First game I played was on challenging using Tarth - it was not interesting and easy I posted my opinions here and got flamed(by some) because I was playing Tarth on the default settings. I then started a new game with a custom sovereign - I dont remember what perks I went with exactly but it was mediocre - I did not pick any of the stronger traits because I did not want to abuse the game too much.
I don't review games but have a background in professional RTS gaming back when few people did that and have played many turn based strategy games even though I wouldn't call myself very good at TBS - simply because I never spent too much time on any one TBS game (other than Homm3/Homm2 a long time ago).
The short version:
I think that unfortunately Fallen Enchantress fails at the greater picture of being a fun game to play. After my first play through I thought that most of this can be remedied by balance but unfortunately, after the 2nd game, I think the game design simply does not work - it strays from the conventional tried and true ways of TBS in many aspects but fails to provide anything better and as silly as it might sound, for a game of this scope, it fails to delivery variety and uniqueness.
The long version.
Main problems with game design -
1)City management -
Why are cities even in this game - in most TBS games, you start with a wimpy outpost that can barely produce a chair given a whole season, and end up with something that can build a submarine in a couple of days - this is cool!
Not so in FE, you start with a normal kind of city, and you end up with a better version of the same city some 130-250 turns later. The only thing that has any effect on how nice it is are the starting stats - thats it, it doesn’t matter what you do to that city because everything works off of the starting stats or and adjacent resources. There can be many cities and they all look the same and can function in the same way - they might produce more gold or mana or whatever else but who cares about those things - which brings me to my next point....
2)Resources are just numbers -
Sure, for the few people that like this game and will play it hardcore on some very high difficulties they are very useful, but on Expert you hardly really need any resources - sure, you use them, but really, you almost always have a choice to do something else - dont have enough gold to get that hero - its ok, it can wait anyway, and you do have so many other things you can do. Dont have mana to cast spells - thats ok because you almost always have the option not to, or just wait till you can.
Your heroes always have stuff they can be doing, so even if you cant do something right now, you have something else to do - so in essence you don't really NEED all those resources. - This of course will not apply to the people that play the game on hard settings, but for us mere mortals this argument stands.
What about crystals, Metals and all that other stuff - well I have 130 turns into the game ending with a victory on a medium map with 3 other AIs and I havent used either, yet they are there from the very start of the game. And YES, I realize there are strategies that would really require you to invest in those early on, but you can do just fine without them for a long while.
GOLD - This is the only useful resource - the main reason to do anything with your cities and will allow you to do everything. In fact gold is paramount to your success in higher difficulties, this is fine, but boring. Its somewhat sad that half the game spent dealing with cities mostly amounts just to this one resource.
3)Magic.
What? The name Fallen Enchantress is very accurate - you do feel like a fallen mage that can maybe enchant some stuff - mainly big items like cities, but you can also do champions and yourself.
Wait, what about real magic? Its really easy to slow and haste and do a couple of other minor things, but since everyone gets the same spells and most starting heroes have a couple its just becomes part of the strategic interface. Your slow never gets better, and your fire spells do +2 damage per fire shard - How many fire shards will you have in your empire is anyone guess. In short, magic is not very magical and often times even on a mage kind of hero you are much better off using weapons especially if you have nice equipment to go with it.
Again, yes I do realize you can play a very customized empire and hero build that would allow for some magic potency - but really, its not easy, requires extreme min maxing to be competitive and also luck.
Spells also cost a FORTUNE, so you can hardly afford to cast them all the time until later in the game and only if you have been carefully cultivating your citizens, got lucky with essence, etc. Its not very fun to play a magic based sov only to find out you cant get any mana.
4)Items
Most are boring, some are cool, a lot of the boring items quickly become useless and the cool ones are far in between.
Now I know this was done to balance stuff out but you literaly get the same "magical" item 10 times in one game. but wait, once you look more carelly its not so magical its just another stat here and there. You can buy some items. You need gold to do that, and how do you get gold? Well one of the easiest ways is just selling stuff - in fact instead of using most of the stuff you get from fighting - you just sell it, because its useless anyway and spend that money on a new champion or rush something or get some items - like a horse.
