f13.net

Did I miss the thread about this?  Not a lot of infos yet but it looks like PARADOX is doing a Master of Magic game with possibilities of having a persistent universe mode and a player content community.  It also looks like they'll release in 2009. 

Dawn of war 2, Battle Forge, Starcraft 2 and now this. 

Fuck me.

http://elementalgame.com/index.asp (http://elementalgame.com/index.asp)

(http://i40.tinypic.com/28v9kwx.jpg)

looks like more fall from heaven. This is a good thing.

Beta started today for pre-orders.   I need more info on this damn thing.

Do tell.

All I have is from the elemental forums.

http://forums.elementalgame.com/363990


Though the title screen for Beta 1 is awesome.

(http://www.draginol.com/images2009/ElementalBETA1Arrives_1080F/image_thumb.png)

God bless Frogboy. :awesome_for_real:

Shit, I didn't know they were already in beta for that one.  Gonna hafta get into that.

Game looks awesome, been following it for a while.

Will be ridiculously moddable too.

This is the MoM clone they were talking about some time ago? Thanks for the head-ups and ordered.

If HoMM: Kingdoms is truly vapourware then I'll be playing this.

I am excited

Interview on Shack News here (http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1201) - really interested in this game now.

The royalty concept sounds like an interesting way to give more depth to diplomacy, which I don't think has had teeth in these games since MOO (not that I've played every strategy game released since that time).  I'm really hoping that this succeeds at replacing MOM as the fantasy strategy game to beat.

It's not the 1st game to use royalty for diplomacy.  A lot of webgames use this technique (marrying off children, etc. to create alliances - each with their own sets of stats).   

As did Paradox's Crusader Kings (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/crusaderkings/review.html) (link to Gamespot review).

Speaking of old school fantasy strategy games, Disciples III looks to be getting closer to release.

I can't link it because I am at work but gametrailers recently had some good looking footage up.

As did Medieval: Total War.

As did Cinemawares Defenders of the Crown.

Can we stop this argument now? Every sane person can agree that the way something like this is implemented counts as well. Galactic Civilization let me win a game by being a "peaceful" warmonger who sold battleships to both sides of every conflict for votes in the elections. They had lovely implementations of diplomacy that actually counted for something, in contrast to other games where you could crawl up somebodies ass and they still attack you on a whim (I'm looking at you Fall From Heaven). A Galcivish Diplomacy mode is indeed something I look forward to in a Fantasy setting.

I don't think it was an argument so much as people liking to point out that they've played games that already had the mechanism that I thought would be cool.

(Somewhat) To your point, what I'd be interested in hearing was whether those other games (that I never played) that implemented dynasty line + diplomacy were better off because of it?  My guess is that because Stardock as much as flat out admit in the interview that they are trying to steal the best parts from every strategy game they ever liked that it adds nicely to that part of the game.

Something like, "such and such game had it, I think it would have been a good addition, but they borked the implementation" adds a bit more then "such and such had it".

Stardock doesn't do anything differently than Blizzard except 1. They're loud about it and 2. They have 1/1,000,000,000th of their money so things never ever turn out quite as planned.

In Crusader Kings it is in many ways the central mechanic.  I mean, it has armies and territories and such like any EU engine game, but the dynasty management part of it is what makes it interesting, really.

Well, that was why I linked to a review that discussed the dynasty mechanics at some length. In a nutshelll, it humanized the game, made it feel less like a typical Paradox strategy game and more like a grand mal RPG.

Speaking personally, I found it added to the realism. Those were the days when the strengths or failings of a single king could make or break a dynasty. Any medieval game that traffics in units of over 1000 men and neglects to factor in the leadership qualities of commanders misses the point. Life was personal back then -- generals weren't sitting back at HQ mulling over maps, they were in the field with mud on their boots and blood on their sword.

I appreciated the link, but I don't have any respect for gaming journalism.  Your brief assessment was way more valuable.

Nice thing about Stardock though schild, is they keep trying even when the initial release has issues.  Mostly this results in a game that's worthy of the money, even if you have to support the game up front and wait a bit longer for something polished (or just buy it in the bargain bin).  I don't have a problem with that.