Another thing, I really have no idea why theyre pushing for multiplayer so much. I just dont think fighting against another player would be much fun. Thats just not what this game is about.
The multiplayer push I've seen has been in regards to cooperative play. Cue the awesome.
Edit: didn't the original Majesty have "You and another person against the world" multiplayer, or was it always head-to-head? I can't get it to work over Gamespy or Hamachi or any other option I've tried.
Another thing, I really have no idea why theyre pushing for multiplayer so much. I just dont think fighting against another player would be much fun. Thats just not what this game is about.
The multiplayer push I've seen has been in regards to cooperative play. Cue the awesome.
Edit: didn't the original Majesty have "You and another person against the world" multiplayer, or was it always head-to-head? I can't get it to work over Gamespy or Hamachi or any other option I've tried.
It had both and the multiplayer rocked. Seriously, people dissing the idea of multiplayer in Majesty obviously never tried it in the first game. Because it kicked ass.
Another thing, I really have no idea why theyre pushing for multiplayer so much. I just dont think fighting against another player would be much fun. Thats just not what this game is about.
The multiplayer push I've seen has been in regards to cooperative play. Cue the awesome.
Edit: didn't the original Majesty have "You and another person against the world" multiplayer, or was it always head-to-head? I can't get it to work over Gamespy or Hamachi or any other option I've tried.
It had both and the multiplayer rocked. Seriously, people dissing the idea of multiplayer in Majesty obviously never tried it in the first game. Because it kicked ass.
I'd love to play at least one game before the 18th if I could get the tarnfangled multiplayer to work in the Steam version.
Bump for "I'm playing this game right now" bragging rights. Fun campaign is fun. New option--Lords. At the end of the stage, you can choose any one of your heroes to become a lord, including their money and gear. You can build a Lord building in future mission in order to summon your lords to help you out.
Bump for "I'm playing this game right now" bragging rights. Fun campaign is fun. New option--Lords. At the end of the stage, you can choose any one of your heroes to become a lord, including their money and gear. You can build a Lord building in future mission in order to summon your lords to help you out.
Yeah, playing it too. Fun game.
Megazver on
Chief Tyrol. Academician Megazver of the Jol-Nar Universities
I'd buy it from steam, but there seems to be something wrong with their payment system. And after Hearts of Iron 3, I'm not buying from Gamersgate again. Their download speeds are abysmal, and it's inexcusable for a site that deals exclusively in game downloads.
Great so far. A couple things are obviously missing.
For example, the "Hot Keys" subsection of the Options menu is simply a text document describing the controls, instead of a bindings menu like you might expect. Not a big deal, though. I was hoping to find a hotkey for the palace (F1 in the original); if anyone knows such a command, I'd be glad to hear it.
Also I'd heard of a map editor, but I've found no such thing in the game or its install directories. Was this cut, will it be released separately or in a patch, or is it there and I'm just not finding it?
Missions are longer than in the original, in my experience. Wizards are still frail, suicidal, and pack a punch (but the fact that damage is less randomized by hit/miss formula means they don't die quite so quickly), and the difficulty curve is once again very steep after a couple intro missions.
I'd be interested in the impressions (especially regarding difficulty) of those who didn't play the first game. On the other hand, it looks like a lot of reviews fall in that boat, from the points they're bringing up.
I bought the game on Steam, which means I don't have the game's manual. Is it available anywhere? I didn't find it on the store page or context menu.
holy shit i had never heard of the first game before just now, and it sounds fucking awesome. gonna hafta look into picking that up tout suite.
It's on Steam if you're interested.
Also GamersGate and other services if you [strike]don't want to deal with Steams bullshit like having to be online to launch the game[/strike] have any of a number of actually reasonable gripes with Steam.
So I've got the game, pretty fun so far. One thing that's a bit annoying is that I can't really scroll the screen by going to the edge with my mouse or using the arrow keys, it gets all jumpy and goes in just about any random direction it chooses, is anyone else seeing this?
So I've got the game, pretty fun so far. One thing that's a bit annoying is that I can't really scroll the screen by going to the edge with my mouse or using the arrow keys, it gets all jumpy and goes in just about any random direction it chooses, is anyone else seeing this?
No not even a little bit. It's pretty smooth for me. Even clicking on the mini map zooms me over without issue.
I think IGN was being generous. The mechanics and design is just plain bad. It becomes really obvious after the 7th or 8th mission when the game decides to become more "difficult" by simply surrounding your village with level 15 creatures. You can either hire level 1 heroes and watch them die in one hit, or try to hire a few lords who are so expensive that you need to just sit there and farm gold on fast forward until you can afford it.