Why not just give more gold in spoils and make the useless items disappear. Do I really need 10 venom sacks? 20 wolf pelts? 10 spider webs?
All of this has a big effect on heroes - for example, in my current game I really wanted my hero to wield a bow with double shot, picked all the right perks for that - I wanted a hero with a bow and some magic,.
In the end I never found a bow to wield, wasted abilities on that and had to pick other ones that would compliment a sword.
5) Heroes
Why the hell do my warrior heroes get all those magic perks and the other way around - you can have a very strong hero by level 8 if you get luck with a few abilities and a fairly shitty hero by level 15.
Skills like double strike, dodge, some others are very good, but a lot of skills are idiotic. Also, while you are able to pick certain paths, that absolutely does not mean that you aren’t stuck with what are often useless choices for skills.
All of this makes Heroes feel bland and you just end up with a bunch of similar heroes running around.
Add to this that most of the time, at least on Expert the AI heroes are a worthless bunch of idiots and the amount of heroes you get varies ALOT you start to wonder why you have them in the first place. I think it would be much cooler to have only units that could level up with new abilities and maybe your Sov for all those items, maybe +1 hero when you get certain tech.
6)Monsters.
The monsters are good for the most part, and are somewhat varied, which is nice. BUT, boy do they start to annoy the shit out of me when around turn 100 all these wimpy monsters start to roam the land and you have to micro manage stuff to fight them in case one of the packs actually presents any danger – I realize this might be a way to get extra experience for new armies... but its annoying.
7)Quests.
Why are some good and some are useless and again its completely random which ones and how many you get?! Some are stronger than they are led to believe while some are weaker and there is no way of knowing which is which without knowing every quest in the game. Its frustrating to find out that a “medium” strength quest has 8 Ogres guarding it killing the army you worked so hard for early in the game, while some other medium strength quests are easy. And all those Epic quests the game is full of? I was way too busy killing the AI to be doing anything on that side, not to mention my army was probably way too weak and I wasnt gonna fall into the guessing-how-strong-the-quest is again. I could of course save and reload but that gets old really fast and besides there seems to be a lot of hating “cheaters” on these boards so I did not resort to that despicable tactic.
NOW TO THE REALLY BAD STUFF!
8)AI
Unfortunately the worst part of this game stems from its poor AI. Without resorting to an insane amount of bonuses and just plain AI “cheating” of the kind that was prevalent 20 years ago in computer games, given the complexity of the game the AI cannot present any challenge, and unfortunately the game designers did not design the game keeping in mind the limitations of said AI.
One AI in my expert game was building Juggernauts by turn 70 I think with fully built up cities(and of cource rushing some without paying) . Another AI had just 2 cities and fell relatively quickly. Both had very poor heroes and it is evident that the AI does not know how to play the game – it only knows how to build units and attack you.
Given the amount of cheating help the AI gets to provide for a challenge to the player it becomes obvious just how limited it is.
A lot of this may come from the RPG and neutral stack fighting part of the game – its just a game the AI does not know or care to play, yet THAT is a major part of the game.
In short -the AI sucks at this game, and probably not because Frogboy does not know how to code AI. There is a reason why the majority of games that combine a lot of RPG with strategy are single player campaign mode only – its pretty hard to code a good AI for those games without resorting to a lot of bonuses and free units, etc.
9)Units
I dont know much about that aspect of the game because I played the 2 of my games without building almost any units, and I was still able to win. Its not that I didn’t want to build units – I just never had the need to, and it didn’t seem like the right thing to do.
So I guess I missed on a big part of the game but that’s hardly my fault.
10)Balance
The game lacks any balance. Which brings me to my next point.
11)Soveriegns
Some are good, some are bad, some are worst, but the custom creation traits lack any balance whatsoever, and needs to be redone. Of course that in itself does not hinder the player from enjoying the game but certainly some Ais are far better than others. Juggernauts being one example.
Where it goes totally wrong
The biggest problem of them all I think though is this – despite the fact that the game features many races, customized units and other stuff, the game feels like a Mod made by someone off of a different game.
In other words, the tools are there to make it a good game but the wrong design choices were made.
Example: Custom units – these would be great in mutli player but really, whats the point for a handicapped AI? The AI obviously cant do a good job designing them, And does not understand how to use the units it designs, it in turn that handicaps the AI. And the player can surely take advantage of the AI by designing certain overpowered combinations of traits – thus the AI would need more cheating to beat the player.
But even more than that, the game shies away from diversity when it comes to how the player can play the game – the races are all similar, the units are the same for these races, there are no Trolls, Dwarfs, Gnomes, Orcs. Elves or whatever else you can come up with in a game like this to make things more diverse.
The point here is having units in the game that are more than just some stats attached to them – units that have special abilities and require strategies to play against. Mix of different kind of units requiring the player to think how to beat a certain combination.
Instead what you have is just stacks of spearmen, or swordmen or whatever else that the AI pumps out. And the Neutrals on the map are very much the same way, save for a few exceptions.
BORING.
Let me finish by saying something I am sure I will get flamed for – Both games I played I did not finish. For a simple reason – it was not fun to play anymore. I killed 2 Ais in both of these games while not even encountering the 3rd AI – while in the second game I have revealed almost the entire map.
I just stopped playing the Expert/Expert game when for the 10th time the pitiful lord Verga used the last of his mana and escaped yet to another city that I have absolutely no idea where it might be and I am too tired to gather a search party. Lord Verga will NOT surrender though his score is now a mere 20 to mine 200 (was 120(him) to 70(me after killing first AI) when he declared war), furthermore, he wont even accept PEACE, even though it says the value of peace is -720 gold?!
I have 16 or so cities that I dont know what to do with. Ahead of me is a tech tree that I need to research with countless techs that I surely wont need to finish the other AI .
**********************************************************************************************************************
Now I really wanted to like this game, its sounds very fund and it is the kind of game I enjoy the most. However everything about this game is poorly designed.
Much may be fixed with balancing and tweaking – it does seem like this is a VERY modder friendly game.
But right now the game is broken at the core and is not very fun to replay. The AI is either too easy or frustrating when you see that its pumping units that you could not possibly hope for and that it cheats on every level from unit creation to buildings to scouting to founding cities, its relationship Neutral monsters and the list goes on – the game design makes the odds stack against the AI so its only hope to win is massively cheating.
There ARE good things about this game but in its core its broken, at least in my opinion - if you enjoy the game please continue playing and enjoying, do not flame me or the post for posting my opinion with something like "this game is so good you dont know how to play or enjoy it, why do you make posts about how the game sucks -just dont play it" - I took the time to make the post so that the community can benefit
To be clear, while I may not be playing much for this game for a while my hope in making this post is that some of these problems are addressed in the future by either Stardock or the Modding community, as well as promoting meaningful discussions of this game.
Thanks for reading.
It's funny when people call it hating just because someone's opinion doesn't coincide with theirs. So lame.
Beautifully written. I concur.
i have to say that i agree with most of the facts the OP gives, but not really the spirit of it. It has a lot of flaws, but i think it's still fun for them. it does need lots of work to be truly great, and especially lots of rebalancing, but it's a good game nevertheless and not too hard to make better.
i do have to agree on the point that cities and heroes feel a bit disconnected, like two games side by side. gold and mana is all cities really exist for - if you play a hero centric strategy then researching many military techs is pointless as you'll find better weapons in the wild, than you can create with 200 turns of research.
Since you have played the game a lot and should be good I challenge you to play rid/rid or expert/expert iron man and level up your mage and use it on a medium sized map (while still winning of course).
You certainly can use magic, its just not very viable and you dont get to use it a lot.
Well, you can play a map with no champs but why have them there in the first place then?
Wow, that IS beautifully written and sums up perfectly my feelings on turns based 4x games.
