Stardock’s Sorcerer King Launches On July 16th

Stardock’s turn-based strategy game Sorcerer King [official site] has been hanging around in Early Access for a while now. But now it is taking the next step. It’s growing up. It’s graduating. It’s getting a mortgage and losing its childlike innocence in favor of grown-up cynicism. It’s finally doing that thing all the big games are doing: it’s getting a release date. (July 16th, in case you were wondering.)

In case you missed the original memo, the upcoming strategy title will have you playing as one of the six sorcerous sovereigns (try saying that three times fast. Hah!) ruling over this fantasy realm. Unfortunately for you, the Sorcerer King is out to destroy the shards that power the wizardry in this world in his bid to become a god. Your job? To stop him. (And beat up everyone else, of course.)

Equipped with a random map generator, Sorcerer King features all the standard accoutrements: city-building, monster battling, item-crafting, and more. But there’s a twist, however. And it sounds interesting enough. The Sorcerer King, the ultimate bad guy, is operating on a different level from you and your posse of opponents. He’ll be amassing power and throwing down, even as you squabble with your peers. Steam user reviews of the Early Access version seem mildly disgruntled with the level of depth provided, but the game will apparently appeal to fans of Fallen Enchantress.

14 Comments

  1. andyhavens says:

    “…fans of Fallen Enchantress.”

    That’s just mean.

  2. harley9699 says:

    “Steam user reviews of the Early Access version seem mildly disgruntled with the level of depth provided…”

    Too little depth or too much depth then?

    • AngoraFish says:

      Yes.

      • harley9699 says:

        Thanks, that narrowed it down—or not.

        • JaminBob says:

          Bit really, which way? I’d rather too little than hardcore genre fans would expect I’d I’m honest.

          • Reefpirate says:

            I imagine the reviews would be complaining about a lack of depth if anything. Personally I appreciate the simpler ruleset, but it certainly is simpler than a lot of other 4X’s out there.

  3. jasta85 says:

    Stardock games tend to release as rather lukewarm titles but they are pretty good at releasing updates. I have this on my wishlist but will probably wait a while before picking it up

    • Zenicetus says:

      Based on the way they released GalCiv3 out of Early Access recently, I’d call that a good plan. It’s playable, but feels very much like a work-in-progress.

    • Berserkben says:

      Their more recent games feel more like a platform for them to sell you DLC, content that make’s the game what it should have been at release.

      • frightlever says:

        Well yeah, that’s the industry now. DLC is mandatory, to the point that many players actually want it.

        Here’s the thing, Gal Civ 2 was pretty mediocre at release, but became a great game over, I think, three expansions. Does Gal Civ 3 reflect an updated version of post-expansion Gal Civ 2? Nope, it’s an update on the original game, so they get to re-sell you those three expansions with a fresh lick of paint as well.

        I’m pretty much avoiding Stardock these days.

        • bill says:

          On the other hand, I just tried to get hold of my old impulse games, only to find gamestop has basically killed it, but then was happy to find that if I made an account on stardock then I could get access to my old Impulse games there.
          That was a nice surprise.

        • Cerzi says:

          To be fair that’s exactly what Firaxis did with Civ 5.

      • Joshua Northey says:

        The reason for this is that most games should really cost around $100-$150 given the size of their audiences and the resources involved. But consumers are scared of those price points so now games come out in half finished chunks.

        DLC isn’t some evil thing, it is just a response to gamers always wanting more more more, but not wanting to see $100 price points.

        It has pluses and minuses, on the plus side you get to get games earlier in the development cycle and try them out for a lower cost with less frills, on the minus side it is a much less efficient way to develop a game, and fragments the user base.