"KUF begins with a nice enough, though still ordinary, animated cutscene. Guess what? A peaceful human village is slaughtered by orcs! Can you imagine! The scene then shifts to a couple of knights sitting at a table banging their mailed fists. Either the orcs have them upset or Dominos is late with their pizza order. Hard to tell, but you've now entered the trite world of KUF."

Comments?

If you check the KUF webpage the lack of savegames is explained (it isn't a good excuse). You have to dig around a bit.

Yeah, someone else posted that in another thread on this board. It's pretty whacky, and I bet most players would prefer a save game to stats.

Its like Warcraft 2 but with worse gameplay and AI. Everyone is dumb as shit and you really need to take them step by step. The gameplay isnt really good, it doesnt respond well.

The Rpg is quite shit actually. Its just boring and way too easy.

Yeah, the one RPG level I tried was just dreadfully dull. Interesting idea, terrible execution.

Hello..

In my opinion, If you play this game more(maybe it can be hard thing to someone..) you will like it because this game will show many wonderful features gradually during you master this game..

Have you ever used magical abilities this game have? It is so good enough as much as you forget about some problems which will be cured by patch.

Anyway, in my case as a player played this game over 1 month, I recommend you to buy this game with confidence.

Unfortunately, doragoon, they shot themselves in the foot by not implementing in-mission saves. There just aren't going to be a lot of gamers who are willing to put up with that.

I have to echo what Mark said. I'm several misssions into the game now, and as you would expect, the missions become longer and longer, and the lack of a save game feature makes it more and more of a chore. Make the mistake of getting one of your heros killed near the end of a mission and your about ready to kick in the monitor.

Also the RPG missions just aren't all that interesting. The game basically funnels you down a maze. And you know that if there's more than one way to go, one area is the path and the others are just little side areas with potions and such to pick up. True, the combat doesn't have the frenetic clicking of Diablo, but it also doesn't have the adrenaline kick. It also doesn't offer the tactical depth of the Black Isle RPGs. The result is just kind of blah.

I hear the AI will be fixed for the US release, and believe me, this is still a much better game than Warcraft2. Just try masterting all the magic spells and heroes. For me those were good enough to convince me to keep playing the demo as they are so fun to use.

V1.07a Patch released.......


very good pathfinding + more......

Yes, but they still haven't added in-mission saves, which is by far the biggest missing feature.

Yeah, as a single-player game, KUF really has problems due to the lack of in-mission saves.

This is a Korean game and in Korea multiplayer gaming is quite popular, from what I read. I wonder if that's why something that seems so glaring a fault to us made it into the shipping version.

Well, I think it has problems as multiplayer game too, but this has to do with design, not missing features. The multiplayer (and single-player skirmish) game is a pure RTS game, with all the RPG elements, including the heroes, that set the single-player campaign game apart stripped out. As a pure RTS game, I sure can't see any reason to prefer playing this over StarCraft or several other more polished games.

Poor game-option.....

Poor freshness(?).....

But...

Wonderful color!!!

Wonderful magic!!!

Wonderful unit-character design!!!

Wonderful strategy!!!

Man, do I have to click once on an enemy for _every_ sword hit, or am I missing something? I really hope so.

I really don't mind the lack of in-mission saves. In save-anywhere games, players can and do save before every challenging scene, and it squeezes the soul out of the game. (I'd like to see some kind of limited-saves compromise a la Daikatana; it was one of the things that overly pounded-upon game did right.)

Peter

"Man, do I have to click once on an enemy for _every_ sword hit, or am I missing something? I really hope so."

In the Diablo-like levels? I think you do have to click for each hit.

About the saves, the way to do it is to allow players the option of playing in iron man mode. Just let them pick that option when they start a campaign and don't let them change in mid-stream.

"I really don't mind the lack of in-mission saves. In save-anywhere games, players can and do save before every challenging scene, and it squeezes the soul out of the game. "

Peter, allow me to introduce you to Hitman: Codename 47. Hitman, Peter. Enjoy :)

Mark:

Actually, it was in the Warcraft levels that I noticed it. I can't adequately convey how much that annoys me.

Bernie:

Hey, long time no type. :-D

I have not had a chance to look at Hitman yet. What's it like?

Peter

"Peter, allow me to introduce you to Hitman: Codename 47. Hitman, Peter. Enjoy :) "

Yeah, try Project: IGI, too. There really is NO excuse for developers who are too lazy or thoughtless to include an in-mission save.

And for the record, I'd like to know what genius thinks that repeating the same exact game sequence 5 times in a row is even remotely fun?

You would think developers would get this by now, but every year, without fail, there's a batch of games that seem to miss this glaringly obvious point.

We need some kind of special penalty for developers who get this wrong. Playing Hitman all the way through is a good start.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Hey, long time no type. :-D "

Yes, been a little while since the PCGamePro days...what the heck happened over there? All of a sudden the editors stopped using freelancers and all the reviews are written by people with pseudonyms. And what are you up to these days?

