Disciples III: Renaissance Review
Matthew, Orc, Luke and John.
Version tested: PC
I'd love to be able to start this review by telling you about the time in Mission 4 I was held hostage by a talking codpiece, or the bit in Mission 7 where I fought undead tapeworms inside the gut of a flatulent troll princess. Sadly, I can't. Nothing anywhere near that anecdote-worthy happened to me. Though Disciples III is mechanically very similar to the fabulous King's Bounty, it doesn't have any of that game's wit, energy or quirkiness.
That isn't to say it's not deserving of your precious time. Disciples III's face might be po, its laces strait, but only the most ardent fantasy hater or inflexible Heroes of Might and Magic aficionado could actively dislike its hearty turn-based mixed grill of exploration, character cultivation and hex warfare.
Whether you're playing one of the trio of hefty campaigns, the hot-seat multiplayer or the lone single scenario, you start off feeble, ill-equipped, and surrounded by darkness. Level maps are crammed with SSSSSSIs (Sites of Special Sword, Sorcery, Stat or Supply Interest). Creep camps, resource-producing settlements, loot hordes, buff buildings, and crawlable dungeons... you can't move your party ten paces without them stumbling on something clickable.
As you push deeper into terra incognita, neutralising opposition and claiming the all-important guardian nodes, the stone and gold necessary to recruit new personnel and build city structures streams into your storehouses. The mana required to learn and cast spells and create runes also accrues. Before you know it, you're leading a gang of strutting toughs with more hitpoints than they know what to do with and scoffing haughtily at the thugs, wolves, and giant spiders that once turned your blood to ice.

Angels, inquisitors and warrior nuns reinforce the religious vibe.
Of course, by this time, those thugs, wolves and giant spiders aren't nearly as common as they once were. Their place has been taken by armoured trolls, stiletto-twirling inquisitors and shambling demons the size of bungalows. Playing the campaign on the standard difficulty setting, you might coast for an hour or two on occasion, effortlessly slaying everything that crosses your path, but a tightly straitjacketed storyline means tricky encounters can't be sidestepped forever.
For every battle in which you confidently press the auto-combat button and nip off to the Bog of Piney Freshness, there's one in which you're glued to your seat, nervously shuffling forces, preying for critical hits, and vainly scouring your inventory for heal elixirs and runes of stone golem summoning.
For Disciples disciples, the most welcome aspect of the Renaissance renaissance has to be the revamped combat system. Gone is the old 12-square chessboard with its static pieces; in its place is a 117-cell hex-grid on which units can roam at will. Should I try to get my titan onto that melee-boosting hotspot in the centre of the arena, or keep him close to my vulnerable acolyte? Should I block that causeway between the boulders with a summoned elemental or rush everyone forward in an attempt to overwhelm their archers? Every battle is strewn with testing tactical dilemmas. Enemy AI could be sharper - its target choice and use of advantageous terrain isn't always brilliant - but the stiffness of the opposition frequently masks the shortcomings.

The titan's earthquake power is a fine way to finish off several severely wounded foes.
As someone that plays more wargames than RPGs, I would like to have seen a tad more realism in the battle layer, and a touch less reverence to genre convention. Large rocks and combatants block movement but not missile fire, AI retreats are rare, and the grievously wounded seem as capable of delivering fatal blows as the fighting fit.
I'd also like to have seen more varied arenas and spectacular special abilities. Though the character animations are generally superb - watching a titan swat a goblin with a tree-trunk club never gets old - and the spell effects sumptuous, there's nothing here to rival the baroque splendour of King's Bounty's Spirits of Rage.
King's Bounty also offered more freedom. In Disciples III, the scripter's dagger-point is frequently at your throat. In the human campaign (there are also elf and demon sequences), you're tasked with protecting a mysterious celestial agent from the attentions of an over-enthusiastic Inquisition. You swear never to leave the lady's side, but a few turns later are forced, by the campaign writer, to hand her over without a fight. It's an annoying moment - an emasculating one - and totally at odds with the spirit of a true RPG. Opportunities for involving moral choices come and go while you look on, unconsulted and miffed.
Fortunately, outside of the story, there are lots of chances to stamp your personality onto proceedings. Each of the 19 campaign levels starts with the player assigned to a home city. What buildings you choose to construct in this settlement determines how party recruits upgrade.
