How To Win At The Game Of Thrones Board Game: Part 3- Stark and Greyjoy

In this part I am going to start talking about the specifics of playing as each house. I have broken this discussion into 3 parts, as each house has a lengthy section attributed to it. In this first part we will look at Stark and Greyjoy (if you missed the previous parts, part 1 can be found here and part 2 here).

"Do we have a house slogan?" "We do not, so...?"

6: Specific House Strategies and Weaknesses

"Know when to fight
And when not to fight"

- Sun Tzu on Waging War

During this discussion on general strategy I have also alluded to the specifics of playing as individual houses. In this section I am going to talk about the key strategies that each house should deploy, as well as proposed opening moves. The majority of these opening moves are based on the principle that a large land grab in turn 1 is the best move, but also allowing for flexibility and time to react to opponents' moves.

Stark:

House Stark are often seen as the most defensive house, since a lot of their house cards are designed to protect units, as well as them being geographically the furthest away from the action. Probably the biggest strength for Stark is the large number of land areas that they can take and hold without much fear of retaliation; the only house that may consider heading north is the Greyjoys. The Starks can create a choke point at Moat Cailin, as well as having easy access to the Vale. It is therefore a priority for Stark that they set up a defensive position around Moat Cailin (or even Seaguard if the opportunity arises), and send 2-3 footmen to pick up the undefended territories in the north and the Vale. This creates easy power token farming as well as allowing Stark to pick up extra barrels, which has to be an early game priority for them, as they only start on 1.

Perhaps Stark's biggest weakness is their navy. Winterfell is the only territory that can be marched on from both the west and the east sea areas, and as such it needs a strong navy on both sides. The problem with this is that Stark's neighbours, Baratheon and Greyjoy, boast the strongest navies in the game. Furthermore, Stark has at best 6 ships to play with, which is not going to be enough to hold both sides. Therefore, Stark must consider how to put pressure on these two houses. By continually making aggressive moves towards Seaguard Stark can force Greyjoy to keep their navy in and around Ironman's Bay, as they will not want to leave their land forces unsupported. This means that Greyjoy will not be able to spare an attacking navy to head north. That said, it is vital that Stark muster 1-2 boats into Bay of Ice as soon as possible to ensure that Greyjoy have a strong enough incentive not to head north.

Pictured: A strong incentive

To defend against Baratheon, Stark need boats in the Narrow Sea. Ideally having a force of 3 boats, possibly with additional support from either the Shivering Sea or White Harbor port, will make any naval attacks an unappealing prospect for Baratheon. Their trump card is Salador Sahn, who only works when Baratheon are being supported, which they can't be when marching north.

Stark have the most unusual house deck, in that Roose Bolton's ability to avoid playing through the full deck means that Stark can ensure they always maintain a strong hand of cards. This means that Eddard, Robb and the Greatjon should be used first to maximise Roose's value. The best time to play Roose is by marching into a key territory for an opponent, which forces them to play a winning move. For example, a march into Seaguard puts pressure on Greyjoy to play a strong card to ensure a win, whilst also posing little threat to you, since Greyjoy have few sword icons at their disposal.

Unless Greyjoy or Baratheon are completely wiped out it is unlikely that Stark can make a play for 7 castles. Therefore, Stark players should aim for 5-6 castles; namely, Winterfell, White Harbor, Moat Cailin, The Eyrie, and ideally Seaguard and Flint's Finger. As long as Greyjoy are kept in check Stark shouldn't have too many problems making a safe attempt at the win.

Suggested openings:

Shivering Sea: March -1 into the Narrow Sea

White Harbor: March 0 into the Fingers

Winterfell: March +1, knight into Moat Cailin, Footman into the Twins

or

Shivering Sea: March 0 into the Narrow Sea

White Harbor: March +1 into the Moat Cailin

Winterfell: *Consolidate Power (Boat in the Bay Of Ice, Footman on Winterfell)

Greyjoy:

It says a lot about Greyjoy's position that, in the 3 player game, Stark and Lannister quickly come to blows without them squeezed in the middle; as such, Greyjoy, more than any other house, will feel the pressure of being on top of other houses. Put simply; Stark needs to march south through the Greyjoys, and Lannister do not want Greyjoy sitting on their doorstep. Fortunately, Greyjoy start with the Valyrian Steel Blade, as well as having by far the strongest house cards. If used correctly, Euron, Victarion and Balon are all effectively guaranteed wins. Theon and Asha are very strong in the right situations, and Aeron is arguably the most dangerous 0 (he can burn himself and lets Greyjoy respond to whichever housecard they come up against). All this gives Greyjoy a huge number of options in combat, which they desperately need, especially due to their lack of special orders.

Special orders not always required.

Another plus point for Greyjoy is their naval presence, in that it is possible for Greyjoy to support all their key territories with a single strong navy in Ironman's Bay. The two key naval positions that Greyjoy need to consider are the following. Firstly, there is enormous power in being able to hold two adjacent sea areas, as it allows any naval supports to be raided, whilst also protecting your own support. As such, it is key to try and take Sunset Sea as soon as possible, as this allows raiding of Lannister support from the Golden Sound. This feeds into the second key aspect of the Greyjoy navy; Ironman's Bay is adjacent to Riverrun, but the Golden Sound is not adjacent to Seaguard. This means it is much harder for Lannister to defend Riverrun that it is for Greyjoy to defend Seaguard. If Greyjoy can achieve this naval set up they can comfortably take and hold Riverrun, giving them access to a 4^th castle (and a 3^rd stronghold). Because of this difference in positioning and all things being equal, Greyjoy will probably have the upperhand in the contest for Riverrun.

From here Greyjoy need to consider whether to march north or south. Due to the aforementioned naval issues that Stark face a push into Winterfell is not a big stretch for Greyjoy, since Stark simply cannot defend their Western coast against Victarion. It is also very difficult for Stark to safely defend their northern holdings once their navy has gone, as Greyjoy will have much easier movement options. Once Winterfell has gone Greyjoy should aim to take either Moat Cailin or Whiteharbor, which would likely give them the win. This is made even easier if Baratheon hold the Shivering Sea, as it prevents Stark supporting.

Alternatively, Greyjoy can head south and clash with Lannister. Again, as above, Riverrun is likely to go towards Greyjoy, which can be a killing blow for Lannister. Once it has gone then Greyjoy can either push east for Harrenhal and Crackclaw point, or aim to take Lannisport. Lannisport is generally the better choice, since the Greyjoy navy can get involved, and once Greyjoy have taken Seaguard, Riverrun and Lannisport it is pretty much game over (especially if there is a mustering).

