Not to be rude...

[Ed Kolis]

... or foster competition between the two games, but just from playing the first tutorial mission of Land of Legends it seems the game borrows a LOT from the open-source game Battle for Wesnoth. I'm just curious, have any of the developers played Wesnoth, or even heard of it? Did you take any inspiration from the game or did you happen to come up with a lot of the same ideas on your own?

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Heh, actually, I played Wesnoth long after the design for Land of Legends was locked down. If anything, I think both games probably drew more heavily from Advance Wars and other similar games.

I'm not going to link them here, but if you were to search around, you could probably find places where I've discussed Wesnoth on various forums. A rough summary of my opinion of it is that it's a good game for being free, but I think that it's got a number of shortcomings that make many commercial alternatives better uses of time. So I think it boils down to whether, as a gamer, your time or money is in more demand.

Besides -- there's no competition to foster! (Especially given that it's a free game. =) I wish the Wesnoth team the best of luck, and as far as I know there's only friendly feelings towards each other. In fact, I'm scheduled to finally meet one of the artists in person in a couple of weeks.

If you'd be willing to share, I'm curious as to what you see the similarities as being.

Cheers,

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Ed Kolis]

Heh, no competition? I'd think that Wesnoth would be luring people away from LoL just on price point alone! They might not profit from it, but you'd lose out!
The similarities? Well, I've only played the first mission of the tutorial, so I haven't even gotten into combat yet, but for one thing, the graphics in both games are rather cartoony (though more so in LoL); both games are grid-based and turn-based; they both are set in fantasy worlds; they both have cities/villages which give resources which are used to recruit units which each have a small selection from a wide variety of special attacks (though Wesnoth is rather quirky in that villages are captured instantaneously rather than taking several turns to capture as in LoL)...

I will have to find out how combat works in LoL, though... in Wesnoth there's something called "zone of control" which allows enemy units to retreat only *away* from enemy forces (as opposed to through them or alongside them, which is really silly)... I'll have to see if LoL has that as well... it's just that while I think LoL is a great game, I can't foresee myself paying for it when Wesnoth is free and IMO just as good a game, save for that village capturing thing

And not to be rude again, but did you ever consider what LoL means in Internet parlance - the acronym, that is? Makes the game sound not very serious

[Hiro_Antagonist]

Ed Kolis said:
Heh, no competition? I'd think that Wesnoth would be luring people away from LoL just on price point alone!

Well, I suppose this is a possibility, but I really don't expect it to be a major factor. After all, these are hardly the only two fantasy-themed turn-based strategy games available. There are other games that might prove to be 'competition' for LOL, including Advance Wars for DS.

When I think of Wesnoth, the old saying jumps to mind: "You get what you pay for." That said, I think that Wesnoth is a much better game than the vast majority of other free titles out there, but in my opinion at least, it's got a number of weaknesses that prevent it from being great. I think those problems might very well have been addressed if the team had financial incentives on the line and/or less of a design-by-committee feel that made some elements feel out of place.

As for the similarities you mentioned, I find those more a case of us being games in the same genre more than clones of any sort of each other. My guess is that once you have a chance to play a few real game (with combat), you'll agree that gameplay in the two games tends to unfold in completely different ways.

Honestly, if you're a fan of these types of games, I recommend that you check out the newest Age of Wonders game, and maybe even Disciples II while you're at it. They're both fairly old and suffer heavily from mega-stack syndrome, but are otherwise great (larger-scale) fantasy turn-based strategy games. That's one refreshingly great thing about both Wesnoth and LOL -- neither game suffers from the megastack syndrome that affects most fantasy turn-based games.

As for the acronym, it was quite deliberate. Land of Legends is a deep game, but part of its ambience is to remind players to have fun and lighten up! In fact, as I've mentioned other places, our planned sequel name is "Return of Legends", or "ROFL".

