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 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Jun 23, 2009

As long as there are NO bears.

*hides*

on Jun 23, 2009

Sometimes these restrictions are in place for a reason. While something like a talking bear or a dragon could be any alignment, a cuddily friendly Demon Lord simply doesn't make sense. The evilness of the thing is part of what makes it a Demon Lord.

The best example is probably a Paladin. An evil Paladin is an oxymoron, there is no such thing. "Good" is part of what makes a Paladin what it is. An evil one is something else (Blackguard, Death Knight, big guy with a big stick, etc).

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.
Choice is subjective. And also limited by many factors including geography, sociology and biology. We could start a discussion about if an orc baby could be raised in a human community to become a full member of it and have it behave like a human instead of a bloodthirsty orc. Would that be possible? The answer would be alwaya a maybe.

It would depend on things like: is that blodd thirsty nature of biological nature, magical nature (Gruumsh) or because of the socialization process in a culture that promotes violence and strenght as a virtue? If it's of magical (divine) nature, there is not much to do unless divine intervention (Pelor, for example). If it's of biological nature, there is more hope but not so much as to make a big difference. If it's just a matter of where you are born and who raises you, then it doesn't matter if you are an orc or a human.

Oh wait. But to be an orc matters. If humans are like humans in real life, we can expect that even if the blood thirsty nature of the orc is social based, he would still suffer discrimination because of different factors like appearance (even if adults behave, we know how children are) or prejuices againts orcs (no matter that this orc could be different, orcs are orcs, right?), just to mention two.

About "good guy helping bad guy" won't happen for too long. I don't see why a good unicorn would serve an evil channeler that wants to dominate all living beings and do meany things to them. To help him in a puntual moment because they both benefit, yes. Help him dooming itself and all other good things he belives... not unless the unicorn is playing the channeler. And the same for "evil guy works for good guy".

Sorry for the off topic wall.

Edit:

Paladin, at least I would learn it in spanish long itme ago, is like champion. The champion of a cause. Then it would get associated with good things but in the end a Paladin is still a Champion. And a Champion can be a champion of evil.

on Jun 23, 2009

On the subject of alignment-relative "I don't see why any creatures should be considered in only one aligment. They all have choices." my original argument for the adamant moral alignments of angels in DnD is because they do not have a choice. In a given setting, for example, it's not a given that a "individual" have free will. Again, using the example of DnD, Celestials are tied to their planes. Devils have to be lawful evil. Demons have to be chaotic evil. It's part of their essence.

There are some very small exceptions, of course (Was Trias the Betrayer good? Technically yes).

Wintersong
[...]
Edit:
Paladin, at least I would learn it in spanish long itme ago, is like champion. The champion of a cause. Then it would get associated with good things but in the end a Paladin is still a Champion. And a Champion can be a champion of evil.
Semantics. The etymology of a word have no direct or immediate bearing on the meaning of a word in it's specific context. Regardless, the meaning of the word 'Paladin' in the english language of today are; 1, any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne. 2, any knightly or heroic champion. 3, any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

If we accept the dichotomies of alignment instead of moral relativism, there's no such thing as evil Paladins, even if it of course - like angels - there can be a case argument. It won't stop my morally questionable reich from having Paladins, of course. Good? Evil? I'm the man with the bear.

on Jun 23, 2009

Luckmann


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.

Aasimar are not a PHB race...

on Jun 23, 2009

KellenDunk
[...]
Aasimar are not a PHB race.
Nope. I checked. Tieflings are apparently a base race in 4th Ed, but Aasimars (now called 'Devas' and significantly different than before - not to be confused with 'Astral Devas') aren't.

Really, I'm trying to find a singular case of where 4th Ed. aren't rubbish, but I'm coming up short.

on Jun 23, 2009

but Aasimars (now called 'Devas' - not to be confused with 'Astral Devas') aren't.

That's a stupid name change, by the way. Tiefling shouldn't be a base race either, they have freaking demon blood in their heritage.. how many humans get to do a demon?

on Jun 23, 2009

Annatar11
That's a stupid name change, by the way. Tiefling shouldn't be a base race either, they have freaking demon blood in their heritage.. how many humans get to do a demon?
It's slightly more than just a name change, but yes, I think that compounds my the greater part of my problems with the changes in setting as of 4th Ed - It changed into something ridiculous.

Don't even get me started as to what they did to the  Red Wizards of Thay. That's just.. wow. It's so retarded I could puke.

on Jun 23, 2009

Wintersong

It would depend on things like: is that blodd thirsty nature of biological nature, magical nature (Gruumsh) or because of the socialization process in a culture that promotes violence and strenght as a virtue? If it's of magical (divine) nature, there is not much to do unless divine intervention (Pelor, for example). If it's of biological nature, there is more hope but not so much as to make a big difference. If it's just a matter of where you are born and who raises you, then it doesn't matter if you are an orc or a human.

