It would be certainly interesting, but sadly, while the personalities are somewhat historically accurate, the game rarely plays out that way. SO it's ok to play it a bit to get familiar with famous world leaders, especially outside of Europe/America, but for actual history, hm. Maybe for the impact that new technologies had, but else, I wouldn't say so.
Age of Empires I and II are far better in this regard, as they at least (try to) present historical battles :-)
__________________
Si non confectus, non reficiat.
If you liked Civ IV, try Alpha Centauri, or Galactic Civilizations II. Both very similar but with a Sci-fi bent and more individualism without having to be held to a historical standard. Both are up all night games though so save out some time.
I tend toward diplomatic conquests rather than military ones. I like military stylings in my RTS's instead, so I do the diplomatic conquest instead. Or win it through money. It's always more fun to buy your way to victory than just fight the enemy.
As teaching aids... it really depends on the game. I mean, I'm not going to suggest the Civ series as a historical aid. Mostly because it's a game inherently about changing history. I'd much rather use something like Age of Empires. Why? Because it has more historical battles. And it has specific mentions of why they were important in it's before and after. Especially the series of individual battles from the Age of Conquerors expansion. Such as the one with the Korean turtle ships versus the... Chinese? Japanese? Can't recall which at the moment, but it was an interesting battle with long consequences.
Paradox strategy games are pretty good for that too. I think.
You can still do some gloriously dumb things to world history there, though.
Paradox games are better because the starting scenario is much closer to reality. They're truly historical strategy games, as opposed to the Civ games which are history-inspired fantasy strategy games, really.
I'm interested in hearing your approach to world domination, and why you made the choices you did. Koury said that militarily was the most common, and I'd like to know if that was your choice, what was your reasoning beyond oh, it feels good to beast other civilizations
In Civ 4 I'm actually inclined to avoid military victories. Mainly because, to be perfectly honest, Civ 4's combat is just bad. Being resolved entirely randomly, every fight being to the death (without a specific ability which merely gives you a percentage chance to disengage a losing battle before death), and the ability to stack as many units together in one space as you want just make it a chore. The only ways to really win are either overwhelming numbers, overwhelming firepower (i.e. having higher-tier military units than your opponents - and even there you'll want at least equal numbers because of how many bonuses defenders can easily get), or, most commonly in my experience, stacking as many attack bonuses as you can on your units via the promotion mechanic. That isn't engaging or challenging in terms of strategy, skill, or hell, even math. It just isn't fun.
I usually end up going for a Space Race or Culture victory myself. Mostly because I don't want to go for diplomatic due to the unreliable nature of putting the outcome of the game to a UN vote, and domination victories (or whatever the one where you control most of the world's land and population is called) requiring conquering enemy nations almost as much as the military victory does.
Zevox
__________________
Toph Pony avatar by Dirtytabs. Thanks!
"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -C.S. Lewis
"We each decide our own sense of right and wrong. The rest, I leave to my sword." - Yuri Lowell, Tales of Vesperia
Darius, Franklin Roosevelt, Isabella, Kublai Khan, Montezuma, Qin Shi Huang, Ragnar, Saladin, Sitting Bull, Suleiman.
Did you recall that from memory? Impressive considering the game concluded like over two months ago.
Quote:
Koury said that militarily was the most common
I don't think I said that. I'm fairly sure Culture is the most common win, with Space Race being a close second (or maybe vice versa). Military wins are time consuming, which is saying something in a game like Civ.
Quote:
I began to remember the days of obsessing over Amazon Trail achievements...
You know, you're like the only one who played Amazon Trail. Most people played Oregon Trail. Weirdo.
It is true, however, that she has a thing for getting all the achievements. Which is honestly just like me, I love completing games fully and doing all the achievements. It gives me a solid "you're done" feeling.
Paradox strategy games are pretty good for that too. I think.
You can still do some gloriously dumb things to world history there, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
Paradox games are better because the starting scenario is much closer to reality. They're truly historical strategy games, as opposed to the Civ games which are history-inspired fantasy strategy games, really.
I don't know about most Paradox games (I'm planning on getting CKII and Europa Universalis, both with all expansions, as soon as I get a new computer and money for the games), but CKII is historically accurate. For whichever year you choose to start. Then everything starts going crazy. Sure, William the Conqueror has a huge chance of attacking England right out of the gate, but what about Norway, or France? What are they going to do about it? They might do nothing, or they might send their armies out... and if it's really crazy, William will have just managed to conquer England before Norway and France attack at the same time.
On the grander scheme, though, things tend to stay the same. The HRE retains power for a long time, crusades and jihads happen, and the Golden Horde crushes the middle-eastern steppes before trying to conquer the entire world, including that nice Irish Empire you managed to create.
I don't think I said that. I'm fairly sure Culture is the most common win
I doubt that--I reckon a Culture victory is probably one of the hardest to achieve. Getting even one city to 50k culture is a task, doing it for three takes some doing!
