I just don't get it. And I don't think I ever will.

I'm twenty-four-years-old. Granted, I'm neither the oldest gamer nor the youngest, I've been around since the NES days. In that time, I've never once played a game that had been trashed in the reviews and found myself in disagreement, with the sole exception of Xenogears (Gamepro gave it a 1.5/5, if I recall correctly)

Now as I sit down and sink tons of hours into Fallen Enchantress, I reflect on the time I discovered the first game, Elemental. I've liked 4X games for some time now, but I've never really found that "perfect" blend of everything, so it was with much dismay when I bought Elemental on faith, looked up the reviews, and saw I'd just spent $40 on a game that'd been universal trashed by critics. (I bought the boxed copy in-store). I installed it with literally no expectations. In fact, it took me a week to get around to even playing it because I'd had such a skewed opinion on it, and I think it's safe to assume my reaction when I finally gave it a chance....

 

This sums it up.  8(|

So here I am thinking back, and to this day, I still can't understand why the game had such low scores. I can't even fathom it, let alone come to a single idea as to why this was the case. I was wondering if anyone here had any clue as to why. Fallen Enchantress (so far) is every bit as good, if not better, than Elemental, and I'm wondering if this game will also eventually receive tons of bad reviews since it's so similar.

I hope not. This game deserves 9s across the board.

19,843 views 27 replies
Reply #1 Top

Here's what hurt WOM (imo)

  1. When WOM first shipped, it was on a brand-new engine that just hadn't gotten enough compatibility testing which, in PC language, means it was very buggy. On some nVidia cards, tactical battles would white out. On some ATI drivers, you'd get random crashes if anti aliasing was on and the user changed *anything* with the catalyst control center. It's the kind of thing that should have been found prior to release but wasn't.
  2. Most of the reviews happened while #1 was in effect. But even with v1.4, the game has a lot of UI problems, relatively weak AI, and mishmashed game mechanics (food / housing mechanic wasn't good). The magic system wasn't very fun. The combat system was plain. 

Now, if the game had come out in the state it was in v1.1 or later, it would have just been a mediocre game. But the problem was that it came out in the 1.0 state and that just wasn't acceptable.

Reply #2 Top

Fallen Enchantress (so far) is every bit as good, if not better, than Elementa
End of quote

Wow. If you actually liked Elemental, you probably won't be able to post in the next week, because you will be too busy playing Fallen Enchantress.  As far as I am concerned, Fallen Enchantress is so much better that comparing the two insults it.

I loved a few things about elemental, but I just could not enjoy it. At all.

And yes, I was one of the lucky people who could not play tactical at all. I liked the idea of designing my own units a lot, but I quickly realized that what looked liked depth was quite shallow, especially if you could not play in tactical. (Which I eventually solved, but then I started mopping up everything without even enjoying it)

Reply #3 Top

Even just mediocre (in 1.1?)

I'm not sure what version it was in when I started playing it, but I really loved it. I never had any problems with it, either.

Reply #4 Top

Quoting Tuidjy, reply 2

Fallen Enchantress (so far) is every bit as good, if not better, than Elementa

Wow. If you actually liked Elemental, you probably won't be able to post in the next week, because you will be too busy playing Fallen Enchantress.  As far as I am concerned, Fallen Enchantress is so much better that comparing the two insults it.

I loved a few things about elemental, but I just could not enjoy it. At all.

And yes, I was one of the lucky people who could not play tactical at all. I liked the idea of designing my own units a lot, but I quickly realized that what looked liked depth was quite shallow, especially if you could not play in tactical. (Which I eventually solved, but then I started mopping up everything without even enjoying it)
End of Tuidjy's quote

 

I didn't just like it, I love it. I've always been looking for a game like Galactive Civ or Civ 5 but in a fantasy setting.

 

Honestly, the only thing I've never liked about it (and in this one, too) is the way units work. Don't get me wrong--it's a very minor issue. But I don't like how if I find crystal, I can't make that same "defender" I could make before I found the crystal without making a whole new unit. I think it would be awesome if you could click a button on train that says (build version applicable to your current resources) or something along those lines. Ya know?

