Welcome to the Home of Game Strategies and Stories
26 Aug 05
I'd like to thank everyone for the positive feedback on the interview. Those of you who didn't like it needn't be shy. I can take criticism. Apparently, some people did have a problem with weird characters showing up in the interview. I believe it was a font problem. It should be fixed now.
Some people have wondered why anonymous comments are turned off. It's simple. We want people like you to join the community here. Then there's also the porn links, virus links, personal insults, mindless leet speak and hack attempts.
If the interview got you interested in the game, you should probably check out the new teaser trailer up on their website. It shows off some of the interface features in action. It's at the bottom of the page Here.
Finally, don't forget about our casual guide to Battlefield 2. As you'd expect work is ongoing in the BF2 section of the Forum. Even small tips or feedback on sections are appreciated. Have a great weekend.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
25 Aug 05
I promised you a special treat today and I don't mean to disappoint. I'm sure some are worried that it's something like an insider's guide to preordering you next generation console. Don't worry, I know my readers.
Today we have another exclusive interview. If you recall, one of our recent games of the week was Sword of the Stars from Kerberos Productions. So now it's my pleasure to bring you an interview with the game's lead designer and CEO of Kerberos Productions, Martin Cirulis. Oh, be sure to check out the new screenshots that accompany the inteview.
1. TS: Let's start simply, your new company is called Kerberos, the three headed dog guarding the gates of Hades. According to your website, the company was founded by members of Barking Dog Studios. What happened to Barking Dog (if you can discuss it) and is there any deeper meaning to the name Kerberos beyond the canine connection?
Very astute. At the basic level the Kerberos logo is a tribute to our roots at Barking Dog, a great company we owe a lot to. No dark mystery about what happened to it. Indeed it was a industry success story. Small developer works hard, puts out great product and is bought up by big publishers. In this case Take 2. The 3 dogs also point out the history of there being 3 companies in this team’s past, Barking Dog, Rockstar, and a little Relic. We always believe in paying tribute to our past. At a deeper level the 3 dogs also represent the three columns of game development; Design, Programming and Art. All should be equally strong in any team. And finally I suppose we like the fact Kerberos is a guard dog and we have a certain feeling of standing for a set of values and philosophies when it comes to gaming. Kind of a holding the line against crap kind of thing.
2. TS: With experience on Homeworld: Cataclysm and Disney's Treasure Planet, a space game seems a natural. How did you decide to go 4X though?
4X was actually the most natural evolution for us. First of all it’s a genre we know and love and secondly, when you have explored the tactical aspects of space combat, the natural next step is to marry it to the big picture. Conquer the universe in order to build those fleets!
3. TS: Cataclysm and Treasure Planet both had very streamlined interfaces, how has this philosophy carried over to Sword of the Stars?
Completely and utterly. Our philosophy is interfaces should always be as intuitive and unobtrusive as possible. If your game mechanics absolutely require some sort of spread-sheet main interface, it may be time to rethink those mechanics. We try and make sure that no information is more than 2 button clicks away and that information is presented is the most organic way possible. Is there a perfect interface? Probably not, especially as a game gets deeper and more complex there are always trade-offs between clarity, organization and screen real-estate, but our aim is always to minimize the downside while keeping things as streamlined as possible.
4. TS: Your website touts quick play as a feature of SotS. That's not normally a feature of a 4X game. How will that work?
It is more of a design philosophy than an exact new way or trick of doing things. Basically we have been feeling like the whole Civ/Moo (ed: Civilization and Master of Orion for any younger players out there) style of 4X game, be it on land or space has gotten ponderous (and conversely the RTS world has just gotten faster and shallower) with games where the first 100 turns are really just about clicking the end turn button while you micromanage a thing or two. For us quick play means the game does not restrict your choices as much as adds to them. If you can find an opponent in the first 10 turns then you can go to war. Granted the ships and tech you will have a 100 turns in will be much scarier, but you can still build good ships right off the bat.
5. TS: Tell us a bit about the background of the universe you've created.
The SotS universe is meant to be a big sandbox where many games can live and play. As you saw in the first trailer, humanity kind of arrives at the party a day late and a dollar short and so must catch up fast. Hence the background references to militia units and such. We are trying to give the impression of a humanity trying to rediscover its talent for war. Now in the standard game all races start of at the same point in size and tech but we will offer scenarios that also reflect the more official story line. If you read the alien backgrounds for our other races you will see that there is plenty of material both for scenarios and future expansions and sequels. We want the SotS universe to live and breathe and evolve.
6. TS: You have four races each featuring a different mode of transportation and technological affinities. What kind of player might prefer each race and why?
Hmm….excellent question. I have actually designed the 4 races to lend themselves to different player types so that there is a game for everyone. For the more traditional 4X player I would suggest the Tarka. Their Hyperdrive is the most traditional movement system and they can expand in a very controllable spherical fashion. For the tactical combat traditionalist I would suggest the humans. Their ship strength and weakness and maneuverability will be very intuitive. Strategically you are dependant on set routes through the stars so get used to defending choke points early and often. The Hivers are great for players who like to craft their empire and get very upset whenever anyone tries to wreck it. Slow strat movement combined with the instant reaction time inside your own gate network means you tend to be very precise about where you are going and what you are doing but then you are completely xenophobic about any intrusion into your space. And finally the Liir are for the player who just has to get their hands on everything new and shiny. The Liir will have the fastest research rate and the largest tech trees on average so they are definitely the race for players who want to build quality not quantity. Our goal is to provide 4 different versions of the same game all within the same game. A player who can master all 4 races will indeed have something to brag about and there will be a special player badge unlocked to help them with their bragging.
7. TS: Master of Orion is generally considered the gold standard of the space 4X genre. Why do you think that is?
Because it was the essence of what people wanted in the 4X experience without the clutter and busy work that has crept into the genre. MOO was about all of the X’s and even supplied a bit of storyline kick with Orion itself. And for the time it had all the gameplay that processors could afford. Sadly though, the legacy of MOO seems to be games that are frozen in time in terms of mechanics and gameplay while simply adding more and more details. In SotS we are trying to pay homage to all that was great in early games like MOO or Spaceward Ho! While asking ourselves, “How would these games be different if they were thought of today for the first time?”
8. TS: Please describe the tech tree. What do randomized techs add to the gameplay?
Well the tech tree is very big and very pretty. It’s organized into 9 general categories ranging over power plants, industrialization, energy weapons, torpedoes, ballistics, drives, CCC tech, Biotech and Warheads. As for the randomization I think it's as important as the advent of 3-D combat was to gaming. As a gamer, nothing kills the excitement of a new game more than finding out my research choices are either painfully obvious or that within a week someone has posted the optimal progression through the tech tree and any deviation from it means near instant death. Branch randomization means a veteran player will ALWAYS have to stay on their feet. You rush to get point defense because you have a perfect plan? Great….what happens in a game where you don’t get it? The same goes for the high-end weapons. What do you do if you don’t get a crack at your prefect superweapon? Go home? If not, I guess we have found a new tier in bragging rights. Those that can win with whatever tools are given them.
9. TS: With the randomized tech tree, will all players have the same tree after randomization? How about players playing different factions of the same race?
Players will have their own uniquely generated tech tree regardless of race. All that players of the same race will share in terms of the tree is they both use the same statistical weights on each branch but whether the “dice” give that branch is determined for each player independently. Not all branches have random weights though so that there will always be a central core of vital techs all players will have in every game. Let's face it, variety is good but no one wants to be stalled at the Stone Age!
10. TS: Speaking of factions within a race, are there separate factions with their own bonuses/handicaps or does a human always play the same?
No, each race plays the same. Factionalism is a simple term to describe two players of the same race who fight each other. We tried to avoid this simple mathematical difference that has become de rigueur in 4X. Faction A is +1 tech faction B is –1 tech but +1 industry. When we introduce a side it is full blown different from the other sides from travel tech, to art, to turret layouts to AI behavior. I don’t know about you but I would rather have 4 real choices than 16 cosmetic ones every time.
11. TS: How is the strategy/tactical balance? In other words, if a player excels at combat can they make up for being behind strategically? Vice-versa?
I would say the balance is one can’t really live without the other. Sure you can shore up some weaknesses in one category by excelling in others. A great tactical whiz will be able to hold off technically and numerically superior foes, but eventually that tactical skill has to be backed up by strategic sense. Think of the player as 2 people; The Emperor and the Fleet Admiral. One has to provide enough and the right type of tools while the other has to know how to apply them. Twitch clicking or Power Math is not going to save you every time.
