Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
11 
Report this post
Bit too harsh there mate.
I besides some few action-adventure games and 1 fps i pretty much only play turn based games, games on a grid my favorite ones- and i wouldnt compare this to many you compared. Youre putting games with rng and rpg-like, heroes of might and magic style side by side with chess-like games.
We can compare this to into the breach, militia, massive challice and perhaps banner saga for example- probably some more on steam im not aware of and definetly a whole bunch on mobile, but on pc actual chess-like games are way less of a trend then hex-based or rpg inspired ones.
I think the demo falls short of some of the better ones, but its also above some generic ones ive played on mobile (that i cant even remenber the names).
-Story
I dont think thats the focus of this game, many dont even have one.
All in all a full of herself queen thinking the most powerfull wizard would want to help for something besides simply money is fitting to a fantasy setting.
Imagine if Gandalf reached Rohan in Lord of the Rings, warning about orcs hordes from sauron and... 'But we will help only for a chest full of gems'.
From the little of story and setting ive seen (nothing to write home about, but theres some of it) the player/wizard is the gandalf/merlin of its world, except he isnt a good two shoes but more of a neutral or morally ambiguous figure at least.
-Linear progression:
Im not sure. The heroes at least (each heroes upgrade skills) have 2 skill choices per tier where only one can be chosen, locking the other out.
Looking back at my screenshots its 2 branches, 3 tiers, +1 final powerfull move that is equal regardless of choices.
If my rusty math isnt wrong, combinatory 3x3 that would make for 9 different build combinations, per hero, per campaing/run/save-file.
Theres 4 heroes of each class...
What i cant be sure is the hero and tower upgrades. From the demo i cant tell if unlocks are more powerfull/better across the board or not, but looking at the heroes and some of the towers i think theyre not or not entirely.
Could be the case of only unlocking more choices, but previous unlocks still being viable and or preferable depending on mission and whatnot.
Cant confirm by demo alone.
-Demo mission toughts:
I think the demo decided to only show the tutorial and a few common waves of early enemies- on new game it throws the player straight into a later mission before a boss.
I dont think the game itself is all over the place on that fact alone but more of an effect of the demo- throwing the player without upgrades and without all the mastering of the game he wouldve got until that point, straight on top of a high-level wave after wave boss.
.......................................
All that said i found the demo inconclusive for me. Didnt make me 'i have to buy this!' neither hate on it. The tutorial was too easy to get a feel for it- the said mission-boss too unbalanced with us underleved. I feel like neither represent the actual game challenge, so it was very underwhelming.
So i do have criticism- agains the demo, their choices...
...and technical issues too.
Im on a 4k monitor, and at least for me all of the 2d sprite art, from backgrounds to the wizard and such are low res badly scaled up. On small portraits they work, but cutscenes and background seem to use the same res sprites only enlarged- so all pixelated or blurry.
I also dislike when games releasing on pc have menu/ui very much mobile first. I think it would be worth the effort making a separate build/ui for pc besides settings
PS:
And now i just realized the story is just dressing for an analogy to chess- its the rook vs the queen. A suposedly smaller force (in case just 3 moving pieces+towers) vs the suposedly most powerful piece.
Thats a plus for me, i dont think anyone would buy this for story. The themes just help give the game some charm
I immediately saw some game play similar to ITB and The Last Spell.
But then watch game play further, it seems quite boring... Enemies are just mindless pawn. No specialties. And died easily. What's the point of having 20HP when they get killed immediately like those having 4HP. Every enemies are not interesting...
Even the team characters are similar with each other, and the Rook is just a mage...
I can't find it as fun Tower Defence or fun Team Tactics (like Alvora Tactics)...
A bit confused with my expectations...
Anyway, will keep observing this title. Maybe more interesting stuff is on the way~
Enemies not interesting ? i totally disagree, loads of original variety.
And OP what you state most of it is just YOUR view. Graphics muddy and generic ????? no they aint, some of the most varied and well designed graphics, especially the enemies i have seen of late in a game like this.
You need to head your OP as feedback from the demo, as the full game is nothing like what you make out.
All demos of any game are just a small taster.
The variety are fake variations... Anyway, just my thought, no need put on shield...
Will keep observe...
Most games that have variety of characters dont really have variety. Like say most action-rpgs (most action games) and waaay too many turn-based games theres a lot of pretty-much-reskins. Sure +armor on one, +hp or +damage, but a lot of the varied mooks are just that, mooks/pawns reskined.
-if the same tactic and worry is used against a unit, its tactically the same thing, different skin/stats
Withou clearing up wich variety youre talking about the discussion wouldnt ever go anywhere.
Theme wise i can see theres nothing 'new' about the setting or units- skelletons, orcs, wizards, etc. Tropes for the most part. How much that matters for someone varies. For me it depends on game, lots of times playing tropes just right is a games charm for me and many. Also the less story-driven a game is the less i care about setting.
So say if the Banner Saga or Hand of God (tactics turn based games too, but leaning on story and hard choices) had more typical settings with elves and goblins they would be worse for it.
This one? Not at all, at least for me. It fits on the same niche (that i like) as dungeon crawlers. Its fantasy tropes chess in a way and that can be fun in itself
taste
Actual variety i can`t tell from the demo.
