Geryk Pre-Analysis: Land of Legends

[Brooski]

"There is nothing quite like getting a bunch of monks together and karate kicking the heck out of a gnome thief or whatever it is."

Geryk Pre-Analysis: Land of Legends

[GuildBoss]

It's being distributed by Shrapnel Games but at $34.95 I think I'll wait for the demo first...

BTW, Bruce, you might want to check out Battle for Wesnoth. I think you may like it.

[Tyjenks]

I am sorta excited about this little game. In a 'Well, if HoMM is going to take forever' kinda way. Then I look at the price and I get a little wishy-washy. Then, when I see "Dominions" McGeryk admit he likes to frolic with the magically delicious lucky elves, my interest is born anew.

Bruce, you are and have been so crabby and cynical and entertaining in your writing that I am afraid when I admit how much I enjoy your pieces you will think I am hitting on you so I think I will leave it at the ubiquitous:

Nice preview!

[shang]

Gotta agree with Tyjenks. I love the writing style. :)

Oh, and the preview was nice too.

[Brooski]

I see we forgot to put in a link to the game's official page. And by "we" I really mean Tom Chick. I think that has been fixed.

Land of Legends is another one of those games that is great to play for 15-30 minutes and then stop, which is pretty much my favorite kind of game right now. I like Down in Flames a lot for the same reason. I also see Shrapnel is publishing the sequel to Strange Adventures in Infinite Space, called Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space. That's a lot of quick-play to look forward to.

I'm glad someone likes the writing, because I got some emails recently about Tom vs. Bruce going downhill because I'm too crabby and cynical. Not like in the Old Days.

[Brian Rucker]

What the hell did they put in the drinking water? What have you done with Bruce?!

Okay, it may be a great game but is it really great enough to overcome adorable-8-year-olds-in-plate-armor-riding-doe-eyed-unicorns? Really?

I think we're going to have to take your curmudgeon card away!

[Tyjenks]

Originally Posted by Brooski

I'm glad someone likes the writing, because I got some emails recently about Tom vs. Bruce going downhill because I'm too crabby and cynical. Not like in the Old Days.

Hehe. Those people must not have read your old strategy commentary bits. Ahhhh...good times.

[Alan Au]

Originally Posted by Brian Rucker

What the hell did they put in the drinking water? What have you done with Bruce?!

He was brainwashed by the elves, and I don't mean by the Lord of the Rings kick-ass-stab-Orcs-in-the-face-with-arrows elves, I mean by the googly-eyed 8 yr. old elves on shiny ponies... oooh, shiny ponies!

*ahem* where were we? Right, brainwashing. By elves. Besides, I personally prefer the googly-eyed 8 yr. olds riding around in mobile anti-air units with quad 20mm death-spitters, because they're just so adorable when they do that aircraft-shredding thing. Ah, but I digress.

- Alan

[Rywill]

Originally Posted by Tyjenks

Hehe. Those people must not have read your old strategy commentary bits. Ahhhh...good times.

They may have been more reactign to the recent spate of columns where Bruce doesn't know how to play the game, so his side is mostly a comedy/curmudgeon riff ("This thing is called a Missile Tank but doesn't seem to have any missiles", etc.). It's two different sorts of articles--the ones where they both know how to play are sort of a chess match / AAR, the ones where only Tom knows how to play are pretty much straight comedy.

[slantz]

Originally Posted by Brian Rucker

Okay, it may be a great game but is it really great enough to overcome adorable-8-year-olds-in-plate-armor-riding-doe-eyed-unicorns? Really?

Well, if you ask me, yes. But then again, I made the damn game, so I'm biased.

Without addressing whether the game is 'good' or not (that's for you all to decide), I can say that I am a hard-core strategy gamer, and I made a game that appeals to and satisfies hard-core strategy gamers, but will also attract a wider audience as well. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have done the graphical style differently. But then again, if I had, then a lot of the traditional non-gamers that are enjoying it right now wouldn't be interested. Cutesy art has its upsides too.

