gibson@trwrb.UUCP (Gregory S. Gibson) (10/22/88)
Is Risk available for the st? Thanks in advance.
Gregory Gibson
gibson@trwrb.UUCP
--
Gregory Gibson
{...ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!gibsonseitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) (10/23/88)
In article <8313@trwrb.UUCP> gibson@trwrb.UUCP (Gregory S. Gibson) writes: >Is Risk available for the st? Thanks in advance. > I don't think Risk is available. However, you might take a look at Electronic Arts' _Lords_of_Conquest_, which was designed as a deluxe Risk. Matt Seitz seitz@cory.berkeley.edu >Gregory Gibson >gibson@trwrb.UUCP >-- >Gregory Gibson >{...ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!gibson
jjung@nunki.usc.edu (John Jung) (10/23/88)
In article <6726@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: >In article <8313@trwrb.UUCP> gibson@trwrb.UUCP (Gregory S. Gibson) writes: >>Is Risk available for the st? Thanks in advance. >> > I don't think Risk is available. However, you might take a look at >Electronic Arts' _Lords_of_Conquest_, which was designed as a deluxe Risk. Are you insane? I tried Lords of Conquest in the store, and I think it stinks. I had seen the ads, and I knew the graphics weren't going to be much, but when I actually saw it, the graphics looked like *bad* Atari 8-bit graphics. The game interfaced wasn't too bad, but I didn't like it. The sound (which I prefered off) was bad and annoying. I would not reccommend this game to anybody who likes/loves Risk. I am a devotee of Risk, and I didn't like Lords of Conquest one _single_ bit. John
seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) (10/24/88)
In article <1719@nunki.usc.edu> jjung@nunki.usc.edu (John Jung) writes: >In article <6726@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: >>> >> I don't think Risk is available. However, you might take a look at >>Electronic Arts' _Lords_of_Conquest_, which was designed as a deluxe Risk. > > Are you insane? I tried Lords of Conquest in the store, and I think it >stinks. I had seen the ads, and I knew the graphics weren't going to be much, >but when I actually saw it, the graphics looked like *bad* Atari 8-bit >graphics. The game interfaced wasn't too bad, but I didn't like it. The sound >(which I prefered off) was bad and annoying. > > I would not reccommend this game to anybody who likes/loves Risk. I am a >devotee of Risk, and I didn't like Lords of Conquest one _single_ bit. > I wasn't trying to review or reccommend the game. Just wanted to mention it as a possibility, since it is the closest thing to Risk on the ST. However, I don't think the game is as bad as you make out. Yes, the graphics are crude and the sound is poor. So what? The appeal of board games like Risk, Chess, or Go isn't the slick visual and sound effects, it's in the strategy and subtleties of the game itself. Lots of bells and whistles are a nice extra, but a solid game design, clear rules, good user interface and a challenging opponent are the most important things. I'm just as happy playing PD Krabat as Chessmaster 2000, even without the 3-D board, full color, and digitized voice. Hoping to be found sane, Matt Seitz seitz@cory.berkeley.edu > John
kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) (10/24/88)
In article <1719@nunki.usc.edu> jjung@nunki.usc.edu (John Jung) writes: > > Are you insane? I tried Lords of Conquest in the store, and I think it >stinks. I had seen the ads, and I knew the graphics weren't going to be much, >but when I actually saw it, the graphics looked like *bad* Atari 8-bit >graphics. The game interfaced wasn't too bad, but I didn't like it. The sound >(which I prefered off) was bad and annoying. > > I would not reccommend this game to anybody who likes/loves Risk. I am a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >devotee of Risk, and I didn't like Lords of Conquest one _single_ bit. > > John I don't have Lords of Conquest, but it seems to me that the idea behind it and Risk is not to be an action-packed, flashy game but a cerebral, plotting game involving strategy and thought. All the bells and whistles are just extra fluff. Therefore, who cares what the graphics look like or what noises it makes if all one is interested in is good game of Risk? Paul Kerchen | kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu
t19@nikhefh.hep.nl (Geert J v Oldenborgh) (10/24/88)
There is a Dutch version, PD, called Risky, B&W only. Our version includes maps of the world, Canary islands and the Bijlmermeer. G.J. van Oldenborgh, t19@nikhefh.hep.nl
jjung@sal42.usc.edu (John Jung) (10/24/88)
In article <3201@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) writes: >In article <1719@nunki.usc.edu> jjung@nunki.usc.edu (John Jung) writes: >> [stuff about how much I like Risk and hated Lords of Conquest] >I don't have Lords of Conquest, but it seems to me that the idea >behind it and Risk is not to be an action-packed, flashy game but a >cerebral, plotting game involving strategy and thought. All the bells >and whistles are just extra fluff. Therefore, who cares what the >graphics look like or what noises it makes if all one is interested in >is good game of Risk? I don't care about the sound or the graphics, I guess I was more disappointed with the overall execution of Lords of Conquest. I like Risk a lot, but Lords of Conquest doesn't have many things in common with it. I like cerebral games as much as the next guy (hey I love Infocom stuff), but Lords of Conquest ain't it. I would much rather play something like Geopolitik than Lords of Conquest any day of the week. (Heck, I'd much rather play Risk than Geopolitik! :-) Overall, I have to say, if Lords of Conquest was supposed to be Risk for the ST's, it failed miserably. If it has some other theme, I sure as heck don't know about it. John
dhawk@well.UUCP (David Hawkins) (10/26/88)
In article <1719@nunki.usc.edu> jjung@nunki.usc.edu (John Jung) writes: > > Are you insane? I tried Lords of Conquest in the store, and I think it >stinks. I had seen the ads, and I knew the graphics weren't going to be much, >but when I actually saw it, the graphics looked like *bad* Atari 8-bit >graphics. The game interfaced wasn't too bad, but I didn't like it. The sound >(which I prefered off) was bad and annoying. > I would not reccommend this game to anybody who likes/loves Risk. I am a >devotee of Risk, and I didn't like Lords of Conquest one _single_ bit. I have to agree. I have a review copy of Lords of Conquest and it's awful (in my opinion, of course.) The graphics are incredibly bad. The worst part was the manual. Any number of terms were not explained well or at all. I never got any kind of 'feel' for the game. There were some other problems with it, but they're in my notes and I'm at work. If you want an excellent game that has Risk-type elements, play Empire. At least the manual is thorough. (In this case I mean Risk-type in that it's a 'conquer the world' game. You start with just one city, just like the opponent, whereas in Risk and Lords of Conquest you start with contries interspaced with the opponent's.) later, david -- David Hawkins {pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!dhawk There's one about Paddy O'Furniture, but I forget how to set it up.