Obviously both these strategies are very aggressive, but it is the nature of the Greyjoy position. It should be said that if you are moving to take Winterfell or Lannisport make sure it is mid to late game, since you are effectively taking a player out of the game, which they won't be too happy about if it's only turn 3.

Aside from positioning, the other main issue Greyjoy face is the influence tracks. Outside of Pyke they are unlikely to ever be able to consolidate power safely anywhere on the board, which is dangerous, since they need to grab special orders to compete with Lannister. Otherwise a well-paced and conservative Greyjoy game can be a strong candidate to win, as their house cards mean reliable victories when you need them.

Suggested openings:

Greywater Watch: March -1 into Flint's Finger

Pyke: March 0, knight into Seaguard, footman into Riverrun (or both into Seaguard if Riverrun has been taken by Lannister)

Pyke port: Consolidate power

Ironman's Bay: Support

or

Greywater Watch: Consolidate power

Pyke: March -1, knight into Seaguard, footman into Flint's Finger

Pyke port: Consolidate power

Ironman's Bay: March 0 into Sunset Sea

So that's Stark and Greyjoy. In the next part we move to the middle of the board and look at Lannister and Baratheon.

- Part 4- Lannister and Baratheon
- Part 5- Tyrell and Martell
- Part 6- Taking the Win, Meta-Game and Alliances, and Alternative Ways to Play

How To Win At The Game Of Thrones Board Game: Part 2- Combat, Managing Troops and Power Tokens

In the last part I talked about the key strategies relating to territory control and effective use of house cards. In this part I will talk in depth about effective combat strategy, how you should muster units, and how to manage and use power tokens with maximum efficiency.

3: Combat

"Know when to fight
And when not to fight"

- Sun Tzu on Waging War

It goes without saying that the most important part of combat is deciding which orders to place, and without a doubt the most useful, and therefore the most important order, is the support order. Support is so valuable for several reasons; firstly, any supporting army can participate in both offence and defence in the same turn, which means you can re-use the same units repeatedly. Furthermore, if a supporting army lose they do not become routed, meaning you can continue to use them that turn.

Another great strength of supporting armies is that they are completely protected from swords and skulls, meaning you cannot lose them in combat no matter how badly you lose. This means that you can still attack with a very strong army but only have a single footman on the line if you lose. This use of support orders should form the backbone of any attacks.

Whether it is a hangover from Risk or just something that is hard-wired into board game players is unclear, but there seems to be a psychological desire to move a big army into an enemy territory, when the smart thing to do is move a single unit in and support with a large army. One of the most effective uses of support orders is to have two large armies next to each other that support each other. This means that you are giving strong support to all areas around both those territories, whilst also ensuring that the supporting territories have a strong defence due to them supporting one another.

For example, let's say that, as Lannister, you have taken Riverrun, and maintained an army on Stoney Sept. 

By putting a mutual support in both territories you are effectively protecting both of these and making them very difficult to take. Moreover, this gives you a strong claim on Harrenhal and the Blackwater, and once these are taken they can be effectively defended with a single unit. This strategy of keeping your main armies off the frontlines not only protects your army but helps with supply limits, as you do not have to focus on having big armies on all your borders.

The other key use of support orders is on ships. Unless you are moving your ships in position for better troop movement or consolidating power in a port ships should be supporting or raiding every turn. Of course there will be times when another player makes an offensive naval move that might require a defence token, but due to the necessary telegraphing of this by mustering and moving ships this is fairly easy to predict.

Effective supporting and raiding with boats can often decide the long-term winner of a game, and much like with ground troops, the supporting boats should ideally have a barrier of a smaller army that they are supporting. A classic example of this is for House Martell and the Sea of Dorne. 

By mustering ships into the Sea of Dorne Martell can create an unraidable naval support for all the connecting land areas, as well as the East Summer Sea, which should then have a raid on it to disrupt Tyrell and Baratheon. This makes it very difficult for Baratheon to hold Storm's End, as Martell can support with their navy, but Baratheon cannot whilst Martell continually raid.

The last thing to say on order placement relates to what I call “mass apprehension”, and is the phenomena where everyone assumes that all other players are going to go on the aggressive. This often happens directly after a mustering, where it looks like all players are going to go on the attack, which thus causes everyone to play defensive orders on their borders and effectively have a dead turn. Whilst a turn where everyone plays defensively is probably not the wisest turn to attack, it can be used to get you ahead. A great example of doing this is consolidating power on areas with crowns on that you would normally play a more aggressive order on, as if you can predict a turn of turtling you can get ahead on power tokens whilst everyone else waits things out to see the lay of the land. These turns are also a good time to throw in some raids to counter any consolidations from other players, which, if you are lucky, might get you the odd pillage.

Overall, defence orders should only really be played when you have no other options (or order tokens) or are certain a key territory is going to be attacked. Defence orders have a very marginal combat use, and otherwise paralyse your armies. Wherever possible, march and support, and when in doubt, consolidate and raid. Of course, before placing your orders you need to consider what units you have and where.

4: Managing Troops

"In War,
Numbers
Are not the issue.
It is a question of
Not attacking
Too aggressively"

- Sun Tzu on The March

There is always a palpable excitement when the first mustering card comes up (not least from Greyjoy and Tyrell, who are normally desperate for the opportunity to get new units). Knights are often seen as the gold standard of GoT units, as they add 2 to both attack and defence. Whilst knights are certainly valuable, they should always be chosen when needed, and not due to wanting a big army. There is often a rush to get knights on the board, when in fact they are best used mid game to hold key territories and as a supporting army. Indeed, misuse of knights can be very costly; sending two knights with a march order only to have them lose to two swords can cripple a player permanently. Therefore, I would focus on mustering units with the following general priority, and use units for the following purposes:

