What are you playing?

Picked up Conan Exiles.

Fuck crocodiles and their stupidly-large aggro range.

I love the lore of the world of Conan, so I'm looking forwards to seeing how well it gets implemented in the game.

I also am not the best at survival games with enemies, so I have left many dismembered corpses to feed the beasts of the wastes...
 
Picked up Conan Exiles.

Fuck crocodiles and their stupidly-large aggro range.

I love the lore of the world of Conan, so I'm looking forwards to seeing how well it gets implemented in the game.

I also am not the best at survival games with enemies, so I have left many dismembered corpses to feed the beasts of the wastes...
But have you earned your pants yet?
 
I really like what I've seen of For Honor. But I also had to tell myself to get over some of the stuff because it's not supposed to be historical - it's low fantasy, basically - and it doesn't matter.

My mental nitpicks: Instead of Raider, Warlord, Berserker, and Valkyrie, why not call them Huskarl, Thegn, Berserker, and Valkyrie? And also, you could go back and forth with Raider and Berserker - a huge dude with no shirt wielding a Dane Axe and a horned helmet is practically the archetypical Berserker (which may be derived from the Old Norse terms for "no shirt"), yet a lightly armored guy who wields two hand-axes with great speed and fury also works.

But then I reminded itself, it doesn't fucking matter and the terms are good enough, the game still looks awesome.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
I've been replaying Secret of Mana, and while I still think it's a very good game, I'm surprised at how many horrible UI decisions there are. The ring system was rightly praised when it came out, but holy crap, some of the fine details...

- This game does not make good use of all the SNES buttons. The shoulder buttons go almost unused. Heck, the Start and Select buttons are mostly unused as well.
- Equipping newly bought armor is a pain, and requires far too much going in and out of menus to get to tall the characters.
- Opening the ring menu recenters the screen, which means that enemies you want to target can get shifted to the edge of the screen, where they can be seen but not targeted.
- The rings for characters have the selected option at the top, but in shops the selection is at the bottom of the ring. It's a minor inconsistency, but it means that hitting left and right to turn the ring effectively reversed. (i.e. they always spin the ring the same clockwise/counterclockwise direction, but depending on if the focus is at the top or bottom of the ring that means the direction you need to press to get to the icon left or right of what's in focus gets reversed. In a shop? If what you want is to the left of what you're focused on, hit left to get to it. If you're out in the world, and you want what's to the left of what you're focused on, hit right. :mad:)

Better options: Instead of Run being the A button, it could have been a shoulder button. Currently X is the controlled character's menu, with Y swapping between the other two characters (with little indication of which character's menu you're in). Freeing up A would allow X to be the boy, Y to be the girl, and A to be the Sprite. More consistent, quicker access. This would have also allowed the ring to be kept centered on the screen, rather than around each character, which would have stopped the camera shifting, making targeting easier.

Also, a lot of the stats menus should have allowed L&R to cycle between characters. Things like the Stats menu, the Action grid, the Levels for weapons and magic require you to quit out of one character's menu, then re-enter another player's menu, and then navigate back to the same area. It makes checking level progression to be a chore.

More than that, this game does a lot to actively discourage fun ways to play. Early on your MP is limited, and the only way to replenish it in a dungeon is not only highly expensive, but you can only carry four doses. So this means you're best off saving your magic to fight bosses, who can be difficult to hit with melee attacks. If you want to cast buffs on your weapons, you're sacrificing the ability to heal during the boss fight. This is further compounded by magic being leveled by use, and weapon buffs lasting pitifully short amounts of time at low levels. So if you want your magic strong to use against the boss, you have to use it a lot beforehand, but if you use it to get through the dungeon, you're left with little to no MP left to use it against the boss. You're incentivized to play in a boring manner. Grinding out magic levels on pitiful enemies that are close to inns or other cheap ways to replenish your mana, and then running past as many enemies as possible in a dungeon.

That's not to say you can't play the game using spells on enemies in dungeons, buffing your weapons, and generally having a more fun time, but then you'll have a much more difficult time against the bosses, especially if you skipped grinding on easy enemies. This is almost completely opposite to how FF4 and FF6 work. While you can grind near a town in those games, and then run from everything in a dungeon, there's no great need. It takes more knowledge of tactics and resource management, but if you fight everything you face in a dungeon, there's not much need to grind in open fields in either of those games. You can use your magic against enemies as you go, and then you'll get a save point before the boss, where you can restore your MP. This isn't the case in Secret of Mana, which sometimes throws multiple bosses in a row at you, with no way to restore MP besides the four fairy walnuts you can carry.

