Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Persus13]

I found it did the characters aging and having descendants over the course of the adventures while being a tactical turn based game far better personally. And the stories and writing were far better too.

[EuchreJack]

I found it did the characters aging and having descendants over the course of the adventures while being a tactical turn based game far better personally. And the stories and writing were far better too.

Now I know why I preferred Massive Chalice: It was more strategic.  Wildermyth's progression was more RPG.  You levelled your character's gear and had minimal control over the creation of descendants.

Wildermyth did have the distinct advantage of being an overall shorter game, which I liked.  But it was a smaller game in all respects. I think I'd rather play in an abandoned castle than a well-designed house.  I'm not a Frank Lloyd Wright fan.
EDIT: While actually that isn't accurate.  Wildermyth had a more complete resource system.  Maybe it was too gamey for my taste? I dunno.
I admit a temptation to buy Phoenix Point just to see what they did right in the beginning, even though I know I won't like it after the early game.

[ndkid]

Maybe I went Too Nintendo Hard on Wildermyth before figuring the game out on lower difficulties, but it never really scratched much of an itch for me.
It's a min-maxer disguised as a story engine, which turned me off.

I had a similar experience. The way the story fed in felt pretty thin to me. Massive Chalice was a more straightforward tactical battler with a thin strategic layer... I think I actually got more time out of it than I did Wildermyth.

[Mephansteras]

I found Massive chalice to be too samey over the course of the game. You didn't really get to know any given character well before they died, and while the families had some attachment for me the game itself was too repetitive as far as maps and enemies went. Not enough depth of action types, I think.

Wildermyth scratches the "get to know a character" better, even though they aren't really around much longer. But I also haven't tried out that one in over a year, so no idea how it has developed.

Phoenix Point just has utterly forgettable characters, despite being a game where you really don't want to lose any of them. Which, given that it is an X-Com like game, is really disappointing. The lack of decent customization hurts in that department, but so does the fact that you don't really get unique and interesting builds. I think they made a big mistake by having only a few classes and then basically forcing everyone to multi-class.

[EuchreJack]

Barotrauma, on the other hand, is just awesome.

[Persus13]

On the subject of 5 hour game reviews, I was surprised to stumble across this RPS article on Phoenix Point the other day that was definitely more in-depth than a normal 5 hour game review and had a lot of similar thoughts on the game to this thread.

Now I know why I preferred Massive Chalice: It was more strategic.  Wildermyth's progression was more RPG.  You levelled your character's gear and had minimal control over the creation of descendants.

Fair enough, different tastes and all that. I think that's a solid assessment of the differences.

For me a lot of fun of tactical games like XCOM or Phoenix Point is getting to know the soldiers and caring about them based on details emerging out of random tactical scenarios, not too dissimilar to why I'm on a forum for Dwarf Fortress. Massive Chalice having soldiers fight in one or two battles and then die was too quick for getting me hooked that way, which is a shame because the pitch of CKII meets XCOM is something I want to enjoy. The stuff that made Wildermyth more like an RPG and its slower time advancement succeeded on that front more.

EDIT: And of course Meph comes along and says stuff similar to what I'm trying to say but better.