|
I was expecting a chainsaw sword, so much for steampunk 
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
I'm still a bit worried about the 3D models but the cover is pretty spiffy at least. Splicer posted:I hate to be That Guy, but, while I can accept their reason for putting a guy in front (they are a business at the end of the day), why is there only one female character on the cover total? There's like five people there. Not everything needs to be made a gender issue, especially since this is probably the most inconsequential matter possible. You're being very silly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:I was expecting a chainsaw sword, so much for steampunk What has chainsaw swords except for WH40K?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Elyv posted:What has chainsaw swords except for WH40K? Dungeons of Dredmor!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
That boxart.  Think ill keep to the original OP but its going in the second post for sure. Kanfy posted:You're being very silly. Agreed. 
Thyrork fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Oh my god, that dwarf with the halo
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Leal posted:Oh my god, that dwarf with the halo That's the neat thing too! You'd expect the Dwarves to be the gearheads, but Humans taking up technology in the pursuit of progress and power is a tried-and-true archetype, leaving stories open for unconventional stuff like monastic Dwarves and roguish High Elves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I hate to be That Guy, but, while I can accept their reason for putting a guy in front (they are a business at the end of the day), why is there only one female character on the cover total? There's like five people there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
I can hardly wait. This is my most-anticipated game these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
teethgrinder posted:I can hardly wait. This is my most-anticipated game these days. Yeah, despite there being a ton of games coming out soon that I want this is at the top of my list. I haven't gotten hard into a fantasy 4x since Eador and this is looking like that mixed with the best parts of civ 5. [e] I mean poo poo, I played Warlock for 100 hours on the promise of fantasy civ 5 and this looks a magnitude better in every way. If they decide to do a paid beta I'm on it day one. DrManiac fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
So much nostalgia for me in all the artwork. Age of Wonders 1 was what I played all the time as a kid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:Not everything needs to be made a gender issue Sixth line in the quoted article posted:There were big arguments whether a female (Sundren) or male (Edward) should be the central character. Apparently covers with women sell a lot less, so we opted for the male. Veyrall posted:That's a female dwarf.
Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The developers considered the gender make-up of their cover art important enough to practically start the article with, and I asked what I consider a relevant follow-up question. It's not like I saw a random game cover and start ranting about cis-male oppression. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to discuss now without turning into a horrible derail though, so forget about it. That'll teach me for getting distracted by the shiny and not actually reading the thing. It is an interesting point and while I dont expect to find new ground, I still find this front cover a heck of alot more likeable then:  Because in a game about a man and woman fighting against a city gone mental, they chose to only use Booker to sell it. This... baffles me, 'specially since i'd argue the weight of the story is equal between the two of them. The market says that women on the front of games sell worse, but do we really have enough examples to fairly support that? Well, thats all i want to say on the topic. Splicer posted:Oh don't tease me like that It'll be nice when we get to see everything customizable with the six races and how far and goofy people will make their leaders look. I have unreasonable expectations and dream of Saints Row 4 levels of customization. Sliders of how sexy your beard is. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
I want a beard slider, I want a loving beard slider. I want an adjustable slider for all my games to incrementally increase the level of beard within. I want to run about like Cousin It and just start rocketing about on a flume of beerfoam, like a drunken Willy Wonka.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Game looks like something some of my friends and me might like, got a question, if you lose your main hero in a battle by accident, is it game over immediately? do you lose your entire empire with one mistake?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Game looks like something some of my friends and me might like, got a question, if you lose your main hero in a battle by accident, is it game over immediately? do you lose your entire empire with one mistake? AoW2/SM: No. Your main guy is not really a combat unit so you should be keeping them in base anyway, and if they do die they respawn next round in any city (the closest?) you own with a Wizard Tower in it. To lose you have to lose all your wizard tower cities and get your guy killed. AoW3: No idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Game looks like something some of my friends and me might like, got a question, if you lose your main hero in a battle by accident, is it game over immediately? do you lose your entire empire with one mistake? Someone will correct me if im wrong but yes, you loose outright if your lord dies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDKVGMgmae4&t=268s Its not the better video, but yeah, his lord dies and his entire army goes with it, i assume the Defeated screen after refers to empire-wide defeat not just that one battle but... Considering AOW2/SM, there might be points to recall to when killed for a fee.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
I generally hate the 'must be blue/orange movie poster color' covers, but I actually quite like this one. Something about the pose of the sword dude and the lighting behind the very bold AoW logo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Sorcerer class page is up. A few of its units seem to be the same as magic node guardians. I wonder if that means sorcerers can do interesting things to actual node guardians or if it's just meant to be thematic. There's also a chance to win beta access by writing about the halflings' disappearance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Those battle shots look so great, I love the graphics in this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Rogue page is up. Cool mix of abilities; I'm especially liking Massed Battlefield Panic. Also succubi are now race-specific, meaning dwarven ones can have beards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Huh, I just looked at the page this morning. I did notice the late March release, supposedly. Looking forward to it. Also, Night Wish had better be accompanied by kickass symphonic power metal. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Rogue seems like a really bizarre choice as an army leader Plague of Bandits seems like a really bizarre 'spell' On the other hand, thumbs up for bearded succubi
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
victrix posted:Rogue seems like a really bizarre choice as an army leader I'm hoping you can play a rogue sort of like Lord Vetinari, Machiavellian dictator sort of thing. I think that's what they're going for but the unit list kinda looks more like the evil henchmen shopping catalogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
