Sign in to follow this  
riadsala

Elemental Fallen Enchantress

Recommended Posts

So, the sequel to Elemental:WoM is now out. I'm reading mixed reports on the net: sounds like it's nowhere near as terrible as the first game, but still not much better than mediocre. Given that, since WoM, we've had a few excellent strat games (XCOM, Warlock, CK2), I get the impression that the crowd has moved on. Scanning the official forum, the first page is mainly bug report threads.

I'm wondering if it's worth playing version 1.0, or it it will be a waste of my time. I still regret taking the time to play the "final" version of WoM.

But then again, I'm a big fan of Fall from Heaven 2, so I'm hoping Kael managed to apply some of his magic to the game!

Anybody here played it? Worth looking into, or should i stick with CivV (which I've only just started playing, thanks to a free steam key from Sorbicol!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably go install this just to see what has changed since release. I haven't touched the game since the first release of the original Elemental, I always felt there was SOMETHING good lurking under the covers but the terrible interface obscured a lot of what might have been fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave them 2 chances with Demigod and then Elemental. I am not going to throw away money on a crap Stardock game again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demigod wasn't Stardock and if you gave them money for Elemental you already own this game for free. So you've given them more like zero chances, because the one chance you did give them, they've tried to make up for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the way I see it, giving Dreg the new game for free means that the "chance" Dreg gave them on the first Elemental was given back for use on Fallen Enchantress. Having not turned around and given that chance back to Stardock, we're at zero net chances given, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you shouldn't buy shit from Stardock because Brad Wardell is a reprehensible human being.

(It's also not any better than WoM.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stardock isn't the only company that has reprehensible human beings in its ranks. Statistically, any time you buy a game made by a large company, you're probably supporting more sexual harassers than you are when you buy a Stardock game. The only difference is that you heard about Brad Wardell's reprehensibleness on Kotaku whereas most sexual harassment doesn't end up being news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While true (except the Kotaku bit), Brad has control of the company rather than being some mid-level asshole, and has wholly proven through Twitter and other spaces that he is an utterly horrendous person. On the one hand, don't support that, on the other hand, those working under him need money.

That said, if you didn't like WoM, it's more of the same with a slightly higher amount of polish, and isn't worth the money on either hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on brief first impressions involving me running heroes around without a clue about how to actually play the game...

its singleplayer will be much better than Warlock's or Civ V's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Brad being a nasty person: if any of it is true, I really hope 3MA refrain from giving him more time on the podcast.

As regards to the game... it would be a shame for Kael, and the others if the game flops because of their boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it should flop because they're asking $40 for the same game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it should flop because they're asking $40 for the same game.

But unlike companies like Cyanide, they're not asking previous customers to pay again. And if the game turns out to be good, then $40 ain't a lot of money (see Dominions 3, etc) and if it turns out to be mediocre, then it will no doubt be in a deep discount sale soon enough.

Seems that feelings around this game run high. But, if we can leave any thoughts about Brad aside, and forget about the previous game........ does anybody have anything constructive to say about this?

Biz.. .how is the single player better then CivV? (I haven't played Warlock yet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But unlike companies like Cyanide, they're not asking previous customers to pay again. And if the game turns out to be good, then $40 ain't a lot of money (see Dominions 3, etc) and if it turns out to be mediocre, then it will no doubt be in a deep discount sale soon enough.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't almost exactly WoM with a few minor changes. They've basically polished and rehashed a game they already released, already asked money for, and are now asking money for again. Even considering that early buyers got a free copy, that's pretty shitty to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly are you complaining about? The only people paying for it are the ones who never bought WoM. Even if it's a very similar game to WoM (I wouldn't know), it's like saying once an expansion pack comes out, the entire game should be free for everyone.

On topic...

from my brief experience with it, the game looks like it will be fun because there's more to it than simply doing stuff faster than the AI. There's an entire fantasy world with tons of lore and quests and lots of choices. It even lists RPG as the genre, in addition to strategy. I don't know if there's actual role-playing or it's limited to choices in the quest rewards and a fairly long line of unit promotions. Either way, the game seems to have a lot of variety, and if the AI is good enough it has the potential to be very strategic.

It's the same guy who wrote Gal Civ II's AI, so there's actually a chance it will work out that way. But even if it doesn't, this game is fun BEFORE you learn everything about it. It isn't like the typical 4X games where you can't really enjoy them until you know how to play.

Most 4X games are really just about wasting 50 hours learning the rules and then optimizing something (growth or military or science or whatever) and then using that against AIs who haven't optimized it as well. In a multiplayer game, it's fine because if you go for the wrong thing, a human is good enough to punish you for it. But in a singleplayer game, the strategic decisions aren't so meaningful if you'll win no matter what you do. Humans know how to exploit an advantage. Computers typically don't. Civ is exactly like this, but you only waste 50 minutes learning the rules instead of 50 hours.