• Ships- You should muster a strong navy in the sea adjacent to your home territory as soon as possible. Ideally you should have an adjacent sea area that can be used to raid whilst your main navy supports your initial land areas. Mustering ships also gives you movement options (vital for Stark, Greyjoy and Baratheon). This should be your main priority when first mustering units.
• Footmen- Getting lots of footmen out can be unappealing, as it eats into your supply limits. However, early on this is a key part of holding lots of territories; it is always better to have 5 areas held with footmen than with power tokens. Chaining march orders is a great way to disperse footmen, and can spread them over a wide area. Again, this is important to do early on to set up power token farming and grabbing supply barrels (Tyrell and Stark are the clearest examples of this).
• Siege engines- Possibly the most neglected unit in the game, despite being the strongest when used well, siege engines are important to all players. When you are ahead they can give you the final push needed to win, and when you are behind they are a cheap way of taking castles (4 mustering points for an attack strength of 8 can help a lagging player make a comeback). After using ships and footmen to secure your home territories you should focus on using a siege engine to start any attacks against other players. Even the threat of a siege engine on their doorstep can cause players to panic and misuse their orders. There are two very effective uses for siege engines. The first is as a supporting army; as stated above, supporting armies do not retreat, and therefore are not being put at risk. Since a retreating siege engine is a destroyed siege engine using them to support can mean you get all their strength without risking them. Again, having one placed on a highly contended boundary (Riverrun/Seaguard/Moat Cailin, Crackclaw Point, Starfall, Storm's End etc) and then using ships to march a footman from an unexpected territory allows for a strong and low-risk offence. The other great use for siege engines is as a continual assault. There are huge chains of castles on the map (from Oldtown to Winterfell no less) that mean you can just keep marching them each turn. With this tactic the view is not to hold each area, but rather to force your opponent back so far that they panic and throw everything at stopping your progress. By the time they have done this they are normally in a weaker position. To do this you should make sure you are acting before your opponent, and also that you have a clear route of uninterrupted castles. This can be even more potent with the right house cards, as you can destroy a lot of units in the process (Ser Loras Tyrell or anyone with swords are good for this). Both of these tactics can be hugely effective uses of siege engines, and get you much more value for money than knights.
• Knights- Putting knights last on the order of priority may seem a bit mad, but as I have said above; when using a knight you have half the mobility of 2 footmen and half the attacking power of a siege engine. The other big reason not to rush out knights is the number of cards that effect knights and footmen. There are a couple of house cards (Renly Baratheon and Kevan Lannister) that benefit from having footmen rather than knights, as well as cards in the Wildling deck that reward those who have not fielded lots of knights. That said, knights can form a key part of the aforementioned use of support orders, and are definitely the units you want supporting to all your attacking and defending areas. Also, you never know when you will get a mustering, and when you have hit your supply limit it is much better to upgrade your footmen to knights than simply waste the points.

The last thing to say on units and army management relates to areas. As I have mentioned above, getting lots of footmen out is good, as it allows you to hold lots of areas effectively. This is obviously good for resources, as you are likely to get at least one card each turn that rewards castles, barrels, or crowns, but also it increases the number of orders you can place. It goes without saying that 2 footmen on one area are weaker than 2 footmen on 2 separate areas, as giving two orders is always stronger than giving one. Also, since single units do not contribute to supply limits there is no reason not to aim to have a footman on every area you control. This makes for a stronger overall defence, as well as making more options for raiding and consolidating, as power tokens are what you need to be focusing on long term.

5: Power Tokens

"War has no
Constant Dynamic;
Water has no
Constant form."

- Sun Tzu on Empty and Full

So let's say you have nailed all of the above, and you are playing all the right orders, mustering the right units and optimally managing your house cards. If you do this well then you will have a strong chance of winning in any given game; however, the final main area to consider is the acquisition and use of power tokens.

Power tokens can be used to bid on the influence tracks, contribute towards repelling the wildlings, and as a marker for holding unoccupied territories. This latter use can seem the most straightforward, and for the most part there is not a lot to say about it. The only strategic use of power tokens to hold areas is making the decision as to whether to set them down when you know the area is very likely to be attacked. In doing this you force your opponent to complete the march against an empty territory just to take it from you, but it also means that you are throwing away a power token. This strategy should only be done in cases where you want to force your opponent to choose between two strategically valuable marches.

Don't worry though,; choosing to march the wrong way never hurt anyone in Westeros...

In terms of generating power tokens it is important to set up a “power token farm” as soon as possible. This is much easier for some houses than others. Stark and Tyrell have plenty of territories that are likely to go uncontested that contain crowns, and you should aim to set up a single footmen on these each turn to generate a healthy flow of power tokens. Greyjoy, Martell and Baratheon, after an initial set up, can normally rely on consolidating on their home territory and connecting port for power tokens, which should be safe provided they have used their navy wisely. For Lannister, Lannisport is out due to the lack of a crown, meaning they should aim to consolidate on Stoney Sept and Harrenhal when they think they can do so safely. Again, Lannisport, er, port is another generally safe contender.

Wherever possible try not to consolidate on your borders unless you are certain you won't be raided. If you hold the messenger raven swapping out an ineffectual march or unnecessary defence order for a consolidate power can often be a cost effective use of the ability. That said, often a consolidate power order is the last thing people expect. King's Landing is often highly contested, so a consolidate power order for a healthy 3 power tokens can often go unchallenged, as it is not an order other players plan for.

When it comes to bidding against the Wildling's there is obviously an advantage to using the messenger raven to know the card (it always feels great to see everyone else waste power tokens only to draw a “Silence At The Wall”). Assuming that you don't know the Wildling card you should make a calculated decision as to whether or not to push for the victory bonus. Again, this is very situational, but it is useful to remember what the bonus effects from the Wildling deck do. Most relate to mustering, improving supplies or regaining house cards; as such, if you have just got your deck back, are sitting on 5 or 6 supply barrels and had to waste points on the last mustering, it probably isn't worth going for. Generally you should either be bidding a very high amount or no tokens at all, as you either want the bonus effect or want to have a power token advantage. The only time to bid a small amount is in the instance where there is a power token drought amongst all players and you don't think the Night's Watch will win. In these cases bidding 1 or 2 power tokens can protect you from being stung as the lowest bidding player, which can often be crippling.

Just spent all your tokens taking the Messenger Raven? Oh.

In terms of bidding on the influence tracks there is a lot of second guessing the other players. There are a lot of different circumstances that can dictate what you should prioritise. Generally you should be spending all but 1 or 2 of your power tokens on the influence tracks, unless a Wildling attack is very likely that turn. Generally, in a balanced game it is reasonable to assume that all players will have roughly equal amounts of power tokens. As such, we can break the bidding down into two likely scenarios; lots of power tokens in play, or few power tokens in play.

If there are lots of power tokens in play, you should throw most of yours at the King's Court influence track. Not having any stars makes the game exceptionally difficult, particularly if ther have not been many mustering opportunities. This is particularly vital for early game Greyjoy and Tyrell, who start without any special orders. The only time when you should not be prioritising the King's Court is if your next turn relies on getting the jump on an opponent, in which case you should go for the Iron Throne. The Fiefdoms track, whilst useful, has a very marginal effect. Having the Valyrian steel blade is very handy, but after that point the difference between 2^nd and 6^th on the Fiefdoms track is minimal.

Conversely, if there are few power tokens in play, perhaps due to a Wildling attack, you should consider throwing them all after the Iron Throne. If you are successful you are in a strong position to pick up high positions on the other two tracks for cheap or even free, as you decide the ties and, if no one bids anything, you get to the top of the track for free. Generally in these situations people focus on the King's Court, meaning you can often grab the Iron Throne, the Valyrian steel blade and 1-3 stars on the King's Court for only a few power tokens. This is more advantageous than having the Messenger Raven but being bottom of the other two tracks.

The last thing to say about the influence tracks is the phenomena of players wanting to defend what they started with. Often Baratheon will bid a disproportionately high number of power tokens to hold on to the Iron Throne, as Greyjoy will with the Valyrian Steel Blade (and everyone will be after the Messenger Raven).

The absolute golden rule for bidding power tokens is to never leave yourself with none. The only time you should get rid of your last power token is to use it to hold an area in the same turn when you know you will be successfully consolidating power at the end of that turn. Many players have been unable to make a winning move due to not being able to hold a castle they are marching out of due to not having any power tokens.

That is the bulk of discussion on general strategy. In part 3 we will begin looking at specific house strategies and weaknesses, starting in the north with Stark and Greyjoy.

- Part 3- Stark and Greyjoy
- Part 4- Lannister and Baratheon
- Part 5- Tyrell and Martell
- Part 6- Taking the Win, Meta-Game and Alliances, and Alternative Ways to Play

How To Win At The Game Of Thrones Board Game: Part 1- Territory Control and House Cards

With the current Game of Thrones obsession still holding strong after several years in the limelight, and the season 6 finale has been and gone, a lot of people will be looking for a way to expand their Game of Thrones experience. Sure, you could turn to the books, and many have, but my first port of call will always be the first medium in which I encountered Westeros; the board game.

On the scale of “casual” to “hardcore”, the Game of Thrones board game by Fantasy Flight Games definitely tend towards the latter value, being a 3-6 player game that normally takes 3-4 hours to play. Whilst that can certainly be an intimidating prospect it is definitely worth the investment, as it is a deep and highly strategic game that holds up to a lot of replays, not least because each of the 6 houses opens up a different game.

"What do you mean 'no House Tully'?"- No one.

I'm not going to go through the basic rules or mechanics, as I think Fantasy Flight themselves do an excellent job of explaining them in both book and video form; rather, I'm going to focus on the key elements of strategy that allow a player to bring peace and/or tyranny to Westeros. I am writing in regards to a 6 player game, but the majority of this is also applicable to a 3-5 player game as well. I have split my thoughts of the game into 6 articles, consisting of 9 areas of discussion:

1. Territory Control

2. House Cards

3. Combat
4. Managing Troops
5. Power Tokens
6. Specific House Strategies
7. Taking the Win
8. Meta-Game and Alliances
9. Alternative Setups and "House" Rule Suggestions

Before reading through this I would suggest that you play the game at least a couple of times. I would also advise that you have a look through the following:

• Board set up (large image here)
• House cards (large image here)
• Westeros cards (list here)
• Wildling cards (large image here)

Furthermore, in true strategist style, I have started each section with a quote from Sun Tzu's Art of War, so we can all feel profoundly intelligent whilst fighting tiny plastic battles.

1: Territory Control

"On entangling terrain,

If the enemy is unprepared,

Go out and defeat him."

- Sun Tzu on Forms of Terrain

Since GoT is a territory control game, naturally, this is the first port of call. Generally on turn 1 most players would be looking for an initial land grab to prepare for a Supply or Mustering card. This is certainly the case for Greyjoy and Tyrell, as they cannot muster on turn 1, but is generally true of most other houses, as there is nothing more frustrating than mustering on a home territory on turn 1 at the cost of taking a stronghold, only to have a mustering card come up immediately afterwards.

After the turn 1 land grab, most players will then continue to push for any unoccupied territories. Whilst this might seem like a logical extension of turn 1 it can actually be harmful. For players in the middle of the board, such as Lannister and Baratheon, grabbing extra unheld areas will likely spread you too thin, whereas players with uncontested areas, such as Stark and Tyrell, should pick these up to farm power tokens for upcoming influence track bids.

The golden rule with territory is to not take anything that cannot then be held. There are two reasons for this; firstly, it is a waste of time and resources trying to take areas that are untenable, as there will be an inevitable backlash which will most likely cost units. Secondly, there is normally a point around turn 6 where one player is moving away from the pack, which causes everyone else to rally against that player and take territories from them. You do not want to be that player, as it is almost impossible to successfully defend against 2-3 players' aggression in one turn and come out of it on top.

A good rule of thumb is to aim to take and hold, a new area every 2 turns. This may seem conservative, but if you consider that after turn 1 most houses will hold 4-5 territories, including seas, taking 5 more areas for a total of 10 over 10 turns is likely to be a winning move. So turns should generally alternate between taking a new territory on one turn, and then defending it on the next.

2: House Cards

"Which general
Has the ability?

Which side has
Heaven and Earth?"

- Sun Tzu on Making Plans

Of course, there are times when you should enter combat into a territory you do not think you can hold or even successfully take, and one of the reasons to do that is to manage your house cards. Since most combat in GoT is very marginal, effective use of house cards is often what decides the eventual winner. After a few games with a group of players, everyone will be familiar with each houses' house cards, and as such you must assume those players will try and second guess what you are playing. When choosing a house card for a combat, you should decide what the point of the combat is, as below:

• Win the combat to conquer/defend a territory- play a high power card
• Damaging your opponent- play a card with swords or a disruption effect
• Baiting out your opponent's strong house cards- play a defensive card

It is everyone's instinct to try to defend every territory tooth and nail, but a key part of GoT strategy is drawing out your opponent's strong house cards whilst playing weaker cards yourself. This means that when it comes to the battle you have to win that you have an automatic card advantage, and sometimes this can mean losing a territory to then take it back with a stronger position.

To put this into context, imagine you (Green) have a knight and a footman next to another player's home area, which contains their two strength garrison and a single footman (Red), meaning you have equal forces. Let's say they have opted to consolidate power and you have played a march + 0, meaning you have equal strength forces, and let's also assume you both have all your house cards.

