Greetings! Relative to other games you’ve played this year how is Elemental: War of Magic doing? How are other games you’ve bought this year doing that were released in the same time doing?
Example:
AT RELEASE:
E: War of Magic:
Civilization V:
Starcraft 2:
Fallout: New Vegas:
END OF 2010:
NOW:
Fallout: New Vegas
Bonus question:
Did yesterday’s beta build (1.19c) solve your memory issues if you had them?
To be honest I've expected more from Elemental. Even with 1.1 patch I've played only two games. Not so challenging, not so engaging, I've completed master quest exploiting AI's tactical dumbness - felt like cheating. Other games were buggy too, but... So, list of strategies:
God Tier - Victoria 2 & Europa Universalis 3: Divine Wind
They were buggy and disbalanced but they've eaten and chewed me. Very very good.
Nice tier - Company of Heroes (I'm slow, I know), Starcraft 2.
I've tried both and didn't complete the campaign. Partly because I thought too high of myself and played highes difficulty, partly due too old configuration and lagginess.
Not so nice tier - Distant Worlds, Elemental, Civilization.
Distant Worlds and Elemental look similar to me. Very ambitious. Big scale. But both fail to deliver the awesomeness. Both are disbalanced, leave me nothing to do, have passive AI and uncomplete diplomacy... Elemental is at least beautiful. And in Elemental I still feel like I'm governing - Distant Worlds doesn't need me at all.
Civilization 5 looked cool but was much easier and not so complex as Civ IV. It has awesome parts (graphics, combat, city state system, culture...) but lefts out too much. Waiting for addons.
E: War of Magic: E (I still enjoyed it somewhat, oddly enough)
Civilization V: D (It's difficult to describe but it felt lifeless to me. As if every game after my first would play in a similar manner.)
Starcraft 2: A (Great atmosphere and thrilling gameplay.)
Fallout: New Vegas: B (It was insanely fun but far too buggy for me to bother trying to complete.)
E: War of Magic: C (It's better but the AI can still disappoint horribly at times. I'd also like more diplomacy options.)
Civilization V: D (The patches added polish but I still found it dull.)
Fallout: New Vegas: A (I'm still waiting on one more patch before I try actually finishing it. Still too many bugs)
E: War of Magic: N/A (Waiting on the final patch...)
Civilization V: N/A (I'm going to give it another shot later today with all the DLC.)
Starcraft 2: B (Still a great game but it got repetitive...)
Fallout: New Vegas: A (Still waiting on the patch...)
Huh, I didn't find Fallout New Vegas very buggy at all, might have just been lucky or I have a high threshold for bug tolerance.
Lord Xia, it's mostly just paranoia on my part thanks to a few hiccups in the past. When it comes to games like Fallout, where you're playing such an epic quest or story, I prefer to be absolutely sure everything is going to fall into place once I cross that finish line. And a few inconsistencies in the beginning of the game have left me skeptical of this happening. I'd hate for it to be like Awakening where the story ends up muddled. Something EA doesn't seem keen on fixing.
I'll use a 10-points metric for this one, if I may, where 0 is "total disappointment" and 10 is "I'd love to take it to my bed, cuddle with it and fall asleep with its box in my arms".
These are all games I can still remember having bought in 2010; notably good (8 or greater) items in green, notably bad ratings (2 or less) in red.
At release (initial excitement and first one or two days):
End of 2010 (with + and - symbols to indicate trend):
Unfortunately, I still have to give Elemental a poor grade in it's current state. I know Stardock is working hard at making good by it's customer's and that the base game has seen some remarkable improvement...
... but I just fired up a Multiplayer game again and I'm:
-Left with only the choice of tiny or small maps-Not given any options to control how the game plays (tactical battles, various other rules, etc)-Not able to host locally
I've been patient, but I've waited since August for either improvements or a Stardock statement saying they're going to work on it, but nothing. Right now, as a consumer I feel as though they met the absolute bare-minimum requirements to avoid legal issues, and that's that.
So:
Release 2010:Elemental: F (I literally couldn't play the game)Civ5: D+
End of 2010:Elemental: D (Improvements on the game, but the feature I bought it for still isn't really workable)Civ5: C-
AT RELEASE
I usually don't buy games at release because of bad experiences and high prices.
END OF 2010
Elemental: v1.1 : 6/10
Civ IV Complete: 8/10
Outcast: 9/10
NOW
Elemental: I haven't played one of the beta patches.
Borderlands GOTY: 7/10
Necrovision: 7/10
Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition: 9/10
Bought a lot of slightly older games lately. Don't have as much gaming time these days either. But i have all of the ones on your example list so we'll work with that .
E: War of Magic: F (I was disgusted)
Civilization V:A (Mighty fun)
Starcraft 2: A (Awesome)
Fallout: New Vegas: C (Buggy, didn't do enough new)
E: War of Magic: D- (still needs a lot of work. Feels like a chore rather than fun)
Civilization V: C (The AI.... The AI....)
Starcraft 2: A
Fallout: New Vegas: B (Didn't do enough new)
E: War of Magic: D+ (still needs a lot of work. I see no point in playing it until tactical battles are given an initiative system and better AI. The lack of quests also makes that part seem pointless.)
Civilization V: Haven't played after recent patches
Starcraft 2:A
Fallout: New Vegas B (Didn't do enough new)
Then :
Elemental : War of Magic : F (my biggest excitement that year)Mount and Blade : Warband : C+ (loved the first for its mods, the sequel is TECHNICALLY superior, period)Blood Bowl Legendary edition : B+ (i used to love Chaos League, i wasn't disappointed)Section 8 : B (an evolving battlefield, what else ?)Defence Grid : A-Civilization 5 : B- (one unit per hex is perfect, make sense and bring interesting situations, although i miss some features)
Now :
Elemental : War of Magic : C-Mount and Blade : Warband : B (a handful of bugs solved)Blood Bowl Legendary edition : B+Section 8 : BDefence Grid : B+Civilization 5 : B
EWoM still crash sometimes while saving. Far less crash due to memory leak. I'm still somewhat shocked that i bought a game that incomplete. The good point is that since 1.19, i'm starting to have real fun with the game (factions still look very similar, my games often seems to be a rush toward the biggest armours techs and familial tree isn't what it could be but i'm having some fun, and that counts). If this becomes more stable, i'll feel okay to recommend it to my friends.
AT RELEASE:E: War of Magic: DCivilization V: ---Starcraft 2: B+
END OF 2010:E: War of Magic: CCivilization V: B-Starcraft 2: A-
NOW:E: War of Magic: B+Civilization V: BStarcraft 2: A-
Lets see StarCraft 2 good but a little boring.
Vegas worked fine.
Civ 5 works but doesnt work.
EWOM still doesnt have working multiplayer and you guys seem to be avoiding giving an update for it.
Does anybody have enough free time on their hands to tally up all these scores in a graph or something?
Warning, while on game design. this is largely off-topic.
You should give fallout 3 more of a chance. You apparently had the exact opposite experience I did, which is what I find interesting
Dragon Age, is essentially a multiple choice animated movie added on top of a static RPG world, but there is no connection between the two game parts, and NOTHING done in the RPG part will ever effect the multiple choice movie. This was a very deliberate design decision, so players could only make choice inside videos, and could not "accidently" change any outcomes outside the videos. The game starts from several different branches, but after 1/8 of the game, they all join to the same point and follow the same storyline from there. And while the multiple choice movie part branches a bit during the linear RPG plot, all branches eventually leads to the same ending with only a difference in flavor.
Fallout 3 NV, starts with a linear path for the first 1/8 of the game, and then branches into what I have counted to at least five different endgame paths that only share the side quests and the world, but are otherwise completely very distinct.
Does freedom, and consequences of choice (like in fallout 3) give the impression of no repercussions, because it is hard to know what you miss? or does a game carefully designed to never have any repercussions on anything (like Dragon Age), manage to hide it by adding more polish?.. Interesting.
I agree with this.
Caveat: EWoM was the only game I have ever pre-purchased and also the only one I have ever had access to at release. I almost always wait a few months for reviews and patches. I also tend to like more retro TBS games such as Dominions, Star Chamber or SEIV.
That being said, I'll choose some games which have some sort of evolution I can judge (The Witcher for example) and attempt to choose some recent ones I have purchased as well:
EWoM: F
SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE
EWoM: D
The Witcher: D
Civ IV: C
Dragon Age: A-
Mass Effect 2: B
EWoM: D (Frankly have not played that much since 2011 started, it appears to have become more coherent / consistent and more stable from what I can see but not yet significantly more enjoyable, to me)
The Witcher Enhanced Edition: B+
Civ IV BTS: B
Fallout 3: A (don't have NV yet, am enjoying FO3 however)
F: War of Magic: C: Starcraft 2:
END OF 2010: F: War of Magic: B+ Starcraft 2:
NOW: Not Playing: War of Magic: B+ Starcraft 2:
I've given up on this game and I only come back every few weeks to see if anything is actually progressing. I'd really like to see the mod community get involved and be able to make something of this game but it doesn't seem the tools are there even now. Even though the game is much more stable and good looking, it was more fun to play in Beta 1. Sadly there is no turn based strategy game out there that is really competitive so I've been playing Wii games, Starcraft 2, and some MMOs.
