In mid 2010, we released Elemental: War of Magic. This was our first attempt at: [A] a fantasy strategy game and [B] a game that involved terrain. This produced…mixed results in that when released it was buggy (like on nVidia 7900 cards you get a white tactical battle screen which caused a particular PC Gamer UK reviewer to claim the game was totally broken) AND even once fixed it was…meh. v1.4 is decent but it’s no Master of Magic.
So the question is, what do you think we should do to describe Fallen Enchantress?
It exists in the same world but it’s a very different game. It’s not an expansion since there’s not much of War of Magic specific stuff in it. But I hasten to call it a sequel because sequels imply a continuation of an existing series of gameplay mechanics none of which exist.
So what do you suggest we do to describe it to new players?
I'm in the beta. Very different from FE.
1) Find an accomplished advertisement firm.
2) Have them do the market research needed to answer this question.
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Seriously, even if FE would be amazing it might still fail commercially if you market it wrong.
The ONLY thing you really have to avoid is people mistaking it for a simple expansion (even if stand-alone).
As long as it's clear that we're talking about a NEW game, people will be ready to jugde it on its own merit. Everyone knows that each Civ is a different game from the previous one, most DA lovers hated DA2, most moo2 lovers hated moo3... there can be continuity, or not.
Each new game must be tried, tested, played, and reviewed. Gamers understand that. The game just needs to rock.
How is it? Play like anything else familiar? Is it sandbox?
He won't be able to say. Paradox NDA's are pretty hardcore.
I'm surprised he can admit to being in the beta...
One more vote for Elemental 2: Fallen Enchantress
On the what it looks like discussion: It mostly looks like one of those heavily expanded Paradox games like Europa Universalis 3 after 2, 3 or 4 expansions. The complete game has so much new stuff and revamped stuff that the gameplay is now completely different and feel of the game is different even if the topic is the same, and the graphics engine has been updated and art has been improved, but at a glance the game looks the same - especially to those who have seen all the incremental improvements and have forgotten the original Then again 2-3 expansions is the same as a completely new game.
If you are wedded to the Elemental name (which I can totally understand) then I think Elemental 2: Fallen Enchantress is a no brainer.
I really can't see any good arguments against adding the 2 from a sales point of view. You want to make it very clear that FE is more than just an expansion or stand alone expansion to WoM. I am certain that calling it Elemental 2: FE will increase sales relative to just Elemental: FE.
While some have a good point that they look visually similar the key point is that the gameplay is by all accounts completely different. Gameplay is more important to me than visuals, particularly when the problems with WoM were almost entirely due to poor gameplay rather than people finding the graphics terrible.
Elemental 2: FE will be better for search engines. I am a strong proponent for numbering your games to decrease confusion. I was playing Ass Creed the other day and for the life of me couldn't figure out how many there had been or which one I was playing.
This is why you're awesome.
By the way Frogboy, your points make a lot of sense. Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
The problem with calling it Elemental II is that Elemental was designed to be the world name. To this day, I wish I hadn't called it Galactic Civilizations II.
The roman numeral thing is something everyone is moving away from.
It's no longer Batman III or Superman 6 or what have you.
Like I said earlier, if WOM had been a hit, it would have been Elemental: War of Magic II.
Similarly, it's not Star Wars II: X it's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II. Total War: Sub-Franchise III.
Ultimately War of Magic didn't sell a ton of copies and other than Internet griefers, most people haven't heard of it. And regardless of whether it were called Elemental II or not, every review or what have you is going to mention how bumpy WOM's launch was. There is no escaping that.
From a purely content point of view, FE is definitely sequel level. There's a lot more new in it than GalCiv I to GalCiv II for example. But I am hesitant to call it a sequel because that implies a continuation that isn't there.
