Tag: Games

  • Invincible VS – Review

    Invincible VS – Review

    The legacy of the tag-team hyper fighter, a niche within a niche, has a strange hold on a specific set of 30 to 50 somethings who grew up playing titles like Marvel vs Capcom 1, Marvel vs Capcom 2, and Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 (Famously, actor Michael B. Jordan rallied on video for Capcom to re-release MvC2 on modern consoles). Despite those games successes, the sub genre of fighting games known for being the most difficult to get into competitively has had a rocky history outside of the Marvel franchise. Even Disney struggled to find their landing with Marvel vs Capcom Infinite in 2017, but the past year and change has been especially depressing in the world of tag-team hyper fighters.

    Our story seemingly begins with a silver lining. The release of Dragonball Fighter Z was a momentous one for the fighting game community; it combined the amazing 3D artwork of Guilty Gear Xrd, the gameplay of Marvel vs Capcom 3, and one of the most recognizable intellectual properties of our time, Dragonball.

    Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Balls

    Dragonball FighterZ could do no wrong from a financial perspective, but beneath the surface there were unforeseen long term consequences for the game and the genre writ large. At its core, a fighting game based on a popular intellectual property is likely to put more emphasis on the size of their roster to fit as many beloved characters into the game as possible. These games tend to create homogenous gameplay across the cast to help casual players feel comfortable playing whatever character they may prefer. The return on investment for appealing to casual players (read: the majority of people who play fighting games) outweigh the numerous negative effects that this design has for low and high level competitive players: combos become stale and in many cases universal, team building loses its strategic value, and whatever characters lead the competitive landscape become all that players see in match or in tournaments.

    It took the fighting game community at large a while to sour on Dragonball FighterZ, but issues remain and seem to have permeated through games that DBFZ would eventually come to inspire. Even casual DBZ fans had something to complain about eventually. FighterZ was aimed at the competitive fighting game audience just as much as casual DBZ fans, which ruffled some feathers. Games like Dragonball Xenoverse or Dragonball Sparking! Zero offered way more proverbial bang for those casual players’ bucks without also asking them to eventually graduate to low-level competitive players.

    After Dragonball FighterZ’s release, it became the unofficial dream of any anime fighting game fan to have their favorite anime receive similar treatment. The industry was paying attention as well, leading to several hyper fighters coming out years later. However, many of these projects suffer from the same issues as their inspiration; relying on a casual audience while developing a good fighting game wrapped in a bad product.

    Nein Impact & Twoexkayo

    First to arrive on the scene, Hunter X Hunter: Nen Impact made it abundantly clear that it was geared for only the sickest of hyper fighter sickos (read: me and a couple hundred other people). Then the game fell flat for a significant portion of that notably small community without a reliable rollback net code implementation. As much as I enjoy the game, Nen Impact will likely remain an 8-ing oddity rather than a fighter to introduce to Hunter fans who rarely play fighting games.

    Riot Games’ 2XKO had a lot going against it even before it launched, but by most accounts it’s a fun return to 2v2 tag team gameplay. The developers should be proud of what they were able to accomplish, but even the best fighting in the world likely can’t make the free to play model work. Add on top of the live-service model the ability to actively tag between two fighters and perform impressively long and complex combos on opponents, and it becomes evidence that 2XKO had to perform a miracle to develop the kind of casual audience a free to play game needs to survive.

    Then Invincible VS (INVS) came out in April and it was a mess. I haven’t decided whether being a fan of the Invincible franchise helped my opinion of the game or hurt it, but either way, it would be impossible to ignore all of the problems with INVS despite me enjoying it and playing way too much (I’ve been grinding ranked to try to get out of Diamond). In retrospect, the problems with Invincible VS seem to indicate significant problems with the project before release.

    Invinki?

    Invincible VS is a 3 vs 3 tag-team hyper fighter designed by Quarter Up, a subsidiary of Skybound Entertainment. Co-founded by Robert Kirkman, one of the creators behind the Invincible comics and television show, Quarter Up acts as the game development division spun up to create games based on Image Comics IPs. The team consisted of various notable developers with fighting game experience, including folks who worked on the first season of Killer Instinct (2013) and FGC figureheads Rip and Vicious. 

