Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
Published on June 18, 2009 By Frogboy In Elemental Dev Journals

Elemental_WorkerInAction

Our friends in the Demigod community seem to like having journal entries that answer a lot of questions in one swoop so we've decided to do the same in Elemental.

Q: What is Elemental?

A: Elemental is a fantasy strategy game (turn-based) developed and published by Stardock Entertainment. In it, players take on the role of a powerful sorcerer known as a "Channeler" whose goal is to build a kingdom and restore the devastated world of Elemental back to its former glory.

Opposing you are up to 11 other kingdoms and empires who have a similar objective except with the world under their control.

Players can win the game in a variety of ways including achieving the spell of making, completing the quest of mastery, diplomatic victory as well as the traditional military conquest means of victory.

The game puts most of its development focus on the single-player experience but there will be multiplayer as well with clans support (kingdoms and empires) and a series of multiplayer modes (and single player modes) that let people play the game in some unusual ways.

Q: Are the screen shots we see indicative of the final quality?

A: NO! The engine we've developed is still being enhanced. For instance, in the screen shot above, the shadows aren't in yet. There are still a lot of features left to be put in visually.  That said, one of our primary objectives with Elemental is to have a game that has unprecedented flexibility in terms of the systems it can play on: Netbooks all the way up to 64-bit Core I7s with monster video cards.

Q: What about modding?

A: Elemental will support in-game modding where users can create their stuff and submit it in game. It then gets moderated and becomes part of the game world. Players can decide which mods they want to use (ones just from Stardock, favorite ones, categories of them, etc.).

Elemental_TileEditor_1

Q: How many factions are there?

A: There are 12 pre-made factions made up of 2 official races (Men and The Fallen). Each faction will play substantially differently. Players will also be able to create their own factions and modders will be able to add more races.

SnowYetiQ: What kinds of other creatures are in the world?

A: Elemental has a large set of species that inhabit the world. They are, however, individually rare and much of the strategy of the game is to recruit some of these creatures onto your side.  You will not be able to, for instance, simply "build" dragons.  The only units you can build are those of your race.  Other races (Dragons, Demons, Ogres, Yetis, etc.) are ones that you have to actively recruit to join you.

Q: When will the "beta" be?

A: We expect to have an alpha out in the next 30 days that will be available on a very limited basis. However, we anticipate launching the beta officially at the Penny-Arcade Expo on September 4th. This beta will be available to anyone who has pre-ordered the game.  Be warned though, our betas are not fun. They're real betas which means they're incomplete and unbalanced. But through these betas, users can help mold the game by working with us online.

Elemental_1244581868 Q: I've heard this game referred to as "Master of Magic 2"

A: While Master of Magic is definitely a major source of inspiration for Elemental. A lot has changed technologically since then that we (game developers) couldn't do back then. In an age of multithreaded supporting OSes, we can have much better computer AI for enemy players and game mechanics that benefit from what is possible today (3D engines for doing very very nasty things to the game world when you have enough magic -- think Populous).

Another example is how cities can be handled now. There isn't a separate interface for managing cities. Cities grow on the main map itself. When players click on any part of the city they get the options for the entire city right away on the same main UI. The idea is to keep the user interface out of the player's face and let them concentrate on playing the game.

That said, there's a lot of influence here. Tactical battles, for instance, will have some inspiration from XCOM (though much shorter in length).

I would describe the games as being in the same family of the same genre. But someone looking for a Master of Magic 2 would not likely find Elemental to be similar enough to be considered a genuine sequel.

Q: What are some of the game modes you have in mind?

A: We are looking at having a lot of different ways of playing the game other than simply the classic "start a kingdom, conquer the world".

For example, we are looking at game modes where players can just play an extended tactical battle.  Another example is "duel" where 2 humans play against each other with the AI players as pawns in their struggle. 

The idea being that we want to let players play games that are very short in length if they want or can potentially take months to play.

Q: Will there be native 64-bit support?

A: That is our intention. Right now we are relying on Intel's Havok for the physics of Elemental and so it will largely depend on where its support of 64-bit is.

Our engine, however, will natively support 64-bit thus we want to provide (with the game) both a 32-bit and 64-bit version. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments (Page 6)
9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Jun 22, 2009

(obviously, ignoring those who honestly didn't know that fact about the company)

are you suggesting they DO know that Stardock is exclusivly windows?  I'm not sure how you could tell the difference from a forum point of view.

