Unfinished: The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot 02/02/2014

man, i never thought such a novel gameplay concept would come off as boring as this...

but still it looks very competent although the f2p stuff seems like a huge buzzkill

I automatically dislike any game whose title contains the word "epic".

Calling a game 'free-to-play' when it's based around micro-transactions is both stupid and deceitful. Stop calling it that.

If 90% of the game is hidden behind paywalls or ludicrous in-game requirements that no sane person could possibly achieve (unlock through 100 real-life hours of grinding or pay $3.50) then it is a "micro-transaction based game".

Just to be clear, there are free-to-play games out there, it's just that this BS comes nowhere close to that.

I don't know whether this is more indicative of the iOS platform as a whole, but it seems like every freemium game developer is compelled to use a super cartoony, over-saturated art style of one sort or another. Definitely gives the "game design by marketing" feel, which is a terrible bubble waiting to burst any day now (god willing).

I know this isn't an iOS game, but it might as well be. It's a shame, because this might have been a decent experience without the business aspect compromising its design.

Seems like it might be fun for a few hours, but I can't imagine dedicating any real time to it unfortunately. Shame as I really like the art style and the the base gameplay ideas, but the free-to-play model of several currencies and limiting how you play with timers is a turn off.

You guys spoil us, giving us neat weekend content and an early podcast this week

The game looks fine but i wouldnt play it over another game that sucks most of my time.

I was really looking forward to this game but was horrified when I learned they decided to go the free to play route. At least with paid games you know exactly how much the game is going to cost you. With F2P games, you really have no clue just how much you will have to spend to get full access to the game. I VASTLY prefer to just pay for my game upfront and be done with it. Again, at least then I know exactly how much its going to cost me. I despise the F2P model now and refuse to support games that use it.

The whole concept of free to play is insulting as there is nothing free about it. Calling a game free that realy isn't free is deceptive and insulting to anyone with a brain.

"We learn the meaning of the Vinny Doctrine: to bomb past a castle's defenses until hopelessly trapped."

Where's the version number?! You're starting to slip, Giant Bomb

Nooooo thanks. The F2P stuff isn't even what turns me off, as terrible as it is in this. The game itself just seems so damn lame.

TIL Jeff doesn't know the difference between a knight and a pirate

This game is pretty awesome. I've had no problems unlocking everything as I go, and getting more money and crystals is very fast from attacking other players.

Anyone worried about the pay options, it only speeds up progression through the upgrades, you still have to level at the same speed, not to mention that getting further in the game means better players will attack you and you'll have to fight much harder castles, so its not very beneficial in terms of holding onto your gold and crystals.

Oh, for reviving during a castle attacking, it costs gold not paid currency. So its extremely cheap, however once you revive it sets the reward to 0, you basically forfeit when you revive. Its good for keeping the loot you picked up and any currency from mobs.

Anyways, worth checking it out.

PS: You can see other player's runs of your dungeon, and you can set challenges for players/friends.

Gross.

Pay to pay more.

And also pay.

The casual doctrine.

@mikael110: Except I went on Steam and the $20 beta access gave you 2500 gems, not 25,000 gems. I wonder how he managed to get that much? Even the $100 beta pack doesn't get you anywhere close to $25,000 gems. The gem to dollar ratio is 100 gems per dollar, so Vinny had $250 worth of gems. However he managed it, I'm pretty sure he now has enough to buy his way through the entire game. I wonder if the developer knew who owned the account and just dumped a ridiculous amount of gems into it to get a better preview? There is no way to buy anywhere near that many gems with a single purchase so it doesn't seem like Vinny could have made a mistake. Super weird.

I'm curious, @vinny, do you have any idea how you got $250 worth of gems?

I'm in Vinny's camp where I would have absolutely played this, if it wasn't for the payment model. I actually have beta access as someone gave me a key for this, I played it for a good hour or two, but the game was just so rife/blatant about the microtransaction hooks that I couldn't stand playing more of it. Considering the game is about adventurers who got so greedy they created giant floating sky fortresses to safeguard their hoards from each other (and the tutorial guy is a giant smarmy salesman) the game seems almost like a giant mockery of itself.

You're going awfully far out of your way to find things to be upset over, friend.

Really, I had no idea as I wasn't too keen on getting into the beta myself, that's actually very interesting, and yeah I very much doubt Vinny actually bought any of those gems himself as he would almost certainly have mentioned that during the Quick Look if he had.

And yeah unless Vinny just happened to encounter a glitch which gave his account a massive amount of gems (which I find highly unlikely) then it certainly seems like the game dev might have decided to award him some extra cash as you say, The GiantBomb crew's SteamID's aren't exactly close kept secrets so it's certainly possible the dev might have recognized him.

Also just for the record my $160 bucks estimate was based on the prizes of the varius gem packs in the store page shown in the Quick Look, as if you bought the 14000 gem pack ($99.99), the 6000 gem pack (49.99) and the 2800 gem pack (24.99) then you would have 22800 gems which is approximately what Vinny had, and I just Quickly estimated that would cost somewhere around $160 (After doing some actual math it seems like it would actually cost $174,94 to buy those gem packs).

I hate this game solely because of its name, and the F2P garbage doesn't help.

Dem f2p hooks.

Couldn't finish the video, the game was just too... Meh.

I think it's a really neat idea for a game, it just wasn't that fun to play back when I tried it last year when I got a beta code (was picked, didn't spend money). It's a timewaster-style game with more than average production value that you could play in small doses without ever having to spend money. I just didn't find it fun to play. Also when I tried it, I don't think the "heal me" button cost anything and you would lose your shot at the treasure or getting a good rating, but maybe you kept your drops. I just always hit no.

