I think the only game you mentioned on that list which is actually open world might be Final Fantasy. None of the other games are open world.

Open world games are The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt, Conan Exiles, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Forza Horizon, Shadow of the Colossus, Eden Ring, Insomniac’s Spiderman.

Some of these have unique traversal mechanics, some of these use only generic kinds, such as walking.

Well, of course not, because Wine Is Not an Emulator. Considering it’s called XWine1, would there be a Linux version too?

A lot of Paradox DLCs. You’re essentially forced to buy the next DLC or miss out on sometimes literal game-changing mechanics.

It’s Bethesda we’re talking about. My expectations aren’t high.

Age of Empires II is honestly a somewhat strange combination of historical and not. Take, for example, the upgrade lines for certain units:

Militia -> Man-At-Arms -> Longswordsman -> Two-Handed Swordsman -> Champion.

So the skirmisher is a spear-throwing foot soldier with a shield. Historically a foot soldier would have a shield, a few throwing spears, and then a melee weapon. But in Age of Empires II the spear throwing and the melee are divided into two separate units.

Age of Empires II does have a light cavelry line, though, and they’re pretty quick. But only civs historically known for their good cavelry have bonuses towards them that make the viable (i.e. There are various steppe-civs in AoEII, as well as Mongols and Huns, and I’m sure Turks and Saracens have some benefit to light cav as well).

In this regard Age of Empires IV is more historically accurate, as that game can have completely unsymmetrical civs, whereas Age of Empires II has far more symmetrical gameplay.

Yeah, in Age of Empires II they’re more expensive than Skirmishers, who are archer-countering units. They’re also more expensive than regular archers, and that’s not going into the research that a good cavalry archer needs, as they’re also subject to some of the most expensive research options.

In Bannerlord you can get good horse archers only be recruiting young nobles. Then you have to spend time on levelling them up, because at the lower tiers they’re just not that good, and you risk a number of the dying before they reach a high enough level.

So between the two games I play that prominently feature horse archers, I’d say they’re managed pretty well, with the increased costs, slower training times, player skill, or levelling requirements.

Pretty sure, historically, they were also pretty powerful. I remember at one point reading about several nations that had serious issues with horse archers. A ranged unit of constant mobility, of course they’d be difficult to deal with.

How effective they are does depend on what kind of game you’re playing, however.

In Age of Empires II horse archers are only really good in those civilisations that have adequate research for them. And then it requires a good deal of player skill to micro the units to make use of their enhanced mobility.

In Mount and Blade Bannerlord it all depends on terrain. Horse archers are deadly on any sort of open terrain, but introduce trees or even a mild amount of rockiness and those horse archers are in a serious disadvantage.

Considering how this graph… Hmm… Shall we say… Takes a number of creative liberties with actual history surrounding these great women, doesn’t this graph undermine its own message?

Don’t. Because this graph takes more than just a few liberties with history, specifically for the sake of creating some kind of outrage.

Of course! Because otherwise it would mean all the mystique is gone! And if the mistique is gone, people can’t imagine they’re supposed to be starship landing pads!

Or lay-line powered aura cleansing structures.

Or part of an ancient technology global warning system.

Or a physical star chart pointing to the origins of the Egyptians.

Or hydrogen fusion power generators.

Or piezoelectric resonance generators.

Or… Some… Other things I probably forgot about. But it’s certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, NOT a tomb of some egotistical man that believed himself a god on the Earth!

No, that knife isn’t made of atoms, that knife is made of pure solid quarks. That’s why it can cut atomic nuclei.

Isn’t Sims 2 still the most robust and fleshed out Sims out there?

500,000 copies sold is not insignificant. Nintendo fries even the smallest of fish. They’ll literally go out of their way to fuck up someone’s small hobby project only a niche few even care about. So if Nintendo is turning blind eye to a game that copied them in every way one could possibly copy a Pokemon game, then there’s something else going on.

Remember, this is not a copyright case, this is a patent case. Considering Palworld is the only game vaguely similar to Pokemon in some minor ways that I’ve seen use spheres as a catching tool, I’m just (blindly) guessing it MIGHT have something to do with that.

There are only two things Dragon Quest V and Pokemon have in common; monster taming through battle and they’re both turn based RPGs.

Have you played or seen TemTem? It’s literally Pokemon in every way, from mechanics, level design, to even how and what kind of moves the Tems can learn.

Nintendo goes after even the smallest infringements, so since they’ve never gone after TemTem it tells me the patent isn’t “monster catching RPG”. It’s more specific than that, and Palworld somehow infringes on it. As of yet we can only guess what the patent is.

I’m not sure why. TemTem, and a number of smaller projects like it, are basically exact copies of Pokemon and have been around far longer, some with succesfull kickstarter campaigns.

I remember Nintendo being RUTHLESS when people over at GBATemp tried making a smash bros clone for the NDS… For free.

So… Um… If Nintendo patented elements of Pokemon (we don’t know what the patents are yet), then… Why is TemTem allowed to live? TemTem is literally one-to-one Pokemon, all but in name.

If, somehow, TemTem isn’t in violation of Nintendo’s patents, despite just being Pokemon made by someone else, then I’m very curious what Nintendo’s patent actually is.

Could it be the capture ball? TemTem uses cards. Palworld uses balls like Pokemon. Did Nintendo patent the idea of capturing creatures inside of balls, specifically? Is that why Nintendo never went after TemTem?

Well, that’s more true with birds. They’re just FABULOUS.

I the meantime male mammals are all hunky body-builders.

I haven’t bought Palworld yet. What is the current state of the game?

I didn’t want to buy it because I saw some friends playing it many months ago when it released and it look janky as fuck. Buggy AI pathfinding, janky enemy AI, NPCs getting stuck on terrain objects or player objects, physics bugs.

Have these things been fixed/improved since launch?

Good for you! You played a game so much you personally stopped caring. But that’s just you and you alone.

There are whole communities out there that are all about retro games. You’re throwing them all under the bus for being perfectly fine about something no longer being playable due to an arbitrary and otherwise avoidable reason.

This citizen initiative, if successful, has the power to change the way games are built from the ground up, and is the sort of “tide lifts all boats” thing that’ll only end up benefiting everyone.

Fuck yeah Danmark!!!