Reply #5 Top

Xenogears is probably my favorite game of all time.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Parogar, reply 5

Quoting Tuidjy, reply 2
Fallen Enchantress (so far) is every bit as good, if not better, than Elementa

Wow. If you actually liked Elemental, you probably won't be able to post in the next week, because you will be too busy playing Fallen Enchantress.  As far as I am concerned, Fallen Enchantress is so much better that comparing the two insults it.

I loved a few things about elemental, but I just could not enjoy it. At all.

And yes, I was one of the lucky people who could not play tactical at all. I liked the idea of designing my own units a lot, but I quickly realized that what looked liked depth was quite shallow, especially if you could not play in tactical. (Which I eventually solved, but then I started mopping up everything without even enjoying it)

 

I didn't just like it, I love it. I've always been looking for a game like Galactive Civ or Civ 5 but in a fantasy setting.

 

Honestly, the only thing I've never liked about it (and in this one, too) is the way units work. Don't get me wrong--it's a very minor issue. But I don't like how if I find crystal, I can't make that same "defender" I could make before I found the crystal without making a whole new unit. I think it would be awesome if you could click a button on train that says (build version applicable to your current resources) or something along those lines. Ya know?
End of Parogar's quote

 

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

Reply #7 Top

Quoting BlackRainZ, reply 7

Quoting Parogar, reply 5
Quoting Tuidjy, reply 2
Fallen Enchantress (so far) is every bit as good, if not better, than Elementa

Wow. If you actually liked Elemental, you probably won't be able to post in the next week, because you will be too busy playing Fallen Enchantress.  As far as I am concerned, Fallen Enchantress is so much better that comparing the two insults it.

I loved a few things about elemental, but I just could not enjoy it. At all.

And yes, I was one of the lucky people who could not play tactical at all. I liked the idea of designing my own units a lot, but I quickly realized that what looked liked depth was quite shallow, especially if you could not play in tactical. (Which I eventually solved, but then I started mopping up everything without even enjoying it)

 

I didn't just like it, I love it. I've always been looking for a game like Galactive Civ or Civ 5 but in a fantasy setting.

 

Honestly, the only thing I've never liked about it (and in this one, too) is the way units work. Don't get me wrong--it's a very minor issue. But I don't like how if I find crystal, I can't make that same "defender" I could make before I found the crystal without making a whole new unit. I think it would be awesome if you could click a button on train that says (build version applicable to your current resources) or something along those lines. Ya know?

 

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.
End of BlackRainZ's quote

 

He's saying he doesn't like he doesn't like having to model the same troop three different ways in case he doesn't have iron or crystal.  He wants to be able to build the troop and just leave off the parts that require stuff he doesn't have.

Reply #8 Top

Quoting sweatyboatman, reply 8

Quoting BlackRainZ, reply 7
Quoting Parogar, reply 5
Quoting Tuidjy, reply 2
Fallen Enchantress (so far) is every bit as good, if not better, than Elementa

Wow. If you actually liked Elemental, you probably won't be able to post in the next week, because you will be too busy playing Fallen Enchantress.  As far as I am concerned, Fallen Enchantress is so much better that comparing the two insults it.

I loved a few things about elemental, but I just could not enjoy it. At all.

And yes, I was one of the lucky people who could not play tactical at all. I liked the idea of designing my own units a lot, but I quickly realized that what looked liked depth was quite shallow, especially if you could not play in tactical. (Which I eventually solved, but then I started mopping up everything without even enjoying it)

 

I didn't just like it, I love it. I've always been looking for a game like Galactive Civ or Civ 5 but in a fantasy setting.

 

Honestly, the only thing I've never liked about it (and in this one, too) is the way units work. Don't get me wrong--it's a very minor issue. But I don't like how if I find crystal, I can't make that same "defender" I could make before I found the crystal without making a whole new unit. I think it would be awesome if you could click a button on train that says (build version applicable to your current resources) or something along those lines. Ya know?

 

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

 

He's saying he doesn't like he doesn't like having to model the same troop three different ways in case he doesn't have iron or crystal.  He wants to be able to build the troop and just leave off the parts that require stuff he doesn't have.
End of sweatyboatman's quote

 

^^ Yeah. I humbly apologize if my post was ambiguous, but what the above poster said is exactly what I mean. I don't like having to model a new unit every single time I run out of resources that I need to make the one the game wants me to make, if that makes any sense.

