Game News Might & Magic-inspired retro blobber Legends of Amberland released on Steam Early Access

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[MRY]

I like the idea but I have to agree with karnak . Despite being released today the game looks worse than the original M&M3 which is now more than 20 years old. On the other hand there isn't anything that would make it substantially different from the original games. Makes you wonder why would anyone play this over old M&M, unless he knows them all by heart by now.

The whole "despite being 20 years later, it's worse" trope seems very un-Codexian. By 1991, the tools for doing pixel art were pretty solid, storage space wasn't too limited, and graphics modes were reasonable, so there's no reason why the graphics should have been bad in that era. And, in any case, M&M3 had three dedicated artists, all of whom had prior professional credits under the belt before working on M&M3.

I mean, it's totally reasonable to say, "The graphics are ugly, I don't want to play it," but there shouldn't be any surprise that a one-man M&M clone in 2019 would look worse than M&M3. In fact, if a one-man M&M clone had better graphics, I would be suspicious of its design.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

7-10 person party is nothing esp if you are used to controlling armies in turn based war games or management games.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I like the idea but I have to agree with karnak . Despite being released today the game looks worse than the original M&M3 which is now more than 20 years old. On the other hand there isn't anything that would make it substantially different from the original games. Makes you wonder why would anyone play this over old M&M, unless he knows them all by heart by now.

The whole "despite being 20 years later, it's worse" trope seems very un-Codexian. By 1991, the tools for doing pixel art were pretty solid, storage space wasn't too limited, and graphics modes were reasonable, so there's no reason why the graphics should have been bad in that era. And, in any case, M&M3 had three dedicated artists, all of whom had prior professional credits under the belt before working on M&M3.

I mean, it's totally reasonable to say, "The graphics are ugly, I don't want to play it," but there shouldn't be any surprise that a one-man M&M clone in 2019 would look worse than M&M3. In fact, if a one-man M&M clone had better graphics, I would be suspicious of its design.

But right now you can just scan any piece of art you can imagine, which wasn't a possibility back then. And many one-man projects have better graphics than that. It's not just graphics that didn't seem any evolved in the game, same goes for interface, combat and pretty much everything else in the trailer. I don't think that the game is bad or anything. My problem is that it's not doing anything different from classic M&M and it doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly better. Which makes it a straight downgrade from the game released over a decade ago. I'd gloss-over ugly graphics if there was any reason to play it over the M&M games. All the Doom and Diablo clones that were being created by the dozen at least did something to distinguish themselves from the originals. Either a different setting or some mechanical gimmick.
So it's not just "graphics are ugly, I don't want to play it" it's "it's a clone that doesn't seem to be achieve anything original didn't, I don't want to play it". I don't want to be shitting on the game and/or author, since it appears to be fine. It just doesn't look interesting.

 

[MRY]

I agree that an odd phenomenon that exists today is lower quality clones of older games that people haven't actually played. But if you've played and exhausted the big-budget M&M-types of the past, this might scratch an itch.

 

[Metro]

7-10 person party is nothing esp if you are used to controlling armies in turn based war games or management games.

Apples and oranges.