BUT i suspect people may have had different experiences with the demo
In the demo theres the tutorial and new game- and they show different things.
-on tutorial, after the tutorial is a bunch of levels one after another with orcs/goblins that are all low-hp, ridiculously easy
i got bored and stopped midway. From some comments i suspect many clicked on tutorial, saw the levels continue with those boring waves and exited the game withou even playing the desert lvl on new game
-new game, desert level: its a later-game lvl, a gauntlet before a boss sort of thing. Clicking on new game throws us into what clearly a later-level, and faults on the other extreme- way harder more because of powerlevel gap then anything
On the desert level mook units(paws) arent different from say orcs- theyre just high hp HIGH dmg pawns who dont shy away from hitting the lowest hp hero or the tower given the oportunity.
Not real variety, the mooks
But on the same lvl canons and a mini-boss balista comes, and theyre far different. The canon moves very little, sticks to the edges of the map and fires up a devastating full-line high dmg that destroy obstacles and hit any/every hero/tower/rook.
The ballista on the other hand is many squares wide, high dmg aoe attacks that have a minimum range(cant attack up-close), and i dont recall if theres any other effects to the attack besides dmg
Thematically canons and ballista arent anything new.
But gameplay wise- YES theyre a novelty.
I play a LOT of turn-based games. Comparing the Rook with say Banner Saga, Hand of Fate, Tahira and some other similars i dont recall any enemies like the cannon and ballista, at least not top of my head.
Also neither of the mentioned games are developed around towers - heck, pretty much no turn-based/grid/chess-like/ff tactics style games i can recall are like that.
Towers arent anything new but theyre common in tower-defense games and action games- for making a game around towers on a chess board/ff tactics battles is in itself a novelty without any title i can compare to.
Meanwhile games like Othercide are filled to the brim with novel setting and concepts- but aside from some novel progression mechanic(sacrifice), the setting and all is just dressing and not that different from many/most turn-based fares.
So by comparison Defend the Rook is way blander/tropey in themes but on a surface level more novel and different then say Othercide or even final fantasy tactics and such (wich are basically like rpgs, character lvls and stats over tactics)
PS: i can be wrong. Ive watched a lot on othercide but havent played it myself. Tactics wise the creatures and combat felt more trope-rpg then tactically novel or inherently tactical.
In a gauge:
(more tactical) Chess > Into the Breach/Militia >> Defend the Rook >> Banner Saga >> Ff tactics > Disgaea (rpg-like build/stats heavy)
If it were a
Towers aspect is good, since mostly used in Tower Defense games exclusively. Yet in "Rook" it is very basic to be called a real feature. I consider something like "Variables" a good representation of 'variety' and 'original'. Or if we look at "Legend of Keepers", it also has towers aspect, but is not considered Tower Defense and actually gives some wide choises in tactics. Upgrades and bonuses in it have interesting effects, not just +hp +1count compared to Rook.
As for desert boss, i haven't felt anything special about. Yeah, it can rearrange it's own towers with better AI and attack patterns (unlike normal mobs), but that is nothing compared to other game's bosses, like "Necrodancer", "Battle of Tiles", "Star Vikings" or "Warriors of the Nile".
It's all probably depends on our life experience. I am comparing Rook to hundreds of played games of similar type, while other people overal never played that many games during their whole life. Again, that's what i felt from DEMO.
Havent played enought tower defense games to compare, but i feel youre right on point on there.
Theres a reason i have wishlisted but not bought this title yet- wasnt engaging enough for me. Maybe later on a discount, idk, im willing to give it a chance but i have a bunch of others high in priority.
My defense was more like a 'slow down' against some statements. More like different standards perhaps. I dont expect every game to be brilliant, and i know i had way too much fun with some shallow games, including on this genre. Heck, i recall loosing hours and hours on some very old flash game that was way more fitting of some of the criticism here then Defend the Rook. I couldnt tell by the demo but sometimes just some of the basics done well can be very entertaining
Not a must buy but i wouldnt call it bad or terrible. Again, based on impressions, cant tell if i would have the same opnion after playing the whole campaing
ps:
Btw is Warriors of the Nile good?
Second,
Not every game has to provide 100+ hours of content, i am glad if some devs keep their products a little bit leaner, the game ahas a good vision with what it wants the player to achieve; way better then inflating the product with grinds
Imagine a food you like the most, remember it's taste and price, now imagine another shop opened which sells same food, but further away from you, worse quality and more expensive. Would you buy it? Now imagine years after years more and more shops open up in vicinity, all are worse and worse in quality / quantity, pricing, yet selling same product. Would you buy from them? That's what i thought.
What if someone likes game A but dev of game A can only pump x amount of content.
In that scenario people are highly appreciative of a game B. Even if they didn´t change much. Or especialy if they didn´t change much.
Also i play many games and have not played most games you mentioned, so how would i even notice the "copy".
the core of my message is critique on your critique; you present it very stern for somthing incredibly wonky like "artstyle" and "diverse gameplay"
and i don´t say this to make fun of you, but because you seem like a generally reasonable person
Well said, those two need to get a room.
"yet every game has to present something unique, else why would customer buy it instead of predecessors with more content" <<<<< LOL
The vast amount of games that are released all the time that are liked by many generally dont bring anything new overall over past games.