Warlock - Master of the Arcane Discussion
but made to fit into majesty's lore
majesty is a really fun game if you haven't you should try it
its not turned based or anything like this game thou
That's Warlock - Master of the Arcane.
It's rinse and repeat of an old concept with new graphics and a clunky and mind-numbing, click-heavy, counter-intuitive user interface.
Documentation is wispy thin. You are provided tutorial learning in lecture format in a dive in and discover what to do on your own by trial and error. You can read the lecture material while also being haranged by a quasi-scottish-like voice (it sounds like a drunk impersonation of Sean Connery).
Construction tree and implementation is obtuse. I say obtuse not that it is indecypherable, it is. Rather, it is scatter-brained in it's execution not necessarily it's design. This is simply the manifestation of producer-programmer-designer disconnect. And if, by chance, any of those individuals are the same? Then that individual is in dysfunction and may need therapy.
Queueing! O-M-G. Fail. "Give me a ping, Vasily. One ping only, please." MONKEYBRAINS! This alone is a deal breaker for this title.
Warlock is pretty. But that's all.
I believe Ino Co invested 90% of their talent into the pretty, 9.9% of their talent into the engine and 0.1% into game theory.
They had to rush this title out the door with Diablo 3 breathing down their necks. By month end, this title will be steeply discounted. I also doubt it will ever secure an immortal spot alongside StarRuler and Sins... but it is pretty.
There is substance. There is lore. With ample resources (and some powerhouse game theory and post-grad economics and decision science), this could become a franchise. But at present, I'd consider this a proof-of-concept or an advertising medium for venture capital.
While I'm critical of the game, it's a production quality release. It does, has, and will have it's fan-boi following. It is not my intention to smear their face paint and body butter. I paid my money and I'll enjoy my metafun with it as I disect it.
i played the game for awhile
but like zortek said, this game has nothing on civ or the genre...
majority of the time spent in the game i had either these 2 moments
1) i wanna reinstall civ 5 and play it again
2) wow this guy is from majesty!
thats it..the research is basically researching what ever spells you want
theres nothing more to it. theres no tech tree or anything
diplomacy is broken too
its way worse then vanilla civ 5's diplo
anything u do besides giving them stuff = war straight away..
in short, its a bad game...but the other majesty games are really fun
i think they would make a better game if they just modded and reskinned civ 5 ~_~
[Edited by tides, 5/10/2012 1:48:12 AM]
I have to thoroughly disagree. Playing the demo I've enjoyed it. It's been a while since I've enjoyed a turn-based strategy- Civilisation - and in turn Civilisations clones - drags everything out far too much and quickly becomes a bore. This, however, is fun.
It's curious, though, how often when someone likes a game which others don't, they're instantly thrown into the "fanboi following" category. Couldn't it just be that someone has different tastes than you?
[Edited by Skyheart, 5/10/2012 5:51:30 AM]
One can like something without reaching the level of fanaticism deserving of the label of "fanboi".
Agreed and understood and accepted.
You are allowed to like the game. It's ok. No harm. No foul.
In your disagreement; however, I don't believe you present anything other than an emotional argument.
I'm very interested in anything else you might like to present.
What virtues does the game have that are innovative?
Is there anything about the game that is reall new that we have not seen before in another title?
How does the game make us think?
OR -- on another level...
How does the game let us unwind in new ways?
How does the game let us connect with people in new ways?
How does the game develop our ability to relax?
C'mon --- if you disagree --- why?
[Edited by zortek, 5/10/2012 1:04:11 PM]
Don't over-analyse my posts though, there's no point- I say what I intend to say, and that's about as deep as they go.
I didn't present any arguments because I chose not to. I merely commented to display that someone can disagree with you and like a game you dislike without being categorised as a fanboi.
I never said it was innovative either. In fact, it probably isn't. However, something doesn't need to be innovative to be enjoyable. In fact, thinking upon it now, I actually did point out what I didn't like about the a-typical Civ-type game.
Or on another level...
On another level I can see why you're not enoying it. I don't have to analyse every aspect of a game in order to decide if I like it or not. If I enjoy it, I enjoy it. If I don't, I don't. Simple as that.
I don't particularly care if it lets me unwind in new ways, nor do I care if it lets us connect with people in new ways (especially this, since I avoid MP like the plague, let alone "connecting" with people- you may notice I'm not a "people person" ).
Finally, it helps my ability to relax because I enjoy it. Refer to my above points my enjoyment of a game.
There. I disagree, and that's why.
[Edited by Skyheart, 5/10/2012 1:38:07 PM]
if you want short games in civ5 just pick a small map
something which alot of people dont do...
and yes, alot of civ games are really long..
but if you compare civ and this game, civ will obviously come out on top hands down
this game is much more simpler and the games are more fast paced
for example, your relationship with other countries is basically war or no war
in civ 5 its much much more deep
so yes, the casual gamer MIGHT like this better
but if he ever does play civ,
he'll think of this game and go , damn this is much better!
* Updated game trainers and cheats daily
* Get notified when new cheats are added
* Request which games get new trainers
* Priority support with any problem