Friday, 16 August 2013
Dota 2 memes
So i've decided to create and upload some video game memes to the blog. This post, in keeping with this mornings post, it's Dota 2!
This week, I have mostly been playing.....
Dota 2. And I'm terrible at it. It induces a rage like no other game, but it's so incredibly fun.
The game has such a huge learning curve, but it's worth it to take the time to read "noob guides", one of the best being Purge's "Welcome to Dota, you suck". It's worth taking the time to read up on heroes and their skills so that you might better understand them. It's worth logging on to the Dota 2 website and playing a fun little mini-game called the "Shopkeepers Quiz" which is actually mentally training you for instinctive crafting in-game & teaching you what various items do, and their costs. It's worth playing the "optional" portion of the tutorials and practicing certain techniques against bots such as last hitting, denying, and ganking (expect a guide to some of the terminology of Dota 2 in an upcoming post).
Why is it worth it you ask? it's worth it when you have games like I did last night. My 18th and greatest game.
In my game last night, within the first 5 minutes, 3 of my 5 teammates quit. We went several kills and towers down very early, which resulted in my 4th and final teammate also quitting. Doesn't sound look a good game huh? It was for me. I came within mere seconds of clinching a win in a game with myself vs 4 Radiant (they had a quit too).
The game was a Single Draft, which is where you get a choice of three heroes (one of each attribute type, Strength, Agility and Intelligence) instead of being able to choose from any of the games massive selection of vastly differing heroes. I drafted Bloodseeker. I'd never played him before but liked the look so I picked him.
By the end of the game, I felt as though i'd instilled a permanent fear of Bloodseeker and the name chocobojockey87. The image of Bloodseeker will haunt their dreams. I had a massive kill streak, and at times had 3 heroes running from me, just little old me on my own. I played it smart, and unforgiving and the results were incredible.
I had Broodmother too terrified to show herself whilst in her webbed territory. I had Undying running from me even when he'd transformed in to UberZombie. I had sniper taking potshots and then legging it. And Nyx, I don't even know why Nyx bothered trying.
So you may think "Ah, this is all a load of b*llocks". But the best thing is this - I caught the vast majority of the game on video :)
The quality isn't great, but compromises had to be made regarding file size, even at 360p this video was 4GB.
The game's stats can also be found at http://dotabuff.com/matches/275539415
So, it was a great game, the best form I've ever been on. But I'm still a total noob. I showed this video to a friend who kindly pointed out that had I simply pressed the "Fortify Structures" button in the bottom right corner, I would have most likely won. Frustrating, but still an all round epic game regardless of noob errors. I was too busy harassing the Radiant to be pressing buttons.
The game has such a huge learning curve, but it's worth it to take the time to read "noob guides", one of the best being Purge's "Welcome to Dota, you suck". It's worth taking the time to read up on heroes and their skills so that you might better understand them. It's worth logging on to the Dota 2 website and playing a fun little mini-game called the "Shopkeepers Quiz" which is actually mentally training you for instinctive crafting in-game & teaching you what various items do, and their costs. It's worth playing the "optional" portion of the tutorials and practicing certain techniques against bots such as last hitting, denying, and ganking (expect a guide to some of the terminology of Dota 2 in an upcoming post).
Why is it worth it you ask? it's worth it when you have games like I did last night. My 18th and greatest game.
In my game last night, within the first 5 minutes, 3 of my 5 teammates quit. We went several kills and towers down very early, which resulted in my 4th and final teammate also quitting. Doesn't sound look a good game huh? It was for me. I came within mere seconds of clinching a win in a game with myself vs 4 Radiant (they had a quit too).
The game was a Single Draft, which is where you get a choice of three heroes (one of each attribute type, Strength, Agility and Intelligence) instead of being able to choose from any of the games massive selection of vastly differing heroes. I drafted Bloodseeker. I'd never played him before but liked the look so I picked him.
By the end of the game, I felt as though i'd instilled a permanent fear of Bloodseeker and the name chocobojockey87. The image of Bloodseeker will haunt their dreams. I had a massive kill streak, and at times had 3 heroes running from me, just little old me on my own. I played it smart, and unforgiving and the results were incredible.
