Tag Archives: jim

Thoughts: Beyond Earth

beyond_peaceful

Beyond Earth is a doomed-from-the-start attempt to shift the familiar Civilization empire-building action into the future. It’s doomed because no matter how good Firaxis made this game, by setting it around the colonisation of an alien world it draws inevitable comparison with one of Firaxis’ very first products: Alpha Centauri, a game that’s rightfully regarded as one of the genre’s absolute classics. Beyond Earth was never going to live up to Alpha Centauri’s better qualities, both real and imagined, and I’ve tried to take this into account when playing the thing; Beyond Earth should be judged on its own merits, not the nostalgia-fuelled remembrance of a sixteen year-old predecessor. What surprises me, however — and especially so for a Firaxis title — is that even if you take SMAC out of the equation, even when you compare Beyond Earth to the modern Civilization franchise that spawned it, I think it fundamentally still isn’t a very good game.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,

Diablog: Torchlight 2.

INTERIOR: A well-lit tavern. The sound of quaffing and carousing fills the air, along with the twangs of some unmentionable stringed instrument. The camera focuses in on one table to reveal three men deep in discussion. Observing the noble cut of their clothes, the fine pleating of their beards and the ostentatious jangle of their chains and jewellery, one would suppose these gentlemen to be talking of matters of great import, of the rise of kingdoms or the fall of grain prices. We zoom in further, to reveal they’re…talking about Torchlight 2.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

Diablog: Bioshock 2.

After the last diablog was so rapturously received (by which I mean three people said they liked it) Jim and I decided to team up to review another game we’d both been playing recently: Bioshock 2.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , ,

Crusader Kings: A Tale Of Two Players.

Crusader Kings is a game of people, not places. It takes a markedly different tack to the usual Paradox approach of putting command of every facet of a mighty empire at your fingertips; instead you have direct control over one man (or woman, but in the agnatic dynasties of medieval Europe it’s overwhelmingly likely to be a man), and while that man may be able to influence a mighty empire through dint of being the person currently wearing the emperor’s purple, the empire itself will be a mishmash of different territories and fiefdoms occupied by feuding nobles who have minds of their own and who constantly have to be kept in line. Personal relationships are brought front and centre while empire management is heavily abstracted; much of the day-to-day running of your kingdom will be in the hands of these autonomous vassals, with your character only having direct control over the small collection of counties which make up his personal demesne.  You rely on your vassals for political support, for supplying manpower in the event of a war, and for not plotting to bring your reign to a premature end.

This shift from absolute ruler to manipulative puppetmaster might be what sets Crusader Kings apart from its Paradox siblings, but it’s also something which has provoked some vehement disagreement on whether or not that shift is, overall, a definitive improvement on the Paradox formula.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , ,