Seven Kingdoms: Conquest


An RTS that's "fryhtaning" for all the wrong reasons.

ign

By: Tom Chick

Five years ago, Brian Reynolds arrived on the real-time strategy scene and broke the rules with Rise of Nations, a deep but manageable game that put the S in RTS. But five years before that, when Reynolds was just getting warmed up on turn-based strategy games, a fellow named Trevor Chan was already breaking those rules and putting that S into RTS. Chan's Seven Kingdoms series did things you just didn't do in real time strategy: diplomacy, espionage, hiring neutral units from the map, mixing fantasy with history, and the sort of depth you weren't supposed to do in real time. Unfortunately, the games had the dubious honor of being "cult hits," meaning they didn't sell well enough to spawn imitators. It would be another five years of Command & Conquer and Warcraft clones until Reynolds showed up.

So here we are now with a new Seven Kingdoms. The first red flag is that Trevor Chan's name nowhere to be seen. The second red flag is that you're going to have a hard time getting it to run. The third red flag is the lack of helpful documentation. The fourth red flag is that it looks awful. The fifth red flag is that it's hard to tell what's going on. And on and on it goes, red flags piling up relentlessly until there's no denying that you've got a real stinker on your hands.

Seven Kingdoms: Conquest has almost nothing in common with the previous games. The developers at Enlight have completely lost sight of what made the series special. There are a few minor nods to the previous games. For instance, you can use diplomats to try to "buy" neutral sites instead of conquering them. The major combatants are humans and demons, but Enlight opted to call the demons "demons" instead of "fryhtans", which might make more sense, but it just goes to show they couldn't care less about Seven Kingdoms' distinctive mythology. Not that I even know what a fryhtan is after all these years, but if Enlight can't be bothered to recall the terminology, it's a safe bet it's not concerned with tradition.

On a certain level, reboot wasn't necessarily a bad idea. As a design, Seven Kingdoms: Conquest is promising. Someone in Enlight's China studio knows the genre, and there are some clever concepts here. The peon-less economy is based on a simple but strategic resource system based on cities, which are also used to control the map and customize your faction. There's a bit of Rise of Nations in how each city allows a certain number of buildings, which in turn determines your economy, which units you can build, and how many units you can build.

The size and composition of your army depends on expanding out onto the map by either capturing or "buying" new sites, and then developing them. Villages can support a few limited structures, but they can be upgraded to cities, which support more and different types of structures. Humans can build units from other cultures by capturing their villages. Your army causes a constant drain on your food supply (or blood supply, for demons), so bigger armies will need more farms (or blood totems), which will take up more valuable building slots.

The dynamics vary a bit between humans and demons, and each has several sub-factions. There's a variety of units, and many of them have special abilities you can purchase with "reputation" or "fear", which is each race's global pool of experience points. Furthermore, different units have different special abilities that can be researched. Each faction has powerful hero and god units, which can buff your armies and give you even more powerful spells. When it comes to armies, Seven Kingdoms: Conquest is varied and generous.

There's even a sort of "sub-economy" based on creeps scattered around the map. They're useful not just for experience points (i.e. "reputation" and "fear"), but they also guard pools of a unique resource called demon essence. Only certain types of units can harvest this stuff, which is the sole resource for "demon powers". You can call up a menu to spend your demon essence on these powers, which range from additional resources, to buffs and debuffs, to taking over enemy units, or to calling in your heroes or gods. In the hands of a competent developer, many of these features could make for an exciting and deep RTS.

But no such luck here. The first and biggest problems are technical. This is a primitive 3D engine with fancy effects slathered on top of dated graphics. Do these blocky polygonal units really benefit from HDR lighting? Is bloom going to do any good with a palette this muted and artwork this uninspired? Seven Kingdoms: Conquest has the look of a five-year-old game dug out of the attic and repainted in the hopes that you'll mistake it for something new. The sound is also horrible, featuring screams and clangs you've heard elsewhere, presumably drawn from some cheap sound library.

But even more damning is the game's instability and utter lack of QA. On three completely different computers, I was unable to get it running until I dialed the graphics way down, turning an ugly game even uglier. Somewhere in all the settings are some seriously broken features that cause black screens, permanently opened windows, hard locks, and rampant graphical corruption. Given the variety of hardware and drivers I tried, the problem seems to go much deeper than some isolated hardware incompatibility.

Even if these problems were fixed, the interface falls far short of what this level of complexity needs. To the game's credit, there's ample information available about each unit, and you can even right click on the "train unit" button to find out more info about the unit before you actually spend money on it. But for the most part, this is an awful interface. There are hotkeys that don't work, clicks that don't take, and pathing AI that falls apart, making messy unit management even messier. There are no formations, which is a dire problem with larger armies. Features like customizable hotkeys for unit powers are all but useless when there's no easy way to specify which unit is going to use its power.

There's no handy way to get to various buildings, which makes for a lot of scrolling around the map, hunting for where you built that demon haunt. Or was it a demon portal? No, that's one's a demon void. The generic building graphics do very little to stand out from each other, which is a problem considering how unit training, base building, research, and upgrades are scattered to the five winds, living variously in several different buildings. The bottom line is that the scale of the game quickly outstrips the interface. At this point, it's a bit silly to complain about the AI, the lack of map variety, or the sluggish pacing, all of which aren't that big of a problem in a game you won't want to play in the first place.

Closing Comments
This is an even worse game than Empire Earth 3 for the simple fact that the design shows promise, but it's utterly undermined by the horrible execution. With a better interface, a stable engine, and better pacing, this could have been a decent RTS, particularly for multiplayer. To the developer's credit, it didn't waste its time on a turgid storyline (see also Sins of a Solar Empire), and it knew enough to borrow from better games.

But for whatever reason, the execution completely falls apart. Even with the latest patch (v1.04), it's still an inexcusable mess. In its current state, Enlight should be ashamed for releasing it and Dreamcatcher should be ashamed for publishing it. You're better off taking almost any RTS at random from the last 10 years than you are playing Seven Kingdoms: Conquest. The only good to come from this soupy half-baked mess is that maybe it'll pique your curiosity to see how one of the original Seven Kingdoms holds up. Hmmm, I wonder if I still have those disks in a closet somewhere....

©2008-05-12, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Read more

My Horse & Me


Send it to the glue factory.

ign

By: Jack DeVries

Sometimes we wonder how many little girls open up their birthday presents and find a horse themed video game in lieu of an actual equine. Based on the sheer number of horse games in the past couple years it seems like it'd be the country's leading cause of disappointed little girls. My Horse and Me for PC is just another game in the line of equine let-downs.

Instead of the American heartland farm setting of many horse games, My Horse and Me puts the player in the role of a professional show jumper. Players compete in events in scenic New England (or maybe European) areas.

The events are pretty basic, but are very similar to what we've seen in show jumping competitions that occasionally play weekdays in the mid afternoons on ESPN. There are a number of jumps that need to be cleared in a certain order, and players are ranked based on their time, with penalties given for mistakes.

The basic design of My Horse and Me isn't bad. The idea of competing in show jumping competitions has its appeal, and the courses are pretty well designed, but get pretty repetitive.

The controls for the PC version are definitely easier to master than the Nintendo Wii counterpart, though they're decidedly more boring. Players use the arrows keys to control the horse's speed and direction. It's not as engaging as using the controllers like reins, but at least it works

Despite the easier controls, the game is still fairly difficult overall. The horse just seems slower in this version. The competitions are easier to compete, but it's still hard to get gold on the later levels.

Doing well in the competitions earns the player new clothing and gear, and stuff for the horse. Some of the cooler items require gold medals in the harder events. Really though none of the items seem cool enough to really motivate going back and mastering certain events. All the times we attempted this ended up in disappointment since the clothing and gear are never as cool as they sound.

The other major aspect of My Horse and Me is taking care of and customizing our horse. In the Nintendo DS version this was done through a series of touch screen minigames, but for the PC, it's done through practically nothing. There is an option to groom the horse, but nothing tells us how that is done. There's a hard brush, a soft brush, and a sponge, but where and how do we apply this to the horse?

Worse yet, the horse doesn't even respond. We scrubbed our horse, Wildfyre, on his face with the hardbrush, and sprayed the hose all up on its underside, and our stallion stood like a mannequin. It's fine that the developers focused more on the riding aspect of the title than taking care of the horse like other games do, but they then should not have tried to market it as both. You don't take care of a horse, or share any emotional moment with it, despite the loving embrace of girl and mare on the cover.

The people within the game are barely more lifelike than the horses. The character models are decent enough, but have few animations and only one facial expression. The spectators in each course are so few that it makes the game accidentally funny when the announcer talks about the great turnout. Of course, maybe six people is a good turnout for a show jumping event.

The announcer is always really excited, but only at the beginning of each event. He doesn't comment on the results. The game barely recognizes if we somehow managed to do well. There's no fanfare when we win a big competition.

There's a share-the-pain, er, multiplayer option for the game that has players take turns competing in the events. It's a slow experience since everyone has to wait for the other player to finish, and there's no excitement involved.

Closing Comments
My Horse and Me is almost a passable horse game that adolescent girls (and hey, maybe guys) could enjoy. But as it is, the game is repetitive and just kind of boring. It barely even acknowledges we're playing, so there's no encouragement to put up with its poor design and ugly visuals. If parent's get this for their kid, they better not expect to quell demands for a real horse for long.

©2008-05-09, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved



Read more

Galactic Civilizations II: Twilight of the Arnor [PC]


Brad Wardell packs a universe on your hard drive with the exceptional expansion pack for Galactic Civilizations II.
gamespy

By: Allen 'Delsyn' Rausch

Brad Wardell and his Stardock team had an impossible challenge when they decided to create a second expansion pack for Galactic Civilizations II. Dark Avatar, the game's first expansion, was everything an expansion pack should be, adding an insane amount of new features and significantly deepening the basic gameplay, vaulting an already-stellar title into the realm of strategy-game classic. We loved it so much, in fact, that we placed Dark Avatar at number six on our overall Top Ten games of 2007. Fortunately for strategy-game lovers, the Stardock team seems to thrive on impossible challenges. The result of this drive for strategy game greatness is Twilight of the Arnor, a second expansion pack for Galactic Civilizations II that manages to outshine the first.

Twilight of the Arnor picks up directly after the end of Dark Avatar. The universe is still on fire with the Drengin/Korath civil war spinning out of control. Most of the other races of the galaxy, save the humans, are either beaten to exhaustion or are trying to avoid becoming collateral damage in the Drengin's destructive feud. Earth remains safely hidden behind an impenetrable force shield but the price of the Terran's security is being unable to impact galactic events. Things begin to change when a deep space Terran Alliance task force discovers the last surviving Arnor, a member of the galaxy's first sentient race, who offers the Terrans and their allies a slim chance to defeat the Korath and their unseen Dread Lord puppet masters.


The game's storyline is a cheesy pastiche of sci-fi cliches liberally borrowed from sources ranging from "Babylon 5" to "Star Trek" to the old "Star Control" games. Fortunately, the game's cornball storyline isn't the only reason to play through the well-constructed eight mission campaign. Each of the campaign's missions is built around fun strategic challenge very different from the game's main "sandbox" mode. Particular standouts include "Of the Arnor" where players must figure out how to crack the nut of a single Dread Lord planet while being continually harassed by the Korath. Players who pride themselves on their diplomatic skills will enjoy "Rock and Hard Place," a test of battlefield diplomacy that's the turn-based strategy game equivalent of yelling "Can't we all just get along?" while standing between trenches during WWI.

The true standout feature that makes Twilight of the Arnor special are the racially unique technology trees. The idea behind them is fairly simple. Alien races and alien cultures view the universe in radically different ways. These differing perspectives will dictate the ways their technology develops as each culture creates tech to complement and support their moral and cultural outlooks. The Drengin, for example, have an entire culture built around slavery and the aesthetic appreciation of other peoples' pain. The Yor, on the other hand, are a race of sentient machines determined to rid the universe of organic intelligences while the Korx are a mercantilist species willing to sell their own mothers for a decent profit. Twilight of the Arnor swaps out the fairly generic tech tree of Dark Avatar and gives each of the game's 12 pre-made races their own upgrade paths as well as race-specific discoveries.