So yes, the game has cutesy graphics. Yes, we mostly use archetypal fantasy races (which we did precisely to *poke fun at the stereotypes*, though I don't think that showed through enough.) But I promise, you will not walk away saying the game is too shallow. And I doubt you'd have any substantial usability complaints either. A demo will be available in a month or so. I recommend trying it before you dog it, but hey, if pointlessly bashing something is your cup of tea, don't let me stop you.

Oh, and thanks for the write-up, Bruce. You're such a softy. ;-)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[rdarnese]

Originally Posted by Hiro_Antagonist

Well, if you ask me, yes. But then again, I made the damn game, so I'm biased.

Without addressing whether the game is 'good' or not (that's for you all to decide), I can say that I am a hard-core strategy gamer, and I made a game that appeals to and satisfies hard-core strategy gamers, but will also attract a wider audience as well. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have done the graphical style differently. But then again, if I had, then a lot of the traditional non-gamers that are enjoying it right now wouldn't be interested. Cutesy art has its upsides too.

So yes, the game has cutesy graphics. Yes, we mostly use archetypal fantasy races (which we did precisely to *poke fun at the stereotypes*, though I don't think that showed through enough.) But I promise, you will not walk away saying the game is too shallow. And I doubt you'd have any substantial usability complaints either. A demo will be available in a month or so. I recommend trying it before you dog it, but hey, if pointlessly bashing something is your cup of tea, don't let me stop you.

Oh, and thanks for the write-up, Bruce. You're such a softy. ;-)

-Hiro_Antagonist

And of course I am biased to ;). Personally I can't wait for the demo to be out and available, because I think people will be surprised how much this game has to offer in gameplay.

Yeah and thanks for the write-up guys...

[Peter Frazier]

I'm sure that the gameplay is great but speaking as a generic by-standing nosepicker, the art direction and illustrations look woeful.
I'm guessing the budget only allowed for a friend to pick up the work?

[slantz]

Originally Posted by Peter Frazier

I'm sure that the gameplay is great but speaking as a generic by-standing nosepicker, the art direction and illustrations look woeful.
I'm guessing the budget only allowed for a friend to pick up the work?

Something like that. No GTA-sized budgets here. We're as full-fledged indie (read: small) as you can get.

If you want higher-budget graphics with your gameplay, then support indie dev teams! Just look at the difference between Astral Tournament and Astral Masters, or between Strange Adventures in Infinite Space and its soon-to-be released sequel. Most indie devs take their revenue from their first game and reinvest it in graphics for their second title.

Either way, for me, I notice the graphics on strategy titles for the first 30 minutes or so, and then I see through it all and only 'see' the gameplay. Whether or not you're interested in LOL, I would advise that you not let graphics stop you from enjoying indie strategy games, because many of them are very, very good.

[Kitsune]

I know, I know, its humor, but I like how Advance Wars is made up of 8-year-olds even though three or four characters have beards. Some very strange 8-year olds! (I was actually working on a Which Advance Wars Character Are You? quiz complete with nifty graphics and descriptions for QT3, but I scrapped it because I couldn't figure out a way to present in forum format.)

At any rate, I must say I'm quite pleased to see games like this, more Spiderweb games, Battle for Wesnoth get released. I'll be there as soon as it is released, rather basic and ugly art aside. (Sorry, Mr. Abenobashi, but it doesn't take a big budget to recruit people who know how to draw well.)

Now if only I could get Fate to work on my computer. Playing new computer games for a change is a nice of change of pace. Though my slow crawl through Realms of Arkania is fun, its just not the same as playing a new game. :/

-Kitsune

[Justin Fletcher]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I know, I know, its humor, but I like how Advance Wars is made up of 8-year-olds even though three or four characters have beards. Some very strange 8-year olds!

Kitsune is absolutely right. Among all the factions, only two or three 8 year-olds take command on the battlefield. So let's dial down the "it's not realistic" barbs, hm?

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by Hiro_Antagonist

Either way, for me, I notice the graphics on strategy titles for the first 30 minutes or so, and then I see through it all and only 'see' the gameplay. Whether or not you're interested in LOL, I would advise that you not let graphics stop you from enjoying indie strategy games, because many of them are very, very good.

I don't agree that graphics don't matter; in fact, I've never understood this sentiment (which you hear quite frequently), given that computer games are primarily a visual media. It's like picking up a book and saying "Grammar doesn't matter as long as the story is good."

