#1 Posted by Brentles (6 posts) -

Why is this game so under the radar? Why is there no Quick Look? This was more deserving than the Star Trek QL.

#2 Posted by jdh5153 (1097 posts) -

Because no one's ever heard of it? From the screenshots on the website it basically looks like a Civ V skin.

#3 Posted by AWalczak08 (33 posts) -

I dunno. Looks alright, but it doesn't seem like anyone's heard of this game.

#4 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12885 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

Because no one's ever heard of it? From the screenshots on the website it basically looks like a Civ V skin.

It's not that, at all. It has more in common with something like Heroes of Might and Magic or Age of Wonders than it does with Civ.

As for why: because no one has ever heard of it. Also because it's literally just a graphical remake of Eador Genesis but with more bugs or something.

#5 Posted by Dragon_Fire (375 posts) -

It looks pretty cool and hell I even voted for it on Greenlight, but no one has heard of it.

#6 Edited by oraknabo (1589 posts) -

This certainly looks like a graphical improvement, but isn't this just a remake of Eador Genesis? I've been tempted to get the old one from GoG since I like Master of Magic. I've seen a lot of bad reviews for this, but they seem to be mostly from people who already played the first one. Is this good if you never played it or does it just feel like a 5-year-old 2D game with a graphics patch applied to it?

#7 Posted by audioBusting (1775 posts) -

Masters of the what now? What is an Eador?

#8 Posted by Winternet (8258 posts) -

Why should we talk about it?

#9 Edited by Tennmuerti (8515 posts) -

@oraknabo: I've never played the original and just got into this yesterday. If @arbitrarywater: is correct in that it is just mostly a reskin of an old one then that would explain a LOT. As the game pace is somewhat plodding, more so then either Civ or HoMM series; the kind of thing you would expect from a really old type of game design. I might also be playing it a bit wee wrong. It's a really cool strategy game otherwise and to me a bit novel. It looks pretty, but is not so well optimized.

As for the patch thing it actually seems to have a lot of bugs atm. I've only conquered like one shard (map) and already encountered probably a dozen bugs from minor graphical glitches to more major stuff that would stop the game dead (and I can reproduce).

Atm I really wish I could put battles vs. neutral armies on quickcombat to auto resolve them, but the AI is asinine and will loose troops against trash monsters when there is 0 need to do so. So I'm having to fight every battle even the inconsequential ones manually.

@brentles Why it's under the radar is simple, it's a relatively complex, fantasy, time consuming, turn based strategy game. Not one of GB's strong suits, as well as being a very niche genre. Hell there wasn't even much talk on this website about HoMM6 when it came out and that is a far more well known brand. Giant Bomb will look at Civ or Xcom at best. Non mainstream stuff like Erador would only get a shot at popularity on GB if someone like Dave tries it and raves about it, like what happened for Crusader Kings 2.

#10 Posted by Village_Guy (2792 posts) -

Say what now? I guess no one is talking about it is because most people never heard of it? Is it worth talking about?

#11 Edited by Tennmuerti (8515 posts) -

@village_guy: Not in any major way no. But if you are a fan of beefy turn based strategy games it's definitely worth checking out.

#12 Edited by Kidavenger (3919 posts) -

Here is a review of it, seems like something Dave would have done the quicklook of...

Loading Video...

#13 Edited by Sergio (2687 posts) -

I think QLs are pretty much a balance of what they're interested in, what they think we're interested in, and what may be entertaining as a QL. This sounds like a game that Dave would be interested in and probably none of the other staffers, so that answers the first part. If this game has flown under the radar as you say, that pretty much answers the second part. The perception I was getting about Star Trek up to its launch was that it wasn't going to be good, possibly a train wreck, and that could be an entertaining QL for the wrong reasons.

#14 Posted by static_void (222 posts) -

Because nobody cares.

#15 Edited by Brentles (6 posts) -

@sergio: Yeah, I see why Star Trek would fit that bill. I thought the guys would be into this game. I knew about the bugs, but it can be hard to wade through what is truth and what is exaggeration on the internet.

#16 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -

Because I haven't heard of it, meaning nobody has heard of it.

#17 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12885 posts) -

Because I haven't heard of it, meaning nobody has heard of it.

Me. I've heard of it. But I'm also crazy.

#18 Posted by Raven10 (2067 posts) -

I saw it pop up on Steam and it looked pretty cool. Then I went to the forums and everyone was saying it was a buggy mess in its current state. Plus the original version looks like an old Heroes game and honestly I prefer those much more than the modern Heroes games. Old 2D is more my style than these modern TBS games. I don't want a whole bunch of stuff cluttering the screen. I need to be able to see everything that is of strategic importance in a single glance. The more detail these games put into the window dressing the harder it is to focus on the strategy. Also the original version is like $5 and this is like $30. Anyways, it looks really cool but I'll wait for the many bugs to be fixed before I try it. I'm probably the second biggest oldschool Heroes fan on the site after @arbitrarywaterso I am kind of obligated to play it. Hopefully it is more like Heroes than Heroes is these days.