 

A counter tallying every time the question is asked on the forums would be pretty funny though.   I bet google could do it (just search for all instances of "Mac" and "OS X" then look through them to remove discussions involving macs but not a request for software on them)

on Jun 22, 2009

Recruting fantastical creatures is fine, but we still don't know how the game will handle creature versus alignment: if I play an archevil faction of the Fallen, would I still end up with unicorns in my armies just because they are the most powerful creature I might have early access to? I sure hope not. Better would be that the alignment of the creature on the map decides its morale when it joins any faction, so that good creatures like unicorns would rather attack an evil faction than join it. On the other hand, this would introduce a lot of more chance to the game, as you could end up with only creatures to get rid of instead of to use as resources in the early game ...

 

Who says Unicorns are good? Why does it have to be like everybody thinks? There could be bad unicorns? Why not?

Vampires are usually bad but in movies and or in books you do have the good vampire. Blade for exemple....

 

What I mean is that we do not have to put alignments on creatures because in other setting they were good and or evil. If you want to attrack unicorns being evil I think you should be able too...

on Jun 22, 2009

On the subject of "breaking molds", there are just certain things that cannot, or should not, be broken. There's small things, such as "Yeti's have horns". But who's to say that Angels are "good"?

Because if Angels weren't good, they wouldn't be angels. Then you might aswell call them something else. Angels also tend to have wings. Every mold gives a certain amount of leniency as to what constitutes breaking that mold. Once you've broken that mold, there's no point to adhere to that mold whatsoever. Why call a spade a spade if that spade is a kettle?

A Unicorn, for example, is good. A Unicorn has a horn. As to what variety of good, how sentient that unicorn is, and so on - that's up for discussion. A yeti is bipedal and have fur. If it looked like a winged pig, it wouldn't be a yeti, so why call it by that name?

Don't break a mold because you enjoy breaking molds. It'll end up forced and contrieved. Overdone. Multilazors. Bend molds to fit whatever you're trying to convey.

Otherwise we'll just shake our heads and call you a tool.

Edit:

Solam
Who says Unicorns are good? Why does it have to be like everybody thinks? There could be bad unicorns? Why not?

Vampires are usually bad but in movies and or in books you do have the good vampire. Blade for exemple....

What I mean is that we do not have to put alignments on creatures because in other setting they were good and or evil. If you want to attrack unicorns being evil I think you should be able too.

Vampires are usually bad, but in movies or in books you do have the occassional good vampire. Blade for example. The point being that The Hero™ doesn't adhere to a given mold, often being about breaking whatever stereotype there is - which in itself becomes incredibly tiresome and predictable once you're on the twentieth good vampire in a movie, or the umpteenth "guy-that-beat-the-odds-and-didn't-become-his-surroundings" or "I got out of the ghetto".

Ask yourselves if there's a serious reason for making a unicorn "morally ambigious". Does it add anything that the addition of, for example, Nightmares (evil magic horsies) wouldn't? There's loads of examples of 'bending' a mold without breaking it, usually dealing with the backgrounds of.. whatever - Orcs in HoMM, Vampires in FfH2 are amongst the first to come to mind - while preserving the superficial traits.

on Jun 22, 2009

I know that our Luckmann hates D&D 4th but in it, Angels are of all variety. They could be good, bad or weird. They have their own personlaity and serve the gods and/or causes they want/like/get_paid_for. At first I found it weird but I must say that I like what Wizards did there. Just my opinion, eh? I know that throngs of people disagree.

on Jun 22, 2009

Luckmann
... Don't break a mold because you enjoy breaking molds. ...

Unless you know the mold rules well enough to break them really well. Which is not at all a common thing.

Luckmann
... Bend molds to fit whatever you're trying to convey. ...

The trick for a game project like this is figuring out the 'bending' boundaries for those different well-known unreal-critter names. For example, I'm in the 'dragons-as-a-force-of-nature' camp, but the range of well-known dragon stories spans everything from the semi-divine beings in some Asian lore to the much humbler entities(beasts?) that saint-slain European dragons seem to be.

on Jun 22, 2009

Wintersong
I know that our Luckmann hates D&D 4th but in it, Angels are of all variety. They could be good, bad or weird. They have their own personlaity and serve the gods and/or causes they want/like/get_paid_for. At first I found it weird but I must say that I like what Wizards did there. Just my opinion, eh? I know that throngs of people disagree.
That's not much of a problem. The point being that afaik, DnD doesn't have "Angels". It has Solars and a variety of Celestials.