12. TS: Normally 4X games start slow, have a great middle and a somewhat tedious end game. How did you address this problem?
Well you have gotten the impression of how we have approached the early part of the game and the pains we took to make it more interesting and viable. The mid game is what we have come to call the Cruiser Age, the period when a player has enough worlds to pump out a few cruisers a turn while still keeping up with his research. The late game in SotS is hardly tedious because in our game it is usually the Dreadnought era. These massive battleships are a) truly impressive out in battle with dozens of turret banks engaging multiple targets, and b) are very much world killers if not stopped. So when each fleet action becomes a desperate battle to preserve or destroy a world, things tend to stay real interesting.
13. TS: Take us through the beginning of a multiplayer game. Let's say you're playing the humans. What do you start off with? What's your first concern? How do you get your empire started?
Ok…lets see…haven’t played humans in a month or so, so I may be a little rusty. First off I start with a Size 10 world with a 5K-resource base and 50K in the bank and nothing else. As a human I can see 2 or 3 node lines leading off to nearby stars. Unless I am terribly unlucky at least one of those routes is within the range of my initial drive tech. There are a handful of initial tech ships designed for me, standard stuff for new players (standard command and fission sections mounted on Colonization, Extended Range, Tanker or Armored mission sections.) If it’s not a crowded game then scouting is my first priority. I build a couple of standard extended fission destroyers; they will be ready next turn. Next I go to the tech screen and pick my first project, since I am a big fan of the industrial bonus and the Hammerhead Command section it gives you; I research Waldos in the industrial grouping. And lastly I adjust my spending bar to be about 80% research and about 20% savings. Next turn I send my extended scouts out down the node lines to see what they can see. Ideally I am looking for a world within a hazard rating of a hundred or so. Too much higher and it is going to take a real bite out of my economy to develop it. Even if all I find close by are dead worlds I usually establish way stations at the consisting of a tanker and a couple armored as guards. It should take about 5 to 7 turns to get my Waldo research done. If I have any reason to suspect company I switch to researching the highest tech laser I can access. Hopefully ultra violet if that link appears but I will settle for green if it doesn’t. If I run into trouble early I would like to have my hammerhead armoreds backed up by heavier lasers in the turret mounts. Assuming I find a nice little colony world soon, I build a couple colony ships (the extra ship will contribute its cargo and settlers to the new colony as well for an added boost.) and head on in. If finding a good world takes awhile I will probably research suspended animation so my colony mission sections can carry even more population. Once I land a colony, I switch all output to construction, set the bars to a 90/10 split between building infrastructure and terraforming and then I kick the overharvest in for a couple turns to boost output. You have to be careful with this method because you don’t want to gut the renewable resource base of your new world but it does help power start a new colony. And that all in all should be a good start provided I don’t bump into anyone for the first 15 turns or so.
14. TS: Describe a recent 'epic' battle you fought in the combat engine.
Well you are in luck because thanks to the very windows friendly aspects of SotS, I have been playing a long game over the course of the day while I have been answering your questions. I do my turn, minimize and when the other players are done, SotS gives a sound cue that the next turn is up. And even as I type now the sweat from a particularly epic battle dries on my brow. We are in that aforementioned late game phase and I have finally found my co-designer, Chris Stewart’s Tarka homeworld. It is heavily defended, maxed out light and medium defense satellites and he has a squadron of 14 cruisers for back up! I am playing the Hiver. At this point in the game my nesting fleets are getting big and scary. I am centered on cruiser class ships in general but my new ace in the hole is a prototype Dreadnought. Not the best weapons layout as I don’t really have to income to support a fancy one, but I was able to build it quick and dirty and send it along on this little expedition. Now the thing to realize about any Hiver invasion is that the Hivers only care about 1 thing for the first 2 rounds of combat; making sure their gate ship survives. The first round is pretty easy as with a large enough fleet you can keep the gate ship off the map nestled deep in your off-battle reinforcements. But after you issue the build gate command in the next strat turn, that gate is going to be out and vulnerable for the whole 5 minutes of the following combat round. Any player battling the Hivers knows if that gate survives then the very next strat turn every Hiver ship on the board can teleport in (provided, of course, that they are in the same system with another gate and the Hiver gate traffic capacity for the turn is not exceeded). Now the first battle was bloody but my dread survived and I managed to put down 7 or so of his cruisers. I lost a lot of destroyer support ships though and despite having 2 repair ships along my dread enters the second crucial battle with 2/3‘rds damage and Stewart will be able to tell easily from all the damage effects spewing from the hull.
