RPS - tight vs. baggy

from Elemental Forums


Anybody read any? I have seen a few out there. Odd that RPS's review is not mentioned in the news (while of course it's not odd that the poorer review scores are not mentioned).

I'm not dissapointed in 1.0 release, but I do think the following review's summary is spot on. I wish the game had more focus, less similarity to CivIV, and more spirit (and much less of the insipid flavor text that feels like it was written by a robot).  

Despite some effective scene-setting at the opening of a new game and paragraphs of charmingly needless flavour text scattered throughout, Fallen Enchantress never inspired me. I didn’t feel a  sense of struggle or purpose, and that’s mostly due to the disconnect between so many of the game’s features. It might seem odd to complain about a game that’s a construction of disparate systems shortly after writing about loving the very same, but Fallen Enchantress makes me feel like I’m doing most of the work and doesn’t inspire confidence that what’s happening behind the interface is particularly intricate, complex or interesting.

The other fantasy strategy game I’ve been playing this year, Warlock, is much more lean, but also compact and tight. Elemental is baggy and unfocused in comparison, although some people will undoubtedly laud its ambition. 1.0 probably won’t be the end of the line but rather than needing to take the few extra steps toward greatness, Elemental feels like it’s a few steps sideways from where I’d like it to be. Those same devotees who praise its reach may well be pleased with where it is now and it’s certainly not a terrible place, but the apparent complexity soon fades, like the locations on the map, to reveal a world full of options, too many of which mean so little.

End of quote
26,128 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

There's already a thread regarding the RPS review.

I agree with the review's points. However, I don't like my strategy games to be "tight" and "lean". I enjoyed Warlock but if you're ccomparing Warlock to FE as if they're the same type of game then I think one is missing the point.

GalCiv II is even "Baggier" than FE. And while the Elemental games will continue to evolve, they're not likely to become less "baggy" or more "lean. If anything, they'll get more "Baggy". ;)

+1 Loading…
Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

too each their own. I played warlock and felt it was lean, not enough baggage. I really enjoy the depth of lore involved with elemental and the extra stuff that elemental has. I disagree about the focus of the game. But, this game is not for everyone just as every game is not for everyone. I would never call any review spot on even if I agree with it. I would just agree with the review or disagree, but no review is perfect for everyone and thus cannot be spot on.

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

never played warlock but in general, there's room for both tight and baggy.  For me, Starcraft is tight, Sins is relatively baggy; i love both but it's good for people to know what they're getting into.

full disclosure: i'm wearing cargo pants right now b/c baggy is comfortable.  but I'll wear a tight shirt if go to bar and want to show off the guns.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Have we really devolved into referring to games as "tight" or "baggy"? I'd describe Elemental as open and expansive and avoid the whole clothing metaphor.

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

The problem with FE imho is thst it is too much shirt and not enough t-shirt.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting parrottmath, reply 2
too each their own. I played warlock and felt it was lean, not enough baggage. I really enjoy the depth of lore involved with elemental and the extra stuff that elemental has. I disagree about the focus of the game. But, this game is not for everyone just as every game is not for everyone. I would never call any review spot on even if I agree with it. I would just agree with the review or disagree, but no review is perfect for everyone and thus cannot be spot on.
End of parrottmath's quote

This is spot on... ^_^

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 1
There's already a thread regarding the RPS review.

I agree with the review's points. However, I don't like my strategy games to be "tight" and "lean". I enjoyed Warlock but if you're ccomparing Warlock to FE as if they're the same type of game then I think one is missing the point.

GalCiv II is even "Baggier" than FE. And while the Elemental games will continue to evolve, they're not likely to become less "baggy" or more "lean. If anything, they'll get more "Baggy".
End of Frogboy's quote

 

Did you change my post title? I had entitled it "FE Reviews: Spot on". Did you change it to Tight vs. Baggy? If not, who did?

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 7
Quoting parrottmath, reply 2too each their own. I played warlock and felt it was lean, not enough baggage. I really enjoy the depth of lore involved with elemental and the extra stuff that elemental has. I disagree about the focus of the game. But, this game is not for everyone just as every game is not for everyone. I would never call any review spot on even if I agree with it. I would just agree with the review or disagree, but no review is perfect for everyone and thus cannot be spot on.

This is spot on...

Sincerely
~ Kongdej
End of Kongdej's quote

I thought so to ;)

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting onomastikon, reply 8


Did you change my post title? I had entitled it "FE Reviews: Spot on". Did you change it to Tight vs. Baggy? If not, who did?
End of onomastikon's quote

i changed iwas the topic is interesting but e title generic. So I changed it to match the topic. I can change it to something else if you'd like as long as its specific.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 10
i changed iwas the topic is interesting but e title generic. So I changed it to match the topic. I can change it to something else if you'd like as long as its specific.
End of Frogboy's quote

I think its ok :) I just think you should warn him next time so he isn't too confused about it ;)
(I am rather forgetful sometimes myself, so other people changing my stuff without my own notice may make me lose track of it).

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

I thought warlock was a terrible game. I played as much as a I could and then discarded it. It was like Civ 5 painted with a fantasy brush with some very poor mechanisms. I felt that Warlock was a very boring game and could have just been a Civ 5 mod where it would have been passable at best. 