I had Broodmother too terrified to show herself whilst in her webbed territory. I had Undying running from me even when he'd transformed in to UberZombie. I had sniper taking potshots and then legging it. And Nyx, I don't even know why Nyx bothered trying.
So you may think "Ah, this is all a load of b*llocks". But the best thing is this - I caught the vast majority of the game on video :)
The quality isn't great, but compromises had to be made regarding file size, even at 360p this video was 4GB.
The game's stats can also be found at http://dotabuff.com/matches/275539415
So, it was a great game, the best form I've ever been on. But I'm still a total noob. I showed this video to a friend who kindly pointed out that had I simply pressed the "Fortify Structures" button in the bottom right corner, I would have most likely won. Frustrating, but still an all round epic game regardless of noob errors. I was too busy harassing the Radiant to be pressing buttons.
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Console gaming vs PC gaming
Recently I made the switch from PS3 to PC, and as a result have been enjoying my gaming sessions much much more. I've been thinking about why and I couldn't come up with a concrete answer, so I started thinking about why console gamers hate on PC gamers all the time. Then I started looking at reasons online, some of the points people make are just stupid.
One of the first points I came across was "controller > mouse & keyboard". This made me laugh initially as it's a moot point anyway. I guess the poster hasn't heard of controllers for PC. But lets imagine a crazy and anarchic world where they didn't exist. In my opinion, mouse & keyboard are still superior.
Play a shooter, any shooter with a mouse and keyboard, and you'll immediately discover this. But if that's not enough, how about RTS? try playing a RTS with a controller, have fun pushing a mouse cursor round the screen with your analog sticks. Still not enough? how about RPGs? Good examples of this are Sacred 2/Dungeon Siege 3. You can map your spells to 3 buttons, then hold a different button to toggle to a different spell set of 3 spells on the same buttons. I'd rather just map 6 spells to 6 buttons and avoid any confusion or miscasting. Oh wait, I can, it's called a keyboard. This is the sole reason that MOBAs and MMORPGs do not work on consoles.
"But we can chill on the couch and play on the big TV!" - good for you! I can sit in my nice leather office chair, close enough to my 24" full HD monitor that when taking in to account distance and perspective is bigger than your 42" TV that you're sat 8 feet from. Oh, and I can run an HDMI to my TV from my PC and do the same.
Another arguing point seems to be the "constant" need for upgrades. PC gamers do not need to upgrade their graphics card every year/2 years and so on - they may choose to though, if they absolutely must run everything on max settings in crazy resolutions. Or if they want to get all competitive about their frame rates. Which, on a side note - are superior on PC. I locked my FPS at 30 as an experiment whilst playing Crysis 2, and after playing at 60 FPS for so long I can honestly say that 30 felt like playing in slow motion. It was horrible.
"But my console is cheaper than your PC and does exactly the same thing". Lets face it, no it isn't, and no it doesn't. It might be initially more expensive to build a gaming PC than buy a console, but not by as much as you may think. A brand new console at the start of a generation will set you back £300-£400. Add in a years subscription for your online gaming at £40. Then consider things you'll need like an HDMI cable, and a few of games. You're looking at about £550-£600. Now assuming you have a TV (if you don't, then really consoles are more expensive) this is cheaper than a gaming PC sure. Or is it? When I built my PC I got 3 free games with my graphics card. That immediately knocked about £100 off the cost. Then you have the long-term cost - games. PC games are undeniably cheaper than console games, especially during a Steam sale. I recently built a library of PC games for a fraction of the cost that the same number of games would have cost on console. So we've established that it's not any cheaper to play on a console.
Now lets look at functionality - can a console do the following;
One of the first points I came across was "controller > mouse & keyboard". This made me laugh initially as it's a moot point anyway. I guess the poster hasn't heard of controllers for PC. But lets imagine a crazy and anarchic world where they didn't exist. In my opinion, mouse & keyboard are still superior.
Play a shooter, any shooter with a mouse and keyboard, and you'll immediately discover this. But if that's not enough, how about RTS? try playing a RTS with a controller, have fun pushing a mouse cursor round the screen with your analog sticks. Still not enough? how about RPGs? Good examples of this are Sacred 2/Dungeon Siege 3. You can map your spells to 3 buttons, then hold a different button to toggle to a different spell set of 3 spells on the same buttons. I'd rather just map 6 spells to 6 buttons and avoid any confusion or miscasting. Oh wait, I can, it's called a keyboard. This is the sole reason that MOBAs and MMORPGs do not work on consoles.