Putting an MP restore point before boss battles would have made a huge difference. As would giving the player more MP (balanced by making healing and damage spells more expensive. Encourage casting buffs, thus leveling spells through fun and challenging combat, rather than just grindy basic stuff near cities). Too many games equate time with difficulty. Yeah, technically time is a very valuable resource, one that can be very difficult to sacrifice, but it's a real life resource too. Challenging a gamer's dexterity or intelligence is a completely different type of difficulty than simply testing their patience and willingness to perform simple tasks thoughtlessly.


I realize that criticizing a groundbreaking game from over two decades ago is unfair, but a lot of these same types of issues persist. Games still fail to to make their UI quick and easy to use, they still fail to encourage players to choose the most fun playstyle. I realize it's impossible to stop gamers from choosing the cheesiest tactics possible, but at the very least games shouldn't make the fun option one that's nearly detrimental to success.
 
No I hear you. It sucks when a game says, "Yeah, you can do this awesome thing, but you really shouldn't because it will fuck you up down the road."
 
I realize that criticizing a groundbreaking game from over two decades ago is unfair, but a lot of these same types of issues persist. Games still fail to to make their UI quick and easy to use, they still fail to encourage players to choose the most fun playstyle.
One word: SkyUI.

--Patrick
 
Subnautica

I give up. I LOVE this game and exploring it, but it's far too broken and unfinished right now. After my last post, I restarted my game fresh. And I was doing pretty well. Until today, when the game crashed. When I restarted, it took me back to my last save...several hours ago. So I tried recouping from that and went exploring again. Found the underwater abandoned base, got the moonbay and equipment upgrade station schematics. Got back to my base and upgraded a lot of my equipment into stuff I'd never made before.

And then the game crashed again.

Between that and the horrible hiccups in frame rate and draw distance, this game seriously needs fixing. I don't know why they don't at least tackle those issues first before focusing on content.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Subnautica

I give up. I LOVE this game and exploring it, but it's far too broken and unfinished right now. After my last post, I restarted my game fresh. And I was doing pretty well. Until today, when the game crashed. When I restarted, it took me back to my last save...several hours ago. So I tried recouping from that and went exploring again. Found the underwater abandoned base, got the moonbay and equipment upgrade station schematics. Got back to my base and upgraded a lot of my equipment into stuff I'd never made before.

And then the game crashed again.

Between that and the horrible hiccups in frame rate and draw distance, this game seriously needs fixing. I don't know why they don't at least tackle those issues first before focusing on content.
Well, in their defense, you have to focus on content first, because bugs you fix will get unfixed by the addition of content. That's standard for game development - all the "content" is supposed to go in first, then the bugs get ironed out. It's just frustrating because this is an Early Access Alpha which is partially playable. The ultimate video game cocktease.
 
Well, in their defense, you have to focus on content first, because bugs you fix will get unfixed by the addition of content. That's standard for game development - all the "content" is supposed to go in first, then the bugs get ironed out. It's just frustrating because this is an Early Access Alpha which is partially playable. The ultimate video game cocktease.
It is the danger of playing early access. It's like going to a theme park while it's still being built. We're not going to stop you from riding the roller coaster, but it might run out of track halfway down the hill.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
What I'm really afraid of in this situation though, is that Subnautica's devs may have fallen into the same trap that Space Engineers' devs did - in that they're using modification-based saves in a glorified XML table.

Let me explain -

In Space Engineers (and, I suspect, Subnautica), the playfield is defined in such a way as to take no space in the savegame in its natural state. With SE, that's accomplished by procedural generation - everything you see is the result of a random number seed running through a terrain generation subroutine. With Subnautica, it's done by simply having all games use the exact same (starting) map data. This is why SE and Subnautica savegames are relatively small compared to, say, minecraft, where all the map data must be saved every time.

However, both SE and Subnautica support making alterations to the terrain - things in the world are changeable by the player, and those alterations must be catalogued by the game so that they aren't forgotten. This means that the game basically builds a list of these alterations. Every resource node you break open, every coral you chop off a rock, every base part you build, every terrain deformation, every supply crate you loot and every component you scan (which causes it to disappear), and here's the big one... every fish you kill. As part of its focus on ecology and resource scarcity, Subnautica makes it actually possible for you to deplete an area of fauna, as well as minerals and items.

