Space Sims/Strategy Games Catch-All

I can appreciate both of these viewpoints. Which one I actually fall victim to remains to be seen.

I will say that $40 seems pretty steep for an Early Access game, even if they are aiming for a $60 game on release.

$60 for Cyberpunk: OKAY!

$40 for Everspace 2: I dunnnooooooooo...

IMAGE(https://media1.giphy.com/media/3o7TKotMqLFE6KaguI/giphy-downsized.gif)

f*cking gamers...

It's still a bit rough (but a better launch that Cyberpunk). The flying feels a little swishy to me but I'll get used to it. Saves will end up getting wiped between major updates.

Based on all the reviews I've read that it is solid, and polished, and basically only requires the rest of the campaign to be finished, I'm considering breaking my No Early Access policy for Everspace 2.

BadKen wrote:

Based on all the reviews I've read that it is solid, and polished, and basically only requires the rest of the campaign to be finished, I'm considering breaking my No Early Access policy for Everspace 2.

Even with that, they aren't expecting a full release for another 12-18 months.

I'll probably buy Everspace 2 before Cyberpunk, it sounds like it's a more polished experience already!

Cyberpunk will be $20 by that point ;P

I paid $0 for Cyberpunk because it was pretty clear that game was going to have some serious issues upon release and would be in a sort of Early Access until at least late summer. Turns out I was being optimistic.

When I say $40 seems high for Early Access, it's an issue of whether they're going to generate enough money or userbase for what they're trying to do, not whether I'm going to buy it or not. And that may be the point. They may just want a semi-large testing base who are committed enough to hit that price point.

I guess you missed the part where they already had one successful game and a Kickstarter for this one, but yes, how dare they charge what they feel their product is worth.

Everspace 2 looks really good, but I'd rather wait for a finished campaign in a single player game. I'm not so much worried that they won't finish it, more like I just want to play a game all the way through, not bit by bit over the coming months.

BuzzW wrote:

Everspace 2 looks really good, but I'd rather wait for a finished campaign in a single player game. I'm not so much worried that they won't finish it, more like I just want to play a game all the way through, not bit by bit over the coming months.

Yeah that's what I usually do with early access stuff. Play it once to cover it, shelve it until it's released.

It seems it was designed mainly for controllers.

Everspace? Nah man it's primarily designed for mouse and keyboard. RGO is designed mainly for controllers.

Just started starsector for the first time. Very difficult and might not be for me. It's a bit odd but I genuinely do not care about design/equipping ships. I perfectly happy to run with defaults for things. Which is problem since I think that's a solid 60 percent of the game. The rest is oddly very mount and blade. Some other bits I'm not fond of but that might be a matter of taste.

Really do like the feel of the world though. Feels like a living world. Good style too, and when big ships explode you feel it.

You CAANNN leave the defaults as is for a lot of ships, but you'll wanna equip better stuff as you find it.

My time with Star Traders: Frontiers has left me with the impression there is a wealth of stuff to delve into if you can be bothered. if you can't, it's fairly limited. I think I need to come back to it when I can be bothered.

Star Wars: Squadrons is just........... odd. I like the missions, I liked the interactions with the Rebel and Imperial flight teams, I even liked some of the odd attempts at humour as well. But the control system? What the hell were they thinking? The MP just did my head in.

STF is a game of story, of trying different ship types and crew abilities, of playing differently, and within each area of the game there is tremendous depth. Playing as a spy is substantially different from playing as a trader, for example. So when you come back to it, try something different.

Veloxi wrote:
BuzzW wrote:

Everspace 2 looks really good, but I'd rather wait for a finished campaign in a single player game. I'm not so much worried that they won't finish it, more like I just want to play a game all the way through, not bit by bit over the coming months.

Yeah that's what I usually do with early access stuff. Play it once to cover it, shelve it until it's released.

I'd like to do that but I have a bad case of new-game-smell syndrome, where I just can't get as excited about playing a game I've owned for a while but never played as I can about a game I just paid for. So since I think I'd like ES2, I have to decide if the higher probability of actually playing it is worth paying the higher release price.

master0 wrote:

Just started starsector for the first time. Very difficult and might not be for me. It's a bit odd but I genuinely do not care about design/equipping ships. I perfectly happy to run with defaults for things. Which is problem since I think that's a solid 60 percent of the game. The rest is oddly very mount and blade. Some other bits I'm not fond of but that might be a matter of taste.