Oh wait. But to be an orc matters. If humans are like humans in real life, we can expect that even if the blood thirsty nature of the orc is social based, he would still suffer discrimination because of different factors like appearance (even if adults behave, we know how children are) or prejuices againts orcs (no matter that this orc could be different, orcs are orcs, right?), just to mention two.

It depends on the description of orcs in the relevant setting. To give you an example, the orcs in HoMM V weren't really bloodthirsty and were also the good guys. Orcs weren't bloodthirsty in the Warcraft world either until they became influenced by the demons. Orcs might not be able to function as full members of a human society, but that has more to do with humans than it does with orcs. Pretty much any 'ugly' or non-humanoid race wouldn't be able to function is full members of a human society because of human prejudices, not because of their inherent bloodthirstiness or alignment.

Evil, neutral and good humans can all function as full members of the same human civilization (not necessarily happily, but they can). On the other hand, many different races of the same alignment would probably not be able to function as a cooperative individual society. Elves are often haughty and look down on other races. In LoTR elves and dwarves are both firmly in the good category and yet they hate each other.

Wintersong
Paladin, at least I would learn it in spanish long itme ago, is like champion. The champion of a cause. Then it would get associated with good things but in the end a Paladin is still a Champion. And a Champion can be a champion of evil.

Paladins are often associated with crazy religious holier-than-thou inquisitorial factions. Such factions are often categorized as 'good' but they are often responsible for horrendous actions and in my opinion tend to act rather evil, even if they personally believe they're doing good.

on Jun 23, 2009

Annatar11
but Aasimars (now called 'Devas' - not to be confused with 'Astral Devas') aren't.

That's a stupid name change, by the way. Tiefling shouldn't be a base race either, they have freaking demon blood in their heritage.. how many humans get to do a demon?

the 4th ed Tieflings aren't some half-breed as you suggest here.  They're descendants of  an empire that made a pact with demons long ago.

 

I don't understand what Luckmann's picture is attempting to show me is retarded....

Really your issues with it are that it's DIFFERENT from what you grew accustomed to.  If the universe had been like 4th is now and changed to 3.5s version you would be saying just the same thing.

Also, paragon paths and epic destinies are really cool.

 

Wow this thread is Waaaay off topic now.

 

on Jun 23, 2009

KellenDunk
Quoting Annatar11, reply 22 but Aasimars (now called 'Devas' - not to be confused with 'Astral Devas') aren't.

That's a stupid name change, by the way. Tiefling shouldn't be a base race either, they have freaking demon blood in their heritage.. how many humans get to do a demon?

the 4th ed Tieflings aren't some half-breed as you suggest here.  They're descendants of  an empire that made a pact with demons long ago.
Afaik (from reading their entry in the 'Races and Classes' core book preview) Tieflings are still Tieflings. It's just that Tieflings as a unison race was born from what you describe, but tieflings as what they are were 3.5ed too. They weren't changed a lot at all, except that they were exceedingly rare.

The entire backstory in 4th Ed is a ridiculously contrieved excuse for "I wan play demuns without my GM complaigning, lol, btw can I has draguns two?".

KellenDunk
I don't understand what Luckmann's picture is attempting to show me is retarded....

Really your issues with it are that it's DIFFERENT from what you grew accustomed to.  If the universe had been like 4th is now and changed to 3.5s version you would be saying just the same thing.
It's really two seperate problems, not just one major one. The first being that 4th Edition as a ruleset is incredibly 'dumbed-down'. The ruleset is one of a hack 'n' slash dungeonromp more akin to, to put it in gamer terms, Diablo rather than Fallout.

The second being the rape of an entire setting. I don't see how anyone can even look at the red wizards without bursting into either tears or laughter. Or see an entire cosmology go "Oh, wait guise, Abeir was here all along lol!". To someone that has never experienced anything better, I understand that the 4th edition FR "Isn't that big of a deal" but to those of us that enjoyed the setting (which was by no means perfect) most of the changes are nonsensical flamboyance created to cater to increasingly erratic children of the 'modern' age, with an average attetion span of 42.3 seconds before moving on to the next lens flaer. It's a meaningless collection of MOAR!.

on Jun 23, 2009

It's really two seperate problems, not just one major one. The first being that 4th Edition as a ruleset is incredibly 'dumbed-down'.

Well, IMO it's all been downhill since the days of Men and Magic, Monsters and Treasures, Blackmoor, Eldrich Witchery, etc...

And I'm only partially kidding.

on Jun 23, 2009

Luckmann
Quoting KellenDunk, reply 25Quoting Annatar11, reply 22 but Aasimars (now called 'Devas' - not to be confused with 'Astral Devas') aren't.

