RPGWatch Feature - Spellforce 3 Gamescom Early Look

At Gamescom I was introduced to the prequel to Spellforce 1, named Spellforce 3. There were no videos to show, only a few screenshots and a bunch of artwork, but from what I was told the game looks interesting, blending RPG, strategy and economy aspects. Read all about it!

Their main reference for Spellforce 3 is Spellforce 1 and not the second installment of the series, which I think is a good thing to do. The game is a prequel to Spellforce 1 and takes place some 500 years before the events of that game. This allows them to tell more about the lore of the Spellforce universe for which there were already references in the two previous Spellforce games.
This also means that some elements available in Spellforce 1 are not yet invented and obviously, the continent is still in one piece.

They are aiming to bring as much details to the world as possible, which is something Spellforce 2 had less of than Spellforce 1. The Spellforce series have always been a combination of RPG and strategy with a bit of economy added to it. To this, two parts are changed, the strategy and economy parts as these have become too easy in Spellforce 2, which is why they want to increase the depth of these two systems.

More information.

It's nice to see that this RTS/RPG-mix series still lives. I played all parts and enjoyed them very much.

Just fix the pathfinding and formations and I am in.

Never really played the other ones much. Are they good? Why?

Yes, I can only agree, the previous games (especially part 2) have been great fun.
And it really sounds they won't water it down, instead increasing complexity even.

Wonderful news!

I liked the orginal a lot more than the second part. So, i prefer it. But i also had a lot of fun with the Spellforce 2 games, too. So, i'm lokking forward to see what they did now.

Looking forward to it. Thanks for the article

I never liked the keyboard interface hope they either improve it or make it remapable in the new game.

I hope it's about a quarter of the size of whichever Spellforce 2 I played.

I know at some point in the past I've played both Spellforce 1 and 2, yet I can't recall a single thing about either of them right now. That's not a good sign. (Or maybe I'm just getting old ) The upside is they couldn't have been too terrible, because I definitely would have remembered that.

Much better than any MOBA.

Originally Posted by Alistair
I hope it's about a quarter of the size of whichever Spellforce 2 I played.

I hope it's half of SF2 and a quarter of SF1 with add-ons. That would make it 50 hours.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Never really played the other ones much. Are they good? Why?

Of course a matter of taste, but fresh, innovative and good, with surprisingly high production values. Both looked and sounded very good at their time. Actually they were of such high quality that EA bought the studio between SF2 and the add-on. So JoWooD published an EA game.

SF was a mix of one third each (action-RPG, RTS and Settlers). The project lead was the guy who created the Settlers franchise at Blue Byte. Since all three parts were more or less feature complete - okay maybe not complete, but there was a lot of everything - the result was gigantic game with feature overkill. And surprisingly enough, the whole thing really worked. One of the few genre mixes which were actually fun to play.
You could zoom in very close and still control your army through an innovative interface in which you selected the target first and then saw an overlay with every unit which could hit it in one way or the other. Some maps were Diablo clone style exploration, others pure RTS, and some a mix. The whole thing played well, but had minor comfort issues, for example too much walking and a not optimal inventory.
It was one of the games were you think: 20% shorter, fix the 5 biggest game design issues and you have a masterpiece.

SF2 was even better IMHO. My favourite game in the year when Oblivion came out. Unfortunately, AFAIR, even in the month Oblivion came out.
It was much more streamlined. Some RTS and action-RPG elements had been simplified, the Settlers part was cut heavily. Redundancies were gone. Most mechanics were slightly improved and more polished. SF's campaigns were always good, and SF2 was no exception. The result was mainstream game. A lot of fun, nice flow, no feature overkill and even more spectacular production values.
Most people prefer SF1 though, but they simply don't know what's good.

From a creative side both SpellForce games were a great success. Financially they did well (1) and solid (2; directly against Oblivion and a Star Wars RTS) I think.

If you want more infos you should be able to find my reviews for the Dot in the internet archive.

Spellforce 1 is more challenging as an RTS.
Spellforce 2 offers more role-playing.

Originally Posted by Gorath
Most people prefer SF1 though, but they simply don't know what's good.

Pfft, even the ones I talked to thought SF1 was a better game.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
Pfft, even the ones I talked to thought SF1 was a better game.

You mean the guys who made JA:BiA?

Don't know if he did that, but he was on the team developing Spellforce 2 and he has an account on RPGCodex (although that probably is unrelated)

Sounds like him.

The new studio has really been built out of CorePlay's ashes.

It's normal that core gamers prefer the more complex games. SF2 was very mainstream. I finished both and found SF2 even better. Others might see this differently.

That even looks like him, although a few years later

I don't know, I never got into SF2 and stopped at an early time, but I'm not sure why anymore.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
I don't know, I never got into SF2 and stopped at an early time, but I'm not sure why anymore.

Risen was released later in 2009…