Quoting: liamdawe

Quoting: Exidannot really a god sim is it? looks more like a civ+spore. looking good though.

Depends what exactly you expect from a god sim. You don't have direct control of any member of your civilization, from what I remember. Sure, you can put down build orders (but a lot of god sims do that).

To me a god sim must simulate a godhood of some sort, maybe some cool powers or creating religions, or even landscaping to influence the habitat. Anything really that could bring the notion that I'm a god creating something.
Sure we could say that we can role-play as gods in any city/civ building sim, but we could practically role-play as gods controlling things in probably any game.
As of now I can't really see any focus on the godhood of the player in universim, granted I never played it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

not really a god sim is it? looks more like a civ+spore. looking good though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

hmm... I do love my god games. But the recently release god games that I played was such a disappointment. I really hope this one scratch my itch :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

back in the day, I found a cd of this game (in pristine state) in the trash...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: Exidan

Quoting: PJgot to admit I have mixed feelings when I read news like this.
On the one hand it is awesome to hear about new ways of getting your software without hassle of hunting dependencies, configs etc and appreciate diversity in Linux.
But on the other hand - damn it, can't we agree on a single universal package format, not 3? It has this deb vs rpm stench all over it. Certainly I'd be happier if all the effort would went into making a single working, universally recognized format before adding new ones. Possibly Flatpak, even though personally I enjoy AppImages the most (due to its simplicity) - as it seems the most widely accepted across distros and does not bear the usual Canonical controversy mark...

I don't like how they handle libraries and dependencies. isn't the whole point of the linux ecosystem to avoid redundancy? if they ship every library with the snap (and they look first for the shipped library before looking into the system), they will end up with a whole lot of redundancy.

The worst point about linux (well, next to the fragmentation) is that terrible idea of avoiding redundancy by assuming you just have to the right versions of the right libraries.
It is completely impractical when you actually want to distribute software.

When you distribute software, your software was built against certain versions of certain libraries.
There is simply no way to guarantee that a user has those certain versions of those certain libraries on their computer. Nor is there a way to guarantee that there will always be your specific required version (architecture, version, etc.) available anywhere.
Nor is it realistic to expect devs to make sure that there is a PPA or whatever with exactly the versions they need.
Nor can you be sure that none of the symlinks on a user's system isn't somehow broken, pointing to a wrong version, etc.
Nor can you be sure that some update to a library won't break compatibility.
Nor can devs be expected to always make sure their software works with the most recent versions of all dependencies - devs must be able to move on to new projects, not maintain their old projects forever.
There are thousands of problems with this approach and it just barely works for open source projects IF and only if they are well maintained - for all others, it really doesn't. It is a "weakest link" approach - all goes well until the weakest link in the chain breaks - and "weakest link" approaches are generally terrible.

The ONLY way to make sure your distributed software works as intended is to distribute the exact versions of dependencies with it. Or use Docker or smth. similar (though that isn't applicable for all cases).
I rather have some megabytes "wasted", if what I get is software that is guaranteed to work on my user's machines without a hassle and without influencing anything else on the user's machines.

Oh, and because I know some tinfoil hat will come with the security argument:
If one of my dependencies has a security problem, I can update that dependency and forward that update to users. It is my responsibility as a dev to watch out for stuff like that.
But 95% of all software doesn't even do anything that could pose a security threat even if there was an exploit. And for the other 5% this happens so rarely that using a different approach doesn't come close to the benefits of distributing dependencies with your software.

hmm... I always liked the point of no redundancy about linux, and one of the strongest argument against using windows. and fragmentation on linux? only if your hdd is nearly full, really. I don't see other way to do it (besides the "linux way").
Anyway, I guess we just have total disparity of opinions on this matter lol

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PJgot to admit I have mixed feelings when I read news like this.
On the one hand it is awesome to hear about new ways of getting your software without hassle of hunting dependencies, configs etc and appreciate diversity in Linux.
But on the other hand - damn it, can't we agree on a single universal package format, not 3? It has this deb vs rpm stench all over it. Certainly I'd be happier if all the effort would went into making a single working, universally recognized format before adding new ones. Possibly Flatpak, even though personally I enjoy AppImages the most (due to its simplicity) - as it seems the most widely accepted across distros and does not bear the usual Canonical controversy mark...

I don't like how they handle libraries and dependencies. isn't the whole point of the linux ecosystem to avoid redundancy? if they ship every library with the snap (and they look first for the shipped library before looking into the system), they will end up with a whole lot of redundancy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: saturnoyoI decided 2 months ago that it isn't worth it (for me). I only play linux games and they don't include enough of them.

Unless the Early Unlocks are interesting enough for me I won't buy another one, I'm not going to risk it. Usually I'm only interested in the Late Reveals, which you can't know, so...

Me too. I ended up paying the same or more for the games that run on linux, than if I bought them directly on steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinasA what?

There is a guy/gurl who helps with linux builds, it's not really a team, but it is something

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Rhythagoras

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: monkygamesPlease do not promote games with Illegal Loot Box Gambling such as Dota 2.

Is it illegal? Or just immoral?

Just immoral, really. Yet it isn't even near as immoral as other loot box selling games. The loot box items have no stats or impact on the game other than making you look cool.

There are only two other things in the game for sale that might possibly give you extra experience, and I would say they really don't.

1) Battle Cup - Saturday bracketed tournament for $.99
This is truly only good practice if you already have a solid team of players that you work well with. I've jumped into a few of these battle cups with random players and it is just a crapshoot as far as the experience goes. Last battle cup, I was invited from the chat channel into a team that no one else spoke English. I advertised my availability in English, and still got invited in. (may have been slightly my fault, I was a little late and joined the party invitation channel near the last minute). The team got frustrated and tried to end the game by spamming 'gg' in the chat channel after the first five minutes.

2) Dota Plus - $3.99 Monthly Subscription Service that includes free access to battle cup
I personally now see this service as a pay-to-lose feature. It was kind of funny to me that people argued about it destroying the game and making it play-to-win. The skins you unlock with it are cool, but you are paying for them just like any other character skin (and most of them you can purchase without dota plus anyways). The extra damage reports and item popularity reports are negligible in the amount they actually improve your game. All the character levels and unlocks are rather distracting. The worst disadvantage this service gives you however, is that it replaces the draft phase Team Composition bar graph with personal character picks (and it gives you terrible advice - every single time). With the loss of the Team Composition graph, I would say that is enough to put Dota Plus players at a severe disadvantage versus free-to-play players.

This game is a free-to-play game done right. You don't have to spend a single dollar to enjoy it in full capacity.

I dont even think it is immoral, they are just cosmetics. Actually it is the "most moral" type of monetization for a free to play game I've seen so far.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

finally they are doing this... I hope it encourage more people to use steam voice, I'm not a fan of discord

View this comment - View article - View full comments