Quoting: Mal

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: MalEven the controversial 2.0 release with all the feature scrapping and game style flattening ultimately had the purpose of simplify the game implementation so that it's easier to develop and test it (with... arguable success for now).

I don't really know whether I agree or not with the rest of what you say--I just have insufficient information to form a judgement--but I don't think this is really true. In some ways it makes the game more complex, like it tends to lead to more fleets running around. But mainly it seems like the key changes that simplify the game (mainly the shift to only hyperdrive movement) was aimed at impacting tactical gameplay. For the most part it was aimed at putting limits on the number of avenues invaders have to attack through, creating the possibility of chokepoints and making the idea of guarding borders at least plausible. This goes together with the new system of starbases which can be built up to seriously badass fighting power.
I'm not yet sure whether I think that's an improvement, but it does seem to have been a major motivation for the changes. They weren't all about simplifying the code.

My point was just on game implementation and testing not on game difficulty. Just with the mere FTL cut they removed a lot of code and a lot of edge cases from the game which ultimately makes it easier to develop (especially when they will enhance it in future) and test.

My opinion on 2.0 overall is that the game has been made more restrictive to the player. In the sense that either options have been removed entirely or new balance changes makes so that adopting a play style that diverges from the "meta" intended by the game designer is totally non viable compared to before. So yes: difficulty changed in the sense that several macro options have been removed. But the new play style enforced on the player does have a lot of new things to manage. So if 2.0 is more or less difficult is more of a subjective thing (how fast you can adapt to it and how much you are ok in doing that).

Yesyes. I wasn't saying that the FTL cut didn't simplify the code (although some of the other changes didn't, eg changes to discourage doomstacks and hence encourage more fleets and add an extra bookkeeping feature to fleets, their size cap--it's minor, but that added complexity rather than subtracting). I was saying that their motivation for doing so was less to simplify the code and more to shift the tactical gameplay in ways they found desirable due to some perceived shortcomings of how it worked before. And again, I wasn't offering an opinion as to whether that tactical shift was actually desirable or not, just pointing out that Paradox definitely did seem to find it desirable and claimed that as their major motivation for the change. So if you say the change had the "ultimate purpose" of simplifying the code, I want to say that while that simplification happened and I'm sure they were pleased about that, it would be at least an overstatement to say that was the "ultimate purpose".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MalEven the controversial 2.0 release with all the feature scrapping and game style flattening ultimately had the purpose of simplify the game implementation so that it's easier to develop and test it (with... arguable success for now).

I don't really know whether I agree or not with the rest of what you say--I just have insufficient information to form a judgement--but I don't think this is really true. In some ways it makes the game more complex, like it tends to lead to more fleets running around. But mainly it seems like the key changes that simplify the game (mainly the shift to only hyperdrive movement) was aimed at impacting tactical gameplay. For the most part it was aimed at putting limits on the number of avenues invaders have to attack through, creating the possibility of chokepoints and making the idea of guarding borders at least plausible. This goes together with the new system of starbases which can be built up to seriously badass fighting power.
I'm not yet sure whether I think that's an improvement, but it does seem to have been a major motivation for the changes. They weren't all about simplifying the code.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Maybe this should have been Early Access?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: cRaZy-bisCuiTWell, I'll definetly buy this one since I love the game and I do like Lord of the Rings! :)

The lettering style was a nice touch, I thought.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeHa, I really shouldn't type things in on my phone... or in this case thongs.

Anyone old enough to remember the days when thongs were the things you wore on your feet?

Yup. Never really got used to having to call them "flip-flops".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: MblackwellThe GOG ToS specifies that they have a right to revoke your access to their services for any large number of reasons. How will you download your games then?

The idea is that you download something after you buy it, and you legally can back it up (as long as you legally purchased it). As far as I understand Steam TOS, it doesn't say you can legally back up anything in DRM-free fashion even if you legally purchased it. They explicitly say, that the automatic installation is needed (I understand it as referring to their client). And their official back up tool in their client is DRMed as we established above. This leaves no clear option for DRM-free backup.

No, it leaves lots of clear options for DRM-free backup. Just no options which don't arguably violate Steam's TOS. But there is no technical, digital, measure blocking one from doing backups in unapproved ways. Thus, doing such backups does not circumvent any digital scheme. Thus, it is not factually DRM and doing the backups does not trigger legal penalties for circumventing DRM so it is not legalistically DRM either. This is practically syllogistic logic here.
I am getting to the point where I think you just want to keep calling it "DRM" because "Valve have some bad or at least ambiguous stuff in their TOS which they could theoretically 'get' you with if they turned out to want to" just doesn't sound nearly as dramatic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlAnd DRM free means, that you now can make a backup, and legally install it later, even if the store closes down.

I don't think that's what DRM means, though. Legality, while people who use DRM schemes often count on it to give teeth to their DRM measures, in itself is not DRM. If I publish an ebook as a .pdf along with a legal document threatening massive retaliation if the buyer does anything with it that might constitute acting like they owned the thing, the legal document does not constitute DRM. And, absent any DRM measures to circumvent, it cannot trigger the draconian legal penalties for circumventing DRM; it would have to rely on copyright, contract law or whatever.

Similarly if you have a Steam game that has no technical encumbrances to doing with it as you will, their policies would not constitute DRM even if they were considerably more blatant in their restrictions than seems to be the case. They would just be bad policies. If you want to say "Steam games without DRM are still hedged about by Valve's bad/questionable policies and they should not be", sure, fine. But that is a different thing from DRM.

As to Steam backups requiring the Steam client to un-backup . . . that's really not unusual for backup software. Backup tools work like that--you use the tool to back the stuff up, then you use the same tool to push the stuff forward again. Nobody calls Linux Mint's backup tool "DRM" (I've been known to call it "crap" though). It is bad if Steam's terms of use imply making your own backups is a violation, but again if there's no technical barrier to doing so, that's not DRM, just a bad policy. Maybe an intentionally bad policy, maybe just an accidentally bad policy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Philadelphus

There’s Always a Bigger Fish: Come face to face with a number of unique gargantuan creatures that exist and thrive in the vacuum of space.

Annnnd I'm sold. I picked up Leviathans pretty much entirely for the incredibly awesome Ether Drake. I love the concept of space-based lifeforms sailing through the void, looking on all our planet-based life as so many motes of dust. ^_^

You know what I could go for? Any time you encounter or start a fight with one of those Leviathan-class critters, a (skippable) cinematic cutscene showing their full glory, like.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeSteamOS is better than Ubuntu, for a game console. There are thongs they tune for the kernel.

It's not really about how they tune the thongs. The question is, who is wearing them?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's funny how different features are important to different people. I can totally see that point of view, but for me I'm not really interested at all in multiplayer so that problem just doesn't hit me at all and I really like the game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments