Warhammer: Dark Omen vs. Myth
Gregg Charlton
I know this post is a bit dated since everyone seems to be
playing either Rebellion or Starcraft. However, I just
picked up Dark Omen and thought I'd make some comments.
Comparing Dark Omen to Myth isn't exactly apples-to-apples
but it's close. Both are real-time tactical games set in a
medieval fantasy world. Neither allows you to exploit
resources and build units during a mission.
Sound: Pretty much a draw. Both have excellent ambient
sounds although Dark Omen's are a bit clearer on my sound
card (a generic Sound blaster 16). Myth's sounds are more
humorous with the dwarfs apologizing for poorly thrown
Molotov cocktails and Berserkers screaming "Damn your eyes"
at the dwarves.
Music: Dark Omen has no competition since Myth only has
music in the cutscenes.
Graphics: I'd have to go with Myth. I'd say that the terrain
is a bit better in Dark Omen (esp. since buildings show
artillery damage) but the unit graphics are much better in
Myth. Myth's soldiers are clearer at the extreme zoom-out
(ver. 1.1) than Dark Omen's are at extreme zoom-in. I'd be
willing accept more cartoon-like units in Dark Omen in order
to get better clarity. The unit death sequences in Myth are
also much, much better.
Story: The Dark Omen story has too many holes in it. Why
doesn't the emperor send significant forces from his
standing army to deal with the undead menace instead of
relying on a mercenary? Myth is the only campaign oriented
game I've played which provides a logical explanation as to
why the player's group continues to win battles but faces
progressively harder missions. I didn't like the cartoon
cutscenes in Myth but, otherwise, the story was first rate
(better than some sci-fi novels I've read).
Interface: Another draw. Both have their pluses and minuses.
I feel that the banners in Dark Omen are a bit too large and
I like the mini map Myth utilizes. OTOH, the off-screen
banners used in Dark Omen are great -- much better than
using Alt-# groups to bring remote units to the current hot
spots. In general, I found both games to possess intuitive
UIs as I never found myself fighting the interface to
accomplish necessary tasks.
Difficulty: I'm only on mission 5 or 6 with Dark Omen while
I finished Myth long ago so this comparison is somewhat
premature. Nonetheless, I'd have to say that while both can
be difficult, Myth seems to be a bit harder. One replays
missions in Dark Omen to reduce the number of casualties
suffered while one replays missions in Myth just to survive.
I beat the AI on the first try in all but one of the Dark
Omen missions but I replayed each several times to greatly
reduce the number of men I lost. Certain missions in Myth
required numerous restarts and I'd finish with just one or
two men left alive. I don't think this is necessarily a good
thing (it's more of an artificial system to increase the
game's longevity). I prefer the Dark Omen system in that I
feel that I have more reasonable forces with which to engage
the enemy.
Gameplay: Slight edge to Dark Omen. Two things contribute to
me liking the Dark Omen system a bit more. Firstly, all the
missions are tactical battles while in Myth the majority are
almost puzzle solving affairs. Once you find the trick, you
can go back and win the scenario easily. The mission
diversity is nice but I feel that the ratio of tactical
battles to problem solving missions is out of whack. I can
think of only 5 or so Myth missions that didn't involve
puzzle solving. Secondly, Dark Omen seems more consistent
with military science. Myth appears to rely almost
exclusively on a rock-paper-scissors system (e.g. Dwarves
beat Thralls, Fetch beat Dwarves, Archers beat Fetch etc.)
Multiplayer: I'm not into MP at all but, according to this
NG and the reviews, Myth has excellent MP support. I'd have
to think it would be the better of the two.
Overall: They're both excellent games and much better, IMO,
than the C&C clones. I'd rather use tactics to beat an enemy
instead of merely out producing him. Graphically Myth is the
superior game but, for me, the summation of all the other
factors would lead me to give the edge to Dark Omen. Anyway,
that's my cut at comparing the two games. Any other posts on
this should prove interesting.
Gregg Charlton
Plissken
>
>Overall: They're both excellent games and much better, IMO,
>than the C&C clones. I'd rather use tactics to beat an enemy
>instead of merely out producing him. Graphically Myth is the
>superior game but, for me, the summation of all the other
>factors would lead me to give the edge to Dark Omen. Anyway,
>that's my cut at comparing the two games. Any other posts on
>this should prove interesting.