Totally good idea for a game. The style is great and it seems to be potentially enjoyable. I've got enough F2P games to worry about to care 'bout this one though. So yeah.. if this was a 30 dollar game? I'd get it.

looks ok lol

Sorry. Blame Vinny or something.

I usually stay far away from free to play games, but I actually liked the look of this one enough after the quick look that I went on Steam and bought the wizard pack. From what I can tell after an hour and a half of playing, what you can mostly spend money on is making timers go away. Something which would usually annoy me, but I'm unlikely to spend more than an hour here or there playing the game. So unless that gets really bad really quickly, by the time I get tired of the game I'll have got my money's worth. I imagine someone looking to get more out of it than that would be disappointed though.

It doesn't seem to be a deep game, but enough to be entertaining those weeks when I don't have the time or energy to play something more demanding. I enjoyed the creature/trap placement aspect, and watching the replay of the first player to go through my castle was really fun. They beat it, but I had them on the ropes a couple of times. Quite satisfying.

By "kinda neat" I hope you mean terrible. Diablo clone and microtransactions slapped on top. Wow, what has gaming become...

Actually, I also think it looks neat. I think what he means is that the concept is pretty cool. You build your own castle and attack castles that other players made.

Yeah, no doubt it would be more fun without the FTP stuff, but it looks to me like you don't need to spend money to enjoy the game. The timers are the only things that I saw that are true FTP nonsense, but at least those timers are based on construction. Not how much time until you can play again.

I haven't played the game yet, but from what I saw here it looks neat and the FTP hooks look acceptable.

I'm actually going to give it a shot.

@1101101 Wait.. are you suggesting The Castle Doctrine doesn't look bland? Yeah, I agree with you that the concept of that game is pretty cool, but man, that design is bordering on the edges of terrible. Also, I feel everyone who claims the game has some sort of deep emotional/political impact is just slapping it on themselves. It's not insightful with anything. Castle Doctrine is similar to this game for the concept that you build your own base to defend and try to crack other people's bases they've build.

man, the salt...

@zevvion Was I really so unclear? The Castle Doctrine certainly doesn’t look special, it’s neither ugly nor beautiful, so yeah, its looks are bland – but that’s not what I was talking about. I feel like that game is so little about looks, discussing them doesn’t even make sense and is quite irrelevant. Who cares?

This game does look much better, but its style is also pretty bland. It’s ok. Who cares? But I was actually only ever talking about game mechanics, not looks.

Also, I was never even suggesting even a tiny bit that I was talking about any kind of political or emotional message of the game. I don’t think The Castle Doctrine has anything meaningful or interesting to it in that regard so I just ignore that altogether. Seriously, why do people think I like the politics of the game or think it has any resonating meaningful message? It doesn’t. I don’t care.

What I find interesting about that game are the razor sharp mechanics.

Well, you said this looked bland and generic and Castle Doctrine was the exact opposite. That made me think you said Castle Doctrine looked good and unique, because that is the opposite. Also, I've heard a bunch of people say how Castle Doctrine goes into an emotional territory and carries some sort of political message. I was assuming you were the same, seeing as how you said something similar.

Either way: I kinda care how a game looks. It doesn't have to look like the best thing in the world, but I just don't like looking at Castle Doctrine. It looks shitty if you ask me. I also disagree with you that it has good game mechanics. It feels stiff. I don't really care for it.

I really like the idea, but that's pretty much it.

@trafalgarlaw: I've almost never had a problem with the GB player. I run HTML5 in 1080 & it doesn't have any problems.

I've been part of the beta for many months but I don't play any more. The game gets tedious very fast and the time sinks sure doesn't help.

I guess that ain't a problem if you have 23k Blings like Vinny did. That's about 175$ as mentioned earlier.

I'm not "against" the free-to-play/micro-transaction model but I am very tired of it.

This game looks neat but I'm just not in the mood for the whole "pay us money or come back in 45 minutes" deal.

This is so grimy.

I played this like a year ago at Rezzed. It doesn't seem to have changed much.

@trafalgarlaw: Yes, the GB video-player is the worst.

Ubiquitous Software.

UbiSoft.

That's all I have to say.

I can't say this is what I was expecting this game to be from that E3 trailer. I'm disappointed, not mention fed up with games fueled by micro-transactions. THIS SHIT HAS TO GO.

This game would be cool if it wasn't so bullshit and f2p.

Seems like bullshit thinly veiled in pretty colors.

Buy your way back into the game because you're frustrated!

The Modest Quest for Varied Loot

Decided to jump back into this since it seemed to have progressed quite a bit since I last I tried it. After having spent a good chunk of time with it there's one thing that really bothers me, for a game called "The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot" the loot in the game is pretty damn disappointing. It's to the point that the game actually feels mis-named. The part about the game that is all about figuring out others castle design and build your own is fun and engaging, while the character action and progression is just a footnote. It even culminates in the fact that you never actually steal loot from others, you just steal resources to build your own castle.

@sydlanel: Well that was a much more competent review of the game then a bunch of the people here bitching about how "boring" it looks or whatever. I'm honestly kind of interested in it, but by the looks of what you've said it seems there needs to be quite a few modifications to some of the game play aspects to make it a more workable concept. Since they're in closed beta I wonder if they'll fix some of the stuff of all the castles being cookier-cutter at the end, since that seems like one of the most damning things you said about it, along with the 30 hours to heal thing.

Played a bit of this at NYCC and i liked the tower defense/A-RPG gameplay. Shame it has so many micro-transactions.

Try a different browser? Using Chrome and it works perfectly for me.