That's not fun difficult. It's bullshit difficult. Challenge should be fun and entertaining, not boring and eye rolling. But a game as simple as this one, with such poorly made "hands-off mechanics", the developers really didn't have much choice. The game hits a ceiling very, very early on and the only thing they can do is throw in more and more of the bullshit-style challenge.
Anyone who's played the full game care to give a (short-ish) review here?
I was thinking of getting the game but the IGN reviewer who gave it a 7.5 sort of put me off a bit.
It is more like the first game than it seems at first. The economy and build trees have changed a fair bit; there's a lot more emphasis on having one building of each type for most economic and guild buildings.
The hero roles have been played with, and I think it's an improvement. Your opening tier heroes are cheap and form a solid core of your army, unlike in the original where some missions were next to impossible unless you rushed tier 2 to get something without that didn't shoot arrows.
The voice-acting and hero personalities are about on par with the first game; they're uneven in spots, but some of the dialogue has been reused and a lot of the new stuff works very well. The emphasis on a smaller number of high-level heroes is a bit of a shift, but it's helped along by decent resurrection and hero upgrade options.
The money and cost progressions seem to emphasize the tier structure; it's less likely you're going to rush to a certain high-tier unit or upgrade things out of proportion to one another.
The campaign has been good so far (I've completed 10 of the 16 missions). There's more cutscene and voice-acting in missions than in original, but that doesn't change the mission structure much (just imagine the royal adviser reading all the floating scrolls from the original game). A lot of the missions will seem familiar to fans of the original. Some of them incorporate stupid cheap shots like much of the Northern Expansion (nuking your peasants, for example), but it's toned down a lot, and doesn't feel too much more mean than Majesty's base campaign.
That's not to say the missions aren't hard; you've got a steep learning curve filled with trial-and-error, quite possibly made worse if you're unfamiliar with the original. Much of the early- to mid-game will consist of defending your base while your heroes level up; the monster AI is now more likely to make a beeline for your castle.
On a technical note, the graphics are good without being so shiny they warrant special consideration (except for dragonfire, which looks neat). The music rates at pleasantly appropriate, only occasionally calling attention to itself.
The game shows some areas where it lacks polish. Some customizations (particularly keybinds) were obviously removed during development. There also doesn't seem to be a randomized map mode or a map editor, at least not yet.
I have yet to try the multiplayer, so I'll leave that for someone else to describe.
I think if you liked the original you'll like the sequel, and vice-versa. I don't think the core gameplay has changed enough that it's going to change the game's audience much.
I think IGN was being generous. The mechanics and design is just plain bad. It becomes really obvious after the 7th or 8th mission when the game decides to become more "difficult" by simply surrounding your village with level 15 creatures. You can either hire level 1 heroes and watch them die in one hit, or try to hire a few lords who are so expensive that you need to just sit there and farm gold on fast forward until you can afford it.
That's not fun difficult. It's bullshit difficult. Challenge should be fun and entertaining, not boring and eye rolling. But a game as simple as this one, with such poorly made "hands-off mechanics", the developers really didn't have much choice. The game hits a ceiling very, very early on and the only thing they can do is throw in more and more of the bullshit-style challenge.
An interesting take. That answers my question about experiences of people new to the series somewhat, bullshit and sarcasm-quotes aside.
I'm being honest. What does that have to do with anything I said?
Does Majesty 1 have the same shallow gameplay mechanics that requires the developers to resort to trite bullshit in order to increase the difficulty? Are you saying that I should have expected Majesty 2 to be shallow? Are you saying that maybe Majesty 1 was MORE shallow and thus, had I played the first, I would think this version was not shallow by virtue of being less shallow?
I'm being honest. What does that have to do with anything I said?
Does Majesty 1 have the same shallow gameplay mechanics that requires the developers to resort to trite bullshit in order to increase the difficulty? Are you saying that I should have expected Majesty 2 to be shallow? Are you saying that maybe Majesty 1 was MORE shallow and thus, had I played the first, I would think this version was not shallow by virtue of being less shallow?
I am saying that you are a whiny baby with flippers for hands.
Megazver on
Chief Tyrol. Academician Megazver of the Jol-Nar Universities
I don't have the sequel but the original can be frustrating. The worst is probably the Northern Expansions mission where you had to defend at least 1 elven lodge while a bunch of medusae and frost dragons tear your base up. You don't get to choose where the lodges spring up and you get one which is at the other corner of the map AND you have medusae lairs spawning ever so often. Thats gimmicky BS.
