Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Mark Marrow
01 Nov, 2006

Stronghold Legends Review

PC Review | Strong and legend are two words that should never be associated with this game.
Another month, another real-time strategy game. It’s really beginning to become incredibly frustrating, since every month we have to play yet another RTS that either borrows ideas from other games and ruins them completely or games that just blow up in your face due to sheer disappointment. Stronghold Legends is both of those aforementioned examples. It borrows many of the typical clichéd ideas from past, and brilliant, RTS games, all the while self-destructing due to its poor execution on all accounts; resulting in quite possibly the worst real-time strategy game ever.

Stronghold Legends strays away from previous instalments in the series, opting for a more mythical based theme and focusing more on traditional real-time strategy gameplay elements rather than the luxury of building impenetrable castles that was found in the original. This time, Legends allows you to play as three different historical figures and their armies, bearing several differences between one another. King Arthur’s army is the more traditional medieval class where you’ll be able to create great legions of knights and wizards, Siegfried includes a number of ice creatures such as polar bears, dwarves and ice giants, and finally Vlad the Impaler and his army consist of more demonic creatures such as bats and dragons.

The game is broken up into several areas, including a campaign mode, custom maps, multiplayer options, as well as a Risk-like battle option. The campaign mode progresses from race-to-race, while the other modes consist of basic skirmishes with different goals. While the game usually provides large battlefields, there’s quite often a lack of variety between your goals during these matches. In the campaign mode it’s basically a battle of strength where you’ll be fighting constantly rather than fulfilling a variety of goals. As shown by the game’s name, you’ll be able to train a number of legend characters to fill your army; such as Merlin the Wizard. These units usually boast excellent skills in combat, as well as having access to magical abilities where you can summon additional units, fireballs or defence auras.

While the transition to a more real-time strategy focus isn’t as well meet as expected, the variety now offered with the inclusion of more units and races does offer a bit more attraction for depth and tactics when opposing opponents. In previous versions it was usually difficult to take out archers mounted in towers, however, now this isn’t much of an issue with the flexibility available with more units. Units in flight can usually act as the perfect choice in taking these units out, as well as there being giants that act as the perfect choice in laying sieges. As opposed to this though, there’s a significant problem with unit balancing and the game's inability to counter-attack some of these new additions. Due to the game’s terrible AI performance, it usually becomes impossible to take down units in flight, as they'll continue to cause havoc to your castle without any resistance.

Castle-building is still a focus in the game, but lacks the enjoyment that was found in previous versions

Castle-building is still a focus in the game, but lacks the enjoyment that was found in previous versions
Close
It baffles the mind why these additions of fantasy creatures were even added in the first place. It strays quite significantly from previously versions in terms of theme, feeling quite unsuited for the game itself. Each race will mainly consist of traditional units such as archers, knights and swordsmen, however you have the choice to include the additional fantasy-themed units such as giants and dragons in the mix for little added purpose. It seems as though these features have only been tacked on to meet the expectations of gamers, rather than actually extending on existing ideas. It’s appalling that the game lacks any explanation as to what buildings provide too. You’ll hover over buildings such as barracks, inns and siege camps where they’ll give you no indication as to what they provide. This is also reflected onto when deciding what units to construct too, with there being no listing of strengths or weaknesses shown. So, for the early parts of the game, you are playing in trial-and-error until you learn the benefits of units and buildings.

If the game wants to play with the big boys in the real-time strategy genre, then it wouldn’t have hurt if the game included some fairly simple and essential features. Combat is a cluttered mess, and feels extremely dated compared to recent outings in the genre. There is no combat collision, the AI is unresponsive to your commands and the resource requirements are far too complicate. Firstly, the game’s AI is an absolute mess. Say for instance you want to attack an enemy, you’ll often find that only several units from the ones you selected will react to the command; with the rest just standing there completely oblivious to what’s going on around them. Not only this, but units won’t react to most fights in front of them. You could have the enemy only metres away from you, and yet neither of them will attack one another. Also, your units may even be fired on and they won’t even react.