"But we can chill on the couch and play on the big TV!" - good for you! I can sit in my nice leather office chair, close enough to my 24" full HD monitor that when taking in to account distance and perspective is bigger than your 42" TV that you're sat 8 feet from. Oh, and I can run an HDMI to my TV from my PC and do the same.
Another arguing point seems to be the "constant" need for upgrades. PC gamers do not need to upgrade their graphics card every year/2 years and so on - they may choose to though, if they absolutely must run everything on max settings in crazy resolutions. Or if they want to get all competitive about their frame rates. Which, on a side note - are superior on PC. I locked my FPS at 30 as an experiment whilst playing Crysis 2, and after playing at 60 FPS for so long I can honestly say that 30 felt like playing in slow motion. It was horrible.
"But my console is cheaper than your PC and does exactly the same thing". Lets face it, no it isn't, and no it doesn't. It might be initially more expensive to build a gaming PC than buy a console, but not by as much as you may think. A brand new console at the start of a generation will set you back £300-£400. Add in a years subscription for your online gaming at £40. Then consider things you'll need like an HDMI cable, and a few of games. You're looking at about £550-£600. Now assuming you have a TV (if you don't, then really consoles are more expensive) this is cheaper than a gaming PC sure. Or is it? When I built my PC I got 3 free games with my graphics card. That immediately knocked about £100 off the cost. Then you have the long-term cost - games. PC games are undeniably cheaper than console games, especially during a Steam sale. I recently built a library of PC games for a fraction of the cost that the same number of games would have cost on console. So we've established that it's not any cheaper to play on a console.
Now lets look at functionality - can a console do the following;
- Capture video on any game with no extra hardware? No
- Be used for other things such as photo & movie editing & digital art? No.
- Be used to write programs yourself? No.
- Allow you to mod your games to either enhance the experience or fix bugs? No.
I could have added more to the list, things like internet browsing, video streaming, LAN gaming and so on. Whilst consoles can technically do these things, they're not very good for it. Ever tried to browse the internet using a PS3 controller? Give me a mouse and keyboard. Video streaming? on an Xbox 360 it's limited to Netflix/Lovefilm and so on. On a PS3 you can find whatever, but it's a chore doing so. Still think consoles and PCs do the same thing?
Another "point" console gamers make is that they get "tonnes" (read: 1, perhaps 2 per year) of "awesome" exclusives. Last time I checked - PC has way more. To name a few - Civ V, Arma 3, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Company of Heroes 2, Rome 2: Total War, DOTA 2, LoL, add to this list just about every MMORPG ever made, and the vast majority of indie games, plus all the others I missed. Now where are all those exclusives again? Oh, and we get 95% of console games ported too.
Then there's the good old "PC games always need patching" well, last I checked so do console games. Also, PC generally gets "patched" first through the modding community. There is no modding community on consoles. If I had to play Skyrim without mods again I think i'd literally vomit all over myself and burst in to tears.
Friday, 2 August 2013
BioShock Infinite - How I loved and hated it at the same time.
Judging by the reviews I've read, I think perhaps I'm the only person that was somewhat disappointed by BioShock Infinite. Don't get me wrong - it's a great game and better than most, but for me, it just wasn't quite right.
POTENTIAL SPOILERS FOLLOW
Right from the beginning of the game, something didn't seem quite right - the Lutece twins. Whilst undeniably well written and imagined characters, they aren't fitting for a "-Shock" title. They were just too chipper and too comedic. I couldn't help but like them and hate them at the same time. Except when they popped up in a "telescope" scene and ruined it, then I just hated them. Well done Irrational, they're good characters, but next time put them in a game more suited to their personalities.