    In a departure from the comics and cartoon show, Invincible VS is a 2D fighting game with gorgeous 3D renditions of the franchise’s cast. The game offers a Story Mode, an Arcade Ladder, Local Versus, Ranked Online Play, Casual Online Play, Lobbies, Leaderboards, Tutorials, Training Mode, and a plethora of unlocks related to the comics and show. A roster of twenty characters, including two of the released downloadable fighters, give players plenty of room to create a team of three to fight with.

    Alongside tag-team hyper fighter tropes like tagging and calling in assists, INVS offers plenty of unique mechanics that create for a diverse gameplay experience each time. Players can tag between fighters while comboing their opponent to engage in a bespoke guessing game (often called an RPS or rock paper scissors) that could either extend the combo, stop the combo, or reverse the combo entirely depending on what options each player picks and how quickly they can respond to their opponents visual cues. Fighters are able to cancel their normal attacks into special attacks without the usual terms and conditions that other fighting games require players to agree to before playing. Invincible VS even takes the act of dashing across the screen up to eleven by allowing players to spend their meter to drastically speed up their movement and punish unexpecting opponents.

    The additions to the formula that make Invincible VS unique are arguably some of the biggest culprits for the game not reaching their shareholders’ expectations despite hitting the 1 million player milestone, but they’re certainly not the only problems.

    What Will You Have After 500 Years?

    Projects of this scope are not the result of one person or role. Game development is hard enough as it is for people to try to scapegoat an individual team member for a specific game’s success or failure. There are almost always multiple points of failure (or success) and other cascading problems that build upon each other as a project develops. My goal is not to find blame or diminish the hard work that the team at Quarter Up put into making one of my favorite games of the year. However, I may have a thing or two of interest to say about the game and the issues that could have led to Skybound Entertainment laying off approximately 75% of the staff at Quarter Up only a few months into the first season of the game.

    Gameplay

    As previously mentioned, Invincible VS is at its core a simplified tag-team hyper fighter. Pitting two teams of three super heroes or villains from the Invincible universe is one hell of a pitch, and it has certainly found an audience since launch. I don’t think Skybound Entertainment considers it a success, given the fate of most of the team at Quarter Up, but like Nen Impact and 2XKO, the game suffered from both following in Marvel vs Capcom 2’s footsteps and failing to live up to a majority of its audience’s expectations.

    At a high level, Invincible VS’s gameplay can be broken down into several layers that players break through as they get better and hit certain milestones. For the casual audience, the game just needs to be fun for fans of the franchise to mash buttons and see their favorite characters duke it out. The tag mechanics are a double edged sword for these players; on one hand they can play with more of their favorite characters, but on the other they have more mental stack to deal with while playing. From a gameplay perspective, the game suffices as an action figure simulator for those who only want to go surface deep.

    Layer One

    If a player gets possessed by the competitive spirit, they realize that mashing is very effective on offense or defense. This layer has a sharp drop off of players who find being asked to practice a video game too much to bother. Simple tactics like moving just outside the range of the opponent’s wake up roll help players rise above the most casual of Invincible fans. Characters like Battle Beast, Invincible, and Conquest offer plenty of room for mashing armored moves and avoiding having to think too hard about blocking or whiff punishing.

    For the lowest level competitive player, this gameplay may be a welcome relief from other fighting games that require proper timing, manual execution, or forethought. However, players who enjoy the low level gameplay of Invincible VS may be turned off by the fact that slightly better players blow them up for tactics that used to guarantee free wins. I’d expect another large drop off of players that don’t pass this milestone.

    Layer Two

    The second layer involves players using their assists to “skip” the neutral phase (when both players are at a neutral state, not hitting or blocking one another). These players understand the basics of how to build a combo, how to defend against mashing, and how to confirm a combo off of an assist call. Without their assists, this level of player struggles to maintain their advantage and generally back off as much as possible to stall for time. There are plenty of mechanics to counter this kind of behavior, namely Boost Dash, but players who live in the medium competitive community will likely be content not progressing further unless forced to.

    Layer Three

    Third is usually when folks learn defensive mechanics like Heroic Strike or using armored attacks deliberately to beat their opponents’ offensive pressure. This layer can be particularly frustrating due to the fact that the offensive mechanics of Invincible VS can often be more powerful than the defensive options in specific situations. Motion inputs exacerbate this issue by making armored reversals more difficult, especially compared to the simple input versions. If the developers had been proverbially throwing spaghetti at the wall, this layer is when those noodles start to come together.