Might as well watch a movie then - you dont need to think much and its certainly a lot more about sounds visuals and imagination(movies differ too though)?
We are playing a game to find it challenging and interesting to play, you can play the Sims and like that - I certainly dont.
I am not enjoying the game because its disconnected and bad on many levels while I do enjoy other games similar to this, I offered my critique help better things.
BTW, TO ALL THOSE WHO ENJOY THE GAME - I REALLY FIND IT GOOD THAT YOU DO AND PLEASE CONTINUE TO DO SO, THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHERS SHOULD NOT ENJOY PLAYING THE GAME. OR THAT IT IS A BAD GAME!
I just wanted to point out the things that dont work for me and what the game lacks for it to run it into a great game. If you enjoy the game that is great and I am sure this game will get better with time.
Please do not think I post this to HATE the game, i really do have better stuff to do with my time.
To those who reply with saying that the post is too long and they didn't read it? why would you even reply, just move on to read other posts. Its equivalent to spitting in the face of the person that took the time to write/express his opinions(and while i don't get offended its certainly not the nice thing to do).
Come on guys, it is a respectable oppinion and I find some points interesting on it.
But as any oppinion, anyone can give their own, and will have the same value...
I might think that, after playing some 4X/RPG/TBS hybrid games, one gets used to some basic standars. Some things you are expecting to be in a common way, or in a suitable way (cities developing, magic if fantasy world, heroes leveling, new building and technologies...).
So when approaching EFE (and more if do not know about WoM), there are changes that may confrontate with said basic standars. Special mix of Civ and MoM (and the subgenre it created with games like AOW, HOMM series...) makes that players get to compare EFE with those games.
And when comparing features, EFE seems to lose because EFE implementates so many of them, that it is hard to do the best way.
For example: I agree with OP in that factions need more MORE differentiation. A blood trait? One unique unit? Compared with MoM, or AoW, EFE seems to need a deeper work in that. BUT, you can customize. You can beastlord. You can design your units. Ok, many units will be very similar after all, but that is far better than old MoM's same units. Once more traits are added, and maybe more mounts, there will be more versatility. But for now, I find it OK.
City management. I agree too. although levels seems to be interesting, many buildings are common for all, and the decision to chose a path for that city in level 2 will block future changes in strategy, more than developing a way or another.
And like that, all points can be argued.
This game points to versatility and to offer different ways of playing, so you can replay it and find a different experience. I think it does, at least for some matches. Now, it is time for the devs to correct last bugs, and for the modders to add some more content.
Again, I see some valid complaints here. But also.. As Lord Xia said a while back, these issues I keep seeing come up from a few different folks.. All seem to be taste issues. We can't all get what we want put into a game. Because it would be like mixing everyone's favorite color, in the end.. You'd get no color at all.
And ntino, as far as trying to dissuade people from coming in here in an almost call to arms fashion for the defense of Stardock(and it's games), your pleas will fall upon deaf ears. Stardock is one of those companies that inspires fanatic loyalty. Part because they make great products, and probably mostly (imo) because they as people -- care about their customers in a tangible way. And they treat us like adults. Big plus there.
Also, if you are in the challenging mood, try a large map on the highest level settings, or better yet, an ecomental map XXlarge and play a mage. If you want to play a zerg rush, then yeah, tiny-medium are the places to go. That or StarCraft. But if you want to play a game that will go on for 10+ hours of magical awesome, go ironman on the above mentioned bigboy map. Magic takes time.
In the end, the game and its style will not be for everyone. I see no reason for someone to discuss things that will not help, nor affect in any way, the development of the game itself. It is my opinion that it is best to focus on what we can do to fix the issues related to the game itself. Like bugs.
Reply #50, pretty much sums up the thread in my view. And your response in reply #57 kinda goes to the point that was made in #50. Why not just watch movie? Or play one of the games that better suits your taste. FE was made by Stardock, they have their own vision and their own tastes. They wanted to share that with the world at large, but with a full understanding that the game is a niche game, and honestly.. I think they stuck the landing like a pro. And I'm not attempting to be dismissive of your views or any such, I happen to agree with some of what you said, let us just focus on what we can change.. The vision isn't one of those things. At least not for FE.
