The mastermind behind the series is Steve Fawkner, who started his career with a lost adventure game called Quest for the Holy Grail in 1983. I was surprised to learn that the series comes from an Australian developer. While waiting for Warlords II, you could make up a history for your own "campaign," inventing rivalries and alliances and histories for your heroes. The armies that each faction commands make thematic sense, and their cities have evocative names: Argenthorn, Gildenhome, Deephallow, Derridon, Dhar-Khosis. Lord Bane is basically Sauron, and the Horse Lords are the Rohirrim, but the authors differ a bit from Tolkien when it comes to elves and dwarves, neither of which are as powerful here as in Middle Earth, and both of which have a desire for conquest and extermination of humans not seen in Tolkien. Sirians are classic lawful-good knights Orcs of Kor are barely civilized Selentines are an oppressive human empire Storm Giants are what they sound like. It doesn't offer a lot of background on Illuria, but some characteristics are ascribed to the various factions. It helps that the game takes itself seriously. Getting back to Warlords: As I played, I was surprised at how much imagination it calls into play. Only by allowing players who land on "Free Parking" to collect a sudden windfall can you provide any hope during the last three-quarters of the game. You don't just "lose" such games you spend most of the time playing them "losing." This is why people get so frustrated with Monopoly and why they invent so many crazy house rules. But they get extremely frustrated with long games of the second type because they spend most of the time playing them under a cloud of despair. They'll tolerate short games of the second type (e.g., arm-wrestling, chess) because they don't last long. Anyway, my theory is that players will tolerate very long games of the first type (e.g., Uno, baseball, Trivial Pursuit) because there's always hope. Arm-wrestling is that sort of game the further you force your opponent's arm towards the table, the better leverage you have and the more difficult it becomes for him to ever get back to the stasis point. Once one player is ahead, it's virtually impossible for the opponent to turn things around. The second type of game starts the players in stasis, but very early there's a tipping point in which it's clear that one player is ahead.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |