So it is already installed when the full game is released and less people will notice it and complain?
… or to test the install base… see if anyone notices it and complains.
Okay, so I picked this up. Hasn’t been a lot of chat here about it.
My opinion is pretty bad. The game itself is good, but the problem is they ignored or glazed over some important detail decisions that totally mar the experience.
It’s like this:
Collection Structures (ie- to get silver) are cheap. A resource gathering point for any of the three resources is 70 resources; the most basic foot-soldier is 40. So, you can set these up all over the map for very little investment.
Peons don’t use food like soldiers do. They’re not tied to the “unit cap”, so you can have billions of peons.
You have to destroy every enemy building and unit to “win”.
There are no late-game super-techs. No “see the map” spell or whatnot.
There is no “automatically wander around the map and raze everything in sight” setting for units. (Think Warlords Battlecry)
The maps are mazes.
Put all this together, and what happens is the AI builds tons of Peons (they cost 20. Cheap as dirt) and tons of resource gathering points all over the map. Then, once you destroy his base and have destroyed his economy you spend literally one to two hours scouring the map for a peon or a building or some shit. The maps are mazes, so you can’t just give your armies queued attack orders all over the place because you miss like half the stupid “side paths” and “cubbyholes” where he might be standing around doing nothing. Instead, you end up having to babysit the entire force.
It’s painful. Very, very painful. There needs to be smarter win condition or something that makes it possible to kill all those stupid peons without having to rampage through the map looking for a dunk hobo skeleton loitering in the stream somewhere.
Everything else is fun, but it’s like 30 minutes of fun followed by one hour of torture. In Skirmishes, you can just declare yourself the winner and stop, but in the “Free Campaign” you can’t progress unless you spend the hour of suffering.
Chris Woods
I have only played the campaign mode but have really enjoyed it. In a really wierd way it reminds me of baldurs gate but with armies under your command.
Wow. They actually reproduced the cheap farm-stalling strategy from b.net? That’s some serious dedication on making the AI more human-like.
Workers increase in price and their number is limited (to more than enough). Without looking it up I think the details are slightly different for every faction.
The slightly annoying problem with the leftover peons can easily be solved with logic. They collect resources for a new main building, usually stone. Just build one or two towers near each resource and let them run into them.
Walking to location X and killing everything on the way is possible. Check the manual for the exact command. No auto-explore, though.
Sounds pretty interesting. How are the RPG aspects in this game? Like can you export heroes and use them in different scenarios, campaigns, etc? How is the multiplayer? What’s the level limit on heroes? Do non-hero types level up as well?
Seems like not many people are talking about this game, which I find rather strange. I’d expect it to be very popular since it has appeal to both RTS fans as well as RPG fans. It’s been getting pretty decent reviews too from what I’ve seen.
The RPG aspects are better than the RTS aspects. :)
You can’t export a single-player campaign hero, but there is a freestyle mode that lets you level your hero over the course of several different maps, complete with a hub map for selling stuff, recruiting your sidekick, etc.
Multiplayer isn’t the reason to get this game. Frankly, I think it just doesn’t work as a MP game.
The level limit on heroes is thirty, I think. You only get experience for quests and levels mainly get you a point to spend on the skill tree.
Non-hero units have levels as well, but lord only knows how that works. It’s a number in parenthesis after a unit’s name, but I get the impression it’s not really something you’re supposed to muck with. :)
-Tom
Agreed. They´re not deeper than the typical action-RPG though.
It´s hard to describe why SF2 works. Maybe it´s more the whole package than a-single-innovative-feature-slapped-onto-a-standard-game. The integration of RTS and RPG is good, most of the content has good quality, the interface is great, there´s almost no idle time. The campaign flows nicely for 50 hours.
You can’t export a single-player campaign hero, but there is a freestyle mode that lets you level your hero over the course of several different maps, complete with a hub map for selling stuff, recruiting your sidekick, etc.
I found the Free Game the weakest part of the game. Yes, it offers more freedom, but it has a number of serious issues: no teleport, loot scaled for the avatar (-> the heroes have a lower level!), very slow start (-> picks up after a few hours), sometimes strange winning conditions, no saving. Positive: more freedom, a few new maps, the other maps look very different to the main campaign, level 30 avatars can be imported into MP.
