IGN: Elemental: War Of Magic - Preview

[Foodstamp]

For years we have seen games drift from being hard to being very easy. It's refreshing when a game comes around that offers challenges such as the sovereign death = game over. I think Dwarf Fortress is a great example of how a game can be fun and very difficult. It shouldn't be a matter of naming current TBSs that use the mechanic, and the reason why is because I don't want to play a game that has to have rules that have been done before in a TBS. I don't mind if this game strays away from the ordinary. And it sounds like losing your Sovereign isn't going to be a thing that just happens on a dice roll. It sounds like it is going to be very difficult to lose a sovereign. It creates another win/lose condition to the game. Enough people are clamoring for it to be gone that it doesn't matter anyway. They will remove the feature or they will make it where you can toggle it on and off.

[sector24]

I'm pretty sure that they won't implement stock fantasy races into the base game. They have the tools that will allow the modding community to do that kind of work for them. As far as the sovereign thing, it really depends on the game balance, especially because the game touts the kind of decisions where your sovereign spends his essence on things which is supposed to make him weaker. Age of Wonders had that game mode where if you lost your "king" hero you lost the game. It was fun actually, but I'm not sure it should be the default.

Either way, keep the impressions/updates coming as new stuff gets released.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

For years we have seen games drift from being hard to being very easy. It's refreshing when a game comes around that offers challenges such as the sovereign death = game over. I think Dwarf Fortress is a great example of how a game can be fun and very difficult. It shouldn't be a matter of naming current TBSs that use the mechanic, and the reason why is because I don't want to play a game that has to have rules that have been done before in a TBS. I don't mind if this game strays away from the ordinary. And it sounds like losing your Sovereign isn't going to be a thing that just happens on a dice roll. It sounds like it is going to be very difficult to lose a sovereign. It creates another win/lose condition to the game. Enough people are clamoring for it to be gone that it doesn't matter anyway. They will remove the feature or they will make it where you can toggle it on and off.

time and time again I try to get into Dwarf Fortress.

I *don't* care about graphics..
(I loved Rogue, and hack, and asciTrek)

But damn I just can't get into it. What was that//? again?

[Foodstamp]

time and time again I try to get into Dwarf Fortress.

I *don't* care about graphics..
(I loved Rogue, and hack, and asciTrek)

But damn I just can't get into it. What was that//? again?

Oh you should try it with a good graphic mod pack. it makes the game more fun for me . Go to the forum and there is bound to be an excellent one on the first page of the modding forum.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

For years we have seen games drift from being hard to being very easy. It's refreshing when a game comes around that offers challenges such as the sovereign death = game over.

And thus there's no reason why the sovereigns death cannot be an optional setting. Personally anyone who feels a game should only serve their purpose is being selfish.

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

I think Dwarf Fortress is a great example of how a game can be fun and very difficult. It shouldn't be a matter of naming current TBSs that use the mechanic, and the reason why is because I don't want to play a game that has to have rules that have been done before in a TBS. I don't mind if this game strays away from the ordinary. And it sounds like losing your Sovereign isn't going to be a thing that just happens on a dice roll. It sounds like it is going to be very difficult to lose a sovereign.

Stardock has a solid history of being able to provide very difficult games. As I mentioned earlier having the Sovereign's death tied to losing a game means the player will use him less and less likely during middle and late game. If you need to better visualize the effect than picture what would happen if the next Dominions_3 patch meant instant game over upon a pretenders death. The first result would be no pretenders with low hitpoints(10 or less) and the second result would be no pretenders being used as SC's during middle and late game.

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

It creates another win/lose condition to the game. Enough people are clamoring for it to be gone that it doesn't matter anyway. They will remove the feature or they will make it where you can toggle it on and off.

And with a toggle on/off option the game still has the instant lose condition... simply it doesn't force everyone to play the same way. Personally all this instant lose condition will do is have players hide their sovereigns since even being unlucky while traveling can kill you. I'm all about providing very difficult games where the AI opponents have a strong advantage and sovereigns death being game over would be more useful for the human player than any AI opponent.

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

I certainly never thought Total Annihilation was a bad game because Commander death = game over.

Total Annihilation was an RTS, big difference from TBS.

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Foodstamp

For years we have seen games drift from being hard to being very easy. It's refreshing when a game comes around that offers challenges such as the sovereign death = game over. I think Dwarf Fortress is a great example of how a game can be fun and very difficult.

I totally disagree with the asertion that sovereign death = game over makes the game harder.
On the contrary.
Kill 1 unit of the ai, and you've won.
I never managed to like Dwarf Fortress, but in roguelikes, when you die and it's over, it's cool because you're playing one individual, because it makes the game harder.
In my opinion, Elemental is adding a mechanism that the ai can't handle to defend itself, and I am not interested in playing an individual but a nation in such a game.

[Gregstrom]

I certainly never thought Total Annihilation was a bad game because Commander death = game over.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

I certainly never thought Total Annihilation was a bad game because Commander death = game over.

It didn't. I'm confused.

[happygeek]

If I understand correctly, the talk was now having an exceptionally poor workaround for avoiding sovereign death: if defending, the sovereign automatically retreats to the nearest friendly city, instead of dying. That seems to me to be a particulary poor way of removing penalties for risky use of a sovereign.
Even though I would much prefer to have the game end (or some very serious penaly) if my sovereign "dies" -- perhaps he goes to some MMORPG-type of purgatory from which he must return -- I would be satisfied if this were an option I could turn on without having to mod. I believe it would increase the RPG-type of feeling.

That said, I am greatly disappointed with the little bit I have been able to see in Beta so far. It looks like the combat -- and hence the entire mechanism behind military victories, behind constructing units and research military power -- is vastly undercomplex; it looks even less promising that the combat system of GalCiv2. Or maybe I am misunderstanding everything.

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by happygeek

That said, I am greatly disappointed with the little bit I have been able to see in Beta so far. It looks like the combat -- and hence the entire mechanism behind military victories, behind constructing units and research military power -- is vastly undercomplex; it looks even less promising that the combat system of GalCiv2. Or maybe I am misunderstanding everything.

Give them time, the real combat system isn'tt even implemented. what we have now is but a placeholder.