The longer you play and the more you alter the world, the longer this list of changes gets. When it gets long enough, it can basically make your computer have to do twice as much work - or more, given a long enough timeline - to render the world as it would otherwise - because first it has to load and activate the world as it started, and then it has to apply the changes and render the final product. Doing it this way lowers savegame file size and reduces I/O load (having to load stuff from the disk, which usually is actually the slowest part of most computers, traditionally), but dramatically increases the amount of processing and memory required. If not done carefully, with good garbage collection and excellent memory management, it can very easily cause the game to use up more memory and CPU cycles than windows will think should be allowed, and then you have a crash.

I got a lot further in my second and third playthroughs than I did on my first by trying to absolutely minimize my alterations to the world. I did no terraforming, I built my base high up off the ground to reduce the amount of terrain deformation, and I only harvested resources I absolutely needed at the time I needed them, rather than harvesting everything I saw and packing it away into storage.

But even doing that only prolongs the inevitable, because there always comes a point when the game's "list of changes" gets long enough to start the crashing.

And I worry that this design philosophy is flawed from the ground up and that there's really no good way to fix it.

Other survival games like Rust, Minecraft and the like get around this by either putting the ENTIRE map in the save (which makes the save huge and slow to load the first time, or only loaded in immersion-breaking "chunks"), or by drastically limiting the actual permanent changes a player can make to the world. Empyrion decided the answer was actually to make the game separated into distinct, deceptively small "playfields" which you travel between like an old MMO - "zoning" between a planet's surface and orbit for example. Thus, the game has smaller, more manageable data to deal with because it is no longer seamless. Unfortunately, it also makes Empyrion feel a lot more mickey-mouse than the seamless open world survival games.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this sort of thing could be remedied by Bitcoin-style hashing, where you just keep trying new seeds until you find one that's a closer match to the way the (explored) world is NOW, and then base your changes off that, instead.
The CPU requirements would skyrocket off the charts, though. I agree that Minecraft-style chunking is probably the best compromise for deformable worlds at this time in technology.

--Patrick
 
What I'm really afraid of in this situation though, is that Subnautica's devs may have fallen into the same trap that Space Engineers' devs did - in that they're using modification-based saves in a glorified XML table.

Let me explain -

In Space Engineers (and, I suspect, Subnautica), the playfield is defined in such a way as to take no space in the savegame in its natural state. With SE, that's accomplished by procedural generation - everything you see is the result of a random number seed running through a terrain generation subroutine. With Subnautica, it's done by simply having all games use the exact same (starting) map data. This is why SE and Subnautica savegames are relatively small compared to, say, minecraft, where all the map data must be saved every time.

However, both SE and Subnautica support making alterations to the terrain - things in the world are changeable by the player, and those alterations must be catalogued by the game so that they aren't forgotten. This means that the game basically builds a list of these alterations. Every resource node you break open, every coral you chop off a rock, every base part you build, every terrain deformation, every supply crate you loot and every component you scan (which causes it to disappear), and here's the big one... every fish you kill. As part of its focus on ecology and resource scarcity, Subnautica makes it actually possible for you to deplete an area of fauna, as well as minerals and items.

The longer you play and the more you alter the world, the longer this list of changes gets. When it gets long enough, it can basically make your computer have to do twice as much work - or more, given a long enough timeline - to render the world as it would otherwise - because first it has to load and activate the world as it started, and then it has to apply the changes and render the final product. Doing it this way lowers savegame file size and reduces I/O load (having to load stuff from the disk, which usually is actually the slowest part of most computers, traditionally), but dramatically increases the amount of processing and memory required. If not done carefully, with good garbage collection and excellent memory management, it can very easily cause the game to use up more memory and CPU cycles than windows will think should be allowed, and then you have a crash.

I got a lot further in my second and third playthroughs than I did on my first by trying to absolutely minimize my alterations to the world. I did no terraforming, I built my base high up off the ground to reduce the amount of terrain deformation, and I only harvested resources I absolutely needed at the time I needed them, rather than harvesting everything I saw and packing it away into storage.

But even doing that only prolongs the inevitable, because there always comes a point when the game's "list of changes" gets long enough to start the crashing.

