After a very close race, the Papal States won over Haiti (which I will do next week). As a reminder from last week, please note that this series will not include alternate leaders for current leaders (so no Joseph Stalin, or, er, you know who) and no civilizations that probably will be included in the next expansion or two or three (so no Ottomans, Byzantines, Incas or Mayans). I also will not do fictional civilizations or meme civs (no Mordor, no Sealand, etc.). Feel free to suggest any other civilizations you may feel have been forgotten in the comments! Without further adieu, let us begin:

The Papal States

Leader: Pope Innocent III https://imgur.com/gallery/jM6qhyd

Elected Pope by his fellow Cardinals, Pope Innocent III would consolidate his power to become the most powerful Pope in Catholic history. By asserting his authority over the various Medieval princes and kings, he was able to gain control of Sicily and other parts of southern Italy for the Papacy. He also commissioned the Fourth Crusade, the one famous for sacking Constantinople.

Language: Latin

Real Life Location: https://imgur.com/gallery/x12OCsG

Civilization Song: Gloria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcuqZhDckNQ

Civilization Ability: Donation of Pepin Gains +1 Great Prophet point per turn. Cities that follow the major religion receive a 10% increase in loyalty.

Leader Ability: Fourth Council of Lateran Grants apostles the ability to add a 5th religious belief. Gains the unique unit Crusader, which replaces the Swordsman and has 40 melee strength and gains a 10% combat bonus fighting close to cities that are a different religion. (100 production cost per unit.)

Leader Agenda: Pro Gloria Dei Likes civilizations that follow his religion. Dislikes civilizations that do not follow his religion.

Unique Building: Chapel Replaces the temple. Gives the user +6 faith per turn, +1 citizen slot, and +2 culture per turn.

Unique Unit: Swiss Guard Replaces the pikeman. Has 41 melee strength, and granted a 10% bonus when fighting units that aren't of the same religion.

Some City Names: Vatican City, Lateran, Ravenna, Napoli, Avignon, Urbino, Assisi, Perugia, Velletri

So Why The Papal States?

The Papal States were one of the most significant kingdoms in the post-Roman European continent. The centralized power of the Pope led to many crusades across Europe and the Middle East. It was the unquestioned authority throughout Europe in a time when there were practically thousands of de jure states across the continent. The reason that they likely won't be in Civ, though, is that they unfortunately are based out of Rome. With the Roman Empire in the game, the Papacy seems like more of a shadow, an echo trying to rebuild something that would never truly be restored. As it's hold over the monarchs of Europe began to slip, so to did it's dream of reunifying Europe. It didn't help that the Catholic faith fractured in the 1400's, and by the time they were unified with Garibaldi's Italy, the power of the Papacy had become an afterthought.

Hopefully y'all were able to learn something about a civilization that has, while not largely been forgotten, was significant in the discourse of Medieval European politics, the effects of which still reverberate across the continent to this day. Tune in next week when you'll meet Toussaint Louverture and Haiti!

Again if y'all have any suggestions feel free to comment and let me know, and don't forget to vote!

The strongest aspect of Civ continues to be the memories we make of it, the personification we give to our actions, the stories we imagine and the humanising of AI nations. As such, more of designs must be implemented that encourage this potential. The mid to late game continues to remain uninspired, in that discovery quickly becomes limited in what it can offer, as land is settled and all that can be discovered dwindles. As such I pose a few ideas that will immediately make the game more diverse.

Loyalty is a very fun mechanic but remains just that. Rarely is it game devastating or create any impactful scenarios. As in history where civilisation have come and gone, I propose that in the event that any two (or more) free cities share a land border and remain independent for a certain amount of turns, are able to form a nation in their own right, and from then on play a bigger role. This nation may be considered a fullyfledged civilisation with its own agendas and random bonuses from the civs it formed from, or maybe only a minor nation that can't compete for the victory conditions. The largest problem for the dev team when designing new civs is creating the art assets, and this overcomes this problem with all inworld designs simply being from the civs that previously owned the cities and leader screens being just a portrait or statue like in the viking scenario (these nations don't have immortal leaders after all). These hopefully means free cities become something more than they are other than a speedbump to be hit by some roaming mongol horde. When such a nation form, i feel its only fair to give them some temporary bonuses, which I've coined nationalistic fervour. These cities get a 100% bonus or 200% bonus to gold, culture, science and production for 15 turns as well as spawning new units or temporary militia units for that duration.