    Layer Four

    At risk of oversimplifying fighting games, the fourth layer is achieved once players begin incorporating all of the game’s mechanics together in tandem. For Invincible VS, that often means knowing when not to utilize a mechanic even if it’s tempting. Proper use of Heroic Strike, Assist Break, and Combo Tag can make or break a match, but overuse of any mechanic can quickly lead to defeat. Assist Break is particularly dicey, given that it is so punishing for the user if not used correctly. I expect that Combo Tag will similarly see less use over time as there are safer and more beneficial ways to mix-up your opponent and tag out.

    Layer Five

    The last and potentially final layer is for folks who are burning the trail for the game competitively. There are definitely those who have become masters in INVS since April, but I expect that number to grow as time goes on. The existence of this level of player suggests a certain level of quality for the game itself, but it doesn’t tell the whole story of the average player’s experience with Invincible VS.

    Although I consider myself a fighting game sicko, I understand that there are far too few of us to sustain the kind of budget a fighting game needs to be developed these days. A successful game in this space needs to be a good product first and a great fighting game second. The best way I can describe Invincible VS is a mess of ideas that solidifies into a pretty fun hyper fighter; some mechanics seem directly focused on bringing in casual fans of the series while others are clearly aimed at high-level competitive play. 

    Even the idea of starting the Invincible franchise’s first foray into video games with a fighter was bound to turn off a certain number of casual fans. Choosing a niche (hyper fighters) within a niche (tag-team fighters) within a niche (fighting games) and then giving aspiring competitive players so many boundaries to progress may have had an effect on the game’s public opinion only four months after its release.

    I applaud the development team for the amount of references and story beats that they were able to jam into each character’s move lists, but several members of the cast feel rather uninspired compared to their comic book or television counterparts. Those fighters feel like barebones interpretations of the characters to fill a roster, rather than intentional love letters to the franchise. Cecil’s design is particularly flaccid; he shoots guns and commands reanimen but not much else.

    Everything Goes, But Nothing Matters

    The flexibility of the combo system, while great for newer players to mash to their heart’s content, is divisive among the most deranged of fighting game sickos. Shang Tsung once wisely said, “If anything works, nothing matters,” or something like that, which is an apt description of combos in Invincible VS. There are more optimal combos than others, but the margin is small and the discovery phase is less about learning the combo system and more about learning what moves have weird damage or combo meter scaling values. Why attempt a cool combo when looping a special move with wonky scaling 8 times into an ultimate attack does a better job?

    What the combat system does encourage is annoying, frustrating, and potentially mood ruining combos that do more emotional damage to the opponent than actual damage to their fighter. If making a cool combo that’s also optimal damage is nearly impossible, then performing combos that make your opponent want to uninstall the game is the next best thing. This is just one small design decision that helps create a game that isn’t very fun for both players.

    From a far, it feels like the developers of Invincible VS and other similar titles really wanted to make a fighting game like the ones from their childhoods, but have to jam the game full of misguided accessibility features to secure funding. Playing local versus on console or in arcades is a much different experience than what most fans of fighting games have these days; the mechanics of Invincible VS specifically crumble under the pressure of a WiFi internet connection and encouraging toxic behavior only helps make the existing community more insular and uninviting. If someone acted like a total chud to be in person, I would just never play against them again, but the amount of rage quitters, tea baggers, one and done-ers who have made Invincible VS their home make the online experience a test in patience. 

    The Invincible intellectual property works against INVS in ways that I didn’t initially expect. Whereas most fighting games include snarky pre and post combat dialogue, Invincible’s mature themes and violent nature makes the experience of getting your ass beat even worse. Not only are you bad at fighting games, but Mark Grayson actively mocks you for thinking the game was going to be fun in the first place. For fans of the series, this is clearly a reference to the fight between Invincible and Conquest, but for everyone else it just sounds like the developers knew they made a game that was actively detrimental to one’s mental wellbeing.

    Overall, the gameplay of Invincible VS gets a three point five out of five Mark Graysons for a solid high-level competitive landscape marred by a rough and frustrating path through lower level strategic layers. Like a lot of fighting games, Invincible VS is best played offline with friends if you can manage it.

