I suspect they did this but not all the other things one might expect bunches of lawyers to do if they wanted something dead, simply because DMCA takedown requests are amazingly easy, require zero standard of proof, and as I understand it legally have to be complied with even if there's nothing to them. Going after someone legally for real costs money and can easily go wrong; just sending a DMCA takedown, you can get an intern to do it before their coffee break and there are no repercussions, so why not?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Klaas

Quoting: Purple Library GuyCoulda called it "Agricola" or something

An risk being stuck in a Uwe Rosenberg game? :shock:

I mainly knew Agricola as the guy [External Link] who wrote the first Finnish language ABC book in the 16th century, so Purple's reference was quite confusing. Then I remembered once reading about the Roman general with the same name, and realised that the name probably means "farmer" or something along those lines. Made me feel slightly less dumb. Still missing the actual reference, most likely.

No, just because it means farmer. I personally learned that from Farmer Giles of Ham, one of Tolkien's smaller and more amusing stories.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Woodlandor

Quoting: StalePopcornCoolio. I was hoping, among the many fixes, I'd see something addressing Shadow of The Tomb Raider crashing when Shadow Quality is changed to anything but 'Off.'

If you turn the shadow quality to off, does it just become the original Tomb Raider?

Hee! Or considering the grammar, the game could disappear entirely!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: plaidphantomHue has one of my favorite soundtracks of all time, and the puzzles are ingenious. I highly recommend it!

Mind you, the fact that a colour-oriented game is being recommended by someone called "plaidphantom" does not fill me with optimism. :tongue:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

After watching the trailer, two things. First, don't name your peaceful planet "Gladius"--you just know something will go wrong. Coulda called it "Agricola" or something, but nooo. Second, the old Tolkien story: "Too deep they delved . . ." :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Jarmeryes exactly. The big question is "when" - I think I've been hearing some version of this exact same statement for years now.

If you mean when for Wine itself - hopefully later this year. Once they merge all major pieces it will be possible to test and they'll probably focus on bugs that will be reported once more people will start using it.

If you mean when Wayland itself will be used more widely - you can check the trend in GOL stats for example.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/index.php?module=statistics&view=trends#SessionType-top

Personally I've been using KDE Wayland session for a while already and it works well including for gaming.

Hmmm . . . that looks like a 15% increase in about a year and a half. So say 10%/year. At that rate it would get to almost half in two more years, over half in 3 years. But I suspect that although the progression is pretty even in the graph, the line is really quite straight, it will probably start curving up at some point as various distros decide Wayland is good enough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: GuestDisgusting. I hope they don't add monsters and mythology. That ruined troy for me, since I want to play a real historical general and relive an alternate history where the particular civilization survives the odds.

Maybe they won't do that.
And then the game will die as quickly as 3K did...
Or maybe this is meant to be a quick-ish cash-grab for them like Troy was.

The LARP that you want is much better served with 4X games of the Paradox kind.
Those where you never really enter the battlefield.
Or something like AoE that is "mostly" historical, but the small unit size enables a very different kind of gameplay.
But in the Total War style of gameplay, being restricted to historical units only is just plain boring. Because there isn't much you can do wrong, there isn't much you can do right, either.
There just aren't enough variables to keep the gameplay interesting - otherwise you'd still see people playing it.
There's also the issue of units looking identical at a glance (from a distance a guy with a sword looks pretty much the same as one with a spear/shield/zweihander/etc) - now a big-ass troll, that one always sticks out and helps readability on the battlefield.

Quoting: GuestPlaying with monsters is just childish rather than the chess game its meant to be.

Do you ever listen to yourself or do you just blurt stuff out, fire-and-forget mode?
"My historical make-believe is so much less childish than the make-believe with fantasy creatures"
"RPS combat is like chess, really, huehuehue *sips wine, tips fedora*"
Dear lord :grin: :grin: :grin:

Why would historical games die fast? Attilla, Rome, Shogun 2 where all amazing historical games. Everything was easy to tell apart. And you actually felt like a real battlefield commander from the ancient era.

If you want silly troll units, play Warhammer 3 TW. At least this is a serious game. I hope they combine the complexity of paradox campaigns with the battlefield tactics to TW (and even expand it further). WW1 total war would make an amazing game. Or even a WW2 game.

OK, on one hand I have nothing against "pure" historical games and I think TheSHEEEP is being a bit over the top in claiming they're automatically going to be rubbish. Although to be honest, I think ancient Egypt, being at the dawn of organized warfare, is if you go strictly historical likely to be a bit sparse on interesting unit types.

But you're being ridiculous too. I mean, effectively you're saying the artwork decides whether a game has tactical interest. Has it occurred to you just how shallow a stance that is?

It's certainly as easy to create interesting and balanced warfare and units in a fantasy setting as in a historical one; why would it not be? And it does increase the range of possibilities.

Meanwhile, surely it should be possible to have an optional "mythic" mode that would have sphinxes and whatnot if you select it but not if you don't. No reason everyone can't be happy.

Because including monsters, etc sets a bad precedent for future games, waters them down and makes them look and play childishly rather than being serious warfare sims.

I was initially against TW:Warhammer even being released and I played it but already in the game we saw diplomacy die and "interesting unit types" all were essentially different forms of cavalry with different models.