A lot of the backlash of MOO3 wasn't just that it had a rocky launch but because it was so different from MOO2. And while "Internet people" will remember WOM's launch problems, the vast bulk of units sold were sold long after its problems were resolved and have no idea that there was ever a problem at the launch. And so if those people, the people happy with WOM, would get ticked if FE were treated as a sequel to WOM because the gameplay is so alien.
Brad, if your convinced that having FE labeled as Elemental will bring with it no ill will from WoM, then your choice is clear.Elemental: Fallen Enchantress.The name implies only a tie with a certain realm, nothing more. The game is not a sequel, nor a remake, just a whole new game played in a familiar world.Mentioning WoM or anything to do with sequels will only confuse buyers.
Just curious, what would have you called it?
Galactic Civilizations: Dread Lords
I disagree somewhat, based on my circles of friends I think the fame of WoM's poor launch is quite widespread. I believe this is a combination of Stardock/Impulse being of interest to quite a few, WoM's claim to be somewhat targetting MoM fans, general interest in fantasy TBS games (ie due largely to the fact that they are so rare) and the apparent mis-match between the gamer's bill of rights (which many had heard of) and the unfortunate state of WoM on release.
As you say WoM didn't sell all that well, I'm confident the target audience of people who didn't buy Elemental (probably in part due to the problems) BUT would like a fantasy TBS is much larger than the number who bought WoM, are happy with it and are in the dark enough about the differences with FE that they end up ticked off if they buy it (frankly if FE lives up to half its promise then I think few people will prefer WoM to FE but only time will tell).
I'm working of fairly small sample sizes here and it is possible that the people I know are not representative. But I still think the logic and potential market sizes mentioned above should be fairly compelling.
Frogboy, I don't know if this is a case again of you being too close or if I've just gotten the wrong image from all the videos and information on FE, but to me FE doesn't seem *that* different in core gameplay terms to WoM. It still has the same kind of a stat system on units, same kind of a tactical battle system, same kind of a research system, same kind of a town building system, same kind of quest system and same winning conditions.
So, my hunch is that in truth, the gameplay really isn't *that* alien to people who played WoM. Just improved in every aspect and with some features cut.
I think you should describe Fallen Enchantress as a spiritual successor to Master of Magic
Oh wait...
Uh..
How about a spiritual successor to Elemental: War of magic?
Honestly, nothing we've seen in dev journals or sneak peeks would make anyone who was "happy with E:wom" disappointed in FE because you called it a sequel. It's the same game, only everything is much better.
FE is neither an expansion nor a sequel. Call it a reboot, or a remake. Just be sure to distance this game from the wreck that was WoM.
Currently, the public knows the first game as Elemental, not as War of Magic. However, if you call the new one Elemental: Fallen Enchantress, then that will force people (and reviews) to refer to them as "War of Magic" versus "Fallen Enchantress" when discussing them. That may have the desired effect - any negative sentiment towards the name Elemental will be shifted towards the name War of Magic instead, thereby 'cleaning' the Elemental name for the future.
Good point!
Your best bet is to mock the everloving hell out of Elemental while pitching it. Reviewers are going to eviscerate you for Elemental, forum threads will say "but yeah Elemental" as a reason not to get excited for the release, etc etc.
You either take that head on and treat it as an acknowledged failure to be laughed about at this point, or you have to deal with everyone else talking about it and forgetting the actual topic which is your new game. And while not many people may have heard of it, those people will be reading reviewers. Reviewers have heard of Elemental. More than that, they played it. Yeah, that's right. No bullshit is gonna work for them, they felt the pain.
So you're going to want to commiserate with them or you'll have every review started with an assload of comments about how much elemental sucked, and every comment thread full of "ELEMENTAL SUCKED". Do what you want, but this is fairly standard marketing advice. Confront and deal with the criticism or watch as it devours the discussion.
Out of the ashes of World of Magic comes
Element: Fallen Enchantress
Experience Elemental as it has never been seen before!
Whats wrong with only Fallen Enchantress?
actualy, whats the story about, why she etc?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
