DoctorLazarus

[quote]Sometimes I think Brad and Co. are better off not sounding off about this or that, the excuses that come up invariably lead to 'the game works by design' and 'there are many things that are broken, but they are by design',[/quote] I have to admit: This kind of thing makes me lose faith in Stardock even more. It's as though they're saying: "Well, we designed the game to be utterly boring and ridiculously mind-numbing--if you wanted actual strategy out of a s

Bugs aside, the game is just poorly designed. Even a turn-based strategy 'noob' can see that. For other people--people who have been playing turn-based strategy games for years--this game is like a big, clunky Fisher-Price toy: not really that interesting (or challenging, or strategic, etc.) once you play it for a few hours. The bugs and constant crashing is just the proverbial 'icing on the cake'. I hate to sound so harsh (I used to be a big Stardock fan), but

The only thing I'm 'hanging on' at the moment is the fact that this game was developed by Stardock. I have faith that they will make a better game sometime in the future. As to the whole "MoM answer": MoM was a great game in it's day, sure, but there have been several games since then that have taken on the job of becoming its spiritual successor. The fact that Stardock has made the MoM comparison so many times almost seems to indicate that they have tried to claim M

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Gamespot review. As much as I want to love this game, it just has far too many game-breaking problems--most of which are the result of poor, sloppy design. And with a $50.00 price tag, that's just insulting. As a long-time 'fanboy' of Stardock, and long-time fan of turned-based strategy games in general, I blindly went out and bought this game without the usual 'wait and read the review' time I normally give new games. Needles