A good strategy would be to complete the march with your entire force. What this does is declares a very strong intent on taking their home territory, which is naturally very damaging for any player. In this situation, the defending player has no choice but to play a strong card, perhaps even their 4, to ensure they don't lose. This means you, as the attacker, should opt to play one of your weakest cards, let's say a 1. This means that you will lose the combat and have all your cards except a 1, whereas your opponent has lost their 4. This means that next time you have a key combat that you both need to win the strongest they can play is their 3, whilst you still have your 4.

Of course, to combat this move as the defender you should push to use swords to punish an attacker for making such a move. Even if you lost your 3 strength as the defender by playing Ser Gregor the attacker would probably regret the move, as losing a footman and a knight to draw out your 3 strength wouldn't be worth it.

Overall you should aim to hold on to your strongest/scariest house card for as long as possible, as one of best defences is giving an opponent reluctance to act. No one wants to go into a combat that they think they will definitely lose, and could result in losing 2-3 units as well. The cards to hold on to are as such:

• Lannister- Ser Gregor Clegane
• Tyrell- Mace Tyrell/Ser Loras Tyrell
• Martell- The Red Viper
• Baratheon- Stannis Baratheon/Salador Sahn (see Baratheon strategy)
• Greyjoy- Victarion Greyjoy/Balon Greyjoy

The exception to the rule is Stark, which relies on the timely deployment of Roose Bolton to bring back Eddard and any other cards to your hand. To maximise this effect you should always play Eddard, and most likely Robb and Greatjon before playing Roose, as even a calculated loss is still a loss.

Roose "Big fan of the Starks" Bolton

The last thing to say on house cards is what is known as cycling through your deck. This consists of starting a battle you intend to lose for the express reason of getting your deck back. This can be harder than it sounds, as what you intend to be your 7^th/13^th combat might not be, as there is always an unexpected march that scuppers your plans. Whilst you should always hold on to your strongest card for as long as possible, the final card you play should always be your weakest, so you are keeping your next hand as strong as possible. The bottom cards for each house are below:

• Lannister- Cersei Lannister
• Tryell- Margaery Tyrell/Ser Axell Florent
• Martell- Nymeria Sand
• Baratheon- Melisandre
• Greyjoy- Asha Greyjoy
• Stark- Catelyn Stark

So, for example, here is a card order that might be played for house Tyrell:

1. Randyll Tarly- Attacking, attempt to kill a unit
2. Ser Axell Florent- Attacking, attempt to bait out a stronger card whilst protecting your own unit
3. Garlan Tyrell- Defending, punishing a player for attacking with a weaker force
4. Queen of Thorns- Defending, using her effect to mitigate a support order to even out your forces
5. Ser Loras Tyrell- Attacking, making a push into enemy territory
6. Mace Tyrell- Attacking, following up on Ser Loras
7. Margaery Tyrell- Defending against the counter attack after Ser Loras

This order means you are causing damage with swords early whilst always keeping your stronger cards as a threat. The other great thing about this ordering is that, if needs be, you can play Mace as soon as you get him back, meaning you get to play him twice in 3 battles if necessary.

Of course, whilst effective house card management is the focus of combat, how you attack and defend is just as important and can be used to engineer the most effective situations for each of your house cards. In the next article, we will go through Combat, Managing Troops, and Power Tokens.

- Part 2- Combat, Managing Troops and Power Tokens

- Part 3- Stark and Greyjoy
- Part 4- Lannister and Baratheon
- Part 5- Tyrell and Martell
- Part 6- Taking the Win, Meta-Game and Alliances, and Alternative Ways to Play

Vegan RPGs: Hear me out... wait! Don't go!

Here at 103% Complete we strive to fill all the niches that everybody else misses, which seriously eats into our juicy clickbait revenues. As the title of this post suggests, we're looking to inform and entertain the audience intersection between those who are interested in the politics of veganism and those who enjoy videogames enough to read what I'd (generously) regard as an obscurely popular video game blog.

Available on the app store

Because the OED isn't very nuanced in its definition of veganism, I'm going to take the definition put forward by The Vegan Society itself:

'Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.'

So what does this have to do RPG games? I'll tell ya. The popularity of RPGs and MMOs with an RPG bent to them have resulted in the development and maintenance of increasingly complex game worlds, with rich character creation, field combat and crafting systems already the norm in the big budget titles. The developers behind such games want to create a world into which the player can inject as much of their creativity and personality into their gameplay as they wish to. These varying degrees of expression are part of the huge draw these games have. 

The possibilities are endless

We see in the Mass Effect series that notions of gender identity need not be heteronormative, In Eve Online you can carve out a niche as an operative in a megacorporation and have an equally valid experience as someone who exclusively engages in mining or space piracy. Even games like Minecraft without strict metrics for victory and success invite roleplaying servers to pop up. But (and this is where I get to the vegan bit, I promise) could you exist and thrive in such a world as someone who actively would rather not exploit in-game animals wherever possible? Even if you're not a vegan in real-life it may be an interesting roleplay option. I know people who roleplay being a shopkeeper in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I remind you is a single player game where shop ownership is not coded into the game. Being a vegan mage is far from the oddest roleplay option out there.    

So how can a would-be vegan player fall foul of animal exploitation in their RPG gameplay? Let's look at some common categories.

Food: Diet is the obvious place to start with real life vegans but in many RPGs, keeping on top of your characters' nutrition isn't integral to being competitive. Topping up your HP and MP can usually be handled with spells, potions or just a good night's sleep. However, more often than not it is the slabs of beef and wheels of cheese that provide the greatest benefit as consumables in games such as in Contact and Punch Club, where simply frying a steak exceeds the usefulness of any plant based cooking in the game if it even exists at all. You can get away with a vegan diet in the Paper Mario series, even if there is the option to literally smack animal called Whacka across the head and consume the swelling bruise that results from the assault.  

You have to brain this adorable creature in order to obtain a huge health potion.

Gear: Generally speaking, most Western RPGs eventually get to the point where you're working primarily with metalwork to produce armour and equipment. Cruelty ridden leatherworking and tanning options are usually superseded by metallic, magical or other inorganic materials. If you really can't find an alternative to leather in the early game, you can usually 'do it in your pants' until you level up, even if your pants are made out of... fur. Dammit, Skyrim! On a side note, being creative in Minecraft takes a massive hit because coloured blocks (cubes of dyed wool harvested from cubic sheep) are a no-no. 