That said, I do think that great gameplay can overcome other shortcomings. It doesn't make them not matter, but it can make them matter less. This game sounds like my sort of thing; I'll definitely check it out.

[Brooski]

Yeah, the whole "graphics don't matter" thing always seemed kind of crazy to me. Now we have to have someone post that what if all the units were just shapes of different colors, would you still like it then? And then someone will suggest that all games should be text adventures so we can use our imaginations, which have the best graphics. And then all the sides of that particular argument will be accounted for so we can move on.

I'm not sure the graphics in Land of Legends are so dire. I don't see how they're any worse than a lot of Gameboy graphics, for example. I really, really don't like the style, but I don't think the artwork is terrible. Actually, some of the larger drawings are not so good (like the gnome rogue lady and the sling-throwing guy) but in general, they're just a style I can't stand.

I think a bigger problem in game art is direction. People just don't know how to put a good effect together. Individual elements may be well done, but the end result is awful. I'm not sure why that is. It's as though all the artists just work on one piece and then it all gets put together and they say ok, finished.

I'm going to try this Wesnoth thing.

[Rywill]

It's hyperbolic, but I understand their point, which is that graphics are one of the least-important aspects of a strategy game. A strategy game can look great, but if the gameplay design is lacking there's just no reason to play it (see: Ascendancy). And it's hard to design a good strategy game, so that's a real concern. For a great counter-example, the graphics in Dominions 2 were awful (the underlying maps were good, but all the on-map icons, the interface skin, and all the unit graphics were terrible). Dom 2 was still one of the best games, if not the best game, released that year, because the design was so good. Would I have liked awesome looking graphics? Sure, it would have made the game better. But I'll take Dom 2 over something like Warcraft 3 (which I also liked, don't get me wrong) any day.

Contrast that with other genres like shooters or flight sims, where the gameplay design is easier but the graphics are much more difficult and more important to the experience. In a game like that, you can get by with a so-so design if the graphics are really stunning. I loved the original top-down Castle Wolfenstein, but there's no question in my mind that I liked Half-Life 2 better, even though CW was probably a better game design. Adventure games are another genre like this for many people--a lot of folks loved "The Longest Journey," which IMO is an awful GAME, but people loved (at least in part) because it had cool and imaginative graphics.

[Justin Fletcher]

I think a large part of this comes from the following sentiment: "I loved Ultima IV, and those graphics were crap!" Yeah, but they were the best graphics at the time. Visual elements will always be important to a visual medium. It goes without saying that gameplay matters; otherwise, you're watching a movie.

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by Rywill

It's hyperbolic, but I understand their point, which is that graphics are one of the least-important aspects of a strategy game. A strategy game can look great, but if the gameplay design is lacking there's just no reason to play it (see: Ascendancy). And it's hard to design a good strategy game, so that's a real concern.

I agree with everything you say here. And my book analogy still applies: I certainly wouldn't want to read a book with good grammar and a crappy story. But I do think it's silly to say that graphics don't matter just because good gameplay matters more. I'd prefer to have both in my games, all things being equal, even though I'm perfectly willing to play a game lacking in the graphics department if the game is good enough (as is the case with Dominions). And if a game is lacking in visuals, I think that raises the bar for what I'll accept in terms of gameplay. A game with lousy visuals is going to have to play that much better in order to spark my interest.

[slantz]

I don't think anyone's saying graphics don't matter. I certainly didn't say that, and you accused me of saying it...

All I'm saying, and all I'm really hearing people say is that "for strategy games, the graphics don't have to be totally cutting edge in order for it to be, as a total product, good." Nobody's saying graphics *don't matter*.

However I think that with games that rely on immersion as part of its core gameplay (1st-person shooters, adventure games, etc.), graphics affect the experience a lot more. That's why you don't see as many indie 1st-person shooters, for instance -- a low budget one just wouldn't be a great overall game in most people's opinions.

Strategy games are a bit different. It's usually about the gameplay. It's like watching a story-driven movie on a black and white television. Yes, you notice for a while. But after a while, you stop noticing because you're immersed in the story.