"I have not had a chance to look at Hitman yet. What's it like? "

Well, it's not a bad looking game, and you play an assassin in a series of missions where you have to infiltrate a level, do the deed, and exit, usually without being caught. This involves using disguises, dragging the bodies of your victims out of sight, and having an uncannily good sense of timing.

Great potential, but the lack of an in-game save and the game's very demanding requirement of doing things in the perfect sequence is a harsh combination.

I understand what your intentions are when you say, 'save anywhere can suck the soul out of a game', but I think with Hitman, lack of 'save anywhere' sucks the soul out of the player :)

I could be wrong, but the lack of an in-game save always seemed to be a cheap way for developers to make their games "feel longer". If you have to restart each level from the begining if you die, suddenly a game that has 10 hours of gameplay in it has been bumped up to 25 hours of (frustrating) gameplay.

Bernie,

All that happened well after I quit. Some of it obviously had to do with the style of the print magazine, which also uses pseudonyms and caricatures.

:And what are you up to these days?

I'm writing a column called "Game Theory" for the New York Times, working up game book ideas and finetuning a short story. :-D

On the game-saving stuff:

I'd actually prefer a game that allows me to save only at level's end to one that allows me to save anywhere. The latter often makes a level feel like a chore that has to be completed--move, shoot, save, move shoot, save--and can rob a game of its sense of danger and eventfulness. (Nothing's a real threat anymore. You just restore.)

In a game with saves only at level's end, dead is dead and the player is realistically cautious.

The best route is one between the two. Bungie got it right in its Marathon games for the Mac: It used in-game consoles to unfold the story and allow saves at intervals throughout each level. Daikatana encouraged players to fully explore its levels (which are vast) by hiding in their depths jewels which permit additional saves. Soldier of Fortune keyed the number of saves per level to the game's difficulty level. (Can't say I liked either of the last two games, but they had some novel ideas.)

I bought the game accidentally...

I like it, it's look like Warcraft which is game i love from my deep heart..

I play it, killing them, KILL 'tm ALL..

I reach as far as mission 7 from day 2 only, playing Ogre side, i play that mission for about 3 continuse Hours...

I lost a Hero erroneously, i lost, NO in-GAME SAVE, i get angry very angry...

I crashed the CD, and i'm Happy, and i'm continuing my life without it... Thats better

---

Quote:

I bought the game accidentally...

---

"I lost a Hero erroneously, i lost, NO in-GAME SAVE, i get angry very angry..."

Yeah, one of the biggest problems with the game. The dungeon crawl stuff wasn't very good either. It tried to be Warcraft and Diablo and wasn't as good as either, and third-rate Warcraft and Diablo turned out to be unsatisfying.

"No, honey! I didn't MEAN to buy Warcraft III! I swear! It was an accident!"

Ooh, I'll have to try that: "Honest, honey, I didn't mean to come home with Dungeon Siege. I thought I was buying Office XP for work, and you know all those Microsoft boxes look alike."

Sure, ideally the tension of not being able to "creep and save" could add to the game, but usually it does not. One big reason is that you have to design a game specifically to make it work without a save anytime feature--and most developers don't do that. If you can only save at the end of a mission/level, then the level should be designed so that a cautious, skilled, and careful player could routinely get through without ever dying. Instead we get no saves, AND ample opportunity to get screwed--it seems it's easier to just design a few brutally hard levels and make people play 'em over and over again.

Of course, you could argue that with creep and save designers up the difficulty significantly, knowing you will be saving. That too is bad game design.

What I'm finding in MechCommander 2 so far is pretty good--you can quick save (one slot), but the missions are such that rarely will you need it. It's nice to know it's there, so you can save after each segment of a mission, but you don't end up relying on it.

For me the logic is simple. You want danger and stress? Don't save. Just don't. If you want to "save and creep" then do it. Enjoy. Have fun.

I never quicksave/save unless I've just completed something annoyingly hard (that I don't want to repeat), I've died a few times in a row and it's irritating now, or I have to go do something else.

I don't understand the argument in any other context. Having save-anywhere lets anyone play the way they want. What's wrong with that?

-Andrew

"or I have to go do something else."

And therein lies one of the biggest arguments against not having a save anywhere feature. Nothing like being an hour into a mission and having one of the kids throw up all over the floor and you can't save. Sometimes I think it doesn't occur to designers who use that danger and stress argument that sometimes real life intrudes on game playing.

Hi all

I go through all the problem with the game, ex. bugs, errors, no save...

And i finish the game. So far so good, but what do i get, there is no ending do you believe that, there is no end of the game no ending story no ending movie, and they leave you at the top of the edge. It's really a very bad way to tell us that they have another version to come.

My oponin is they used warcraft fans to sell this idiot game, so tell them to go and ???? themselves.

Ugh, so on the save-game thing, I discovered a disturbing trend in my use of savegames: quicksave as insurance against crash bugs. Bleah.

- Alan

If any one wish the savegames, he can download it just right here:

http://mypage.ayna.com/ammams/Gaba.zip