a lot (more) of amazing single-player RTS if people stopped focusing all their efforts in online skirmishes (which they do to the detriment of the single-player, of course).

It's amusing to contrast the call for single player with the hue and cry when Ravenfield definitely stated that no, there would not be multiplayer even though that style of game was almost always done with multi in mind. As it happens, Ravenfield did very well at crafting a good single player experience, so they made the right decision. But wow, were there a lot of people giving up on the game at the time for that reason.

Not that I disagree. More well crafted single player experiences would be more than welcome. Heck, doing that with an almost inherently multiplayer genre like RTS would set them apart, I think. But they'll be a hard sell for sure.

Yeah, I very much think the fault of focusing on multiplayer isn't just with developers/publishers but in big part with a group of players. They unrealistically expect every indie RTS to be Starcraft 2, and get mad when it isn't.

"Only the multiplayer is worth it because the AI is trash. [no and no] But servers are desert so it is hard to find a match. [uh, of course] Developers put more effort into the campaign and new game modes that no one plays [false] than into balance [aka, minor issues] for 1v1 that is the official competitive mode ["competitive"]. It has been months and they haven't fixed this faction/unit that is broken. [wow, months! Unthinkable!] They should focus more on the hardcore players that keep the community alive [haha, just no] and make big official tournaments with cash prizes to recruit new players. [that's not how it works]"

Of course, trying to please this "gamer" crowd is a fool's errand... but they are a large part of the audience (perhaps because for so long RTS games were laser-focused in doing exactly that, pushing out everyone else that might be interested).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPAt some point, maybe, developers will realize that classic RTS development with a multiplayer focus just doesn't make sense.
For single player, sure, more than enough successful enough single-player RTS titles out there.

But multiplayer-classic-RTS is a dead genre, with a handful of (old) titles holding the players that are left captive. And those old titles are so well polished by now that any new challenger can only fail. Especially if it is in such a rough state as this one was on early access release.

I was looking forward to playing this game, actually. The campaign, that is.
Too bad it won't happen.

Yeah, this. Having an active multiplayer community is hard; there are only so many games that can have thousands of players online 24/7. Making an indie game that depends on it seems unwise.

RTS games were the multiplayer hotness once, a long time ago, which probably won't happen again. But the genre goes a lot beyond competitive multiplayer, and there could be a lot (more) of amazing single-player RTS if people stopped focusing all their efforts in online skirmishes (which they do to the detriment of the single-player, of course).

I was kind of excited for this one as well (though only for playing on my own, no multiplayer involved).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AudiI know the polls were open for items to add, but somehow I failed to add one of my favorite developer, which would be Shiro Games. The Evoland games were great. Northgard is so much fun (though very difficult). And their upcoming 2020 title looks really good as well.

I seriously considered nominating them for Northgard, which is one of my favorite games right now - however, having never played any other titles by them I chose to put other developers with multiple titles I enjoyed (Paradox and Arcen, though I was torn about Zachtronics). But Northgard is hands down my vote for best update, because Conquest was awesome.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: appetrosyanQuestion: why do people care about achievements?

For the same reason as they care about winning the game, or beating a high score, or clearing all the optional side-quests, or doing speedruns, or placing high on the ladder, or increasing their player level, or playing on high difficulties, or playing with ironman or perma-death...

Achievements are game milestones you can reach by playing the game. They can add welcome objectives or challenges, or they can just create a sense of progression as you play. Sometimes they can simply mark cool and interesting (but not necessarily difficult) things you wouldn't otherwise notice. For some people, the indirect competition with other players is important. For some people, completing all achievements is important.

I particularly don't care much about the social aspect, for the same reasons as I prefer single-player games. And not every game uses them in the same way. But the reasons for them are quite straightforward.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think it is a good idea so long as it is just an alternative to the "normal" way.

I am unlikely to subscribe to game services, as I play very irregularly - a long time without playing, then one day on a whim I pick it up and play for a while. Even more so for strategy games, that aren't something I will finish the story or solve all the puzzles and be done with the game - so I really want to have the stuff "to keep forever" rather than rent it.

But in many cases, paying a subscription for a few months can be a much better cost-benefit. If you can take it when advantageous, but just buy it (for a reasonable price) when it is not, it would be ok. My main fear is that a lot of things are moving into subscriptions exclusively (or at least prioritizing it), because this gives companies much more control over people and what they have... and that is horrible.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

1) Humankind
2) Satisfactory
3) They are Billions

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Lord_PhoenixI don't know, to be honest, this is barely a mobile game, so will anyone miss it if it won't make it to the platform?

Yes, of course it will be missed. I care about this much more than any of the fancy action games I don't have any interest in playing (like for example Bloodlines, that takes place in the same universe).

"Barely a mobile game" is stupid gatekeeping both towards people that play adventure games/visual novels and people that play mobile games - both perfectly valid and important kinds of game (I can't even call them niches, because mobile games are huge).

View this comment - View article - View full comments