I may not agree with the idea of alignment-free Planars/Outsiders, but at least they don't call them angels.

Edit: Actually, checking http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Angel, you're wrong. Angels are indeed part of 4th Edition, and they are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or (True) Neutral.

Edit: Are you sure you're not thinking of Aasimars? I heard they became a base race in 4th Ed, and they're descended from celestials, yet are not bound in any way by the planes. My favourite Cleric of Bane character (a character that I've played many times throughout in whatever game offers the option) is in fact an Aasimar. And they were part of 3.5th Ed too.

GW Swicord
The trick for a game project like this is figuring out the 'bending' boundaries for those different well-known unreal-critter names. For example, I'm in the 'dragons-as-a-force-of-nature' camp, but the range of well-known dragon stories spans everything from the semi-divine beings in some Asian lore to the much humbler entities(beasts?) that saint-slain European dragons seem to be.
I completely agree with you. But I just want to make a point out of a diversity within a mold doesn't constitute a diverse number of seperate molds. Dragons are still dragons - wheter you make them DnD 3rd Ed. wyrms such as the White Dragons (the dumbest and most animalistic of the chromatic dragons) or titanic half-gods such as in Warcraft (the Dragon Aspects) (and several other settings), they're all immediatly recognizable as dragons.

You can show a picture of the horned yeti shown here, for example, to anyone - and they'll probably say something in the lines of "It looks like some kind of yeti". You can show a picture of a chinese dragon just as well as a european dragon and people will say "It's a dragon!". If you break the mold just because you feel it's tiresome or boring, you can't show people a picture of a winged bear (no matter how awesome that'd be) and expect them to say "That's a Werewolf!".

Archetypes are archetypical because we recognize them. We can relate to them. Otherwise you might aswell call it a Pigwing.

And yes, breaking the mold is entirely doable, but you should be careful whilst doing so and be wary that you're not just doing it because.. because!

on Jun 22, 2009

A winged bear? You think it is impossible for bumble bees to fly...

Unless they are just the little foofy gossamer angel wings to go with their clown noses and tutus, no winged bears!

on Jun 23, 2009

I spend five seconds on a post and the only one to pay any attention to it is that Karma whore trying to make me look like a respectable member of the community!

 

Since the subject persists, I guess I should attempt a more serious post and shred the premise.

 

Unicorns aren't good.  The magical fairy version we have today is itself a broken mold.  Screw the molds and just go with whatever works, they're moldy anyway.

on Jun 23, 2009

What I want to know is, why do species in general need to be classed into alignment? Even worse, why are humans usually exempt from this rule (in most settings you can find humans that range across the entire alignment spectrum, while pretty much ever other species falls into its little niche). It's silly. There can be goody two-shoes humans and evil kill-babies humans, but for some reasons all unicorns have to be good, all vampires have to be evil, etc? Why can't there be as much variance in other species as in humans?

I mean, I can understand having species with little variance here and there depending on the backstory (if angels are the servants of some god of goodness, then angels should be good) - but in most cases it's just completely arbitrary.

on Jun 23, 2009

It does sort of make sense that an empire built around knights would be "good".  If they were to actually follow the code of Chivalry, it's as ridiculously honorable as a society gets.  In practice, it was completely ignored, but games don't have to follow the historical practice while applying the theory.  There are equally evil examples, plenty of human sacrifice to go around for instance.  It's rather fitting that Humans don't follow the rule.

 

There are quite a few bi or tri-lateral allignments for elves and dwarves as well.  Lord of the Rings after all has three versions of the elves.  You've got the badguy, an elf, the prissy high elves moaning about the evils of the world from their city, and the rather ambivilant tree huggers that don't much give a shit either way.

on Jun 23, 2009

psychoak
There are quite a few bi or tri-lateral allignments for elves and dwarves as well.  Lord of the Rings after all has three versions of the elves.  You've got the badguy, an elf, the prissy high elves moaning about the evils of the world from their city, and the rather ambivilant tree huggers that don't much give a shit either way.