And one last thing, about the AI. I have never played a game that had AI that I could not absolutely stomp into the ground that wasn't cheating in some manner. The AI can only be as complex as our computers will allow. The AI in this game is not poor, in my opinion. It's just working with what it has. And if you want a comparison, Total War series of games. Now that is a game series that is known to be a great tbs and tactical game. On the highest settings I would leave my city walls damaged, so that the AI would simply rush for the weakness. And into a wall of spears and hellfire. That strategy has worked since Rome TW. And don't get me started on the open battlefield fights, they're only slightly more difficult. But again, it comes down to playing the morale system.
No matter the game, so long as it is human vs AI and the game isn't bound to chess-like rules (cause that you can't beat, the AI will just destroy your world views if you play it on high settings in chess), humans will always have the advantage. We can think outside the box. More or less.
response to long version
1. I preferred the ability to place the units and control how the city grew. Too many it was more strategic and added a lot to the game. However, I like the different paths the cities can go. If you have three cities and choose one of each path the cities are very different. I agree they all look the same, since they got rid of the ability to place the units. But the functions of the different cities are very different.
2. Every thing in strategy games are numbers. Gold is not the only useful resource, it is the easiest to get once you have a good economy going. But metal, crystal, and mana are the big three. Gold only lets you rush things. Most of your champions, particularly your sovereign, are going to be outfitted by questing. You will buy some things here and there, except perhaps late in the game. Which goes back to #1 on your list. If you have a good economy, then the gold is not a problem. If you only selected fortresses and conclaves, than you may have a little bit of an issue with gold. This comes down to what resources you were able to find (or take from your opponents), and how you want to develop them. My last game, once I finally found the iron ore mine. I stopped production of everything in that city until I fully develped that thing to a foundry. I needed metal and for the first half of the game I had none.
3. I do not like the fact that all the champions can cast spells. I think it needs to be more limited. However, if you go down the Path of the Mage, and with certain items you can be a very formible Mage that can take on entire armies by yourself. If you become a mage than you better focus on taking control of the shards (and increasing how much mana they generate), and have a couple conclaves. You should also come to love and appreciate the meditation spell. You can have quite a bit of mana to do what you want with it. I use less enchantments when I paly as a mage so I can regenerate more mana each turn.
4. Really powerful cool items should be few and far between. Some of them are complete game changers. It seems that you only want to get the best items. Some of the items you listed are just sold. But there are quests where you need to give some of those types of items to someone and you get something in return.
5. With the exception of why every champion can cast magic practically which I don't like, I just completely disagree with you.
6. You can change the monsters to sparse. I think it is boring to do that, I prefer to have them on dense, but pick what you want. If you think they are annoying, wait until the random even "awakes" a whole bunch of them in lands that you thought you already cleared. Especially when some of the ones "awakened" are dragons. Again, I just disagree with you on this issue.
7. The chance you get something spectacular on a weak quest is slim. However, you do get experience so I do every quest that I can find. I actually like it when a quest is wrong on the strength factor. In fact I think there should be a percentage chance a weak quest turns around and has two slags in it. Then after I get my ass kicked, I go back with a bigger army and low and behold I win a rusty helm. Thats what happens.
8. Frogboy already has enhancements going into the game for 1.01. And as more strategies get put in the AI will improve. Not only that, the AI improves on your own game. As you make units and then replay the game, you will face units that you make.
9. see above. You will end up making units that are difficult to deal with. However, you will need units if you just cannot seem to find anything that is beneficial to your champions, or you cannot find champions at all.
10. I hate balance. Master of Magic was one of the worst balanced games of all time. One of the reasons that I liked it. Part of the fun is taking the worst race with the worst sovereign, and still trying to win.
