Well the game is called Babylon’s Fall, so idk what people were really expecting!Babylon's Fall Reaches Zero Concurrent Players on Steam
Babylon's Fall's player count has managed to hit a new all-time low as it hit a total of zero concurrent players on Steam.wccftech.com
Well, look on the bright side... um... there's nowhere to go but up?
Babylon's Fall Reaches Zero Concurrent Players on Steam
Babylon's Fall's player count has managed to hit a new all-time low as it hit a total of zero concurrent players on Steam.wccftech.com
Well, look on the bright side... um... there's nowhere to go but up?
LIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!Well the game is called Babylon’s Fall, so idk what people were really expecting!
Babylon's Fall Reaches Zero Concurrent Players on Steam
Babylon's Fall's player count has managed to hit a new all-time low as it hit a total of zero concurrent players on Steam.wccftech.com
Well, look on the bright side... um... there's nowhere to go but up?
It's worth playing and its actually quite short by top down RPG standard. Although I think the property has been abandoned and the game sorta finish on a cliffhanger so that's a bit disappointing. The idea was that the bad guy command is supreme and so if you tried to save everyone it would just anger him and he would use his magic to make everything worse than if you applied his evil command but as lightly as possible, but the game chicken out and you can actually play traditional good and in 90% of cases everything will work out well.
An older game and one I both want and do not want to play, but damn if it isn't an interesting discussion on evil in here.
Yeah, I'm being a bit hyperbolic when I say I don't want to play it. I do, I'm just that guy who often plays the good guy unless the good playthrough is notably worse in comparison to the evil one. So while I'm intrigued by playing in a evil vs evil setting, I'm also kinda in that "Am I in the headspace to play an evil person like that?"It's worth playing and its actually quite short by top down RPG standard. Although I think the property has been abandoned and the game sorta finish on a cliffhanger so that's a bit disappointing. The idea was that the bad guy command is supreme and so if you tried to save everyone it would just anger him and he would use his magic to make everything worse than if you applied his evil command but as lightly as possible, but the game chicken out and you can actually play traditional good and in 90% of cases everything will work out well.
If you ignore the independent and "side with the rebel" route, the game isn't so much about playing as an evil character as its about playing someone with authority in an evil system (but nowhere near enough authority to change the system). So you playing the good path means trying to minimize the evil as much as possible while being traped in a situation where evil as to be commited no matter what. Like early in the game you have to take over a castle in a very strict time limit otherwise everyone (ie people defending the castle and the one assaulting the castle, you included) dies. I guess the best example I could come with would be Schindler list kind of situation.Yeah, I'm being a bit hyperbolic when I say I don't want to play it. I do, I'm just that guy who often plays the good guy unless the good playthrough is notably worse in comparison to the evil one. So while I'm intrigued by playing in a evil vs evil setting, I'm also kinda in that "Am I in the headspace to play an evil person like that?"