Reply #9 Top

I know exactly what you mean. It usually goes: I design the best unit I can make with current resources, build one. Now I'm out of crystal, so I redesign the same unit except minus a couple crystal accessories, and build one. Now I'm low on metal, so I redesign again except with a couple pieces of chainmail swapped out for leather, and build one. I typically have 2 or 3 not-quite-identical copies of any unit I want to build to adjust for limited crystal/metal.

Then again I'm not sure how far I'd trust the code to automagically leave out items you don't have the resources for - would you trust it to leave out the right items? Ideally there would be an option similar to the 'upgradeable' button we have now - you could designate specific slots to be 'downgradeable' depending on resource availability. That way you could make sure it swaps out the chainmail boots for leather ones if need be, but never trades your longsword for a dagger.

Reply #10 Top

If it makes you feel any better, Parogar, I enjoyed WoM quite a bit.

I even like WoM's idea of spell research better than FE's. I don't think the problem was with the system, but with the actual spells. The combat wasn't as fleshed out, and the spells weren't as diverse or realized (I still think FE spells could use more curve-ball effects. . .). They also had trouble organizing their spells into books (elemental? function?).

Reply #11 Top

I really think we should all be thankful for the "bomb" of a game that was War of Magic...if it wasn't for that game we would not have the glorious Fallen Enchantress!  :star:

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Filthgrinder, reply 12
I really think we should all be thankful for the "bomb" of a game that was War of Magic...if it wasn't for that game we would not have the glorious Fallen Enchantress! 
End of Filthgrinder's quote

No, they still would have made Fallen Enchantress, everyone would just be paying for it instead of getting it for free.

Reply #13 Top


Brad, you continue to reveal yourself as a remarkably honest and humble soul, forging success in your life by standing with your principles.

Cheers,

Sword

Reply #14 Top

You don't get it? Well, it's not so hard. I personally was very disappointed by Elemental, and the reviews shows I was not alone. Even FE does not quite cut it for me, because it is not what it tried to be.

And what was it, you may ask? A true successor to Master of Magic.

While Master of Magic was not a perfect game, and parts of it, notably the AI, were outright broken, it fascinated and charmed people by its ambition, and by the vision of its creators. 

What was wonderful on Master of Magic (and on Dominions, which I use as a comparison all the time, but only because I consider it something of a miracle in game design), was the incredible richness byt unit traits and types and various synergies between units and spells. You have units that are incorporeal, immune to normal weapons, but fall easily to magic. You have illusions that can kill or burn, but once hit, they dissapear. You have undeads with specific sets of resistances and vulnerabilities.

Let me give you an example from a game of Dominons 3 I played - I was controlling a race of fallen, decadent giants, and was fighting against a forest kingdom of Pans, maenads and other mythical creatures. So it was a few, incredibly powerful heroes against hordes of weak, naked, berserking chaff he could summon for free, so I fought armies thousands units strong, literally. Nevertheless, I was winning - I kitted my giants with boots of flying, I gave them various resistance auras, they ploughed through the weak hordes with ease, killing hundreds and scattering the rest.

Until one point, where my enemy has researched a single, but crucial spell - one spell out of hundreds the game offers, but for his situation, critical component. He invented a spell that turned the skin of those howling, naked madmen and madwomen into gold - thus offering each of them the resistance equivalent to a knight in a plate armor, without the encumberance. Suddenly, my giants could not plough through the hordes and scatter them - they became bogged by the numbers, tired themselves by striking foes whose golden skin deflected swords and spears alike, and fell to fatigue, and were overrun.

I had to resign the game at the moment because I completely lost the strategic momentum.

Now will you find something like that in FE? I have not played it extensively yet, but I dare say you won't. Fallen Enchantress is an accountants paradise - you add +10% here, point of defense there, the battles are more like bar brawls then epic clashes, and in the end, you will hopefully win.

True, Mr. Paxton's influence helped the game, the flavor text are rich and pleasant, making the exploration phase of the game interesting, the monsters are nice to look at, but compared to Master of Magic or Dominions, the whole system is simplistic. You won't meet a monster you could not harm because its substance is different. You won't meet monsters or races that work fundamentally differently game mechanic-wise, like in Sword of The Stars, or again, Dominions, or Fall from Heaven. There won't be a moment where your wizard emerge from a laboratory with a spell that will change the whole balance of power in the continent (bar that last spell that is predefined to autowin). For the AI, it's a blessing, because it can understand and play the game reasonably well. 