11. See above. Juggernauts are great. But what if you play a game and cannot find any iron ore to make their axe. Then they use spears and are not nearly as effective. On top of it, the two factions you have remaining are Procipinee and Irane who mainly use range units. Juggernauts are great, but they have limitations. However, against a group of knights, Juggernauts are awesome.
12. Really wrong. The races play differently quite a bit. But the game plays differently depending on what you get and find as you play. Just because they are not called trolls, dwarfs, and gnomes do not mean they are not different. The Yithril are probably the most like trolls and orcs. The Quendar and Resoln are dark elf type units, but develop very different in the game, and the Gilden are dwarves (look at their stats and that is what they are). The game just calls them things in its own lore.
This is not a flame, but for most of your points I really have no idea what you are talking about. It seems your biggest issue is with the randomness of the game. But that is what most people like the best. It is what adds variety and makes it so the game is different every time. Your right, a level 8 hero can be better than a level 15 hero if they found the right stuff that goes along with the skills that have been developed and resources that have been taken advantage of.
I agree with the look of the cities and I hope they go back to random placement, but that is a pretty small thing. I think the number of champions that can cast magic is to high, more should be just good fighters with no magic capabilities at all.
I find it a little Ironic that this point is EXACTLY what someone could also make about you and the game !!! (if you find it too long and boring, why would you even post, just move on to other games. It is equivalent to spitting in the face of those people who took the time to make it, and those of us who enjoy it)
On a serious point, I am also one of these people that LOVE the randomness - I LOVE the random loot drops (after all, it's the same in most RPGs that I enjoy), I would like it even more if there was more randomness in monster toughness (as it is, i can pretty much predict the outcome) and I would LOVE an option to turn off the "easy, medium, hard, epic, deadly" classification for quests and armies ... I really enjoy the adrenalin rush of starting a quest and not knowing if I will triumph or if my hero/champion will be forced to return home, humbled and with an ugly scar or injury to mark their defeat...
On some of your indiividual points:
1. I COMPLETELY disagree with the idea of more gold rewards vs. item drops
2. I also find that you are wrong about the variety of the factions - I realize the game does not follow the standard (and boring) dwarf/elf/orc high fantasy differentiation, but you can differentiate a lot even among Human races (see, for instance, Game of Thrones - how different are the different Kingdoms and Clans even though there is only a single dwarf in sight...)
Best, BDW
I think one big thing that would help is if all monsters and quests changed difficulty as you the player progressed. In one game I'm playing, there are two giant dragons in my territory that have a frightening attack value and are immune to magic. In order to take them out, I need to get much stronger. However, there's really not much else left in terms of stuff to level up my units, so I'm basically stuck. That's really annoying. Just adjust the difficulty of quests and monsters as the player progresses. There's no reason the ridiculous quests should even be on the game board at the beginning. In the two games I've played, I haven't even attacked any of the other players, I've been so busy battling the darn monsters and other stuff. I just feel really weak with these dinky units.
I also think there are too many choices and numbers (resources, stats, everything) in this game. With the addition of magic, I don't have a clear grasp as to what would be the best to increase and improve along the way. In other games like GalCiv2, ship design was broken down into attack and defense in 3 categories (missiles, lasers, and something else). The nice thing is if you saw that the enemy was using a ship with heavy lasers, you could counter that and work towards designing something to kill it as well as defends against it. This also makes it easier for the AI to counter your ships and makes it feel more natural. In this game, I really have no idea what I'm working towards. Magic? I guess. Should I put more points into attack? Defense? Initiative? I dunno, maybe I just need to play more but it's just not as rewarding as GalCiv2 is.
For those of you that played the beta a lot and WoM and enjoy it, great. More power to you. However, I think the countless hours that you've put in is biasing your judgement in favor of the game in order to rationalize this time expenditure. I played a little bit of WoM and was pretty bored. So I shelved it and waited for this to come out. I've only played a little but I'm coming from the perspective of someone who didn't know what initiative is (for example) and had to look it up. The interface and tooltips provided in this game are much improved from WoM.
