And pray to every gods I learned about throught paradox games, and a few in betweeners, that this game will be nothing like omerta.
Let us all take a minute
- Thread starter masterpaul666
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I very much hope it will be like Gangsters: Organized Crime, which was awesome unlike Omerta.
I hope so too, but from what I have seen so far. I am sceptical. There has never been anything quite like Gangsters Organized Crime, and that game is ancient. It saddens me, but I hope this will come near that status.
It looks like it's probably more like X-COM, you have a 'base' layer where you manage and expand sectors (probably basic things like hire people, set some things, etc) and when there's conflict defending or attacking a sector, X-COM combat.
Yeah, that's my thought as well. While I do love X-COM I would prefer this here to be a more open strategy game like the good old Gangsters: Organized Crime has been.
Omerta had inklings of potential. It ultimately fell short by being having shallow gameplay and wasn't nearly open enough in the end. I enjoyed parts of it though. I hope Empire of Sins is a long drawn out and deep experience full of eventful scenarios.
My biggest problem with omerta was the level based design. Where each areas, the only thing you bring is your units, you lose all your money and power. you spend weeks and months raising an area to be extremly rich and strong, then move right across the street to another neighbourhood? welp, you're a poor hobo here. Moving money across the street is silly.
The whole game should have had one big map, and be focused on taking over a huge city, slowly, overtime, rather than be this weird mess of a game. I'm very much hoping this game does NOT copy this.
Omerta was scenario based and too much story driven which kills replay value.
I hope this one will be more XCom like, but with short tactical battles and more focus on the strategic map and economy.
The problem with Xcom games is that repeated battles tend to become a chore eventually.
I hope this one will be more XCom like, but with short tactical battles and more focus on the strategic map and economy.
The problem with Xcom games is that repeated battles tend to become a chore eventually.
From what I understand combat is turn-based, but gangsters seen in the trailer seemed to move in real-time when out of combat. So I'd assume that tactical battles are reserved for situations where two hostile gangs meet one another. Otherwise they move around, doing their weekly (or daily, or whatever the time-frame will be) tasks, much like henchmen from the original Gangsters: Organized Crime did.
A lot depends on how big the city is. How many gangs are operating at once. How hard it is for a gang to replace losses. How many attacks can happen within a cycle. Can there be more than two sides involved in combat?
What may be important is that you don't control every building, but the key buildings, like speakeasy, gambling hall, brewery, etc. Apartments that you can exort for money are colored grey, which does suggest they don't require to be "owned" in order to bring you profit (but probably need to be assigned a gangster in order to collect the payment). This is good, because it means there probably won't be a tactical battles over literally every house in the city and the game flow will be much smoother.
Last edited:
I don't think you have to fear that it's Omerta II Electric Boogaloo.
Not only because it's Paradox long after they published evething that sound good phase. But also if you look up Brenda Romeros (Jon Romero is quite open that it's her Baby) track record and design talks (especially her board game stuff). You see that she has a nack in systematic game design and the merger of systems with themes.
Heck I don't even think that Omerta was beyond salvation.
The problem was not that it was full of bad ideas but instead that those ideas and the entire game was just half-assed.
Not only because it's Paradox long after they published evething that sound good phase. But also if you look up Brenda Romeros (Jon Romero is quite open that it's her Baby) track record and design talks (especially her board game stuff). You see that she has a nack in systematic game design and the merger of systems with themes.
Heck I don't even think that Omerta was beyond salvation.
The problem was not that it was full of bad ideas but instead that those ideas and the entire game was just half-assed.
I don't even know what Omertà is. Game-wise, I mean.
What I do pray for is that the game has as much personality as Jagged Alliance 2 had, that the combat is as much fun as that game was, and that the 10-hour campaigns are more fulfilling than it actually sounds.
Because what this game truly reminds me is Age of Wonders: Planetfall in Prohibition Era Chicago (not at all a knock on it, quite the opposite), and a 10-hour campaign for that game sounds awfully short to me (as the maximum anyway). Also, no story mode whatsoever feels like a missed opportunity to me.
Still, a game that is solidly on my radar right now.
What I do pray for is that the game has as much personality as Jagged Alliance 2 had, that the combat is as much fun as that game was, and that the 10-hour campaigns are more fulfilling than it actually sounds.
Because what this game truly reminds me is Age of Wonders: Planetfall in Prohibition Era Chicago (not at all a knock on it, quite the opposite), and a 10-hour campaign for that game sounds awfully short to me (as the maximum anyway). Also, no story mode whatsoever feels like a missed opportunity to me.
Still, a game that is solidly on my radar right now.
How do you figure? Age of Wonders: Planetfall seems to be more in the vein of Endless Legend or Civilization to me.
I can see it working, in kind of boardgame-y way. Imagine that each session being a different experience because the city and enemy bosses will be randomized (well, bosses will be probably picked from the 13 bosses left, after you pick the one you want to play as). I like this concept better than a linear story mode that is nice only for a single plathrough and after that it becomes precognition.
Well, it's a feeling that I can't truly justify, as we have so much limited info. Partly because all the interviews mention the Civilization series, so I have this gut feeling that its strategy mode will be similar to it. Whenever we have a better sense of what the strategic map looks, this may change.
Oh, I agree that the game should have a good randomizer in place. It's just that with such a gallery of characters, a story mode could be fun. Now, it may be a case of bad allocation of resources, as that campaign would be good for a limited number of runs for sure.
In a narrative experience there might be more possibility to add a bit of nuance to the experience; like if you add this really nice neighborhood lady who just sits there with her cat hoping that her son will call do you really go "I'm going to blackmail the heck out of her!" ...while if it's just generated characters and generic events and so on it just becomes a "mechanical" experience about points and so on and you probably won't be bugged about taking over everything and killing (or whatever) everyone in your way.
Which isn't to say one's better than the other, I'm just saying it might have allowed for some different ideas.
Or, who knows, maybe the generated stuff does the job too ..
Which isn't to say one's better than the other, I'm just saying it might have allowed for some different ideas.
Or, who knows, maybe the generated stuff does the job too ..
I was fooled by Omerta. Maybe it was just my hope that it would be the successor to Gangsters. I bought it at release for full price before I knew about the steam refund policy. That game still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I'm following this game hoping it will be the successor to gangsters but Xcom was good so I'll be satisfied with that.