Three interviews with the makers of Legion: Arena have gone up in the last month or so, so this is as good a time as any to post my early impressions based on the coverage.

As I have said before, Slitherine’s games leave me a little cold. Though lovingly made, they never stay long on my hard drive. And, to this point, all their games have been pretty much the same. Legion, Chariots of War, Spartan…fraternal triplets with little to separate them beyond their settings and unit descriptions.

Legion: Arena looks to be a complete break from that. It is being described as role playing strategy. You build an army that must serve you through the wars as you work to become the most powerful general in the world. SimMarius, I guess. Though originally conceived as an online ladder game only, it looks like Slitherine has bowed to customer pressure and included a pure single player game to go with it.

It’s hard to tell from screenshots what exactly will be included and what won’t, but screenshots like this one make me giddy with joy. First, it looks like there are historical campaign setups, but not purely historical since the Romans seem to have elephants in the Samnite War. Second, the unit descriptions have that whole RPG feel to them that will make your troops more than a bunch of redshirts to send to their deaths.

So far we’ve only seen the Romans and Gauls in action, but in the interview with Merlin, Iain McNeil says that players will be able to play through the Battle of Cannae. So there could be more armies and nations coming. All of which makes sense since Legion: Arena is supposed to be the dry run for their upcoming grand strategy game Legion II.

It used to be the case that any ancients type game would have me dropping a deposit on a pre-order, but the flood of recent titles plus the soul-eating experiences of Pax Romana, Celtic Kings, and Alexander are enough to make me cautious. This in spite of the not-so-bad Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great and the amazing Rome: Total War.

Legion: Arena has me officially enthused.

It is a finalist in the IGF awards, so expect more news from this month’s Game Developers’ Conference in San Francisco.

Mad Doc Studios has released a demo for its upcoming sequel to Empire Earth, Gamespy’s game of the year for 2001. The original was designed by Stainless Steel Studios, but they handed the franchise off to Mad Doc for the expansion. Now they are doing the sequel.

Color me underwhelmed. I wasn’t a huge fan of the original game – it was too big and unwieldy for me to get a firm grasp on, and the rock/scissors/paper system that has become standard in all RTS games of this type became confusing when the game got to the later ages. There were so many ifs-thens-buts that planning became mind-numbingly painful. The mix of historical units and sci-fi stuff didn’t work especially well.

The EE2 demo reveals a very pretty game. The graphics are outstanding, with excellent water effects. The winter storms are very convincing, and unit animations are more than satisfactory. But, even for a “same-old RTS” formula, EE2 is boringly familiar. The graphics are great, like I said, but add nothing to the game play. The crown victory condition system does little to encourage the combat that makes these games fun, and in fact pushed me to go into tortoise mode. The AI is great on defense at the default level, but still prefers to send out small squads to attack, eschewing the combined force armies that make Rise of Nations the king of historical RTS.

Yes, it’s only a demo, and you are limited to a few ages. And, EE2 has adapted a lot of concepts that RoN perfected – especially borders and multiple cities. In the end, there doesn’t seem to be much here that makes EE2 a must buy. When I get my hands on a complete copy, expect a more complete review. But at this point, I’m not rushing.

Harpoon was the first computer game that I became addicted to. I would go to my friend Jerry’s dorm room, boot it up and sink a Yankee fleet or two. The more realistic but less user friendly Harpoon 2 left me cold, but I bought Harpoon Classic – the first game with all the battlesets ever made for it – the moment I saw it on a shelf at Computer City. The thrill of steering an Oscar sub into the middle of a carrier group and unleashing hell just never got old.

The sad story of Harpoon 4, then, is one that longtime grognards like me know by heart. It’s a tale of business consolidation, one man’s single-minded desire to bring a game to life and how the fading of wargames as a viable genre means that a game can be in production for six years and still have nothing to show for it.

When Larry Bond posted this message on the Ubisoft page devoted to the game, most hope was already lost. The work on Harpoon 4 began in 1997 at SSI and Mattel. The original launch date was someday in 1999 and, by the appearance of the game in this preview, it was well on its way to completion.

In its initial design, the game would be very similar to the classic Harpoon. The unit icons look very similar and the much touted 3D mode would be used very sparingly by most players. It wouldn’t be eye-candy; it would be an alternate view that would privilege utility over glitz. There would be a pseudo-dynamic campaign in which fleet losses would carry over from scenario to scenario.

