Thriller (AKA, Undead Armies) » Forum Post by Leonon

Why create a new unit called the Kabalkoz write a huge history and then add its description which does the same thing, when the gamer will just refer to them as vampires.

You have a point, but I feel the creative industry (especially in fantasy) has gotten a bit..... lazy in that they keep re-using "stat blocks" like undead+hurt by holy attacks+drains life. When was the last time you saw something completely new? (And I don't think we've used up all possible combinations yet).

In any event, even if they are not included in the vanilla release (and I doubt that they will be), the modders will be creating them left and right, and this thread would probably serve as an excellent guide.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Philocthetes

Join Date 10/2003

+153

Quoting NTJedi,

reply 25

... Most fantasy games include these popluar fantasy creatures because the customers already know their traits and abilities. There's no need to spend time writing a description and history for the customer to learn the unit... aka 'vampire' will drain life blood, is undead and holy attacks hurt. Why create a new unit called the Kabalkoz write a huge history and then add its description which does the same thing, when the gamer will just refer to them as vampires.

I think that for some of us the whole point is to have a *new* fantasy world to learn and muck about with. When I play a civ-style PC game, I'm as much or more interested in the story that unfolds as I am in the crude mechanics of how troops with steel weapons have advantages over troops with bronze weapons.

When you insist that a game (or movie or TV series) include an arbitrary list of common tropes (schtick, archetypes, whatever), you are forcing that game's story layer to stay at or below the lowest common denominator. I prefer an above-average experience.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Scoutdog,

reply 1

You have a point, but I feel the creative industry (especially in fantasy) has gotten a bit..... lazy in that they keep re-using "stat blocks" like undead+hurt by holy attacks+drains life. When was the last time you saw something completely new? (And I don't think we've used up all possible combinations yet).

In any event, even if they are not included in the vanilla release (and I doubt that they will be), the modders will be creating them left and right, and this thread would probably serve as an excellent guide.

Well I believe lazy would be if the game developers do not provide leveling of units, more than a few strategic options for each unit as well as evidence the original creature has been researched to match the traits. This is where gamers quickly find the game bland with little replay value because the game has few strategic options.

Several games have introduced new creatures, but none of them are remembered/used by other game developers... this is probably due to a combination of egos and infringement on intelligectual property rights. Just take a look at the creatures inside AgeofWonders:SM and you'll find a few new creatures. Most of the fantasy creatures have originated from historic myths/tales for centuries where no single company owns the rights... providing more of a grimoire of variety of units well known.

The benefits for using the grimoire of well known mythical creatures allows the gamer to more easily imagine the battles, the races, and behaviors. A gamer can more easily daydream about his vampire army after watching a vampire movie as compared to some creature which has no representation beyond the game... and TBS games can't afford to spend the time developing the behaviors/habits of these creatures in the game. Thus any new creatures created leaves only knowledge of how the unit attacks and defends itself in a game. Creatures which have appeared in books, movies, and television we're provided details of behavior, habits as well as fighting skills... and the vast majority of those have originated from myths in history.

Quoting GW Swicord,

reply 2

I think that for some of us the whole point is to have a *new* fantasy world to learn and muck about with. When I play a civ-style PC game, I'm as much or more interested in the story that unfolds as I am in the crude mechanics of how troops with steel weapons have advantages over troops with bronze weapons.

When you insist that a game (or movie or TV series) include an arbitrary list of common tropes (schtick, archetypes, whatever), you are forcing that game's story layer to stay at or below the lowest common denominator. I prefer an above-average experience.

Actually the majority of fantasy creatures have not originated thru movies, television, or games... but based on myths from human history. The games, television and movies have only made them different such as zombies eating brains. Games include the well known types of creatures to lure individuals which may have always carried an interest for werewolves, dwarves, vampires, dragons, etc., .

Upon reviewing all the games which have introduced new creatures... which ones do we see appearing in other games? While I might create a few unique creatures for a game, it's clearly known the classic creatures are always remembered. Of all the games which have introduced new creatures I can't think of any of them which are even discussed on forums outside of its own game forum??

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually the majority of fantasy creatures have not originated thru movies, television, or games... but based on myths from human history. The games, television and movies have only made them different such as zombies eating brains. Games include the well known types of creatures to lure individuals which may have always carried an interest for werewolves, dwarves, vampires, dragons, etc., .

Upon reviewing all the games which have introduced new creatures... which ones do we see appearing in other games? While I might create a few unique creatures for a game, it's clearly known the classic creatures are always remembered. Of all the games which have introduced new creatures I can't think of any of them which are even discussed on forums outside of its own game forum??

Actually, my favorite units in fantasy games tend to be the more exotic ones. Why use werewolves and vampires and all when I can play with them in countless games, watch them in even more movies, read about them in a billion books... Just to give an example, my favorite unit in HoMM V is the Rakshasa Raja - I've never seen one of those in a game, book or movie. I'm well aware that Nival didn't invent them (they're based on a hindu myth), but they aren't overused and stale - still when I think of HoMM V, I picture the Rakshasa Raja. It's the same reason why my favorite races in AoW:SM were the Tigrans, Frostlings, Syrons and to an extent Shadow Demons. Many of the units used by those races were pretty unique/different, and so for me they were the most fun and the most memorable.

I'm not saying Stardock should spend ages and great pains coming up with all totally original creatures unrelated to all previous imaginings of mankind. Just that using the same units and creatures in the same way that we see them in every other game is not ideal. Use some of them, but throw in some more exotic and inspired creatures into the mix. And your argument that games should just use and reuse the same old cast as every other fantasy game so that people don't have to figure out what they do and how they work makes me cry a little bit inside. This is a strategy game: even if you know that vampires drain life you're going to have to figure out exactly how that functions in this game, how powerful it is, who it works against and how to utilize that ability well. Ultimately it'll take people just as long to figure out how to best utilize a vampire as it will to utilize, say, a Rakshasa, or a changeling.

Strategy games are not meant to be figured out completely in an hour. If it takes me a few extra minutes here and there over the course of days or weeks because I have to familiarize myself with a refreshing new cast of creatures, I'd be ecstatic. I'm more concerned about the long-term enjoyment factor of the game than how long it'll take me to memorize what each and every creature in the game can do.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually, my favorite units in fantasy games tend to be the more exotic ones. Why use werewolves and vampires and all when I can play with them in countless games, watch them in even more movies, read about them in a billion books... Just to give an example, my favorite unit in HoMM V is the Rakshasa Raja - I've never seen one of those in a game, book or movie. I'm well aware that Nival didn't invent them (they're based on a hindu myth), but they aren't overused and stale - still when I think of HoMM V, I picture the Rakshasa Raja. It's the same reason why my favorite races in AoW:SM were the Tigrans, Frostlings, Syrons and to an extent Shadow Demons. Many of the units used by those races were pretty unique/different, and so for me they were the most fun and the most memorable.

I'm not saying Stardock should spend ages and great pains coming up with all totally original creatures unrelated to all previous imaginings of mankind. Just that using the same units and creatures in the same way that we see them in every other game is not ideal. Use some of them, but throw in some more exotic and inspired creatures into the mix. And your argument that games should just use and reuse the same old cast as every other fantasy game so that people don't have to figure out what they do and how they work makes me cry a little bit inside. This is a strategy game: even if you know that vampires drain life you're going to have to figure out exactly how that functions in this game, how powerful it is, who it works against and how to utilize that ability well. Ultimately it'll take people just as long to figure out how to best utilize a vampire as it will to utilize, say, a Rakshasa, or a changeling.

Okay, you've really misunderstood my previous post. I NEVER said "games should just use and reuse the same old cast as every other fantasy game". In fact I even write about how I would create my own unique creatures for a game. What I was saying is that the popular fantasy classics should not be completely ignored.

Strategy games are not meant to be figured out completely in an hour. If it takes me a few extra minutes here and there over the course of days or weeks because I have to familiarize myself with a refreshing new cast of creatures, I'd be ecstatic. I'm more concerned about the long-term enjoyment factor of the game than how long it'll take me to memorize what each and every creature in the game can do.

Who was writing they were expecting to completely figure out strategies in an hour??? Was this meant for some other topic or some other forum?? I know in my post I wrote how it's important each creature has multiple strategies. I've always been into games with very complex strategic options and multiple strategies... in fact I'm one of the most senior members on the Dominions forums. Dominions_3 is one of the deepest strategic TBS games available with 67 nations, 2000+ units, hundreds of spells, etc, etc., ... you should try it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Okay, you've really misunderstood my previous post. I NEVER said "games should just use and reuse the same old cast as every other fantasy game". In fact I even write about how I would create my own unique creatures for a game. What I was saying is that the popular fantasy classics should not be completely ignored.

Ah. Seemed that you were arguing that popular fantasy is inherently better than more esoteric creatues. My bad.

Who was writing they were expecting to completely figure out strategies in an hour??? Was this meant for some other topic or some other forum?? I know in my post I wrote how it's important each creature has multiple strategies. I've always been into games with very complex strategic options and multiple strategies... in fact I'm one of the most senior members on the Dominions forums. Dominions_3 is one of the deepest strategic TBS games available with 67 nations, 2000+ units, hundreds of spells, etc, etc., ... you should try it.

You never said it explicitly, but you've implied it over and over. You keep saying how one of the advantages of same-old same-old creatures (like vampires) is that people look at them and already know what they can do. Your actual words were:

Most fantasy games include these popluar fantasy creatures because the customers already know their traits and abilities. There's no need to spend time writing a description and history for the customer to learn the unit... aka 'vampire' will drain life blood, is undead and holy attacks hurt.

And my point is that it doesn't matter if a player can guess a creature's traits and abilities at first glance, because that's something they'll learn pretty quickly anyways. And honestly it's more fun to look at a unit and say "oo what is that, and what does it do?" and then browse its stats, traits, abilities, and description.

Most fantasy games include so many popular fantasy creatures because it's much easier to use them than to design a huge variety of brand new creatures - and popular fantasy creatures tend to be well-thought out already, anyways. And for those reasons Stardock should draw from the cast of popular fantasy beings. But all I'm saying is that they should go well beyond it, because ultimately the most memorable creatures tend to be the ones off the beaten path.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting pigeonpigeon,

reply 6

You never said it explicitly, but you've implied it over and over. You keep saying how one of the advantages of same-old same-old creatures (like vampires) is that people look at them and already know what they can do. Your actual words were:

NTJedi: Most fantasy games include these popluar fantasy creatures because the customers already know their traits and abilities. There's no need to spend time writing a description and history for the customer to learn the unit... aka 'vampire' will drain life blood, is undead and holy attacks hurt.

That is misunderstanding what I wrote... let me provide you a more clear detail. My explanation regarding the popular fantasy creatures can be compared to a game using the popular weapons. While a game may create new types of weapons such as something called a CataSling... the gamer won't know whether it's a siege weapon; monster weapon; or race specific missile weapon.

Hence using almost the exact same phrase I previously wrote above yet changing the main topic from fantasy creatures to fantasy weapons:

Most fantasy games include these popular fantasy weapons because the customers already know their traits and purpose. There's no need to spend time writing a description and history for the customer to learn the weapon... aka 'crossbow' will shoot bolts which do more penetrating damage than regular arrows. This does not imply someone wants strategies to be figured out within an hour!

And my point is that it doesn't matter if a player can guess a creature's traits and abilities at first glance, because that's something they'll learn pretty quickly anyways. And honestly it's more fun to look at a unit and say "oo what is that, and what does it do?" and then browse its stats, traits, abilities, and description.

Fantasy games in the past have always had the majority of units come from historical myths and the same will remain true for the future. So while it might be fun to find a few which are unique this is done to add flavor. It's like chocolate syrup on icecream... sure it makes icecream more fun, but it's no good by itself.

Most fantasy games include so many popular fantasy creatures because it's much easier to use them than to design a huge variety of brand new creatures - and popular fantasy creatures tend to be well-thought out already, anyways. And for those reasons Stardock should draw from the cast of popular fantasy beings. But all I'm saying is that they should go well beyond it, because ultimately the most memorable creatures tend to be the ones off the beaten path.

I agree with this set of sentences and was even writing much of this within my previous posts... except for the last 15 words. The most memorable creatures have always been those which have come from historical myths... and the proof exists in the forums and recent games. While you might have been fond of a few uniquely created creatures from previous games... it's extremely rare if any newly created creatures are discussed on forums outside its own game. If these unique creatures were TRULY memorable we'd see discussions on other forums... maybe even an interest for some future game.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That is misunderstanding what I wrote... let me provide you a more clear detail. My explanation regarding the popular fantasy creatures can be compared to a game using the popular weapons. While a game may create new types of weapons such as something called a CataSling... the gamer won't know whether it's a siege weapon; monster weapon; or race specific missile weapon.

No, that's a terrible analogy. If the devs were to make a unit or weapon that behaves in every single way like your everyday standard catapult and then name it a CataSling, that's using a popular 'fantasy' (even though not really fantastical) weapon and giving it a new name. It isn't creating something new, or different. Changing the name does not change the creature itself. A more appropriate analogy is that if Stardock included a weapon that doesn't quite fit any of your standard fantasy weapon categories - something which I would applaud (of course like everything else, if done well).

The ability to gauge a unit or object's function, abilities and traits by glancing at its name the first time I play is not something I value in TBS games. There's no rush, and after playing the game for a week you'll learn all of that and the name or image is all you'll ever need to see again. You have confirmed that you are of the mind that having to read descriptions and look at units'/objects' traits and abilities is something that should be avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. This is merely personal preference, I guess - because I enjoy reading creature descriptions and history, and I love seeing a unit for the first time and getting that "what is that?" feeling. That doesn't happen when I see vampires and unicorns.

Fantasy games in the past have always had the majority of units come from historical myths and the same will remain true for the future. So while it might be fun to find a few which are unique this is done to add flavor. It's like chocolate syrup on icecream... sure it makes icecream more fun, but it's no good by itself.

I never at any point said that the majority of fantasy units don't come from historical myth, or even that the most memorable ones don't. I even gave you an example! I told you that the Rakshasa Raja in HoMM V is the single most memorable creature from that game for me, and I specifically mentioned that they are based on the mythical hindu Rakshasa. There are so many mythical creatures from cultures all around the world - it is very easy to go off the beaten path while still drawing from mythology. Basing creatures off of little-known mythological creatures has pretty much the same effect as creating one from scratch - most people will have never heard of it before, so they will be seeing something new, for the very first time.

If someone at Stardock is inspired and dreams up a creature that isn't tied in any way to some mythological creature, wonderful. I'd love that. But that's not what I'm saying they should try to do (or at least they shouldn't go overboard). I'm saying that Stardock should look farther and wider for their inspirations, and they shouldn't be afraid to mix and match traits and characteristics from different mythological beings.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting pigeonpigeon,

reply 8

No, that's a terrible analogy. If the devs were to make a unit or weapon that behaves in every single way like your everyday standard catapult and then name it a CataSling, ... {{lost focus}} ...

I never said it was a standard catapult... it could be anything!! The words "standard catatpult" were never even used! Heck a CataSling could be a magic sling which receives bonuses in catacombs for all we know or it could be a magical portal weapon for mages used for slinging enemy units into the nearest catacombs. It's so hard maintaining a discussion when you jump to conclusions so haphazardly without any foundation.

The ability to gauge a unit or object's function, abilities and traits by glancing at its name the first time I play is not something I value in TBS games. There's no rush, and after playing the game for a week you'll learn all of that and the name or image is all you'll ever need to see again. You have confirmed that you are of the mind that having to read descriptions and look at units'/objects' traits and abilities is something that should be avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. This is merely personal preference, I guess - because I enjoy reading creature descriptions and history, and I love seeing a unit for the first time and getting that "what is that?" feeling. That doesn't happen when I see vampires and unicorns.

You are going way off track again in regards to my comments and generating assumptions. I'll try and make my statements more brief and simple. All fantasy gamers know a vampire is typically classified in games as undead, vunerable to some holy attacks, and will drain lifeblood from its victims. There are many other traits as well, but they will vary based on the desires/capabilities/time of the developers. Looking at a units objects, abilities and traits are mandatory for any game whether it's using a classic vampire or some new unique creature because every game company provides different results. It's not a new fantasy creature if the game developer is "copying" the design from fantasy myths.

The difference between classic fantasy creatures and new fantasy creatures:

1) Classic fantasy creatures already have well known traits, history and abilities which allows the gamers to more easily recognize and daydream about them from past knowledge of books, myths, movies, etc., .

2) Classic fantasy creatures are not better than new fantasy creatures and vise versa.

3) New fantasy creatures require genuine creativity from the developer... which is good, but naturally a little more difficult than creating a fantasy creature from historical myth.

4) Fantasy TBS games usually include the most popular fantasy creatures from historical myth to not only lure customers, but also to provide a reference point for any new unique creatures created. If the developers include dragons and then decide to create a creature more powerful than a dragon or three times more powerful than a dragon the gamer can better understand and visualize the power of the new creature.

I never at any point said that the majority of fantasy units don't come from historical myth, or even that the most memorable ones don't. I even gave you an example! I told you that the Rakshasa Raja in HoMM V is the single most memorable creature from that game for me, and I specifically mentioned that they are based on the mythical hindu Rakshasa. There are so many mythical creatures from cultures all around the world - it is very easy to go off the beaten path while still drawing from mythology. Basing creatures off of little-known mythological creatures has pretty much the same effect as creating one from scratch - most people will have never heard of it before, so they will be seeing something new, for the very first time.

I never said you didn't think the majority of fantasy units don't come from historical myth. Understand, I wrote that phrase to show new unique creatures are not the most memorable, because otherwise the truly greatest memorable ones would have their popularity grow beyond just a single game reference.

If someone at Stardock is inspired and dreams up a creature that isn't tied in any way to some mythological creature, wonderful. I'd love that. But that's not what I'm saying they should try to do (or at least they shouldn't go overboard). I'm saying that Stardock should look farther and wider for their inspirations, and they shouldn't be afraid to mix and match traits and characteristics from different mythological beings.

Yes, I agree... I definitely would enjoy having a large selection of creatures with a wide variety of skills, attacks, weaknesses and statistics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I never said it was a standard catapult... it could be anything!! The words "standard catatpult" were never even used! Heck a CataSling could be a magic sling which receives bonuses in catacombs for all we know or it could be a magical portal weapon for mages used for slinging enemy units into the nearest catacombs. It's so hard maintaining a discussion when you jump to conclusions so haphazardly without any foundation.

Uhh, ok. I misunderstood you, but now that I know what you were trying to say, I don't see the point really. Or at least I don't see the problem you're implying would exist. Yes, if Stardock creates an original creature and names it, people aren't going to read the name and guess what it is (unless the name happens to be very descriptive, of course). Stardock is going to write a description and history for all the creatures they include in the game, whether they're based on a classic fantasy archetype or not. If reading descriptions isn't your cup of tea, you can do without reading them in pretty much every game I've ever read - the stats sheet is usually enough to figure out how they function in the game.

To quote your exact words again:

There's no need to spend time writing a description and history for the customer to learn the unit... aka 'vampire' will drain life blood, is undead and holy attacks hurt.

Maybe you meant something else, but those words strongly imply that you think have to read a bit to figure out the traits of a creature is a bad thing - and that is a concept I just don't understand. If this were an FPS, fine, but it isn't and learning the abilities and characteristics of units is a big part of it. And honestly, even if Stardock included, say, unicorns - would you really be able to guess their traits and abilities off the bat? I've played lots of games with unicorns in them, and they've had very different traits and abilities. In your most recent post you even mentioned this - that the same creatures often function differently in different games... Long story short - this point of yours is farcical.

1) Classic fantasy creatures already have well known traits, history and abilities which allows the gamers to more easily recognize and daydream about them from past knowledge of books, myths, movies, etc., .

This seems like the flimsiest reason to focus on including familiar fantasy creatures. For one, do unicorns and vampires really have well-known histories? As far as I'm aware that changes around quite a bit based on which fantasy world you're dealing with. And really, other than in the campaign, the important fantasy world is the world you create. Having well-known abilities is irrelevant because anyone with a half-decent imagination can imagine would 'new' abilities might look like. Same thing with traits. Not to mention the fact that battles with creatures will play out in graphical splendor right in front of you.

2) Classic fantasy creatures are not better than new fantasy creatures and vise versa.

I sort of disagree, actually. I'm tired of the classical fantasy creatures. I see the same ones in every game and they get really damn old! Sure there are differences, but it's still the same creature. And when I see something over and over it loses its magic, if you'll pardon the pun. It stops feeling fantastical and wonderful and just because a run-of-the-mill standard unit. When I go to the Met (Metropolitan Museum of Art) I don't go to see modified versions of a hundred of the most famous paintings. That might be fun once or twice, but it wouldn't keep me coming back to see the latest set of variants. No, I go to the museum to see different people's original work. That's what I'd prefer to see in games, too. Now, as Luckmann pointed out in another thread, being unique for the sake of being unique is more harmful than helpful - so if Stardock decides that coming up with many original or less common creatures would result in an inferior game, then they should stick largely with the common archetypes. But I have more faith in Stardock's creativity than that.

3) New fantasy creatures require genuine creativity from the developer... which is good, but naturally a little more difficult than creating a fantasy creature from historical myth.

This at least we can agree on completely. Although I would argue that including less-common fantasy creatures (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones.

4) Fantasy TBS games usually include the most popular fantasy creatures from historical myth to not only lure customers, but also to provide a reference point for any new unique creatures created. If the developers include dragons and then decide to create a creature more powerful than a dragon or three times more powerful than a dragon the gamer can better understand and visualize the power of the new creature.

Maybe I'm abnormal but vampires and unicorns won't catch my eye as a cool creature that I can't quite place... Although honestly the art style is more likely to impact my decision on whether or not to make an impulse buy for a game like Elemental than the creature they chose to display on the cover. Really I can't think of any situation where I'd decide whether or not to buy a fantasy game based on the creatures it includes except if its full of different units - that would probably attract my attention. But really I'm far more concerned about gameplay and game mechanics than whether or not there are dragons or naga or flying pigs.

And the reference point thing is irrelevant, because it doesn't work. For one, there are always your born and bred humans to measure against. But more importantly because overall strength of different creatures is not maintained from one game to the next. For example in many games dragons are among the most powerful units, but closely or even outmatched by host of others. In some of those games there are also all sorts of lesser dragons that are not particularly powerful at all. In many others dragons are just another creature and are not incredibly powerful. In Elemental, it looks like dragons will be at the top of the hierarchy aside from maybe powerful channelers and it appears the odd god-like being that might be encountered once in a blue moon. The issues gets even more fuddled if you're trying to compare things like unicorns against vampires - who the heck knows! Even if you take HoMM games - in HoMM III unicorns were much stronger than vampires, while in HoMM IV vampires were unequivocally better than unicorns. But even then, strength does not equate to usefulness - special abilities and traits play a huge role in that, and that can only be gauged with experience and experimentation.

To gauge brute strength, looking at the stats will always tell you more than guessing its strength relative to another creature based on preconceptions. To gauge the actual usefulness of different creatures in different situations, you have to play (or read other peoples' advice).

I never said you didn't think the majority of fantasy units don't come from historical myth. Understand, I wrote that phrase to show new unique creatures are not the most memorable, because otherwise the truly greatest memorable ones would have their popularity grow beyond just a single game reference.

Not necessarily... Being memorable doesn't necessarily mean people will clamor for it to be reused. I'll use my example again - Rakshasas, for me the most memorable unit in HoMM V. But I'd never beg SD to please use Rakshasas! For one I've already played HoMM V to death and they have lost some of the glamour (they are no longer 'new' or 'novel' to me), and secondly I don't care what individual creatures Stardock includes, I just want there to be a hefty amount of originality or at least exotic-ness put into them.

Secondly, creatures that were actually created for use in one game might not really be applicable in another, due to all sorts of factors like game mechanics and fantasy setting. The Syrons from AoW:SM fit that bill rather well - in a game without a shadow world (or another plane) a huge portion of what made them different is lost and they become something else...

Another thing to consider here is - how many fantasy games are there based in original settings? Things like LoTR games don't count because their worlds and inhabitants are pre-established. There is MoM, HoMM, AoW, etc. I could probably count the worthwhile ones with my fingers! There is not a particularly huge pool to draw from - in fact it's so small that if one game incorporated a unit 'invented' for one other game, it would be kind of blatant.

Really, I can't speak for anyone but myself - and nothing you can say is going to convince me that I will remember a game for its vampires and unicorns instead of its more original cast members. Again, maybe I'm abnormal - but these are my preferences.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting pigeonpigeon,

reply 10

Uhh, ok. I misunderstood you, but now that I know what you were trying to say, I don't see the point really. Or at least I don't see the problem you're implying would exist. Yes, if Stardock creates an original creature and names it, people aren't going to read the name and guess what it is (unless the name happens to be very descriptive, of course). Stardock is going to write a description and history for all the creatures they include in the game, whether they're based on a classic fantasy archetype or not. If reading descriptions isn't your cup of tea, you can do without reading them in pretty much every game I've ever read - the stats sheet is usually enough to figure out how they function in the game.

Reading descriptions is not a problem... I never said it was a problem. It will probably take the developer a little more time inventing and describing a new creature. As I've mentioned classic fantasy creatures are not better than new fantasy creatures and vise versa. My original argument was an attack against the classic fantasy creatures which have always been the core creatures used in fantasy games.

The better the writing quality the more realistic the creature can appear within the fantasy game. A new creature with a poor description reads, "The Globoit likes sheep and enjoys banging his club on hills." This poor description leaves more questions than answers... "likes sheep" does this mean friendly with sheep or enjoys eating them? "banging his club on hills" does this mean fighting on the hills or wildly striking the hill itself? And what size are these hills?

To quote your exact words again:

NTJedi writes: There's no need to spend time writing a description and history for the customer to learn the unit... aka 'vampire' will drain life blood, is undead and holy attacks hurt.

Maybe you meant something else, but those words strongly imply that you think have to read a bit to figure out the traits of a creature is a bad thing - and that is a concept I just don't understand. If this were an FPS, fine, but it isn't and learning the abilities and characteristics of units is a big part of it. And honestly, even if Stardock included, say, unicorns - would you really be able to guess their traits and abilities off the bat? I've played lots of games with unicorns in them, and they've had very different traits and abilities. In your most recent post you even mentioned this - that the same creatures often function differently in different games... Long story short - this point of yours is farcical.

What I've implied is the developers don't need to spend time writing a more detailed description and history for customers to learn the unit. That's significantly different than what you've read as being, "The customers don't need to spend the time reading to learn the unit." The point here is time developers are spending.

NTJedi writes:1) Classic fantasy creatures already have well known traits, history and abilities which allows the gamers to more easily recognize and daydream about them from past knowledge of books, myths, movies, etc., .

This seems like the flimsiest reason to focus on including familiar fantasy creatures. For one, do unicorns and vampires really have well-known histories? As far as I'm aware that changes around quite a bit based on which fantasy world you're dealing with. And really, other than in the campaign, the important fantasy world is the world you create. Having well-known abilities is irrelevant because anyone with a half-decent imagination can imagine would 'new' abilities might look like. Same thing with traits. Not to mention the fact that battles with creatures will play out in graphical splendor right in front of you.

As I wrote earlier... they do have well known histories: Unicorns have a single horn on their head and Vampires drain life blood. And as I wrote earlier depending on the developers interest, abilities and time the other varying traits of varying popularity may or may not be included. These well known traits is what helps lure existing fantasy gamers... aka dragons are one of the most popular requests.

NTJedi writes: 2) Classic fantasy creatures are not better than new fantasy creatures and vise versa.

I sort of disagree, actually. I'm tired of the classical fantasy creatures. I see the same ones in every game and they get really damn old! Sure there are differences, but it's still the same creature. And when I see something over and over it loses its magic, if you'll pardon the pun. It stops feeling fantastical and wonderful and just because a run-of-the-mill standard unit. When I go to the Met (Metropolitan Museum of Art) I don't go to see modified versions of a hundred of the most famous paintings. That might be fun once or twice, but it wouldn't keep me coming back to see the latest set of variants. No, I go to the museum to see different people's original work. That's what I'd prefer to see in games, too. Now, as Luckmann pointed out in another thread, being unique for the sake of being unique is more harmful than helpful - so if Stardock decides that coming up with many original or less common creatures would result in an inferior game, then they should stick largely with the common archetypes. But I have more faith in Stardock's creativity than that.

Now I could easily go into reasons why artwork from museums are significantly different then creations in a game, but I'll reference a different topic for comparison the same as you.

Well if you don't like the classical creatures then how do you stomach eating chicken a few times every week? Sure there are differences in how the chicken is prepared, but it's still the same creature. Here you see chicken over and over yet it never loses its magic. Feel free to replace the word chicken with any of your usual weekly meals. Unless you're vegetarian there's plenty of other edible meat you could be rotating into the food cycle with virtually no longterm cost difference if you're able to walk for hunting such as Elk, Rabbit, Bear, Coyote, Wolf, Goat, etc., etc., . Now add in the different types of seafood and you could have a different unique meal almost every day of the year plus the hunting and fishing is a healthy activity unless the small chance you fall asleep while fishing or carelessly walk to close to the bear. Even if you're a vegetarian there's plenty of other unique edible plants you could be rotating into the food cycle. Now before you go into a long explanation of how you can't hunt rabbit let me explain my point. Classical fantasy creatures such as dragons repeatedly appear within fantasy games because their fame has made them a favorite amongst fantasy gamers... just because you claim to be eager for something new doesn't mean others in the community will suddenly dislike the classics. The classics... such as dragons will be in the game and saying you're tired of classic fantasy creatures won't be changing anything.

NTJedi writes:
3) New fantasy creatures require genuine creativity from the developer... which is good, but naturally a little more difficult than creating a fantasy creature from historical myth.

This at least we can agree on completely. Although I would argue that including less-common fantasy creatures (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones.

The Rakshasas is not a new fantasy creature, but only one which has been "copied" from historical myth and thus not more difficult than "copying" a more popular fantasy creature from historical myth. Just because I'm the first to copy an idea doesn't mean it's new. A new fantasy creature requires more work and imagination... even if you have an idea of a new creature the extra work includes answering and detailing the units origin(s), evolution, behavior, abilities, weaknesses, etc., etc., . While the developer doesn't need to answer all these questions the more details the better the customer can envision the actual unit in the game. A short description would be less remembered, whereas a short description of a vampire would be a developers way of relying on existing lore about vampires to save time. Personally if I was creating a new fantasy unit I would provide a vast list of answers from the units origin(s), evolution, behavior, abilities, etc., etc., .

NTJedi writes: 4) Fantasy TBS games usually include the most popular fantasy creatures from historical myth to not only lure customers, but also to provide a reference point for any new unique creatures created. If the developers include dragons and then decide to create a creature more powerful than a dragon or three times more powerful than a dragon the gamer can better understand and visualize the power of the new creature.

Maybe I'm abnormal but vampires and unicorns won't catch my eye as a cool creature that I can't quite place... Although honestly the art style is more likely to impact my decision on whether or not to make an impulse buy for a game like Elemental than the creature they chose to display on the cover. Really I can't think of any situation where I'd decide whether or not to buy a fantasy game based on the creatures it includes except if its full of different units - that would probably attract my attention. But really I'm far more concerned about gameplay and game mechanics than whether or not there are dragons or naga or flying pigs.

For the majority of people vampires, unicorns and other fantasy classics by themselves won't catch a gamers eye as a cool creature for buying a game. However the interest of each creature for gamers fluctuates on how creative the unit is visually and strategically within the game. A game demo might spark interest for someone who recognizes the developer provides great detail in a vampires attacks, movements, behaviors, weaknesses, strategic depth and graphic image. The battlefield attacks and strategic depth might become a reason the creature becomes more popular in the community.

And the reference point thing is irrelevant, because it doesn't work. For one, there are always your born and bred humans to measure against. But more importantly because overall strength of different creatures is not maintained from one game to the next. For example in many games dragons are among the most powerful units, but closely or even outmatched by host of others. In some of those games there are also all sorts of lesser dragons that are not particularly powerful at all. In many others dragons are just another creature and are not incredibly powerful. In Elemental, it looks like dragons will be at the top of the hierarchy aside from maybe powerful channelers and it appears the odd god-like being that might be encountered once in a blue moon. The issues gets even more fuddled if you're trying to compare things like unicorns against vampires - who the heck knows! Even if you take HoMM games - in HoMM III unicorns were much stronger than vampires, while in HoMM IV vampires were unequivocally better than unicorns. But even then, strength does not equate to usefulness - special abilities and traits play a huge role in that, and that can only be gauged with experience and experimentation.

To gauge brute strength, looking at the stats will always tell you more than guessing its strength relative to another creature based on preconceptions. To gauge the actual usefulness of different creatures in different situations, you have to play (or read other peoples' advice).

The reference point of dragons is not irrelevant because they overall maintain a very high strength amongst all fantasy games... for example you'll never see a ghost as being stronger than a dragon. While the strength of a dragon obviously varies they are always on the higher end. Of course strength of vampires and unicorns vary since these are relatively closer in size and balance... while a unicorn size(weight) is slightly larger the vampire has more attacks/abilities. The reference point comes to other creatures such as comparing a vampire to a pixie or a vampire to a dragon.

NTJedi writes: I never said you didn't think the majority of fantasy units don't come from historical myth. Understand, I wrote that phrase to show new unique creatures are not the most memorable, because otherwise the truly greatest memorable ones would have their popularity grow beyond just a single game reference.

Not necessarily... Being memorable doesn't necessarily mean people will clamor for it to be reused. I'll use my example again - Rakshasas, for me the most memorable unit in HoMM V. But I'd never beg SD to please use Rakshasas! For one I've already played HoMM V to death and they have lost some of the glamour (they are no longer 'new' or 'novel' to me), and secondly I don't care what individual creatures Stardock includes, I just want there to be a hefty amount of originality or at least exotic-ness put into them.

Well if people are not interested in the unit being reused for other games, books, movies, etc., etc., than those units are clearly LESS memorable than the units which are being used for other games. Considering Elemental will have powerful modding abilities I would rather the Stardock developers use their time on other game variables and allow the community to create the new fantasy creatures and the less common fantasy creatures.

Secondly, creatures that were actually created for use in one game might not really be applicable in another, due to all sorts of factors like game mechanics and fantasy setting. The Syrons from AoW:SM fit that bill rather well - in a game without a shadow world (or another plane) a huge portion of what made them different is lost and they become something else...

This is actually not only easy for a developer to solve, but also helps them avoid the intellectual property rights of creatures created by another game. Instead of the shadow world I setup these creatures as coming from the realm of clouds, instead of Syrons we call them Sirons, instead of the Giant Warrior I call him the Storm Warrior with lightning immunity and lightning strike... create a new graphic image with even 50% similiarity and it's mostly finished. The majority of units can be legally copied the same way. Wait what about their enemy the shadow demons... well we call them the Dusk Demons and pretty much do the same copying. Such differences gets them out of legal issues and copying them helps to meet the demands of any fans of the Syrons race which might have been requested on the forums of the new game.

Another thing to consider here is - how many fantasy games are there based in original settings? Things like LoTR games don't count because their worlds and inhabitants are pre-established. There is MoM, HoMM, AoW, etc. I could probably count the worthwhile ones with my fingers! There is not a particularly huge pool to draw from - in fact it's so small that if one game incorporated a unit 'invented' for one other game, it would be kind of blatant.

If it's a true new creature which means no previous relation to historical myths, books or movies and has been creatively described than the developers would need to decide how tightly they want to manage others using the idea... which can still be copied pretty obviously. Personally if I created a true new creature in a game or book I would only ask to be included in the credits and a percentage of any other money directly made from the creature... hence if they start selling plastic figurines or halloween costumes I'd want my cut of the pie.

Really, I can't speak for anyone but myself - and nothing you can say is going to convince me that I will remember a game for its vampires and unicorns instead of its more original cast members. Again, maybe I'm abnormal - but these are my preferences.

Actually for me... and I estimate many others will remember a game for the units which have the greatest visual battlefield displays, most interesting skills/abilities and greatest strategic depth. Heck I'd completely enjoy a fantasy game which used only popular fantasy creatures as long as those three qualities are provided.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

I understand folks that say they're bored or not quite as interested in a game if the features and creatures are too familiar or cliche.

But I would enjoy this game if it had all the usual suspects, including dragons, giants, trolls, gnolls, etc. And if it doesn't, I will mod them in. If I don't have a point of common reference and experience to draw from, it becomes too alien for me. This in fact is why I didn't enjoy Planescape: Torment as much as other people did. I just didn't like the setting. Yet many people consider it to be the pinnacle of the Infinity games.

As an aside, Tolkien did have werewolves, unlike what was postulated earlier in the topic. The most visible example being none other than Sauron. But you'd need to know some of the 1st and 2nd age lore to be aware of Sauron's shapeshifting abilities and his epic fight while in wolf form. If you do dig deep, you'll find a neat story involving a character named Huan.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would agree wioth aesir, new, orginal doesnt mean good ...

In fact there are plenty of games who tried so hard to be original it didnt do well for their main purpose and thats fun:)

Look on the game concept its 4x game wich is something very old and used , but its done becuase poeple (means us:)) like it. With lots of improvement over the original ideas of course.Same for fantasy setting , imho classic creatures are tons of fun.I mean that using old ideas and improving over them is imho quite good , inventing a lot of ogrinal stuff out of the blue usually ends bad.

I for once would love to play as a undead evil master with vampires as my generals:)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would agree wioth aesir, new, orginal doesnt mean good ...

It doesn't mean bad, either. Too many people dislike mechainc ideas simply because they have not been done before.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What I've implied is the developers don't need to spend time writing a more detailed description and history for customers to learn the unit. That's significantly different than what you've read as being, "The customers don't need to spend the time reading to learn the unit." The point here is time developers are spending.

But they do. If Stardock skimps on the unit descriptions and histories of the units they think most people will be familiar with, the result will be awkward. More exotic creatures would have more fleshed out text assets and then unicorns, vampires, etc. would get a couple sentences? If Stardock invests time and effort into including unit descriptions and histories (which they should, IMO, regardless of their choice of caste), then they should do it well and comprehensively. Unicorns and vampires and the like can have very different histories and even traits and personalities in different fantasy settings.

As I wrote earlier... they do have well known histories: Unicorns have a single horn on their head and Vampires drain life blood. And as I wrote earlier depending on the developers interest, abilities and time the other varying traits of varying popularity may or may not be included. These well known traits is what helps lure existing fantasy gamers... aka dragons are one of the most popular requests.

Wow. I didn't know "unicorns have a single horn on their head!!1!" constitutes a history... My dictionary must have made a mistake, because its definition of history certainly isn't sufficient. That is a trait, a physical characteristic. It has nothing to do with the origins, past involvements, personality, or abilities of a unicorn. (Well it could play a part in some of its abilities). Honestly it'd be silly for Stardock to include physical descriptions of its creatures - we can look at them and figure that out ourselves (they say a picture's worth a thousand words). A unicorn having a horn does not lure me to playing anything at all. Neither does the fact that dragons of scales. Dragons lure people because they tend to be huge, long-lived or even immortal, mysterious and incredibly powerful. In many settings they combine many of the most awe-inspiring attributes into a single entity, and that is why they lure people.

The Rakshasas is not a new fantasy creature, but only one which has been "copied" from historical myth and thus not more difficult than "copying" a more popular fantasy creature from historical myth. Just because I'm the first to copy an idea doesn't mean it's new. A new fantasy creature requires more work and imagination... even if you have an idea of a new creature the extra work includes answering and detailing the units origin(s), evolution, behavior, abilities, weaknesses, etc., etc., . While the developer doesn't need to answer all these questions the more details the better the customer can envision the actual unit in the game. A short description would be less remembered, whereas a short description of a vampire would be a developers way of relying on existing lore about vampires to save time. Personally if I was creating a new fantasy unit I would provide a vast list of answers from the units origin(s), evolution, behavior, abilities, etc., etc., .