The game forces players to accumulate far too many requirements before even beginning an army. In addition to the traditional resources such as stone, wood and food; you're required to manage silly resources such as different foods (apples, cheese), various weapon equipment (bows, crossbows, swords, spears) and variations in armour too. Rather than having the comfort of relying on wood and stone to build a regiment of swordsmen, you’ll need to have your workers gather wood, stone and iron just to satisfy the needs of supplying a sword or piece of armour for one unit. You’ll need to construct several buildings such as armour smiths and bowyers just so you can supply your men with these essentials too. This ultimately slows down the entire process of making quick and easy armies, since you have to spend a lot of time in processing raw materials into equipment for your units.

Hello, detail? Are you here?

Hello, detail? Are you here?
Close
Legends lacks an incredible amount of detail too. Units consist of simple, one coloured textures with no added detail to their face, armour or weapons. This lack of detail also reflects on the overall look of the game and the buildings. There’s very little variety between each race – each race has virtually all of the same buildings with little-to-no differences between them. Special effects such as fire and building destruction look equally dreadful. Fire is layered in square patches, units don’t burn, and when buildings are hit by heavy artillery there’s no indication made. Overall, the game looks unbelievably uninspiring when looking at it from a visual point of view.

Audio isn’t much better, especially with misinforming voice prompts popping up throughout the game. These voice prompts will tell you that you’re under attack despite there being no enemies even near you, as well as misinforming you when enemies are approaching your castle. The voice acting for units and key characters is very generic and provides absolutely no immersion at all, with everything appearing as though it was unemotionally read straight off a piece of paper.

Stronghold Legends is an unbelievably dull game that lacks any sort of imagination or detail. It has combined some of the most dated gameplay elements of real-time strategy games, only to rework them into a complete and utter mess. There’s probably one good thing in the game, and that’s its depth; besides that, everything is just a poor version of something we’ve come accustomed to several years ago and grow tired of now.
The Score
Legends has ruined many of the fun elements of previous Stronghold games, and reuses clichéd real-time strategy themes such as dragons and magic that really make no sense at all to the final product. If you actually see someone going to buy this game, please steer them away from doing so. We beg of you! This game is rubbish. 4
Looking to buy this game right now? PALGN recommends www.Play-Asia.com.

Related Content

Caesar IV Review
19 Oct, 2006 Despite the inclusion of some refreshing features, Caesar IV is a game you'll likely try to forget.
Sonic Riders Review
01 Apr, 2006 Riding the waves of life.
Everybody's Golf Review
17 Oct, 2005 Fore! Well, in North America, anyway...
16 Comments
3 years ago
Post removed at the request of the author for not wanting "to be associated with some developer crusade against your website."
3 years ago
the game was never going to turn too many heads. It was based on the Stronghold 2 engine which, let's face it, can't hold a candle to its RTS peers. but i think i could write a 4/10 review with some decent justification. this guy obviously didn't play any of the other Stronghold games.
3 years ago
shetlander wrote
All this reviewer has shown is his inablility to read a manual (or for that matter, a popup on a command button), and that he didnt actually play most of the game.
Most of the issues mentioned are not actually issues, just his terrible terrible grasp of how to play RTS's. To build troops you have to make (at most) 2 products like a sword and armour.. and many units only require gold. Food is related to the popularity of your people, but the reviewer managed to miss most of these concepts in his lightning quick skim over this game.
This is the worst attempt to review a game i have ever read... and unlike the review, this is a considered opinion with facts to back it up.
Please remove this joke of a review, it just makes your website look bad.
icon_surprised.gif
Well i havnt seen a post like that in a while. I wasnt expecting a great game, and the review backed this up...
3 years ago
Opinions differ from person to person. And a game that had once been about the construction of your castle, and the economy based around that, has turned into a joke of a series. It happened with the previous title in the series when they showed that they wanted to focus on real-time strategy elements rather than that customisation.

And I think if it wants to be a RTS game then the least they could do was make it play like one - terrible AI, lack of detail and over complicating things such as building your army isn't exactly a rewarding experience at all. And a game that forces you to get stuck in the wishy-washy of building several pre-requisites before even developing your army, even though this game is primary a RTS game? It's troublesome and slows down the entire game.

Sure, take the opinion of someone who is obviously oblivious to the problems and thinks this game is a true highlight for the RTS genre. However, expect to be incredibly frustrated when most of the features shown in this game are cliched, reused concepts and ideas that have been used in virtually every single RTS game for the last several years. This game brings absolutely nothing to the series, but makes you appreciate the more recent efforts from Relic (Company of Heroes, Dawn of War) and even games such as Battle of Middle-Earth and Age of Empires III.