The first delay came when SSI changed development teams in late 1998. Crusaders’ Studios was replaced by Ultimation, the developers of Panzer Commander. The official reason was the original group was not a “good fit”. How ill a fit? So ill-fitted that most of the code written by Crusaders was scrapped even though some of the design decisions were kept. Press reports give the impression that Crusader Studios had begun to push for a greater emphasis on the 3D component at the expense of the rest of the project.

The change in teams meant a further delay, though there was still hope that the game would get released in 2000. That deadline came and went. And, in spite of the early worries that 3D was becoming too prominent, whatever screenshots were released tended to highlight the 3D aspects of the game.

The next major shock to Harpoon 4 was the sale of SSI by Mattel to French gaming behemoth Ubisoft in early 2001. Ubisoft decided that it had little interest in pursuing Harpoon 4 – completely understandable considering the state of wargames in the mass market. To paraphrase Bill Gates by way of the Simpsons, Ubisoft didn’t become rich by writing a lot of checks. Ubisoft was more interested in pursuing World War 2 wargames and a modern naval simulation just didn’t make good business sense, no matter how distinguished its pedigree.

By April 2001, though, a bright spot appeared on the horizon. Ubisoft had a change of heart, probably because of the continuing lobbying and commitment of Larry Bond, the brainchild behind the original boardgame and driving force behind the computer series. The mini-crisis of cancellation and renewal undoubtedly delayed production even further.

Fast forward to 2002. At that year’s E3, Executive Producer Carl Norman told Jeff Vitous and Mario Kroll of Wargamer.Com that Harpoon 4 would ship by Christmas “if it kills us.” In an open letter to their fans, Larry Bond promised that the game would be done, though the interface would have to be rewritten. Screenshots that appeared on Gamespot early the next year showed little improvement or even change since the termination of Crusader Studios, though, so if they were not using Crusader code at this point, the similarity of look raised more questions than it answered. Did they revert to Crusader code? If not, did they just keep their interface? And why does the game still look stuck in 1998 four years later? True grognards care little about graphics, but the game was supposed to be a simulation hit that would bring in new gamers to Ubisoft’s wargaming projects. Clearly, a lot of old screenshots are mixed with a few new ones – very few. And the only obviously new shots are of the 3D engine. Any E3 demo was behind closed doors and was very incomplete.

By the end of 2003, the troubled production came to an end. Ubisoft pulled the plug on the game, and despite Bond’s public commitment to keep the dream alive, we hear nothing one year later.

Harpoon 4 could have been the greatest naval sim ever – it even promised multiplayer – but it appears never to have really moved beyond the planning stage. Seven years of promises and speculation have doomed games before (Does anybody really expect Duke Nukem Forever to be any good? Or Grimoire?) But for a wargame to go through these dramatics with no immediate pay offs is suicide.

You could blame the chaotic corporate environment. First, you change developers, and the new ones just don’t seem to be very productive (few screenshots or even concept art, so I think this is a fair judgment). Then your wargame heavy parent company, SSI, is bought out by a game maker with an iffy commitment to your project. Eventually you persuade them to stick with you but you are facing an uphill battle with a real life naval simulation about a global conflict that never happened, and probably never will.

Blaming the suits is the easy way out. The more you read the dismal tale, the more apparent it is that there is no wizard behind the curtain. Promises, promises and little else. The repetitive screenshots are mostly mockups – not real screens – and after six years you have nothing to show journalists that might keep people talking about your game. In an industry that moves as quickly as the gaming business, buzz is everything and buzz means that you have to keep showing people something. In the end, Harpoon 4 had nothing to show anyone.

Simply put, niche genres like wargames can’t afford to take forever to make, especially if you want to make a high end product that requires the deep pockets of a major publisher. If you are willing to invest your own time and money and take you chances with Matrix Games or Battlefront you have a much better chance of success than by depending on the whims of a large gaming house that needs to justify the continued existence of every project.

The lesson is simple. Produce or die.

Thanks to Sid Meier and his minions, I am losing hours of my life playing a game that I already played to death ten years ago. Sid Meier’s Pirates! is consuming time like no game I have played this year, including Rome: Total War. And it shouldn’t.

First, this is a remake. I don’t think anyone is as tired of game designers going back to the tried as true as I am, and few studios are mining the past as effectively as Firaxis. Civ IV is on the way, Civ III was a major success and Pirates is on a lot of top ten lists. Where are the new ideas from the only guy who has earned his name on every box? We had Sid Meier’s SimGolf…and nothing else in a while.