 |
| Quantum-Physicists and part-time Jesters, the Lutece twins. |
Much like the Luteces, Columbia itself was also an astoundingly well imagined city. Irrational did a stellar job on constructing Columbia and bringing it to life. The concept is of a city floating in the clouds is an absurd one. This is even more bizarre when you could quite believe it's a real city due to the amount of attention paid by the developers. The city is bright, and beautiful and full of wonderful technology. So what's wrong with it? The best way to explain would be to compare it to Rapture. At the beginning of BioShock, when you first enter Rapture and step in to the bathysphere, I was intrigued immediately. The city captured my imagination and I wanted to know what had happened there. I'd even say I was more interested in what had happened, than what was going to happen (although that, it turns out, was equally awesome). Columbia just didn't do that for me, and it didn't have that perfect "everything's gone to shit and you don't know why" hook.
 |
| A wonderfully bright and clean city doesn't really scream "dystopia". |
Much as Columbia is an inferior setting to Rapture, Zachary Comstock is an inferior antagonist to Andrew Ryan. Comstock seemed apathetic in most of his rants, he seemed lifeless, dull, and boring. Listening to his recordings, I wasn't sure whether he was ranting about something, or just reading some snippet of monologue from a cue-card. Andrew Ryan however, was full of passion, in my opinion Ryan is one of the most emotive video game characters of all time.
Staying with characters here, Booker is inferior to Jack, for one reason - he has a voice. Playing as Booker I felt like I was watching Booker's story unfold, like it was him exploring Columbia. Playing as Jack in BioShock, I felt more connected with the world as Jack didn't have a voice, he had no thoughts, no opinions and he didn't give me helpful hints on what to do. It was me exploring Rapture, and it was me surviving against the hordes of Splicers.
Which leads me nicely on to the enemies. Policemen. Seriously Irrational? Freaking policemen? Is that the best you can do? The Splicers are quite possibly my favourite video game bad guy of all time. Each splicer seemed unique and had unique phrases, which had been expertly acted and captured. Their derangement and depravity instilled fear, and the variety was great - different Splicers could be dealt with in different ways using ammo types and tactics. What do you get in Infinite? Racist (read: stereotypical) policemen, that ALL have guns. The enemies were the biggest disappointment of all. They didn't even use Vigors for crying out loud.
And that too was upsetting. The Vigor & Kit system was no where nearly as well thought out or deep as the Plasmid & Tonic System. There were a handful of Vigors which were of limited use. There were a far greater selection of Plasmids, which made for a far greater variety of gameplay. One of the Vigors even completely substituted the hacking system from BioShock. What was that all about? The hacking system was great!
I also sorely missed the inability to carry health packs, and to scavenge for bits and pieces to make ammunition with, these were great features of BioShock which made it more of a survival game than and action FPS, complete with god damn health regeneration.
It was a great game, and the story was amazing, no disappointments there, but it's clearly been dumbed down for the masses and converted in to another action FPS. Okay, so the Vigors add a slight difference, but not enough to distinguish the gameplay from any FPS in which you can dual-wield.
In short, yes, Infinite is a fantastic FPS, but it just isn't a game worthy of the BioShock title.
Plus - why did they get rid of the Big Daddies?
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
What developers can do to ruin a good horror game.
I'm probably not the only one, but I've noticed a decline in the quality of mainstream horror games of lately. For a while I couldn't quite figure out why. The games are still full of creepy monsters, or unnerving foes. They're still set in atmospheric locations that you wouldn't fancy visiting on your own, and if anything they're even more gruesome. So why aren't they scary anymore?
I remember certain games that weren't even supposed to be scary being absolutely terrifying. Take Tomb Raider (the original, not the re-boot) for example - when I was a kid, at times that game got so tense when my health was low I literally couldn't continue. I was just too scared, I'd have to get someone else to continue for me, or at the very least stay in the room with me until Lara's untimely-yet-inevitable demise. One rogue Tiger, one missed ledge, and that was it, dead Lara.
So, these days games are produced to be as user-friendly as possible. Death in video games just doesn't sit well with some folk. They die, and they think "I'm terrible at this, I'm not winning, it isn't fun. I won't buy any more video games". The huge money-grabbing corporations know this, and they have provided an answer - health regeneration.
Whilst health regen has it's place in certain games, it just doesn't click with horror games. Best way to make someone fearless? Make them feel invincible, which leads me on to the next point - weaponry.