I believe that Stardock will patch the game and provide necessary balance tweaks, I'm just not sure if it will be able to fix the critical design issues in the game. I just hope they go back to the basics of game design and take a hint from games that historically did well for them (GalCiv2, SoaSE, etc.) when they start their next project.
If I understand your point correctly, you know you can turn manual placement of city improvements back on through the options, right?
Here here -- over-balance, where everyone has equal everything, is for chumps. It doesn't take much strategy to win when you start the game with everything you need to do so. And nothing makes me more sad than symmetrical, even-placed maps where everyone starts out with the same number of everything... how boring is that?
I've played so many other games where the whole time I couldn't think of my motivation for wanting to declare war on my neighbors. Having played this game now three times, I always seem to have some reason or another, even if those reasons aren't necessarily ethical or heroic... and I love that. I really dig the randomness of the situations this game puts you in.
Agree 100%.
I want some factions to be strong militarily, and others weak, but strong in tech research. Or some to be strong traders, or centered around economic puruits. Having perfectly balanced races just equates to a rock-paper-scissors scenario like Starcraft, *yawn* not for me. And randomness rules! It's the heart of a turn based empire building game like FE. @OP- part of the problem I have with your thread is its title. You didn't call it "Why I don't enjoy Fallen Enchantress", but you called it "Why Fallen Enchantress doesn't work. The fact is, it "works" just fine. You just don't like it.
Not quite the same as it use to be. You use to be able to "snake" your city towards resources. So if you are two squares away from a river, you could just continually build buidlings that direction, that way you would have access to the harbor buildings. Or two away from a forest to get the lumber yard line. You can manually place units inside the limited build area, the old way, the build area would actually change based on where you had already built.
This is an intresting thread.
Now, bear in mind, I didn't design FE. But as an observer, I don't feel like the OP has played the game enough to make some of the sweeping generalizations.
As someone who has been making PC games for a long time, half the battle is just having a decent platform to build on. People who say they love Galactic Civiliztions II: TA should play GalCiv I 1.0.
FE is a great place to build a fantasy franchise on. There's a lot of places the game can go from here.
But shouldn't this game stand by itself? I think FE should have 'went places' from WoM but it really didn't go that far.
I think a large majority of the people who bought the game would say it does stand by itself, quite well.
I've seen a large amount of people saying just the opposite. *shrug*
Some randomness/luck is important -- there should be no guaranteed always-win strategies, but there should be a sensible middle ground where good strategies are rewarded with consistent results. Currently, too often, bad strategies succeed while good strategies fail. That's not right in a strategy game. It's fine for luck-based games like yatzee, but not for what FE is advertised.
Now, if by 'not random enough' for you, you mean there should be a myriad of strategies the AI uses and that we can use, then I agree, tho I'd have used the term 'options' instead of 'random'. But if you mean that the results of a battle should be determined even more by random luck than we currently see, then we'll have to agree to (violently!) disagree.
Random Luck... Oh, Maul?
There's very little randomness in a well planned tactical battle. Some times you get messed up hard, having a way to save yourself from these situations is the essence of a well laid out plan, and a well rounded army. The only time I get flustered by random chance in is the early game where you're on the sub-weak portion of weak, and you lack options. After a few levels and you gain some better tactical spells or unlock some units you can turn the tide of most battles. Basically, pick your battles. I can flip a coin heads up 15 times in a row if I loaded enough times (0.00003% chance). No random chance is RTS methodology.
Though I can't really comment too much on this thread, people whine a lot. They don't even make tangible suggestions half of the time. Just shitting on other people trying to support the game or provide rationales. "ThatS SUPID" "BORING" "WHY/". Stop playing. Only 5 days till the new call of duty. I'm sure that has over powered guns you can complain about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
Ultimately though, most strategy games involve 'die rolls', especially in battles. Which is fine by me. There should always be the occasional scenario where a single hero defeats seemingly impossible numbers. It's adds to the epic feel.
Pretty much. I don't agree with nearly anything the OP says, but he's reasonable, and seems to base his conclusions upon observations that are true to his own preferences and experiences. I can't argue with that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account