Quoting: thelimeydragonWhenever I install the 64-bit Nvidia driver it always asks if I want to install the 32-bit libraries along side it. Which I say yes to, as I need it for older games.

Or just have to use the open-source drivers

Nvidia is dropping support of their drivers for 32bit systems, so it is either older versions or open source drivers.
Especially for older graphics cards and games, I think open source drivers are already quite usable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestSome people can't afford to update their hardware. I guess they're to blame and should lose access to their game library?

:lol:
Oh, please. What comes next? Starving children in Africa?
It's not like we're talking about having to buy high-end machines for 1.5k €...
Pretty much everything you can buy today for pretty cheap is 64bit.

Quoting: GuestNo matter if it's one person, 1%, or 90% of the userbase.

Yes, that does matter very much.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And that includes the need to advance in software, and not be stuck in the past.
Far more people are bothered by Steam being 32bit with all the negative consequences that has than those who would be bothered by having to upgrade to 64bit. And this is not only a linux problem, it affects Windows, too.

Quoting: GuestDon't mind no further updates, but telling people their system is now too old so no more old games is wrong.
...
At least with drivers the OS doesn't need updates to continue working - a frozen snapshot will do. I would hope Valve allow the same if they ever switch away from 32bit.

That I agree with. No reason not to offer an old version as long as it can deal with the current backend APIs, etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: AzPThe most insane thing is that Steam is still 32-bits and a lot of games as well. That was a hard realization when I had to build all the 32 bit libraries that they depended on when disabling STEAM_RUNTIME on Gentoo.

Yeah, though I doubt it will remain like that for very long.

If Steam don't support 32bit, then those people who are using a 32bit system might suddenly stop having access to their game library. Not updating 32bit Steam then might hold back 64bit updates lest they break something. It's a tricky situation they've backed themselves into really.

Almost nobody is running 32bit systems any more. Especially not gamers. Even on Windows, where people are less.. enthusiastic about tech, less than 2% are left using 32bit systems (according to Steam hwsurvey). Quite simply, Steam could afford to lose a handful of people.
And if they did the change, I'm certain most users on a 32bit system would simply upgrade anyway. What else would they do, not play any more games? It's not like there is a real alternative to Steam around.

Honestly, there is no reason to stick with 32bit systems any more other than "no need to upgrade" or old hardware.
It's been known since many years that 32bit won't be lasting too much longer any more, not getting newer software, etc.
At some point, people who still stick to their old stuff just have themselves to blame and developers should NOT hold back because of them.

And if someone, for some reason, is still bound to some ages old 32bit software, well - there are always VMs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: AzPThe most insane thing is that Steam is still 32-bits and a lot of games as well. That was a hard realization when I had to build all the 32 bit libraries that they depended on when disabling STEAM_RUNTIME on Gentoo.

Yeah, though I doubt it will remain like that for very long.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So I can FINALLY fulfill my destiny and enslave nations with necromancy!

Wait a moment: Are those chickens at 0:18? :huh:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LungDrago

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: rkfgI think comeback mechanics are quite important in any more or less competitive game. Otherwise, why even play if you're clearly losing half into the round?

Exactly. You shouldn't.
If a game is lost, quit and try again in another match.
What point is there to artificially prolong the experience if there is no chance you could win anyway?

On the other hand, your approach leads to those kinds of games where an early advantage is unsurmountable, so one player gains the upper hand 10 minutes in and the other one just surrenders immediately. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and preferences. I, for one, don't care about games that keep ending at the start and no one gets to play the rest of the game ever, so I have to agree that comeback possibilities are an important part of a game.

Not really. Once you gain the upper hand, you also have to keep it. It is surprisingly easy to fall behind after a lead in a game like Civ. All you need to do is follow some good decisions with some bad ones. And if you are in the lead, the other players can and should start doing something about you - if they don't, it's all the more reason they deserve the loss.
And this is still Civ we're talking about. A lead early game doesn't mean too much. A lead by the end of the mid-game is pretty much a win, yeah. But by that time you already played a few hours, so I'd not call that missing out "the rest of the game".

All that a weak comeback mechanic would do in such a situation is to mask the reality of who will win this game. And if all you want to do is not to know who's in the lead to prevent quitting, well, just hide the scoreboard.

While a strong comeback mechanic would possibly change who will win, which as I wrote before would mean that the worse player could end up being the winner, which is just fully unacceptable on many levels.

Of course, all of that assumes roughly the same skill level among players.
If you want to play with some friends, and all are on entirely different skill levels, then

A) you shouldn't play against each other in the first place
B) you should play co-op
C) you can do setups so that it is 1vs2 or the best player has some handicap, etc.

All of those are based on player choices, not the game trying to enforce some kind of bad racing game rubber-banding.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ArdjeI've seen all battle royale movies. They rock.
The term LMS predates the movie a lot though, as it was already a standard gameplay feature in unreal tournament... I reckon quake2 and quakeworld (the quake1 version) already featured it as a mod. And it took a long time before the movie became a cult hit.
So yes, LMS has been the long time term for LMS style games until PUBG called LMS battle royale as if it is a completely new gametype.

The thing is that LMS typically stands for small maps and Unreal Tournament style fast-paced gameplay.
Battle Royale goes far beyond that, with certain survival elements, a large area, the distinctive narrowing of the survivable area, etc. It is also pretty slow as far as gameplay goes (honestly, 70% of the time you typically spend waiting around for something to happen, and then it all goes very quickly).

I mean, you still shoot the other guys and in the end there is just one (team) left standing, but I'd say it does deserve its own name for all the differences.
I'm actually kinda happy it has its own name. Otherwise, LMS would end up taking on a new meaning in the public eye and people would be surprised and angry if a new LMS came that was "only" like Unreal Tournament.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Fan site :woot:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: oldrocker99Got it, played for 30 minutes or so,:whistle: and realized that I would prefer playing Dominions 5:wub:, which is far, far deeper. No game (and I've been playing solo since 2009) has the depth, the enormous variety of strategies, and the amazing (labeled, and a whole lot of people complain about the perfectly serviceable graphics) variety of units.

And it is Worth. Every. Penny.

Haha, yeah.
No comparison there.

But an entirely different design philosophy (and target audience) ;)
I think the only element those two have in common is that they are turn-based.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rkfgI think comeback mechanics are quite important in any more or less competitive game. Otherwise, why even play if you're clearly losing half into the round?

Exactly. You shouldn't.
If a game is lost, quit and try again in another match.
What point is there to artificially prolong the experience if there is no chance you could win anyway?

If the comeback mechanic is weak, it will keep you in the game somewhat, but change nothing about the outcome. That is pointless for any kind of competitive play.
I do see the point in cooperative play, though, or some casual matches.

If the comeback mechanic is so strong that a player that simply played worse is suddenly a significant challenger, then that is just absolutely unfair. And could be abused, too!
The better player should always win and a too strong rubber-banding can make that simple rule invalid.

Quoting: rkfgDon't forget that it also improves the gameplay for the top players (if you multiplay). They can't just sit and skip turns but should always be ready for an unexpected challenge.

If I was the better player, then my gameplay surely wouldn't be improved by knowing someone else is still competing just because the game handed out freebies.
Generally speaking, I mean. I know they are not exactly freebies in this case. I wouldn't mind that much in some casual matches or co-op. But if I was out for some actual skill-based competition, then any form of rubber-banding should at the very least be optional.

View this comment - View article - View full comments