Another idea is for that of creating colonies. In the event that you want to claim land for its resources or deny it to others, colonies would also be a great addition. With a special colonist unit cities could be founded that aren't affected by loyalty or amenity requirements, and are otherwise controlled by the AI in a fashion similar to that of a permanent citystate (will follow the player to war, can have their lands improved). Luxuries and bonus resources, as well as a portion of their gpt, is the exchange for such a settlement. Colonies can also be expanded when another colonist is settled on the same geographical continent or they connect via land route. Rebellions are necessary for both balance and creativity which can occur randomly in the form of an emergency. Whenever new cities are added to the colony there is a chance a rebellion will occur which will split the cities as evenly as possible and spawning units on the rebellions side which have bonus combat strength on their home continent. The chance of a rebellion occurring increases with each city added. Other civilisations can also cause a rebellion by sending enough envoys to a colony, where when a certain level is reached a rebellious coup can be started which would start an emergency as well. The civ that started the coup could then help by donating units as volunteers or maybe escalating it into a greater war. If in this emergency scenario the colony wins it remains loyal to its motherland, and any following rebellions have a higher cap for their requirements. If the rebellion succeeds they become an independent nation and maybe give the liberator significantly better trade routes or some other bonus.

Dynamic and changing land would also be an interesting addition. While the game occurs over a geographical shorttime, having volcanoes and tidal waves impact the world would add to its interest. Such an event would initially be destructive for the surrounding landscape like an early-game fallout effect, but over the time these tiles would become extremely fertile or wealthy or become their own natural wonders. Maybe volcanoes would sprout in the sea and erupt land tiles to surround them, creating their own island chains.

Factions would also be an awesome addition which create greater tension in the late game. Factions would be formable only in the late game after the adoption of tier 3 governments and each faction could have its own bonus or unit or something. Civs with the highest scores would be the leaders of the faction, and those that enter the faction would receive the sight benefits of alliances as well as significant boosts for technologies discovered by other members in the factions. While not entirely necessary it allows for more interesting and historical minded scenarios in the late game, as the others do. They should feel like the culmination of hundreds or thousands of years of your civs experience and effort that moulded this world. At the end of the day its the stories we make that make us feel elated when we triumph against all odds and raging when we don't. Maybe these ideas are possible and maybe they aren't, but the experiences they create would surely be unforgettable.

I was playing as Catherine on Continents plus in Civ V on Huge map size a couple years back on Emperor. Decent start, 4 iron and two 2 horse tiles within the capital, conquered Babylon before they got out of hand. Become the powerhouse on my continent, which had 4 other civs on it. I get Astronomy and book it to the other continent for those precious luxuries and gold, run into Rome first. I didn't check my diplomacy tab immediately, and I wish I had.

I sailed north, and all I saw was Rome. Conquered cities, settled, it was all purple. So I sailed south. Again, all Rome. 9 cities just on the western coast of their continent. So I get open borders, send a scout over.

The entire continent except an Inca with two cities in the northeast that had two mountain pass chokepoints protecting them from Rome to the south. Everything else was either empty, or Rome. So I check their score, and discover it's almost double mine and I'm in second.They had befriended every city state on their continent, which included most of the maritime and Mercantile city states. Rome the city was massive, over 25 population in the 1500s. I think it had Hanging Gardens and Lake Victoria in their third sphere of tiles with some deer or wheat AND being on the coast with a few fish tiles. It was the best start I'd ever seen, AI or not. Oh, and he founded a religion too.

We get to Modern Era around the same time as I devote my empire to science while maintaining a decent military. It was still half the size of Rome's though. We went to war a couple times as soon as he figured out there were other people to conquer. Superior navy saved my life both times. Wound up getting nukes first, lucked out with 8 base Uranium in my borders so I could make Atomic Bombs galore. Booked it for a science victory while sailin my new fleet over to drop 16 atomic bombs on all of his cities on the west coast. I also strategically nuked Rome down to 1 population and blew up 2 big groups of soldiers. Crippled him enough so I could win.