Really, I have no idea what you want me to say. This game is terrible. You can debate all you like about it not being a similar game to Age of Empires III (for example), but really it's a RTS game and it has terrible flaws throughout the entire game.
3 years ago
I would like to throw something out there, really wild:

Maybe the game just isnt any good *shock horror!*

Average Review on GR = 56%
3 years ago
I have never made any claim about the game, my comments are aimed squarely at the review. When you said " Sure, take the opinion of someone who is obviously oblivious to the problems and thinks this game is a true highlight for the RTS genre" you have once again missed the point. I have yet to offer an opinion on the game you see...

Just to touch on some of my issues with your review. :

"Due to the game’s terrible AI performance, it usually becomes impossible to take down units in flight, as they'll continue to cause havoc to your castle without any resistance." - you can shoot down the flying units, its just not easy. If you could easily shoot them down, i expect you would then mention how stupidly easy they are to kill. Defensive structures like dragon harpoons or simply archers will do the job for you.

"It’s appalling that the game lacks any explanation as to what buildings provide too. You’ll hover over buildings such as barracks, inns and siege camps where they’ll give you no indication as to what they provide". This is an incredible statement to make, since every single building has a rollover popup explaining exactly what it does. This was the statement that infact made me wonder how long you actually played the game for. Not only this, but there is a whole in-game helpfile that also explains the use and links for every building and unit.


" ..., but units won’t react to most fights in front of them. You could have the enemy only metres away from you, and yet neither of them will attack one another. Also, your units may even be fired on and they won’t even react." This statement again makes me question your review.. as this is obviously you having your troops on "STAND GROUND" stance, where they will remain in place no matter what. I decided that you just didnt know about these, you have not taken the time to read the manual, rollover popups or game helpfile, and thus can hardly give it a fair review.


"In addition to the traditional resources such as stone, wood and food; you're required to manage silly resources such as different foods (apples, cheese)" - again, this statement is nonsense. The food you are collecting in your first statement ARE these 'silly resources', so again i question how long you played the game.

I suspect that in order to quickly review this game, you skipped across each area of the game (which would explain why you described the Legends Trails section as 'Risk like'... since it might resemble the risk boardgame if you just glance at it). From what i can gather you wanted to just chuck an army around the map to see what they did, and because you couldnt work out what buildings did what (cos that would involve playing the game), you have described it as complicated to do. Even a basic scan of the game would let you realise that you can even buy weapons if you choose to.

You seem to have missed the unit commands and controls entirely, based on how you describe combat.

Now, based on all that, i decided you have not given this game a fair review since it seems you havent played it all that much. Again i stress i am NOT COMMENTING ON THE GAME ITSELF>> just the review.
3 years ago
Your review is terrible, you have lied your way through it.
How long did you actually play the game for? Giving this game such a low score and affecting people's buying choices is terrible.
What do you mean when you say 'misinformed voice prompts come on all the time?' 'The game lacks any imagination as to what the buildings do?' What about the popup's, help file or manual?
'Combat is cluttered?' It's way better than Stronghold 2?

'Lacks imaginations?' Hello, werewolf launcher anyone, creepers. The new market place system. KOTH, Economic and CTF modes in mutliplayer? Arthurs knights with magically powers, etc.

I highly recommend opening the box next time you review a game.

Finally, 'Not only this, but units won’t react to most fights in front of them.' Did you put them on the agressive stance or did you leave them on stand ground so you could slag of the game some more?
3 years ago
Is this review a joke?

Several of the so-called points are totally wrong and many of the complaints could be solved by actually knowing how to play the game (1. read the manual, 2. play the tutorial, 3. read the tutorial bits in between missions). For example:

Quote
It’s appalling that the game lacks any explanation as to what buildings provide too. You’ll hover over buildings such as barracks, inns and siege camps where they’ll give you no indication as to what they provide. This is also reflected onto when deciding what units to construct too, with there being no listing of strengths or weaknesses shown. So, for the early parts of the game, you are playing in trial-and-error until you learn the benefits of units and buildings.
With the three steps I mentioned above, none of these are problems. I can't remember the lengthy "Command & Conquer" RTS series or "Warcraft" ever having ingame tooltips to explain exactly what each building does or what the strengths and weaknesses of each unit is, but they're regarded as some of the best games ever made. Read the material the game gives you and you receive a full explanation of everything!