Oh my god. I am trying to be civilized but this must be the 3rd time you've completely misconstrued what I've said. I never said Rakshasas were original creations of NCSoft. I directly told you exactly what mythology they come from. I know they are not original creations. My point (and I have said this way too many times now, but maybe you've improved your reading comprehension skills by now) is that I, and most other people who played the game, had never seen or even heard of them before. I looked at it and thought, "whoa! what is that crazy looking 6-armed glowing blue and red lion man thing? Oo, it has some neat abilities." The most I ever thought about vampires, or dragons, or unicorns or trolls in that game was "Heh, good graphics." There was nothing new about them to really catch my attention. I knew what their abilities and in some cases how strong they would be, even if it took some experimentation to figure out how they function in the context of the new combat system and compared to the other units... And please, for the love of Elemental, please don't tell me what I already told you - again. And please don't ignore the whole point of why I mentioned it to you, either.

There is in practice no difference between a brand new original creation and an interpretation of something exotic that the audience hasn't been exposed to before, or hasn't had much exposure to. There is, however, a huge difference between the above and something that everyone who is going to play the game before has already seen in thirty-nine other contexts.

For the majority of people vampires, unicorns and other fantasy classics by themselves won't catch a gamers eye as a cool creature for buying a game. However the interest of each creature for gamers fluctuates on how creative the unit is visually and strategically within the game. A game demo might spark interest for someone who recognizes the developer provides great detail in a vampires attacks, movements, behaviors, weaknesses, strategic depth and graphic image. The battlefield attacks and strategic depth might become a reason the creature becomes more popular in the community.

Yeah, I agree. This applies equally to run-of-the-mill and more exotic creatures; as always, implementation is key. An interesting, exotic creature will not capture people's attention in quite the same way if its graphics and animations aren't cool or if its abilities are generic; just the same as anything else. However, I think it's easier to achieve this for more exotic creatures, even if just because there's less competition. I mean, how many ways are there for a unicorn or vampire to attack or perform some ability of their's? I can think of several off the top of my head, but I've already seen it all, really. That isn't the case, however, with creatures and abilities that I am not familiar with.

The reference point of dragons is not irrelevant because they overall maintain a very high strength amongst all fantasy games... for example you'll never see a ghost as being stronger than a dragon. While the strength of a dragon obviously varies they are always on the higher end. Of course strength of vampires and unicorns vary since these are relatively closer in size and balance... while a unicorn size(weight) is slightly larger the vampire has more attacks/abilities.

I more or less agree with you when it comes to dragons, as they do tend to reside somewhere near the top of the charts. However I don't think it works for the more mid-range creatures - like vampires and unicorns. Sure unicorns are bigger than vampires and weigh more - but so do horses, what's that have to do with anything? Vampires have more attacks and abilities? Really? There are plenty of settings in which unicorns have quite a long list of attributable qualities and abilities... I'll give an example - in HoMM you can't infer anything about unicorns by using or fighting vampires (well you can if you know their dwelling levels, but ignore that as it isn't relevant to this).

Well if people are not interested in the unit being reused for other games, books, movies, etc., etc., than those units are clearly LESS memorable than the units which are being used for other games. Considering Elemental will have powerful modding abilities I would rather the Stardock developers use their time on other game variables and allow the community to create the new fantasy creatures and the less common fantasy creatures.

That would be a sad loss, as users tend to create inferior 3D graphics when compared to developers, particularly when it comes to organic models. An on top of that, users would have more to work with trying to create a high quality model of a vampire or unicorn, for example, than of something more exotic. Leave the hard stuff to the users so Stardock can focus on the easier stuff doesn't really seem like the right approach to things, IMO.

This is actually not only easy for a developer to solve, but also helps them avoid the intellectual property rights of creatures created by another game. Instead of the shadow world I setup these creatures as coming from the realm of clouds, instead of Syrons we call them Sirons, instead of the Giant Warrior I call him the Storm Warrior with lightning immunity and lightning strike... create a new graphic image with even 50% similiarity and it's mostly finished. The majority of units can be legally copied the same way.

That wasn't my point. I can't believe how often you've completely missed the mark in this discussion... My point is that if a developer comes up with a really unique creature (in the context of games - ie, whether it's truly original or an interpretation of something less well-known is irrelevant), it will feel like a rip-off if you then go play another game with that same creature, albeit with a few, essentially aesthetic, modifications here and there. I don't know why, but many people (myself included, probably) would criticize a game for ripping off a cool, unique creation of another game; though we won't really criticize reusing the same old tropes over and over as long as they're well established. Not to mention, if not done extremely well it will really feel like a rip-off. Really unique creatures tend to feel like they belong in the world they were created for; tearing them out of that world, slapping on some minor changes and then shoving them into a different world will often feel... shoddy; at least to people familiar with their original debut. Legal issues were not at all what I intended to bring up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Aesir Rising,

reply 37

If I don't have a point of common reference and experience to draw from, it becomes too alien for me. This in fact is why I didn't enjoy Planescape: Torment as much as other people did. I just didn't like the setting. Yet many people consider it to be the pinnacle of the Infinity games.

But are you saying you don't like settings that you aren't familiar with in general? It doesn't seem like it. It seems like you're saying Planescape: Torment was too alien because it didn't include enough familiar aspects to really anchor yourself in its world and get into the setting. That, I can totally sympathize with.

And I don't think that will be a problem in Elemental, even if Stardock were to largely forego the more common creatures in favor of exotic or less well-known ones... After all, the fantastical beings will be very rare, and the world will be largely dominated by humans and human-derived Fallen...

In fact there are plenty of games who tried so hard to be original it didnt do well for their main purpose and thats fun:)

Well, like many people have said, being original for the sake of being original is folly. This is, IMO, more relevant for game mechanics than the types of secondary creatures in the world, though... Another downside to being 'original' is that it's harder. But well-executed originality, I think, is often more enjoyable in a game than well-executed standard fare.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting pigeonpigeon,

reply 40

If Stardock skimps on the unit descriptions and histories of the units they think most people will be familiar with, the result will be awkward. More exotic creatures would have more fleshed out text assets and then unicorns, vampires, etc. would get a couple sentences? If Stardock invests time and effort into including unit descriptions and histories (which they should, IMO, regardless of their choice of caste), then they should do it well and comprehensively. Unicorns and vampires and the like can have very different histories and even traits and personalities in different fantasy settings.

First, why did you revive a long debated topic which was about two weeks dead?? Better to have just let it sleep eternally.

Unicorns/Vampires/Popular types wouldn't get just a couple of sentences, that's an incorrect assumption with no foundation. Obviously new creatures require more detail and description because players never heard of a "Chakaloomz" as compared with a "Vampire".

Honestly it'd be silly for Stardock to include physical descriptions of its creatures - we can look at them and figure that out ourselves (they say a picture's worth a thousand words).

Just looking at an image does not tell the entire physical description.

I never said Rakshasas were original creations of NCSoft. I directly told you exactly what mythology they come from. I know they are not original creations. My point is that I, and most other people who played the game, had never seen or even heard of them before. I looked at it and thought, "whoa! what is that crazy looking 6-armed glowing blue and red lion man thing? Oo, it has some neat abilities." The most I ever thought about vampires, or dragons, or unicorns or trolls in that game was "Heh, good graphics." There was nothing new about them to really catch my attention. I knew what their abilities and in some cases how strong they would be, even if it took some experimentation to figure out how they function in the context of the new combat system and compared to the other units... And please, for the love of Elemental, please don't tell me what I already told you - again. And please don't ignore the whole point of why I mentioned it to you, either.

Your original comments were referencing them as new creations and a creature pulled from ancient myths is not a new creation... even if it's a new creature you're learning it's not new.

There is in practice no difference between a brand new original creation and an interpretation of something exotic that the audience hasn't been exposed to before, or hasn't had much exposure to.

Wrong... there is a difference between a brand new original creature and copying a rare creature from mythical history. One takes researching mythical history and the other takes imagination... now you might only care about whether or not it's new for you and cannot grasp the value of a new original creature created from a developers imagination... but I'm able to appreciate this difference. I hope one day you also can appreciate the difference whether its during a game, reading a book or perhaps a movie.

I mean, how many ways are there for a unicorn or vampire to attack or perform some ability of their's? I can think of several off the top of my head, but I've already seen it all, really. That isn't the case, however, with creatures and abilities that I am not familiar with.

I can honestly say I haven't seen it all when it comes to how vampires can attack or perform their abilities inside PC games. We've seen them drain life, change form, seduce and take damage from holy attacks... but there's so much more which we've never seen. The amount of history on vampires is so extensive over a dozen different vampire units could be added just for all the different types.

However I don't think it works for the more mid-range creatures - like vampires and unicorns.

Yes I agree, which is why I wrote, " vampires and unicorns vary since these are relatively closer in size and balance." Horses are bigger than humans, but they're relatively close when comparing the vast list of fantasy creatures ranging from sprites(very small) to titans(huge). On a side note I am a little worried when I saw the developer journal regarding training where non-trained humans were listed with 1_hitpoint... leaving no room for anything smaller.

That would be a sad loss, as users tend to create inferior 3D graphics when compared to developers, particularly when it comes to organic models.

Examining 3D content which has been created by the community at Neverwinter Nights I would disagree. Hopefully Elemental will be successful to pull a large permanent community the same as Neverwinter Nights.

An on top of that, users would have more to work with trying to create a high quality model of a vampire or unicorn, for example, than of something more exotic. Leave the hard stuff to the users so Stardock can focus on the easier stuff doesn't really seem like the right approach to things, IMO.

It depends on the exotic creature... many rare exotic creatures have simple forms while others are more complex. Hopefully Stardock will do some of the more complex ones such as a Danava, so the community can fill in the spots of the simple ones.

That wasn't my point. My point is that if a developer comes up with a really unique creature, it will feel like a rip-off if you then go play another game with that same creature, albeit with a few, essentially aesthetic, modifications here and there. I don't know why, but many people (myself included, probably) would criticize a game for ripping off a cool, unique creation of another game; though we won't really criticize reusing the same old tropes over and over as long as they're well established. Not to mention, if not done extremely well it will really feel like a rip-off. Really unique creatures tend to feel like they belong in the world they were created for; tearing them out of that world, slapping on some minor changes and then shoving them into a different world will often feel... shoddy; at least to people familiar with their original debut.

Wrong... the Rakshasas is one of those really unique creatures and placing it into Elemental would not make it shody or a ripoff because they're not taking it from the previous game it's being taken from mythical history the same as any of the popular creatures. The only way it would be a shody ripoff would be if they used a virtually identical description and same colors.

If you really enjoy the unique rare creatures such as the Rakshasas then check Dominions_3 which has more than you'll find in any of your previous fantasy TBS games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting NTJedi,

reply 42

Unicorns/Vampires/Popular types wouldn't get just a couple of sentences, that's an incorrect assumption with no foundation. Obviously new creatures require more detail and description because players never heard of a "Chakaloomz" as compared with a "Vampire".

You're sort of contradicting yourself. If you didn't catch it, I was exaggerating (or.. I guess the opposite of exaggerating) when I said "a few sentences." I simply wanted to get across that it appeared to me that you were suggesting that familiar creatures should have less comprehensive in-game descriptions and histories behind them. And I couldn't disagree me. Whatever the creature, however common or rare, should receive the same treatment in this area; anything else would just make the game feel unfinished.

Quoting NTJedi,

reply 42

Your original comments were referencing them as new creations and a creature pulled from ancient myths is not a new creation... even if it's a new creature you're learning it's not new.

Lying isn't wise when there's written proof on the very same page.... Here is the exact quote from the first time I mentioned the Rakshasa:

Just to give an example, my favorite unit in HoMM V is the Rakshasa Raja - I've never seen one of those in a game, book or movie. I'm well aware that Nival didn't invent them (they're based on a hindu myth), but they aren't overused and stale[/quote]

And while it wasn't truly, completely original (it is after all a mythological creature), that isn't really relevant... I'd bet you well over 9/10 people who played HoMM V had never heard of or seen a Rakshasa ever, in any form in any media. Whether it was based on some mythology or not wasn't relevant... Sure, for the tiny percentage of people who were aware of the myths it wouldn't have been something brand new - but I'll bet you those people were really excited to see a reference of such an obscure mythological being that they happen to know about, or that holds spiritual importance to them. What is relevant is the effect on the player, and whether something is based on mythology or a brand new concoction of someone's imagination is not important, because there is no difference to someone who hasn't ever seen the creature before.

Quoting NTJedi,

reply 42

Wrong... there is a difference between a brand new original creature and copying a rare creature from mythical history. One takes researching mythical history and the other takes imagination... now you might only care about whether or not it's new for you and cannot grasp the value of a new original creature created from a developers imagination... but I'm able to appreciate this difference. I hope one day you also can appreciate the difference whether its during a game, reading a book or perhaps a movie.

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="42" id="2332325"]Wrong... the Rakshasas is one of those really unique creatures and placing it into Elemental would not make it shody or a ripoff because they're not taking it from the previous game it's being taken from mythical history the same as any of the popular creatures. The only way it would be a shody ripoff would be if they used a virtually identical description and same colors.

Another display of inadequate reading comprehension skills... Or just a chronic habit of ignoring the point entirely. If you care at all about what I tried to say, reread this part of my last post...

I said it doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is. Frankly, if I loaded up elemental and saw a Rakshasa that closely resembles the Rakshasa of HoMM V, just with a different color palette and slightly different model I would always think of HoMM V when I see it. And it would always be in the back of my head that they saw a neat unit in HoMM V and basically copied it. They'd have to really make serious changes for my not to think this; it'd have to look significantly different and have very different abilities. This is doable, of course, but there is such a huge list of underused creatures out there that one needn't look to previous games for examples. Especially because once they've been used in a prominent game, they lose quite a lot of their 'exotic' appeal. My reaction towards seeing a Rakshasa in Elemental for the first time would be "Hey, a Rakshasa! I wonder what it does in this game;" which is very different from "Whoa, what is that crazy glowing blue and red, 6-armed lion man thing and what does it do?!" Seeing something for the 2nd time isn't remotely like seeing it for the first time.

And I've heard lots of good things about Dominions 3, but there are two things stopping me from playing it. The first is time; graduate school is starting and I'm going to have enough of a problem with the Elemental beta... The other is that the biggest complaint I've heard about Domininions 3 is that it has an unfathomably bad UI; and one thing that completely ruins games for me is bad UI...

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're sort of contradicting yourself. If you didn't catch it, I was exaggerating (or.. I guess the opposite of exaggerating) when I said "a few sentences." I simply wanted to get across that it appeared to me that you were suggesting that familiar creatures should have less comprehensive in-game descriptions and histories behind them. And I couldn't disagree me. Whatever the creature, however common or rare, should receive the same treatment in this area; anything else would just make the game feel unfinished.

Your confusing sentences are difficult enough, avoid exaggerations unless they are obviously crystal clear. I would disagree because developers don't need to tell us vampire descriptions such as how they feed on blood using their fangs because telling us something we already know is a waste. Now if the vampire was a creature of rare mythical history or newly created from imagination then this description is important.

Lying isn't wise when there's written proof on the very same page.... Here is the exact quote from the first time I mentioned the Rakshasa:

There was no lying... as referencing your response to my comment on reply# 35:

NTJedi Writes: 3) New fantasy creatures require genuine creativity from the developer... which is good, but naturally a little more difficult than creating a fantasy creature from historical myth.

Pidgeon Pidgeon Writes: This at least we can agree on completely. Although I would argue that including less-common fantasy creatures (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones.

As seen above I wrote new fantasy creatures are more difficult and you wrote a response disagreeing Rakshasas are not more work. I never even said Rakshasas were more work, thus you're referencing it as a new fantasy creature.