For me and  maybe others, it's a pity.

I am not saying that FE is a bad game, it's a fair attempt to bring another interesting fantasy TBS to the market. It's just not what certain people are looking for - and some are bit vocal in expressing their feelings.

 

 

Reply #15 Top

I'll admit I got a lot of mileage out of WOM, but that's because I used it more like a toolkit.  FE looks to be more fun as an actual game in and of itself.

Reply #16 Top

I played a lot of WoM.  But it was pretty flawed, even at 1.4.  If the game was released at 1.4, I could see giving it a 7/10 score.  But at release a 5/10 was pretty generous.  Not even considering it's frequent crashing, the game was a mess, and fairly bland at that.  Ironically, if the game hadn't had Dynasties, which was a fun mechanic, I probably would have given up on it.   

Reply #17 Top

Quoting Parogar, reply 3
Even just mediocre (in 1.1?)

I'm not sure what version it was in when I started playing it, but I really loved it. I never had any problems with it, either.
End of Parogar's quote

Well your one of the few.  WOM was a really bad game one of the worst 4x games I have ever played and I'm not alone in that opinon.

However I have played and loved GalCiv 2:TA and I believed that SD could do a lot better. And they did FE is light years a head of WOM. It is not the best Fantasy 4x out there but it is good and fun to play now.  It has glaring issues IMO still like no sea units and no MP (this not as important as sea units)  but we have been told that At least the sea units will be addressed at a later date.

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 15
You don't get it? Well, it's not so hard. I personally was very disappointed by Elemental, and the reviews shows I was not alone. Even FE does not quite cut it for me, because it is not what it tried to be.

And what was it, you may ask? A true successor to Master of Magic.

While Master of Magic was not a perfect game, and parts of it, notably the AI, were outright broken, it fascinated and charmed people by its ambition, and by the vision of its creators. 

What was wonderful on Master of Magic (and on Dominions, which I use as a comparison all the time, but only because I consider it something of a miracle in game design), was the incredible richness byt unit traits and types and various synergies between units and spells. You have units that are incorporeal, immune to normal weapons, but fall easily to magic. You have illusions that can kill or burn, but once hit, they dissapear. You have undeads with specific sets of resistances and vulnerabilities.

Let me give you an example from a game of Dominons 3 I played - I was controlling a race of fallen, decadent giants, and was fighting against a forest kingdom of Pans, maenads and other mythical creatures. So it was a few, incredibly powerful heroes against hordes of weak, naked, berserking chaff he could summon for free, so I fought armies thousands units strong, literally. Nevertheless, I was winning - I kitted my giants with boots of flying, I gave them various resistance auras, they ploughed through the weak hordes with ease, killing hundreds and scattering the rest.

Until one point, where my enemy has researched a single, but crucial spell - one spell out of hundreds the game offers, but for his situation, critical component. He invented a spell that turned the skin of those howling, naked madmen and madwomen into gold - thus offering each of them the resistance equivalent to a knight in a plate armor, without the encumberance. Suddenly, my giants could not plough through the hordes and scatter them - they became bogged by the numbers, tired themselves by striking foes whose golden skin deflected swords and spears alike, and fell to fatigue, and were overrun.

I had to resign the game at the moment because I completely lost the strategic momentum.

Now will you find something like that in FE? I have not played it extensively yet, but I dare say you won't. Fallen Enchantress is an accountants paradise - you add +10% here, point of defense there, the battles are more like bar brawls then epic clashes, and in the end, you will hopefully win.

True, Mr. Paxton's influence helped the game, the flavor text are rich and pleasant, making the exploration phase of the game interesting, the monsters are nice to look at, but compared to Master of Magic or Dominions, the whole system is simplistic. You won't meet a monster you could not harm because its substance is different. You won't meet monsters or races that work fundamentally differently game mechanic-wise, like in Sword of The Stars, or again, Dominions, or Fall from Heaven. There won't be a moment where your wizard emerge from a laboratory with a spell that will change the whole balance of power in the continent (bar that last spell that is predefined to autowin). For the AI, it's a blessing, because it can understand and play the game reasonably well. 

