Age of Wonders

DEVELOPER : Triumph Studios
PUBLISHER : GOD

 

System Requirements Pentium 166 Mhz, 32 MB RAM

Recommended Pentium II 266MHz, 64+ MB RAM

Ratings
Code Issues Graphics: 6.5 – initially seem a little washed out but otherwise nice Sound: 5.5 – pretty standard, but good background music. Interface: 5 – basic and functional, with only a few inconsistencies.	Play Issues Solo Gameplay: 8.0 - but a more challenging AI could raise this considerably Replay: 9.0 - many scenarios and excellent long campaign(s); a great editor that is easy to use and very flexible. Multiplay: 7.5 – Addition of simultaneous turn mode a godsend for turn-based multiplayers. Learning Curve: 9 – very straightforward
Other/Notes Documentation: 9.5 170+ pages of info, thought it was pretty good, until the issuance of the manual addendum in response to customer requests almost immediately gave us even more! Pros:  probably the reigning successor to WL3.  Fun tactical combat, lots of variety and great campaigns.  Ability for player actions to alter actual map. Cons: few – some quibbles about rules mechanics.  Early bug issues. Comments:  I had a ball playing it, and am going back to it right now! Current Patch is 1.1, available at http://www.godgames.com.  Manual addendum also available there too with more combat charts and info. Overall: 7.5

<-- Back

In any case, the game is also carefully designed to maximize the multiplayer experience. Turn based games can get horrifically boring waiting for your turn to arrive, so Triumph included a simultaneous turn mode, where everyone can enter their turns simultaneously, and resolve them instantly ala Civ2. AoW supports TCP, IPX LAN, and Heat.net. Multiplayer pre-patch was a little buggy, bet we are assured this is addressed in Patch 1.1.

The story of the Age of Wonders long campaign is actually an interesting variation on the standard pap "good vs. evil" common to most games of this type. Rather than casting the player in the simplistic role of champion of Good and Right, or the vile minion of Evil, AoW presents the player with a story full of gray areas. Briefly, the story is that of an idyllic setting, invaded by humans. The ejected original inhabitants divide into two camps the Keepers who are the original ruler’s advisors counseling negotiation and cohabitation, and the Cult of Storms, the original king’s eldest son bent on revenge and retribution. The player plays either, and chooses their next task (the next scenario) reuniting the Goblins, or finding a lost Dwarven hero from a strategic map, while the other side's pursues its own goals. Aside from the second scenario being a turn-limit race to the end of the map (which I hated a wrong turn and you lose. Sure, you can keep replaying, but Blech! Fortunately the designers assure us this is the only such scenario.) each campaign scenario builds story-wise on the one before. Between each scenario, the player is allowed a budget of items and creatures to accompany the player’s representative character into the next mission. Unfortunately, this budget is invariably small and the player ends up feeling a little gypped when their carefully nurtured elite units accompanying the leader must be left behind.

The story is engaging, really pulling the player along and giving them good reasons for doing what’s needed, although the game’s flexibility in allowing the player to manipulate the diplomatic standings sometimes obviates the scenario briefs or makes the racial behaviors nonsensical. For example in the fourth or fifth CoS mission into the Azerac regions, I’d managed to bring the Azeracs to a friendly status through negotiation and occupation. By the end of the scenario, every Azerac city was happily joining me. Yet the end mission text said something like "With their cities aflame, the Azeracs where whipped!" it sounds small, but it is jarring to an otherwise plausible and consistent story.

Another example: I was playing a goblin hero, and had consistently favored the goblins throughout the scenarios previous to the restore the goblins scenario. They loved me. Yet at the end of the scenario, when I’d defeated every good race and sent the Goblin King more than 10,000 gold and more than 1000 mana, he STILL declared war on me. Game-logic defensible? Sure, the scenario wanted the player to fight the goblins, so when all other races were defeated, the Goblins had to throw in against the player. But real-world silly and slaps the player in the face with the fact that despite any amount of careful diplomacy and cautious management, ultimately the scenario will lead the player by the nose through the battles they were meant to fight. This is sad, because it shows that the scenarios really aren’t linked (or if they are, it’s not by much). Relationship states aren’t maintained between scenarios, nor is the player credited for the degree of win in the previous scenario. If I play the Cult of Storms, but yet pursue a human-appeasement strategy of always migrating to Humans and upgrading Human settlements everywhere, then they should treat me as such. I understand the need to ossify the positions, I guess, but I was a little disappointed at so quickly finding the limits of diplomacy and the shallowness of its results.

The game is entertaining to be sure, but it does bear one serious criticism: weak AI. Even on the very hardest levels, the AI would frequently make mind-bogglingly stupid moves (like evacuating a fortified city at the approach of a weaker force, or moving all attackers at full move on the tactical map spreading them out and preventing any sort of cohesion). At the high-difficulty setting, the AI is pretty aggressive and this compensated somewhat, but the AI is clearly not as good as it should be and is admittedly the subject of the current patch and the next one in progress.

The consequence of this is simple it allows a player to disdain conservatism and play very flamboyantly with broad sweeps with unsupported force netting disproportional rewards. This is fun for a while, but eventually the scenarios develop into a "how badly will I beat the computer this time?" contest. I looked through the readme on the 1.1 patch, and was impressed with the number of issues addressed in a very short time span. I believe Triumph will be able to solve the AI issues, and it should be remembered that the AI performance of it’s competitors (HOMM3, for instance) is the result of many major iterations.

One last comment about Age of Wonders (or more correctly about Triumph). Since the game’s release many of the developers have appeared regularly on USENET fielding important questions, clarifying significant issues, and near-tirelessly responding to tedious rants. Within days of the initial release, a small resolution-change bug was identified as well as some other non-game-killing and balance hitches. Shortly thereafter, they had issued patch 1.1. Further, the busy discussion raised some issues that might have better been covered once and for all by the provision of tables left out of the manual. So what did they do? They issued a *.pdf of the manual addenda. Some argued publicly that Triumph should have included this info in the manual in the first place. Be that as it may, nobody’s perfect and they DID make the attempt to keep up to customer needs. That’s creditable behavior that much larger game companies should soon emulate. I’ve seen it now both from Triumph and from another recently reviewed fantasy strategy game producer, and it’s very encouraging. When game companies no longer hide in their corporate offices, and they willingly subject themselves to the brickbats of the public forum (despite the invariably high heat/light ratio) this can only be good for the games and for the consumers.

Anyway, I really enjoyed Age of Wonders, despite some initial questions with the graphics giving a weak first impression. I found the campaign to be a satisfyingly postmodern story that actually was interesting to read. It was even better to play, and I felt that I was actually accomplishing something.

There have been a lot of comparisons between Disciples and AoW. Having the good fortune to play both, I understand why, but they are entirely different and complimentary games. Disciples is a beautiful, atmospheric game with a smaller scale. Age of Wonders is also beautiful in its own way, but is much more of a direct "I’m playing a war game" feeling that some people like and some don’t. I know I certainly did.

Next -->

If you like to comment on this review, please post a message at the forum.
Reviewed by Steve Lieb