Why ruin a perfectly good historical series with this childish crap? If someone wants to play a childish game they should go play CIV, not ruin TW with it.

That's not a reason. It's just a vague assertion. You're equating "non-historic" with "childish" but you are advancing absolutely and exactly zero reason for that claim. I would say it's in fact a rather childish claim. If things aren't running on the rails you want them to run on, that's "childish", "childish" apparently meaning "you don't like it". Aside from your personal prejudices, "childish" in what sense?

You can say the different unit types are "essentially different forms of cavalry", which I'm not sure if I buy (except in the sense that infantry are "essentially slow moving cavalry" or artillery are "essentially slow moving, long ranged cavalry"--that is, if you make the term largely meaningless, it becomes true) but even if I do buy it, as opposed to what? Fewer forms of cavalry. It wouldn't make the tactics less complex, just not as much more complex as might seem from units' appearances.

What then? People thinking of things is inherently more "childish" than people trying to imitate things?

You know, my background is in English literature. I've read starting from Beowulf, through Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, Swift, the Romantics and through to T.S. Eliot and such. It is my considered opinion that the greatest work of literature of the 20th century . . . has trolls in it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Jarmer

Quoting: MaathShould I not be offended by the term "boomer shooter?" "Boomer" has become a derogatory term since the "OK Boomer" meme to signify older people whose opinions, knowledge, and experience we no longer care to hear. I assume it is being used at least partly in that way here, since the games in question hearken back to the mid-90s, which would have been Gen-X era (maybe millennials, though I suspect they were mostly too young). Likely most baby boomers don't even play video games.

Or maybe I'm over thinking it and it just rhymes better than Gen-Xer FPSer.

The phrase never made sense to me whatsoever. Boomers were already 50 years old in the mid 90s so yeah, almost none of them would have played doom / quake. My father is a boomer and he's 80 years old now! Wouldn't even know what the words Doom / Quake / FPS / etc mean.

My guess is that "boomer shooter" just sounds good rolling off the tongue and is way easier to write / read than "Genx Shooter" so it stuck.

Yes, well, speaking as early GenX myself, when it comes to anything like that you have to remember: We don't exist. Just like for quite a while everyone was still "Millennials" even if they weren't; the people who came after Millennials just got rolled into them as far as all the pundits were concerned.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: GuestDisgusting. I hope they don't add monsters and mythology. That ruined troy for me, since I want to play a real historical general and relive an alternate history where the particular civilization survives the odds.

Maybe they won't do that.
And then the game will die as quickly as 3K did...
Or maybe this is meant to be a quick-ish cash-grab for them like Troy was.

The LARP that you want is much better served with 4X games of the Paradox kind.
Those where you never really enter the battlefield.
Or something like AoE that is "mostly" historical, but the small unit size enables a very different kind of gameplay.
But in the Total War style of gameplay, being restricted to historical units only is just plain boring. Because there isn't much you can do wrong, there isn't much you can do right, either.
There just aren't enough variables to keep the gameplay interesting - otherwise you'd still see people playing it.
There's also the issue of units looking identical at a glance (from a distance a guy with a sword looks pretty much the same as one with a spear/shield/zweihander/etc) - now a big-ass troll, that one always sticks out and helps readability on the battlefield.

Quoting: GuestPlaying with monsters is just childish rather than the chess game its meant to be.

Do you ever listen to yourself or do you just blurt stuff out, fire-and-forget mode?
"My historical make-believe is so much less childish than the make-believe with fantasy creatures"
"RPS combat is like chess, really, huehuehue *sips wine, tips fedora*"
Dear lord :grin: :grin: :grin:

Why would historical games die fast? Attilla, Rome, Shogun 2 where all amazing historical games. Everything was easy to tell apart. And you actually felt like a real battlefield commander from the ancient era.

If you want silly troll units, play Warhammer 3 TW. At least this is a serious game. I hope they combine the complexity of paradox campaigns with the battlefield tactics to TW (and even expand it further). WW1 total war would make an amazing game. Or even a WW2 game.

OK, on one hand I have nothing against "pure" historical games and I think TheSHEEEP is being a bit over the top in claiming they're automatically going to be rubbish. Although to be honest, I think ancient Egypt, being at the dawn of organized warfare, is if you go strictly historical likely to be a bit sparse on interesting unit types.

But you're being ridiculous too. I mean, effectively you're saying the artwork decides whether a game has tactical interest. Has it occurred to you just how shallow a stance that is?

It's certainly as easy to create interesting and balanced warfare and units in a fantasy setting as in a historical one; why would it not be? And it does increase the range of possibilities.

Meanwhile, surely it should be possible to have an optional "mythic" mode that would have sphinxes and whatnot if you select it but not if you don't. No reason everyone can't be happy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MaathShould I not be offended by the term "boomer shooter?" "Boomer" has become a derogatory term since the "OK Boomer" meme to signify older people whose opinions, knowledge, and experience we no longer care to hear. I assume it is being used at least partly in that way here, since the games in question hearken back to the mid-90s, which would have been Gen-X era (maybe millennials, though I suspect they were mostly too young). Likely most baby boomers don't even play video games.

Or maybe I'm over thinking it and it just rhymes better than Gen-Xer FPSer.

That and you get the added bonus connotation of "things go boom".

View this comment - View article - View full comments