>
>Gregg Charlton
Overall, I'm of the same mindset as you. However, I don't think
Myth's graphics "beat" DO's. They can do a bit more with their
character sprites due to the numbers of sprites on screen at once
involved. I'd have to guess that, in a year or less, the graphics
capabilities of most PCs will be to the point where you could do a
Warhammer game with all 3D characters (probably over 300 polys per
individual character) and have tons of them running around. That
would beat even most full-size character models in some games, and
those games only using a handful of such objects. 300 polys per
character would mostly eliminate the need for sprites in such a game,
especially with a decent texture page with a high bit-depth. Special
characters would, of course, have more polys and larger texture pages.
I think that true poly is still the way of the future, and the Dark
Omen game is well set up to swap out the sprite characters for full 3D
objects, and when it does, the game will really begin to shine...
Of course, much the same could be said for a Myth or C&C type game,
but, I really just get a huge chub when I think of the vast numbers of
3D characters in a Warhammer army running around a 3D terrain.
How neato would that be?
Henrik Schmidt
Not very neat. IMHO there are games which should stay sprite based as
long as 3D characters stay as ugly as they are now.
You need lots of polygons to animate a complex being to a level that
does not hurt the eye. Even the best 3D engines nowadays produce
mediocre characters. 3D is NOT the world.
Henrik
--
Henrik Schmidt Christian-Albrechts-Universitaet zu Kiel
Institut fuer Informatik +49 (431) 5604 - 81 Fax or 75 Phone
Preusserstr. 1-9 http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~hbs/
24105 Kiel, Germany email: h...@informatik.uni-kiel.de
Plissken
On 8 Apr 1998 08:16:24 GMT, h...@informatik.uni-kiel.de (Henrik
Schmidt) wrote:
>In <352ad4b7...@news.supernews.com> mike...@NOSPAM.THANKS.IHATEITpov-inc.com (Plissken) writes:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 15:56:42 -0400, Gregg Charlton
>><gregg.a....@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>>I think that true poly is still the way of the future, and the Dark
>>Omen game is well set up to swap out the sprite characters for full 3D
>>objects, and when it does, the game will really begin to shine...
>>Of course, much the same could be said for a Myth or C&C type game,
>>but, I really just get a huge chub when I think of the vast numbers of
>>3D characters in a Warhammer army running around a 3D terrain.
>>How neato would that be?
>
>Not very neat. IMHO there are games which should stay sprite based as
>long as 3D characters stay as ugly as they are now.
>You need lots of polygons to animate a complex being to a level that
>does not hurt the eye. Even the best 3D engines nowadays produce
>mediocre characters. 3D is NOT the world.
>
>Henrik
I don't think you really read into my original post very well, Henrik.
I concur that with current technology, this is not a viable method.
However, as I said in my post, this would be nice in the future, and
the existing WH engine could utilize high-detail 3D sprites niceley
with some enhancements. A 300 polygon character and a nice set of
textures done especially for the character would beat the existing
sprites in this game such as it is. Of course, having a hundred
300-poly characters all niceley and somewhat uniquely painted running
around a screen at this time is not very practical. Again, that's why
I said the FUTURE...
As a 3D artist in the industry, and having worked on VERY high profile
titles, I fully understand the polygon level a character at a given
screen size/resolution would have to be at to artistically overtake a
sprite. Hell, I worked for a LONG time on Fallout which was totally
sprite based. Perhaps you think of me as one of those 3Dfx freaks who
wants EVERYTHING to be a first-person shooter or just plain 3D, the
hell with where the technology is now...NO...that is not me. I prefer
this game, at this point in time, as a sprite/poly hybrid, the way it
is now.
You're correct, 3D is NOT the world, nor did I say it was. But with
technology evolving in this field the way it is, it may be the best
solution for most games in the future...and mediocrity is not my
vision.
Michael Dean
P.S. Yep, I have a paint brush at home and my favorite art program to
use for fun on my computer is Fractal Design Painter.
Michael Dean