[Aptorian]

This idea is a spin-off from the "The book I bought today is..." thread in the Other Literature forum.

The gaming community on this site isn't huge, but there are a few of us, and I thought it would be interesting to see what people are buying.

Please feel free to add information like the title, price, where you bought it, what system you bought the game for and please share your experience if you find out the game is shit or it's highly recommendable.

I just, finally, received the not very highly praised "Wolfenstein" (PC) with the mail today, so I know what I'm going to be doing all weekend. It was 75% off at a Danish online game store. It's not received great reviews, but all the things it gets criticised for is the things that I either don't care about or actually like in my FPS's.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 19 December 2009 - 10:02 AM

[Impirion]

I am about to buy the expansion to Gratuitous Space Battles. The original game is 19 quid or thereabouts I think, off steam, positech site, or most other major online distributors.

It's a good little game, and the challenges are fun. You can see that it's by an indie developer rather than a big label, and I would rather it had a campaign to it as well as maybe a wider variety of ships, but the customizability, and the more grand view of strategy is really quite refreshing and fun.

[Tiste Simeon]

I bought Mount & Blade the other day. Seems to be a kind of open ended Medieval RPG... Hasn't arrived yet but it looks kind of fun.

I also got Viking:Battle for Asgard for the XBox 360... It's about Vikings so it should be ace. Found it for £8 in my local Cex store. I love that shop!

[Jusentantaka]

Hah. well, I bought 4 copies of Global Agenda just yesterday for me and tehz gang.

Here's a question though: Has anyone bought/considered/demoed that King Arthur game? I'm not really sold on the idea of a fantasy version of Total War, but it does look a little interesting. Steam hates me and the demo is huge, so I haven't checked it out.

[Tapper]

Jusentantaka, on 19 December 2009 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hah. well, I bought 4 copies of Global Agenda just yesterday for me and tehz gang.

Here's a question though: Has anyone bought/considered/demoed that King Arthur game? I'm not really sold on the idea of a fantasy version of Total War, but it does look a little interesting. Steam hates me and the demo is huge, so I haven't checked it out.

So far the only review I read was from a online gamesmagazine from Hungary - where it is produced, so I am afraid I won't put a lot of stock in its glowing review. I'm still waiting for a metascore to be published, but the longer it takes to get there, the worse I think the game will be.

[Impirion]

http://uk.gamespot.c...hur/review.html

Sounds from this it's pretty good, if a little rough around the edges. Makes me want to have a look at it .

[Jusentantaka]

Ah. well thanks. I'll probably wait till after new years to pick it up if the price drops. Figure there'll be another patch by then too.

Now, about GSB. I played the demo, wasn't really overwhelmed by the awesome. Is there enough extra goodies to be worth it in the full game?

[Impirion]

Hmmm, I don't know how much the demo had, so I can't really say. I think the most enjoyable bits of the game are:
1) Beating online challenges
2) Challenging the survival mode

and it's great how little things like one order can change a battle so much. I think building the ships is great too, although as mentioned on their forums, more weapons would be great, and that's addressed slightly in the expansion, with kinetic weapons added.

[Mr.James]

well...I bought Divinity II: Ego Draconis for my X360 today, saw a few pics and it seemed like dragon age so it is a must for me...and it cost me 50 Syrian pounds which is the equivelant of 1 $ so I wont be too hurt if it sucked *coughRisencough*

but............I can't find my 360 controller anywhere, it has vanished, which is pretty wierd with it being not so dainty at all...so I havent been able to try it yet...

[Jusentantaka]

Mr.James, on 19 December 2009 - 09:12 PM, said:

well...I bought Divinity II: Ego Draconis for my X360 today, saw a few pics and it seemed like dragon age so it is a must for me...and it cost me 50 Syrian pounds which is the equivelant of 1 $ so I wont be too hurt if it sucked *coughRisencough*

Heh, well, if I had to buy that game I'd say it was worth about 10$, on a generous day, so you shouldn't be disappointed. Shame about Risen though, it was actually only half-bad on PC. Utterly unspecial, but it didn't have any technical/graphical problems that I noticed, other than the absurd staff animations, lame magic, rerererepetitive chapters and atrocious voiceovers.

[Gothos]

Jusentantaka, on 19 December 2009 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hah. well, I bought 4 copies of Global Agenda just yesterday for me and tehz gang.

Here's a question though: Has anyone bought/considered/demoed that King Arthur game? I'm not really sold on the idea of a fantasy version of Total War, but it does look a little interesting. Steam hates me and the demo is huge, so I haven't checked it out.

lemme know if it's really good, I might join in! tho, really, american timezones ftl

[Tapper]

Tapper, on 19 December 2009 - 03:25 PM, said:

Jusentantaka, on 19 December 2009 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hah. well, I bought 4 copies of Global Agenda just yesterday for me and tehz gang.