And I worry that this design philosophy is flawed from the ground up and that there's really no good way to fix it.

Other survival games like Rust, Minecraft and the like get around this by either putting the ENTIRE map in the save (which makes the save huge and slow to load the first time, or only loaded in immersion-breaking "chunks"), or by drastically limiting the actual permanent changes a player can make to the world. Empyrion decided the answer was actually to make the game separated into distinct, deceptively small "playfields" which you travel between like an old MMO - "zoning" between a planet's surface and orbit for example. Thus, the game has smaller, more manageable data to deal with because it is no longer seamless. Unfortunately, it also makes Empyrion feel a lot more mickey-mouse than the seamless open world survival games.
Based on my experiences, I agree with your analysis. The devs are working on solutions for this issue, such as the removal of terraforming. Don't know if they're going to be able to optimize the game fully in the end, but let's see what happens.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Based on my experiences, I agree with your analysis. The devs are working on solutions for this issue, such as the removal of terraforming. Don't know if they're going to be able to optimize the game fully in the end, but let's see what happens.
I could be barking up the wrong tree, too. There might be some magic unoptimized thing that is causing all the crashes that they'll find, fix, and everything will be groovy.

My first, most crashtastic save game is only 250 megs.

The one where I was careful and slow and didn't overharvest? Is over 2 gigs.

Maybe the geographic density of the items in the changelist matters. I don't know.
 
I'm home from a successful surgery not able to do fuck and all for at least 8 weeks, Milo Yiannopoulos is a pedophile who's reputation and career is already in tatters and this day can't get any better.

Are there any oldish classics that I UNDOUBTEDLY own on Steam that I should play? I want something great.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm home from a successful surgery not able to do fuck and all for at least 8 weeks, Milo Yiannopoulos is a pedophile who's reputation and career is already in tatters and this day can't get any better.

Are there any oldish classics that I UNDOUBTEDLY own on Steam that I should play? I want something great.
I have no idea what you own. Link your steam profile?
 
Undertale, Evoland, Pony Island come to mind. None are really *old*, but they all have the retro feel. I just swiped through your games with no time played really quickly though.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Hmm.. you've only got 6 hours on Just Cause 2, did you beat it?

3.4 hours on Orcs Must Die, that was one of my old favorites..

3 hours on Saints Row III. That'd be even better co-op though. Same deal with SR4, after that. Don't play 4 until you beat 3 though, because once you go superpowers you can't ever bear to go back. Oh, and there's Gat out of Hell, for after that.

When's the last time you played Beseige? There's been a couple patches with new levels.

0.8 hours on undertale? You owe yourself a couple playthroughs on that if you haven't already.

0.6 hours on Crysis - that's a fun one to play through just for the power trip.

You own Braid but have never played it. I recommend it, it's got a neat gimmick. Same with Limbo.

You have FEAR 1, 2, and 3 with no hours. Might be neat to play it if you never have.

Getting way down into the list, though I have a hard time believing Steam is accurate when it says you've never played any of this (The L4Ds? Half Life 2?)

You own Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, but it shows no hours on it. That is the best RTS of all time.
 

fade

Staff member
I enjoyed the FEAR trilogy. I wouldn't bother with the FEAR 1 expansions, though. They're considered non-canon, and the gameplay is boring. And I had technical issues with Perseus Mandate.
 
You own Limbo & haven't played it? That needs fixing.

No hours on KOTOR & only 0.4 on KOTOR II? Unless they were bought cheap on sale to replace physical copies you must play these.

Of course if you really want these 8 weeks to go quickly, you've barely played any of the Civs...
 
0.8 hours on undertale? You owe yourself a couple playthroughs on that if you haven't already.
I have almost no time played on Undertale because my daughter watched her YouTubers playing it, and now that it's all spoiled for me, the desire to play it myself is low.
 
Hmm.. you've only got 6 hours on Just Cause 2, did you beat it?

3.4 hours on Orcs Must Die, that was one of my old favorites..

3 hours on Saints Row III. That'd be even better co-op though. Same deal with SR4, after that. Don't play 4 until you beat 3 though, because once you go superpowers you can't ever bear to go back. Oh, and there's Gat out of Hell, for after that.

When's the last time you played Beseige? There's been a couple patches with new levels.

0.8 hours on undertale? You owe yourself a couple playthroughs on that if you haven't already.