The big problem with gear comes when the game has a loot based crafting system, which requires you to kill enemies (usually creatures) in order to assemble the items that you need. Even if your game's economy is driven entirely by gold, most traditional RPGs require a whole lotta compulsory killing to proceed one way or another which leads us to...

XP/Progress: Killing monsters and mobs to get XP helps you gain LV which you absolutely need in most games to make any progress whatsoever. Unskippable bosses. Death and blood is usually hard to avoid. Undertale is a notable exception to this rule which leads us to really 'lawyering up' the definition of veganism, which includes 'as far as is possible and practical'. One of the narrative themes of Xenoblade Chronicles X is the peaceful coexistence with nature wherever possible. Predatorial beasts will hunt you down but many of the creatures will never pose a threat to you and your team and it is perfectly possible to leave them well alone. Although the apparent 'threat to humanity' is never realised if you don't purge these 'pests' at all. Seems like some thinly veiled pro-hunting propaganda to me...

*Michael Jackson's Earth Song plays*

The 'random encounter' mechanic underlying most RPGs heavily implies that the indigenous creatures are attacking you directly, which somewhat excuses the player of any harm they do to the creature in order to survive. But since fleeing battle is usually an option, the vegan RPG player is encouraged to acquire the minimal murder related XP possible to progress through the game. If you want to do the most vegan run possible in Final Fantasy VII, you're going to have to restrict your grinding activities to enemies which are entirely inorganic in nature... and you're going to have to do without Knights of the Round because of the implied avoidable Chocobo abuse, which brings us to...

Pokémon:  I'm sorry but Pokémon is just out of the question. The 'they want to fight' argument just falls apart under any critical examination. The entire game is about violent animal bloodsport. You can hang around in the starting town in a perpetual state of helping you mum to move in to your new house, but once you take that starter Pokémon... you're an exploitative monster. Shame on your and your house.  Monster battlers of almost any other variety fall foul of this too so all of you hardcore Bomberman Tournament fans out there can just hang your head in shame.

Pictured above: Barbaric bloodpsort

So next time you enter your own preferred virtual fantasy world, try and examine how dominated your experience is by the exploitation of animals in that world. As for me, I'm heading back to my Animal Crossing village, where the bugs and fish specimen collections remain proudly empty and my debts to Tom Nook, remain very high indeed. 

       

   

A Primer on Fan made Card Creation in CCGs.

Popular card games capture the imagination of their player base. In fact, many people prefer the creative element of making their own fan made cards to the actual playing of the game itself. Almost every major card game going has a rich subculture of card creators to go with it.

I've decided to identify a few (but not all) basic categories of fan card and the kind of fan card creator that makes them. After reading this you'll probably have a better grounding for making your own cards if this kind of thing is for you.

Even if creativity isn't your thing, understanding why particular fan creations are good or bad can help you deepen your understanding of the game that you are playing. Let's have a look at some common archetypes.

"Reality Gem" cards -- (based on IPs from other Universes)

This kind of creator is happy to use a familiar and robust rule set to express characters from other universes. I'm personally working on a set of Hearthstone cards featuring some of my friends. Here, the content and visual appeal of the cards is usually more important than actually playing with the card in a real game. That being said, many card creators of this type still strive to make their cards 'balanced' and fit in with the existing cards in the game. 

http://www.pokecard.net 

"Superfan Designer" cards (that are (mostly) well thought out cards that could possibly work!)
Some people, "really go for it", when they make their fan made cards. They find consistent reference artwork, develop all kinds of experimental mechanics and work hard to cost and balance their cards appropriately. Almost to the point where it's sad that these cards will never be playable in the digital CCGs and unlikely to see publication in the physical games. Taverns of Time is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to this kind of epic level card creation tomfoolery.

"Screw You" cards -- (cards which hardcounter a particular play style)

The example given here is actually one of the more reasonable variants on the theme of countering a popular play style in the current metagame by dreaming up cards which would thoroughly counter that particular deck archetype.

In Hearthstone, there is always a particular brand of aggressive deck that dominates in popularity and is often referred to as the 'cancer' deck (I disapprove of that name, personally) and one of those decks was the Mech Mage deck. Rather than finding a way to cope with the existence of such a play style, many players would rather see it eradicated completely.

http://www.hearthcards.net/





"Ones that make it" (some fan cards actually make it into published games!)

Some publishers generate a lot of hype around getting fans to submit their own ideas for cards. In the case of Yu-Gi-Oh! they let children submit drawings of cards that they wanted to see and then got their pro artists to actually produce them. Additionally, Fantasy Flight allowed 2012 Netrunner champion Jeremy Zwirn to design a card to be put into a future expansion of cards.


(pictured) Actual Netrunner card designed by a skilled fan.

"Sonic the Hedgehog" cards 

Just... what.
I mean....
Every single trading card game...
Every single anything...
There's just weird Sonic the Hedgehog fans...
Plz.
http://mtgcardsmith.com/

Why don't you try it yourself at home? Because you're more of a reader than a doer aren't you? Well here's some more CCG related stuff to read./watch.

Gaming Netiquette in Hearthstone

103% and Watchiit Play Hearthstone

Smash Bros. Comparison: Wii U vs Brawl vs Melee

So everyone has had a few months to play the new Smash Bros game(s), and with reviewers throwing around some truly insane scores it might be hard to understand where the differences are, and which Smash Bros game, if any, could be considered the best.

Metacritic is often used as a credible yardstick for reviewing anything in popular culture, as it creates a unique score out of 100 based on an average score from other reviewers. Given that Nintendo itself seems happy to be endorsed by Metacritic scores it seems reasonable to use this as a starting point for comparing the games; and it’s a pretty close run contest, with the games scoring thusly:

·         Super Smash Bros. (N64)- 79

·         Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS- 85

·         Super Smash Bros. Melee- 92

·         Super Smash Bros. for Wii U- 92

·         Super Smash Bros. Brawl- 93

So as we can see there is not a lot between the top 3 games, with Brawl emerging with a very slight lead. In this article I am mainly going to compare these top 3 games. This is for a few reasons; firstly, comparing the 3DS and Wii U games as separate entities seems slightly redundant one is effectively a port of the other, albeit with some minor technical and content tweaks. Secondly, as the above scores suggest, Melee, Brawl and Wii U are generally accepted to be of a notably higher standard than 64 or 3DS; and thirdly, I feel these games are what people picture most when they imagine a Smash Bros. game.

So, which is the stronger game? Well, let’s do a direct comparison.