    Gameplay: 3.5/5

    Artwork

    Invincible as a series has crossed the gamut of visual mediums, starting with a comic book run, expanding to animation with the Amazon show, and now into the realm of 3D with Invincible VS. Although the art style differs across each entry in the franchise, there is a visual continuity and fidelity between that makes me want to read, watch, or play more. The story’s cast are well rendered in the third dimension and their keyframe-focused animations, while divisive, are unique and suggest an homage to its roots as a comic book.

    A few minor graphical glitches don’t deter from the game’s appeal. In fact, they do the opposite. There’s something charming about seeing parts of the character models load in. Special effects don’t oversell their animation’s impact and avoid cluttering the screen. Invincible VS’ visuals may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but expecting Mortal Kombat 1 level of character detail from a comic book fighting game is nuts.

    My only complaint, if you can call it one, is that the soundtrack by The Glitch Mob is forgettable and perhaps a waste of money. I don’t expect fans of the group are itching to pick up Invincible VS for the OST, and I don’t expect there to be a lot of crossover between fans of Invincible either. Normally, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning, but a game with more problems to count spending money to bring in name brand musicians seems misguided at best.

    The artwork of Invincible VS gets a solid four point five out of five Mark Graysons for its ability to blaze a trail into a new dimension and realize these characters in new and creative ways.

    Artwork: 4.5/5

    Story

    Saving the worst for last, the story mode (and offline modes for that matter) is the biggest risk that Invincible VS as a project could have made. Invincible fans are not particularly unique, but those hardcore fans are the most important stakeholders for an IP-based game like INVS. For folks who were excited to see their favorite super heroes and villains duke it out in 3D before moving on to the next game, Invincible VS gave very little incentive.

    Most fighting game story modes are minimalistic to a fault, but Invincible VS’ story mode could be easily replaced by an hour long Youtube video. In fact, I would encourage any fan of the series who would only be interested in the story to skip Invincible VS altogether. Not only is the storyline uninspired, it actively makes the game less interesting from a narrative perspective. 

    Many fighting game franchises offer an entry colloquially called a “dream match,” in which the fourth wall is ignored and players are expected to treat the story or roster as non-canonical, or not a part of an overall story or narrative. Instead, Invincible VS decides to spend an hour explaining why Omin-man and Cecil can fight without Nolan punching through his former boss’ face; a question that wasn’t asked and didn’t need answering. Once someone has played the story, any emergent narratives are squashed by the fact that half the cast (if not more) aren’t actually who they say they are, and are therefore weaker than the genuine specimen.

    A story mode that not just disappoints but actively makes the rest of the game worse for it is one hell of an accomplishment. If somehow the remaining skeleton crew of a development team is able to prove that the launch story mode is only part one of five, I would be glad to reevaluate it as a product. For now, the story of Invincible VS is at best a great pilot for an 3D animated show for streaming, and at worst a disappointing waste of the game’s budget.

    The story for Invincible VS scrapes by with one Mark Grayson out of five for its ability to not only turn off its primary audience but also disappoint folks who aren’t all that interested in story modes in the first place.

    Story: 1/5

    Final Thoughts

    2026 is not a great year to be a fighting game fan and Invincible VS didn’t make things any easier. As a fan of Invincible, I’m conflicted more than I would normally be. I’m at the point where I can’t honestly recommend the game I enjoy to anyone who isn’t the most seasoned of fighting game players, and that sucks. Not because I won’t continue to enjoy the game, but because I know there’s very little chance for a do over. New Dragonball fighting games are a dime a dozen, but there likely won’t be a new Invincible game anytime soon.

    Out of the four main facets of gameplay that Invincible VS offers (Singleplayer, Online, Local, and Training Mode), half of them are under developed, unfinished, and the worst sin a game can make, not fun. I wouldn’t wish playing online ranked mode on my worst enemy and the singleplayer content is more than just lacking, it’s bad.

    Overall, Invincible VS gets an average score of three out of five Mark Graysons.