Multiplayer isn’t the reason to get this game. Frankly, I think it just doesn’t work as a MP game.
MP is indeed only a nice gimmick. The maps shipped with the game are mostly symmetrical with lots of resources in the centre. This basically makes it a fast paced battle for resources because you obviously can´t allow your opponent(s) control over 75% of the resources. Funny for 20-30 hours and quite different to the campaign.
Things may get better when the editor is released. Or maybe not. ;)
The level limit on heroes is thirty, I think. You only get experience for quests and levels mainly get you a point to spend on the skill tree.
Non-hero units have levels as well, but lord only knows how that works. It’s a number in parenthesis after a unit’s name, but I get the impression it’s not really something you’re supposed to muck with. :)
-Tom
The avatar gets 5 levels while heroes get only 4. This leads to max levels of 30 and 24. Unfortunately this is not enough because you´re running out of levels. 32 and 26 would have been correct.
Armies also upgrade, but this just happens. No need to think about it. ;)
How does it stack up to RoL, BfME2, or AoE3?
I’m curious, because the stuff sounds slightly interesting, but the enthusiasm is certainly lacking.
Maybe one of the others can make comparisons. I didn´t play another RTS in the last few years.
I was actually quite enthusiastic when I played through the campaign in about two weeks. The early reviews were correct, the campaign is close to 50 hours long and has an average quality of ca. 85%. A bit less in the beginning and a bit more in the middle when the other factions become available and character development makes a difference.
SF2 is 50% action-RPG and 50% RTS. It´s very comfortable and polished, and it still feels like the game the developers wanted to make, as opposed to a game they were contracted to make. All of SF1´s weaknesses were consequently eliminated. SF2 is packed full with content, without forcing the player into a hectic pace.
SF2 isn´t necessarily better than SF1, though. The first game had several serious flaws, but it also had much more complexity and more rough edges, which can occasionally create a better gaming experience when all the positive things overlap.
How does it stack up to RoL, BfME2, or AoE3?
It doesn’t. It’s an entirely different beast and, frankly, not much of an RTS. I like it, but certainly not from the ROL, BFME2, or AOE3 direction.
-Tom
SpellForce 2 has been the perfect game for me,a long time RPGer since the Ultima days and someone who “dabbles” in RTS games but tends not to be that good at them.
SP2 has meshed the two styles perfectly for me,it’s a little light on the RPG side but conversely a little light on the RTS side=a lot of good gaming here :)
Thanks Warren. That description fits me pretty well too. I like heavier RPGs though, with more stats. Still, I also like Divine Divinity and Diablo and such. Are the RPG elements on par with either of those games?
I liked Divine Divinity as well Robert,I’d say overall it has about the same level of roleplaying to it as DD so far,although in a different style,and IMO much better RPG elements than Diablo 1 or 2.
There is a fair amount of stats to play around with,using a talent tree style setup similar to what WoW uses,so you can go more melee or more magic or a combo of both.
When you throw in the RTS side it makes for a very fun ride on the Campaign side of things,haven’t tried the Freegame style of play yet,but it sounds interesting.Seems to be a lot of bang for your buck with SpellForce 2.
Arise!
Improbably, the second Spellforce 2 expansion, Faith in Destiny, has been released despite the demise of JoWood in 2011. Can’t find much online about it at the moment, though there’s a brief split-screen gameplay video on YouTube. It seems to be a standalone expansion, and is currently selling for $18 on the US Steam store.
Hmmm…I am not sure I could go back to Spellforce. As with the previous games, the cover does help its case:
I saw that on Steam yesterday and it definitely made me raise my eyebrows. “Spellforce 2… that can’t be the same game I was playing all those years ago, right?”
I’d be curious on what anyone’s impressions on, if they try it.
The first review - and take this with a whole kilo of salt - says Faith in Destiny is brilliant. Exactly the same game as before, same graphics, new campaign. 12-15 hours play time. GamingXp.de gives 90%.
I had no idea they were even working on another expansion. I loved Spellforce 2, so I’m in.
I’ll pick this up myself when it comes down in price.