The unique techs are a real game-changer. What was once a fairly generic upgrade path followed by every race becomes a radically different strategic experience every game. Choosing to play as the genocidal Korath will give an insanely aggressive game: the cheapness of their planet-destroying spore ships, the versatility of their weapons research tree and their host of diplomatic penalties guarantee it. On the other hand, playing as the religiously minded Krynn offers a choice of powerful cultural enhancements that can flip enemy worlds without firing a shot or a more violent path designed to create fleets of tiny suicide-bombing vessels that spread the Krynn faith by the sword

Factors change even more depending on the player's choice of rival civilizations. Playing as the Krynn against the powerful but slow-moving Arceans is very different than going up against the Korx. If there ever was a "desert island game," Twilight of the Arnor is it. It's very possible to play this game for years and never have the same experience twice. Even if it was, a powerful group of easy-to-use editing tools included with the game would take care of it.

While not quite as radical a shift as the new tech trees, Twilight of the Arnor does add a few more toys to the player's arsenal. Each race, for example, gets some great unique planetary buildings. The Drengin, for example, get "Slave Pits" rather than factories. They offer the same amount of production but also lower the race's diplomatic influence. "Ascension," a new (optional) victory condition places five randomly placed crystals on the map. Players win by building a starbase on them and holding them long enough to accrue 1,000 victory points. This, needless to say, doesn't make one popular with the galaxy's other denizens and offers a neatly thorny problem in map control and defensive warmaking. In fact, the only big-ticket feature that doesn't quite live up to expectations is the solar system-destroying Terror Stars. They're fun but incredibly resource-intensive and fragile, making them more of a gimmick or an end-game cleaner than a viable strategic path.


The expansion also sports an insane number of smaller additions and tweaks, any one of which would be welcomed by long-time GalCiv fans. A new finance management screen, for example, makes it easier to run a solid economy by collating all the information on leases and infrastructure maintenance charges. Right-clicking on a technology brings up a host of details about that tech including the bonuses it offers, the abilities it unlocks and the future advances it leads to. This is insanely valuable not only in planning research but also in negotiating with rival races. Trading technology just got a lot simpler and players no longer need to worry about giving away the keys to the kingdom because they forgot that a particular tech might give an unstoppable advantage to a particular race. There's an option for new players allowing the computer to automatically build ships for you that take advantage of new techs. The AI does only a fair job, but it's a nice way for GalCiv newbies to get a feel for the incredibly powerful (and graphically upgraded) ship-building system.

If there's one major strike against Twilight of the Arnor, it's the same criticism that's been leveled against it since the original GalCiv release back in 2003 -- no true multiplayer. While the game does have a good "metaverse" system that now includes regular tournaments, it's no substitute for a true multiplayer match-up. What makes it worse is that the game's new "immense" galaxy size, which creates games that take literally months to play, seems like an absolute natural for some sort of play-by e-mail system. Stardock has been justly praised in the past for the strength of its game AI -- and it's actually gotten better in Twilight of the Arnor -- but we still want our multiplayer.

Multiplayer quibbles aside, there's simply not that much to complain about in Twilight of the Arnor and far, far too many things to praise in this small amount of space. The technology trees alone make it impossible for someone who's sampled Twilight of the Arnor to ever go back to just playing Dark Avatar. Add to that impressive customization tools, new gameplay dynamics, better AI, graphic upgrades, new ship-builder components and completely re-done flavor text and hundreds and hundreds of smaller tweaks, fixes and changes and what you have is an absolute triumph and a new standard for turn-based-strategy games. Bravo, Stardock. This is how expansion packs should be done.

©2008-05-07, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Read more

Iron Man

It's a watered-down PS2 version. That's not a typo. PlayStation 2.

By: Greg Miller

It's not often that I'm flabbergasted at work. After reviewing five versions of Iron Man in five days, I thought I had seen it all, but I was wrong, friends. Today, Iron Man on the PC showed up, I popped it in, and my jaw dropped.

This is the exact same game as the PlayStation 2/Wii/PSP SKU.

Don't get me wrong, that fact alone isn't a reason to condemn it. It's just that in our world of multi-platform releases, it's rare to see the PC share a version with anything other than PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. I started the first mission and gave the title the benefit of the doubt that perhaps PC was the lead SKU and the muted textures and all-around sad visuals I saw on the other systems wouldn't be a factor on the PC.

I was wrong. This is literally the PS2 game at a higher resolution.

Loosely based on the No. 1 film in America, Iron Man tosses you into the red-and-gold suit of Tony Stark and sets you loose on more than a dozen missions filled with guards, laser cannons and super villains that you won't find in the movie--folks such as Whiplash and Titanium Man. It might sound cool, but the problem is that this story is largely invented and strays from the plot points and character-defining moments of the film. You'll never get to care about Yinsen, Obadiah's power-hungry from the get go, and Stark almost always seems like a jerk. Plus, the cutscenes stink. Not even voiceovers from Robert Downey, Jr. and Terrence Howard can save them from being ass--there are crazy eyes, mouths not moving the right way, characters that don't look right, etc.

However, games aren't all about story, and Iron Man does have a few things going for it. Each time you're ready to jump into your flight suit, you'll choose your mission, one of the six unlockable suits of armor, and which upgrades you'd like to use. See, rather than have you earn money from your battles like the PS3/360 version of Iron Man does, this incarnation of the game upgrades your gear--repulsor, ballistics, explosives and armor--based on how much you use them. If you're like me, you'll find yourself hovering around levels and blasting evildoers with your repulsors the most, and in no time, you'll have taken your laser gauntlet from the most basic tech (fast but weak) to the mega-awesome Optimal Beam Damage. Of course, this applies to whichever device you're using, and a few will actually upgrade to the point where you need to choose which option you'll be using in battle (i.e. which type of missile you want to launch into some dude's face).

Once you're into the actual mission, Iron Man works like most third-person shooters on the PC--WASD to move, mouse for the camera and to fire weapons, etc.--but when you want to speak specifically to what makes this an Iron Man title, it comes down to suit controls. Space makes you hover, Alt kicks on the afterburner, and 1 through 4 control your energy manager. This feature actually allows you move from a balanced energy-spending state to favoring one of Iron Man's attributes. Shift the power to propulsion to fly faster, to armor to take less damage, or to weapons to wreck shop.

While this scheme works pretty well for fighting on the ground or standing/hovering in one place and blasting foes, you can't really brawl while flying. This means that you'll rocket toward your enemies, stop, and then hover around while shooting repulsor blasts. It looks and feels nothing like a real Iron Man fight. You're just some guy somberly gliding around the map.

Luckily and sadly, Iron Man isn't hard. At all. Enemy attacks do little to no damage, but if they should gang up and whittle your armor energy down to nothing, you'll have the chance to restart your heart. Basically, a minigame pops up where you have to tap a corresponding button to register a heartbeat. If for some reason you fail at this simple task, you'll consume one of your three backup power cells and be tossed back into the game. It's not that I mind a simple game--and it's way better than the uber-frustrating PS3/360 version--but when you can just sit down and plow through the game in a day, there really isn't much of an incentive to pick it up. There's no challenge.

Still, there are two problems that are evidence enough to convict this game of crimes against a PC. To begin with, it looks terrible. Everything's clearer than the PS2 versions, but the same blocky models, blank textures, and bland colors remain. The PC version even adds visual glitches such as giant brown swatches instead of shadows underneath tanks and building windows that flicker. Next, this game just isn't any fun. I haven't called out or praised any specific levels or enemies because Iron Man just blends together. You just move from one point to another eliminating whatever is in your way.

Closing Comments
Both the pros and cons of Iron Man on the PlayStation 2 led to me scoring the title as a "Meh" on the IGN scale--it wasn't awful or amazing for the platform. However, with the unlimited potential of the PC, standards are different here. Terrible visuals, straightforward/easy gameplay, and a plethora of other problems make Iron Man fail at being anything worth trying.

©2008-05-07, IGN Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Read more