Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

   Okay it looks like normal difficulty for the campaign is the correct one for me. The first fight went well without a loss and the second fight had me lose one of my archers. This feels a lot better as compared to losing a longbow in both fights.

[Nelia Hawk]

i am just half way through the first campaign mission, so i cant really comment on much about the game yet... but one "weird" thing i noticed is that it seems i have to build the class building and then research the first unit too to build anything out of it?
so on its own building the class building doesn't do anything, where it could have given a basic class unit with researching higher ones + upgrades. (with the rogue at least)

on first look it does seem to be a pretty solid AoW title. it doesn't invent the wheel new but also it doesn't totally throw in new mechanics so it wouldn't feel like AoW anymore... i.e. instead of turnbased the whole game could have been realtime or so.
that some people feel like its not "the amazing AoW title nr3" might be too because there were 10+ (?) years between aow2 and aow3 and we all played tons of different games in that time and might got "numb" or so over time that nothing feels "amazingly new" anymore and that people are disappointed with "good" or "great" and just seek "amazing", i don't know... but i guess that is more "general gaming nature" nowadays and fits to all games. people always want new experiences and wheel inventions and get bored of "more of the same" even though its good.

and aow3 has some new interesting approaches... sure i liked having 12 (?) different races on one map in the previous aow titles, but also i just saw "religious devout winged orc angel-y" units just now in aow3 and that is something i think haven't seen like this before.
races are not really thrown totally into the cliche route and you can pick some sort of "race specialty focus" with the class system. people who want to try different stuff or don't like playing the "usual warrior/berserker orcs" can spice it up a bit with religious winged angel orcs or mage orcs or so.
i guess there are not that many differences between i.e. an orc assassin and a high elf assassin except the racial stuff but still it seems they actually made unit models for every race/class combinations (?).

the zoomed out map seems to be neat too... similar to civ5 or i think fallen enchantress had something similar too?
the overworld map is pretty too... i.e. the water effects and reflections are pretty neat. birds flying around... you can even see fish swimming under the water sometimes. or houses from towns seem to spread out a bit over the town domain to other towns or along roads. it has quite some details to it and feels prettier than aow2 and overall less glow-y(?). and if the random map generation does create nice maps too then great.
the combat screen units don't seem to have a ridiculous amount of details to them but they don't look "ugly" either for 3d models. not really sure what gfx style it is... maybe similar to torchlight 2?

that the leader isn't stuck in the throne room 90% of the game to cast spells and not risk loosing with death seems to be a good change too.

with the multiple units i see it more similar to i.e. warhammer where you have a unit of 30 spear man vs one big manticore. so i like that change too. you have the smaller army groups of regular units (spear man etc) and then the big single units/monsters/specials. feels better than having 1 spear man vs 1 manticore.

overall it seems to focus a bit less on magic... a bunch of research options are class specific unlocks or empire upgrades and not everything is a spell. but i guess the leaders aren't all mages anymore with the class system. (maybe need to play a mage at some point to find out how magic really "feels" now... i.e. how i.e. a firestorm effects the battle or something similar)
i really liked all the magic spells and effects in aow 1/2 (i.e. a unit with a bunch of enchantments did throw out colorful particle effects with each attack) where in aow3 it seems they "just add damage numbers". but i didn't really look if attack effects change still. (i.e. normal archer fires an arrow and an fire enchanted archer shoots fire arrows then)


well overall i am happy that a new AoW title came out after this long and that they didn't went totally crazy in the way of "we must invent 5 new wheels for the AoW car".
but yeah, i need to play a ton more of it... finish some campaign and play/finish 5-10+ random battles and check out all classes and races and research, to actually see i.e. if the ai is bad and always runs out of their walls instead of using the wall advantage or so. (in aow2 it was crazy to hold of ai armies with just a few units picking off the ai units one at the time in a hole in the wall they try to get through. but i guess the ai might be "more difficult" in some points now as some stuff like  "water embarking" and "wall climbing" mechanics always help that the ai doesnt have to organize army+transports etc)

[Kanil]

Compared to SM, I don't really see where this game falls short. I suppose you might have had higher expectations, given the years, but SM set the bar on a number of things pretty low.

The only things that really stand out to me are the reduction in races (go away you damn dirty orc heroes!) and heroes being a bit weaker... and in turn less interesting, as you spend their initial levelups making them less fragile, instead of taking abilities that help make them feel less samey to one another.

The combat changes definitely take some getting used to, but I think they're alright. Lower tier units are pretty useful, even if they're just for fodder to give your heavy hitters a flanking bonus. Production seems very plentiful though, and choosing between building a tier 1 in one turn or a tier 2 (or 3...) in one turn usually straightforward. Perhaps if you could build more than one unit at a time, that might make the lower tiers more viable.

[Neonivek]

Ok I will admit shadow magic left MUCH to be desired... (Soo broken! Hey final summon that can be obtained within the first 20 turns)

But I always liked to picture a fixed shadow magic.

