Well first off I think ya'll might have tried to fix what wasn't broken.
FG-II doesn't feel anything like the original.. the only thing they have in common is the name. Honestly, I don't like it very much. It lacks the strait forward simplicity of the original.. Build, research, improve, advance. The only issue I ever had with the original was how lineair the campaign was. The only thing the original lacked was more scale. There just wasn't a whole lot of variance. The graphics are certainly pretty in the new game but pretty doesn't mean better. It doesn't really add to the game.
Worst part is I can see ya'll poured your hearts and souls into FG-II but you missed something critical. I can't put my finger on it but it is there. I think you need to just rebrand/rename it.. It's not Fantasy General. It is a good game but its not Fantasy General.
Of course the worst part is it's not holding my attention.. I'm not looking forward to the next game.. I'm NOT suffering from "Damd I need to sleep but maybe I can squeeze one more battle in." that magic isn't there for me. Not like it is for the Panzer Corp remake of the original Panzer General. That was what I was expecting but its not what we got.
Wish I could tell you all differently but I wont lie to you
Cordially
TLRoff
FG-II an old gamers look.
Re: FG-II an old gamers look.
Hmm, weird. I'm too an old FG1 Veteran who replays the game every few years and I'm have an complete opposite opinion of you when it comes to FG1.
I find FG2 straight forward vs FG1. In FG2 you don't have an option between different Generals at all and your start units are always the same. Which will make FG2 certainly repetitive to replay. FG1 was very complex. I think you had to replay FG1 at least 4 times to see everything and meet every Hero. In FG1 your choice would already change the units in you first battle and give you a different unique hero on the second or third. You had so many choices to make, which is why I keep playing the game over an over again. Thanks to it complexity it was like having 8 different ways to play the campaign. You had 4 different General each with a different focus on units. Mortal infantry or cavalry, Magic or Beasts units from the start. Since you had so many research options you had to prioritize which unit class to research first and with that affect your army competition for the first halve of the campaign. If you would research all units classes equally it would take too long to unlock high tier units and put you behind especially on higher difficulties and when playing Krell or Mordra.
The campaign is quite linear in FG2 where in FG1 you had almost always the choice between two or 3, sometimes 4 battles, often choosing one would lock out the othe. Which would affect which heroes you get, if you finished certain battles unlock bonus battles, and depending of you choices cut of entire part of a continent. Actually I found FG1 too big. So many random battles that many times I was exhausted when reaching Fire Island.
I find FG2 straight forward vs FG1. In FG2 you don't have an option between different Generals at all and your start units are always the same. Which will make FG2 certainly repetitive to replay. FG1 was very complex. I think you had to replay FG1 at least 4 times to see everything and meet every Hero. In FG1 your choice would already change the units in you first battle and give you a different unique hero on the second or third. You had so many choices to make, which is why I keep playing the game over an over again. Thanks to it complexity it was like having 8 different ways to play the campaign. You had 4 different General each with a different focus on units. Mortal infantry or cavalry, Magic or Beasts units from the start. Since you had so many research options you had to prioritize which unit class to research first and with that affect your army competition for the first halve of the campaign. If you would research all units classes equally it would take too long to unlock high tier units and put you behind especially on higher difficulties and when playing Krell or Mordra.
The campaign is quite linear in FG2 where in FG1 you had almost always the choice between two or 3, sometimes 4 battles, often choosing one would lock out the othe. Which would affect which heroes you get, if you finished certain battles unlock bonus battles, and depending of you choices cut of entire part of a continent. Actually I found FG1 too big. So many random battles that many times I was exhausted when reaching Fire Island.
Re: FG-II an old gamers look.
That's what I get for not being awake and not having coffee when I post .. I keep very uneven hours there days.. part of it is helping to look after a somewhat demented but very sweet 93 years old ex mother in law.. (don't ask, please.. its..... complicated)
What I ment to say is the new game is lacking the complication...Yes I agree the original would test the crap out of you.. and more importantly you could LOOSE! Not every game would be a winner. Yep forgot an entire line or two of text in my original post. it was that super secret squirrel code hidden deep inside where the AI would look at your research and builds and go.. yer weak there so lets take advantage of that. It would adapt to what the player had done and ruthlessly exploit your mistakes and decisions. I look at the original compared to a lot of modern games and cannot help but appreciate the genius of the original programmers.
I also have a bit of an issue with all the planed DLC.. I all ready see whats coming.. Core game. 2 patches, DLC, patch to fix the interplay between the first release and the DLC, then 2 more rebalancing patches.. next DLC rinse repeat.. That's my prediction based on what I've seen so many times before.