Lastly, I think your bad-grammar/book analogy isn't the fairest. South Park has horrible animation from a technical animation perspective. (And in fact, the graphical style could be described as 'cutesy', focusing on 8-year olds...) But it's still a great show. But because the heart of that particular show is *not* the graphics, after a while you see through it into the story and humor. You accept it on its level and enjoy it.

Which, to be honest, sounds mostly like what you're saying. So it seems we're really not disagreeing on anything. =)

-Hiro_Antagonist

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by Hiro_Antagonist

I don't think anyone's saying graphics don't matter. I certainly didn't say that, and you accused me of saying it...

It was not my intent to accuse you of anything, so if it seemed like I was, then I apologize. I was merely responding to your comment that you "notice the graphics on strategy titles for the first 30 minutes or so, and then I see through it all and only 'see' the gameplay." It just doesn't work that way for me. If I think a game looks bad, then it's always going to look bad to me, though if I like the game enough I may play it anyway.

Which, to be honest, sounds mostly like what you're saying. So it seems we're really not disagreeing on anything. =)

I agree. ;)

Also, I'm looking forward to checking out your game.

[Brooski]

Originally Posted by Brooski

I'm going to try this Wesnoth thing.

Ok, I'm done with that forever.

[Peter Frazier]

I was put off by Battle for Wesnoth when I reached the stage where I realised that because I hadn't furiously tweaked my units two scenarios previously, I had no chance of winning the current scenario.

As for LoL, I'll remain dubious about the art direction- I'll maintain that a good degree of visual polish creates a nice sense of immersion which enables me to feel that an epic campaign is unfolding in front of me. I like the mental story telling that occurs in strategic games when I think about the movement of defence lines and battles. I hate the story telling that occurs when cut scenes are added before and after the gameplay.

Anyway, I haven't played Fire Emblem or any variation thereof. Would it be safe to say that that gameplay is derived from the Panzer General/Fantasy General school of games? Maybe go even earlier and claim the Battle Isle series of games as a precursor? Are there any games on the PC close to this style which are worth checking out.
My beef about many of these strategy games is that they are more puzzle games than strategy games. Which way does LoL go?

[slantz]

LOL fits into the Empire/Military Madness/Advance Wars family of games.

The general core mechanics in this family are:
-One unit per square (no 'stacks' of units)
-Cities can be taken over by units
-Cities/bases produce new units
-Money is generall earned each turn at bases/cities
-Goal is generally to conquer other players' capitol or a certain % of cities.
-No perpetuating RPG stats between games (like in Final Fantasy Tactics or Fire Emblem) -- each game is a purely fresh instance from the last.

LOL's main differences from others in the family are its race-based approach (8 races, 4 units per race), and the extreme depth/personality of each individual unit and each race. I feel this adds far more replayability and fresh match-ups than with games like Advance Wars which have a much more repetitive feel from instance to instance.

So where Advance Wars gives all players access to the all units (mostly fundamentally the same) with only tiny stat tweaks according to their player's character, LOL units each have far more extreme logical personalities, and each game instance only features 2-3 of the 8 races (or 8-12 of the units) in each game instance. This may not sound like much, but the complexity in each unit is such that I've never heard a player ask for more.

As for the puzzle question, it depends on which game mode you play. Skirmishes (vs AI), Hotseat, and Internet modes will all feel like a full-on strategy-tactics game, no question, bceause it *is* a full-on strategy-tactics game. The campaign, however, definitely had some puzzle elements to it. Around 1/3 to 1/2 of the campaign missions tend to be more puzzle-ish, and the rest tend to be more like skirmish-style gameplay. But this mix is pretty typical in commercial strategy game campaigns, even in RTS games.

I could never get my bargain-bin copy of Fantasy General to run (my OS is too new perhaps?), so I can't campare it properly to that.

[Jason Lutes]

Originally Posted by Peter Frazier

I was put off by Battle for Wesnoth when I reached the stage where I realised that because I hadn't furiously tweaked my units two scenarios previously, I had no chance of winning the current scenario.

I suggest one of the easier campaigns, like "Liberty" (full disclosure: I did some of the character portraits for that one because I liked it so much). I was able to play through the whole thing with only one or two reloads.

