Answering the Critics

[Twan]

Invite your friends to watch you playing your turn 132 of a big game. I think they would have understood why there is no city building etc... some hours before you click end turn.

[curtadams]

Dominions is a fantasy game. Citybuilding isn't a major part of the fantasy genre. Frodo doesn't go to Rivendell to help install a sewer system. As all the earlier posters have pointed out, Dominions' depth comes from the magic system and the interaction of numerous strategic choices vis-a-vis pretender design, research, expansion, gem use, etc. with all kinds of complex tradeoffs. It has lots of depth, and the depth is focused on the kinds of choices that drive good fantasy stories.

Dominions *is* a 4x game. eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate. It's all there. Citybuilding isn't part of the 4X definition. The genre is not 3XCBX, even if Civ and its relatives use citybuilding for the expoitation. Dominions just uses different stuff for that phase - site searching and research, as well as building construction. As Chazar points out, Dom exploitation is far less tedious (although site searching could use some automation).

[Uh-Nu-Buh]

I personally have never heard anyone criticize Dom III for lack of depth or lack of complexity. If I had, I probably would have just laughed and moved on. Morons exist everywhere, and unless they directly affect you it is better to just ignore them.

That said, let me just add that Dom III is a piss-poor excuse for a first-person shooter. Look for my thread on "No Flashlight? No BFG?". We need to get the developers to finally respond to how poorly Dom III compares with the new Halo, Quake, and Unreal engines.

[Gandalf Parker]

Everything has its pros and cons.
Most games that have city building and involved economics tend to balance their game nation-vs-nation. You are playing basically the same units as everyone else but they were a different uniform color. Same cities, same units, same options. It HAS to be that involved because then you win by pursuing a different course than everyone else.

Dominions is rock-paper-scissors balance. A nation has pluses vs another and minuses vs someone else. Your depth is in the nation you choose and the way you play it. There is no way to compare that to those other games.

Gandalf Parker

[Arralen]

Dominions does not have a 'mundane economic model', because its a WARGAME, not a builders game!

It's about the fighting, with mundane troops, summons, magic spells and dominion.

Not about building the same 'city improvement' a thousand times.
Not about building the biggest city, the biggest empire, even.

It's about the last man (pretender ) standing ...

Btw., I think its much better suited for MP because of that - no endless turns with nothing happening, no 6 hours of play before the first and deciding battle ...

[Daynarr]

Uh-Nu-Buh said:
I personally have never heard anyone criticize Dom III for lack of depth or lack of complexity. If I had, I probably would have just laughed and moved on. Morons exist everywhere, and unless they directly affect you it is better to just ignore them.

That said, let me just add that Dom III is a piss-poor excuse for a first-person shooter. Look for my thread on "No Flashlight? No BFG?". We need to get the developers to finally respond to how poorly Dom III compares with the new Halo, Quake, and Unreal engines.

I agree. I was just about to say that it's quite weak as a racing simulation as well. I think GTR2 is much better in that respect.

I still think that all reviewers and news posters should pass IQ and anti-drug tests before they are allowed to post.

[Mortibus]

I don't really "get" the complexity of the Dominions magic system yet, I'm still learning it. It's the most complex magic system in a strategy game I've seen.

As to the graphics complaints, I think Dominions would do well do just ditch them completely and go boardgame. I'd rather read a more extensive report and dodge the battle graphics, using simple army and character counters.

More detail and complexity and less graphics would be fine by me.

[Taqwus]

Civ fans can start talking about wargaming accuracy when they either ditch the incredibly long (in specified time, not user time) turns or adapt complex ZOC and supply rules based on national capability, given the wide range of technology levels. If a square is a fixed area, something like a carrier wing should be able to exert tremendous destructive power over a wide area within a single turn, limited by supply constraints (fuel, AGMs, AAMs for air superiority, aircraft, pilots, et al) and air control (reflecting enemy interception capabilities, ground AA capabilities). Letting a bomber wing be airborne for a continuous year is absurd. Letting a hidden submarine group -block- air movement is even sillier.

And then there's the utility of combined arms, the need for supply, gradual and largely permanent degradation of units in combat...

[Cainehill]

No to mention the fact that in the Civ games, a single primitive spearman can destroy a battleship or an aircraft carrier. That kind destroys any semblance of credibility for the game, imo.

[Tim Brooks]

MythicalMino:

You know alot of people's criticisms of a game, any game, when you listen to them, comes down to this:

"I want Dominions 3 to not be Dominions 3 but game X - change it."

Now insert for Dominions 3 the name of any game being criticised.

What you have to tell them is that, this isn't game X, this is Dominions 3. The real question should be: Does Dominions 3 do what it was designed to do well?

That usually equates to, in simpler terms, is it fun?

I think we all know the answer to that one!