The badguy, an elf?! The badguy in LoTR was Sauron, and he was not at all an elf. The only other prominent bad guys in LoTR were Saruman and the Nazgul, and Saruman is of the same race as Sauron and the Nazgul used to be men. So not sure what you mean by that.

But you are right in that there is a bit of variety in the 'alignment' of the different groups of elves in LoTR, but even there it doesn't really go very far. Even most of the sylvan elves (the tree-huggers) fall squarely within the "good" camp, they just harbor resentment toward the high elves because Middle Earth went to shit when they returned (even though it'd have gone to shit anyways).

Regardless, my point is more that in games such variety is extraordinarily uncommon (it isn't really that hard to find this variety in literature). A human civilization based on the code of Chivalry would logically be "good" but one based on enslaving or exterminating all other life would be more "evil." Why can't you have similar divides among, say, vampires? There would likely always be some level of conflict between vampires and humanity (as one is the food source for the other), but alignment shouldn't just mean how well other species get along with humans. I don't see why a civilization of vampires couldn't be hell-bent on destroying evil, but still feed on humans because humans are their natural food source. None of my examples are particularly well thought out, as I don't really have the time to do so, but the points are still valid. Forcing pretty much all non-human races into such rigid alignments doesn't make much sense, and in terms of gameplay is often limiting (note the use of "often"). Rigid alignments have their place, too, but not every race should be so limited.

on Jun 23, 2009

Luckmann

point being that afaik, DnD doesn't have "Angels". It has Solars and a variety of Celestials.


I may not agree with the idea of alignment-free Planars/Outsiders, but at least they don't call them angels.

Edit: Actually, checking http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Angel, you're wrong. Angels are indeed part of 4th Edition, and they are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, or (True) Neutral.

Edit: Are you sure you're not thinking of Aasimars? I heard they became a base race in 4th Ed, and they're descended from celestials, yet are not bound in any way by the planes. My favourite Cleric of Bane character (a character that I've played many times throughout in whatever game offers the option) is in fact an Aasimar. And they were part of 3.5th Ed too.


I take as example the 3 core books of 4th Edition because I haven't been able to play to any kind of rpg for a too long time now. In those books Angels were Angels. And the aligment system (not sure if it has changed) is like: Lawfull Good, Good, Neutral, Evil and Chaotic Evil. And no more. Neutral is anyone no strongly aligned to one of the good/evil sides.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080428a

on Jun 23, 2009

There are lots of gods and some of them were pretty nasty and I would guess that they also had servants called Angels and they followed the morality and rules of their god which they served.

 

I don't see why any creatures should be considered in only one aligment. They all have choices. There are tons of precedent for this and I don't see why we cannot do whatever we want with this game. A creature will make moral choices based on facts during the game. Sometimes the good guy helps the bad guy because it's the only thing that can be done. I don't see why this cannot happen in this game.

on Jun 23, 2009

Bah. 4th Edition is retarded.
It seems that there's a huge discrepancy between 4th Ed. "Base" and the Forgotten Realms setting. To me, there's all sorts of demons or devils serving the evil gods, not at all like they describe it in that text.

Although I somewhat agree, the more I think about it. All that necessitates the existance of evil angels is that the profane is divided from the divine, where all gods are served equally by their angelic plebes. That being said, I think the idea of calling all of them "angels" gives the wrong ideas, because they should be incredibly diverse depending on what god you serve. I've got no real problem seeing a vengeful angel serving Bane or Mask - but I've got a hard time seeing any sort of "Angelic" being serving Loviatar, Malar or, for all that is holy, Talona.

But I'll concede that under the right circumstances and portrayal, there is nothing specificly preventing the existance of vengeful, "evil", disturbingly angry angels.

There are lots of gods and some of them were pretty nasty and I would guess that they also had servants called Angels and they followed the morality and rules of their god which they served.

I don't see why any creatures should be considered in only one aligment. They all have choices. There are tons of precedent for this and I don't see why we cannot do whatever we want with this game. A creature will make moral choices based on facts during the game. Sometimes the good guy helps the bad guy because it's the only thing that can be done. I don't see why this cannot happen in this game.
Anything can happen in this game. I just wanted to stress that I don't want to see conventions broken just because they're conventions. Again, why call a spade a spade if it's a kettle?

on Jun 23, 2009

Screw the molds and just go with whatever works, they're moldy anyway.
This. What I was trying to say, better said.

 

 

9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last