Saga: Out Tomorrow, Visible Today

Is it an RTS? Is it an MMO? It’s both! This looks intriguing, if only because it’s a new idea. This latest video of Saga, which does bear a lot in common with last week’s, shows off the various features online fantasy RTS Saga will boast. Eyes south.

Gametrailers, we’ve always said you were the ones with sagacity.

The game’s apparently out tomorrow, so it’s a bit odd that publishers Silverlode Interactive don’t have a website yet. Fortunately the game does, where you can find out lots more.


  1. MedO says:

    The idea is certainly good, but I always find it odd when a game does not even run fluidly in the trailer, and the graphics of this one don’t seem so demanding that there’d be a very good reason for it.

  2. Acosta says:

    I have been waiting for something like that for a while (at some point I expected Blizzard to make this with Starcraft), but is the project has certainly gone under radar and it’s hard to trust on a developer that doesn´t have a page web even. However I have signed for a trial, it seems they let you use the client and play for free -minus some things like Guilds -, you just have to wait some weeks after the initial release to be able to download the client.

  3. roBurky says:

    That trailer and website really don’t do a good job of explaining the game. “Oh yeh, it’s online and persistent and stuff”. That’s a terribly vague explanation for a concept that’s never been successfully combined with an RTS before.

  4. Cyren says:

    From the FAQ:

    “Being an online game, are their any subscription fees?

    No. Saga has absolutely no sign-up or subscription fees. Instead, players are required to buy their troops in booster packs. These troops remain a player’s permanent property, but can be traded or upgraded, and gain experience and new weapons and armor over time. Additionally, they can be killed, making strategy and effective use of troops essential to game-play in Saga.”

    So whoever spends the most wins? No thanks I’ll pass

  5. Zaren says:

    So whoever spends the most wins? No thanks I’ll pass

    Yeah, you can be trounced by everyone, or pay through the nose and just be trounced by those who have deeper pockets than you.

    Sounds like a blast.

  6. josh g. says:

    Hrm, I remember there was an MMO RTS of sorts a while ago; although it was top-down, sci-fi, and I think you actually only controlled one unit per person so you got thrown into battles with lots of other players. But you still had lots of other players smashed together in the same game space to battle over territory. No idea what the name was though, I saw my cousins play it but never tried it myself.

  7. Tak says:

    Well, at least they tried something different.

    We’re a cynical bunch, gamers. We spend many a nights staring into empty bottles and delivering mouse-rattling blows to our desktops because of the lack of innovation and willingness to expiriment in the industry, then when something new comes out we go right back to the booze and the desk pounding (though honestly, I think I’m just look for excuses to drink more).

    All that aside though, yeah this sounds almost as stupid as the pay-to-slay FPS below this. Horrid.

  8. Jonathan says:

    Reply to Josh g. Do you mean Savage? If so it’s free to play.

  9. Veloxi says:

    Josh g, are you thinking of Shattered Galaxy? That’s what I thought of when I read this article.

  10. George-Duckling Manburger says:

    The idea is very interesting, too bad about the execution.
    And paying for units? Man, fuck that with a stick.

  11. RichPowers says:

    Wow, this game has one of the WORST payment models ever conceived. So deep-pocketed geeks will just buy an ass-load of units and zerg rush everyone else.

    Though it would be funny to see a virtual arms race in Saga, where players are eventually bankrupted like the USSR :P

  12. Catch.153 says:

    I don’t like the idea as its presented here at all. First, why would I want a persistent kingdom? If I lose a battle, my army’s going to be annihilated and I’ll be back to square one. If you cannot annihilate someone else’s army, where’s the fun in that? For the “next generation” of RTS, the graphics are an embarrassment.

    And then you have to pay real money for your units? What a joke!

    DTF: Doomed to failure.

    The most humorously random ad I ever saw just appeared on this page. “Innovated tools for the 21st century lineman.” It’s for Utility Solutions, a company that supplies for men who work on utility poles. Good ol’ Google syndication, keeping it relevant.

    Oh my gosh! There’s a link on their home page to hear a DUCK! Guys, it’s a wav file! That’s priceless!!!

  13. Nooklear Toaster says:

    I’m pretty sure that the way the unit market works is that it’s a one-time purchase each time you buy a booster pack, and you keep the units from match to match like a CCG. When they talk about units dying and resurrection I’m fairly certain that you need to spend in-game currency to revive them.

    Correct me if I’m wrong here, but this is what I got out of reading it. It’s not really a bad idea, I guess. I play some miniatures games and it’s not always the guy who’s pumped the most cash into buying boosters that wins, it’s the guy who knows what he has and how to use it effectively.