GameSpy FE preview: "5 things that have improved and 5 things that need improve"

Excellent preview and very reassuring since we definitely see the same things they see as good (and areas that need to be worked on).

Whenever I read a preview, I always worry that there's going to be a set of concerns that are things that don't match what we're trying to do with the game.  For instance, imagine a preview that was disappointed because they thought we shouldn't have tech trees (some beta testers made that argument) or that magic should go back to being reearched via arcane points.  So it's good to see that we're on the same page there.

I think the next public update will address most of what he's talking about.  It remains to be seen regarding tactical battles. I would oppose seeing tactical battles be made more complex but on the other hand, more balancing of tactical spells and items can have a massive plus to the tactical experience.

I'ts a good and fair preview.  

As for tactical battles, I think a couple things would really help.  Being able to assign placement, not every battle, but be able to arrange my army so I know if I do start a battle, my meat shields are up front and my archers/mages are behind.  Also, I would want to limit the range of bows and magic.  Right now as you start a battle, all archers can target a single enemy across the map.  It's tried to be balanced by slowing the rate of fire and amount of damage bows do, but I would rather limit the range of bows. 

Not a bad preview. My only disagreement is with #2 of the "What needs work" I honestly feel that should be in the plus column. I see nothing wrong with "Fallen Enchantress is easy to play, but hard to be good at."

I agree with Xia on all points.  +1 pony for you!

And the thing is, a lot of us here who have played Elemental for years now, can beat the game on higher settings regularly and want more of a challenge, but I bet a ton of people who buy the game will be freaked by how difficult it can appear.  Not being able to escape battles, seemingly surrounded by super powerful monsters and the AI isn't as weak or dumb as a lot people claim(remember we in the beta are not average 4X gamers, we are advanced), it's already pretty solid.  I may be wrong, but I bet it will be difficult for a lot of new players.  

Not bad at all.  I agree with Leo in WI about #2.  Something that is easy to play but hard to master is what makes something fun.  Hopefully #5 will also be answered by the campaign.  All in all, I think the review is very positive.

About the "story" how about narrating some stuff you can discover while playing? Like the wildlands, Imperium, certain nasty monsters or important persons and of course the epic quests.

But I don't know what the guy is talking about, it's a sandbox game. The campaign will have a story will it not?

I don't agree with all of the bad points- I don't want to see too much emphasis on tactical for example.

If i understood one of Dereks post correctly neither the player nor the AI use spells in tactical battles, right? If that is the case it would be a "cheat" to avoid enemy mages and i think the player and the AI should always use spells in tactical battles.

I disagree with the first point about "disjointedness," which the writer evidently equates to breaking genres.  That's not a problem, it's a positive feature.  FE adds more genuine RPG style gameplay on a 4x strategy base than any other TBS I've played, and does it well.  In an age where games are frequently differentiated by their graphics alone, it's nice to see a developer push the envelope to bridge two genres so well.

The AI should use spells in tactical battles. 

The problem is that, right now, those different genres don't necessarily mix well in the game.  RPG champions don't really need the 4x cities.  So it is a but disjointed in that it's like playing 3 games instead of 1 with multiple, interconnected parts.  

The AI does use spells in tactical battles all the time.

Points #1 & #2 & #5 on the "needs improvement" list  I all have issues with...  the disjointed feel is entirely in my opinion due to the beta nature of the game... How can you critique "disjointed" when your playing a Beta which purpose is expressly to test balance and bugs... of course it's disjointed... your missing a friggin 1/3 of the game... the campaign that is the joining up module portion of the game... DUH!!!

Same with #2... learning curve... agian its a BETA!!! I suspect the campaign will do much toward stearing players "how" to play in the sandbox... Having said that... it does have a steep learning curve. and "normal" difficulty is a real challenge.  but is that the fault of the game or is that the fault of industry that makes "normal" difficulty typically a cakewalk.  I see the games my kids play on Wii.  on Normal difficulty and they are a joke.... if my 5 yr old can navigate the latest Zelda game rated "T" on normal then I would think the difficulty is dumbed down a bit...   Mind you my 12 yr old was yelling at the computer when on normal for FE he got is butt kicked... he was offended when I suggested he turn down the difficulty setting... (easy is for wusses you see) when I pointed out that have a hard time on normal he rethunk that... (he may be able to wipe the floor with me on any FPS or Twitch and jerk games but on and RTS or TBS he has come to respect his old man's gaming abilities. LOL he's learned the hard way that if he survives more that 20 min on any RTS multiplayer its because I'm not trying.... )

and on #5.. little disengeneous to be commenting on a lack of story when the Story hasn't been released. 

on the 3 I find the combat screens a little simple too but then anything short of Total War style combat screens are going to be dissapointing to me personally. now while Total War style combat in a 4x strategy game would be TOTALLY COOL and quickly rank in the range of BEST GAME EVER BUILT... that is probably a bridge to far.. maybe FE2?      (Mind you I shudder to think of the system requirements such a game would need)

I think Lord Xia has hit the nail on the head.  I may not be as hardcore as some of the guys in the Beta, but I've been playing these kind of games for a long time and IMHO FE is no Civ V.       

I do agree with you that more balance is needed between the strength of city resources and champions.  But I think the point the GameSpy writer is making is that you can't successfully combine tactical combat, 4x TBS strategy, and roleplaying.  And that's wrong, because it confuses an issue of implementation with an inflexible theory of game genre.  Master of Magic successfully combined all three of these elements in 1994, and the Age of Wonders series did it again several years later.  All those games sold well.  It's not done often, because it's difficult to get the balance and mechanics right, and because it's much easier conceptually to simply drop a hero on a large map, give them a bunch of fetch quests, throw in a ton of monsters and special effects and do up a popular Diablo clone.

Not to knock that writer, but I have to wonder how much background they have in earlier PC games, if they think those elements can't be successfully combined, and don't know about FE's predecessors.

Hmm, I didn't read it that way at all.  

Good article. It seems to me like the only persistent criticism is going to be that the game is hard to understand. That should be the case and hopefully always will be. Just need to make sure there is a wiki manual that gets updated with each new version and is smartphone compatible.

I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

Heh.

I'd agree with SeanW that we're all very close to the game, and in both broad concepts and details, know it pretty well.  A very detailed Hiergamenon seems essential to me (and once again--let's see spells sortable by spellbook), and a good external manual, a must.  FE doesn't need to be dumbed down, but it does need good hand-holding to make the learning curve easier for new players.

It is going to be bad to begin with because you'll get a crowd saying BLAH BLAH BLAH this is not 4x game... a 4x game should be like (pick your favorite main stream 4x game). But people will learn to appreciate all the depth that is in the game and look at the pretty fonts and say "This is a good game." I know I didn't quite enjoy the game the first go around and now I enjoy playing this game again and again. There are lot of key points that people look at the game and say well maybe not. But your description of the game and the promise of what the game has in store for the consumer is what I found in this game.

The points made in the article are valid and some seem a little short sighted, but then somebody probably needed to say something about the game that is being released Oct 23 and this is what they found out to be. The game is easy to play (great plus) and difficult to master (great plus). I think you have polished up a lot between RPG and 4x strategy. The mix of the tactical battles seems to throw these reviewers for a loop. The articles I've seen show that they miss the purpose and point of the tatical battle portion of the game.

I think there isn't a clear message on what to expect from this game at the moment and people are still figuring this out. Even playing the beta here I notice that there are several camps that push for better RPG or 4x strategy or Tatical battles... I think a clear statement of the purpose of mixing the 3 would go a long way for understanding by all the players here.

My understanding is that you are creating a game to produce an epic RPG empire building game (for sandbox mode). The empire building is clear for what it is build cities and troops and try to dominate the unexplored map. Taking control of limited resources and removing the competition. The RPG portion is a little more touchy, as you are playing the role of a great channeler and you write your story of how you grew to power or fell to mighter powers. The world is against you, the monsters are scary and plentiful and the other channelers are wary of your end goal.

From that description, how do tatical battles fit into the scheme I've described. I believe the tatical battles are an extension of the RPG side of the story. The player chooses to play out the epic more important battles of the sovereigns life to describe the events that took place (speaking of which if the sovereign dies in battle there should be a magical effect around them when it happens). To help flesh out the reality that this is an RPG, there is an element of real danger and the person has control over that person's life. But the less mundane battles can be autoresolved which is the empire building part of the game, and a battle took place where I won and they lost and a few troops died in the process, now moving on.

The point is that there needs to be a clearer message to what kind of game you are intending and what your vision of how the pieces are to fit together, but that is a double edged sword, because then people can say, if you succeeded or not. By the way love the game.

Interesting article. Intersting read.

1. I can see why 'Disjointedness' is on his list. I think he is correct in saying that 3 games (rpg, 4X, tactical) are trying to co-exist in one and that they do not quite mesh yet.
• There is no real 'story' being told in the sandbox mode, so RPG has been, I won't say completely slashed, but definately partially hindered out of the equation. Out of the 4 ways to win: You have 4x war, The 4x Research Race, the 4x peace and a side-Quest Race. There is nothing governing they're existance and no pressure that makes you feel involved and emmersed in a world of magic. I get more 'RPG' experiance watching final cutscenes from Starcraft and Warcraft II than I do from this game. 
• The tactical maps don't tell the story either. You 'zoom' into a battlefield experiance (which is awesome) but the tatical battlefields don't completely represent the strategic map they came from. Occasionaly buildings and ambience is transferred over, but many of the smaller details are still left out. Hills don't slow troops down. Forests don't block line of sight. Rivers?? Don't exist? Roads aren't properly represented. It just feels like your army is transported to a little box where you duke it out, and the winner is transported back.
2. Don't quite understand his 'Learning Curve' comment. This seems to be the goal of all developers. Design a game that's easy to play, yet hard to master. I can only see this point being said from those that like being spoon fed their entertainment.
3. I agree with his 'Combat' comment, but he's repeating himself as he's mentioned the disjointness of tactical combat already.
4. I also agree with his 'Diplomacy' comment. In an RPG world, there should be interactions galore!! Stealing princesses and rescuing them. Revolts from a city as a new hero gets just a little too full of himself. Trades. Treaties. Backstabs. Plot. Plot. Plot. Granted, there is backstory to each of the factions...but HOW does that effect the gameplay?? It should be seen and felt; ie different quests and storylines existing for different faction leaders.
5. Again, his 'Story' comments can easily be merged in with the disjointedness being felt.

So really he only has 3 points that he's having trouble with.

The only semi-meh thing they stated I agree with is the tactical battle maps.  More variety in mid-map placement of trees and rocks would create some cool choke points.

Honestly, I would love if tactical battles were more complex. The new Xcom did a great job with that.