Again, looking back to Tomb Raider, like medikits, ammo was gold-dust. You conserved every round, and only took shots if completely necessary. Another game that did this well was Resident Evil 4. Whilst ammo was less scarce, the "briefcase" inventory design limited you to carrying a realistic amount. Horror games just aren't scary if I'm storming through wave after wave of zombies like a minigun wielding beserker. I want to care about every bullet, not spray & pray because I've got enough bullets to sink a cargo ship.
And what's worse than one indestructible walking tank of a protagonist plowing through dozens of evil critters with ease? Two. Horror games should be about Isolation. I don't want a wing-man who's got my back at every corner. (What have you done to Resident Evil 6 Capcom?) The only instance in which a companion works in a horror game is if they're vulnerable and you need to keep them alive. Yeah Ashley was a pain in the arse in Resident Evil 4, but looking out for her added a new dynamic of urgency to the game. Better yet, complete isolation - I want to feel like there's no help coming, that the protagonist is the last person left alive, and I am deciding whether he retains that honour.
Horror games for me are all about the immersion created by pseudo-realism, anything that breaks the immersion breaks the tension & fear. One of the worst culprits of this, in horror, is the soundtrack. A little ambient music, or random sound bytes are fine, but a Disney style orchestral score hammering out in the background whilst you're chased down a corridor by axe brandishing cannibals just ruins this for me. I don't want an action movie sound track. Ideally in the above scenario, I'd like to hear the protagonists panicked breath, his footsteps, the cannibals' footsteps, and perhaps their maniacal laughter or insane ranting. Nothing more, nothing less.
The other immersion breaker is death itself. Not actually dying, that happens, and happens a lot when I play. But the lack of consequence after death. It makes for a carefree attitude. That guy in the hockey mask just put a machete through your skull? No problem! Respawn with full health and ammo, just far enough around the corner to give you the advantage next time. Again this phenomenon was borne of major corporations wanting to reach a wider audience. I understand that without that audience, video gaming wouldn't be what it is today. But at what cost? The permadeath of a genre? A constant stream of sequels that are essentially the same game with different box art? (Disclaimer: The previous sentence in no way alludes to Activision).
You want to know the scariest game I've played lately? Probably not but I'll tell you anyway 'cause it's my blog and I can. Minecraft. There, Minecraft has it all. Health doesn't regenerate, hell, you even starve to death if you don't regularly eat. You have weapons and items that aid in your survival, and every single one is of high value cause of the work you've put in to obtaining it. I guess the weapons and armour in Minecraft can get a little overpowered in the Overworld, so guess what? Check out the Nether, or The End, no matter how OP you are up top, life gets hard there. The sound design is perfect, you can hear yourself, your surroundings and you get the occasional random music which is both eerie yet soothing.
Finally, death. Death in Minecraft sucks, especially if you happen to fall in to lava and lose all your Diamond kit. You care about keeping well fed, you care about not running blindly in to a cave, you care about staying alive because death has consequence.
I hope that one day Resident Evil & Dead Space quit trying to be action games. That zombies don't get so over used they are actually scary, and while I'm on the subject, that one day people decide that sparkly vampires are a f*cking stupid idea too.
I remember certain games that weren't even supposed to be scary being absolutely terrifying. Take Tomb Raider (the original, not the re-boot) for example - when I was a kid, at times that game got so tense when my health was low I literally couldn't continue. I was just too scared, I'd have to get someone else to continue for me, or at the very least stay in the room with me until Lara's untimely-yet-inevitable demise. One rogue Tiger, one missed ledge, and that was it, dead Lara.
So, these days games are produced to be as user-friendly as possible. Death in video games just doesn't sit well with some folk. They die, and they think "I'm terrible at this, I'm not winning, it isn't fun. I won't buy any more video games". The huge money-grabbing corporations know this, and they have provided an answer - health regeneration.
Whilst health regen has it's place in certain games, it just doesn't click with horror games. Best way to make someone fearless? Make them feel invincible, which leads me on to the next point - weaponry.
Again, looking back to Tomb Raider, like medikits, ammo was gold-dust. You conserved every round, and only took shots if completely necessary. Another game that did this well was Resident Evil 4. Whilst ammo was less scarce, the "briefcase" inventory design limited you to carrying a realistic amount. Horror games just aren't scary if I'm storming through wave after wave of zombies like a minigun wielding beserker. I want to care about every bullet, not spray & pray because I've got enough bullets to sink a cargo ship.
