This is like going into a pub and asking if alcohol should be banned. The people who like the game and avidly play it (enough to hang out at a dedicated forum) are the people who are fine with the game as it is. The people who would like multiplayer either skipped buying the game (pretty much all my Civ-playing friends except one) or lost interest quickly. Neither group will be posting in threads like this one.
I'd very much like a "Hall of Fame" with previous scores, too (difficulty-based categories).
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).
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="81" id="3258675"] Not necessarily. There's like 4000 people who voted on Diablo 3 and it averaged around a 3. That's totally unfair. Diablo 3 is a very good game.[/quote] Not really, and certainly not when it was released. Compared to D2 it was unspectacular, uninspired, limited and built around the auction house. Covering up the database breaches early on, the massive exploiting and the server issues did not help. If you force people to play o
How about an increase of the mana costs, or scaling them with the level (or stats) of the mob that they are cast on?
I second the suggestion. Nothing else to say, just that I'd love that option! :)
[quote who="Emperor_Nero" reply="3" id="3264566"]Seems like 3.5 - 4 /5 is the general consensus and I agree. The game was released with a lot of minor issues that needed to be polished. [/quote] This is true for most games, but it is generally ignored with "big name", so-called AAA titles where the reviewers assume that the issues will be addressed (basically, these games receive scores based on their potential). With smaller releases, like FE, those issues are more likely to imp
You'll almost certainly like the game. Paradoxically, the fact that Brad was going to give buyers of WoM a free copy of FE (it had been mentioned a few months ago) was the chief reason why I pre-ordered the game on Steam. I would not have shown interest in FE if that offer had not been made. I'd eventually have played my free copy, but there was no shortage of interesting titles this year, and WoM really wasn't a good experience. FE, however, is -- and I'm glad S
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="7" id="3261674"]FE is an unintentional experiment of which is more powerful: marketing/advertising vs. word of mouth.[/quote] WoM sort of already showed this, the other way around. :p
I don't reload when a battle goes wrong, or an event has an undesired outcome, but I don't mind if other people play the game differently. It's single-player, after all, so it doesn't affect me. It's just years of playing roguelikes that have instilled the preference. :) Might be nice to have a checkbox during the game creation. "Hardcore" mode, or something, perhaps with a bunch of achievements.
[quote who="RexDaddy" reply="1" id="3264600"]To my mind, web ought to stop offensive actions if it stops a units movement, I'm pretty sure you would be too busy cutting yourself free to attack.[/quote] Not if you are pelted by arrows and magic, and had ranged means to stop the attacker! :) Yes, it's a bug. Using web on AI controlled creatures completely disables them. It's why I always feel a bit cheesy when I have spiders in my group.
[quote who="Napean" reply="21" id="3260179"]No, the writing is not at the level of LeGuin (THE best fantasy writer ever, bar none), but it's comparable to what you get from fantasy writers nowadays.[/quote] Eh, that may have been true when there weren't many widely published fantasy writers. I like her, but Robin Hobbs (whose characters are superb) and the new Patrick Rothfuss (who has such a way with words!) impress me far more. LeGuin's style feels a little date
Typically when someone complains about how bland a fantasy game is, they skip all lore books/texts/optional dialogue because "it's too much to read". This is almost certainly the case here, too. The game does have plenty of backstory and lore, but it's presented in a way that many of today's gamers somehow can't digest: paragraphs of plain text instead of fancy cutscenes and audio bits. (The world of Elemental doesn't offer the most original fantasy setting, but it's c
My biggest issue with strategy games is usually the incredibly bad AI that they feature, and pretty much all so-called AAA titles are plagued by this. I mean, look at Civ5, for example. how can you enjoy this when the choice is either between zero challenge or fighting against insane bonuses, without anything that would justify the "I" part of "AI"? Multiplayer or heavily scripted campaigns cover this up sometimes, but if you enjoy sandbox style in SP mode, you are often out of luck.
I actually enjoy the tactical battles. Granted, I have been focusing on Beastlord, so there are the creatures' abilities to play with, but still, it is not as shallow an experience as I originally feared. I prefer it over the HoMM-style, but would like some additions from AoW's approach. Anyway, it works for me. As for the review, well, the usual uninspired write-up by someone who is not into the genre and spent limited time with the game. It is not a title with a huge amount
Well, the game suffers from a number of issues. The AI just doesn't play very smart. It's not just that, though (Civ AIs have never been outstanding). The AI isn't consistent in its behaviour. Could be fun, if "inconsistent" didn't also mean "unpredictable" and "out of characters". It's like all the other leaders are clinically insane and manic depressive. As someone said, the AI isn't fun to play with or against. Then there are balance issues. Basically, you can ignore everything and
Not really interested in the setting, and every MMO since Ultima Online just lacked in the immersion area. I still play WoW, though, but mostly for the PvP and the "something to do with old friends" aspect. It's pretty much a glorified graphical chat room with mini games for me. UO was different, but oh well, bygones...
gog.com gives me a blank page. How much are they asking for BG? (Which?)
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="250" id="2783349"]I'm enjoying Civ V. The main thing I hope they're able to address is the time between turns which is probably very doable in an update.[/quote] In spite of the pretty poor AI? Granted, it at least does have something that resembles an AI, but it feels very 1990. GalCiv2 did so much better. I'm hoping for a BetterAI mod.
The other elements took a backseat for me also, mostly because I simply had to make money to pay the weekly bills and I fretted that if I spent too much time on dungeon crawling and goofing around, I might not make it before pay day.
[quote who="abeaudoin" reply="188" id="2769576"]To me accessible means there is not much of a learning curve which means there isn't much depth to the game. I don't care if I have to spend years learning the intricacies of the game, just for Sid's sake don't make it shallow![/quote] There is a difference between "depth" and "unnecessary and tedious complexity of rules". Take, for example, the Asian game of Go. You can learn the rules in less than five minutes, and yet it offers more s
There's an awful lot of indie games lately that compete for my gaming time. Recettear, Tidalis (I put up a review at GamersGate), and Torchlight. I played Torchlight a lot last year already, but now I discovered the new Steam achievements (and my Runicgames' bought key worked for Steam too) and it's grabbed me all over again. Oh well! :)
I picked it up and had quite a bit of fun with it. Not my usual type of game, but the actual gameplay is addictive. It's a fairly tough game. It seems like something for children, but it's definitely challenging and there is quite a bit of strategy necessary to be successful.
[quote who="Eiralin" reply="217" id="2768843"]It has great potential, but potential does NOT sell games, even indie ones.[/quote] Potential does sell games to me. I'm willing to take a risk and be part of an evolving project. I knew this was the case here, because it's a Stardock game. Sometimes you have to support a project that is not finished if you want to enable it to reach its full potential. Not everyone is willing to do that, and it's fine -- the world is full of "consumers" w