To date, it was the first time I've ever seen an AI so utterly dominate their continent so early in the game. Seen a couple more since, but it was a surprise at the time.

I recently got angry and bored with Civ VI (really just pissed of bcus of failing my modded game as Scythia on european map, then trying the same with Russia, getting rushed by Poland within first 50 turns and losing my temper; also, my computer can't handle it later into the game and i play on lowest settings with strategic mode pls help), and plan on buying Civ V with all major expansions. One of things that got me pissed was the fact that when some of the mechanics are rather complex, the way to victory is rather dull and simple. Cultural victory? Spam wonders and rush specific civics. Scientific victory? Finish the projects. Not gonna talk about the other two ones. All of this is in general rather simple, and there is not honestly much of it. Also, warmonger penalty looks kinda wrong. Historically, when you were winning a war with another strong country, its neighbours were not angry. They were rather wrapping up their hands, because it took pressure out of them. Not in the industrial era ofc, but earlier on such things were quite common. And now Genghis - Khan, the ultimate warmonger, gets angry bcus u cunqered a citi man. Also, the interactions with city states and lack of more complicated diplomacy happenings involving than two civs (now they added emergencies, which is fine, but it still isn't what I expect). But what is my largest pain in the ass is the military. Because why would you make units with specific goals. You can just theoretically go for theoretical rock-scissors-paper, where scissors (the cavalry) outclasses everything, because rock sucks. And making a broken - ass renessaince unit able to whitstand tanks when put in a fort will not solve the problem. Also, you get like 2 or 3 relevant units in each era. Like, it wasnt like there were no cavalry nor field cannons in renessaince or no goddamn infantry not wielding anything else than pikes in the middle ages. So, to make warfare fun for me, i just need to use mods. It might be fine, but it just pisses me off. Like if vanilla game wasn't good enough. Also, city siege lasting one turn is not really a city siege. And knights rushing a city on horses is a painful view for anyone who knows how sieges were perfirmed in history. So, coming to the point. I'm not saying that Civ VI is bad. It will probably get better with each larger DLC. I just got angry, and intended on buying previous part anyway. For now, it seems to me it has some more quite complex and interesting mechanics and much more varied military units, where each one has a defined purpose and it isn't all about rsp. The mounted units are bad at holding ground, but can move after attack, etc. Also, I consider unique units like redcoats to be completely inferior on faster game speeds in Civ VI because you cannot prebuild them, what puts you in disadvantage towards for example Arabia prebuilding chariots and raping you with mamluks. So, what is the whole point of this enormous piece of crap? I would like to ask you what are the main differences, issues, funny things, advantages and disadvantages of V when compared to VI.

Tl;dr Salty piece of crap. A lot of whining about lack of complexity and military variety in Civ VI, in fact motivated by being nub with wooden computer. Just tell what to expect from Civ V after playing Civ VI for some time.

First up, I've been playing at King for a little bit. While I was winning (blowing AI away, first in all categories, not waiting to finish etc.) most of them, I still wasn't doing it in all* of them. I finally decided to jump to Emperor quite recently. A typical game used to be me being last in all categories, getting in wars with multiple civs, having 1-2 cities while they have 7-8, and attempt to crowd me out, and then finally me giving up and quitting fairly early. It wasn't a lot of fun. Also, for me, the best part of the game is starting fresh and exploring the world, trying to find the villages that give you boosts, plotting the next city's location etc. i.e.- Quitting early wasn't too difficult, even if I knew that I'd eventually end up playing one in its entirety.

The Start

This game started off in much the same manner. I had early problems with reds, and was forced into getting a slinger, also to chase the 'Archery' & 'Military Traditions' boosts. Meanwhile, I had Tommy to my immediate west, and Teddy to my east. Tommy (Tomyris) amassed a formidable army early on, and that threatened me. Teddy, on the other hand, parked New York right up my arse. I was last in all categories by some distance. Prophets were gone, I had no sectors, and was a prime picking for either of the two. For a bit, I thought to quit and start anew, but decided to wait until one of them actually made a move. They didn't. For all their posturing, they didn't do squat. Right around this time, a switch flipped in my head.

