By Kieron Gillen on August 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pm.
Since it was being euologised by Demiath on the forum, I decided to download the demo of this highly-retro turn-based RPG. It uses the D20 Open Gaming Licence to accurately translate something that’s worryingly close to the real D&D experience. It’s combat driven with splashes of dialogue, but the fact the rules are sophisticated enough to allow tactics means I found it compelling – if somewhat hard, even once you’ve battled past the interface. Certainly the sort of thing which works best if you’re a veteran of all things polyhedral. The full thing’s fifteen dollars, but you can get the demo here. More beneath the cut…
There’s a lot to like here. It’s the sort of thing which makes me think back to the days before I actually got my Amiga. In my head, the main reason I wanted to have one wasn’t to play Speedball or whatever – it was so I could finally catch up with some of those lovely D&D Gold Box games. In practice, I played one and headed off into my glorious Amiga adventure (which included RPGs, of course – just generally a little more obviously glamourous). The demo itself is a robust little thing – apparently a section not from the whole game, with a pre-generated level 3 party, you’re immediately going in, put into interesting combat situations and trying to work out how to pick stuff up.
(The game alternates between right-click-to-change-icon-purpose and drag and drop pretty much randomly. Hover and drag to a character to pick up.)
I also like how its enlarge spell works:
In other words, there’s much to like here. Like many Indie RPGs, Heroic Fantasy games are the sort who like showing through their thinking of What Makes An Interesting RPG in their Design notes. And here’s a video of the demo in action.
Demo and full purchase available here.
11/08/2009 at 14:13 Clovus says:
After NWN2 I vowed to never play another CRPG that used D&D rules. There has to be a better way to create an electronic combat system than having my processors roll dice at 2.3ghz.
11/08/2009 at 14:14 Lars Westergren says:
Will definitely download demo and try it later tonight. People on RPGCodex have mentioned impressive AI. Opponents don’t charge into a web spell and get stuck as is usually the case, they actually try to move around it, and an enemy mage might fire off a fireball to burn it away.
Sort of what BioWare has hinted will be in Dragon Age actually.
:-)
11/08/2009 at 14:24 Kieron Gillen says:
In the final fight I played – being fast and loose – I backed off and tried to defend a position, but the enemies refused to actually just pile in by themselves. It seemed pretty nifty.
KG
11/08/2009 at 14:29 Nezz says:
There must be a way to get a retro look on game text without using an almost illegible all-caps comic font.
11/08/2009 at 14:59 DMJ says:
You disturb a group of games journalists during their lunch! They turn toward you, pieces of flesh falling from their mouths.
11/08/2009 at 15:37 J Arcane says:
Better pick this up now while you still can. The OGL doesn’t allow electronic adaptations, and while Wizards generally allows freebies to go unmolested, you can bet they’ll be on top of a for-pay product in a heartbeat.
11/08/2009 at 15:40 Lobotomist says:
After over a year of waiting (yes knew about this game development) i finally played a demo.
I awaited great indie game. Based on turn based strategy rpg, with real dice rolling D&D rules. That focuses on gameplay and not on graphic.
Instead its a mixed bag…
For some reason – developer insisted on old school graphic … which is good, but in turn makes games interface intangible mess, completely inappropriate even for most low budget games.
Playing the game. Should be effortless. Even more so with minimalistic graphic.
But in this game even reading the text is a chore…
My message to developer.
Back to the drawing board. Redo the menus. And re-release
11/08/2009 at 15:40 mister_d says:
The characters look like they’re going to, er… fall off the floor — if that makes sense? Not a bad thing, it’s actually quite endearing.
11/08/2009 at 15:40 Demiath says:
Very impressive to see just how fast the RPS machinery works!
It might be interesting to add that, according to play testers on the official forum, the game is supposed to be at least 25 hours long, which is a rather impressive amount of content for an indie RPG.
11/08/2009 at 15:43 getter77 says:
Yep, game is well wrought folks. Even within the whole 3 race 3 class thing you can have entirely different parties based on your eq and feat/spell selections which will change up the experience for you. You can find a fluid trailer or 2, though a bit old, on youtube as well.
11/08/2009 at 15:46 getter77 says:
J Arcane: The FAQ addresses the legalities in part…doesn’t seem to be anything about not being able to make a proper game out of it. They cite all the OGL quotations like mad in the f1 stuff.
11/08/2009 at 15:48 J Arcane says:
getter77: Yeah, looks like I got the D20 STL and the OGL confused again. Sorry about the unnecessary fearmongering.
Still, if you were at all a fan of Ultima or the Dark Sun games, this seems pretty damn cool, if, like the old SSI games, a bit tricky to get the hang of at first.
11/08/2009 at 16:38 Jeremy says:
Looks sweet, I may have to check out the demo for this one.
11/08/2009 at 17:08 monkeyhat says:
Looks neat.
Too bad the text is impossible to read.
11/08/2009 at 17:15 postmanX3 says:
Looks awesome.
I’m still wondering how long it’ll be until someone makes a game based off D20 4.0. Then again, I seem to be the only one in the world who actually likes that system, so oh well.
11/08/2009 at 17:31 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
@mister_d:
Endearing indeed. That there’s Ultima style. Old school.
11/08/2009 at 17:35 Cutman says:
Soooo good.
11/08/2009 at 17:46 cbux says:
Oblivion with dice.
11/08/2009 at 18:20 postmanX3 says:
@cbux:
Ahahahahahahaha… no.
11/08/2009 at 18:20 Cutman says:
I enjoy 4.0 Postman. Then again, I didn’t play 3.0/.5 long enough to become a zealot about it I suppose.
11/08/2009 at 18:25 the affront says:
Looks tempting, but holy shit, that is some illegible font.
Also nice that you can resize the windowed mode to something above needing a microscope, as I find games with resolutions as low as this one to be too butt-ugly to bear fullscreen and too small windowed. That’s a feature one sees way too seldom with these low res 2D indie titles in my experience.
Some spongy/swimming mouse movement going on there, though… feels icky. That just me?
11/08/2009 at 18:59 Cutman says:
The lack of races and classes is the only thing preventing me from buying.
11/08/2009 at 19:03 DK says:
I really like the combat – the devs implemented the stuff others usually shy away from. Even Temple of Elemental Evil didn’t have player character grappling – I just wish they’d put the button for resting somewhere in the F1-help. I still don’t know how to rest so I’m slogging through the dungeon on 1 hp.
11/08/2009 at 19:06 Cutman says:
You can only rest in a camp DK. There’s one in the dungeon. Just open all the doors save for the one next to the guard, and you’ll find it.
Be nice to that elemental.
11/08/2009 at 19:06 Kieron Gillen says:
You get to a fireplace and you get the option to rest there.
KG
11/08/2009 at 19:15 protobob says:
DK: Resting is done at campsites, which look like a lit campfire. You can’t just rest anywhere you want.
11/08/2009 at 19:36 Mort says:
“Clovus says:
[...]There has to be a better way to create an electronic combat system than having my processors roll dice at 2.3ghz.
”
Amen to that. I wish RPGs would evolve into something much richer and dynamic than D&D or the perennial core of the JRPG format.
But this game´s intention seems to be to improve on that formula, and for what has been said here it has done well. Aware of that, will give the demo a shot.
11/08/2009 at 19:43 Funky Badger says:
Postman: 4.0 is the pen and paper version of WoW.
Also, I HEART Champions of Krynn.
11/08/2009 at 19:51 Sunjammer says:
“Heroic Fantasy games are the sort who like showing through their thinking of What Makes An Interesting RPG in their Design notes” is one of the most unpleasant sentences i’ve ever had to read. Shame on you Kieron. Shame on you.
11/08/2009 at 19:58 Vinraith says:
Ouch. I’ve reached a point where it’s very hard for me to become involved in a game with graphics like these, no matter how intriguing the gameplay. I’m embarrassed to admit that, and frustrated by it, but it’s true nevertheless. The mechanics here sound absolutely fantastic, though, and I’ve always been a sucker for anything that recreates the pen-n-paper experience. I suppose I’ll give it a shot and see if it’s an exception to the rule.
11/08/2009 at 20:27 Dominic White says:
I still think the best adaptation of D&D 3.0 rules is The Temple of Elemental Evil, albeit after the massive fan-patches. It’s a pity that it got so rushed out and crippled by the publisher – apparently near the end of development, the publisher decided that they wanted to go for a ‘teen’ rating rather than ‘mature’, and forced Troika (poor bastards) to cut out most of the evil options and some areas like a brothel.
If the ToEE engine got released into the wild, you’d see people making some absolutely amazing things with it.
11/08/2009 at 20:29 Funky Badger says:
ToEE was utterly awful though. Stultifying to play and without any atmosphere. A bad adventure badly implemented.
11/08/2009 at 20:48 Dominic White says:
Depends what you were looking for in it. As a story-driven roleplaying game, it was rather naff, yeah, but as a proper full-rules D&D dungeon crawler, nothing comes close.
11/08/2009 at 20:51 postmanX3 says:
@Funky Badger:
Yes, that’s what a lot of people say. In my oh-so-humble opinion, however, I find that it moves a lot faster than 3.5, and classes are more fun to play due to the wide variety of powers. Warriors aren’t always using a basic attack every round for the first few levels anymore!
I’m not saying I don’t enjoy 3.5, though. I love it quite a bit, too. To each his own, I suppose.
In relation to the article, though, I’m pretty sure the game is 15 pounds, not 15 dollars. Either way, this is probably going to go on my to-buy list. And that is a very long list, unfortunately.
11/08/2009 at 20:57 Dominic White says:
@postmanX3 – I actually agree with you. D&D 4.0 is a bit more ‘game-like’, but given that the majority of time in any D&D campaign is spent in extended combat scenarios which take AGES to play out, having interesting play mechanics that mean everyone has a fun role in a fight is a pretty major improvement.
And if anyone doesn’t like the setting/details, it’s a pen-and-paper game. You either buy sourcebooks for stuff you DO like, or make your own as the DM’s guide tells you to pretty much up-front.
11/08/2009 at 21:02 Pipes says:
To those worried about the font – the developer has stated intentions to have the font redone in higher resolution.
here
11/08/2009 at 21:03 Pipes says:
Ignore my faulty attempt at a link. It’s in the forums, under the sticky thread about the 1.04 patch.
11/08/2009 at 21:07 Funky Badger says:
Dominic: it didn’t get dual-wielding right, did it? I just remembered the hell of scouting off with a rogue, getting into combat, then stepping every other party-member up to the front one round at a time. Un-fun. (I’d go back a version or 3 for my faves and pick Eye of the Beholder II and Champions of Krynn)
postman: you’re right, of course. I’ve mainly played in house-ruled campaigns which gave fighters a bit more they could do… mages at levels 1-4 on the other hand… the most negative thing I’ve heard about 4.0 actually, is the lack of quality of the published scenarios, and that they really tend to excelude the RP elements…
11/08/2009 at 21:13 Dominic White says:
@Funky – Is that before or after the Circle of Eight fan-patch? http://www.co8.org/
ToEE was pushed out unfinished, untested, with major chunks of content cut out at the last moment and buggy as fuck to boot, no denying that. The fans have long since fixed up almost all the combat problems, although can’t do much about the story/setting.
Seriously, check out this changelist:
http://files.co8.org/docs/Circle%20of%20Eight%20Modpack%205.5.0%20-%20Release%20Notes.txt
11/08/2009 at 21:13 Lobotomist says:
Hey guys , if you think Temple of Elemental Evil is the pinnacle of 3.5 D&D strategy , and Knights of Chalice is its little brother…
Well than you are missing on the real deal ;)
Incursion, the 3.5 OGL (D&D) roguelike.
Which is better than both of above games put together, and its free.
http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/
11/08/2009 at 21:18 Dominic White says:
Incursion is also a single-character game (which means it loses most of the tactics/depth of the combat system), and it loves to kill you off in the first minute of play. It’s also jam-packed with hilarious/insane things like zombie dolphins leaping out of trees at you.
11/08/2009 at 21:20 Funky Badger says:
Dominic – almost certainly before. I got ToEE at launch, played though it which probably took a month or so – although felt like decades – and haven’t touched it since. Although, in its defense, it wasn’t nearly as abominable as Ruins of Myth Drannor.
Lobotomist: consider that bookmarked.
11/08/2009 at 21:48 Stromko says:
Postman: True, it makes fighter-type classes more interesting because they have a small selection of powers that they use instead of attacks, but it makes caster classes less interesting because all they have is a small selection of powers instead of you know, spells. In other words, all the classes are the same, just designated for different party roles, bit like an MMO. I still play in a 4th ed. campaign every week, but only because the DM is brilliant. It’s growing on me, but I see it more as a cash-in than a critical improvement in any regard.
The only offense I really take with 4th edition anymore is that from what I’ve heard D20 / 3.5 has been discontinued and the OGL is no more and the publisher is no longer supporting it in any way. Even my local hobby store isn’t carrying the core D20 or 3.5 books anymore.
So I didn’t ever expect to see another PC game based on the license, and here’s Knights of the Chalice. Three races and three classes? Tiefling, please (no not really, I’d rather play a Dwarf or a Gnome, but they’re not in either).
It finds itself, graphically and price-wise, in a place that I don’t care that much about. I have the wonderful ASCII Rogue-like ‘Incursion’ ( http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/ ) based on the SRD I could play, which has 9 races, 12 classes, a massive selection of feats and a decent number of skills that actually matter, as well as a great number of actions you can do in-game that no other CRPG can or does allow, like crawling on the ceiling to get over gaps and gain the drop on foes. It has the limitations of a Rogue-like too, being that the maps are randomized you can’t have a complex story (it’s just ‘go to the bottom level of the dungeon and do X, then escape’), but since I don’t have to wade through a story it’s been worth multiple playthroughs even after I’ve beaten it. Of course, I savescummed like crazy because eventually I got sick of dying on level 1 or 2 and wanted to see the end.
Then on the other hand, if I want to boot up a more graphically intensive game, and one that costs money, I’ve never bothered to finish NWN2′s campaigns so there’s that. I just don’t see why I’d give Knights of the Chalice a chance.
11/08/2009 at 21:49 Stromko says:
Wow, I need to not be so long-winded, because yeah, beat me to the post. ;)
11/08/2009 at 21:55 Dominic White says:
The problem with D&D until 4.0 is that Wizards were brilliant at everything except for hitting things with swords, and even then, they could summon creatures to handle that part for them. After about level 5, they became the alpha and omega of the game.
Knocking them down to roughly the same level as the rest of the players is a goddamn fantastic move, and anyone who says otherwise was a wizard player lording their borderline-omnipotence over everyone else.
11/08/2009 at 21:57 Lobotomist says:
Well. Yes Incursion is single-character. That is the only downside. But that is the nature of roguelike games.
And dont worry about dying. In settings you can disable permanent death.
11/08/2009 at 22:02 Funky Badger says:
After about level 5, they became the alpha and omega of the game.
That really depends on your GM/players – as with all things…
11/08/2009 at 22:03 Funky Badger says:
Dominic: if anything clerics were stronger in 3.5…
11/08/2009 at 22:07 Dominic White says:
The GM’s role should be telling the story that ties everything together, and coming up with rules if required. They shouldn’t have to rework the entire game due to the core rules being horribly unbalanced.
The 4.0 combat system is actually workable ‘out of the box’, which means the DM has less rule-wrangling to worry about, and can instead focus on the important part.
I’ve honestly seen people upset that they actually balanced the combat system, rather than having each class on a wildly different power curve.
11/08/2009 at 22:17 Vinraith says:
As a general rule of gaming, I find that if balance requires homogeneity, I’d rather have things unbalanced. I’ve never noticed any overwhelming balance problems in 3rd Edition (and I’ve played a lot of it). If anything, I always found it irritating that “sorceror” basically renders “wizard” obsolete. I’m not sure what kind of wizard players Dominic is playing with, but in my experience it’s one of the weaker classes in the system. I pretty much gave up on spellcasters in general under 3rd and 3.5 and went to playing rogues.
11/08/2009 at 22:17 Heliocentric says:
Clerics were a wizard in full plate properly made, with a practical use for charisma. Not just this but with the different worship focuses you could radically customise the cleric. This was 3/3.5 though. No idea about 4.
Personally? Neutral or evil priest focusing negative energy could turn stumbling into the undead from a fight into some reinforcements. Skellies are great for “finding” traps too. villagers will give you grief if you show up back in town with your zombies though :(
11/08/2009 at 22:25 Funky Badger says:
Balance is overrated, I’ve always thought… and I’m less than convinced the whole thing is “horribly” unbalanced in the first place.
11/08/2009 at 22:28 DK says:
Thanks for the resting help, everyone. I gotta say, I dug the Knights of the Chalice demo. The AI is really smarter in it’s casting and movement than I’m used to: The Troll in the big fight pushed my Knight into a burning brazier with Bullrush. That’s brilliant!
On the 4.0 discussion, the biggest change with 4.0 is that every character is actually important in combat. Everyone has something to do and contribute.
Maybe the out-of-combat side of 4.0′s official scenarios isn’t good but come on – that’s the part the DM makes up anyway. The Roleplaying someone else comes up with will never be as good as the things YOU come up with.
And for people on the fence about 4.0, I recommend listening to the Podcasts Wizards of the Coast released with the Penny Arcade crew – it’s really a lot of fun listening to people who’ve played 3.5, never played 3.5 and never played any DnD at all have a go at 4.0.
11/08/2009 at 22:36 Stromko says:
Vinraith: “As a general rule of gaming, I find that if balance requires homogeneity, I’d rather have things unbalanced.”
Agreed. I really don’t want any particular class or combination or whatever to dominate in a game, but they should vary greatly based on the situation they find themselves in. Like, a Dwarven Cleric in Full Plate with Tower Shield Proficiency, invincible you say? Not so when he’s Webbed or Greased and has to roll extremely well to break out. Of course that just makes Wizards sound even more overpowered.
Personally I thought Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, etcetera could benefit much more greatly from Feats and other customization options than a Wizard or Sorceror could. Metamagic rarely seemed worth it. I think Wizard was the most interesting class to play, but also a lot more work with figuring out what you had memorized, but heavily armored fighters were also fun for me and also Clerics, which are yes, awesome. The main benefit of a fighter over a cleric is just that you can focus purely on combat stats and combat feats. If you’re rolling stats and you have many high rolls, you’d be a bit foolish not to play a Cleric or Paladin or somesuch thing, but if you using point-buy, well, you simply cannot be a great front-line fighter AND a great healer, you have to choose.
For casters vs melee, I think this can be balanced if your DM just doesn’t let you rest as much as you’d like, and throws a variety of critters at you. A magic sword of sufficient enhancement can kill damn near anything, yeah? Or a combination of blunt and slashing and piercing weapons– a wise fighter carries all three. But an Illusionist is pretty useless against undead, and a pyromaniacal Evoker generally useless against fire elementals.
It’s kind of weird how things are balanced in 4th edition though, it’s not quite how you’d expect. I’m playing a Cleric right now, and really the best he can do for a heal is to give somebody a Healing Surge + 1d6 Hitpoints, and only twice per encounter. That’s kind of nice because then they don’t have to use an action to have a healing surge, and it’s only a minor action so I can attack too, but it’s only one target. It says Burst 5, but then only one target within that burst. Confusing. I think it might’ve changed in PHB2.
11/08/2009 at 22:37 Funky Badger says:
vinraith: sorcerors are wizards for dummies. No quickened spells really shoots them down in flames, never mind the slower spell progression. (Issues that have been addressed in the recent Pathfinder Beta stuff…)
11/08/2009 at 22:38 Psychopomp says:
“Postman: 4.0 is the pen and paper version of WoW.”
No it’s not, it’s got thousands of times more depth; and just as much depth as 3.5. Just, without the horribly exploitable multiclassing system, quadratic wizards, and linear warriors.Taking some cues from WoW isn’t an bad thing.
Then again, I hated every edition until 4th, and pretty much stuck with Shadowrun and Call of Cthulu.
“No idea about 4.”
Yes, there is, no matter what anyone tells you. Divine Power just opened them up even more, as well.
11/08/2009 at 22:42 getter77 says:
All those forming up on Incursion, while that is nice, now is not the best time to do so. If you can wait until Oct 31st, if all goes well, THAT mega-revision/rewrite should be the thing to base a first opinion off of. Current version has some massively crash happy/corruption dealies to it.
KoTC and Incursion can coexist just fine same as ToEE—-these kinda things aren’t exactly the talk of the town in the industry or indiescape even in terms of robust activity.
11/08/2009 at 22:43 Funky Badger says:
and pretty much stuck with Shadowrun
*shakes head* Pretty much beyond hope… ;-)
11/08/2009 at 22:47 Vinraith says:
Well, if we’re going to talk about non-D&D pen and paper games, I’ll throw in my two obscure favorites: Millenium’s End and Sun and Storm beat the tar out of other systems as far as variety and providing interesting settings.
11/08/2009 at 22:49 Funky Badger says:
Feh. These games are nothing compared to Cyberpunk 2020.
11/08/2009 at 23:03 Okami says:
I allways preferred Macho Women with Guns to d&d. You play women. With guns. Who might be a bit macho. As far as I know it’s the only pen & paper system that has the perk “top heavy”.
11/08/2009 at 23:05 Nick says:
Stromko: You can have a complex story in a roguelike, they just dont bother as its generally not the focus of the games for whatever reason. The closest to a story is probably ADOM.
12/08/2009 at 00:06 postmanX3 says:
@ Psychopomp:
Divine Power is out?!
Be right back, heading to Borders.
Also, on the subject of Incursion, I love it quite a lot. I’ve known about it for quite some time now, and I wasn’t aware that many knew about it, too. It’s very excellent, but my biggest problem with it is that it takes quite some time to create a character, which is something you’ll need to do often considering the multitude of deaths.
12/08/2009 at 00:58 Pod says:
Did anyone save the dwarf?
12/08/2009 at 01:03 getter77 says:
It is possible to save that Dwarf…and oh so nice a feeling.
12/08/2009 at 01:43 DK says:
“Did anyone save the dwarf?”
If you mean the very first one at the top right, I didn’t even know you could not save him.
He’s a trader! Playing without that….ugh.
12/08/2009 at 07:25 Lars Westergren says:
Ok, I’ve played the demo now. I add my voice to those who think the UI and especially the fonts makes this all but unplayable. Fun otherwise.
@Mort
>Amen to that. I wish RPGs would evolve into something much richer and dynamic than D&D or the perennial core of the JRPG format.
You are not the only one. Games that I think have been important landmarks on that road are Fallout 1&2, Arcanum, System Shock 1&2, Deus Ex 1, Vampire: Bloodlines, the Witcher. I have high hopes for Alpha Protocol. Dragon Age, not so much anymore unfortunately.
12/08/2009 at 08:52 Stromko says:
Nick: I think the concept of the Rogue-like involves a procedurally generated dungeon or environment, which makes it difficult to create a cohesive story. They could, and I think some developers are.
Personally my attraction to Rogue-likes is you just skip to the dungeoneering. To me, a Rogue-like is the Unreal Tournament, to a story-based RPG’s Half-Life 2 campaign. One is strictly about moment to moment survival, while the other is less about reflexes and more about chugging through the story.
I suppose though there has been a Rogue-like that’s tried pretty hard to have a story. Diablo I and II, they both have you interacting with NPCs now and again through a constantly progressing storyline, yet much of the gameplay happens on randomized maps.
ADOM also tried to inject more of a story into things, getting quests from the first town et al. The fast turn-based nature of it means that I don’t have to spend any time going through cutscenes or reading exposition though, it’s still much faster and less story-bound than a traditional RPG.
12/08/2009 at 10:30 Al3xand3r says:
I find this particularly awful. Why is it that, even in indie games, we have to choose between “artist visuals” and “good gameplay”? Why couldn’t we end up with the fine old school gameplay seen here but the nifty-for-an-indie-RPG visuals of the Eschalon games?
As for this game, I think I would preffer some static board-game like look over the horrible perspective and even more horrible attampts at animations… I don’t mind funtional visuals like that would include, I do mind jarringly ugly visuals like these though…
Hire an artist for the sequel please… Or go all rogue-like for the visuals. Or ASCII. Or vector graphics. Anything but a continuation of this abomination.
12/08/2009 at 10:53 Gothnak says:
I like it and will download the demo… The Gold Box Adventures (Curse of The Azure Bonds was my fave) are high points in my gaming history.
12/08/2009 at 14:08 Songbearer says:
Why does it use that awful old Ultima perspective that makes absolutely no sense
What a deal breaker.
12/08/2009 at 14:24 WCG says:
I bought the game yesterday, and I haven’t been able to stop playing. The font is TERRIBLE – almost illegible, especially on a wide screen. I almost quit the demo right at the start.
But I’m glad I kept with it, because the game really is a lot of fun. And apparently, you can get used to anything, because the font is only a minor annoyance now.
Give this one a good, long try. Don’t let the text keep you from finding out what a fun game it really is. (Remember Dwarf Fortress!)
12/08/2009 at 14:33 David says:
I agree with the chorus — love the idea, but the font makes this unplayable. It’s sad that something like a poor choice of font could become a deal breaker.
For similar games (and with better fontage), try Incursion, EUO, or Jeff Vogel‘s stuff.
12/08/2009 at 21:05 Helm says:
The demo was actually pretty awesome, but what, no thieves, no traps, no locks, no backstabbery?! I’m afraid I can’t deal with that :’(
It would be an easy buy were it not for this limitation. I love the whole of it, even the font.
That lich battle in the demo is too much for me though, heh
12/08/2009 at 21:47 geldonyetich says:
It goes to show that a good amount of polish will make even a low-budget engine play like a dream.
12/08/2009 at 22:25 postmanX3 says:
@David:
I absolutely love Jeff Vogel’s games, but I don’t own a single one. I’ve played the demos to half-to-death, but he charges near 30 dollars for every one! I wish Spiderweb would either:
a. Charge a slightly more fair price for their games, say 15-20 dollars, or
b. Actually include animations. That might make the game worth 30 dollars.
13/08/2009 at 01:23 getter77 says:
David: Within the forums, there is active consideration about remedying the font situation…matter of contact the artist and seeing how things pan out—most issues folk are raising here that have also been raised to him are under consideration for upcoming patches same as any bugs/glitches bearing feasibility in mind.
In short: The game is far from DOA and I would imagine a fair number of UI improvements and such to have good odds manifesting as these next days/weeks/months roll on.
14/08/2009 at 05:04 ScaryMike says:
I’d be all over this game at 10, MAYBE 15 bucks, but at 25, no way.
I enjoyed the demo, went to purchase and stopped in my tracks. 25 bucks? really?
14/08/2009 at 11:46 Demiath says:
@ScaryMike: Well, KotC is at least 25 hours long, and also has quite some replayability due to slightly different quest solutions and (above all) different more or less crazy party combinations to experiment with. But even with the minimum time spent with the game, 1$ per hour doesn’t seem like such an outrageous proposition to me. I’ve now played 15 hours of the game and thus far it’s the best combat-oriented RPG to have come out in years, so I would gladly have payed more for it than I did (but don’t tell the developer, or he might get crazy ideas ;).
Even more importantly, as indie developers like Jeff Vogel (of Spiderweb Software) has pointed out recently, although there has been a definite push downwards recently as far as pricing of indie games goes, the scene simply can’t survive if every game is going to cost less than $10. As much as I liked paying next to nothing for Zombie Cow’s brilliant “Time Gentlemen, Please”, there’s just no conceivable way for most indie developers to survive with such a price scheme (I’m excluding special arrangements like XBLA and PSN here and talking primarily about the PC market); especially when we’re talking about games (like KotC) which take a year or more to produce. If gamers truly want great and substantial indie games (i.e. not just Bejeweled clones on the casual gaming sites or on their iPhone), they’re just going to have to be ready to put their money where their mouth is and actually support the people who are making these games.
14/08/2009 at 17:08 scarymike says:
Demiath: I appreciate that take on it. I’m not economist, but I can’t help but think they would sell more copies if the price was lower. I think $25 is going to be a barrier to entry for a lot of people when they see the graphics.
So if they sell 1000 copies at $25 wouldn’t it make sense that they would sell 5000 at $10?
(this was taken from another site talking about the price of games:)
“Valve did an interesting study recently; during their last holiday sale on Steam, they followed the trends on profitability made by the games in their store. There was one particular trend that was interesting — the higher the discount on the game, the more PROFIT that game made. Small discounts saw games selling for a little jump in profits, but the big discounts (the cheapest games, then) saw the largest boost in profits.”
Unfortunately, I can’t find a link for this study right now…. I’ll keep looking.
14/08/2009 at 17:11 scarymike says:
Here is a link: http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive
14/08/2009 at 17:16 Kieron Gillen says:
Scary: It depends. The idea that all games are the same is risky. Hardcore Wargames are totally the thing which sell for highest, longest. They’re also very niche. If you reduce them to a fiver, will you see a proportionate lift?
In other words, not all games are limited by price. The question becomes, what category does this one fall into?
KG
14/08/2009 at 18:28 Jeremy says:
I played through the demo and I have to say that I really enjoyed it, there are so many interesting things to be done with spells and abilities. I have really missed the tactical RPG games of the past, it seems like so many games now (even BG) was just about loading up on purely offensive spells, but there is a good reason to mix it up here.
Also, as for the text being unreadable, as soon as I put the game into windowed mode (and what sort of person are you who wouldn’t!), the text is pretty easy to view.
Graphics… come on. This is old school brilliance, who needs graphics :)
14/08/2009 at 22:15 postmanX3 says:
@ Demiath:
I personally think Jeff Vogel is the last person who should be saying that the scene won’t survive with cheaper-than-larger-production titles. He’s been using the same engine for years, with minimal changes, not to mention that he still hasn’t improved the cryptic UI or the laughably poor-quality character portraits. In-game characters barely animate, and really what he’s doing with each game is creating a new script for the same core game. Albeit, very long and involved scripts… but the point still stands.
Indie developers should not and can not expect to create games with 1/30 the production values of a larger title and charge 1/2 the price. It doesn’t quite work that way.
15/08/2009 at 01:33 postmanX3 says:
Felt like I should add that I really do like the gameplay in Avernum. I think it’s great fun, and strategic. It’s just that I’m thoroughly annoyed at the minimal change in each one, especially considering the premium price.
15/08/2009 at 12:46 Demiath says:
@postmanX3: Since when did production values become such an important part of the reason we play old school, turn-based RPGs like Avernum and Knights of the Chalice? For the record, I absolutely love both the graphics, overall art design and outstanding MID tunes in KotC, but that’s just a personal preference. Are you suggesting developers should be paid per pixel shader included in the final product or something?
Now, there are as many indidividual positions on game pricing as there are gamers in the universe (I for one almost never buy new retail games when they are still at full price since I don’t think any 10-15 hour game is really worth $60, but would gladly pay $30 for a lengthy indie title with gameplay that I thoroughly enjoy), but to seriously suggest that something as potentially superficial as production values should be the sole determinant of pricing (which is precisely what you’re arguing in your last paragraph) is a pretty extreme idea…
15/08/2009 at 16:42 postmanX3 says:
@ Demiath:
I’m talking in relation to Avernum. KotC is probably priced just right, and I, too, love the sprites and MIDI music.
And I’m not saying games’ pricing should be based entirely around production values. (Well, actually, it kinda sounds like it, but I don’t mean it! Really!) What I’m saying is that it is exceptionally annoying to me that Jeff Vogel, of all people, is saying indie games can’t survive on 5 dollar games alone. While it is entirely true that budget pricing is not an option all the time, he continually releases games that all run on the same engine (which he’s been using for damn near a decade, at this point) with minimal graphical, UI, or gameplay improvements.
Certainly, I understand the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mantra, but with ten years with this engine, is it impossible to add something as common as walking animations? But to top it off, he charges nearly 30 dollars for every game when it is released. Again, I know one can’t assume a price should be lowered just because it is an indie title, but having not needed to make a new engine in a decade, I question how much work is put into Avernum II, for example, versus Avernum I, which needed an entirely new engine.
Maybe I’m not one to question such things, as I’ve certainly never made such a complex game, but in comparison to other indie RPGs, like, say, Eschalon or KotC (both of which are cheaper than Avernum V, use entirely new engines, and are graphically more impressive than Avernum), it seems slightly ridiculous for his games to cost so much.
I am, in part, suggesting that a game’s pricing should be partially based on something like production values. Clearly, gameplay should be the most important part in pricing, but certainly, if a game, for example, were to utilize ASCII characters versus a game using animated sprites, one would expect the former to cost less than the latter, correct?
15/08/2009 at 16:45 postmanX3 says:
Alright, I just found out that apparently, Avernum IV and V run on the newer Genoforge engine. I suppose that renders my argument a slight bit crippled.
Then again, since a I couldn’t tell the difference between the Avernum engine and the Genoforge engine, it makes me wonder how separate they are…
17/08/2009 at 10:11 malkav11 says:
@postmanX3 – first of all, if you buy the CD bundles of Vogel’s games, you get the games involved for around your $15-20 price point. Nethergate: Resurrection isn’t bundled, per se, but if you buy another game you’ll be offered the CD version at $15. I myself won’t pay $25 ($30 on CD) either, but once they start getting bundled, it’s an easier sell.
Secondly, Valve was seeing dramatically higher profits when *temporarily* discounting a title steeply. That’s quite different than simply setting the default price lower.
Thirdly, Vogel’s games (and most non-wargame indie titles) *are* priced lower than the big budget commercial titles – those retail for $50-60.
17/08/2009 at 13:59 postmanX3 says:
Vogel’s newer games aren’t available in CD bundles. Either way, it’s not a very good way to get a better price point, if I just want, say, Avernum. And consider that a 10-year-old game (Avernum, in this case) has not dropped in price.
I’m not sure why you mentioned Valve. It’s common sense more people buy during a sale.
Yes, his games are less expensive initially than a big-name title, but 10 years later they’re more expensive! Not to mention they’re more expensive that a large majority of the indie RPGs available.
21/08/2009 at 16:05 getter77 says:
Within the flurry of patching the last week or so, the game is now sporting a new/improved FONT as of version 1.10. So, probably a good idea to give it another shot to see if they’ve struck a good one…or if not…to help illuminate.
25/11/2010 at 15:41 BobDicks says:
This reminds me of that D&D game for the Sega Genesis
25/11/2010 at 15:42 BobDicks says:
LOL and yeah I just necroed this it’s awesome.
01/04/2011 at 18:07 Berzee says:
Oh no you di’in’t!