AntSou
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2019
- Messages
- 3,051
That is better for most civers at CFC.@Civinator @Bonyduck Campersang the video has English subtitles.
I understand that the game is still in development but, honestly, at this point the game's UI and general aesthetics are so off putting that it there would have to be a lot of interesting ideas and mechanics in the game for me to even consider buying it. It doesn't help I haven't seen anything interesting about the game at this point.The simple "Fortnite" like leaders on a realistic looking map seem like such a blatantly poor choice.
Its not so much that the leaders look bad, they are perfectly fine honestly, but that they, and the rest of the UI elements, all have different enough aesthetics that they clash in a way that I just find really off putting. The map, the leaders, and the UI all look like they belong from entirely different games and its a sign of bad design that none of the design elements compliment each other. I'm not going to want to spend time playing a game that I don't find visually pleasing.I don't know, leaders seem OK-ish too me. Not great, but not so terrible as to put me off
Here are some excerpts from the Gamestar video:
The recruitement of military units is "item-based". Per example, If you want to produce a unit of archers you need the bows to equipe them. These bows can be gained by production or as a prey:
View attachment 672100
View attachment 672101
Squad-based battles:
View attachment 672102
Only one victory condition: Prestige points (those can be gained for nearly everything):
View attachment 672103
Civ Stats and some buildings:
View attachment 672104
Civ Traits (here India/Ahoka):
View attachment 672105
No tiles, but regions (nothing new, but a nice image):
View attachment 672106
Research is different from the Civ series. Here cards are drawn from a card deck. Only one of three suggested techs can be drawn. Per era there are only nine different cards. I have the feeling, that here the last word is not spoken yet:
View attachment 672107
View attachment 672109
Quests:
View attachment 672108
One of the main designers was at Mohawk working on Old World early on. He "borrowed" Old World's tech system for ARA.I know this isn't going to be very profound comment, but i just have this "that is cool" vibe from all that. Many strange ideas (tech system) but they may be refreshing because of that, and we need innovation.
Tech system sounds very different from civ, and more similar to Stellaris like system with semi-random car decks, which ended up quite cool actually - I'm just interested how do they something like that in a historical game, where technologies have intuitively obvious prerequisites, unlike researching Plasma Cannons before Photon Cannons. My favourite aspects of Stellaris tech system is how much less gamey it feels, harder to optimize and more about the chaotic adventure - you can't meta game by focusing on some tech two eras ahead so you rush enemy with OP unit.
The more I learn of this game, the more I believe in its place on the market next to civ - it seems to try to do something kinda different from civ in every subsystem. Leaders being also cultural figures not just political, regions instead of tiles, squad based combad, card deck technologies, quests, economy based on more resources than just money, only prestige victory - everything is something fresh.
At least it will certainly avoid Humankind's crippling issue of no faction identity and resulting 'complwte sense of schizophrenia and alienation' as put eloquently by one Steam reviewer.
Firstly, it is incredibly ugly. City banners and icons are awful flat primary colors. They clash aesthetically with the map graphics as well as the generic transparent material elements of the rest of the UI, which themselves are ugly. Likewise, icons for techs are bright colorful drawings done in a decidedly not modern style. Nothing fits with anything else. It’s like different people of different skills designed each element independently.What exactly is so bad with this UI in your opinion
I know aesthetics are a matter of taste primarily, but nothing about it is visually appealing and it all looks decidedly “budget”.
These semi-random tech choices in Old World and Ara seem like a band aid. With a sufficiently well-designed game you'd go for different choices of tech anyway depending on the situation.
In Old World you also got the opportunity to take one of those resource cards over a tech which is admittedly interesting.
I know it's quite superficial, but I have to agree with this as a first impression. I'm personally put off by UI that feels like you have to do three more clicks for buttons to work.Firstly, it is incredibly ugly. City banners and icons are awful flat primary colors. They clash aesthetically with the map graphics as well as the generic transparent material elements of the rest of the UI, which themselves are ugly. Likewise, icons for techs are bright colorful drawings done in a decidedly not modern style. Nothing fits with anything else. It’s like different people of different skills designed each element independently.
I know aesthetics are a matter of taste primarily, but nothing about it is visually appealing and it all looks decidedly “budget”.
Functionally, it’s hard to say without playing, but there’s no reason all 4 corners of the screen should have overlays that extend so far out. Information overload and clutter
and another competitor emerges. this time from paradox. they do have some serious experience with strategy games
Among potentially, Civilization VII, Ara, and Millenia we are either going to be swimming in wondrous new 4X games or depressed by games that are only 'almost good enogh'.Well it seems we are going to have an interesting 2024![]()