I hope future games will be more like MoM or even Beta 1, and feel less like a RTS wanna-be that the game felt like last time I played it. My strategy gaming friends still playing MoO2, MoM, and GC2 consider this game the biggest disappointment of the last decade.
About every 15-30 minutes I run out of memory.
4 gigs...Win7 64 bit.
At Time of Release:
Minecraft: A+++++++
E: War of Magic: A for effort but D-
Mass Effect: A+
Now:
E: War of Magic: A for effort still but a B to B+ (fix that memory leak)
Bad Company 2: A
Just Cause 2: B
Magicka: A for the number of lols I've had with it.
Tallying scores is useless because people score the same thing quite differently. It's also kinda skewed because it sounds like Brad expected most people to have bought those games (maybe it's what he bought?)
I think my giving a game 8/10 because it's mediocre (aka a C) might be another person's 6/10 for example.
If I rate a game below a 7, it's a bomb to me. At least it makes me qualified to do ratings for IGN
What the hell kind of a school did you go to.
The list he provided was just an example. You can use any games you'd like. Also, I think it's just for fun and maybe to see if the community is noticing any improvement in Elemental.
Yeah, I just realized that was what he meant. Oddly, though, Civ V, Elemental, and SC2 were such great choices that I'm not sure I have another AAA release to add.
At Release
Elemental: F (I was really, really disappointed)
Civilization 5: B- (I played one game and enjoyed it, but it was too shallow to tempt me back for a second game at the time)
Now
Elemental: D (Improving but still few meaningful choices, mostly no brainers or not important, weak AI and uninteresting or very sparse fluff)
Civilization 5: B (A few fixes and can still be fun but an expansion will be required to flesh out the game better)
Elemental has improved as a game over time, but it's basically trended from C- to C+, with the initial release getting a generous score just because it managed to be a timesink for me despite its flaws.
oh man this is about to be an ideapost
Regardless of its current problems, it would easily jump to a B+ *without any fixes* if unit design was made to be comparable to GalCiv 2. In Elemental, there are no real decisions to make at any equipment tier for the core gear and there aren't really any substantial cosmetic decisions I can make for my troops. What if I want a spikey helmet? What if I want my armor to be black and fearsome instead of resplendent? Why can't my one-handed +murder sword be a scimitar if I so choose? A huge amount of the enjoyment I got out of Galciv was being able to bond with and inject character into my faction by designing my units however suited my fancy, and I feel like you could replicate that same attachment with what would essentially be cosmetic options in the form of alternate models, colors, and styles.
To offer up a similar cosmetic addition, though one that would require less riding the art team into the ground, if I conquer a city of a different race, why not give me the option to build my units in that race's model as well as long as I own that city (similar to how egalitarian nations might build male or female models of one race)? This could give the option to demonstrate the armies of a multicultural kingdom, or as an empire it would allow me to build thrall legions of the races of Men.
E: War of Magic: F (I was horrified)
Mount and Blade Warband:B+
Dwarf Fortress (when EWOM came out): B
E: War of Magic: D- (more stable but still about as fun as coin flipping)
Dwarf Fortress: B+ (adventure mode yay!)
E: War of Magic: D- Stability issues aside this game simply needs a creative reboot and a serious look at who is deciding game direction. MoM is still more fun and that is freaking sad.
Mount and Blade Warband:A- The mods are amazing
Dwarf Fortress (when EWOM came out): A- If this game had graphics there would be game devs committing suicide because two guys in an apartment had crafted something so complex and unique while subsisting on donations alone.
So the Turks and a free ASCII game are currently whomping EWOM half a year after release. Honestly I feel ashamed for having been such a shill for Stardock before.
I didn't expect this thread to have this negative a connotation given the rabid fanboyism that has accompanied EWOM but holy crap. When a C is being counted as a "positive" post it might be time to sit back and start over.
I think that people realize that since the devs are asking, that they need to be honest. We could all say "nah, it's totally cool as is" but that doesn't reward the devs in the long run, and it certainly doesn't reward those of us who still hope to see a phoenix come out of these ashes.
I'm honestly way more surprised with the A and B ratings than the D and F ones.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
