Since it's basically DX9 and DX11 (not many released in pure DX10), what they do is amazing. DX11 could stay around longer than we'd wish for being a higher level API supported by Win7. Nobody who sees not fit for low level APIs will go with Vulkan, but most likely polish their games for DX11. We'll see it around some time to come, and the project to wrap it to vulkan is nothing short of amazing, especially the progress they make.

I only can say thanks to the devs, what DXVK does and the effort put into it ... I have to tell my gratitude and respect, because that's no park walk but a highly complicated task.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: devlandDoes it have any form of DRM?

It's a store and launcher, where the games are bound to your account. So of course there is DRM in some way.

For the launcher, I appreciate the effort, and I understand they'd like to sell more directly and not give away 30 % of their profit, but I want just one launcher and that would be Steam.

The only two companies who managed to make their games non-steam and have their own launcher and are not selling on steam are Activision/Blizzard with Battle.net and EA with Origin. Where I couldn't care less, since their games don't run on Linux anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mcphailI'm so tempted to make a snap of this with bundled WINE...

...but maybe I'll wait for a bit of clarity about the legal situation.

For that you'd have to bundle Blizzards IP, the data files. That's legally not possible unless Blizzard gives the permission (as in example Id did with Doom).

We're moving a grey area with reverse engineered code for the game engine and scripts, but the game data is certainly out of question their IP.

I am not sure you could convince them for that, though, they have gotten more open and maybe they are at a point where they're ready to give the old IP they hold some freedom. That's a question only to be answered by Activision/Blizzard.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Reverse engineering is legal in some countries, especially for educational purposes.

That said, publishing it may not be. I do not think Blizzard will object, they seem to have adopted a pretty lax stance to enthusiasts, and there isn't any potential harm to them.

It's interesting, and if they reverse engineered the code of disassembled code they have my deep respect, since that's not an easy task to do.

I'd like that on Linux (I do have the original), and hope Blizzard won't take action. It's only their customers who can play anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Really hope that one gets released on linux some day. I really want a RTS game :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't see the real difference to using lutris or playonlinux.

In the end, you need to winepak it anyway, as you need to install it with lutris with different settings in a different wine prefix, because the installers will need to download the installers somehow, because you can't redistribute the games anyway.

I don't really see the benefit over using different prefixes with installer-scripts (except that installer scripts in lutris seem somehow a unmaintained mess).

The only thing could be that the game developers actually pick that up for re-distribution for their games on linux with tweaked wine versions, on the other hand - they could theoretically do that right now too.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BTRE

Quoting: STiATThat's something other I don't like. You get money by raiding smaller settlements. That was not the main reason to raid back the days (and there was little money in those), the main reason was to gather food for winter and slaves.

Yeah, the game doesn't really model slavery save for that one building chain in Dublin. It's a big part of the Viking raids and the history of the region but there probably wasn't enough gameplay justification to add it in. I also would have liked a stockpile of food mechanic or some sort of buffer since losing one of those smaller settlements during other people's turns can put you in the red if you've got a lot of troops.

Well, I think there is quite enough justification. In example, at least you'd have to get the slaves to a friendly port to enable to bring them to the slave market. You'd have to have a unit "locked" by having to guard the prisoners bringing them to the port (at least), if you decide to take anything of the village when you sack it. That would spread you thinner, and your troops could be attacked, slaves saved on the way there. Even more, from a game concept, villages having been raided would produce nothing or at least less during the year after having been sacked.

That would make protecting villages even more vital, and spread you even thinner to protect them. Since sacking never happens by the AI, they always take them - well... it's a diversity just taken.

I certainly expected a lot more options there, and I find it lacking in several aspects. But having played 54 hours and still playing / trying different strategies, it's still fun, and I think there will be a lot more hours I get out of that game. Worth the money, still fun, even if lacking some in regards to features.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Good writeup. That with the 1-man armies who take your smaller settlements is really annoying, but on the other hand historically not too unrealistic. Farmer settlements were not really well protected back then. But usually they were not taken over, but raided by smaller parties.

That's something other I don't like. You get money by raiding smaller settlements. That was not the main reason to raid back the days (and there was little money in those), the main reason was to gather food for winter and slaves.

Usually, faction leaders attacked burghs, and subdued the farmers then to overtake land.

Time goes by too fast too. It does not take a quater of a year to travel a few miles.

That said, I like the game and concepts, but they're historically flawed and definitely some of the AI things get on your nerves, but I still have a lot of fun playing :-).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AryvandaarI like those benchmarks.

What about the quality of the game? I've seen a lot of mixed reviews, so I'm not sure if I will get it or not.

Well, if you played former Total War titles, this title was "eased up", it's not a typical Total War game. That suits me as a person, as it's more straight forward and less complex than others, so you may be disappointed.

That said, I'm "just" like 57.4 hours in the game, it could be that it bores pretty soon, but until now I don't think it will bore me fast, it's rather set to become something as addictive as M&B Warband for me.

Performance, running on a Ryzen 5 1600 and a AMD RX580, ye, it stutters when others are on their turn, but other than that I find it enjoyable and playable enough. Though, I often wonder what takes that much rendering in the game (it really freaks out my cpu and graphics card coolers), it's not as if it's a super complex high-detail 3D game. But fair enough, it works well enough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hmh, I'll play :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments