Ascendancy
Description official descriptions
Ascendancy is similar to, but nevertheless very different from, Master of Orion. You play one of many races, each with a special ability and special character traits, who set off to explore space, erect colonies (which can each have individual purposes, depending on their raw materials) and engage in battles when you clash with others who have the same goals. Weapons on the ships use power, which has to be supplied somehow.
This game introduces many original concepts, such as the Research Tree - a special scientific display in which discoveries are depicted as icons connected by lines to the "parent" technological breakthroughs and "child" ones, similar to the technology advances in Civilization, but presented in a much more visual way.
Groups +
Screenshots
Promos
Credits (DOS version)
31 People (23 developers, 8 thanks) · View all
Created by | |
Made possible through the efforts of | |
Additional support and content provided by | |
Packaging and Manual Art Direction and Design by | |
Packaging Illustration | |
Manual Digital Enhancement | |
AIL and VFX libraries by | |
Special Thanks to the Brøderbund Team | |
AIL and VFX libraries by |
|
Design & Artwork Coordinator | |
Design |
|
Photography | |
Package Design Art Direction | |
[ full credits ] |
Reviews
Critics
Average score: 78% (based on 15 ratings)
Players
Average score: 3.9 out of 5 (based on 71 ratings with 14 reviews)
Fun at first, but ultimately unsatisfying.
The Good
Graphically beautiful, with a nice tech tree and plenty of interesting structures to build on and around your planets. The galaxy is modeled in three dimensions, which (as far as this reviewer knows) was a first in this genre. There are a lot of races to choose from, and the game itself can be customized extensively, so in theory you could play it forever.
The Bad
Politics and diplomacy are minimal, and ship design and combat are extremely lacking -- basically, the bigger the ship the better, so there aren't really any interesting tradeoffs to make. The three dimensional galaxy helps cover up the weak AI opponent, since the jumpgate system forces you to move through bottlenecks and generally limits you to frontal assaults. The races are many, but they just don't have a whole lot of personality when compared to those in Master of Orion.
The Bottom Line
There are good things about Ascendancy, but too many bad things along with them. I recommend that you resist the temptation to pick up this game, and stick to MOO and MOO2 instead.
DOS · by PCGamer77 (3158) · 2011
Good game killed by braindead AI.
The Good
The scope and the execution were excellent in general -- this was one of the first space games that really depicted depth in space battles. The graphics were good, as was the sound and music. Gameplay was also good, if not totally revolutionary.
The Bad
Totally incompetent AI kills the game. It has no multiplayer, so you're stuck with the AI. The first 500 days or so of the game are exciting, but after that, it becomes far too easy to kill the computer, who just sits there.
The Bottom Line
It was so close, you might just pick it up if you can find it to see the pretty sights. Don't expect to get the longevity you can out of MOO 2, though.
DOS · by Vincent Valentine (23) · 1999
Good ideas... but an idea is not enough.
The Good
Sincerely, the music. Personal taste, I guess, but sometimes I found myself playing Ascendancy because of hearing the music meanwhile. Not only it’s pleasing to hear, but fits excellently in the futuristic background.
To the best of my knowledge, Ascendancy introduced innovative features to the 4X family, leaving the path set by Moo. Star systems had a tactical map for their own and included several planets, I really liked the 3D environment, and so the planet management system (planets divided in regions, each with its own characteristics, a facility for each region), instead of the Civ model. Also the races were very original and imaginative, each with its specific background, and even its own victory conditions; the tech tree featured also very creative technologies, and lots of toys were at your disposal to enrich ship designing.
The Bad
I felt somewhat disappointed by the lack of race customization: after playing Moo2, I missed it; the races, in fact, were and played the same except for a unique special ability: no other bonuses / penalties; the story and background was rich and interesting, and each race had a particular victory condition, but I found it lacking for the replay value. The Star Lanes / Red Links were another curious idea (points that connect star systems and are needed to travel between them), but restricted too much travel and exploration; a good idea could have been make the travel easier between them, but not forcing to use them.
Wars were not the strong point of Ascendancy (not only for the AI): although the 3D movement in ship combat was, again, another good idea, the rest botched it: small ships are virtually useless, since they cost the same to maintain as large ones. And for tactical combat, quickly becomes a matter of taking the weapon with the bigger range. Why? Because there are no attack/defense values: all weapons shot automatically. The bigger the ship, the better the range and power, and the battle is won; for sure. Worse even is ground combat: compare the number of Invasion Modules with the number of Ground Defense facilities: the side which has more wins; automatically.
Although graphics were decent, the game was full of black backgrounds and dark empty screens that gave the game a dry feeling. Visuals really contrast with the music (very, very good, indeed).
Another botch (and I don’t know why designing it that way) was the trade / exchange system. You, of course, can exchange techs and maps with other races… but you must give ALL your techs and maps for ALL the tech and maps of the other race: no negotiation, no deals. Even worse: you can’t know which techs or maps has the other.
And mix all the bad with the AI… one of the worst ever seen in a game. Enemies seemed not to know how Star Lanes work, since the often got stuck in a system, instead of attacking. In tactical combat, was not rare to see an enemy ship still, waiting, while you crushed it with your (more range) weaponry. A patch was released to correct AI problems, but since I didn’t played it, I don’t know if it really worked.
The Bottom Line
Designers tried to innovate, and that’s not only good but essential. Ascendancy shines in good ideas (and some bad ones, though), but are not well reflected in the game. This doesn’t mean the game is not enjoyable: it can provide a pleasant gaming experience, but not for too long mainly because for the AI. I liked the game very much when I played it… until I got bored of vanquishing fleet after fleet and planet after planet. Ascendancy left a good impression to me because of some of its originality… but an idea is not enough. This could have been a high-top game, but the chance was missed.
DOS · by Technocrat (193) · 2002
Discussion
Subject | By | Date |
---|---|---|
Colonization | vedder (70685) | Feb 21, 2009 |
Trivia
PC Gamer controversy
A minor scandal surrounded the PC Gamer review of Ascendancy. PC Gamer gave the game high marks, and made it an Editor's Choice game. However, the individual who reviewed the game for PC Gamer also turned out to be the author of the game's Strategy Guide, leading many to wonder if the review had been padded in order to boost sales of the Strategy Guide.
In Computer Gaming World #151 (February 1997), a letter by William Trotter was published in which he shared his view on the matter. Summarized, he needed money to pay off repairs on his house and therefore gladly agreed to write the strategy guide. However, the developers failed to give him any information on the game, not even technology trees, and a one-month deadline. So he had no other choice but to play the game non-stop for two weeks, becoming eventually obsessed with it. So when PC Gamer hired him for the review, he really thought Ascendancy was a great game, and he failed to see the conflict of interest. In hindsight, he agrees with the bad review in Computer Gaming World (see MobyRanks), the strategy guide turned out to be pathetic and he didn't receive any royalties from it at all.
Awards
- CODiE Awards
- 1996 - Best Strategy Software
Information also contributed by Afterburner
Analytics
Upgrade to MobyPro to view research rankings!
Related Sites +
-
Ascendancy
official game page at Logic Factory's website, archived copy from 1997 by the Wayback Machine
Identifiers +
Contribute
Are you familiar with this game? Help document and preserve this entry in video game history! If your contribution is approved, you will earn points and be credited as a contributor.
Contributors to this Entry
Game added by Tomer Gabel.
iPad, iPhone added by Techademus.
Additional contributors: Rebound Boy, formercontrib, Patrick Bregger, MrFlibble.
Game added August 29, 1999. Last modified January 23, 2024.