You also get very fine control over your heroes. At any one time you can have up to three hero-led parties scampering about a map. When leaders level up, there are points to spend on attributes and new skills. Instead of a conventional tree, the latter are arranged on an irregular, maze-like grid (different for each class), meaning choices are far from simple.

As usual, you can binge-drink potions without fear of side-effects.
Spellbooks and inventories provide further opportunities for customisation. Every turn, assuming you've got the requisite resources, you can learn and cast one spell (or two, if you've picked a magical character class). The fact that offensive bombshells like Heavenly Fury can be used on the level map means you come to rely on them as standard pre-combat softening-up steps. Spotted a gang of giants guarding a stat-boosting well? Stonk them with a divine bombardment then move in for the hexy melee. After coming to rely on such tactics, it comes as a bit of a shock when the campaign scripter hurls an unavoidable ambush at you, or one of your parties gets bushwhacked by a wandering enemy.
Ah yes, that's another important way in which Disciples III differs from its more colourful and unhinged peer. While neutral opponents sit tight at their assigned locations (usually guarding something or blocking a route) there's generally an enemy faction in play, which, like you, is trying to grab guardian nodes. While it doesn't always go about this particularly sensibly, the threat does add another ingredient to the strategic tasty stew.
Can a game be both a "tasty strategic stew" and a "hearty turn-based mixed grill"? Probably not. Whatever meaty meal Disciples III most closely resembles, one things for sure: there's enough of it in the box to feed a multitude. I've spent more time contentedly slaughtering my way through one of the campaign levels in this game than I did contentedly slaughtering my way through the entire campaign in the last thing I played. There's weeks of solid strategic sustenance here, and, surprisingly, the story that underpins it isn't complete hogwash.

Autumn in Nevendaar. A time of mellow fruitfulness, reflection, and stabbing.
Though it involves some extremely tired tropes (demonic taint infecting the land, old interracial alliances reforged...) and is narrated by a chap who sounds in urgent need of caffeine, mystery and quasi-religious menace is injected regularly enough to keep plot wheels turning in their ruts. Developments are conveyed through text pop-ups, which is a slight shame, as going on the evidence of the handsome load screens and character portraits, Akella's artists could have executed some stunning cut-scene art.
Recommending a game as satisfying and substantial as Disciples III is easy. Recommending it over other satisfying and substantial titles encamped in the same neck-of-the-genre-woods is a little trickier, especially when those titles are now as cheap as, say, Heroes of Might and Magic V. What I can't bring myself to do, under any circumstances, is seriously suggest anyone buys this game before sampling the dippy delights of King's Bounty.
7 / 10
You may also like...
-
Retrospective: Star Wars Episode I Racer
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Game of the Week: Catherine
-
Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
App of the Day: Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer
-
Face-Off: The Darkness 2
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
Gotham City Impostors Review
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review
-
EA evaluating FIFA Street features for FIFA 13
-
Catherine Review
-
App of the Day: Sir Benfro's Brilliant Balloon
-
Grand Slam Tennis 2 Review
-
The Darkness 2 Review
-
Catherine launch trailer is looking saucy
-
Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Vita Review
-
Sony admits "dropping the ball" with Demon's Souls
-
One Piece: Unlimited Cruise SP Review
-
CD Projekt: Witcher 2 intro cinematic "the most expensive asset we ever created"
-
Metal Gear Solid: The "Lost" HD Remasters
-
King Arthur 2 Review
-
Epic's Sweeney on graphics tech: "the limit really is in sight"
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 now live for Xbox 360
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 performance tip: make a new manual save









Comments (28) Latest comment 2 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Only last week you gave us the skinny on Arma 2: OA?
Do you have a time machine? Are you Paul the Octopus?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Your character is there in the thick of it. Another distinction I'm not sure I mentioned, is that battlefield units are single creatures/characters not KB-style armies.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Thank the gods for that, the KB style thing confuses the hell out of me sometimes.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Wish there was a demo!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I guess if you wanted to, you could simply refrain from recruiting extra heroes and thus play with just one party.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
tbh I really liked the static piece approach that Disciples 2 used. It made the battles more about figuring out how to attack enemy units while keeping your own alive, rather than issues with halfwitted battlefield AI and wasting turns chasing enemy units around the battlefield, which is what games with battlefields can sometimes degenerate into.