Quote
Not only this, but units won’t react to most fights in front of them. You could have the enemy only metres away from you, and yet neither of them will attack one another. Also, your units may even be fired on and they won’t even react.
Once again, learn how to play the game and use the options it gives you. Simply placing units into aggressive or defensive mode means they will attack nearby units and respond to missile fire. For someone who seems to have played the other Stronghold games, it's strange to have missed an option that's been there from the start.

I was also amused by the following:

Quote
The game forces players to accumulate far too many requirements before even beginning an army. In addition to the traditional resources such as stone, wood and food; you're required to manage silly resources such as different foods (apples, cheese), various weapon equipment (bows, crossbows, swords, spears) and variations in armour too.
So he complains about how the legendary units are too different from other Stronghold games and he complains that this classic Stronghold mechanic is left in? IGN said the game's economics was too dumbed down, but this reviewer still finds it too hard. I respect his right to an opinion but I fail to see how he can mark a game down for simply being different to the game he wanted to play. Stronghold has always been about collecting different resources and provides more variety and depth to the gameplay through this.

Quote
Units consist of simple, one coloured textures with no added detail to their face,
It's not FireFly's fault you don't play with textures set to maximum, because my SHL units clearly have detailed faces. Eyes, nose, mouth, present and correct, and it looks good!

Quote
Special effects such as fire and building destruction look equally dreadful. Fire is layered in square patches, units don’t burn, and when buildings are hit by heavy artillery there’s no indication made. Overall, the game looks unbelievably uninspiring when looking at it from a visual point of view.
Once again, the reviewer seems to be playing a different game to the one I'm playing. Fire looks excellent and building destruction is brilliant, you can see planks of wood and bits of the building go all over the place as it falls apart. Units do burn! Perhaps he's playing with all his graphics set to low or something, but again, you can't mark a game down for that.

Quote
These voice prompts will tell you that you’re under attack despite there being no enemies even near you, as well as misinforming you when enemies are approaching your castle.
Blatant nonsense. I've been playing the game for many hours now, and that has never happened to me. They're always accurate.

Quote
Stronghold Legends is an unbelievably dull game that lacks any sort of imagination or detail.
Ironically they have a picture of a werewolf catapult above this line. Lacking in imagination? I've never heard or seen of such a thing before! Many other legendary units are totally unique to this game as well.

I know I shouldn't get so bothered about things like this, but as an aspiring games developer myself it irritates me to see a review of this game which at best is badly written and at worst is an outright lie. I could understand (if not always totally agree with) the Stronghold 2 reviews as people were frustrated with the bugs and problems, but I simply can't understand why SHL seems to be doing even worse. This review ignores the great music and numerous multiplayer additions and options.

I get a very strong feeling that you had a quick go at the game, browsed through the options (As "shetlander" said, how is the skirmish trail mode anything like Risk? You'd only think that if you'd spent a moment looking at it.) and decided you could be bothered to play it or even read the manual.

I'm not attacking your right to an opinion, I can certainly understand that not all people will enjoy a game even when others do. But the review is simply full of misinformation and proveably false statements.
3 years ago
HicRic wrote
proveably false statements.
Eh? ...reads comment again... eh?

You must have forgotten to post the proveably false statement. All I saw was was opinion based arguments. If I'd said "I think the sky looks good because I like blue" and you say "No you're wrong because I think blue looks bad" then this would be exactly the type of argument you're trying to have about the review.

Anyway check out the titles that Mark has reviewed recently; http://palgn.com.au/list.php?author=53&type=2

If there was one person I'd trust to review this game, it'd be Mark icon_smile.gif
3 years ago
James,

Mark has already edited one and deleted another proveably false statement.

The edit was changing "copper" to "iron".

The deletion was removing "Number of Players: 1" from the game info.



Here's another "false statement". In The Score, under Gameplay, he states:
"A very dated experience that features many errors that have been long forgotten in RTS games, and not to mention that the fun areas of previous instalments have now gone completely."

