The Old World, a new Civ-like from Soren Johnson

[Darth Wagtaros]

He can make sure you aren't calling him Winnie the Pooh.

Can I be Ottoman Empire?

[Tonitrus]

He can make sure you aren't calling him Winnie the Pooh.

Can I be Ottoman Empire?

No.  Only Han Empire.

[Tamas]

It's been quite a while I played this game in Early Access so it is entirely possible my opinion is outdated to irrelevance, but I found the game had good ideas and the early game was pleasant enough, however it had two big problems: one was that the CK-light dynasty building seemed entirely disjointed from the main 4X gameplay, and that it seemed to make no attempt to address the usual late-game micro-overload, and in fact the design must become extremely micro heavy. It's the CIV6-style "if I put this building there then this other one gets this bonus in that tile, and if I put this third one there all 3 gets this other bonus, but if I place this other building instead of the second then I get slightly different bonuses", except only with, what, 4 kinds of districts, it's like a dozen building types.

[jimmy olsen]

This review raves about the gameplay, but says they can't recommend it because after turn 100 performance issues spiral out of control and make it unplayable

https://bluntlyhonestreviews.com/2021/04/11/is-old-world-worth-playing-in-2021/

[jimmy olsen]

Another review

https://www.pcgamesn.com/old-world/review

[celedhring]

Doesn't Tencent own a good chunk of Epic?

And a small chunk of Spotify, if you want to be paranoid.

[Tamas]

The outrage over Epic was because people got used to using only Steam.

I think it was on Grogheads that I found this the funniest, because I remember several of those guys (maybe they were still at the Wargamer forum at the time) taking a principled stance against Steam when that was new. Fast forward a decade and they were taking a principled stance against the new online store trying to become an alternative.

[garbon]

Doesn't Tencent own a good chunk of Epic?

And a small chunk of Spotify, if you want to be paranoid.

Looking it up I'm not sure 7.5% stake is the same as 40%.

I'm not that excited about Epic as it doesn't seem to offer much that I can't get elsewhere apart from the free giveaways of games I never end up playing.

[Tamas]

Doesn't Tencent own a good chunk of Epic?

And a small chunk of Spotify, if you want to be paranoid.

Looking it up I'm not sure 7.5% stake is the same as 40%.

I'm not that excited about Epic as it doesn't seem to offer much that I can't get elsewhere apart from the free giveaways of games I never end up playing.

Same, but shilling over it is ridiculous. People were/are pissed some games go Epic exclusive for a while so they'd need to launch a separate client to play them (or god forbid wait a few months), and put some moral justification around that outrage.

[Syt]

I think some of the outrage was justified in cases where people had pre-ordered titles on Steam and then were told to wait a year. Or folks who backed a Kickstarter and who wanted a Steam or GOG key.

Not to mention that the Epic store had quite rudimentary functionality (it still doesn't have a cart ...), and there were concerns about data security (e.g. Epic digging through your Steam cache, or not verifying email addresses. (though those issues seem to have been solved?)

Also, people in general seemed miffed because in order to play certain games they were forced to use a store that is less convenient than most other stores, and certainly Steam.

The "one more launcher" thing is certainly annoying. I have Steam, Origin, uPlay, GOG Galaxy, and now Epic installed, used to have the Blizzard launcher, Bethesda's ESO launcher, and whenever I want to play RDR2 I will have to download the Rockstar launcher.

The only one I log in daily is Steam. If the developers of games are doing their thing I'm up to date on the news on their games (or at least the ones I want to keep up to date on), with new releases I can quickly see what the general feedback from gamers is (and if they downvote the game en masse if it's a campaign of some sort or if there's genuine concerns and issues), and check the game's forum to see what people there are saying or if the dev is posting info there about what changes are coming, or if I have issues with a game to see if anyone else had the same problem before doing a wider search on the web. For a lot of games there's community guides, and there's the Workshop. I don't even use the friends features of Steam, But even without those I find it incredibly convenient and comfortable to use to the point that every time I see a game I want is on Epic I groan a bit. For me, Steam is just a better experience.

And whenever a game like Old World pops up in discussion I regularly wonder, "Oh yeah, haven't seen/heard anything about it in a while, wonder why that is", and then I realize it's because it's on Epic.

For some games (well, two: Total War: Troy, which was free, and Chivalry II) I held my nose and got them on Epic.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, it would be convenient for me if everything physical was on Amazon and the digital stuff was all on steam.

How much effort am I willing to make to not support quasi-monopolies? Not a lot it turns out 

[Darth Wagtaros]

So this is another one of those epic (epic as in epic, not as in Epic even though it is) games that will never actually be completed?

[Tamas]

So this is another one of those epic (epic as in epic, not as in Epic even though it is) games that will never actually be completed?

I think it completely fell into the early access trap where from the EA release onwards it was adjusted around the needs of keeping the interest of early access veteran players as opposed to keeping it even remotely accessible to new ones. It just feels needlessly convoluted and complex. If you are making an abstracted civilisation building 4X game don't make the abstractions so complex that you could might as well have built a grand strategy simulation-ish game.

[garbon]

How fair is this comment that I saw on the PCGamer review:

200 turns only? I don't really get the placement of this. I mean a Civ with CK's dynasty building and diplomacy would be great. But the Civ part actually means a civilization that stands the test of time. You know, like how in civilization you can start from the cradle of a civilization and eventually leave the planet in search for another one.

In CK you have the deep diplomacy, the sprawling network of interpersonal relationships, the inheritance system that allows a lowly count in a small country to wake up one morning finding himself to be an emperor (it happened to me in CK2).

So this game seems to take a small part of the civilization thingy (as it's not the 4x that's special in that game, but the actual building of a civilization) and sprinkles it with some watered down parts of CK. But while the CK inspired systems of CK3 seem to be much deeper or at least I have that impression by this review, it also covers 586 years of history, not just 200.

So it feels like if I wanted to build a civilization and don't want to bother with the dynasty, inheritance, interpersonal relations part I should play civilization because I can't do that here and if I do want to build a dynasty I should play CK as it gives me more of that and on the side it give me more time to do it as well.

If I want a made up world where I can place my cities for myself and I want some legacy building then I suppose I should play this, but I don't know, it doesn't feel enough for me. I would be all over it if it let me start a civilization and lead it to the modern age, but it doesn't.

[Tamas]

It's a bit harsh but captures the game's problem well.