There's a split between the strategic empire-building and the tactical battles, but unlike XCOM or Total War there is some actual strategic interplay between them.

For example, mana is shared. So you basically need to choose between using mana and losing troops. There are also items that have a one-time use so you have to decide when to use them. The troops and their equipment and their location does depend on what you do in the 4X stage, so there's some strategy there as well.

Tactical stuff gets old very quickly, but since there are real strategic choices involved, it may last. But since I can tolerate it and don't completely hate generic medieval fantasy (dragons, mages, trolls, etc.), the worst case scenario for this game is looking pretty good. Maybe it's a waste of money if it only stays fun for a few hours, but it isn't a waste of time which I value a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a great game, and given that these days the game at time of release is is not the game after a few patches its only going to get better.

I agree the tactical battles can get a bit old, I autoresolve the dead easy ones, set the animation speed at 5X for the rest and they are done quick enough that I wouldn't put off playing the game for that.

Its designed by tbs fans for tbs fans. If you have played the "Fall from Heaven 2" mod for Civ IV then you know the great design decisions Derek can bring to allow multiple individual strategies to be synergistic. This game has that and thus its a great tbs. I am also keen to see what fan mods and the Stardock expansion do for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The abominable aesthetics basically killed this game for me before it even started. Especially the humanoid just make me despair. It's on some weird uncanny valley between brown, cartoony, realistic and hydrocephalism.

I still tried to get past this and played for a couple of hours, but the tactical combat is just too uninteresting to me, while it should be one of the two main draws next to the global strategy. And woe betide you if you try to autoresolve any battle with a magic-user because then you can kiss your magic reserves goodbye, if your forces even manage to win.

Basically, for interesting global fantastic strategy stick with Fall from Heaven, and for fun semi-tactical combat there's stuff like Warlock. Both of which look and play better than this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The abominable aesthetics basically killed this game for me before it even started. Especially the humanoid just make me despair. It's on some weird uncanny valley between brown, cartoony, realistic and hydrocephalism.

I still tried to get past this and played for a couple of hours, but the tactical combat is just too uninteresting to me, while it should be one of the two main draws next to the global strategy. And woe betide you if you try to autoresolve any battle with a magic-user because then you can kiss your magic reserves goodbye, if your forces even manage to win.

Basically, for interesting global fantastic strategy stick with Fall from Heaven, and for fun semi-tactical combat there's stuff like Warlock. Both of which look and play better than this game.

:( That's one of my fears about the game. Tactics and strategy rarely seem to mix well in games. They either have to be spectacular (Total War style games), or the main focus of the game (King's Bounty), otherwise, they just tend to make the game take ages. As (I think) Troy was trying to say, the battle is/should be decided before it starts if you're playing strategically well (see: most of history).

Still, the first patch is out, so I'll give the game a whirl over the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stardock isn't the only company that has reprehensible human beings in its ranks. Statistically, any time you buy a game made by a large company, you're probably supporting more sexual harassers than you are when you buy a Stardock game. The only difference is that you heard about Brad Wardell's reprehensibleness on Kotaku whereas most sexual harassment doesn't end up being news.

Are you really arguing that known sexual harassers should get a pass because there are also unknown sexual harassers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really arguing that known sexual harassers should get a pass because there are also unknown sexual harassers?

He's arguing that you shouldn't not buy the game solely on the grounds that the CEO of the company that made is a cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going a bit OT but the thread seems to be going that way.

I'm kinda not understanding all the hate towards Brad Wardell here. An incident occurred at which the collective internet was not present at, we have no idea of the culture at Stardock and thus unable to put into context anything that may have occurred. While yes, even I have to admit his reply email was pretty slack for a CEO, it still is not the smoking gun for sexual harassment.

Some times sexual harassment can be clear cut. If he offerred company promotions for sex, thats clearly sexual harassment. If there is a culture of lewd jokes and somebody doesn't like it is that sexual harassment? Yes it is but its not the same as the above example and doesn't necessarily entitle somebody to sue over it.

To clarify my position, I have no idea if he is guilty or not, there is simply not enough evidence for me to say either way. His email shows he has a poor understanding of human communication and I think if met under the wrong circumstances he could be a pain to deal with.

The only people qualified to talk about the issue are the people at Stardock. If Brad Wardell is guilty of sexual harassment then most likely other staff, past and present, will know about it and the truth will come out. Until then I guess haters gunna hate.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate to say this, because such statements have been the ruin of many internet communities, but "haters gunna hate" is one of the building blocks of rape culture and "the truth will come out" has silenced countless women.

Boycott the game or not, I don't care, but let's not just write alleged sexual harassment as "a culture of lewd jokes" in the name of impartiality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this