Its a Fantasy Kingdom Sim. If its not your cup of tea, then by all means, go back to Warcraft 3.
Its like complaining that NFL Head Coach is shit because it is not Madden. This is a simulation not an RTS game. If the hands off approach is not for you, kindly bow out of the thread and leave the rest of us to actually enjoy this genre of gaming.
travathian on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
I'm being honest. What does that have to do with anything I said?
Does Majesty 1 have the same shallow gameplay mechanics that requires the developers to resort to trite bullshit in order to increase the difficulty? Are you saying that I should have expected Majesty 2 to be shallow? Are you saying that maybe Majesty 1 was MORE shallow and thus, had I played the first, I would think this version was not shallow by virtue of being less shallow?
I am saying that you are a whiny baby with flippers for hands.
So I've got the game, pretty fun so far. One thing that's a bit annoying is that I can't really scroll the screen by going to the edge with my mouse or using the arrow keys, it gets all jumpy and goes in just about any random direction it chooses, is anyone else seeing this?
No not even a little bit. It's pretty smooth for me. Even clicking on the mini map zooms me over without issue.
So far i am enjoying it as well.
After reading the official forums I found out what this is. Basically the game doesn't really support running on dual core AMD processors well right now. You have to go out and set the game to run on only one core and it completely clears up. Not game breaking but something you'd have hoped they'd clean up before releasing the game.
ok, I played the game all of yesterday, and I have really enjoyed it. However, it lacks polish in some areas, with some tuning the game should improve a good deal, and its already fun, at least for me.
Its like complaining that NFL Head Coach is shit because it is not Madden. This is a simulation not an RTS game.
Right. It's a simulation. A poorly done one that, within a handful of missions, reaches a ceiling (or floor) on its depth and, from that moment on, seeks contrived and trite methods of ramping up the difficulty as the developers realized they don't have any other tools to work with.
The funny thing is that when most people hear the word "simulation" they think GREATER depth. It's funny that, in this game, the word bastardized to the point of meaning "No, no. You're simulating playing an incompetent and uncharismatic King with an adviser that hates him more and more each level and puts him in shittier starting points just to challenge him."
That's not a simulation. That's an excuse for gameplay that's as deep as a kiddie pool.
I'm sure I'll get a third, fourth, and fifth response to this that address absolutely 0% of my post, uses ad hominid attacks, and says something along the lines of "You have to play Majesty 1 to understand the genius!". My posts were for the benefit of those reading the thread and thinking about buying the game. You have my opinion. You also have the fact that those defending this game are honest-to-god third graders, neck deep in fangirldom, who are about as far from logical discourse as this game is from well-made.
Its like complaining that NFL Head Coach is shit because it is not Madden. This is a simulation not an RTS game.
Right. It's a simulation. A poorly done one that, within a handful of missions, reaches a ceiling (or floor) on its depth and, from that moment on, seeks contrived and trite methods of ramping up the difficulty as the developers realized they don't have any other tools to work with.
The funny thing is that when most people hear the word "simulation" they think GREATER depth. It's funny that, in this game, the word bastardized to the point of meaning "No, no. You're simulating playing an incompetent and uncharismatic King with an adviser that hates him more and more each level and puts him in shittier starting points just to challenge him."
That's not a simulation. That's an excuse for gameplay that's as deep as a kiddie pool.
I'm sure I'll get a third, fourth, and fifth response to this that address absolutely 0% of my post, uses ad hominid attacks, and says something along the lines of "You have to play Majesty 1 to understand the genius!". My posts were for the benefit of those reading the thread and thinking about buying the game. You have my opinion. You also have the fact that those defending this game are honest-to-god third graders, neck deep in fangirldom, who are about as far from logical discourse as this game is from well-made.
You're not having fun. We are. That's basically what it comes down to. So go play a game that you will have fun with.
Its like complaining that NFL Head Coach is shit because it is not Madden. This is a simulation not an RTS game.
Right. It's a simulation. A poorly done one that, within a handful of missions, reaches a ceiling (or floor) on its depth and, from that moment on, seeks contrived and trite methods of ramping up the difficulty as the developers realized they don't have any other tools to work with.
The funny thing is that when most people hear the word "simulation" they think GREATER depth. It's funny that, in this game, the word bastardized to the point of meaning "No, no. You're simulating playing an incompetent and uncharismatic King with an adviser that hates him more and more each level and puts him in shittier starting points just to challenge him."
That's not a simulation. That's an excuse for gameplay that's as deep as a kiddie pool.
I'm sure I'll get a third, fourth, and fifth response to this that address absolutely 0% of my post, uses ad hominid attacks, and says something along the lines of "You have to play Majesty 1 to understand the genius!". My posts were for the benefit of those reading the thread and thinking about buying the game. You have my opinion. You also have the fact that those defending this game are honest-to-god third graders, neck deep in fangirldom, who are about as far from logical discourse as this game is from well-made.
You're not having fun. We are. That's basically what it comes down to. So go play a game that you will have fun with.
Already have. The Tropico 3 demo is infinitely more amusing, something I find ironic given that is actually IS a simulation. Like I said, my posts were for those who were thinking of buying the game and were on the fence. I didn't expect rational discourse from the 4-5 rabid fangirls (of which every 2-bit game like this has) and I got none. That's fine.
It means 'to the man', and is a logical fallacy - when you attack an individual for their character, background or other personal points rather than addressing their arguments.
It means 'to the man', and is a logical fallacy - when you attack an individual for their character, background or other personal points rather than addressing their arguments.
SWOOOOSH
joke went right over your head...
Hominids are apes, Ad Hominem is what you miserably failed to post.
It means 'to the man', and is a logical fallacy - when you attack an individual for their character, background or other personal points rather than addressing their arguments.
Posts
The multiplayer push I've seen has been in regards to cooperative play. Cue the awesome.
Edit: didn't the original Majesty have "You and another person against the world" multiplayer, or was it always head-to-head? I can't get it to work over Gamespy or Hamachi or any other option I've tried.
It had both and the multiplayer rocked. Seriously, people dissing the idea of multiplayer in Majesty obviously never tried it in the first game. Because it kicked ass.
I'd love to play at least one game before the 18th if I could get the tarnfangled multiplayer to work in the Steam version.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
Yeah, playing it too. Fun game.
It's on Steam if you're interested.
Also GamersGate and other services if you don't want to deal with Steams bullshit like having to be online to launch the game.
For example, the "Hot Keys" subsection of the Options menu is simply a text document describing the controls, instead of a bindings menu like you might expect. Not a big deal, though. I was hoping to find a hotkey for the palace (F1 in the original); if anyone knows such a command, I'd be glad to hear it.
Also I'd heard of a map editor, but I've found no such thing in the game or its install directories. Was this cut, will it be released separately or in a patch, or is it there and I'm just not finding it?
Missions are longer than in the original, in my experience. Wizards are still frail, suicidal, and pack a punch (but the fact that damage is less randomized by hit/miss formula means they don't die quite so quickly), and the difficulty curve is once again very steep after a couple intro missions.
I'd be interested in the impressions (especially regarding difficulty) of those who didn't play the first game. On the other hand, it looks like a lot of reviews fall in that boat, from the points they're bringing up.
I bought the game on Steam, which means I don't have the game's manual. Is it available anywhere? I didn't find it on the store page or context menu.
FYT.
Anyone know why the game was released early?
Streaming 8PST on weeknights
It looks like it could use some editing, but that's exactly what I'm looking for.
No not even a little bit. It's pretty smooth for me. Even clicking on the mini map zooms me over without issue.
So far i am enjoying it as well.
anyone interested in playing tommorow?
I was thinking of getting the game but the IGN reviewer who gave it a 7.5 sort of put me off a bit.
That's not fun difficult. It's bullshit difficult. Challenge should be fun and entertaining, not boring and eye rolling. But a game as simple as this one, with such poorly made "hands-off mechanics", the developers really didn't have much choice. The game hits a ceiling very, very early on and the only thing they can do is throw in more and more of the bullshit-style challenge.
It is more like the first game than it seems at first. The economy and build trees have changed a fair bit; there's a lot more emphasis on having one building of each type for most economic and guild buildings.
The hero roles have been played with, and I think it's an improvement. Your opening tier heroes are cheap and form a solid core of your army, unlike in the original where some missions were next to impossible unless you rushed tier 2 to get something without that didn't shoot arrows.
The voice-acting and hero personalities are about on par with the first game; they're uneven in spots, but some of the dialogue has been reused and a lot of the new stuff works very well. The emphasis on a smaller number of high-level heroes is a bit of a shift, but it's helped along by decent resurrection and hero upgrade options.
The money and cost progressions seem to emphasize the tier structure; it's less likely you're going to rush to a certain high-tier unit or upgrade things out of proportion to one another.