[Astral]

I think my biggest issue with the multi unit graphics so far is that they are not representative of the combat strength of a unit. I would expect a unit brought down to one health and the last man to do much less damage than a full one, but that is not the case, so it is somewhat annoying to get used to.

[Biowraith]

Yeah the multi-unit visual is very counterintuitive.  I understand why it is the way it is, but it definitely takes some getting used to.

Although now that I have got used to it (all the preview videos I watched probably helped with that) I don't really give it a second thought in-game anymore.

[Greenbane]

The handling of heroes, well, the leader in particular, is a throwback to AoW1 and a definite improvement compared to AoW2, where rulers were forced to stay in their wizard towers to retain most of their usefulness. I always hated that, and missed the warrior kings of the first game. Whether the changes to their initial survivability are bad is debatable. It could be said heroes used to be too powerful, but now very few units can absorb several hits and remain in good shape. Combat's more lethal across the board.

As for the multi-unit visual, well, yes, the constant strength might throw some people off, but it's necessary to keep balancing simpler and give already weaker units some staying power.

[gimli]

Compared to SM, I don't really see where this game falls short. I suppose you might have had higher expectations, given the years, but SM set the bar on a number of things pretty low.

The only things that really stand out to me are the reduction in races (go away you damn dirty orc heroes!) and heroes being a bit weaker... and in turn less interesting, as you spend their initial levelups making them less fragile, instead of taking abilities that help make them feel less samey to one another.

The combat changes definitely take some getting used to, but I think they're alright. Lower tier units are pretty useful, even if they're just for fodder to give your heavy hitters a flanking bonus. Production seems very plentiful though, and choosing between building a tier 1 in one turn or a tier 2 (or 3...) in one turn usually straightforward. Perhaps if you could build more than one unit at a time, that might make the lower tiers more viable.

..the problem is, that many of us expected to have a [vastly] upgraded AoW game for the third installment. I don't see any new major gameplay features, only the class system, which -like I've said- fails as well somehow.
Read the Gamespot review about it, it's well written. The devs should work much more on this part of the game at least, and they should add more new major gameplay elements as well. The game is far from being "unique" or "epic", while AoW 2. - SM was a pretty unique game when it was released. That is why it became a classic.

..and while we are at it. My biggest concern with AoW 3. right now is the combat & sieges. Flanking etc. added, which is good, but the battles and sieges are feeling much worse and boring compared to the AoW 2. battles, even the FE: LH battles are much more enjoyable.

[Greenbane]

..the problem is, that many of us expected to have a [vastly] upgraded AoW game for the third installment.

And I believe that to be an unrealistic expectation. It's been years since I've seen any third installment be markedly superior to its predecessors. And to be honest, AoW2 was largely a graphical upgrade to AoW1, with some improvements and some steps backwards in certain areas. For instance, I always felt AoW1 combat to be more exciting, visceral, because it was bloody and had great, crunchy sound effects. It was always satisfying to land a big, ogre-thrown rock on a halfling. AoW1's music also seems more memorable to me than AoW2's.

It's wise to put things in perspective, and avoid placing old games on a pedestal. It's harder to create a truly exceptional game nowadays because genres and gaming as a whole have developed over the years, and it's become more and more difficult to create something fundamentally new and innovative. If AoW2 had never been released up until now (instead of 3), it wouldn't be all that impressive as it was 10 years ago.

Overall, I think Triumph rose to the challenge and came up with a great product with interesting new features, a solid competitor whose launch state is light years ahead of that of other contenders (looking at you, Elemental).

[Gunner-Chan]

..and while we are at it. My biggest concern with AoW 3. right now is the combat & sieges. Flanking etc. added, which is good, but the battles and sieges are feeling much worse and boring compared to the AoW 2. battles, even the FE: LH battles are much more enjoyable.

You know I'm gonna hate myself for getting involved in a discussion of a game that just came out on here. But I'm really curious how the combat in Age of Wonders 2 Or Shadow Magic was any better. Considering that I liked Shadow Magic quite a bit but stopped playing it mostly BECAUSE I found the combat tended to turn into a deterministic slog.

I can't remember ever winning or losing a fight in Shadow Magic that I didn't know I already won or lost. And in Age of Wonders 3 I've been surpised by pulling wins out of nowhere or losing unexpectedly because I didn't see something coming.

The music and art style in Shadow magic was also a massive step back from the original game too. Hell the prerendered units were like, literally early prerender graphic ugly, and muddy looking as fuck. I'm really glad that they have actual art direction this time.

[Retropunch]

I can't remember ever winning or losing a fight in Shadow Magic that I didn't know I already won or lost. And in Age of Wonders 3 I've been surpised by pulling wins out of nowhere or losing unexpectedly because I didn't see something coming.

I've just got this (played one longish random game) and I have to agree that the combat is much better. In AOW 1-2-SW I ALWAYS knew if I was going to win going into the fight. I've had some interesting turns in this one - the fights have been interesting enough, although I agree that they'll probably get stale (as all TBC games do!).