  • Deadlock: Old Gods, New Blood Review or Why We Play Games That Hurt Us

    Deadlock: Old Gods, New Blood Review or Why We Play Games That Hurt Us

    Deadlock may be a game without an intended audience, but it’s clear that hasn’t stopped Valve’s latest experiment from succeeding. After an extended period of open beta testing, the Old Gods, New Blood patch has updated the game’s overall look and feel to be more cohesive and expressive. Red team is now fighting under the Hidden King and the Blue team are followers of the Arch Mother.

    What remains from my previous endeavor in Valve’s fictional New York City is gameplay that hasn’t evolved much past Defense of the Ancients circa 2006 fused together with a loose interpretation of what it means to be a third-person shooter. The game is still split into two major components: character select and item select. Normally, I would complain about the fact that Valve is dead set on making this more akin to an ARTS like DOTA or Smite than a traditional “hero” shooter. Items in Deadlock are exemplary of what they should be for the genre it is in, despite me wishing they didn’t exist. Being able to adjust your character’s strengths and weaknesses throughout a match is very useful to avoid players feeling like games are decided solely by character select. All in all, the MOBA-style gameplay loop offers players who might not be comfortable with a more shooting focused third-person shooter a more comfortable on-ramp, making Deadlock easier to find a friends to play with than others.

    The biggest deciding factor in a character’s strategic diversity is their weapon of choice, which leads to lopsided character balance and annoying match ups. McGuiness, for example, can benefit from a wide array of different types of items, but due to her gatling gun-styled weapon, she can also upgrade her basic attack to a ridiculous level. This can feel like a lottery at times, as the usefulness of a character’s weapon often feels like its based on aesthetic preferences from the character artists rather than intended game design.

    What’s left over is better than the sum of its parts, but only just. Every aspect of Deadlock seems to be designed to bring in as many new players to both third-person shooters and ARTS/MOBA as possible while greasing the wheels and leaving up the guard rails up to avoid giving players any reason to stop playing. What’s more accessible than a game that plays itself once you’ve been fed enough and can follow an enemy’s silhouette with your crosshair?

    On the topic of accessibility, Deadlock suffers from the same issues as its predecessors—namely that it has 30+ characters and even more items that can fit into up to eight item slots, making for an innumerable amount of information for new players to digest before playing optimally. How games like this get new players and folks still struggle to play fighting games is beyond me.

    Last of note is how Valve has been releasing new characters. Each big update has come with a set of fresh heroes to play as and against. 2025 brought with it Victor, Paige, Drifter, Mina, and Billy. From my experience, four out of six of these characters are either:

    1. Annoying as hell to fight against
    2. Way too powerful when fed early on
    3. Lacking much skill expression to make better players stand out

    You can guess who is who.

    Olds Gods, New Blood has brought another sinister six to the roster, including Apollo, Celeste, Graves, Rem, Silver, Venator. Although only two are released as of this publication, I can already tell that Rem and Graves are described by at least one of the there complains listed above, if not all three.

    As the lines blur between open beta and a soft release, Valve has made it abundantly clear that their release cycles will mimic other games in the genre to a tee. New characters will dominate until player backlash becomes too much to ignore and the community’s whales have been drained of all of their precious oil. Annoying character designs will also be characters who are incredibly powerful and dominant in matchmaking, and they will never feel as devastating when a team mate is controlling them.

    I’m still enjoying myself with Deadlock, but I suspect it has more to do with my investment in the genres it borrows from and my friends logging in to play more than the game design itself. I would have fun rubbing rocks together if my friends were down. This game feels like any game you might play with friends, except it is intended to annoy you to death over the course of a 60 minute match.

  • “It’s Just a Game”: How to Avoid Annoying Your Online Audience to Death

    “It’s Just a Game”: How to Avoid Annoying Your Online Audience to Death

    Understanding how your online multiplayer game may be used to abuse your player base by bad apples is a key component to keeping a healthy audience of friendly, inclusive, and happy players. If you find your audience begin to skew more toxic and angry, take a look at your game and what elements may be specifically abrasive when played by someone who wants to ruin the fun for everyone else.

    Games are not meant to be taken too seriously. There’s a reason that little league baseball diamonds have signs to warn parents against getting too heated during their child’s game. That being said, it is human to take something one is passionate about to heart. Telling folks that “it’s just a game” is often an unhelpful dismissal of the experience that person is having, especially in instances where the game design itself is to blame for the player’s frustrations. Keep in mind, a developer’s job is to evoke specific emotions: it is not the player’s job to be in the right mindset or react appropriately.