The Tide turns

I decided to take an offensive stance. I took a super risky strategy. I do that even in Empreror, and it's not the first time I've done it, but you gotta play like that at the higher levels, atleast until you amass some worthwhile real estate. If you don't, you'll become a deer (as opposed to a Lion) real quick.

America had made one critical mistake. They did not put walls on New York. Against Indian Elephants, that wasn't gonna play out. I got two Varu's, and took New York and then Baltimore super quick. They lost many units trying to fight my Varu's with Warriors. By the time I got to Washington, he had walls up, but I had added another Varu and 2 archers. Washington was mine too. (Keep in mind, Patna came much, much later.)

Then I made peace with Teddy when he had one city ( Charleston ) remaining. The reason being, Charleston was strategically quite safe. I'd lose many units trying to get it, and it wouldn't be worth it. I was also running low on funds and amenities. Peace with Teddy (and a rich compensation for both) helped me out. Furthermore, Tommy had started planting units close to Delhi, forward settling right up my nose, and looked like he was fixing to run me over. I could not fight on both fronts simultaneously.

However, before I took Washington, I saw that Delhi was, strategically, quite safe. Aided by a single mountain tile to my South, I placed that Encampment perfectly. Now, Tommy would have to go all the way around it just to attack my capital. If he camp head on, he'd lose quite badly. Once the Encampment and the walls in Delhi came on, I had secured my western front. With America crippled, and having oceans on the North and South, Gandhi breathed easy, and relaxed. There was still quite a bit of work to be done, but we were safe, and now it was only a question of consolidating.

The Consolidation

I was still last in most categories, but things were looking up. I tend to research techs only until past the 'boost point'. Then ai change it to something else, unless it's something I need*. What this does is, it gives me techs in spurts, with considerable dry spells in the middle, while I work on making the two banks, setting up 7 sectors etc. So I never gauge myself by the amount of techs I've researched, compared to others, but in terms of the Science I'm producing. This is the critical point in Civ 6. Even military strength is flexible, depending on the kind of units you have. i.e.- You might have 800, with a tank army, while AI has 1200, but with crossbows. He'll lose.

I kept adding the science sectors, and libraries etc. to them, and I was climbing up the rankings, but still nowhere close to others, especially Tommy. I was on 80+ with unit in 3-4 sectors, while he was producing 140+. It still looked like a lost cause, but I was fighting. This was the game I'd play till the end.

I was still also facing problems with amenities, not to mention, every random AI would contact me, just to slap my face with remarks like "Do you not seek knowledge, do you wish to keep your people in the dark" or "People aspire to arts and culture, what do you aspire to?". All I could do is just take it, and carry on. Gradually, I started clawing back ground. I founded Patna late, mostly because there was Niter there, which I desperately needed. Agra and Calcutta (picture in 'Trade Genius' section) came because I got some free Settlers, and auto said those would be nice places to settle cities.

Gandhi makes moves

After the consolidation era, I made some progress. Helped largely by the placement of the cities, I had some pillars for my civ. (Check out the industrial & amenity sectors cluttered together in the middle). I sprang from struggling for production and amenities, to a healthy, happy, & productive civilisation very quickly. I had something like 6-7 industrial sectors all contributing to 6-7 cities, and 3-4 entertainment sectors contributing to the same 6-7 cities. These two combos and inter connectivity was a massive boost to all my cities. This, coupled with some in-house trade routes for the new cities got them up to speed real quick. Now, I was more than a collection 3-4 cities. I was now an empire.

In the meantime, I had a small skirmish with Cathy, which I can't remember who started. I tried to get Rouen, simply for the Petra + Dead Sea tiles. Lost some Varu's and some crossbows that had many (3-4) upgrades. Those losses hurt. I keep upgrading my units right from the ancient era, and once they're ready to be named, I name them as per number of that unit. i.e.- If the second upgrade is to a crossbowman, and he's the first to get one, I name him 1st crossbow. Sometimes, I get tanks going by the name of 1st or second Varu, and Machine gun with 2nd Archer as a name. It's a feel-good exercise.

While all this was going on, I saw that Tommy (Tomyris) had jumped, all of a sudden, from 4/10 for a majority of the period to 8/10 civs in religious victory. I was worried, but wasn't about to declare war on his arse. I'd read that sometimes, a civ can even win that victory after getting wiped out. That shit's a low blow. When I launched my satellite, I saw that my English Rose was off by itself, completely safe of the evil heretics of Tommy. I felt reassured.

