Message to video game sequels: Quit fucking up your games!

It's important, I would imagine, when creating a sequel to a game, that you want to stick with your strengths.  Presumably the game sold well enough on some of its merits.  So it's probably a good idea to figure out what those merits actually were.

Case in point, Disciples. 

The first 2 Disciples were put out by Strategy First (I believe).  They were pretty excellent turn based strategy games.  What made them different was the combat system. 

Combat was set on a grid of 6 squares (per side so 12 squares total).  Your had your Hero occupy one of those squares and they had a leadership value (3 to start) that would allow them to command up to three troops.  In most cases a single troop took up one square but some of the big beasties would take up 2 squares (and count as 2 troops). 

It's not genius but it worked damn well.  As you leveled up your hero you would be able to increase their leadership (slowly).  It was a big deal to reach a 4 leadership because a new troop would accompany you.  Sweet.  And 5 leadership meant that you were maxed out and could fill all 6 squares. 

The other important thing to know about the squares is that you had a front row and a back row. 

The troops themselves were quite balanced. 

• Soldier-types (the majority) could only attack to the closest row (which is to say they would typically be in the front row and attacked into the front row of their enemy). 
• Archer types could attack any of the 6 enemy squares but their damage was most often lower than a soldier type
• Wizard types (and big beasties like Dragons) could attack all 6 enemy squares.  But their damage was usually even lower and their initiative was total shit
• Finally you had esoteric magic types - The Banshee could frighten enemies and the Succubus could polymorph enemies.  The dwarves on the other hand could 'buff' the damage of their allies.  The humans could have priests to heal their allies.  

The combat system worked and damn well.  Each unit was clear on its role and what it could do.  Attacks typically had an 80% chance to hit and it listed it right there.  An experienced hero could have an 88%.  So there ya go.  No difficult math, just what you need.  Damage was straight up.  Starter troops could do 30 damage a hit.  Experienced troops could do 50 - 100 or even higher.

Troops had an interesting leveling trick to them.  You had to buy the correct building before you could level them up.  But buildings had a path, however.  You could generally only choose between two paths.  Your Warrior could become a Knight or an Inquisitor.  The former has more HP, the later has a Ward against some types of damage.  The choice is yours and only in a few rare cases the the choice hurt.  And that would only last for that scenario (everything but your Hero resets with each scenario).

So the new Disciples 3 came out.  I was very excited.  The graphics are awesome.  The lands are lush.  The environments are 3D.  The combat...is...

To be fair, the combat is not bad.  It's just that it's completely revamped to be pretty much Heroes of Might and Magic.  If you're not familiar, it's basically run your people around a board and attack each other.  Much like HoM&M, you now have way more 'stats', which are much harder to decipher.  Before, if you had a Healer the game was very clear on how much that healer could heal and...you know...that she IS a healer. 


The new game isn't clear at all.  You have an attack value, which I finally figured out to be your damage output.  The problem is, even healers appear to have an attack value.  Only...it isn't an attack value...it's their healing value.  You have to translate that if your damage type is Divine, that means you only heal with that troop. 

That's fine, I can figure that all out, but I shouldn't have to.  The original game was very clear on this.  And clarity is better. 

The elements are similar but the effect is completely lost.  The 6 square grid was different and fun.  It was like the Final Fantasy games only you had a second line behind to protect your archers and support troops.  Troop placement was simplistic but the game was still tactically very fun.  The goal of every fight was to figure out how best to eliminate the enemy troops and minimize the damage taken.  It hardly seems like there would be much tactics but there were.  Generally your front lines would bash each other but your back line was reserved for archers and mages.  And so was your enemy.  Can you somehow take out a key support of your enemies back lines through your archers?  If so, you could win an otherwise up-hill battle. 

What the game did not need was the re-vamped combat.  What made it unique was it's combat.  You merely improve that, not trash it and give it a entirely different type of combat system.  One thing lacking in the original combat was being able to shift your troops around, if say you had a very badly wounded front line warrior, the idea of shifting him to the back row might have been very interesting.  Criticals add a nice random element (which the new Disciples has).  But having some options for your troops would have added a lot (different types of attacks, for example). 

What's funny is that the company that made this (some Russian company) decided that the building and troops were sacred and so...they are all practically the same.  They look new and great but they function the same.  I for one was hoping that instead of say 2 branches for most units you could have 3 branches.  But no, none of that was touched.  It's the exact same units as the previous game. 

Sadly, what's done is done.  The new game is out.  There is nothing really wrong with the game, but it's not as good as what came before. 

Oh and the voice acting is absolutely terrible.  I mean...this is the worst voice acting I remember in a game ever.