Anyway, I hope you find yourself interested enough in LOL to pick up a copy, but if not, I wish you the best. =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Pluvious]

[quote]
Hiro_Antagonist said:

Ed Kolis said:

Honestly, if you're a fan of these types of games, I recommend that you check out the newest Age of Wonders game, and maybe even Disciples II while you're at it. They're both fairly old and suffer heavily from mega-stack syndrome, but are otherwise great (larger-scale) fantasy turn-based strategy games. That's one refreshingly great thing about both Wesnoth and LOL -- neither game suffers from the megastack syndrome that affects most fantasy turn-based games.

-Hiro_Antagonist

Don't forget the Heroes of Might and Magic series.

To me the best thing about Lol is that it is unique. You just don't see many short turn based strategy games. There are some purely "fighting" short turn based games but none that are short with the strategy elements (moving, purchasing units, etc).

However, Hiro, you have talked about the "Megastack Syndrome" of other games before in a derogatory manner. I know you're just playing around and all and stating your opinion but I just thought I would explain why "I" like more diversity and choice in a strategy fantasy turn based game.

It all comes down to exploration and not simply out-thinking someone or analyzing something as accurately as possible. I just like to explore, find new things, see how all the possible scenarios/heroes/items, etc all fit together. Winning and losing is always secondary to me.

To put it another way, I like chess to a certain degree but it doesn't hold my attention that long. People who play chess likely have more sophisticated mathematical brains and enjoy the mental challenge. I enjoy it at times. I feel like I'm in between chess and an rpg.

Anyway, just some commentary. Maybe not the place for it...

[Hells_Kitchen_Gamer]

The original Heroes of Might and Magic was a nice game, but when they came out with new versions they had to keep adding more stuff, and it's not clear at all that this was actually an improvement.

It's nice to see a game with a simple philosophy behind it, and I went and put my order in for it, but it's not clear that this type of game will catch on because it's not glitzy enough for the average person who has been spoiled by massive graphical and musical extravaganzas.

[Pyros]

Ed Kolis said:
... or foster competition between the two games, but just from playing the first tutorial mission of Land of Legends it seems the game borrows a LOT from the open-source game Battle for Wesnoth. I'm just curious, have any of the developers played Wesnoth, or even heard of it? Did you take any inspiration from the game or did you happen to come up with a lot of the same ideas on your own?

Ed Kolis, I don't know if this post is rude or anything else, but for sure this post will certainly not promote the LoL...

I just looked the "Wenoth" site and the it looks to be a very nice game, but I think it misses the secret element of LoL...

LoL is based on simplicity, quick relaxing battles, depth in tactics and very interesting balance/characteristics of the units.

As an expert in strategy games I think that the strong point of LoL is the ability to play quick online battles.

cheers,

[PhilD]

The difference between Wesnoth (which I've been playing a lot these past months) and LoL (I've only played the demo) are in the design: Wesnoth is full of strategy and risk management, LoL has no randomness (that I can see) and simpler rules.

LoL is a rather abstract game, while Wesnoth is more of a simulation game (as much as a game with a fantasy theme can be a "simulation").

At the moment, Wesnoth wins in my book (and not just because it's free; running on my OS of choice is certainly a plus, though). I might still give LoL a try, though, for diversity. And a quick game is a nice thing, too; Wesnoth games can be pretty long.

[Sammas]

Hmm, I played both Wesnoth and the LoL demo within a fairly short space of time, and I really didn't see much similarity between the two. In terms of game design, LoL is similar to chess, while Wesnoth is more like Warlords.

I think from the two, I'd definitely consider LoL to be the more polished game - it's obvious that a lot of thought was put into designing it, and the result is rather unique.

EDIT: Speaking of which, has LoL been released yet?

[Combat Wombat]

Sammas said:
Hmm, I played both Wesnoth and the LoL demo within a fairly short space of time, and I really didn't see much similarity between the two. In terms of game design, LoL is similar to chess, while Wesnoth is more like Warlords.

I think from the two, I'd definitely consider LoL to be the more polished game - it's obvious that a lot of thought was put into designing it, and the result is rather unique.

EDIT: Speaking of which, has LoL been released yet?

6 more days