And what's worse than one indestructible walking tank of a protagonist plowing through dozens of evil critters with ease? Two. Horror games should be about Isolation. I don't want a wing-man who's got my back at every corner. (What have you done to Resident Evil 6 Capcom?) The only instance in which a companion works in a horror game is if they're vulnerable and you need to keep them alive. Yeah Ashley was a pain in the arse in Resident Evil 4, but looking out for her added a new dynamic of urgency to the game. Better yet, complete isolation - I want to feel like there's no help coming, that the protagonist is the last person left alive, and I am deciding whether he retains that honour.
Horror games for me are all about the immersion created by pseudo-realism, anything that breaks the immersion breaks the tension & fear. One of the worst culprits of this, in horror, is the soundtrack. A little ambient music, or random sound bytes are fine, but a Disney style orchestral score hammering out in the background whilst you're chased down a corridor by axe brandishing cannibals just ruins this for me. I don't want an action movie sound track. Ideally in the above scenario, I'd like to hear the protagonists panicked breath, his footsteps, the cannibals' footsteps, and perhaps their maniacal laughter or insane ranting. Nothing more, nothing less.
The other immersion breaker is death itself. Not actually dying, that happens, and happens a lot when I play. But the lack of consequence after death. It makes for a carefree attitude. That guy in the hockey mask just put a machete through your skull? No problem! Respawn with full health and ammo, just far enough around the corner to give you the advantage next time. Again this phenomenon was borne of major corporations wanting to reach a wider audience. I understand that without that audience, video gaming wouldn't be what it is today. But at what cost? The permadeath of a genre? A constant stream of sequels that are essentially the same game with different box art? (Disclaimer: The previous sentence in no way alludes to Activision).
You want to know the scariest game I've played lately? Probably not but I'll tell you anyway 'cause it's my blog and I can. Minecraft. There, Minecraft has it all. Health doesn't regenerate, hell, you even starve to death if you don't regularly eat. You have weapons and items that aid in your survival, and every single one is of high value cause of the work you've put in to obtaining it. I guess the weapons and armour in Minecraft can get a little overpowered in the Overworld, so guess what? Check out the Nether, or The End, no matter how OP you are up top, life gets hard there. The sound design is perfect, you can hear yourself, your surroundings and you get the occasional random music which is both eerie yet soothing.
Finally, death. Death in Minecraft sucks, especially if you happen to fall in to lava and lose all your Diamond kit. You care about keeping well fed, you care about not running blindly in to a cave, you care about staying alive because death has consequence.
I hope that one day Resident Evil & Dead Space quit trying to be action games. That zombies don't get so over used they are actually scary, and while I'm on the subject, that one day people decide that sparkly vampires are a f*cking stupid idea too.
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
7 Tips for surviving in XCOM: Enemy Unknown
I've been playing a lot of XCOM: Enemy Unknown recently and to begin with, I really struggled. It's frustrating when you take a soldier out on several missions, he gets some nice shiny promotions and then takes a plasma bolt to the face. So, here are some of the ways I've managed to increase my survival rates:
1. Never "Dash" unless absolutely necessary
Sure, "dashing" covers more ground, but you'll be sorry if you run in to a pack of angry Mutons and have no option of retreat.
2. You don't always have to move.
Can't get "troop A" in to cover without dashing? Don't move it if you don't need to. Scout the area out with a unit that's able to get in to cover near the position you want to move to "troop A" to. If you can't do this, consider which unit you'd least miss should they be KIA, which leads me nicely on to point 3...
3. Personalise
Name your troops after friends and family, make them look as much like them as possible. It's fun telling people about their exploits in the XCOM world (at least, for me it is -_-). It makes you more committed to keeping them alive. On the flip-side, recreate that bitch from work that you hate and use her as cannon fodder.
4. Invest in Snipers
Whilst I found these to be the initially weakest class, towards the endgame, they're invaluable. A good Sniper is worth 2 of any other unit type. With all of the abilities unlocked, a sniper is easily capable of 2 kills per turn.
5. Use Snipers like Snipers
Hang back with your Snipers, try to get them on high ground where possible. Always keep them in cover.