    Giving players the chance to chat with one another is becoming increasingly unnecessary as accessibility features progress rapidly. Context specific pinging systems, canned alerts, and emojis offer plenty of chances for players to interact without the chance of them throwing slurs and insults at one another. Let folks communicate through their favorite VoIP application with people they like and keep in-game communication as an options for players to opt in for instead of having it as a default setting.

    “I love being an annoying prick in online games, especially when I’m better than my opponent. Do I think that’s a particularly pleasant personality trait? Hell no!”

    Bad actors can use more than just communication tools to troll and goad other players; specific game designs can often be abused, if not used as intended, to annoy and frustrate opponents. This is an established tactic in all competitive games, but there is a reason that competitive poker players are limited in how they can interact with the other players at the table. A good litmus test for whether a mechanic could potentially be used as a psychological shiv against others is for designers to playtest with competitive players rather than with other developers. Letting more invested players beat your ass by wiping your mental stack and making you want to punch your monitor can be an effective way to iron out these kinds of tools.

    Animations, aesthetics, and sounds can also be used by players to annoy and frustrate others. Anyone who has played a particularly spicy Jigglypuff player in Smash Bros. knows how old it gets to hear them taunt repeatedly from across the stage. Costumes and cosmetics can be specifically tailored to vex opponents just as easily. Mortal Kombat’s fatalities are infamous for causing players to turn off their game in anger. Were they just as bad back in the arcades? Probably, but being online only exacerbates the issue.

    There is a long precedent of both games that lean into aggressive behavior and avert negative play experiences through clever design. Mortal Kombat 1 is an example of playing both sides: players can brutally disembowel each other post-match but attempting to tea-bag one’s opponent will result in an innocuous taunt instead. NetherRealm Studios also made the baffling decision to let players chat over VoIP by default. Apex Legends does a stellar job of encouraging interaction between team mates without requiring them to communicate verbally or through chat. Most games don’t even allow randomly matchmade opponents to chat with one another, but even canned messages and emojis can be abused. At the end of the day, there is nothing to replace community moderation, but developers have plenty of tools in their repertoire to avert a player’s influence over others’ emotional wellbeing.

    Each piece of your design can and will be used against other players by bad actors if you let them. I should know… I love being an annoying prick in online games, especially when I’m better than my opponent. Do I think that’s a particularly pleasant personality trait? Hell no! There will always be a place for people like me in online games, but it should be a result of intentional design and not an accidental byproduct of innocent intentions. Keep in mind how players will play your game beyond the boundaries of your expectations and help avoid tensions among players by resolving those pain points before they become cudgels used to beat your audience into submission.

  • Real-Time Strategy Expectations Versus Reality

    Real-Time Strategy Expectations Versus Reality

    Player expectations can vary depending on a myriad of variables too varied to count. As a child, I was drawn to the “sexier” elements of real-time strategy games like Starcraft, Warcraft, Command & Conquer, and Age of Empires, such as building a giant army and watching it clash against my opponent’s. Without a clue as to what competitive gameplay looked like and high on passion for the more simulation-style elements of the genre, I struggled to grasp what made these games tick. Watching high-level competitive matches of Starcraft: Brood War and Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne as an adult has exposed the vast chasm between my expectations as a younger player and the reality of winning an actual match online.

    How to Play Terran – Starcraft: Brood War

    I was originally drawn to the cowboys-in-space fantasy that Terran represented; lining tanks up and bombarding enemies with nuclear bombs seemed like cool enough tactics to make the game worth playing as a Timmy/Johnny hybrid. Siege Tanks are undoubtedly one of the most important units in the Terran arsenal, but my least favorite unit has now become the one piece I rely on most in 99% of my own matches.

    The Vulture is an unassuming hovercycle with a grenade launcher and the ability to plant land mines that chase nearby enemies and provide surveillance of the surrounding area. Without much armor and a short attack range, I originally thought that they were primarily a scout unit without much extra utility. Watching any competitive Starcraft: Brood War game with Terran will quickly reveal just how important they are to the race’s game plan. Not only do they provide lightning-fast scouting, but their mines are some of the best area denial and vision abilities in the game. In small numbers, Vultures are vicious harassing units and they also pack quite a punch in larger groups.