The battle starts. I pull my cruiser command ship horizontally between the gate and the distant Tarka homeworld to maximize the point defense coverage vs. the deadly planetary defense missile that are already on their way. My dread moves out towards the planet flanked by two, armored cruiser with missile loadouts. I have Antimatter warhead tech so while they will not be firing often, the cloud of medium range missiles the fire will hurt the Tarka cruisers barreling my way. I move up because I have to force him to engage the dreadnought to protect his planet while my gate stays safe at the edge of the system. Of course with the dread barely alive and him using battle-bridge/assault section combos with lancers in his heavy beam mounts, I know this skirmish will not last long enough to keep my gate safe. Shadowing my feint are 2 minelayers bearing deadly anti-matter tracking mines and a Jammer to cloud the whole group on his sensor manager. Before he gets into visual range I see his formation on sensors. No subtlety here. Just a 6 pack of dread killing cruisers in loose formation. His command ship is probably on the other side of the planet; I can’t worry about it for this fight. Since the cruisers are faster and more maneuverable than the dread I know what I would do is blow by and try and gut the dread while pushing on to the gate and so a lay a small trap by halting the dread short of him and laying mines to the side and behind the dread. He opens up first with a spray of rapid-fire photonic torpedoes, light damage and not very accurate against small moving targets but against the dread the hit like a ruby snowstorm. I counter as he enters missile range and I cost him at least one mission section off one of the cruisers and heavily damage another but then he gets close enough for his heavy beams to reach out and ruin my dreads day. I target as many engine sections as I can and reply with the dread heavy beams (weaker as they are only combat lasers) and a spray of anti-matter cannon fire. I have to pull back the cruisers, as with all their medium turrets dedicated to missiles, they are helpless at close range. I manage to blast apart 2 cruisers and take out the engine of a 3’rd before the remaining to sweep by and my dread goes up in a massive fireball. I get the last laugh though as the 2 remaining cruisers plow into the little surprise patches of mines and vaporize. As my missile cruisers take out the crippled Tarka I check the timer, 2 minutes have gone by and I think I might just make it and then his next wave of cruisers clear the crescent of his planets and they don’t look happy.
This is it. Keep my cruisers at optimal missile range but I can only back up so far before the gate is in danger. I harry the charging Tarka with speed passes by my minelayers, looking to create more confusion than damage. But they quickly go down under a hail of gauss rounds. The other problem is as my ships die I begin to start scraping the bottom of the barrel for reinforcements and by the time my missiles cruisers go down there is nothing but my repair cruisers to replace them. While I build them with full combat mission and engine sections, the repair mission section makes them slow and vulnerable and as his last 3 cruisers get into torpedo range of my gate, my last desperate maneuver is to form a physical wall in front of the gate with my command and repair cruisers., letting him hammer away at them with pulse after pulse.
And then the whistle blows, and I live to fight another turn.
15. TS: How is colonization/colony management handled?
From previous answers you may have gathered that it’s handled abstractly with a minimum of busy work. As I have said, SotS is about being an Admiral and Emperor, and definitely not a planet Admin, so planetary development was kept deliberately straightforward. You set what you want the output of the colony to go for...infrastructure and terraforming when the colony is developing and ship construction or trade income later. Technologies you research automatically upgrade some of these factors. Unlike games that have metal or other things to be harvested and then depleted, SotS abstracts the resource level of a planet in terms of RENEWABLE resources. In other words, all things being equal and with a high tech eye to recycling and replanting, a planets resource base remains the same and feeds the infrastructure at a steady pace. Of course, sadly, sometimes there is no time to be green and if a player needs a serious boost in construction points, industry can be put into overharvest mode and the resource base can be consumed in a non-renewable way for a very large bonus. Of course the downside is that the resource base of the entire planet will be lowered permanently every turn overharvest is being used.