The campaign has been good so far (I've completed 10 of the 16 missions). There's more cutscene and voice-acting in missions than in original, but that doesn't change the mission structure much (just imagine the royal adviser reading all the floating scrolls from the original game). A lot of the missions will seem familiar to fans of the original. Some of them incorporate stupid cheap shots like much of the Northern Expansion (nuking your peasants, for example), but it's toned down a lot, and doesn't feel too much more mean than Majesty's base campaign.
That's not to say the missions aren't hard; you've got a steep learning curve filled with trial-and-error, quite possibly made worse if you're unfamiliar with the original. Much of the early- to mid-game will consist of defending your base while your heroes level up; the monster AI is now more likely to make a beeline for your castle.
On a technical note, the graphics are good without being so shiny they warrant special consideration (except for dragonfire, which looks neat). The music rates at pleasantly appropriate, only occasionally calling attention to itself.
The game shows some areas where it lacks polish. Some customizations (particularly keybinds) were obviously removed during development. There also doesn't seem to be a randomized map mode or a map editor, at least not yet.
I have yet to try the multiplayer, so I'll leave that for someone else to describe.
I think if you liked the original you'll like the sequel, and vice-versa. I don't think the core gameplay has changed enough that it's going to change the game's audience much.
An interesting take. That answers my question about experiences of people new to the series somewhat, bullshit and sarcasm-quotes aside.
What does that have to do with anything?
I'm being honest. What does that have to do with anything I said?
Does Majesty 1 have the same shallow gameplay mechanics that requires the developers to resort to trite bullshit in order to increase the difficulty? Are you saying that I should have expected Majesty 2 to be shallow? Are you saying that maybe Majesty 1 was MORE shallow and thus, had I played the first, I would think this version was not shallow by virtue of being less shallow?
I stand corrected. Obscure, but that definitely works. Thanks!
I am saying that you are a whiny baby with flippers for hands.
http://www.majesty2.com/#/news/latest/
I don't have the sequel but the original can be frustrating. The worst is probably the Northern Expansions mission where you had to defend at least 1 elven lodge while a bunch of medusae and frost dragons tear your base up. You don't get to choose where the lodges spring up and you get one which is at the other corner of the map AND you have medusae lairs spawning ever so often. Thats gimmicky BS.
Streaming 8PST on weeknights
You are complaining about the type of game, not the game itself. I'll repeat myself from earlier in the thread:
Its like complaining that NFL Head Coach is shit because it is not Madden. This is a simulation not an RTS game. If the hands off approach is not for you, kindly bow out of the thread and leave the rest of us to actually enjoy this genre of gaming.
This might be the best reply I've seen in a while
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
After reading the official forums I found out what this is. Basically the game doesn't really support running on dual core AMD processors well right now. You have to go out and set the game to run on only one core and it completely clears up. Not game breaking but something you'd have hoped they'd clean up before releasing the game.
Right. It's a simulation. A poorly done one that, within a handful of missions, reaches a ceiling (or floor) on its depth and, from that moment on, seeks contrived and trite methods of ramping up the difficulty as the developers realized they don't have any other tools to work with.
The funny thing is that when most people hear the word "simulation" they think GREATER depth. It's funny that, in this game, the word bastardized to the point of meaning "No, no. You're simulating playing an incompetent and uncharismatic King with an adviser that hates him more and more each level and puts him in shittier starting points just to challenge him."
That's not a simulation. That's an excuse for gameplay that's as deep as a kiddie pool.
I'm sure I'll get a third, fourth, and fifth response to this that address absolutely 0% of my post, uses ad hominid attacks, and says something along the lines of "You have to play Majesty 1 to understand the genius!". My posts were for the benefit of those reading the thread and thinking about buying the game. You have my opinion. You also have the fact that those defending this game are honest-to-god third graders, neck deep in fangirldom, who are about as far from logical discourse as this game is from well-made.
You're not having fun. We are. That's basically what it comes down to. So go play a game that you will have fun with.
Already have. The Tropico 3 demo is infinitely more amusing, something I find ironic given that is actually IS a simulation. Like I said, my posts were for those who were thinking of buying the game and were on the fence. I didn't expect rational discourse from the 4-5 rabid fangirls (of which every 2-bit game like this has) and I got none. That's fine.
Good day to you all. Enjoy your game.
Argument against the great ape?
It means 'to the man', and is a logical fallacy - when you attack an individual for their character, background or other personal points rather than addressing their arguments.
SWOOOOSH
joke went right over your head...
Weren't you leaving?