This sort of stuff is starting to get old fast. It's a constant in the industry now and this old fart really doesn't like it. In an MMO I can expect it, but in a stand alone it pushing the envelope of whats acceptable. I'm to the point where I won't by a game when it first releases. I just finally popped for CA TWTK. Pleased with it and very glad I didn't get it when it first released. FG-II I broke my own rules.
But then I'm an old guy and I recall an electronic manufacturer that had as a corporate motto "The Quality goes in before the name goes on" any of ya remember what corp that was. Their stuff cost a little bit more but as a rule it didn't break..
What I ment to say is the new game is lacking the complication...Yes I agree the original would test the crap out of you.. and more importantly you could LOOSE! Not every game would be a winner. Yep forgot an entire line or two of text in my original post. it was that super secret squirrel code hidden deep inside where the AI would look at your research and builds and go.. yer weak there so lets take advantage of that. It would adapt to what the player had done and ruthlessly exploit your mistakes and decisions. I look at the original compared to a lot of modern games and cannot help but appreciate the genius of the original programmers.
I also have a bit of an issue with all the planed DLC.. I all ready see whats coming.. Core game. 2 patches, DLC, patch to fix the interplay between the first release and the DLC, then 2 more rebalancing patches.. next DLC rinse repeat.. That's my prediction based on what I've seen so many times before.
This sort of stuff is starting to get old fast. It's a constant in the industry now and this old fart really doesn't like it. In an MMO I can expect it, but in a stand alone it pushing the envelope of whats acceptable. I'm to the point where I won't by a game when it first releases. I just finally popped for CA TWTK. Pleased with it and very glad I didn't get it when it first released. FG-II I broke my own rules.
But then I'm an old guy and I recall an electronic manufacturer that had as a corporate motto "The Quality goes in before the name goes on" any of ya remember what corp that was. Their stuff cost a little bit more but as a rule it didn't break..
Re: FG-II an old gamers look.
As an also oldgamer, i'm very disapointed.
I could mention many things but the one and only reason is: Dear devs you made a fundamental error, transformed turn-based strategy into almost-RTS.
You've included so many details in the scens, so why the hell don't give us players the time/rounds to explore them all without loosing gold every turn? That's not the way i like to play turn-based ... but maybe i'm just to old
I could mention many things but the one and only reason is: Dear devs you made a fundamental error, transformed turn-based strategy into almost-RTS.
You've included so many details in the scens, so why the hell don't give us players the time/rounds to explore them all without loosing gold every turn? That's not the way i like to play turn-based ... but maybe i'm just to old
-
OBG_primetide
- Owned by Gravity
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:46 am
Re: FG-II an old gamers look.
I am sorry to hear we couldn't capture the magic for you guys - There are a lot of reasons for the changes and the variety that is there is more inside and between units etc. but I won't try and talk you out of things. I think the game as it stands grows on you when you dig a little deeper, but tha's just me.
However, one thing is clearly NOT the case: There is absolutely no need to rush the game for the "extra" gold. You can explore the map (as in FG1) for plenty of rewards and that more than makes up for not being "in time" for the gold. There are simply different ways of playing and we wanted to support all of them. in FG1 you had HARD turn limits, so that was much more limiting in our opinion.
But obviously your mileage may vary
However, one thing is clearly NOT the case: There is absolutely no need to rush the game for the "extra" gold. You can explore the map (as in FG1) for plenty of rewards and that more than makes up for not being "in time" for the gold. There are simply different ways of playing and we wanted to support all of them. in FG1 you had HARD turn limits, so that was much more limiting in our opinion.
But obviously your mileage may vary
Making Fantasy General 2
Re: FG-II an old gamers look.
Well, the old game never caught my fancy (even though I spent loads of time on Panzer General), but the new one is slowly growing on me, and I like it (even to the extent that I´ve stopped playing Order of Battle for a while).
Maybe a bit too linear, but I´m not the whole way through yet, so really cant say.
Maybe a bit too linear, but I´m not the whole way through yet, so really cant say.
Re: FG-II an old gamers look.
#OBG_primetide
Do not misunderstand me, i played the campaign twice first easy than normal.
At the end i knew, that the gold per turn doesn't matter ... AT THE END!
See what i mean? Constant pressure (feeling) along the campaign although totally senseless. That's really no fun.
Do not misunderstand me, i played the campaign twice first easy than normal.
At the end i knew, that the gold per turn doesn't matter ... AT THE END!
See what i mean? Constant pressure (feeling) along the campaign although totally senseless. That's really no fun.