16. TS: How does diplomacy work?
Diplomacy is straightforward and simple. You can either be mutually hostile (the default), mutually non-aggressive, allied, or at war. To form an alliance or non-aggression pact you simply send the request to another player during your turn, they receive the message box in real time and decide whether they agree or not and the result will be processed along with the next turn.
17. TS: Espionage?
While I like the idea of espionage in theory, the problem I have with it is in actual mechanics. Currently the state of the art in Espionage gameplay in the 4X field is as follows: Player A adjusts a number. Player B adjusts a number. The game compares numbers and next turn one of the players gets a message box that either a spy is dead or something is blown up. As soon as I figure out a way to make espionage more fun and involving than that, then we will see espionage in a future edition of SOTS. Until then…not so much.
18. TS: Let's go over fleet construction. Three ship classes sounds limiting but that depends on the number of modules, engines, weapons and armor. Sticking with humans, what's an early assault fleet going to look like?
Once again I would like to stress the idea that SotS is about real choices, not an avalanche of cosmetic ones. Over the 3 size classes, each race has approximately 75 sections each, all with their own purpose as well as strengths, weaknesses and turret configuration. Over the past few months not only have I discovered all sorts of new tactics and combinations I never thought of as I laid out the design but I have also been rudely surprised by ships created by other members of the team. And when someone can surprise the lead designer of his own game, I think that is a pretty big clue that limitation is not a problem.
As far as an early fleet goes, that is an interesting question. To me early means Fission Destroyer age and assault means I am looking to tear down someone else’s planet. If I see an early danger then I push for pulsed fission and recombinant fissionables if I can get them. That extra little bit in strategic range and tactical speed can make a big difference early on. For a big defended world you are going to need numbers on the field and constant supply of reinforcements. So first off I will need to do enough research to enable the destroyer command section that will let me field 10 destroyers at once as well as set initial formations and what ships come in when as reinforcements. Since early weapons are not exactly super-planet-killers, I build some assault shuttle destroyers with hammerhead command. If I have point defiance by now I arm the hammerhead section with point defense lasers (or if I have any reason to suspect the enemy has plasma torps, I use gauss pd, less accurate but do a lot more damage and energy torps are big and slow compared to missiles). If I have any beam or torp tech I will build some spinal mount or torpedo destroyers to serve as satellite killers while the rest goes into armored destroyers armed with a mix of gauss and lasers, the mix is in case I should meet up with deflector ships or reflective armor. Anticipating your enemy is never a bad idea in SotS since he has just as many choices as you. And of course if the target is farther than one node leap from one of my worlds, I build a couple of tankers but outfit them as cheaply as possibly as this assault fleet is starting to get pricey.
19. TS: How's development going and when should we look for Sword of the Stars?
Development is going very well. We are in the late pre-Alpha stage and you should see SotS available later in the 4th quarter.
20. TS: Is there anything you'd like to add?
I think that covers about everything for now. If this spurs any questions in any of your readers they are free to come on over to the Kerberos message boards, or any other board where we are hanging out and talking about the game, and ask anything that comes to mind. Thanks for the opportunity to jaw a bit about SotS!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to thank Martin for taking the time to talk to us. It's easy to see he's a truly experienced interviewee. For starting designers out there, please note how he started the interview off with a compliment. Then see how he shares his enthusiasm for the game regardless of the quality of the questions. These things make the interviewer look good. That's the mark of a professional (and it gets people on your side, see how deviously clever it is). Kerberos will be showing off Sword of the Stars at the Penny Arcade Expo if you are attending be sure to check it out. Don't hesitate to post any comments or feedback.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
24 Aug 05
I was going to drop the Xbox 360 pricing topic, but one of my arch enemies has reared its ugly head. Yes, bundles are back. Like an end boss, bundles have sprung back from the dead in a new and more hideous form. Bundles imply that resellers are doing you a favor by letting you preorder from them. Now I'm not talking the type of bundle where they throw in a spare controller and a memory card and save you $10 for buying the package. No, these are much worse.
In one of their previous forms, bundles meant that you had to buy a game or two from the list of launch games. Or perhaps you could choose a game and a controller. Then they morphed into a selection of two "top" launch games. You could no longer choose one of the quirky launch titles. You had to take something from one of the big publishers. Moving on came the themed bundle. You could choose say sports or action and get two games in that category at at launch.
