Re: "8 Classic Games You Haven't Played (but should)"

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 15:20:28 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

Personally, I preferred the older game. "Powermonger" just added on
layers of complexity I felt were unnecessary. Although, again, that
might be because I came across it later. Perhaps had I played
"Powermonger" first, I would have been bitching about how stupidly
simplified they'd made "Populous". ;-P

>
I was disappointed by Powermonger.  It sounded like the strategy game I
had been waiting for, but it turned out to be underwelming.  It's been
so long I'm not entirely sure why I thought I'd like it and why I didn't,
but I think the main problem was a lack of depth.
>

Can we both agree, though, that "Syndicate" was the better of both
games? ;-)

>
I might also agree, but Syndicate crashed a lot for me so I never got
far in the game.

It also started to get very tediously repetitive as it dragged on. By
about the tenth level, you'd seen everything the game had to offer,
and the other 40 levels were variations on the theme, just with
increasingly difficult designs. Then again, when most maps could be
finished in five or ten minutes, it's hard to imagine what else
Bullfrog could have done to stretch out the game so you weren't paying
$50USD (in 1993 dollars) for a game you could otherwise finish in a
few hours.

The sequel, "Syndicate Wars" was a bit better in this regard, but the
early-3D graphics and rough controls made it hard to notice. Although
it was fun to make entire buildings explode.