Anyways, after that small skirmish, I prised Marseille from Cathy some time later. This was the limit of my expansion. I was now coasting. i.e.- I was a contender, but had no idea how to content. This was also the limit of my 'vision'. I had no idea about the other civs, and the rest of the map until I launched the Satellite. By that time, it didn't matter.

The Fall of France and the subsequent stroll to the End

After progressions through eras, I found that I had no Oil in my empire. Not one, not even just outside, where I could buy the tile. I had a lot of Varu's, and no Oil and little cash to upgrade them. Enter Peter. I traded a Perfume for 80+ gold/ turn and Oil. (The dude kept making deals like these, as I've explained below. This was one of the reasons I didn't nuke his arse right at the end.) Now, I had a formidable army, some change in my pocket, and I was looking to 'sow my royal Oates'. As I knew these deals with Peter might not last forever (they lasted quite a while), I started looking around. France had Rennes, an outskirts city with three* oil. I had to have it. Plus, as I explained earlier, I'd lost a few good men to France, and it was a way of Payback.

As I circled some Tank corps via sea, to the other side of Rennes, getting primed to declare a war, Cathy, idiot declared war on me. It spared me of the war monger accusations, and weariness etc. I did not forgive her after that. Practically wiped her entire operation out, & left her with 1-2 cities purely out of charity & goodwill, just so there'd be one more bird to chirp about my generosity. I was also aware that she'd completed two bars in the scientific victory very sneakily. See, her civ was right at the bottom, and I was keeping track of Tommy's religious crusades, and aware of the fact that Cathy and Cleo were extremely strong in science. Cleo had scratched the surface of the first bar, but Cathy was moving in the shadows. Purely by chance, I moved the cursor, only to see her, right at the bottom, hidden from view, that far ahead on the scientific victory scale. That pretty much guaranteed a war. She just declared it first, and spared me the embarrassment.

I locked in on the Science victory purely by chance. Every Great Engineer that came up to the plate was scooped up by someone else. All I got was fresh air, and an increase in points required to get the next one. Felt like Yossarian in Catch-22, where the Colonel keeps increasing the number of missions. Anyways, the one that finally fell into my lap gave 1500 hammers towards Space Project. Well, and good, but at that point, it was fairly useless. Then, much later, I get a Great Scientist that gives 3000 hammers towards Space Projects, and another light went off in my head. By this time, I'd caught up to the leaders in Science, and Peter had financed my upgradation of armies and purchase of minor buildings. So, Cathy put back in her place, Cleo not making any progress, and Tommy thwarted by my English Rose, I strolled to a victory.

However Just 2 turns before my final space launch, I decided that fireworks were in order. This was, after all, my first win as Emperor. I nuked some 6-7 cities. Most of the capitals, plus a few others. Spared America (Been there, done that), France (same as America), England (Gratitude for maintaining her religion, and helping me beat Tommy) and Russia (gratitude for the money he lavished me with) for reasons, but China, Tommy, Brazil, and 1-2 others felt the full force of my celebratory gala. It was magnificent.

Random Stories

Trade Genius - I had problems with amenities. Peter was hell bend on financing my entire campaign single handedly (Gave me 110 gold for one perfume, and things of that nature). I had two resources, one of which Peter had already bought from me, the other which he hadn't. I sold one (the one Peter had) + 10 gold/ turn to Pedro for two amenities, then sold the remaining one to Peter for + 26 gold/ turn. Effectively, I turned my two amenities into two amenities + 16 gold/ turn.

Worker baited by AI - When France declared war on me, I tried to worker bait me. Also tried to lure me with settlers. AI is evolving. Keep in mind, they had Mechanized Armour at this point, so my Tanks were weak. I lost a Tank Corp like that.

Double-crossing Spy - I parked my agent to destroy a spaceport in Rouens, then Cathy declared war on me, and I captured it. My agents (I'd placed two) fled, but one of them destroyed the spaceport in my own capital. Probably a glitch, but he got a promotion out of it, so I got that going for me, which is nice.

