Comments on: Disciples III: Renaissance Developer Walkthrough

By: Max

Max — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:21:08 +0000

Ugh, that site is horrid. It’s not even a site, it’s just Flash.
If you like beautiful sites you should visit: http://www.wolfire.com/overgrowth
That is a nice site, and it’s even HTML.

By: Vinraith

Vinraith — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:04:54 +0000

Ah, good, you had me weirded out there for a second. :)

Like others here, I enjoyed Disciples 2 (though I agree that it’s somewhat light on the strategy, somewhere between HOMM and King’s Bounty I’d argue). The art style has always been one of its strongest points, and I’m pleased to see that with the series going 3D a real attempt is being made to preserve that. I’ve been looking forward to this one for awhile (I believe it was originally slated for release last Christmas) so I’m also just glad to see some information about it making the rounds. One can never have too many fantasy TBS games. Actually, come to think of it, one can never have too many TBS games period.

By: Jim Rossignol

Jim Rossignol — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:55:55 +0000

That should be RPGTBS

By: Vinraith

Vinraith — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:53:17 +0000

“RPGRTS mentality?”

I’m confused, is some portion of Disciples real time now? That would be unfortunate.

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:01:04 +0000

I have some hope for this now that the (new) dev owns the ip and not .

By: Namos

Namos — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:56:34 +0000

Yeah, the graphical polish of Disciples II really drew me in. I just hope they get rid of the stupid battle limitation (every battle cuts your movement by half – each here could battle only twice per turn, unless you used movement restoring items/spells).
Looking forward to this one.

By: WCG

WCG — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:54:09 +0000

I didn’t realize you had to F11 to go full screen in order to see the language option!

Thanks for this comment, Nelson! I would never have figured it out.

By: Subject 706

Subject 706 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:52:36 +0000

For my part, I think the art direction in DIII is just as good as in the earlier two. Liked the first ones, so I’m getting this. I’m just happy someone is actually making TBS games these days.

By: kuddles

kuddles — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:45:54 +0000

Yeah, I would also argue that while the combat itself wasn’t overly strategic, there was definitely a strategic layer to getting to that point. Most other fantasy TBS like HOMM or Age of Wonders was completely open-ended in it’s tech tree or the type of units you could make. Disciples II, on the other hand, would force you to go for one aspect (for example, brute force vs. more wide-ranging damage), which would immediately cut you off from the other options. You also had to determine what stacks were best against what enemies.

The biggest downfall was that the story campaigns were a little overly-scripted, making things like diplomacy invalid most of the time, and the higher difficulty came from cheating rather then better A.I. (even with few assets and being pummeled at every turn, they still could churn out new stacks much quicker then you.)

While this new one may not be as impressive visually, one needs to remember that this type of game probably needs to operate on an extremely limited budget and it is an East European dev team after all. If it’s actually decently polished (and with how long it’s been in development, that’s likely) and still looks and plays decent, especially coming from a sketchy publisher like Strategy First, I would count my blessings right there.

By: Karry

Karry — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:49:29 +0000

@David
Oh, come one, Disciples has more in common with Diablo, than HeroesofM&Ms. The whole “strategic” gameplay consisted of having one squad and systematically eradicating every living thing off the map. There was no incentive to use many squads, or to leave some enemies alone, no, just kill them all, because if you dont – you wont be experienced enough to beat the bosses. And that kind of gameplay disguised as a TBS gets reeeally old reeeally quick. I couldnt finish the third level in campaign, i was so bored by the previous two.

By: Severian

Severian — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:45:47 +0000

I agree with several of the comments above. DII had a lovely art design and aesthetic. There was something immensely satisfying about leveling up your units until they “evolved” into uber-powerful icons of doom (the dwarves were visually very fun; the undead slightly OP). You had choices along the way of what you wanted your units to become. Keeping these experienced units alive, esp in the early game, was vital for success. What this meant, unfortunately, was that if you did succeed in leveling up a number of powerful units, you could create a “stack of doom” (as Finn said) and just wipe out everything the AI threw at you.

I have to say I also liked the limited combat (no movement, only 6 units). I’ve played the “move around in hex battlefield” system more times than I care to think about and it can be boring as hell. King’s Bounty probably did this better than any other game I can remember (including HOMM and AOW). But I kind of wish they’d kept the simple combat for DIII.

The biggest problem with DII was the poor AI. If it had been designed better, than an overarching strategy would have been rewarded (when to leave troops behind to defend important locations, when to split armies, what items to buy, etc.). But as it was, you really didn’t need to think too much. The computer couldn’t formulate a grand strategy against you, so you could break the map down into small-scale tactical decisions. Ultimately, this became very boring.

The map aesthetic and design, also, was disappointing. Unfortunately, DIII looks to continue this trend. But I remain hopeful. I love me turn-based strategy but I worry that people won’t have time for both Elemental and DIII, and the former looks like it’s trying to push boundaries better than this one. We shall see.

By: Ashbery76

Ashbery76 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:23:14 +0000

I love the art direction in the game.