    Warcraft 3 is Not an Army Simulator

    Although I played a lot of Starcraft, Warcraft 3 is my favorite game of all time and played a significant part in my childhood entertainment. That being said, none of my Warcraft 3 “ladder” matches involved any of the key components of competitive Warcraft: micro, efficient creeping, harassing, and unit diversity. My goal was often to mass a specific unit and smash my head on the keyword in an attempt to appeal to the almighty random number generator. Not only is high-level Warcraft 3 more about leveling Heroes, but armies are often small, varied groups of units that play off of each other’s strengths.

    I now realize that heroes that are generally considered great choices are completely opposite to the ones I liked most and for completely different reasons. Splashy and dramatic spells pale in comparison to the ability to summon “more dudes” to fight your opponent. The Farseer, Firelord, and other summoners dominate the competitive landscape together with heroes who provide passive benefits to their armies like the Death Knight and the Keeper of the Grove. Having more boots on the ground in a game about small skirmishing armies makes sense to me as an adult, but it was completely lost on me as a child.

    There was a reason I played more custom games than ladder matches, but as an adult, I now fully appreciate the value of a Circlet of Nobility. Minor stat benefits aren’t often attractive to Timmy or Johnny, but I’ve aged into being more of a Spike in my early 30s. Despite Blizzard’s downfall and the demise of Warcraft 3: Reforged, I suspect I’ll be playing Warcraft 3, Starcraft: Brood War, and other real-time strategy games in the future.

    Speaking of which, I just helped fund Zero Space, a new RTS game that seems to land somewhere in between Starcraft, Warcraft, and Warhammer: Dawn of War. Check it out on Steam and Kickstarter.

  • 5 Lessons 10th Edition Warhammer 40,000 Should Learn From Age of Sigmar

    5 Lessons 10th Edition Warhammer 40,000 Should Learn From Age of Sigmar

    Games Workshop’s flagship tabletop wargames are just as distinct as they are similar. Both games have developed in parallel over the past few years and still have lessons to learn from one another. With Warhammer 40,000’s 10th edition just around the corner, now’s the time to theorize what the new rules set might look like.

    5. Remove the Psychic Phase

    This lesson could just as easily be learned from the success of Horus Heresy’s 2nd edition, but Age of Sigmar similarly benefits from the removal of a dedicated magic phase. Whether you prefer being able to move before or after casting spells, cleaning up unnecessary complexity will go a long way toward making Warhammer a more approachable game for everyone.

    4. Improve Overwatch

    Neither 40k’s Overwatch nor Age of Sigmar’s Unleash Hell are perfect by any means, but the disparity between which models/factions can actually take advantage of their respective anti-charge mechanics shows a clear favor towards the fantasy approach. Unleash Hell allows the defending player to shoot their opponent at a -1 to hit deficit after a successful charge move is made. These two changes in conjunction make for a much more impactful mechanic, but one or the other alone might make Overwatch more than a niche universal strategem.

    3. Adjust Secondary Objectives to be More Reactive

    No plan survives first contact with the enemy, although the current rules for Warhammer 40k wouldn’t show it. Locking each player into three secondary choices from the onset of a match does little to encourage flexibility and quick thinking from players. Age of Sigmar’s Battle Tactics may not be lauded for their design, but they at least allow players to react to what has already happened on the battlefield and change their plans accordingly.

    2. Simplify Morale

    Why Morale involves two separate dice rolls is beyond me. Everyone complains that morale doesn’t matter enough, so having something more similar to Sigmar’s battle shock might help kill two birds with one stone; that or it could just give folks more things to complain about.

    1. Free Warlord Traits and Relics

    Warhammer is always in flux, so this may simply be a symptom of a specific meta-game that we will soon forget. However, 9th edition’s recent change to force players to pay Command Points pre-game to select warlord traits and relics is something I would immediately reverse. Building a list is an engaging part of the process for many different players and forcing them to sacrifice a vital resource to access flavorful aspects of their army is antithetical to allowing players to differentiate themselves and their lists.

    What do you want to see most of Warhammer 40,000’s 9th edition? Let me know in the comments below.