I think it mostly struck me as weird because they have the whole companies of units thing going on the battlefield, so it looks more like armies clashing - and while rogues might be fantasy special forces at times, regiments of back alley thieves struck me as kinda dumb 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Maybe the evil henchmen thing is fairly accurate? They're literally the bond villain class. All it needs is the ability to upgrade your soldiers with jackboots and matching jumpsuits. Edit: vvvvvvvvv Shadowmorn posted:Evil Genius, fantasy edition. Exactly! OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Evil Genius, fantasy edition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Huh, I just looked at the page this morning. Seriously this! Wishmaster!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
So have we heard if they figured out how to make the attacking power of a squad go down as individual units are killed? I dont mean to keep harping on this, but 2 units hitting as hard as 10 of the same units would really bug me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:So have we heard if they figured out how to make the attacking power of a squad go down as individual units are killed? I dont mean to keep harping on this, but 2 units hitting as hard as 10 of the same units would really bug me. I'd hope that'd be as standard... Maybe have a look at some of the interviews on youtube, they show combat and I think units get weaker as they take hits. As a bonus for Civ5 Japan it's cool, but as a normal mechanic I prefer weakening over time too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd hope that'd be as standard... Maybe have a look at some of the interviews on youtube, they show combat and I think units get weaker as they take hits. From their forums: "We’ve considered a MoM type system – a MoM, those were the days – but feel this would be punishing the player – i.e. you’re stuff get less effective – for doing what we want the player to do – go out there and kick the enemies bum. So, we’re sticking with a DnD type system, where your fighter would not loose stats, until it dropped below 1hp. It might not be realistic, but it will be more fun." So in other words they're dumbing it down so players dont have to think about protecting weaker units. Too bad, I probably wont be buying it then unless it goes on a crazy Steam sale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:So in other words they're dumbing it down so players dont have to think about protecting weaker units. Too bad, I probably wont be buying it then unless it goes on a crazy Steam sale.  Try making some wine out of those grapes you've spoiled on this unreleased game you haven't played
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Yes, "dumbing it down". That's exactly the right term for it. Yup, you nailed it. It can't have anything to do with reasoned approaches to game design, nosirree. Damaged units being less useful in combat is a mechanism called a death spiral (you take damage, making you less able to deal damage, making you less able to reduce the damage you take, repeat until dead). It generally results in "first to deal damage wins" unless very carefully balanced. It also does NOT play well with area of effect damage, because it turns offense into the only possible choice (when you not only half-kill all the enemies but also reduce all the damage they deal to you for the rest of the fight, why would you ever want to do anything else?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
victrix posted:
They said they're doing a thing that I know for a fact I dont like in other games, so why would I pay full price to find out whether I'm wrong? Fact of the matter is that there are many games competing for my time and money, so I dont see the need to take a gamble on a game that I already know has things I dont like. E: Zurai posted:Yes, "dumbing it down". That's exactly the right term for it. Yup, you nailed it. It can't have anything to do with reasoned approaches to game design, nosirree. All those problems are things that a clever player should find ways to avoid and use to his or her own advantage, whether through unit selection or deployment tactics. The developers saying that they dont want players to worry about any of those things is dumbing it down, sorry that you dont like the sound of that, but thats what it is. Mr.48 fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:They said they're doing a thing that I know for a fact I dont like in other games, so why would I pay full price to find out whether I'm wrong? Fact of the matter is that there are many games competing for my time and money, so I dont see the need to take a gamble on a game that I already know has things I dont like. If that had been the entirety of your statement, I don't think anyone would have responded. You're perfectly welcome to skip a game you don't think you'll enjoy. You encountered feedback because you decided to take a poo poo on the game/developers in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Zurai posted:If that had been the entirety of your statement, I don't think anyone would have responded. You're perfectly welcome to skip a game you don't think you'll enjoy. You encountered feedback because you decided to take a poo poo on the game/developers in the process. See my reply in the above post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Age of Wonders has never used that system (units getting weaker as they take damage), so I don't see how they are "dumbing down" anything if they just keep the game as it has always been. In fact, that particular mechanic was only considered because they made the move from units representing a single individual to units representing a group of individuals. If you don't like that mechanic that's fine, but seems like a fairly minor quibble for it to cause you to dismiss the entire game. I'd recommend people on the fence try Shadow Magic, it can be bought for a few bucks off GOG. Or you could wait for a demo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:Age of Wonders has never used that system (units getting weaker as they take damage), so I don't see how they are "dumbing down" anything if they just keep the game as it has always been. In fact, that particular mechanic was only considered because they made the move from units representing a single individual to units representing a group of individuals. Thats actually a fair point if the AoW games have never had unit stacks before and the issue never arose. I guess I just assumed that the earlier games did since they looked similar to the HoMM games. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
quote:Age of Wonders has never used that system (units getting weaker as they take damage), so I don't see how they are "dumbing down" anything if they just keep the game as it has always been. In fact, that particular mechanic was only considered because they made the move from units representing a single individual to units representing a group of individuals. Yeah, it's the fact that this request keeps popping up because of a graphical change that irks me a bit. Even more so when low-level units have a history of being sorta garbage in earlier games in this series so the last thing I want as an AOW fan is for them to be pre-emptively nerfed for purely aesthetic reasons. You can do death spiral mechanics and I've enjoyed games that have done it well but it's not some easy-peasy thing you can just drop into a strategy game without completely changing how it is played.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
madmac posted:You can do death spiral mechanics and I've enjoyed games that have done it well but it's not some easy-peasy thing you can just drop into a strategy game without completely changing how it is played. Indeed, Civ4 and EU4 both have reduced combat capacity after taking damage and they're some of my favorite strategy games, but they both function very, very differently from Age of Wonders. So does HoMM, for that matter. It's worth noting for Civ4, as an example, that there are tons of balance issues in the Fall From Heaven mod (one of the most popular and famous) where mages are uber-units because they can deal AOE damage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:59
|
|