No Prophet means I'm a sitting duck - I couldn't get one, as explained earlier. Tommy ran through my cities with no resistance. I didn't like that. If I can't get one, At least introduce units which can help me defend my own cities! At a time when I couldn't start a war with him, he kept converting my cities, and all I could do it request I'm not to. He kept saying he won't while he went about doing it. Shit sucked.

How does one lose Science? - Tommy was producing a lot (I mean, a lot) of science at one point. Leading with 140+ etc. Then it dropped down to 80, then in the low 50's. I couldn't understand it. Was that just him using Campus boosts, or did he buy, and then sell libraries and then unis?

P.S.- I hope you enjoyed reading this. Also, I screenshot the locations very late on.

What's your favorite unit ? Or what's the best one ?

So Poundmaker and Hojo are both allies of mine. One turn the both declare formal war, so there is an betrayal emergency declared against both. Hojo joins the emergency against Poundmaker which ends our war, but the goal of taking Kyoto is still active. After taking the Cree Capital, I wait until the next golden age, choose To Arms, and declare war against Hojo. I take Kyoto, and everyone loses their minds denouncing me as a warmonger. An emergency is declared against me.

Topic, for the most part. I've been seeing posts about the governors possibly doing this but was curious if vanilla had production overflow? (Specifically from chopping woods, but also in general?)

I assume R&F does, yeah?

I launched the game today and it started in borderless windowed. I went into graphics settings to change to fullscreen, and it created a popup that asked if I wanted to keep the current resolution. with yes, no, and a 15 second timer. I tried clicking both buttons and letting time run out, but nothing changed. If anyone knows how to solve please help.

As the title implies, I was wondering if it would be possible to allow for the Great Wall to be built over strategic/luxury resources such as Iron, Wheat, Nitre, Cotton, Dyes, etc. by editing XMLs. If not, are there any mods that do this that actually work? I've tried a few mods that claim to allow you to build walls anywhere (even over resources) and outside your territory, but none have worked. I've managed to set it to allow me to build walls outside borders, but I cannot get resources down. This means my walls often have gaps in-between them due to resources being present.

Any input would be appreciated.

For most of my life I have had active game saves, and these games, more often than not, were very different from one another. Right now I'm playing God of War, Terraria for the first time, and Rayman Legends. When I'm looking for that challenge, GoW is there (playing on Challenging has been just that). But the intensity of the game means I usually need a good break. Rayman Legends has been a joy to play, with the ability to jump in and out with ease. My wife also loves Rayman, which is an added bonus - and makes for a different, shared experience. I tend to play Terraria late at night, just as I used to play Minecraft late into the night because it was oddly relaxing.

When I downloaded God of War, I deleted Dark Souls 3 and Bloodborne, because I knew I could only handle one hard-as-heck third person RPG with deep menus at a time. What do your habits look like?

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I enjoy shooters, but I've honestly never played that many of them -- I've played all the Bungie Halo games, Call of Duty 4/Modern Warfare 2, Team Fortress 2, and Overwatch. I usually favor Grand Strategy games, but I have spent a lot of time in all those aforementioned shooting games (mostly the Halo series and TF2). Out of all of them, for me the Halo series was the most "fun" as far as core shooting mechanics are concerned, but I'm not really sure why.

In a thread about Fortnite over at /r/Games, I saw someone talking about how PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds has "great shooting" -- but what is it that makes shooting great? What does "tight gunplay" even mean? Are they even the same thing?

I've noticed a lot of recent games, developed and published by different companies, even from different genres, having weirdly identical mechanics, to the point where it seems more than just jumping on a bandwagon.

For example:

• Choreographed combat where enemies surround you and you combo attacks together/dodge roll out of the way.

• Collecting "runes" for upgrading weapons and armor.

• Traditional "loot" has been replaced with gathering materials for crafting upgrades. Most loot don't have in-game models, just an image and maybe some flavor text.

• Collectable "artifacts". Bonus points if you can inspect and rotate it to find a clue to unlock extra lore.

As well as smaller details like the feel of menus, controls, and navigating terrain. it's starting to feel like I'm playing re-skins of the same game. I first noticed it when Shadow of Mordor had the same combat as Batman: Dark Asylum, and then Tomb Raider came along and it felt exactly the same. God of War at least has a different combat system, but the upgrades and artifacts and gathering materials is giving me the same deja vu.

