enter the epoch
I'd like to continue the train of thought that began with yesterday's post, especially making due reference to the demos I have acquired and played. My original assessment of Empires: Dawn of the Modern World may have been a bit hasty, as making offhanded comparisons to the magnificent Rise of Nations is probably unfair. Still, beyond the brief impressions of the game, it's hard to discern just what Stainless Steel Studios is trying to attempt, because their official site has little to no information to really base an opinion on.
From what I have read so far about the game, it's really unfair to judge the mechanics based on the two demos, since they actually take small pieces out of the three story-based campaigns available in single player mode. However there is also an Empire-building mode, which is the basis of multiplayer engagements. I am hoping that this is available in single-player as kind of a free-form experience akin to Rise of Nations, except only taking on the past 1,000 years of human history up to WWII. I wouldn't doubt that this style of play will be similar to Empire Earth even, which Stainless developed back in 2001. With a game like Rise of Nations still fresh in my mind, though, I really can't see a reason to pick up E:DotMW except for the story campaigns, which still don't seem much beyond the typical RTS fare.
I should have noted that upon the release of the War of the Ring demo, an announcement was made regarding EA's "top secret" RTS that was in development (consequently, it also made the cover of the latest PCG). The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth is to use a tweaked version of the C&C: Generals engine, and provide epic battles in the same vein as the unsung Total War series. As an aside, if you haven't played Medieval: Total War, you really are missing out on a fantastic RTS experience. I am leaning more towards this incarnation of LOTR-style RTS, as I found The War of the Ring to be uncannily similar to playing Warcraft III. I give Liquid credit for at least being able to duplicate that glorious game engine. Unless you're some sort of Hobbit completist there is really no reason to pick up WotR. I'm sure someone has already created a mod for WCIII.
While on the subject of LOTR licensed entertainment, I should also touch upon PCG's main cover story: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I'd firstly like to ask EA where the fuck the other two went for the PC. I mean we got this half-assed attempt at adapting Fellowship, then The Two Towers went direct to console. Something to do with property licensing, or shitty gameplay...anyway it doesn't matter, because the demo on the PCG CD quite frankly is a colossal waste of time. The camera system is absolute shit, and actually makes it harder when things shouldn't be. The action is a clickfest at best; I didn't care too much about Gandalf's fancy moves or that blue light trailing his staff. Sure, dispatching the endless waves of orcs and Uruk-Hai are great in theory, but when you get trapped on obstacles and receieve the killing blow from unseen foes it tends to leave you wanting to strangle the developers. Not to mention the lack of a mid level save or shitty low-res HUD display. This is yet another movie licenese port gone bad, and I could care less about the exclusive movie footage included in the game. I'll wait for my extended edition of The Two Towers.
I do very much love the creators of PC Gamer, but I find myself questioning their review of Lionheart. Matthew Peckham gave it a 61%, and in the same sentence called it "polished and relatively bug-free". He did seem to have given it a thorough play through, but I still can't understand how much success he had with the game. It was not a finished product and I think a lot of Black Isle fans were burned on this one. Lionheart is coming close to being my biggest game disappointment of 2003.
Lastly, Half Life 2 has been delayed. Fuck, are we going to have to wait until 2004 for both of them now? I got hyped with the best of them over the new screens and gameplay descriptions for Doom III, but the guys over at PA seem to have enjoyed ripping into them. I dunno, is that the same as being iconoclastic? Or are we really putting too much faith in id software's ability to craft an involving story to use their new engine? Carmack says it himself: "A large part of the work is us just not looking stupid."