Riko~Nyaa 最近的评测

I can't really say anything about this game that others haven't already said better. So I'll just say my own thoughts.

Finally a game that allows me to create a catgirl colony and raise catgirl families while firing an assault/charge rifle, while worshipping a blood god that demands sacrifice. With the ability to have a legion of slave humans or robots, commit unspeakable war crimes, and the details when it comes to some finer elements like injury, that a lot of other games just simplify. I'm not a bad person, I just like to roleplay as one sometimes in games. With Rimworld, I am not disappointed so I highly recommend it.

I am not sure if you noticed, but I don't play multiplayer first person shooters at all. With the exception of games like TF2 that I played a long time ago, and that was just goofing around on my computer that barely boot up. I mostly avoid it because I suck at these sorts of games. I have terrible aim, terrible reaction time, terrible eyesight, and add in a pinch of just being plain crap. So why this? And better question, if I am so bad, how can I even possibly do well and recommend this game?

Well I started playing the game because a friend told me to buy it to play with them. Everyday they would ask me to buy the $20 version of the game so I could play with them. Keep in mind this was maybe 5-6 months after the game launched, so I know it had a rough launch and was not well received. Eventually I just caved and bought it so they would not bug me anymore. I played some matches, I was understandably bad, as expected. Sarah being bad at first person shooters is not a new thing, it is just a fact of life. The game still felt really cool and tactical feeling though, so I kept with it until I unlocked some new operators to try out.

After unlocking them, I was also bad with them. I messed up bad, felt embarassed, wanting to hide in a corner and cry for embarassing myself in front of the everyone. But I stuck with it, learned, and was to a lesser degree, a useful member of the team. As long as I got whatever my operator ability was used up, I could experiment without worrying about being useless to the team. I tried things out, practiced more, got better, tried new things.

Where did that put me? Well my aim is still bad, I still miss obvious stuff, and I still cant peek a door and get someone before they get me. But what I did learn was that you can still win with better tactics, instead of always needing more skill. See, I just need an extra half-full second, if I can use spacial positioning or some other way to gain that extra reaction time, I stand a chance. With better tactics, you can usually counter many skilled players. Thats how I can get the success I have had in this game. It feels like it rewards more than just raw aiming/reaction time skill.

The game is good, and has only gotten better. Over time they have ironed out many problems the game had early on, and the new characters are always a treat to use. The only thing that has gotten worse is the community, with all the csgo kids moving over to playing Siege, but that is tolerable at the very least.

As for which game pricing option to get, the $20 one is not a bad choice to check out the game and see if you like it. If you do, you can spend $40 in the in game credits to unlock all the base game operators (thus equalling the normal game purchese price, meaning no net loss for you). It is what I did.

So in other words, I highly recommend it. Coming from someone who does not like multiplayer first person shooters, I think that is saying a lot

The planes are so fun, but the game is so bad. I wish there was a better alternative, but there is not. I really don't recommend you play this game. It is just not worth playing.

Thunder bay may be a really bad place to live, but did it deserve to get nuked 300 times America?

While this game is rough and has its share of bugs/glitches (due to its age), it still performs well, has functioning multiplayer (with drop in/out too!), and many functioning elements to simulate a sorta real country. I don't remember how much it costs, but its a great game to play with tons of detail to behold. Try and find your home city while you are at it.

I originally wrote an EU4 over 2 years ago, but I feel like a new review is appropriate since ive played it much more since then. The following is the original review, but edited to account for changes since version 1.7 when I originally played it, to version 1.18 it is on now. Additions are in bold, subtractions/edits are with strikethrough.

"I'm sure everyone has at one point had that power fantasy of wanting to be some supreme ruler of a country, whether that means you are a kind and benevolent, or a cruel-hearted demon of a ruler is a different story (Rulers now actually have personalities now, so you can have a cruel or kind leader which is appropriate). Well with Europa Universalis IV (EU4), you can be either of them if you so desire. In fact, it is more than just that, much much more, with expanding your borders, and crushing your enemies, the game comes alive to the player in numerous ways.

Well the first, and most obvious way is the aforementioned power fantasy fulfillment. Play as any sovereign nation state, and see the rise (and possibly fall) of your empire over a span of over 350 years. Play a diplomatic, a heavily military game, or a trade heavy game, and begin to cut out your own little slice of the world. Play upon alliances, and take down common threats, then come back and backstab your previous allies when you want their land. Customise how your nation focuses it's tech, and use that to push your nation's strengths to new limits, allowing you to potentially be an empire worth fearing. Turn a backwater into a thriving metapolis the envy of the world, be the origin of the the world's greatest advances in civilization and guide history in the direction you desire.

