View Full Version : SORRY, but....5 out of 10

15th Apr 2003, 06:44
this game is wild. i have never played a game that has the potential to be a great stratigey game, and it is, but my problem is that they removed the best aspect of the game in multiplayer.
THE SIEGE. it was really well done in the campaign, i went and jumped the gun telling four of my friends to buy it so we could play on line and then to my surprise..... NO MAPS WITH CASTLES!!!
this was absoulutely disapointing. the fortress siege's are not the only way to play the game but it does take alot away. Soon i heard from my friends asking where the fortress's are, after i crawled out from under the rock i explained that they did not put any in the game. My question is WHY? why would the developer's take a cool game that can only be compared to chess, make it such a wicked game to play and then remove what i feel is one of the best attributes. I can get over the minor issuse's,(limited formation, always putting the leaders in front, no search engine for multiplayer) and manage to still play it with well thought out attacks however i cant get over the annoying lack of variety in multiplayer. Not to mention that without variety it just makes it tedious after a week of playing. Even if the developer's allowed an option for increasing or decreasing the amount of troops you can control, it would have made it that much better. Chess is such a great game, but i already have a chess board. with the knowledge of what games can do i would really appreciate if someone could try to explain to me why the fortress's and option to modify amount of troops was NOT included. Just these two feature's and i would have given it a ten out of ten.

oh and if your explinaton is going to be,"...because they didn't." or "... why don't you do better ...", please, save your time and go to another thread.:confused:

15th Apr 2003, 07:58
Hi Mercury,

I cannot even connect online atm, but I have played the "skirmish" mode so have an idea. While I do agree with you that this mode could offer so much more - especially as you say seige, it also needs more variety as all the maps seem to have towns (correct me if I am wrong please) - might have been an idea to have the odd map with no towns and a set number of troops - so you cannot recruit more - ie one battle of tactics not resourses.
However, do not despair - *if* the code is released at some stage then mod makers will make this a fantastic online experience. After all, mod makers tend to improve games no end. Look at Half-Lifes MOD Counter-Strike. I am a quake3 player but have not played standard q3 for years - I only play mods like Threewave etc. I just hope that two things happen
1. A map Editor is released
2. Code is released for Mod makers

If the code is not released then there should be an expansion released...well I hope :)

15th Apr 2003, 08:28
I think most of us would agree, mercurypitt. Sieges are definately the most entertaining part of the campaign game, and skirmishes could have been so much fun. It's a pretty big oversight, since I don't think it would be that hard to implement. Just make a map with a fortress at opposite ends of the map (for 2 players) or one in each corner or side of the map (for 4 players), then spread some towns around in the open. Or just have the one fortress right in the centre of the map, so that would be become the major objective for all sides. All it would take is a couple of maps....

15th Apr 2003, 11:19
Silvercue-what do you mean by the code-when u were talking about mod making for the game.

Yeah i see what you all mean. Im thinking after a couple of months this game might get a bit repeditive. Im not sure what this game needs but i know it needs something. Id give it a 7 out of 10.

PRAY THEY MAKE AN EXPANSION..............................

15th Apr 2003, 11:47
I am not a mod maker, but I beleive that to make mods the game developers need to release the game coding so that it can be manipulated by modders.