0.6 hours on Crysis - that's a fun one to play through just for the power trip.

You own Braid but have never played it. I recommend it, it's got a neat gimmick. Same with Limbo.

You have FEAR 1, 2, and 3 with no hours. Might be neat to play it if you never have.

Getting way down into the list, though I have a hard time believing Steam is accurate when it says you've never played any of this (The L4Ds? Half Life 2?)

You own Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, but it shows no hours on it. That is the best RTS of all time.
I did play a lot of those before I owned them on Steam, via piracy or whatever. You know how you can accumulate games with bundles and such. I've totaled the Saints Row games and the Crysis games as a pirate. The FEAR trilogy too. Braid I finished on Xbox when it was first released.

Undertale is my bad for sure, I didn't play much beyond the beginning and nope, I've never played Supreme Commander Forged Alliance.

I just need to pick something and go with it.
 
  • You have 21 hours on XCOM, and it's Enemy Unknown: try Enemy Within (it adds a good bit of expanded gameplay and interesting side missions, fun stuff). Up the difficulty if your first playthrough was not too hard :D
  • Styx: Master of Shadows is a fantastic stealthy fighty explory game. It has a few flaws here and there, but I think it's well worth playing.
  • If you like top-down isometric turn-based stuff (I see you played Wasteland 2), Avadon: The Black Fortress and the Avernum series are both pretty great. Spidersoft games is a very old indie developer, and his games are usually worth going through.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I did play a lot of those before I owned them on Steam, via piracy or whatever. You know how you can accumulate games with bundles and such. I've totaled the Saints Row games and the Crysis games as a pirate. The FEAR trilogy too. Braid I finished on Xbox when it was first released.

Undertale is my bad for sure, I didn't play much beyond the beginning and nope, I've never played Supreme Commander Forged Alliance.

I just need to pick something and go with it.
I am in the same bucket with piracy. I really have over 1000 hours in SupCom and Forged Alliance, but that was before I bought them. Same with a lot of other games.
 
I am in the same bucket with piracy. I really have over 1000 hours in SupCom and Forged Alliance, but that was before I bought them. Same with a lot of other games.
It's funny how Steam converted so many of us old PC pirates. I have a buddy who still refuses to buy games (though he's sunk two grand in Star Citizen). It's easy to toss some developers some caps now and fuck, that's all it ever needed to be.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
It's funny how Steam converted so many of us old PC pirates. I have a buddy who still refuses to buy games (though he's sunk two grand in Star Citizen). It's easy to toss some developers some caps now and fuck, that's all it ever needed to be.
Yeah, it's magic what a reasonable goddamned price point will do, eh?
 
Bleh, I was kind of stoked for the Berserk Warriors game but not even Jim Sterling thinks it's good, well he thinks it's alright, but he's the world's biggest Musou fan and even he thinks it's half-assed.

I guess I'll pick it up when it's 12 bucks on a sale sometime in the next 4 months.
 
Bleh, I was kind of stoked for the Berserk Warriors game but not even Jim Sterling thinks it's good, well he thinks it's alright, but he's the world's biggest Musou fan and even he thinks it's half-assed.

I guess I'll pick it up when it's 12 bucks on a sale sometime in the next 4 months.
That's a shame, that type of game and that universe are MADE for each other. Leading a mounted charge as Griffith in the Band of the Hawk era. Cleaving through dozens of enemies as Guts. Capturing a fortress point as Casca. Holding off an enemy assault as Pippin. Using tricks and throwing knives as Judeau. That should have been awesome.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
I'm home from a successful surgery not able to do fuck and all for at least 8 weeks, Milo Yiannopoulos is a pedophile who's reputation and career is already in tatters and this day can't get any better.

Are there any oldish classics that I UNDOUBTEDLY own on Steam that I should play? I want something great.
My votes would be for Darksiders, Little Inferno, Metro 2033, Psychonauts, Red Faciton: Guerrilla, and watch Indie Game the Movie if you haven't.

And Evoland is an interesting concept, but not much of a game. If you want "oh I get it, nostalgia" with some minor bits of gameplay, it's amusing. Dunno about the sequel yet, but I liked the first enough to get the second.

And I'm going to assume you've played all the Half-Life games, and that was just before Steam started recording hours played. And that you played Limbo on Xbox like you did Braid.
 
Top