Content

One of the key reasons for omitting Smash 64 is that, whilst it hits all the right notes in terms of basic gameplay, it is somewhat lacking in content. The presence of a large pool of content has been a key feature of the series since Melee; this usually consists of unlockable characters, stages, gameplay modes, trophies and, more recently, stickers, CDs and customisations. Since Brawl, Smash Bros is also one of the few Nintendo series that embraces the meta-gaming idea of “achievements”, with recent games featuring a challenge wall that contains various unlockables as specific challenges are beaten.

The "Brawl Wall", as literally only I call it.

In terms of miscellaneous content Wii U not only comes pre-packed with huge amounts of trophies, CDs and customisations to unlock but also has limitless potential to expand through DLC. As you play Wii U you always feel as if you are building up your treasure hoard and giving yourself new avenues to explore. First point goes to Smash Bros Wii U.

Characters

In terms of character count, Melee comes in at 26, Brawl comes in at 39, and Wii U has 51 characters (with 1 being DLC), meaning in 3 instalments the roster for the series has basically doubled. Obviously this gives general weighting toward Wii U, as having a bigger roster automatically means more variety and more combinations of characters. Moreover, whilst I feel both Wii U and Melee are fairly balanced, Brawl has some real issues with balancing. There is the infamous ban of Metaknight at tournaments, but even at a basic level the core stats and functionality of characters varies too widely, and this is only made worse with the introduction of the Final Smashes. These vary wildly in usefulness, with some, like Fox’s, being an almost guaranteed win for a skilled, whereas others, like Peach’s, being practically useless even for a veteran player.

All 3 games are guilty of character clones, whereby a character is effectively re-skinned and given some slightly different special moves and gameplay attributes. Whilst I have no problem with this, it does somewhat diminish the number of truly distinct characters that can be attributed to the above roster counts. That being said, I would say that again Smash Bros Wii U does the best job at making the clones it has inherited from previous games as distinct from each other as possible whilst also making them play like their previous versions. Furthermore, it does not introduce any more clones to the series. In terms of characters, Wii U definitely comes out on top.

Levels

The level count between the games is a little closer than the character counts, with Melee counting 29 stages, Brawl 41, and Wii U 47, again allowing for DLC with the latter, and excluding custom levels for Brawl or Wii U. The important factor with level counts is that there are enough for variety, but not too many so that they are impossible to remember or learn. I would say Melee had about the right number of levels, as a prolonged session on Melee meant you would probably see each level every couple of hours, which meant you had just grown eager to play it again when the random level select throws you a wonderfully chaotic “Big Blue”.

For even more chaos, try Chin Mode

For the levels themselves, I am personally against levels that are too big or complex. Even the original “Hyrule Castle” is too big for my tastes, as it can turn matches into a war of attrition, whilst also taking the most important ingredient, pacing, out of Smash Bros. Both Brawl and Wii U are particularly guilty of this, with “75m”, “New Pork City” and “The Great Cave Offensive” being some of the worst offenders. There are some excellent gimmicks in both of these games, with “WarioWare Inc.” in Brawl being a particular favourite. Overall, however, I feel the level design in Melee has a huge amount of variety, simultaneously being challenging and interesting whilst also being fair to all players. For levels, it has to be Melee.

Modes

Of course, when anyone thinks of a Smash Bros game they think of the frenetic multiplayer, which I will leave as a section unto itself. Outside of this, there are the single player modes themselves, which for the dedicated Smash players can provide almost as much mileage. Wii U once again is certainly ahead in terms of sheer numbers, with some interesting mix ups to the formula. Crazy Orders is a great risk/reward system, but doesn’t have much variety or depth, whereas Smash Tour seems like a good idea but feels too unpredictable to be reliably enjoyable. Crucially, however, Wii U lacks a solid “campaign” mode, which Melee had in the form of Adventure mode and Brawl built on with the Subspace Emissary. Between Adventure and Subspace Emissary is a matter of preference, and although I have a huge amount of love for Adventure mode I have to admit Subspace Emissary does an excellent job at introducing a player to the entire roster and to get used to the variety the game has to offer. Melee is a solid entry, but Brawl just takes it.

Multiplayer

Now, this is where the strength of having a large character roster can start to backfire, as competitive multiplayer becomes a lot more random as greater numbers of characters, stages and items are thrown into the mix. When there are over 50 characters it is very difficult to remember how each character plays and thus what to expect when fighting them. This is fine during single player, when one is changing characters every few minutes. When trying to master a character in competitive play however it becomes frustrating having to keep track of such a large amount of information. It also requires a much greater time investment to test all the characters, which will put off company who are down with Smash Bros but don’t have the game themselves.

"I literally only own Waverace and one controller"

This leads to me the conclusion that Melee has the best multiplayer. It is well-balanced between all characters and stages, with items never being too sporadic or over-powered. Moreover, for new players it is easy to recommend characters to start out with (Link as an all rounder, Samus as sniper, Jigglypuff for someone who wants to focus on surviving) whilst giving experienced players a huge number of options. Seriously, of the dozen or so serious Smash Bros players I know there is practically no overlap of character usage in Melee, which is a testament to how well-balanced and interesting the multiplayer is.

Gameplay

This may well be the most important to factor in, and probably the most intangible and difficult to describe. Obviously the core gameplay is the same between all 3 games; what I want to work out is which game gets closest to the perfect blend of platforming, fighting, and that unique Smash Bros element.

This element is composed of at least 14% "ohshitaPokeballgettingitisthemostimportantthingever"

I have already discussed balancing between characters, which I feel falls in favour of Melee. In more technical terms, Brawl has been widely criticised for some of its more random elements, such as tripping, and I feel this criticism is generally justified. Whilst not a bad game but any stretch, the core gameplay can often feel too unpredictable, and has massive variance depending on the character chosen. I also felt this when first playing Wii u, but soon discovered this variance is deliberate to give the single player experience more variety and fairness, and that when I played the multiplayer I found a very solidly built engine which strips back a lot of the crazier factors in Brawl for a very solid and fair system, much in the style of Melee.

That being said, Wii U is very close to Melee, but it does not beat it. Melee has the perfect pace, being relentlessly quick whilst also giving perfect control to everyone; if you die, it is your fault. It also allows for almost limitless depth (feel free to Google wave-dashing and other pro techniques for detailed examples), and although there have been criticisms of it not being welcoming to new players, a few runs through Adventure mode will set a novice on the right path.

