Ara: History Untold
- Thread starter Vandlys
- Start date
CivLuvah
Deity
Dang, ninja'd!now we are starting to talk
What he presented in the video is about 3/4ths of what I experienced during the technical alpha. Rather disappointed that he didn't elaborate on the crafting system, which really sets ARA apart from the rest of the competition, including Civ.
Also rather surprised they didn't continue to use Shohreh Aghdashloo as their narrator. I know she narrated the announcement trailer.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,393
Great to see some gameplay at last. I don't expect to learn much from this, since he only got to play for an hour, but this should be a good introduction for non-alpha testers.now we are starting to talk
One thing I am noticing, though, is that there is something strange about the video settings in this video. The game is normally not this bright.
CivLuvah
Deity
Another one hour of gameplay footage courtesy of IGN. It seems this one is playing a different civ on a different starting point. Good to see some variety of gameplay.
If someone else on YouTube posts another one hour of ARA gameplay with a different civ and starting point, then we'll have our three hours of gameplay equivalent to the ones who played the Civ7 demo hehe
If someone else on YouTube posts another one hour of ARA gameplay with a different civ and starting point, then we'll have our three hours of gameplay equivalent to the ones who played the Civ7 demo hehe
Luís Felipe Silva Pinto
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 42
The only thing I haven't liked is how cities are expanding so much, creating an urban area the size of regions. I still prefer the system where the city is just 1 tile and all urban buildings are in it, while rural buildings are in tiles that are not part of the city.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,393
I understand, as this is one of the things which bothered me about Humankind. The map there was quite pretty initially, but got incredibly overloaded, as that game has urban sprawl unlike any I've seen. Ara's cities also get quite large as the game progresses, but I feel like it's less egregious for a couple of reasons. For one, Ara's visual layout in general is just nicer. Regions are smaller than in Humankind, while the zones inside are much larger than the tiles in Humankind. You can build one thing per zone (Triumphs take up an entire region though), and many of the things you build will have a decent amount of space around it, which the game then fills with pleasant looking features like trees or small buildings. The second reason I feel like it is better in Ara, is that the map is very large, and there can be a good distance between good settling spots. So even if the cities are large, you can have a lot of space between them.
I should mention that I could only play the first act in the alpha, so I have not seen how things are in the later stages of the game. It did get harder and harder to expand my cities as they grew though, so it should converge towards a practical maximum size.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,393
Good question, I don't know where the name comes from. I don't think it's an acronym though. On the official website it is written as "Ara". Perhaps it refers to the Ara constellation? Apparently, "ara" means "altar" in Latin.
Last edited:
Yes..You can disable in the options.
great.
now only if the combat is engaging enough ,that ll make the game truly amazing.
KayAU
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,393
You could only play until the end of act 1 (out of 3), so unfortunately, I don't really know a lot about the later parts. I'm sure the large scale alpha testing benefitted acts 2 and 3 as well, since the mechanics would mostly be the same, but there are definitely many unknowns. I also have not seen a lot of footage from the later parts of the game.
I am optimistic though, these devs seem to know what they are doing. While it is true that in most civ-style games the early game is the most enjoyable, there is a fair bit of grand strategy in this one, and those often have better mid- and late games, in my opinion.
Last edited:
user343744
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 1, 2024
- Messages
- 18
Just saw the gamescom demo, game looks very interesting. I hope more people get to know it even exists and is coming out soon, feel like it's primetime to turn the marketing campaign in high gear.
CivLuvah
Deity
I can't remember if there was any explicit mention of diseases. But I know that the health metric goes up and down depending on what you do with the cities. For example, I've had instances when I neglected to put in Feasts in amenities, and the health of the city went down.
Greetings
I ask some questions, I read this in the first diary:
"While advancing to the next act is exciting and oftentimes represents a thriving Nation, it is not guaranteed. During the transition between one act to the next, Nations are sorted into different tiers based on their relative Prestige, and the Nations with the lowest amount of Prestige are removed from the game. Prestige is gained from a number of sources in a variety of categories we’ll get into later including culture, warfare, science, religion, and more. To ensure that they survive to see the next act, players can complete quests, research technologies, create Triumphs and Improvements, and employ a plethora of other strategies available to them."
Isn't it EXCESSIVELY drastic to eliminate a nation because it is behind in this ranking (I imagine also that of the player, who at this point I assume is "Game-over")?
The second question is: Who chose the leaders? because I see that for Italy Cesare Beccaria was chosen who was a jurist and a writer etc..., but not a politician, head of state etc... and the same for Poland the chosen one was Nicolas Copernicus who he was a scientist who is like choosing Marlon Brando for the United States, I understand that it is not a fundamental thing but a bit of research on the heads of state of the two nations would have been better
I ask some questions, I read this in the first diary:
"While advancing to the next act is exciting and oftentimes represents a thriving Nation, it is not guaranteed. During the transition between one act to the next, Nations are sorted into different tiers based on their relative Prestige, and the Nations with the lowest amount of Prestige are removed from the game. Prestige is gained from a number of sources in a variety of categories we’ll get into later including culture, warfare, science, religion, and more. To ensure that they survive to see the next act, players can complete quests, research technologies, create Triumphs and Improvements, and employ a plethora of other strategies available to them."
Isn't it EXCESSIVELY drastic to eliminate a nation because it is behind in this ranking (I imagine also that of the player, who at this point I assume is "Game-over")?
The second question is: Who chose the leaders? because I see that for Italy Cesare Beccaria was chosen who was a jurist and a writer etc..., but not a politician, head of state etc... and the same for Poland the chosen one was Nicolas Copernicus who he was a scientist who is like choosing Marlon Brando for the United States, I understand that it is not a fundamental thing but a bit of research on the heads of state of the two nations would have been better