For me and  maybe others, it's a pity.

I am not saying that FE is a bad game, it's a fair attempt to bring another interesting fantasy TBS to the market. It's just not what certain people are looking for - and some are bit vocal in expressing their feelings.

 

 
End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

I will agree that FE is no MOM or AOW:SM (my favorite 4x fantasy TBS to date. Which to me was the true successore of MOM) 

Now Dominions 3 would have been the best 4x fantasy of all times if it had Tactical battles.  You may say, But Bellack, it did have tactical battles.  Well yes and now. It had a Tactical combat movie but you could not control the units which I personally don't like.  And since the graphics are very dated (actully they are pretty bad, I could not play Dominions for too long. (I played it last year not when it came out.)

The advantage that FE has over these others however is that is is more moddable than these older games so with an active modding community we should have some fantastic mods coming out within the up comming months

Reply #19 Top

I think sea units are generally problem in TBS games. AI has problems with conventional pathfinding, and amphibious invasions are a logistical nightmare. You must secure a beachhead, clear the surrounding water of enemy units, organize efficient loading and unloading of units and quickly deploy the units in a defensible position after the invasion. 

Most of the time, a clever human player will find a way to throw a spanner into the process, killing many units in transports. 

Civilization games - did not handle invasions well, Civ 5 sidesteps the problem by allowing land units to move across seas as "transports"

Total War games - horrible problems in all versions

Supreme ruler 2020 - AI could not invade out of the box, dunno how it is now

 

So I think it's intentional.

Reply #20 Top

Yeah, sea stuff is among the list of things AI is generally bad at. I like Civ 5's way of handling it best personally.

Reply #21 Top

Civ 5 and Warlock use a pretty similar method, which was used by RoTK in older games, of transforming troops to boats.  I think it's a fine mechanic, and I would be fine if FE had something like it.  I would want to make sure that water is still a barrier of some kind, so you can't simply transition smoothly from land to sea.  In Warlock, you have to end your turn next to the sea, then enter the sea the next turn and don't get to move until the turn after that, which I like.  In FE, I would like that and add what was in WoM, you would need to find a suitable landing spot, a shore.  Also, maybe only armies that have a champ/sov with a boat item could enter the sea?  Something like that would be cool.

Reply #22 Top

edit: nvm, not worth the "stupid" argument that would follow...

Reply #23 Top

I haven't played many of these games you guys keep mentioning. I've played many 4x games, but WOM was my FIRST introduction to the fantasy type of 4x game. In your opinion, could this be the reason I loved it so much?

Until WOM, I'd only ever played space and war 4X games. Perhaps what I saw was but a glimpse of a genre that you guys have enjoyed for many years?

Reply #24 Top

Yep.

Many of us have played Master of Magic first, which was a fantastic game, and we compare of course every new game to it. I really liked the mage design and how it was based on Magic: The Gathering (or came MtG later?). In my opinion, the closest successor was Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic. Most games in this genre seem to avoid the powerful spells which were part and parcel of MoM (like the terraforming spells). The various 4X fantasy games are not bad, but we tend to see them in the light of our fascination with the first one (...and it had a really nice printed manual too...).

I did not play WoM much when it came out. I did not read the reviews, and I experienced no devastating bugs, but I found the game a bit bland, slow to start maybe. I was also still playing Fall from Heaven 2 (the best mod for Civ IV I have found), and WoM fell into "I'll look at it later" tray. I still play FfH now and then, and have taken a look at the successor, Master of Mana...also a great mod, but I wish they had done a manual similar to the FfH one. Whoever wrote that has outdone himself :)

Reply #25 Top

Quoting NienorNiniel, reply 25
In my opinion, the closest successor was Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic.
End of NienorNiniel's quote

This is the fourth time I ask this question on this forum, and I will ask it until I get an answer. :)

Why do people always talk about Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, and not about the original Age of Wonders?  I mean, I enjoyed the sequel and its extension pack, but the original charmed me a lot more. I still replay the campaigns in the original on ironman (If I die, I let it be for at least a few months, to make myself forget the hard parts)

What is it that you guys like better in the new ones?