Anyway, I haven't played Fire Emblem or any variation thereof. Would it be safe to say that that gameplay is derived from the Panzer General/Fantasy General school of games? Maybe go even earlier and claim the Battle Isle series of games as a precursor? Are there any games on the PC close to this style which are worth checking out.?

I don't think Fire Emblem and Advance Wars owe much to the SSI General games, whereas Wesnoth can claim them as ancestors. FE and AW are much more simple in their approach to combat, which is part of their appeal.

The free online game Battalion is pretty much multiplayer Advance Wars, without the cool combat animations. It requires registration, and once you're registered you can play the tutorial aginst AI instead of a human opponent.
[size=2]
Edited for spelling and clarity.[/size]

[GuildBoss]

Originally Posted by Brooski

Ok, I'm done with that forever.

So you're saying you didn't like it. Any particular reason(s) why? It does have its quirks and I almost gave up on it early on because I picked a lousy campaign but after making a few adjustments I found myself liking it more and more.

Anyway, just curious what you didn't like about it.

[rdarnese]

Originally Posted by Hiro_Antagonist

I could never get my bargain-bin copy of Fantasy General to run (my OS is too new perhaps?), so I can't campare it properly to that.

Too bad, because your missing the best game in the series then.

Crap now I have to go find my CD :)

[balut]

Don't forget the fantastic, atmospheric music for Fantasy General. That was a great part of the game, as well.

[Ben Sones]

For those of you who haven't stumbled across it, I discovered this weekend that you can use an open source program called DOSBox to run Fantasy General under Windows XP. It involves a little setup. It's totally worth it, though, because Fantasy General is still one of my favorite strategy games of all time. Here's how I set it up:

First, go here and download the Win32 version of DOSBox:

http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1

There is a good walkthrough on how to set it up int he FAQ, here:

http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/wiki/i...tion+of+DosBox

For now, don't worry about mounting drives and such. Unfortunately, DOSBox doesn't remember any drive mounting settings when you quit, which means that you'd have to do that stuff every time you launch the program if you use DOSBox alone. That would be a pain in the ass. Additionally, DOSBox alone doesn't seem to configure the sound for the game quite right; the music skips a bit. Fortunately, there is a front-end program for DOSBox that fixes both of these problems (or it did for me), called Dfend:

http://members.home.nl/mabus/dfend.htm

Dfend gives you a Windows interface for configuring DOSBox, and remembers your settings and reapplies them whenever you launch the program. Better yet, it allows you to create different profiles for each game that you install (so if you want to play other games that don't work right with FG's settings, you can create different settings for those games that Dfend will apply when you launch the game).

So, install and configure Dfend to point ot your DOSBox installation. Then, in the Dfend window, select "Default Configuration" (fourth icon from the left, the yellow one). The "Options" tab lets you select the folder where DOSBox is installed and your default game folder. The "Environment" tab lets you configure performance settings. Leave most of these alone, but do increase the "Cycles" setting or FG will run too slowly. I set mine to 6000, you may have to experiment to find a setting here that works best with your machine. Under "Mounting" you can mount your drives. You'll want to mount your CD or DVD drive (to get music, and for the copy protection); make sure you mount it as a "cdrom" and not as a "drive" (first list box on the window that pops up when you click the "Add" button). Then mount your games folder as your C drive. Save these settings.

Now, in the main Dfend window, click on the "Run" menu and select "Run DOSBox with default config." This will launch a DOS window and mount the drives that you specified. Stick the Fantasy General CD into your drive and install it (switch to your CD drive letter and run the install.bat). When you configure your sound, you want to select "Soundblaster 16/AWE 32 or compatible," or whatever that choice is called. You have to scroll UP to get to it, for some reason. You should be able to autodetect for the rest of your sound settings.

Once you have the game installed, close the DOSBox window and create a profile for FG (first icon from the left in the Dfend window). This launches a wizard that is pretty much self explanatory. Once you have your FG profile set up, you can launch the game by clicking on the profile, or (better still) you can create a Start menu shortcut by right-clicking ont he game profile name and selecting "Shortcut."

Now you can launch FG just by clicking on a shortcut in your start menu.