Really do like the feel of the world though. Feels like a living world. Good style too, and when big ships explode you feel it.

It's been a while since I played (looks like the latest release was in May 2019? I think most of my time in Starsector was in the one before that), but I think the game has a range of viable play styles.

I went heavily into exploration and fleet command -- as often as not putting my flagship on autopilot in battle, even -- and was able to get by just fine without micromanaging ship builds. I just clicked the default button on each ship when I got it and again every now and then, as my collection of weapons and hull mods expanded.

I liked the Mount & Blade in space quality of it, and agree that the setting is well-done. I understand the developer is adding in more story missions, but as it stands it's a great example of worldbuilding without a lot of explicit narrative.

Veloxi wrote:

I guess you missed the part where they already had one successful game and a Kickstarter for this one, but yes, how dare they charge what they feel their product is worth.


~mod~ no personal attacks. This retort is way harsher than necessary as a response to sarcasm. Reign it in. Thanks. - Amoebic

I've added it to my wishlist. Too many other things to play with to add a $40 early access to the pile.

While a little harsh, I echo Glycerine's sentiment.

Veloxi - I love ya, man! But you do seem to go "all in" occasionally and it feels like your impartial-game-reviewer-hat gets kicked under the table. I value your opinion and you've pointed me in the direction of some wonderful diamonds in the rough, but please recognize that each time you go overboard in the defense of something it devalues your opinion just a little bit.

Enjoying starsector. Did exploration as recommended and found it to be way more profitable. My first run got me about half a million in wreck loot.

Over two million now. Might try making a colony.

Veloxi wrote:

I guess you missed the part where they already had one successful game and a Kickstarter for this one, but yes, how dare they charge what they feel their product is worth.

$40 is quite a lot for an early access game, with a high degree of risk for the purchaser, because the finished game may end up not resembling the initial pitch very much. Starbound, for instance, was one I got burned on badly: I loved the betas, bought in, and then they completely changed the game design and turned it into a twitch shooter. I'm still pissed about that.

Because of the risk to buyers, it's generally pretty normal to price low when it first enters early access, and then gradually raise the price as it gets closer to being finished. Kerbal Space Program, for instance, started at $10. I think Subnautica started at $15. Minecraft was about $15, as well. The dev gets less money, but has something to eat while building the game, and the customer gets the game cheaper, in exchange for the risk of hating the finished product.

Starting at $40 shifts the entire burden of risk onto the buyer, which doesn't seem fair to me.

Okay sorry sorry guys I just get REALLY defensive of my babies (space games) you know? Please forgive my...exuberance...and see it for the passion and love that it really is.

Saw this. Thought it looked neat. Sort of hard sci fi looking space RTS.

master0 wrote:

Saw this. Thought it looked neat. Sort of hard sci fi looking space RTS.

That looks....amazing. So much of what I want in a RTS game, especially one in space. It almost almost makes me want to build a PC.

master0 wrote:

Saw this. Thought it looked neat. Sort of hard sci fi looking space RTS.

Added to wishlist after watching the video. I have been burned on EA a few times, but I think I'll jump in for this one. I'm also thinking about grabbing Dyson Sphere Program the weekend.

I've played Dyson sphere program. It has potential but I didn't see much to differentiate it from factorio. I'd wait on that one until its cooked a bit more.

master0 wrote:

Saw this. Thought it looked neat. Sort of hard sci fi looking space RTS.

Looks great, and I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it. That said, I also got a bit of a Dwarf Fortress vibe in the sense that they're talking about shipboard environments affecting breeding rates in the same way that Toady talks about simulating layers of skin on each dwarf. That level of detail sort of becomes pointless at the player level. This looks like a hard sci-fi version of Sins of a Solar Empire, which I really enjoyed (I have fond memories of playing with the original conference crew guys back in the day) but that game in no way needed anything more than abstracted systems for population.

Falling Frontier will be on my radar, for sure, but I'm taking the vision with a heavy grain of salt until I see the finished product.