What fun areas have been removed?
3 years ago
You must have forgotten to read my post:

Quote
Not only this, but units won’t react to most fights in front of them. You could have the enemy only metres away from you, and yet neither of them will attack one another. Also, your units may even be fired on and they won’t even react.
Quote
It’s appalling that the game lacks any explanation as to what buildings provide too.
Proveably false.

There has clearly been a lack of time and effort been put into this review, and I felt compelled to say so. The core of my complaint is not with opinions (although they clearly differ here).

Of course, it's your review site and you can probably write whatever you jolly well like about the game, but I dislike falsehood and you have provided a feedback option, so here I am.
3 years ago
Have you played a final version or the demo? Just out of curiosity.
3 years ago
Luke,
I've played the Demo and enjoyed it. The full games have always been better than the demos.

The SHL demo seemed to run much better than the SH2 demo, and reflects the effort Firefly put into improving their 3D engine, among other things.

I wanted to read an honest review of the game. How are the 3 single player storylines? How are the various Multiplayer modes (King of the Hill, etc)? How do the new AI's compare to the SHC and SH2 AI's? I don't see that in Mark's review.


James,
I took your advice and read a few of Mark's other RTS reviews.

Ignoring the grammatical and spelling errors (e.g., lack of parallel sentence structure, incorrect use of its vs it's, etc), he appeared to do his best to learn the games and communicate his impressions to the reader. The reviews appeared to be thorough and somewhat fair, although he seemed to compare all RTS games to some "ideal" game. I'd like to know what that game is.

With respect to this review, it is not of the same calibre as his other reviews. I won't speculate as to why, but to me, it appears neither thorough nor fair.
3 years ago
Ah, I wondered where all this stuff was coming from. One of the developers has posted in a couple of fans sites basically asking people to flame us in comments thread icon_eek.gif
3 years ago
Incorrect - nobody has asked anybody to flame you, and we've remained civil throughout. I'm not just posting here to be an annoyance (what would be the point? you could just delete me). I genuinely feel the review was unfair and not made to the standard it could be, regardless of my position as a player of previous stronghold games. If it hadn't been full of inaccuracies but had still given it a low score, I wouldn't have had a word to say really.

I've played both the final version and the demo. I feel that the game can genuinely provide some fun for gamers and that many of the 'negative points' written about are simply not right. I'm not going to push this much further as I can see nothing will come of it.

However, I do applaud you for at least allowing comments on the reviews to be made and not just simply censoring us because we spoke against you.
3 years ago
Quote
Please remove this joke of a review, it just makes your website look bad.
Quote
I highly recommend opening the box next time you review a game.
Quote
Is this review a joke?
"Flaming is the act of sending or posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting." - Wikipedia

Your so called "inaccuracies" are minor and insignificant. None of this changes the overall sentiment of the review. Obviously you're going to like the game after looking at it through the rose coloured glasses of a fan. At the same time you need to respect that we're here to provide an review that's suitable for the general public - not SH fans. Game rankings has the game at 56% which means it's basically just a terrible game. If you want to read positive comments on the game, then stick to fan sites.

We don't censor negative comments on our forums, but that doesn't mean I think your posts are logical or reasonable. Anyway, this is clearly going nowhere. I think for the sake of everyone's sanity I'm going to lock this thread.
Add Comment
Like this review?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/Sv

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
  Pre-order or buy:
    PALGN recommends: www.Play-Asia.com

Australian Release Date:
  Out Now
European Release Date:
  Out Now
Publisher:
  2K Games
Developer:
  FireFly Studios

Extra:
Minimum System Requirements:
Windows 2000/XP/Vista
CPU 1.6 Ghz
512 MB RAM
2.5 Gb
Video 64 Megabyte (GeForce3/Radeon 8500 +)
DirectX 7 compatible
DirectX 9.0c

Recommended System Requirements:
CPU 2.0 Ghz
512 MB RAM
2.5 Gb
Video 128 Megabyte w/ DirectX 8 support

Read more...
Currently Popular on PALGN
Bioshock 2 Review
Welcome back to Rapture...
Win 1 of 10 Bioshock 2 packs
Includes free stuffs!
PALGN Weekly Releases - 08/02/10
Christmas in February?
Dante's Inferno Review
Is it Divine, or unwittingly Comedic?