6. Overwatch
So, you've moved and can take a shot with a 30% chance to hit, or you can Overwatch and have a much higher chance of a hit if the little green dude moves. I know which I'd choose. Always use Overwatch if in doubt.
7. Research what you need to survive, not what you need to progress.
My first play-through ended in an embarrassing defeat, see the screenshot for proof. This is because I gave priority to the research that said **PRIORITY**. The bad dudes got bigger and better while I was still rocking standard weapons and armour. A big no-no. Second play through I had Carapace Armour and Laser Weapons before I even considered fulfilling the first story objective.
So, there's my 7 tips. There is an 8th tip, but it only applies if you have the Elite Soldier Pack DLC, and that is to colour-code your all of troops' armour by class. It helped me no end learning to identify which troops were able to do what.
1. Never "Dash" unless absolutely necessary
Sure, "dashing" covers more ground, but you'll be sorry if you run in to a pack of angry Mutons and have no option of retreat.
2. You don't always have to move.
Can't get "troop A" in to cover without dashing? Don't move it if you don't need to. Scout the area out with a unit that's able to get in to cover near the position you want to move to "troop A" to. If you can't do this, consider which unit you'd least miss should they be KIA, which leads me nicely on to point 3...
3. Personalise
Name your troops after friends and family, make them look as much like them as possible. It's fun telling people about their exploits in the XCOM world (at least, for me it is -_-). It makes you more committed to keeping them alive. On the flip-side, recreate that bitch from work that you hate and use her as cannon fodder.
4. Invest in Snipers
Whilst I found these to be the initially weakest class, towards the endgame, they're invaluable. A good Sniper is worth 2 of any other unit type. With all of the abilities unlocked, a sniper is easily capable of 2 kills per turn.
5. Use Snipers like Snipers
Hang back with your Snipers, try to get them on high ground where possible. Always keep them in cover.
6. Overwatch
So, you've moved and can take a shot with a 30% chance to hit, or you can Overwatch and have a much higher chance of a hit if the little green dude moves. I know which I'd choose. Always use Overwatch if in doubt.
7. Research what you need to survive, not what you need to progress.
My first play-through ended in an embarrassing defeat, see the screenshot for proof. This is because I gave priority to the research that said **PRIORITY**. The bad dudes got bigger and better while I was still rocking standard weapons and armour. A big no-no. Second play through I had Carapace Armour and Laser Weapons before I even considered fulfilling the first story objective.
 |
| I'd like to say it was going well up to this point.... |
Warmachine: Tactics - From Table Top to Desktop.
Finally it's happening, a tabletop game is being translated in to a video game.
Now I know many will point at some of the numerous Warhammer 40k video games, but here is where Warmachine: Tactics differs. It's staying as true as possible to it's tabletop roots. It's not turning in to a RTS and it's not turning in to a third person shooter.
Whilst you may not be rolling virtual dice (speculation here, but I think it's safe...), the game will be a turn-based tactical shooter, on a squad-based level. And it's looking beautiful.....
Now I know many will point at some of the numerous Warhammer 40k video games, but here is where Warmachine: Tactics differs. It's staying as true as possible to it's tabletop roots. It's not turning in to a RTS and it's not turning in to a third person shooter.
Whilst you may not be rolling virtual dice (speculation here, but I think it's safe...), the game will be a turn-based tactical shooter, on a squad-based level. And it's looking beautiful.....
 |
| Image courtesy of http://www.warmachinetactics.com |
As a fan of Turn-Based games, the only game I keep comparing this to, or hoping it will be comparable to, is none other than the amazing XCOM: Enemy Unknown. Some of the screenshots show assorted places to take cover, I am hoping for some kind of "cover mechanic" to be included in Warmachine: Tactics
 |
| Image courtesy of http://www.warmachinetactics.com |
 |
| Image courtesy of http://www.warmachinetactics.com |
The game has been extremely well received on Kickstarter, and at the time of writing has smashed it's original funding goal and is currently at 197% funded. With a remaining 10 days, things look promising. Some of the still locked stretch goals are looking very appealing, *cough*co-op mode *cough*. More information about the game and the stretch goals can be found on the Kickstarter page here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics
However, we won't know the full extent of exactly what will be included in the game until the Kickstarter campaign is finished, and we won't know if it's any good until it's released. Until then, I have high hopes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)