Comments on: A History of Fall from Heaven (Part III)

By: Johannes

Johannes — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:04:19 +0000

I completely disagree with those comments on game speed. Well, when I play a game into turn 650 it becomes rather slow, but I like the slow evolutions and massive choices of the game. It takes me some time to play an entire game, but I don’t have to finish it in a day or a week.
Some of you say that they return to civ4, for me I don’t even think of it. civ4 vanilla was so broken it was a disgrace to the entire series. With the expansion packs it was improved, but I played mostly the revolutions mod because it spiced the game so it became somewhat palatable. Nowadays I only play ffh2 which is in every way better than civ4.

By: Opag78

Opag78 — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:44:47 +0000

I actually agree in all points with Soren.

No doubt I love FFH and actually I would never go back to Civ4, but I love RFC even more.

The difference is that RFC has the better pacing (and less slogging – because of less buildings, units). FFH has the better game mechanics, but RFC has some better concepts.

I always remember how I tried to hard to fulfill some Unique Historical Victories in RFC and I found myself playing the same 40 turns over and over again as I simply had to fulfill a certain goal with limited resources in 40 turns, which was possible but really stretched my thinking how to make it possible.

I really enjoyed that challenge. Hence imho a faster pacing would certainly add to FFH. Dont get me wrong I dont want any RTS where the click-per-minute ratio is all that counts but I really loved the concept of the Panzer General series which set very tight deadlines and made it interesting and challenging to think how to cover the distance of whole North Africa in only a few turns etc.

By: Iceciro

Iceciro — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:13:22 +0000

One thing Fall’s complexity really prevents are the “do this for victory/lead/tech advantage” things which are so common in Civ IV among veteran players. Good examples of this are researching up the right lines that the AI never does, then trading around for all the techs you’ve missed, and the most infamous of all – the Code of Laws -> Civil Service slingshot with the Oracle.

With Fall, I never have a “best” option like that, only an “option” that may or may not be good for my situation or for my playstyle.

By: Warren

Warren — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:34:35 +0000

That was a thought-provoking series of articles on FfH II. I just want to thank you for doing it, Soren.

By: Cephalo

Cephalo — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:19:50 +0000

I agree with Soren’s criticisms for the most part, but when he said ‘300 turns’ obviously Colonization popped into my head. To be clear, I liked Colonization and I thought it does what it was designed to do quite well, but it was so driven by the independance game that it prevented me from using my own imagination to augment the experience. It was too neat and too tightly packaged.

FfH has so much content that you can basically play any game you might like to play. To be honest, I don’t really understand some of the victory conditions, and I tend to make my own goals. I love the terraforming options, like covering the world with trees as the elves, or turning it into a smoking wasteland as the Infernals. I have played FfH more than I’ve played BtS, and each game was completely different and I’ve barely scratched the surface of the possibilities. Maybe there is too much! But, that really is better than not enough.

I would like to say that whatever Soren is working on right now, give us all the game you think we can handle, and then turn it up just a couple of notches and that would be perfect. If you think we want 12 different choices at a particular point, give us 13.

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:27:42 +0000

I think you are all misinterpreting what Soren is saying. He doesn’t want the game dumbed down, he wants it more streamlined with less micromanaging, which is really not that much to ask. Oh yeah, he also want a civilipedia that tells him whats what. Not so much to ask, although I can understand the contrary feelings to his comments, FFHII is a great mod

By: Jalf

Jalf — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:12:01 +0000

“Similarly, the Fire I promotion allows Blaze, but the help doesn’t tell me what the Blaze spell does”
Hah, perhaps you could explain exactly what First Strike does then?

Haven’t been able to find an explanation of that in game either…

By: Wits

Wits — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:03:42 +0000

I believe the people needing simple & quick fodder games are getting more than their fill. The gaming industry has matured which, as in the case of movies, results in the mass-production of mediocrity. Arguing that mods should resemble this avalanche of average is simply short-sighted.

By: MGIS

MGIS — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:17:21 +0000

“This is where I see FFH’s biggest letdown. It’s a fantastic mod to play a couple of times, but it’s so complex it’s great to get back to standard Civ.”
BtS is the mod for me and many others.

By: Dairuka

Dairuka — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:19:30 +0000

The beauty of FfH is that it isn’t meant to replace Civilization IV. Instead it’s meant to act as an alternative.

I constantly go back and forth between Civilization IV: BTS and FfHII, which continues to add to the value of the game long after I spent my money on it.

As for the the overwhelming factor – due to FfH’s lack of pacing: I find that it actually adds to it’s depth by preventing min/maxing and set-strategies. It forces me to make difficult choices. Very, very, very difficult choices. One technology at the right or wrong time can lead to glory or ruination, which I absolutely love.

My only major gripe is the lack of a fully functional and filled Civlopedia which greatly hampers the game. There is a lot of depth and story that absolutely needs to be added to the FfH Civlopedia for those of us who enjoy reading about the buildings we create, and the spells we use.