And while it wasn't truly, completely original (it is after all a mythological creature), that isn't really relevant... I'd bet you well over 9/10 people who played HoMM V had never heard of or seen a Rakshasa ever, in any form in any media. Whether it was based on some mythology or not wasn't relevant... Sure, for the tiny percentage of people who were aware of the myths it wouldn't have been something brand new - but I'll bet you those people were really excited to see a reference of such an obscure mythological being that they happen to know about, or that holds spiritual importance to them. What is relevant is the effect on the player, and whether something is based on mythology or a brand new concoction of someone's imagination is not important, because there is no difference to someone who hasn't ever seen the creature before.

As I wrote earlier there is a difference to someone such as myself who appreciates the creation of a truly new creature(of quality) from imagination as compared to "copying" a rare creature from mythical history.

I said it doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is. Frankly, if I loaded up elemental and saw a Rakshasa that closely resembles the Rakshasa of HoMM V, just with a different color palette and slightly different model I would always think of HoMM V when I see it. And it would always be in the back of my head that they saw a neat unit in HoMM V and basically copied it. They'd have to really make serious changes for my not to think this; it'd have to look significantly different and have very different abilities. This is doable, of course, but there is such a huge list of underused creatures out there that one needn't look to previous games for examples.

The developers may not have even played HoMM V, yet still added Rakshasa into Elemental. Pulling the information from history could still generate a slightly different model with a different color palette, especially if historic images exist. No creature from history, whether it's popular or not, can be claimed as belonging to another game.

Especially because once they've been used in a prominent game, they lose quite a lot of their 'exotic' appeal. My reaction towards seeing a Rakshasa in Elemental for the first time would be "Hey, a Rakshasa! I wonder what it does in this game;" which is very different from "Whoa, what is that crazy glowing blue and red, 6-armed lion man thing and what does it do?!" Seeing something for the 2nd time isn't remotely like seeing it for the first time.

Even the well known vampire could have some of the less common types included which would definitely be interesting. I know hundreds of the creatures from Dominions_3 were pulled from rare mythical histories because one of the developers is an instructor for religious histories. I'd be pleased finding some of these in Elemental especially since there's no legal ties to historic myth.

And I've heard lots of good things about Dominions 3, but there are two things stopping me from playing it. The first is time; graduate school is starting and I'm going to have enough of a problem with the Elemental beta... The other is that the biggest complaint I've heard about Domininions 3 is that it has an unfathomably bad UI; and one thing that completely ruins games for me is bad UI...

Well I haven't noticed any difficulties with the UI... maybe I'm just old school. After 3 games of the demo most people know whether it's a game for them. I do recommend only a few opponents for the first two games otherwise getting crushed early is disheartening.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting NTJedi,

reply 44

Lying isn't wise when there's written proof on the very same page.... Here is the exact quote from the first time I mentioned the Rakshasa:

There was no lying... as referencing your response to my comment on reply# 35:

NTJedi Writes: 3) New fantasy creatures require genuine creativity from the developer... which is good, but naturally a little more difficult than creating a fantasy creature from historical myth.

Pidgeon Pidgeon Writes: This at least we can agree on completely. Although I would argue that including less-common fantasy creatures (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones.

As seen above I wrote new fantasy creatures are more difficult and you wrote a response disagreeing Rakshasas are not more work. I never even said Rakshasas were more work, thus you're referencing it as a new fantasy creature.

I'm sorry to bring this thread back, but I only just read this and I absolutely have to respond. Please, re-read your above post (and pay particular attention to the sentence attributed to me. Either your reading comprehension is down-right atrocious or you're being deliberately disingenuous.

I'll try to reword the sentence you attributed to me in such a way that you can figure out the meaning. The first short sentence, of 8 words, says that I agree completely with you - creating brand new fantasy creatures requires genuine creativity from the developer; and that is good, but more difficult. Then I went on to say that creating creatures based off of uncommon mythological creatures (like Rakshasas) is not really any harder than including vampires, for example. And as I've said elsewhere, I think that from a gameplay perspective the effect of creatures based on less well-known myths is about as effective as truly original creatures. I never even once implied there that Rakshasas were original creations of NCSoft, only that they are a relatively unknown mythological creature.

This is why arguing with you is so frustrating, because intentionally or not, you have a tendency to twist the things I say into things I never said and would never say. As a result I end up saying the same thing over and over again in the vain hope that maybe you'll actually get it that time; instead the argument just goes sideways, with you arguing against things I never even really said.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting pigeonpigeon,

reply 45

Pidgeon Pidgeon Writes: Although I would argue that including less-common fantasy creatures (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones.

NTJedi Writes: As seen above I wrote new fantasy creatures are more difficult and you wrote a response disagreeing Rakshasas are not more work. I never even said Rakshasas were more work, thus you're referencing it as a new fantasy creature.

Pidgeon Pidgeon Writes: I'll try to reword the sentence you attributed to me in such a way that you can figure out the meaning. The first short sentence, of 8 words, says that I agree completely with you - creating brand new fantasy creatures requires genuine creativity from the developer; and that is good, but more difficult. Then I went on to say that creating creatures based off of uncommon mythological creatures (like Rakshasas) is not really any harder than including vampires, for example. And as I've said elsewhere, I think that from a gameplay perspective the effect of creatures based on less well-known myths is about as effective as truly original creatures. I never even once implied there that Rakshasas were original creations of NCSoft, only that they are a relatively unknown mythological creature.

You are falling off the focus of my response again! Your response was arguing less-common fantasy creatures and I quote, " (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones." I never even said Rakshasas (less-common fantasy creatures) were more work, and that only new fantasy creatures would be more work thus you MUST be referencing it as a new fantasy creature UNLESS you can pinpoint where I wrote (less-common fantasy creatures) were more work.

Perhaps it's my mistake, but please provide a location where I reference less_common fantasy creatures as more work per your statement:

Pidgeon Pidgeon Writes: Although I would argue that including less-common fantasy creatures (ala Rakshasas) is hardly more work than including classical ones.

This is why arguing with you is so frustrating, because intentionally or not, you have a tendency to twist the things I say into things I never said and would never say. As a result I end up saying the same thing over and over again in the vain hope that maybe you'll actually get it that time; instead the argument just goes sideways, with you arguing against things I never even really said.

In my career the majority of my communications are via email with individuals of all levels of english. While the majority are within the US with fluent english many are from different countries where english is a second or third language so my troubleshooting instructions must be crystal clear. If my written communications were less than great my current company would be pushing me into a different department or worse, instead of providing 100% of each of my bonuses year after year. I'd also like to point out I've been on many forums with THOUSANDS of postings and you are the first to make such claims.

If you review our conversations you'll see many times you took our conversations in different directions such as misunderstanding the CataSling in reference to a "standard catapult" which was never mentioned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

I was sitting around recently and thought to myself "You know what would be awesome?"

"What's that, Self?"

"A TBS game that lets you raise the fallen armies of your foes to serve you."

"That's a wonderful idea Self, I should give you a cookie."

Some nomming and looking around later and I was left satisfied with the cookie, but I remained unsatisfied in my search for undead dominion. The closest I could find to what I wanted was Dominions 3, but while that allows you to raise the fallen corpses of your enemies (or anyone else who happens to croak) it produces a pathetic number of generic zombies. This will not do for my horde. I propose thusly.

) Bodies are resources produced any time a living creature is killed but not gibbed (gibbed=body destroyed completely, such as by an explosion from within)

) Bodies can be animated by any unit in the same tile with the proper magic (or alchemy)

) Reanimated bodies become an undead version of what they were when they were alive (EX, to make an undead horse you need a horse body)

) Reanimated bodies retain the items they had in life (armor would be worse for wear), unless those items were looted (EX, A knight would have the armor he wore into battle unless the armor was looted)

) Bodies rot over time unless preserved, producing different types of undead (ex, zombies become skeletons but mummies stay mummified unless moistened)

) Bodies require different amounts of mana to reanimate depending on how powerful they were in life (ex, an untrained human requires a paltry amount but a dragon may require a dozen or more mages to reanimate)

This was done in MoM with an Undead spell of some type of mastery. It was quite high up the ladder, and took you a while to get there. However once you got it any unit that died that was living once (don't remember how it affected your undead) would rise under your control as a simple zombie. Now that said while powerful was not overpowered. It definitely opened up some areas to map vision that were not visible before. This could be easily done again.

R,

Nacho

Successfully updated karma reason!