That's a stupid name change, by the way. Tiefling shouldn't be a base race either, they have freaking demon blood in their heritage.. how many humans get to do a demon?

the 4th ed Tieflings aren't some half-breed as you suggest here.  They're descendants of  an empire that made a pact with demons long ago.Afaik (from reading their entry in the 'Races and Classes' core book preview) Tieflings are still Tieflings. It's just that Tieflings as a unison race was born from what you describe, but tieflings as what they are were 3.5ed too. They weren't changed a lot at all, except that they were exceedingly rare.

The entire backstory in 4th Ed is a ridiculously contrieved excuse for "I wan play demuns without my GM complaigning, lol, btw can I has draguns two?".
Quoting KellenDunk, reply 25I don't understand what Luckmann's picture is attempting to show me is retarded....

Really your issues with it are that it's DIFFERENT from what you grew accustomed to.  If the universe had been like 4th is now and changed to 3.5s version you would be saying just the same thing.It's really two seperate problems, not just one major one. The first being that 4th Edition as a ruleset is incredibly 'dumbed-down'. The ruleset is one of a hack 'n' slash dungeonromp more akin to, to put it in gamer terms, Diablo rather than Fallout.
The second being the rape of an entire setting. I don't see how anyone can even look at the red wizards without bursting into either tears or laughter. Or see an entire cosmology go "Oh, wait guise, Abeir was here all along lol!". To someone that has never experienced anything better, I understand that the 4th edition FR "Isn't that big of a deal" but to those of us that enjoyed the setting (which was by no means perfect) most of the changes are nonsensical flamboyance created to cater to increasingly erratic children of the 'modern' age, with an average attetion span of 42.3 seconds before moving on to the next lens flaer. It's a meaningless collection of MOAR!.

 

I wouldn't call it Dumbed down as much as paired down.  Why is making combat simpler in this case a bad thing?  Having different rules for different attacks was stupid.  Static defenses across the board is something I would import into a 3.5 campaign.  The ruleset has nothing to do with how people choose to play the game, I've had a variety of game experiences in 4th ed. Hack n' slash dungeon romp not really being one of them.

Your claims that indulging childish impulses in a game of pretend is somehow destructive shows your level of pretentiousness.

I thoroughly enjoy both systems and the worlds.  I understand what the changes in 4th are about and like a lot of them.  The changes in setting and cosmology are cosmetic.  If you don't like the setting since its a game of pretend you can make it like it was before.

Although this whole conversation probably belongs somewhere else.  I just brought up the 4th ed UNcorns as a reference because we were talking about unicorns.

on Jun 23, 2009

The good/evil debate has apparently gone off in all directions. And if you ask me, the many examples (evil unicrons, good demons ...) just show what was brought forward in the earlier posts:  there is a reason behind archetypes / clichés, so don't break them without being sure the new idea is really a good one. (and that demands good backstory)

We discuss first and foremost a game and not literature - in Elemental it will be difficult/impossible to have a new well-thought out background and explanation to why, say, a deathmagic-wielding vampire on the map would join a good army. So, it will in my view not work. 

Why should a unicorn be good? There are a lot reasons, one being that it can only be approached by an innocent (and GOOD) maiden. Also, it's white, it's beautiful, it can heal the wounded, it is linked in harmony to nature and forests and tends to protect these. If it's evil the creature doesn't make any sense as of above. Why should  you open up Pandoras box by letting any creature have any alignment?

In Elemental I guess the question really is: can an "evil" faction just go an recruit a unicorn just like a good faction?

I sure hope not. Because there is no chance Stardock will have a stab of real-time interactive fantasy authors of highest class ready, or a superintelligent AI that will just come up with the necessary backstory and explanations in each possible case. We need some structure, so I'm not ashamed to say that tinkering with the archetypes should be done carefully and only for good effect. 

on Jun 23, 2009

 Why should a unicorn be good? There are a lot reasons, one being that it can only be approached by an innocent (and GOOD) maiden. Also, it's white, it's beautiful, it can heal the wounded, it is linked in harmony to nature and forests and tends to protect these. If it's evil the creature doesn't make any sense as of above. Why should  you open up Pandoras box by letting any creature have any alignment?

reminds me of a role-playing where I was the  player (usually am GM) where the innocent maiden of our group tried to get eaten by a kelpie.  (not so good horse creature)  and a hag ended up saving her.  However the hag, who originally planned to eat the girl herself, decided she was too amused by the innocent girl and used her to  get rid of the girl-eating compitition through a curse binding the kelpie to her as a servert.  (if the kelpie ate her or let her die, then serious bad-stuff of  unexplained nature would happen)

There way a point to this story.

I imagine an "evil" faction could enslave a unicorn or in some unlawful way bind it to their will.   Something along the lines of putting a magical collar on it and forcing it into battle for fear of something worse happening.  Its the same idea that the dragonmaw clan enslaved the red dragon flight in warcraft 2.  So an evil faction might be MORE likely to use a unicorn just because a "good" faction would be happy to leave it in the forrest it protects.

9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9