Overall, it's ok, but nothing special. The classes and 'empire building' were a bit overhyped, and it's unfortunately come out at a time when EE:FE and warlock have kinda done a lot of the usual fantasy TBS stuff pretty well. I imagine with future patches it could become a really well balanced and exciting game (especially if they added a few more buildings, races and spells) but currently it just feels very similar to others.
 

[gimli]

..the problem is, that many of us expected to have a [vastly] upgraded AoW game for the third installment.

And I believe that to be an unrealistic expectation. It's been years since I've seen any third installment be markedly superior to its predecessors. And to be honest, AoW2 was largely a graphical upgrade to AoW1, with some improvements and some steps backwards in certain areas. For instance, I always felt AoW1 combat to be more exciting, visceral, because it was bloody and had great, crunchy sound effects. It was always satisfying to land a big, ogre-thrown rock on a halfling. AoW1's music also seems more memorable to me than AoW2's.

It's wise to put things in perspective, and avoid placing old games on a pedestal. It's harder to create a truly exceptional game nowadays because genres and gaming as a whole have developed over the years, and it's become more and more difficult to create something fundamentally new and innovative. If AoW2 had never been released up until now (instead of 3), it wouldn't be all that impressive as it was 10 years ago.

Overall, I think Triumph rose to the challenge and came up with a great product with interesting new features, a solid competitor whose launch state is light years ahead of that of other contenders (looking at you, Elemental).

Unrealistic expectation? Really? Why? This is the sequel to one of the few classics. We all agreed [I guess?] that the game is not bad, but somehow it just feels very generic. It's an allright fantasy TBS, but that's it. I rather play Dominions 4. or FE:LH in my free time to be honest. Perhaps some expansion packs can enhance the game to a new level.
You are right about Elemental btw..it was a disaster when it came out. It was _much_ worse than AoW 3. I uninstalled it in 2 days. Now I consider FE:LH to be very good, and the v2.0 plans are looking very good as well.

I can't remember ever winning or losing a fight in Shadow Magic that I didn't know I already won or lost. And in Age of Wonders 3 I've been surpised by pulling wins out of nowhere or losing unexpectedly because I didn't see something coming.

I imagine with future patches it could become a really well balanced and exciting game (especially if they added a few more buildings, races and spells) but currently it just feels very similar to others.

Indeed. Let's hope so!

[Retropunch]

Unrealistic expectation? Really? Why? This is the sequel to one of the few classics. We all agreed [I guess?] that the game is not bad, but somehow it just feels very generic. It's an allright fantasy TBS, but that's it. I rather play Dominions 4. or FE:LH in my free time to be honest. Perhaps some expansion packs can enhance the game to a new level.
You are right about Elemental btw..it was a disaster when it came out. It was _much_ worse than AoW 3. I uninstalled it in 2 days. Now I consider FE:LH to be very good, and the v2.0 plans are looking very good as well.

Yeah I agree, it's pretty fun as just a general TBS but it needs a lot of work if it's going to really stand out. To be honest though, I don't think there was anything so, so special about AOW 2/SM - I really enjoyed them and they were well balanced games, but I don't think there was anything that really sets them apart from current ones (obviously they were first and a lot imitated). I do think a lot of this 'SM was so magical and special' is rose tinted glasses/nostalgia.

[gimli]

Unrealistic expectation? Really? Why? This is the sequel to one of the few classics. We all agreed [I guess?] that the game is not bad, but somehow it just feels very generic. It's an allright fantasy TBS, but that's it. I rather play Dominions 4. or FE:LH in my free time to be honest. Perhaps some expansion packs can enhance the game to a new level.
You are right about Elemental btw..it was a disaster when it came out. It was _much_ worse than AoW 3. I uninstalled it in 2 days. Now I consider FE:LH to be very good, and the v2.0 plans are looking very good as well.

Yeah I agree, it's pretty fun as just a general TBS but it needs a lot of work if it's going to really stand out. To be honest though, I don't think there was anything so, so special about AOW 2/SM - I really enjoyed them and they were well balanced games, but I don't think there was anything that really sets them apart from current ones (obviously they were first and a lot imitated). I do think a lot of this 'SM was so magical and special' is rose tinted glasses/nostalgia.

Well, if SM wasn't so special and magical, which fantasy TBS was? [..I know MoM was, but what else?]
Also while we are at it, Worlds of Magic looks promising [soz for this little OT]: http://myworldsofmagic.com/

[Gunner-Chan]

Well, if SM wasn't so special and magical, which fantasy TBS was? [..I know MoM was, but what else?]

MoM as you stated, and the original AoW. AoW2/SM was one step forward (Actual city management + settlers), and a few massive steps back (Poor music, bad flavor decisions, lazy art style, less intresting leaders/heros, no dungeons/exploration sites)

Also since I'm out of the loop, is Warlock 2 a lot like the first one? Since I tried to pique my intrest in it some time ago by checking out some gameplay of the first game, but it struck me as a civ style game that also wanted to be like MoM/AoW so hard it did neither well.