Has anyone else noticed this?

This article was drawn to my attention https://www.gamespot.com/articles/its-time-for-video-game-stories-about-kick-ass-mom/1100-6458782/

As you would probably predict, responses were largely negative "It would be a shit game"

"Why do women keep trying to ruin gaming"

"Any time a man does something women just have to copy it! My male dominance will never be challenged!"

Blah blah blah. Women are too frail and weak, especially in fictional stories where they can have superpowers...or just...shoot people.

I honestly never thought about this much before but, that would be so refreshing, you are always, without fail, a badass dad like Kratos or Joel who fights the bad guys and saves the kid(Um...sorry Joel) but pretty much never are you the mother.

Now there probably are some obscure indie games out there but 1 or 2 hardly compares to the hundreds of dad centric games out there.

I'd appreciate the chance to hear a new narrative.

I have no idea why people feel so violently threatened by the idea, most people where I saw this article were somehow under the impression that you'd pretty much have to be looking after children constantly, like being a mother can only mean you're spending the whole game breastfeeding and changing nappies. There simply couldn't be a game where you're a strong female that beats people up, like Bayonetta but you were a woman, it just wouldn't work dammit!

TL:DR thoughts on the idea? It would be nice to have something a bit different, even if it wouldn't drastically be different from the norm.

I like reviewing games, in my head most of the time, but sometimes in written form. I absolutely cannot stand walking simulators or games that put story/visuals over fun gameplay. I feel I may be overly harsh and biased against things like journey, oxenfree, telltale games, and even uncharted. Can/should people review games in generas that are not their cup of tea? If so, how?

I'd like to come up with a review rubrik. Whenever I say reviews the rubrik seems to be: gameplay, sound, visuals/performance, story, etc... Growing up I'd always been the type that only cared about gameplay, and didn't care about story, visuals, and music as long as they weren't so bad as to actively detract from the experience. Now that I'm older I do have more of an appreciation for those other things, but not nearly to the extent that everyone else seems to. (gamexplain's derek spent a whole minute in his review playing a song from the donkey kong tropical freeze level gushing about it, which felt asanine to me - especially considering I was not impressed by the piece he chose.)

Anyway, back to the points: 1) Can/should people review games in generas that are not their cup of tea? If so, how? 2) can we try and come up with some sort of grading rubrik? Might have to be modified depending on genera.

Lastly, I'd like to submit my grading scale. It is scored out of 5, but it's a ten point scale as it allows for 0.5's.

1-star (shit): No redeeming qualities. This game is boring and sucks in just about every way possible.

2-star (aka, "meh, it's OK"): One or two redeeming qualities. If you concentrate on the redeeming qualities and have nothing else to play, you're not completely wasting your time on this game. You'll likely never want to play this again, but it was ok while it lasted.

3-star (aka Decent): Acceptable game, about average.

4-star (aka good game): This game is pretty good, but not life-changing. Most players and critics usually agree on the quality of these games even if it's not their cup of tea.

5-star (aka video game hall of fame): This is the kind of game that is consistently brought up as people's "favorite game of all time." Hopefully no further explanation is necessary. It deserves to be in the gaming Hall of Fame. VERY FEW GAMES ARE 5-STARS, about 1-5% of them.

Other category:

0-star (aka, broken abomination): The lowest of the low. A 1-star (shit) that's riddled with bugs and performance issues qualifies as a 0. The developers should all be out of a job.

I think it makes more sense to people that 3 is decent rather than 6. 6 is generally seen as a bad score. Similarly, If I gave a game a 4/10 rather than a 2/5, I would understand why people would not take my opinion seriously because 4/10 by traditional standards may seem overly harsh than what I'm trying to portray with 2/5. No one would think of a 4/10 game as "ok." So I can grade out of 5 to more accurately convey my thoughts, while still effectively using a ten point scale.

I think the fact that in our school system anything below a 70 is a failing grade, we're all kind of programed to think of games the same way. This makes a scale out of ten confusing and suboptimal. Though, I think my scoring system can also be thought of as 1=6, 2=7, 3=8, 4=9, 5=10 and anything 5 or below is a zero. I guess I could just grade from 6-10 using 0.5's making it a ten point scale that actually allows for a 10.