Jump to content

Integrity

Administrator
  • Content Count

    9,370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Integrity

  • Rank
    FIFTY WORDS FOR MURDER AND I'M EVERY ONE OF THEM
  • Birthday 08/16/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Free D, Lobby 3

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Heroes

Member Badge

  • Members
    Laura

Recent Profile Visitors

43,120 profile views
  1. whoa what happened here
  2. oh i won't disagree that the tactical side of xenonauts was beyond competent compared to the dos originals, which seems to be much of what you're talking about. i enjoyed most of the eighteen hours of the same fight i did. my problem was that the strategic side of things felt ... not meaningless, but progressionless, which meant that all the tactical fights i had played out basically the same way, since my guys were interchangeable with the same gear, and the gear was not showing any signs of improving anytime. kind of like the long war mods to the newer xcoms that dudes crow about, where you do the same skirmish ten or fifteen or twenty times before you get any equipment to possibly change it up, which means the game is hard? but i don't know if that was how it was designed, like long war, or if it was just me failing somehow at the progression aspect of the game. EDIT: to put it a way, i got the same enjoyment from the limited beta where you just made a squad and sent them into a onetime battle as i did from any bit of the actual release app that i bought, at least to the point where i stopped playing it because i felt like i was doing the same thing over and over again.
  3. my fire emblem plot would basically have been conquest, except corrin sees the rot in nohr and decides to seize power while the war between hoshido and nohr was ongoing. it's what i thought conquest was gonna be. i was japed. ;(
  4. master of magic is way better PEACE so to someone who apparently enjoyed xenonauts - i love the old x-coms, terror from the deep is probably in my top ten of all time - xenonauts just felt lifeless and ...repetitive? to me. i played it for a few (EDIT: eighteen, apparently??) hours back when it was new, and felt like i wasn't progressing towards anything at all, and the spritework was just so aggressively bland. i've never talked to someone who actually enjoyed it so i just want to know, like what was it about xenonauts that was appealing to you? i'll echo this. heroes 3 and 5 are genuinely good, 6 is good in a different way, 2 is good in a retro way, the others are... curiosities. EDIT: the heroes 3 campaigns are massively fucking kaizo hard though, be warned. i think it's the best game of the lot, but the campaigns are .... a mood.
  5. i'm with this dude. the story is Hot Fucking Garbage but birthright and conquest are some of the more enjoyable fires emblem to play, ignoring the castle mechanics. there is plenty of fun to be had in them.
  6. honestly i don't think it's the worst game i've ever chugged through, but it's the one that came to mind mostly the lack of reasonable weapon balance, dodgy controls, tiny ammo pools, and (especially as the game went on) massive enemy hp pools made the whole game just a goddamn chore to play early on i couldn't ever justify not picking the springfield (love the gun as i do!) as one of my two, and the other weapon was extremely 'a backup for when i've killed ten to fifteen aliens with headshots without finding an ammo cache'; later on i almost kept using the damn springfield because i just didn't like the laser sniper, whatever it was called. then you get all the psionics and they're flagrantly stronger than run n' gunning, and the encounters adjust, and then everything becomes a blow cooldowns -> wait for all of them to come back -> wait fiesta, while still picking for exclusively headshots. god i hated the final third of that game. i am so sorry for your loss
  7. i beat the bureau xcom declassified and to this day i haven't been able to justify to myself why i did
  8. into the breach is really good. it has my full endorsement. both the new xcoms are good for different reasons; i honestly think xcom 2 with the expansion is one of my top 5 favorite games of all time. valkyria chronicles 1 is exceptional, except for about two horribly designed maps and a kind of contradictory reward system. i'll also echo the guy throwing wesnoth out there - very good, very free, lots of stuff to do. i will always shill battle brothers to fire emblem people, it's kind of a motherfucker of a game to get into but it's a really good strategy game at its core. battletech is a bit janky but is full of soul and big robots blowing each other up. it might help to know what it is you like about strategy games, and what you've played - strategy's been my favorite genre for about twenty-five years at this point so i'm full of recs
  9. she used to have -30% blade and -20% impact/pierce mitigation, but 60% defense on flat and 70% on literally any cover and skirmisher (!) instead of initiative. same hp, same attack. all they did was rebalance her to make her less streaky (which is good for a unit who games you over if she dies). weirdly, i had originally posited that the rework was also done to fit the new art better, but it was done a patch before the new art. at tier 3, though, she gained +10 health, having originally gone from 48 to 52 on promotion lmao anyway i come to you with The Map, Chapter Two i kind of pan around the map willy-nilly to talk about things but if you really want to see the raw action of Black Eye Map Two i uploaded a second copy just for you
  10. truth be told it's less that konrad is shackled to recruiting dudes and more that li'sar kind of sucks, so it's making two pretty good units instead of a multiphase god
  11. i have to one-up him call it if there's a particular order you guys want to see them in
×
×
  • Create New...