Posted April 17, 2019
Fantasy Wars could have been ALOT better. Instead, I am glad I only paid a $1 for this game. Just terrible design.
1.) It is NOT a strategy wargame, fantasy or not. It is a puzzle-solving game. You replay the same missions over and over so you can figure out how to get the Gold result. The solutions are never based on actual tactical or strategic thinking, but are just exercises in general puzzle-solving as the optimal result depends strictly on you knowing beforehand what obstacles you face. The game does not reward good strategy and tactics as it should.
2.) It has an artifical built-in design choice that PENALIZES prior success. This being, of course, the unit cap. If you do happen to have more units than the cap, you should be allowed to use those units. The cap is absurd and has no point in existing except to somehow 'balance' a game - but as the game is a puzzle-solving exercise that requires multiple play throughs on any given map to get the best result, the concept is silly.
3.) When compared to either HOMM or FG, the game really fails to hold up. FG also ran into the 'puzzle-solving' dilemma, but not on every map, and while it also had a unit cap that cap was much higher. I rarely bumped into the unit cap in FG the way I do in FW. HOMM also had more interesting map layouts.
4.) AI for FW and FG are about the same. Essentially the CPU knows where all your units are, and unless scripted to act otherwise, will just rush and attack your weakest units within range. The AI in HOMM is definitely superior.
5.) Graphics are nice, but FW's graphics actually hinder play. Given the fact it is closer to FG than HOMM, I personally find the top-down perspective of FG much better. Selecting and moving units is occassionally frustrating in FW. Not all the time, but often enough to bear mentioning. Never have these problems with FG or HOMM.
6.) Storyline; FW is weak in this department, essentilly being a Warcraft-plot clone. Not entirely, but very close.
In summary, Battle for Wesnoth, a free-to-play game, is immensely superior in all respects, save in graphics. But as I find graphics to be a secondary concern (hence the reason why i still grind away playing older games) Wesnoth's primitive graphics are not an issue. FG, the truly awesome classic, is also superior, or equal to, FW. HOMM is, of course, superior as well at it just plain plays better.
I like what the designers of FW shot for, but poor level design (being far to puzzle-solving focused at the expense of tactical and strategy concepts), poor storyline, somewhat cartoonish graphics, and weak AI really keep this game from making any meaningful impact on me.
1.) It is NOT a strategy wargame, fantasy or not. It is a puzzle-solving game. You replay the same missions over and over so you can figure out how to get the Gold result. The solutions are never based on actual tactical or strategic thinking, but are just exercises in general puzzle-solving as the optimal result depends strictly on you knowing beforehand what obstacles you face. The game does not reward good strategy and tactics as it should.
2.) It has an artifical built-in design choice that PENALIZES prior success. This being, of course, the unit cap. If you do happen to have more units than the cap, you should be allowed to use those units. The cap is absurd and has no point in existing except to somehow 'balance' a game - but as the game is a puzzle-solving exercise that requires multiple play throughs on any given map to get the best result, the concept is silly.
3.) When compared to either HOMM or FG, the game really fails to hold up. FG also ran into the 'puzzle-solving' dilemma, but not on every map, and while it also had a unit cap that cap was much higher. I rarely bumped into the unit cap in FG the way I do in FW. HOMM also had more interesting map layouts.
4.) AI for FW and FG are about the same. Essentially the CPU knows where all your units are, and unless scripted to act otherwise, will just rush and attack your weakest units within range. The AI in HOMM is definitely superior.
5.) Graphics are nice, but FW's graphics actually hinder play. Given the fact it is closer to FG than HOMM, I personally find the top-down perspective of FG much better. Selecting and moving units is occassionally frustrating in FW. Not all the time, but often enough to bear mentioning. Never have these problems with FG or HOMM.
6.) Storyline; FW is weak in this department, essentilly being a Warcraft-plot clone. Not entirely, but very close.
In summary, Battle for Wesnoth, a free-to-play game, is immensely superior in all respects, save in graphics. But as I find graphics to be a secondary concern (hence the reason why i still grind away playing older games) Wesnoth's primitive graphics are not an issue. FG, the truly awesome classic, is also superior, or equal to, FW. HOMM is, of course, superior as well at it just plain plays better.
I like what the designers of FW shot for, but poor level design (being far to puzzle-solving focused at the expense of tactical and strategy concepts), poor storyline, somewhat cartoonish graphics, and weak AI really keep this game from making any meaningful impact on me.