Oh, and look where we are now. Now you don't get to choose your titles at all. You simply select how many titles, or if you want less choice, you simply select the core or premium package. EB gives you the latter choice. You take the four Microsoft games (at $60 apiece), the extra controller and, actually, some accessories (that you'd probably have bought anyway). Oh, don't forget the extra $10 shipping charge (on top of normal shipping charges). EB charges tax in most states so no savings there. They do promise to reflect any price drops in the bundle price. If you really do want all the games in a bundle, don't hold your breath as they reserve the right to substitute for any game not available at launch. Reports are you can still get just the console if you preorder in the store.
Gamestop is pulling out all the stops. They have more bundles, but no greater freedom in your choices. I must say that I am impressed they have the gusto to offer a bundle with a $1200 price tag. I also have to say, I'm glad they're offering games besides just Microsoft titles. Beyond that I don't have much good to say. A five game minimum purchase? No choice in which five games? Requiring the purchase of a one year replacement plan? $700 is the cheapest bundle (and that comes with the 'core' system)? Pretty much the same terms as the EB bundle including the bonus shipping charge. Again reports are console only available in store.
If anyone decides they need one of those bundles, please use the links here. It would definitely help out the site. On the other hand, you can stick to free games.
I should have a special treat for you tomorrow. Cheers.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
23 Aug 05
When the heat is on, it really bakes. Not one of the great sayings of all times, but I'm doing the best I can. In addition to massive heat here, something has started blooming (How? I don't know) that is kicking my allergies into overdrive. Here's hoping this weather breaks soon.
Apparently EA has responded to 2K Sports $19.99 price of NHL 2K6 by releasing NHL 2006 at $29.99. Of course, they kept their exclusive licenses at $49.99. I still say sports games should ship at full price with a new engine (probably once per console generation, maybe twice). Then they should ship at $19.99 for subsequent releases. Of course, the economics of that doesn't work with expensive exclusive licenses. Ideally we'd see something like a $10 online roster update or $20 for the updated version with gameplay tweaks and rosters. There's even less economic incentive for that. If nothing else, this shows that competition works. By the way, Madden 06 is still getting mixed reviews. You know it's tough when the 13 year old kid in the teen section of the Houston Chronicle says it's not worth buying.
In an impressive and bold move, Bill Harris has already named his PC game of the year. It's Space Rangers 2. Readers of some websites might be blind sided by the name, but Talk Strategy readers will probably recall that the Space Rangers 2 was featured here some time ago. I suppose you could argue that such an award is unfair to games that haven't been released yet. Or developers could use it as motivation to prove him wrong. Sounds fun to me.
As a little aside, Space Rangers 2 does use Starforce copy protection. That would be bad, but even though they never admitted there was a problem, the latest version of Starforce seems to have fixed the disk access problems that previous version caused. Even systems that had problems with earlier versions of the driver seem to suffer no ill effects from the current version. That should ease some fears. Also, if you're suddenly interested in Space Rangers 2, remember you can buy it through the GoGamer link Here and help support the site.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
22 Aug 05
The blistering heat of August in Houston is starting to turn my mind to mush. Please forgive any mindlessness occupying this space in the near future.
I've been playing some console first person shooters recently. It's probably a bad idea. I'm starting to get worried about the new Tom Clancy games, Rainbow Six Lockdown and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. Even getting past the floaty controls, there's a certain shallowness to console shooters. It seems odd given the depths in some console strategy games (or even fighting games).
Maybe it's the lack of tension. Maybe it's the lack of immersion. I'm not sure I understand. The Splinter Cell series feels great on the Xbox. Halo 2 has some great online features. The SOCOM series has some nice teamwork features. None of them seem to bring it together for me in a solid package. Maybe I'll change my mind with the next generation of consoles and the higher resolutions. I don't know. Are the mechanics really different or is it just in my mind?
Oh well, let's move on to the game of the week. Once again, we're supporting the little guy. This week's game is War World (official site) from Third Wave Games. It's a tactical mech combat game played in the first or third person. I guess they got tired of waiting for Mechwarrior V. You start with one of three base models (fast and stealthy, balanced, or heavily armed and armored) then customize your weapons load out. War World boasts multiplayer modes, 100 single player levels, over 50 weapons and the ability for your input to direct development of future features. War World (and its demo) are available now.
Jason
Read/Post Comments
© Talk Strategy 2005