Nope, there are a few really easy ways to do it that are quite well known. It basically comes down to messing with the culture slider a lot. Winning a culture victory without that is tricky, but with it it's trivial.
It would be certainly interesting, but sadly, while the personalities are somewhat historically accurate, the game rarely plays out that way. SO it's ok to play it a bit to get familiar with famous world leaders, especially outside of Europe/America, but for actual history, hm. Maybe for the impact that new technologies had, but else, I wouldn't say so.
GolemsVoice~I think I was more excited to see history have any sort of starring role (one of my favorite subjects). I do think you're right...that the Civilization series could provide a basic understanding of historical figures, but beyond that, certainly not a substitute for a substantive lecture. But then again, the historical liberties the game takes could speak to how history is a lot messier than we necessarily know it to be. Just some musings .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triaxx
I tend toward diplomatic conquests rather than military ones.
I'd much rather use something like Age of Empires. Why? Because it has more historical battles. And it has specific mentions of why they were important in it's before and after.
Hmmm...I think if I had another go at Civ 4, I'd go the diplomatic route, especially since I started and ended the game at the opposite end of the spectrum. I mean, I don't know if I could count anyone as acquaintances, much less allies. Curious to know how you went about starting that conquest...was it open borders to all at the very start?
* * *
Do the Age of Empires games span the globe? How would you rate the narrative? May very well have to add this to the list!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zevox
In Civ 4 I'm actually inclined to avoid military victories. Mainly because, to be perfectly honest, Civ 4's combat is just bad. Being resolved entirely randomly, every fight being to the death (without a specific ability which merely gives you a percentage chance to disengage a losing battle before death), and the ability to stack as many units together in one space as you want just make it a chore. The only ways to really win are either overwhelming numbers, overwhelming firepower (i.e. having higher-tier military units than your opponents - and even there you'll want at least equal numbers because of how many bonuses defenders can easily get), or, most commonly in my experience, stacking as many attack bonuses as you can on your units via the promotion mechanic.
Plus, going for a Space Race win means technological superiority (especially when you refuse to share your research achievements with neighboring countries ) and thus some pretty amusing battle pairings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koury
Did you recall that from memory? Impressive considering the game concluded like over two months ago.
You know, you're like the only one who played Amazon Trail. Most people played Oregon Trail. Weirdo.
I may have had a little help from Civilization Wiki .
Oh, I played Oregon Trail like the rest of them. And taking aim at bears and bison was a thrill. But I'll take on the saturated green of the Amazon versus the American prairie any day.
Do the Age of Empires games span the globe? How would you rate the narrative? May very well have to add this to the list!
Age of Empires' historical accuracy is mostly in how it sets up the situations... recreating history isn't particularly conducive to gaming.
Age of Empires 1 (and Online...) deals mostly with Mediterranean civilizations from Egypt to the rise of the Roman Empire, though some Asian factions exist (and I don't know if they have campaigns). Age of Empires 2 is still heavily focused on Europe and the Crusades, but has Asian factions and (in the Conquerors expansion) two of the early Central/South American civilizations (Mayans and Aztec, sharing architecture with each other and most generic units with the Old World civs due to engine limitations).
The individual campaigns only go as far as they need to: the Mongolian campaign does stretch from Asia to Eastern Europe, and the Teutonic campaign deals with Barbarossa's reign (including his attempt at joining the Crusades... attempt because he died en route), but the Joan of Arc campaign takes place strictly in France. The Conquerers expansion has various one-shot mini-campaigns based on the events surrounding important historical battles (Agincourt, Tours, and Hastings, for sample battles famous to Western civilization, but also the battle of Noryang and Hideyoshi's campaign in Kyoto against those the coup that killed Nobunaga) that introduce you to the basic geography of the area (at a scale that the designer deemed appropriate) and the major players in the battle.
GolemsVoice~I think I was more excited to see history have any sort of starring role (one of my favorite subjects). I do think you're right...that the Civilization series could provide a basic understanding of historical figures, but beyond that, certainly not a substitute for a substantive lecture. But then again, the historical liberties the game takes could speak to how history is a lot messier than we necessarily know it to be. Just some musings .
Of course. And more importantly, it can be used to jump-start an INTEREST in history, because both AoE and Civ usually include a lot of actual history and background for those interested, and it's still seldom more than a page, so it's quickly read and easily digested.
__________________
Si non confectus, non reficiat.
I doubt that--I reckon a Culture victory is probably one of the hardest to achieve. Getting even one city to 50k culture is a task, doing it for three takes some doing!
It's pretty simple, actually; you identify your city sites, build all the +culture improvements in them, set their production to Culture, and cruise for a hundred turns or so while the rest of your civ does the actual manufacturing. It helps that the AI doesn't seem to recognize this as a threatening route to victory, so you don't get the "Everybody declares War on you!" thing that happens when you're close to a space-race or military victory. I'd say it's the default Peace victory option, like Space Race is the default Tech way.