Summary

So, with 3 points to Melee, 2 to Wii U and 1 to Brawl, with a clear winner. I have put close to a thousand hours into Melee and will likely do so twice over in the years to come. They are excellent games, but Melee, in my opinion, comes out as the cream of the crop.

In summary? Shut up Metacritic. Just shut up.

Should pre-rendered backgrounds make a comeback? by Lee Morris

With the Resident Evil and Grim Fandango remakes being released early this year for PS4 and Steam, I thought it'd be a good opportunity to discuss a long forgotten tract of video games, the lost art-form of pre-rendered backgrounds.

Just a reminder then. A staple of the mid to late 90's and a hallmark of the PS1 era, games were often presented with pre-rendered backgrounds, in which moving 3D polygonal character models were embedded into static 2D pre-rendered landscapes. Notable games in the style include monster-hits like Final Fantasy VII and mega-smashes like the early Resident Evil entries. The style was very common on the Playstation as it was less capable of rendering full 3D environments than its 64-bit N64 cousin. The pre-rendered style was also prominent in the point-and-click genre of PC adventure games in titles such as Broken Sword and The Curse of Monkey Island. Since the Resident Evil remake on the Gamecube in 2002 though, the pre-rendered background style has all but vanished. It didn't make an appearance at all last generation.

Neither did Gex. But I think we're all fine with that.

I say 'style'; was it a style as such though? Or was it just a product of its time which arose due to technical limitations and was rightfully omitted from the medium once full 3D rendering could properly take over? Was it a style through necessity like Mario's moustache? Or is it a unique stylised way to present a video game which could possibly make a comeback?

I personally would love to see it back. I'm biased really. I loved FFVII VIII and IX, Dino Crisis, Parasite Eve and all the PS1 hits that made it special. I don't know if it's just the nostalgia talking but I think these games still look gorgeous. I mean, they look horrible, they do, they actually do, the characters look like idiots... but the backgrounds still look the part I think.

I think games with pre-rendered backgrounds look rather filmic, more so than some of their 3D rendered cut-scene laden counterparts perhaps. As much as I love roaming round in a 3D environment, I still appreciate the simplistic minimalist static-cam feel of PS1 era games and the calm sense of tranquillity they engender. The environments appear like a series of stunning photographs, the art director being more capable of accurately lining up their shot and framing the setting accordingly with the atmosphere they wished to create. They can also do the often gorgeous concept art justice.

Survival Horrollers Alone in the Dark and many of the early Resident Evil games occasionally used a particular static-cam shot known to film-makers as 'the Dutch Angle' in which the image is shot from near the ground and framed tilted to the side to create an unsettling feeling. Can't really use this effect in over-the-shoulder cam horror games as implementing it mid-action would probably feel like a camera glitch. Pre-rendered backgrounds allowed for these natural variations of shot choice without seeming jarring.

Japanese film-maker Yasujirō Ozu actually used static cam shots exclusively in his films. This was his signature style and gave his films a unique mood with a static sort of feel (I haven't seen a single one of his films to be honest but thought I'd throw his name in the hat here). The shots being a fixed camera act like a sort of security camera, giving a fly-on-the-wall effect. If it can be a style choice in cinema then I think it could be a style choice for new video games.

Now I'm not suggesting that the likes of Dead Space and The Last of Us would have benefited from static shots and pre-rendered backgrounds; that wouldn't work, though it would be funny to see a hilarious PS1 demake of them or something. I think only RPG's, adventure games and old school survival horror games with puzzle elements tend to suit it really. It'd be nice to see some new IPs adopting the pre-rendered style though, especially with today's 1080p (and soon eventually 4K) graphics allowing for some incredibly detailed backgrounds. It would be great also to see some series' return to their pre-rendered roots, chiefly Resident Evil and Final Fantasy of course which have wandered off the tracks a bit since turning fully 3D. 

Of course, in some ways Final Fantasy XIII should have gone off the tracks more.

I do love Resident Evil 4 and bits of 5 and 6, but Final Fantasy has bit the dust in my view since going full 3D in FFXII. Final Fantasy X and Resident Evil Outbreak on the PS2 hit a sort of middle ground with fixed cameras that would pivot, this worked well, but in full 3D they became very different games. Resident Evil just became more of an action game which is OK but FFXII and FFXIII just felt very plain and empty compared to previous entries.

Capcom revisited the original mansion from Resident Evil 1 in full over-the-shoulder 3D in a piece of Resident Evil 5 DLC, albeit with a slightly altered layout. It was novel to see it but I couldn't imagine the original game working with that camera. The mansion felt smaller, though not having to wait 10 seconds to transition through each door might have had something to do with that.

"Stop it! Don't open that door!"

As far as a Final Fantasy VII remake goes, I don't think it would work in full 3D. Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core showed that to me as even locations I had a lot of fond memories of appeared flat and mundane when transported into 3D. Midgar felt like a regular mundane typical city in Crisis Core. When it was framed a certain way in Final Fantasy VII it seemed more colourful and interesting. Not being able to look around certain corners and under certain rocks was what gave these settings their mystique. We could only assimilate what being in these environments would be like through the limited number of viewing angles given, and that 'less is more' element is perhaps what made them work. I hope that if Square Enix do remake the game eventually they would redo the 2D environments and make them look stunning.

Square Enix recently returned to pre-rendered backgrounds with Bravely Default on the 3DS. The game, almost a reboot of the original Final Fantasy games of sorts, looks fantastic due to its presentation. Even though Final Fantasy XV looks absolutely out-of-this-world phenomenal, hopefully they still have room in their hearts for the static background look and might consider it for FFXVI.

I've not heard much on the immediate horizon about any new games with fixed camera perspectives or pre-rendered environments coming soon... but hopefully the Grim Fandango and Resident Evil (Gamecube version) remakes coming soon will remind developers and players how effective they can be.

There are however, some tinkerings going on within the indie circuit. There's a nice little project under development called 'The Black Tower' being worked on by three French developers. It is an homage to Final Fantasy VII in pretty much every way and the developers are quite open about that. There's a video on their website of a prototype demo they've created for it. It's being created using pre-rendered backgrounds and the Unity3D engine for the character models. It looks fantastic. I hope they can get it finished as it looks as though they've taken on quite a big task on their hands here. I'm not promoting it or anything but the vid can be viewed here.

So, aside from remakes and homages then, the style really has dissolved and is perhaps considered nothing more than a throwback these days. Would be nice to see it again though as I think there's some new mileage to get out of it in certain genres. Am I alone in this, or do other people miss this 90’s standard?

- Lee Morris