Looking forward to trying out Disciples3 anyway. The art looks gorgeous - it's good to see an art style that looks hand-drawn and grown up. Way too many games of this ilk have godawful cartoony styling.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Spooky timing. Your wish has been granted - http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/discip...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Gone are the wonderful almost-Peter-Breugel-like graphics, gone the non-linear maps where there actually was a strategic game to play (you could go around a powerful enemy and find something to do to buff up your units until you got enough resources in order to cast some spells on the powerful one)...
In some of the single player scenarios I found under hot-seat with 1 player (...) for this, I found i had to just let about ten turns pass in the beginning just to be able to defeat ANY of the creatures around my starting city (my capital). Bring back Strategy First next time please
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I agree wholeheartedly. As I'm living in Germany I was able to buy Disciples 3 about 2 weeks ago (don't ask me why we were the first to get it) and I am still enjoying it quite a lot. But the change from the old 12 field system was a bad idea imo. The new hex system, while tried and true, is something we see in basically every game of the genre, it was the single thing that really distinguished the Disciples game mechanics from it's rivals.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
And I wholeheartedly agree with that.
Just like real-time strategy is not necessarily "better" than turn-based strategy, allowing pieces to move around in turn-based strategy isn't necessarily "better" than stationary pieces. Each can have its place with game mechanics designed for that particular type of game.
There were all sorts of ways in which the stationary piece battle system of Disciples2 could have expanded; swapping units in/out during battles, extra gaining rows/columns, outfitting each unit with unique loot, etc etc. I'm hoping I like this Hex system they've adopted, but after reading feedback including in this thread I'm not holding my breath.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"In some of the single player scenarios I found under hot-seat, I found i had to just let about ten turns pass in the beginning just to be able to defeat ANY of the creatures around my starting city (my capital)."
It sounds like you were playing a different version to the one reviewed (1.06). In the build I've got, all of the hotseat scenarios feature battles that can be won easily within the first turn.
On Islands there's a couple of thugs a stone's throw from the city. On Drive, you start close to a brace of grey wolves and a goblin. On Battle of Dagar, there's three imps in the shadow of the walls. Easily vaniquished parties of peasants on Krosspell and Triel Trial too.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"allowing pieces to move around in turn-based strategy isn't necessarily "better" than stationary pieces."
I'm struggling to think of a game that validates this argument. Manouevre is a fundamental part of warfare. Surely it makes sense to represent that in your wargame by including moveable forces?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
In a video game with two sides battling against each other the designer can of course create the rules and mechanics as he wishes. The important thing is that if the game has static pieces then its rules and mechanics are designed with this in mind, and allowing the pieces to move wouldn't automatically improve such a game as you seemed to suggest in the review. Strategy games don't neccessarily need to include the kitchen sink to mimic some real world tactics, only what's required to make them fun and interesting.
You asked for an example...Magic: the Gathering essentially has static pieces as the cards are not moved on a board, so range is no determining factor of whether a creature can attack an enemy. Introducing a board and allowing movement wouldn't automatically improve that game, and going further, would introducing terrain height, terrain type, supply, etc to the board improve it even more, since they're also fundamental parts of warfare? I'd suggest introducing those elements would only unneccessarily complicate it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
About this one, I can only comment on the graphics. As much as I respect Akella's endeavour to maintain the predecessor's style, they haven't quite nailed the colour palette. It does look autumnal and somber, which somhow suits the premise, but II looked a wee bit more vivid, yet strikingly melancholic. I do not quite comprehend why did they resurrect the Disciples franchise with this engine rather than, say, Etherlords. It's not like the masses have been waiting with bated breath for another Disciples game.
Long story short, if you like jRPGs, chances are you're gonna like Disciples II. If you don't like jRPGs, chances are you're gonna like it nonetheless for it still resembles the HoM&M series more than anything else.
P.S. II was about the only game sporting regular elves who weren't a bunch of pansies.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Disciples II's combat was unmitigated arse-water, though, so it bumps this up from "definitely don't care" to "maybe" for me. I doubt I'm alone - fantasy T-RPG/wargame grognard Venn circles probably overlap rather a lot.
And it may have been prettily ("autumnal", even), but it kind of sacrificed actually being able to see what the hell was going on.
@Obiwanshinobi: Etherlords! Now there's a game that might've been really good if the developer hadn't abandoned it within five minutes. I seem to recall they made one of the single-player campaign's tutorial stage basically unwinnable as a side-effect of a skill patch for multiplayer.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What seems unnecessary and a bit annoying after King's Bounty is that the game is turn-based on the world map. Although I guess the AI makes its moves in the background.
But enough of the complaining, I much prefer the single units/hero on the battlefield/visible loot approach to King's Bounty. I'll almost certainly get this.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"Whether manouevre is a fundamental part of warfare is totally irrelevant. We're talking about abstracted games here"
Using this argument, why bother with damage, armour representation, or unit types? Every game is of course a mass of abstractions. Surely the trick is to abstract while retaining the essential character of the activity you are attempting to represent. I wouldn't design a medieval/fantasy skirmish game with static pieces for the same reason I wouldn't design an Aliens game with static aliens or an F1 game with totally straight tracks.
"The important thing is that if the game has static pieces then its rules and mechanics are designed with this in mind, and allowing the pieces to move wouldn't automatically improve such a game as you seemed to suggest in the review."
I'm not sure I ever claimed 'automatic' improvement. What I did do was provide examples of interesting and naturalistic tactical choices impossible under the old engine:
"Should I try to get my titan onto that melee-boosting hotspot in the centre of the arena, or keep him close to my vulnerable acolyte? Should I block that causeway between the boulders with a summoned elemental or rush everyone forward in an attempt to overwhelm their archers?"
"Magic: the Gathering essentially has static pieces as the cards are not moved on a board, so range is no determining factor of whether a creature can attack an enemy. Introducing a board and allowing movement wouldn't automatically improve that game"
There you're fighting with the limitations of the medium. Thankfully, in the Brave New World that is videogaming making goblins gambol and spiders scuttle is easy.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Yep I totally agree, they're not needed...providing the game design is fun and interesting enough so their inclusion isn't warranted. As I said, the kitchen sink doesn't have to be included as standard in turn-based wargames, or the game is somehow a poor relation. There are approximately half a million JRPGs with static piece battle systems - a bunch of early Final Fantasy games for instance - and they're by no means poor relations just because the troops can't be moved, their battle systems were designed such that movement would just over complicate and as such wasn't required.
That's the impression I got from reading your review, whether knowingly on your part or not, and this is actually reinforced by your Aliens game example. Why couldn't you design an Aliens turn-based wargame with static piece xenomorph? You said yourself that the trick is to abstract while retaining the character (which I agree with). It is still entirely possible to give the impression of the Aliens' attacking speed without actual piece movement; for instance Disciples2 itself had an "initiative" attribute which governed attack speed.
Anyway, I'm yet to try the Disciples3 demo, so perhaps movement is appropriate in the revamped battle system, in which case, great.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The battle system transition from static pieces to hex really doesn't add very much at all, and now relegates Disciples into yet another HoMM clone. In every single battle the ranged units just remain where they started and the melee units go forward to engage each other in the middle, which gets incredibly mindless by the 100th battle.
There is sometimes extra interest by the units fighting over the occasional 2x damage hex, but all the transition to hex has done is prolong the battles by melee units taking a few turns to get into position before they start trading blows. I'm finding I auto-resolve a lot of battles, just because I can't be bothered moving loads of units around yet again.
The battlefield units are generally really well animated, but they've lost a lot of the characterisation from D2 because they're now so small in order to fit the entire hex battlefield on screen. From this to this.
Plus it's thrown some typically rubbish battlefield AI into the mix. The AI has never attempted to do anything remotely clever, such a use chokepoints or use melee units to defend and rely on ranged units to damage your units. The AI just sends its melee units towards you as fast as possible, and as such it's easy to always get the first hit in by holding back your own units until enemy melee units are in range.
I wished they'd stuck to the static unit system and focused on adding more depth to that. As I said in previous posts, a movable unit battle system isn't necessarily better than static, as is the case with Disciples 2 & 3.
As for the rest of the game; the hand drawn art looks gorgeous, the RPG stuff for your leaders is well done, there's loads of content and it's bloody difficult at times so there's plenty of challenge. I'd say the 7/10 is a fair score.