Here's a question though: Has anyone bought/considered/demoed that King Arthur game? I'm not really sold on the idea of a fantasy version of Total War, but it does look a little interesting. Steam hates me and the demo is huge, so I haven't checked it out.

So far the only review I read was from a online gamesmagazine from Hungary - where it is produced, so I am afraid I won't put a lot of stock in its glowing review. I'm still waiting for a metascore to be published, but the longer it takes to get there, the worse I think the game will be.

Metascore has been published, 79/100 with 4 reviews at the moment.
I might try it, actually - the Arthurian theme is pretty cool and may make me forget the 'meh' experience that E:TW essentially was for me, for a while.

[Jusentantaka]

Gothos, on 20 December 2009 - 12:55 PM, said:

lemme know if it's really good, I might join in! tho, really, american timezones ftl

I'll let you know in january when I get to play funfun beta. I'm sure I'll at least get my money's worth out of the free multi part, unless the lag is god awful. And whats so wrong with american timezones? Played Planetside with about half a dozen people in east europe (euro servers were shit for the game) in 'tehz gang oz ours' pretty regularly. Sure, it was usually 'I/we get on an hour or two before they sleep or right before we're done they're on', but its only 8 hours difference, and I'm neverworkingagain and therefore plan on logging about 15 hours a day if its good

Tapper, on 19 December 2009 - 03:25 PM, said:

Metascore has been published, 79/100 with 4 reviews at the moment.
I might try it, actually - the Arthurian theme is pretty cool and may make me forget the 'meh' experience that E:TW essentially was for me, for a while.

I finally got to DL the demo... can't say I was really impressed. graphics/animations were just bad compared to the newer two TW games, and gameplay was awfully like the stupid conception of how medieval battles played out, with the whole 'ok archers fire!' dummbdeedumb... piddly ass shortbows inflict absurd casualties... and then "Ok, men CHARGEZ!!!' thing being the way of things. Had it on hard too. And it was awfully laggy considering the really small numbers of troops on the field and the nothing-special textures.

Double-double agreed on Empire though, even all sorts of awesome mods didn't make me want to play the game more. Probably won't even pick up Napoleon. Well, I might, because the mini-campaign idea has been a loooong time in coming (was cut from Rome), and I always thought it would be great.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 20 December 2009 - 03:18 PM

[Dolorous Menhir]

Haven't bought any for a bit, but was meaning to get Dragon Age: Origins. Recommended?

[Impirion]

Jusentantaka, on 20 December 2009 - 03:11 PM, said:

Gothos, on 20 December 2009 - 12:55 PM, said:

lemme know if it's really good, I might join in! tho, really, american timezones ftl

I'll let you know in january when I get to play funfun beta. I'm sure I'll at least get my money's worth out of the free multi part, unless the lag is god awful. And whats so wrong with american timezones? Played Planetside with about half a dozen people in east europe (euro servers were shit for the game) in 'tehz gang oz ours' pretty regularly. Sure, it was usually 'I/we get on an hour or two before they sleep or right before we're done they're on', but its only 8 hours difference, and I'm neverworkingagain and therefore plan on logging about 15 hours a day if its good

Tapper, on 19 December 2009 - 03:25 PM, said:

Metascore has been published, 79/100 with 4 reviews at the moment.
I might try it, actually - the Arthurian theme is pretty cool and may make me forget the 'meh' experience that E:TW essentially was for me, for a while.

I finally got to DL the demo... can't say I was really impressed. graphics/animations were just bad compared to the newer two TW games, and gameplay was awfully like the stupid conception of how medieval battles played out, with the whole 'ok archers fire!' dummbdeedumb... piddly ass shortbows inflict absurd casualties... and then "Ok, men CHARGEZ!!!' thing being the way of things. Had it on hard too. And it was awfully laggy considering the really small numbers of troops on the field and the nothing-special textures.

Double-double agreed on Empire though, even all sorts of awesome mods didn't make me want to play the game more. Probably won't even pick up Napoleon. Well, I might, because the mini-campaign idea has been a loooong time in coming (was cut from Rome), and I always thought it would be great.

Well, you can't expect as good animations given the size of the company involved. The reviews do mention archers are overpowered and how most of the strategy is trying to avoid getting murdered by them, but then again, I always thought TW's archers were underpowered, as they did turn battles (Agincourt and Crecy anyone?).