Quote:
Hmmm...I think if I had another go at Civ 4, I'd go the diplomatic route, especially since I started and ended the game at the opposite end of the spectrum. I mean, I don't know if I could count anyone as acquaintances, much less allies. Curious to know how you went about starting that conquest...was it open borders to all at the very start?
The one Diplomatic victory I've ever won was mostly accidental, gained from a combination of beaten Vassals being forced to vote for me (at least I think they are- military-conquested Vassals, not voluntary arrangements, but I'd taken them over so long ago that they were in good terms with me anyway thanks to the Open Borders and Defensive Pacts you automatically have with vassals) and making friends with most of the other lesser powers in the world, so they liked me enough to abstain from voting for the other guy if they wouldn't vote for me.. still, my personal voting bloc made up like 70% of the vote, so a large portion of it was electing myself Supreme Ruler. I imagine it'd be rather more difficult to do if you weren't militarily dominating half the globe first.
The Narrative is... It consists mostly of a blurb before and after. AoE isn't story heavy in most mentions of the word, but it gives historical facts rather than having to make stuff up. And the actual game part is solid, unlike some 'historical' games I've played.
One of my favorite missions is one played as the British in France, either just before or just after the Battle of Agincourt. Essentially you're taking your troops and moving through France trying to reach safety. There's no time limit and yet it feels hectic, as you're trying to rush to reach safety while trying to lose as few enemies as you can.
If you're at all a Star Wars fan and you enjoy Age of Empires, then try out Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds. Imagine a game where being Jar Jar is FUN. The only Star Wars strategy game I enjoy more is Rebellion.
Just an update for you guys. SHeRUBI says she'll have a post up covering her thoughts on the first Assassin's Creed game within a day or two. Expect it by Wednesday.
We also just finished playing through Halo: CEA. That game doesn't tell a lot of the backstory, so I primed her a little bit, but nothing more than was in the manual.
Overall I think she liked it and I think is looking forward to 2, 3, Reach and 4. I don't own ODST, but I'm also not sure it's worth exploring that game. I'm open to opinions one way or the other, despite the fact that we wouldn't get there for a fair bit of time.
ODST is like a DS version of a Call of Duty shooter: entertaining enough, and provides an interesting perspective apart from the main storyline, but doesn't hold up to the big ones. I believe Angry Joe once refered to ODST as ODLC (Overpriced DownLoadable Content).
__________________
Behold the man who read all 831 OOTS strips that existed at the time in four days!
Well then, if she's interested in going through side stories after we get through Halo 3 then I'll add in ODST. It won't cost me anything extra as I'll just throw it on my GameFly list. I remember liking it enough when it came out, though the campaign was short, from what I recall.
And of course, this all assumes she's interested in proceeding to Halo 3 once we get through Halo 2.
Just an update for you guys. SHeRUBI says she'll have a post up covering her thoughts on the first Assassin's Creed game within a day or two. Expect it by Wednesday.
Closer to Wednesday, folks. Tomorrow's my first midnight release! Though I won't be leaving GameStop with a copy of Halo 4, I'm sure to get caught up in all the excitement. Hope to make a report of sorts on a newly-turned-gamer's impressions of early November 6, 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YakYak
ODST provides an interesting perspective apart from the main storyline, but doesn't hold up to the big ones.
So, not the best story in and of itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koury
This all assumes she's interested in proceeding to Halo 3 once we get through Halo 2.
I don't anticipate this being a problem. I dig the franchise (or what I know of it, thus far ).
Well, ODST stands for "Orbital Drop Shock Trooper", essentially the airborne of the Halo universe. The play perspective is from a common soldier, instead of the Chief. Think of it as playing as Jackson instead of Soap.
__________________
Behold the man who read all 831 OOTS strips that existed at the time in four days!
Ah, here we go: they were SPARTAN-IIIs, but were wearing MJLONIR armor, which was normally only given to SPARTAN-IIs, but seeing as they were a spec-ops unit (which by SPARTAN standards is saying something), they got the best gear. Normal SPARTAN-IIIs got lighter armor without shields.
__________________
Behold the man who read all 831 OOTS strips that existed at the time in four days!
pfft *points to the various D&D optimization threads*
I find that the story in the Halo series games is lacking when compared to the books. I do like the first Halo, it sets the stage very well to draw in the person into the fictional setting, it shows a lot but doesn't tell much which is perfect for the first one in the series. Then it goes down hill from there in my personal opinion.
Heh, my intro to Halo Multiplayer consisted of getting my head handed to me by not only a girl, but a very short one, who insisted on laughing everytime she killed me with a lunge from behind. When she wasn't nailing me with a Battle Rifle, or sticking a plasma grenade on my face.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Getting Into Gaming
Did you recall that from memory? Impressive considering the game concluded like over two months ago.
.