Second, this is one of the most repetitive games on the market. Sail, duel, dance, sail, duel, dance. Ad infinitum. The map doesn’t change, the cinematics don’t change, the menus don’t change. I just criticized a game in a review for having scenarios that are too identical. Pirates is the poster child for identical gameplay.

Third, it’s not really a strategy game. This is an action-RPG – well outside of my bailiwick. Most of the games that really eat my days involve conquering the world, not courting buxom lasses.

Still, it is the most hypnotically replayable game to come out in a long time, largely because of its old-school familiarity and ease of play. You don’t need to understand a lot of rules, but the manual is still thick and readable – with a little bit of humor. Even after you’ve retired seven or eight times, you want to keep coming back to find that last hidden relative or sack Panama.

It’s so old school, so primitive in its basic gameplay that I feel like driving the ninety minutes to Hunt Valley to smack someone. Now if only they’d channel some of that energy into something I haven’t seen before.

The Spanish Main is calling…

Game Daily Biz is searching for the best gaming writers in the world for recognition. There doesn’t seem to be any cash prize or anything; just a chance for writers to be recognized for the stuff they do.

I’d take this chance to list all my favorite game writers, but I’d be sure to leave someone out. And, since I work with some of these people, that would not be cool. This request for nominations does raise the obvious question: What makes someone a good writer about video/computer games?

1. No inside jokes. Running jokes are OK. Tom Chick references his imaginary friend Trevor in his monthly columns for CGM and his irregular must read Shoot Club stories. But inside jokes that refer to things that other reviewers or co-workers do are just annoying, especially in a review. Thankfully, this is not as common as it used to be, a sign that the writing side of the biz is getting more professional about what is and is not important to the reader.

2. Avoid the cliches. “If you like this sort of game, you will like this sort of game.” Scraplines that reference “Kung-Fu Fighting” or “Lions and Tigers and Bears!” “It’s like Pac Man meets Planescape!” Some journalistic lingo is unavoidable, but try to break out of the box.

3. Put the game you are talking about in the context of similar games or games from the same developers. Sure, everyone knows Civilization or Age of Empires. But if you are talking about yet another WWII RTS, compare it to some of the hundred others that came out that year. The rating you assign – be it in stars or percentages – won’t be enough to give the reader any idea how it differs or which he/she should buy.

4. Grow up. Sex and booze and weed and cartoons are not always as interesting to the reader as you think they are.

5. Proofread, please. I’ll admit to not being as good at this as I used to be. And my editors are used to my stuff being good enough that proofreading is not needed. But I goof up sometimes. I repeat words and constructions, I leave out key words, I misspell stuff. Make a lot of mistakes and readers will begin to think that anybody can do this job.

5. Remember that almost anybody can do this job. It doesn’t take a lot of skill to play a game or interview a developer and make people believe that you have half a clue what is going on. Which makes it even more shocking that there are full-time staffers on magazines and websites that constantly leave me gasping for breath at their latest absurd statement or unqualified generalization. Being a good writer – someone the reader will trust – doesn’t mean making the reader think he/she is lesser than you, but it does mean conveying the idea that what you have to say is especially interesting more often than not. After all, most of us who write about games part-time were just in the right place at the right time.

6. Know the history. I don’t mean that the only qualfied writers are those who’ve been gaming for fifteen years. Nor does it mean that a new gamer has nothing interesting to say. Kyle Orland has a point when he says (as he often does) that there needs to be more room for casual gamers on the journalistic side of the industry – we need to know what makes this group tick. But just as you would look askance at a sportswriter who didn’t know who Ty Cobb was, or a film critic who thinks that Gladiator is the ultimate sword-and-sandal movie, a serious game journalist who doesn’t know that wargames, flight sims and adventure game used to be the big moneymakers probably can’t be trusted to know how quickly the indsutry can change and why.

Six simple rules that we can expect. Maybe someday I’ll have the guts to list my top ten writers in this field. You can always check the links on the left to blogs that I read regularly, so you have a sneak peek at the short list. Feel free to fill the comment box with your own thoughts.

Check out my friend Jim9137’s opinion on the changes to Settlers. He’s a bigger fan of the series than I am and seems to be a little more upset. Anyway, it’s a good read.