This does not come at the expense of player accessability although. The game falls into that simple mantra of easy to learn, hard to master. With its relatively simple and watered down mechanics (compared to the other paradox strategy games of course), it provides great depth with a minimum of actual work in any one area. Within a few hours, you will understand how to run your nation (probably through trial and error, but still useful), and even if you fail, it is not the end. One lost battle or war is no reason to quit, besides lost troops or land, there is always room to come back and defeat those who beat you. The game is not cruel, it is fair to the player.

Except in one area I have noticed. The game has a problem with making the AI cheat, and when I say cheat, I mean really cheat. No fog of war, more manpower, no loan penalties, more money, a lot less aggressive expansion penalties, and war happy. So you will find them declaring war out of the blue, just because they feel like it, even if you far outmatch them in some cases. This is very notable with one nation, France. France is, without a doubt, the most powerful nation in the game, with the highest concentration of high wealth provinces, and with excellent starting armies, generals, manpower, and position. In addition to unique french events, and traditions, france is an absolute powerhouse in the early, mid, and late game unless you can form a more powerful nation and can manage to crush them. AI, outside a few minor things the AI can't properly assess (fog of war, and naval attrition), doesn't cheat. Some nation positions and minor differences in regional troop types can give vastly different outcomes in terms of things such as war.

EU4 really excells in many areas and mechanics, two of which are it's ideas system and war system. Ideas are essentially specialisations for your nation you can take over time, and will guide your nation state's direction of how it approaches the world. It can give you a vastly better military, or be geared to making you more money to just buy friends (or troops from other nations to fight for you). It makes every nation feel and play uniquely in their situation, so it is never boring playing as two different nations and using the same "build order". War is also incredibly in depth, with dozens of small factors and things that can be used to optimised fighting and tweaking troop's fighting ability. It is incredibly easy to understand, but as ive said before, takes a while to master all the intricate details that influence how well troops fight. The satisfaction of setting up a perfect situation, executing that military plan, and crushing your opponent into the ground, is second to none.

Despite that major gripe, it is does not detract from the positives that EU4 has. Seeing your nation which you have been through hundreds of years of war and technological advances, slowly grow larger in most cases grow in influence, as well as the social changes that happen over one of the most important parts of human history, is very satisfying to see. But after all that, it is sad to say goodbye to your nation which you, in some cases, raised from infancy all the way to adulthood. But in the end, that is something that must happen, and there will always be other nations you can rule over to perpetrate the cycle anew.

See more reviews by following this group - http://gtm.you1.cn/groups/JSJaRG "

>Last played February 21st 2014

As it should, and always will be.

I really have no idea what they added since then, but based on what other negative reviews have said, I don't think I have any other insightful comments to add, so I'll just a story if you want to read more.

I got this game in 2014, probably the 21st of february to be exact, all because someone I knew back then told me to get it to play with them. They really enjoyed playing this piece of tosh $1 arena dino shooter game at the time. Well I guess their taste in this game was indicative of them overall, garbage. The end.

Just play TF2, Dirty Bomb, any other F2P game besides this.

Can't even play the game without thinking of the person who made me play 58 hours of this derivative and uninteresting game.

http://gtm.you1.cn/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=474442525

The reason why I got this game in the first place was because of seeing the screenshots and hearing the stories of the adventures you could end up having in the game. The game ugh, the game has its moments but as much as it pains me to say this, the game is just innately flawed and broken that it takes away any fun from the positive aspects of the game.

So what are these positive aspects then. Well the aforementioned adventures and stories you can have. I distinctly remember in one of my multiplayer sessions the legendary scandals and rambunctious activities of King Arkantos and Duke of Lancaster. Playing spy against neighboring kingdoms and engineering the fall of empires. It was a jolly good time, even some of the less notable stories and adventures bring back fond memories of the game and has obviously made me come back for dozens of hours on end to see if they would give me the spark of enjoyment in the game. This can stem from those adventures or social engineering dynasties, both of which are incredible in depth and sheer fun factor. However...

… The game is fundamentally flawed in other areas. So let us start with the elephant in the room: Combat. To put it short, it sucks. To put it a little longer, its worse than EU4 navel combat, and thats saying a lot since EU4 naval combat/AI is one of the worst implemented features ive ever seen in a video game. In Crusader Kings II, if you have more troops you win, no depth, no worrying about composition, no real difference other than remembering that heavy troops are marginally better than light troops for obvious reasons. In other lesser games, this might be alright, but for a game made by developers who are known for making complicated in depth strategy games with in depth combat systems, this is something that needs to be called out.

