Age of Wonders 4 Review (Lampros)
Generally, l am loath to compose a review that slams a product because I realize real-life interests are at stake. After all, for a small project, one negative viral review can sometimes even ruin livelihoods (though almost certainly not in this case, as Triumph Studios has enjoyed a hitherto deservedly sterling reputation). Moreover, I never imagined that I would be burying this particular product. Indeed, the Age of Wonders franchise has been arguably my most cherished video gaming franchise, as I have logged thousands of hours on each of the prior three (or four, depending on how you count Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic) games in the series, with the last one - Age of Wonders 3 - clocking nearly three thousand hours. Nonetheless, a long train of abuses and usurpations leave me no choice. Perhaps an outburst like this is even cathartic and a long time coming, as the three fundamental issues I will isolate with this studio largely apply to the PC gaming industry in general. Only, of course, I never expected Triumph to sink to the common denominator.
So, let me begin.
First, the game was prematurely rushed in an unacceptable, unplayable state.
When the game was released, there was an astonishing number of complaints that involved constant crashes. As most of us regretfully know, shoving incomplete games for public consumption for financial motives is a common practice in PC gaming nowadays, if not the norm. But the ubiquity and scale of the problem were deeply concerning. I own over 170 games on Steam alone, and I have had only two other instances where I could not literally play the game after the purchase due to frequent crashes. The bottom 3 out of over 170 is not a tier list where I would have imagined Triumph would ever reside. The disappointment was sharper because I know Triumph's track record and Age of Wonders 4 was among my two most anticipated games in the last decade. I waited and waited after each bug fix for the problem to go away and finally uninstalled.
Still, the game could have redeemed itself. In fact, I thought it was on its way to doing so when I picked it up again after an eight-month hiatus and immediately fell in love again about a month ago - until I ran into the second issue: a game development approach that shuts out the vast majority of the player base and instead takes its cues exclusively from a tiny minority of a Discord or other closed cabal.
Now, anyone who lurks on Steam forums for strategy or tactics games realizes that developers rarely consult the forum for balancing purposes, even though Steam is where the game is purchased and where most of the player base is accessible. In fact, Some developers never even post on Steam, and more than one developer has told me that they never even read Steam posts. Instead, they rely on more exclusive venues, most often Discord or their own company website forums.
The problem with this approach is obvious. Would an elected representative get a fair understanding of where the electorate is at by listening to pollsters alone? But the Discord community does not, unlike pollsters, even try to convey the view of the consumer base because it is made up of hardcore, elitist players hawking a vision for the game that, in fact, goes against what the average gamer wants. I have been in many Discord groups and beta testing communities, and the balancing direction is always ratcheting up toward an e-peen contest to outdo one another in making the game more punishing to increase the sense of accomplishment. In the meanwhile, the average gamer is left with a product they do not even want to use, as the game no longer becomes fun or a game but a trial of manhood. The above trend is exacerbated when a game contains an MP aspect, as does Age of Wonders 4. Anything outside the purview of a 50-turn "rush" game is cast aside, even though most of the player base will be looking toward a single-player experience involving over 100 turns.
Of course, I have repeatedly aired my grievances regarding this aspect of balancing in prior games. Still, this time, I can no longer stay with the franchise despite its balancing flaws. The latest tunnel-visioned balancing change that broke the proverbial camel's back.
To be succinct, it was deemed that players were acquiring heroes too rapidly in the early turns and stacking them in a way the developers did not intend. But the cure was far worse than the malady, leaving out the majority single-player experience altogether. The "fix" was twofold. First, hero acquisition would be far more difficult in early turns but far too easy in later turns. As a result, under the new system, the game would be flooded with heroes from mid-game onward. Second, stacks with multiple heroes would be severely de-buffed to discourage stacking, but such de-buffs would not apply to the AI at all!
It is easy to see why that the negatives of such a change would cripple the single player experience but does not even touch the MP experience. Who cares about the de-buffs not applying to AI when no AI is involved in MP games? And so what if everyone can field stacks of heroes (which was what the developers aimed to avoid!) in later turns when all MP games are "rush" games that do not sniff even mid-turns?
Let's cut to the chase here. In effect, the developers solved the hero stacking problem for MP games, but they made it far worse for single player games - and added an element of unfairness by making AI exempt from certain crippling limitations. How can developers with a proper perspective even contemplate a decision like this? I do not want to play anymore because this makes no sense either from an immersion/role-play or balancing perspective.
When I aired these grievances, the developers doubled down regarding the infallibility of their decision. Worse yet - and this is the third and final issue that Triumph has demonstrated in common with other bad developers - the developers begin to abuse their moderation ban stick to silence dissent. How formulaic and typical of developer heavy-handedness these days. But it gets even worse. They start deleting my responses to ad hominem posts directed at me, while leaving the original provocations intact. Double standard moderating.
It's sophomoric - and diappointing.