LogFAQs > #947825549

BetrayedTangy posted...

Oh damn has it really been two weeks already? I feel like I'm finally starting to understand the game lol.

I did end with two ongoing playthroughs (my Russia one as well as a third attempt on Babylon) so I might come back to the game now and again and post about it.

Russia can be a bit of an all-or-nothing civ depending on which strategic resources you find nearby you, but I do think the production bonus they get is pretty handy. I guess it's nice to research animal husbandry and bronze working early on so you know where horses and iron are when founding your cities, since the production bonus is valuable. The extra copies of those resources aren't needed imo, but you can sell them to AI. Don't feel obligated to build your Krepost before you would a barracks - the bonus isn't that important. The higher difficulties are definitely all about fending off early aggression from the AI, so it can often be better to get out a few units instead of/before building a barracks. The ideal situation is that your army is big enough to dissuade enemies from attacking altogether, but I do find that they never really attack you if they aren't right on your borders needing to kill you to expand, so you can also keep that in mind and take advantage of it if you start further from the AI civs.

I'll be going to bed pretty soon, but afterward I'll start my next game:

Fallout: New Vegas
I Will Be Playing On: Playstation 3
Previous Experience with New Vegas: Played the first couple hours
Expectations for New Vegas: A masterpiece developed by saints.

Okay, so first of all, I have a contrarian friend who once said that he doesn't feel Obsidian are the saints people make them out to be, which the rest of my friends and I ran with ever since, so that we aren't allowed to refer to them as anything else except "Those saints at Obsidian," and it's stuck with me to the point where I can hardly think of them in any other way.

The reception of Fallout: New Vegas is kind of interesting to me, in that I remember it being considered a minor disappointment and inferior to Fallout 3 upon initial release but it seems to have grown on people over time and the popular conception is now that Bethesda Fallout is kind of lame and NV is far superior. Part of that is almost definitely just people's growing dislike for Bethesda as a company speaking, part of it is that NV's more egregious stability issues and bugs have been patched out over the years, and part of it is that NV genuinely does have a decent amount of depth and detail in its RPG design.

I love the original two Fallout games, and Obsidian are the successors to the now defunct developer of those two, Black Isle, with some of the same staff working on NV. It was consciously conceived as a spiritual successor to Fallout 2 in particular, set closer both geographically and chronologically to that game than to Fallout 3. It has more build options, more stat checks in dialog, and a much more choice-based story than Fallout 3.

But it still has that Bethesda awkwardness that prevents me from getting too into Skyrim. The stiff character animations, immersion-breaking bugs, ugly graphics, and wide but low detail game world all fit in with the parent company's output, which is no surprise considering it was built in the same engine as Fallout 3. I've started playing New Vegas a lot of times, but never gotten past the tower area with all the ghouls, and usually stopped before then.

This is another one of those games where I have a mix of excitement and trepidation toward going back to it. I want to play it all the way through and see some of those qualities that make people like it so much (I know there are a few people on this board who would name it their Game of the Decade,) but I've tried that multiple times without success so far, and I can't help but think there's a reason.


---

I'm playing every game from GotD 2020! Games Completed: 11/129
Currently Playing: Fallout: New Vegas