From the reviews, there seemed to be strategy in terms of securing "strategic points" or something, which could give you bonuses and lower enemy morale, was there any evidence of that?

[Tapper]

Impirion, on 20 December 2009 - 06:33 PM, said:

Well, you can't expect as good animations given the size of the company involved. The reviews do mention archers are overpowered and how most of the strategy is trying to avoid getting murdered by them, but then again, I always thought TW's archers were underpowered, as they did turn battles (Agincourt and Crecy anyone?).

From the reviews, there seemed to be strategy in terms of securing "strategic points" or something, which could give you bonuses and lower enemy morale, was there any evidence of that?

4 words. "The Face of Battle" (by John Keegan).
A mass army of longbowmen for the archery duels and around 10 units of pavise crossbowmen were an absolute meatgrinder in M:TW 2... just not in multiplayer cavalry battles.

[Jusentantaka]

Tapper, on 20 December 2009 - 07:26 PM, said:

4 words. "The Face of Battle" (by John Keegan).
A mass army of longbowmen for the archery duels and around 10 units of pavise crossbowmen were an absolute meatgrinder in M:TW 2... just not in multiplayer cavalry battles.

That book is a rebuke of the idea that by 1415, the English arrows were effective against french plate steel at range, right? If not, I'ma gonna ramble on. Pretentiously, oh yes.


& King Arthur: I didn't realize it was a tiny company, but for a full price game (50US on steam), the complaint is still valid I think.

And there were control points (or whatever they're called) but I didn't particularly notice any real differences between taking them or not *in the demo*, it was still 'ok, took point, now my soldiers charge and plow through the enemy'. I didn't notice any particular differences between having a point and running over the enemy and not having one. Or any real indicator of this 'morale' thing either, unless maybe they just fight to the last man less effectively with low morale.

Quote

Haven't bought any for a bit, but was meaning to get Dragon Age: Origins. Recommended?

Unless you hate RPGs, its a pretty sound buy. Better if you can find a collectors edition to get all the DLC included.

[Impirion]

Any sorta summary on what the book actually says? (too lazy to dig deeper than Wiki to find out anything about it )

Yeah, that's the thing, I love my cavalry, and there was no battle where the archers made a huge contribution to turning a battle(unless you send 20 units of horse archers against not too heavily armoured enemy. Absolutely hilarious results, I once won with about 2000 kills for about 40 losses doing that ) because they get overrun too easily. Against the AI it works because the AI is dumber than a malnourished druggie 3 year old when you attack.

edit: xpost with Jus.

Also, Jus, I am surprised the game was laggy, all the reports I have read have said it runs well even on lowish end systems due to its low specs.

About morale, apparently the idea is to somehow lower theirs to 0 where upon you automatically win, even if they have huge numbers left

This post has been edited by Impirion: 20 December 2009 - 07:55 PM

[Jusentantaka]

Impirion, on 20 December 2009 - 07:48 PM, said:

edit: xpost with Jus.

Also, Jus, I am surprised the game was laggy, all the reports I have read have said it runs well even on lowish end systems due to its low specs.

About morale, apparently the idea is to somehow lower theirs to 0 where upon you automatically win, even if they have huge numbers left

Funny. Maybe my computer is too good for the game then? if I hadn't uninstalled the demo, i'd try pulling a video card, 3 ram sticks and running my processor as a single core. Ah well. Don't know about the morale thing though, I just kind of figured that battles ended when you took out the leader of the enemy army, cause thats what happened to me.

[Tapper]

Impirion, on 20 December 2009 - 07:48 PM, said:

Any sorta summary on what the book actually says? (too lazy to dig deeper than Wiki to find out anything about it )

The Face of Battle takes a lot of military stuff and apparent turning points, and examines them - from middle ages to I think WW 1, or the french german war of 1870 or something. It was pretty revolutionary in its time, and still is a very, very good read by one of the best military historians since WW 2.

As Jusen says - the part on Agincourt refutes the idea that it was the longbow that won the battles. He says a lot about the defensive-offensive arms race in the middle ages. He then examines the longbow and explains what impact an overhead volley would have had on a mass of heavily armoured infantry, as the French had. Apparently, not a lot - at the least, it wasn't a decisive factor.

I believe it boils for Agincourt down to the fact that the French had to walk several miles in super heavy armour, arrived exhausted, and then had to march through a shitload of mud to the place where the english had dug in - and also how the apparent superiority in numbers came undone because only so many frenchies could try and hit the billmen after climbing through the trenches and stakes, robbing one another of a chance to swing their swords because of the press of the back ranks, leading to mass panic and a field day for the english.