Another thing that needs to be called out is the RNG in the game. RNG is pervasive in video games, but no where has it been more obvious as this game, its almost as bad as EYE: Divine Cybermancy in this respect. Whereby everything is on an RNG dice roll and you cant control anything essentially, you just need dumb luck to get you through the game. For a strategy game, this is bad. Strategy games are about taking control over forces and leading them to glory, prestige, victory, even despite sometimes overwhelming odds all the while using your own wit and intelligence to accomplish this goal. But in Crusader Kings II, just by creating a larger stack of troops will win you any battle, and you have next to no control over your kingdom because its too busy being determined for you with die rolls in the background.

While I hate making comparisons between games, I feel like it is inevitable with this game. Most of the game's mechanics are so dumbed down and simplified it gives you no control over how you truly manage your realm. Heck, even Long Live the Queen had more options for how to control your kingdom than this game, and that was a “visual novel-esque” game. While on the opposite side of the coin, Europa Universalis IV has better realm management and combat mechanics. I might hear you say that EU4 doesnt allow you to control your individual government members. While this is true, you dont play as the government, as you play more of an overseeing entity (There was a steam review that jokingly referred to you as a wizard), so you let the government take care of the micromanagement. While in CKII you ARE the King or Queen, but the game sits idly by and doesn't make you feel like you are truly the one in charge of it all. Maybe it was this way for “historical reasons”.

But then why does the game always play out in an ultra ahistorical mode, where the muslims and the norse take over all of europe. Im not saying it has to play out like Hearts of Iron III here, but even events and balencing to make the game take on even a seemingly historical edge would be a great start to making it more bearable. Instead you got the Muslims and Norse attacking everything that moves, and certain “historical characters” who do not die when they should very well be dead. The game lacks any sort of balance in any sensable area. Nothing to push the game a certain truly historical route, and making it so those “historical dynasty” characters live forever.

Honestly, this is a dynasty simulator. Its not a strategy game, or a kingdom management game, its just a game about simulating your dynasty. Despite what the storepage tells you, it never plays out like that in my experience. The game's cons drain any fun the game can give you, and end up leaving you with an empty husk of a game, where all you got left is your dynasty, and bah now you got pneumonia and died.

See more reviews by following this group - http://gtm.you1.cn/groups/JSJaRG

This game actually kind of reminds me Simcity 2013, where its fun from the outset and for the first little bit, and then you learn the rotten mechanics all the polish is hiding. Game Dev Tycoon sadly has said rotten mechanics, and it really is a downer for a game with so much potential for fun.

Of course the fun for the game comes from creating your own games. Where else can you create spoofs of classic games from the early 80's and onwards. And for the most part it works the way you would expect it to, and as you forge more and more games you unlock hints for genres and themes to help you create better games without needing a spreadsheet. It gives a satisfying sense of progression for an otherwise hollow feeling game.

That is the other thing there is negative about the game before I delve into the mechanics of the game. The game feels empty in terms of aesthetic. It feels mechanical, it has no character despite giving everyone a name. It just pumps out numbers to you and tells you to interpret its vague cryptic messages without any assistance. It can make you lost on what to do when you keep getting bad games but don't know why because all you have been doing is what you thought you should be doing.

This is where you would naturally look up online what is going wrong, and where you discover the rotten food beneath the rug. What does it simulate? Only two things, the year and your game "scores". There is no competator, nothing else going on besides timed events and actions, modifiers and so on. As well the only games it simulates is your own games and your own scores. So how do you get a good rated game, well you need to beat the previous high score. Its simple. So why is this a problem then? That is because the mechanics the developers use to determine this is all based on dice rolls and arbitrary calculations. But why is getting a good score a problem? Because you need to get a good score to get good sales. This is a perfect example of why this is the case. Despite getting 11 billion sales, it was only ever 8th top seller, why? Because it only get a 9.25/10, not a 9.5 or a 10/10. The game is incapable of calculating anything outside of whatever games you develop, which means it is easy to abuse to create good games on a consistent basis, and even then RNG decides to throw you a curveball and mess with you. It becomes a chore to sit there and pump out the same drivel because it makes you successful, and is incredibly dull in the long haul.

So while the game's premise may have been thinking outside the box, the game hardly gets anywhere close to doing the same. Game Dev Tycoon is a neat concept that is worth a few dollars on sale, but inevitably will only leave you dissapointed with its shallow mechanic's that leave a lot to be desired.

See more reviews by following this group - http://gtm.you1.cn/groups/JSJaRG