Rise of Legends - A spiritual successor of RoN

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Thing is it's not really the setting that needs the most innovation.

That's true, but atleast they're willing to take a step in the right direction and not make Age of Empires XXIV

[DrSpike]

So if it was AOE exactly but cyberpunk you'd be happy?

[General Ludd]

I'd be happier than another AoE, atleast.


What I meant, though, is that them taking on a somehwat obsure genre shows that they are atleast willing to try new things, and may have some innovation behind them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Now that looks like an RTS worth playing. Steampunk


Finally - a RTS that looks like it has some originality.

Agreed. And from that screenshot, it looks exactly as I'd picture such a world - amazing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so if its based on creatures imagined by the ancient norse its a fantasy game, if its based on creatures imagined by the ancient Greeks and Romans, its a mythology game, and if its based on creatures imagined by Japanese, its a PS2 game?

If the creatures were directly based off the ancient norse, and tied into the game as a part of ancient norse mythology, then yes. If they're merely adopted through the filter of Tolkien, then it's fantasy.

[snoopy369]

I would add something to the fantasy vs mythology debate ...

The real difference, would be that fantasy may include creatures from mythology, but Mythology (capital M) is "using fantastic or imaginary creatures, people, places, and/or devices to explain natural phenomena and/or history".

Essentially, Fantasy is a larger set of which Mythology may be considered to be a part of; the "explain" is the important part. Of course, using mythic characters in their original setting and with their traditional abilities and names, while not actually 'explaining' anything, can generally be considered 'mythology'; while taking those characters (and particularly those creature and person types without maintaining names) out of their traditional settings, changing names and abilities, would be strictly fantasy.

Certainly if they made a game based on Odin and Loki et al, I'd call it mythic and not generic fantasy; whereas if you take a good look at most "fantasy", it has elements of some mythos somewhere in it, be it Tolkienesque fantasy or non-traditional fantasy; but it changes the particulars enough to not be directly linked. Elves for example are creatures from several mythos - different usages take from different mythos, everything from greek (Atlantean elves are a common theme) to Norse to Celtic to continental european, and most usages combine several of them.

The other thing i'd say that differentiates between them, is "real world" versus "imaginary world". I'd call Mickey Zucker Reichert's Ragnorak books, most of which take directly from Norse mythology, to still be 'fantasy' because they don't take place on earth. Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Avalon" series, on the other hand, is pretty much mythology, as it takes place on earth and uses mythic characters.

[Nostromo]

Gamespot preview:http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...w_6123931.html

[Kuciwalker]

Their physics engine

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Certainly if they made a game based on Odin and Loki et al, I'd call it mythic and not generic fantasy;

Heimdall!

[FrostyBoy]

I don't really like fantasy games, but the graphics and gameplay look so good I just have to play it now.

[Asmodean]

RTS....now where's that vomit smiley again :vomit:

Asmodean

[DrSpike]

Nice to see people keeping an open mind.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Alex
mmm... another RTS...

brian, stop with this madness and go work on SMAC 2!!!