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Yeah, Warlock is about the "leanest" game in this genre that holds any interest for me.  It was a fun diversion but not a game i'll sink many hours into.  Keep it baggy!

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting smakemupagus, reply 13
Yeah, Warlock is about the "leanest" game in this genre that holds any interest for me.  It was a fun diversion but not a game i'll sink many hours into.  Keep it baggy!
End of smakemupagus's quote

I completely agree with this.  I played a few games, and felt like none of it really mattered.  I didn't really have any connection or emotional ties to my faction or warlock.  Whereas in FE, I do.  When units get slain, or my champion or sovereign takes an injury, I care about it.  When my units die in warlock, my only real reaction is "oh, guess I should build some more..."

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Wizaerd, reply 14
I completely agree with this.  I played a few games, and felt like none of it really mattered.  I didn't really have any connection or emotional ties to my faction or warlock.  Whereas in FE, I do.  When units get slain, or my champion or sovereign takes an injury, I care about it.  When my units die in warlock, my only real reaction is "oh, guess I should build some more..."
End of Wizaerd's quote

I think some of this is a holdover from the Majesty 2 series. In that, you "hired" champions, but if they died, it was more like "stupid champion" than "OH NO! My beloved wizard died!!!!".

The openness of FE allows for future in-depth expansions and modding. A perfect foundation to continue to develop and refine. FE's "baggy-ness" will make it superior in the long-run. I'd imagine it's easier to develop a game made as open than take a very focused game and expand it.

I'm done talking about clothing analogies of games now. FE rocks. Let's keep making it better!

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

On Brad's defense, bagginess is not always bad. Dwarf Fortress is the baggiest game I have ever seen, and some count it among the World Wonders.

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

How about we call the games with lots of depth and choices Rich

And we call the games with less choices Streamlined

They both sound positive, as both are good in different ways.

Also Warlock is certainly a streamlined game. FE is certainly a Rich game.

These are words I use when talking about the games, I don't think I would ever call a game baggy in 'real life'.

Mike.

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 10

Quoting onomastikon, reply 8

Did you change my post title? I had entitled it "FE Reviews: Spot on". Did you change it to Tight vs. Baggy? If not, who did?

i changed iwas the topic is interesting but e title generic. So I changed it to match the topic. I can change it to something else if you'd like as long as its specific.
End of Frogboy's quote

hahaha dude...

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 16
On Brad's defense, bagginess is not always bad. Dwarf Fortress is the baggiest game I have ever seen, and some count it among the World Wonders.
End of Kamamura_CZ's quote

 

DF is so addicting that it isn't even funny. Give it a good interface and better graphics and they'd make millions off of it. It just seems the game can't be replicated. Look at all of the games that are coming out or have came out that try their damnedest to copy it. 

Reply #19 from Elemental Forums Top

This is the definitely the greatest thread on the internet right now, for introducing the words "baggy" and "bagginess" to describe games.

I was going through my List of Games I Love looking for patterns, and couldn't find one.  For action/arcade (Asteroids) and RTS (StarCraft II) I like 'em as lean as possible.  For TBS and adventure (FE, Civ, etc.) I likes 'em baggy!!

Great discussion.

 

Reply #20 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting mdonais, reply 17
How about we call the games with lots of depth and choices Rich?
End of mdonais's quote

That would be missing the point. For example, chess is undoubtedly a "lean" strategy game, since the rules are few and simple, but the depth and strategic diversity is unparalleled. Therefore, it's both "lean" and "rich".

Bagginess IMO refers to the fact that the features are not very well integrated, just like throwing various components into a bag and hoping they will somehow become a computer.

Dwarf fortress is a classic example of a game that is both baggy and rich.

Boardgame Diplomacy is an example of a lean and streamlined game, since the strategic layer is really very simple and the richness of the gameplay is all shifted to the diplomatic level.

 

Reply #21 from Elemental Forums Top

I like my games just like my clothing: baggy and loose. So, thanks, SD, for staying with this approach -- and yes, I'd rather use the adjectives "open", "flexible" and "expansive; just not a fan of restrictive, corridor-like designs).

Reply #22 from Elemental Forums Top

I like good games and love excellent ones.

Both paths have their merit. Both design philosophies have bought about great games I like very much (also my free time mostly limits me to short and tight games if at all currently. FE being my current exception and possibly still only rarely).

Making great games is an art I have no doubt about. The term easy to learn hard to master is a receipe which is not plannable with certainty. As is the goal of a hard to learn one with excellent gameplay worth overcoming the learning curve.

And I'm very happy that there are both developers and audience for both these aproaches lest we lose either... (Yay kickstarter, privately held companies and Digital Distribution for breathing new life into the old spirit of games existing beyond the rules of the mass market as labors of people who love gaming for people who love gaming.)

Reply #23 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting moltobenny, reply 20
For action/arcade (Asteroids) and RTS (StarCraft II) I like 'em as lean as possible.
End of moltobenny's quote

I generally agree, but Rise of Nations was a great 'baggy' RTS.

Reply #24 from Elemental Forums Top

I just have to say this....I played one game of warlock and didn't finish it......I'm on my third game of FE and having fun.  The fun factor is there for me.  Sure it could be an even better game and has some problems...but it's fun and that is all that matters to me.