View Single Post

Default 

September 17th, 2012, 16:14
Originally Posted by Wulf View Post
I got half way through that review and gave up, i had enough of the constant whingeing, Eric Schwarz does not like any difficulty. Why send a schoolboy gamer reviewer to do a mans job?

The game purposely makes things difficult in all manner of ways as a hurdle and a challenge to be fathomed and overcome.

The game has a deeper side - alignment! - never once mentioned in the slightest in that review of repetitive dislikes. In essence it is bad practice having a hack-and-slasher to review a game with such underlying depth.

The challenge difficulty is not in the combat fighting of the enemies but in the faith alignment - or put another way - how to complete quests within alignment as the more powerful devastating forbidden magic is in fact mal aligned to the mother church and the true divinity.

Have you, any gamer, unknowingly or inadvertently used forbidden magics? - ha ha! - then you are now heretic also! - and in your lack of wisdom, you the great inquisitor, need also to be judged and tried and burnt at the stake…..clever isn't it? - keep your eye on the alignment meter - it moves ever so gently.

The game theoretic suggests a thief will be the most able character to stay within divine alignment by using ranged weapons and less of any forbidden magic, providing his follower allies also stay similarly aligned.

Inquisitor is quite simply - (to the fully seasoned gamer) - a hidden gem of a game.

I suggest Eric Schwarz play the game again to completion and within divine alignment if he can (which i strongly doubt) then review the game again properly.

yours faithfully - wulf
Hi,

First of all, I'm Eric. I've been a member of the CRPG community for a long time and I'm happy for your comment, however, I don't think you understood the point of this article. And, frankly, your assumption that I'm not familiar with classic RPGs, and that I'm an ADHD "modern gamer" with no attention span could not be farther from the truth.

The RPGWatch news post suggests that this is a review. That is absolutely not the case. In fact, I'll be reviewing the game for GameBanshee once I've fully finished it (something most other sites have likely not managed by this point). I'd also like to point out that the quote selected for the news post is taken out of context and certainly does not cover the entire range of my discussion.

Rather, Gamasutra (and my own personal blog) is where I post articles I write on game design and similar matters. The point of this article was to demonstrate how being old-school for the sake of old-school does not always make for a better game. It is not meant to be an assessment of the game's overall quality, and if you'd have read the whole thing you'll notice that I plan to write a follow-up which discusses why some of the old-school design works very well and puts Inquisitor ahead of many modern RPGs.

Suffice to say, if you like Inquisitor, that's great. I like it too. However, it is not devoid of flaws and many of its issues (overly long dungeons, bad combat balance, poor guidance during quests, an abrupt introduction, extreme challenge level, user interface problems, etc.) come from, in my opinion, a misguided attempt to provide a "hardcore" experience without the developers, which was done not necessarily because it makes for a better game, but rather simply because older titles did these things often. Sometimes, this works, but a lot of the time it doesn't - just because something is old-school in design doesn't mean that it is by nature better.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
That sounded like marketing for the hardcore audience to me
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The "150 hours of gameplay, 100 km of dungeon levels" etc. is all marketing. It's old-school made to appeal to old-school fans but conveniently leaves out the fact that much of the game is full of repetitive filler, atrociously balanced combat that is hard in all the wrong ways, etc. Don't let "omg its like a game from 1999" blind you to the fact that it's also not nearly up to par with many games from that time period. Or I guess you guys are ready to accept Lionheart as a flawless gem as well?

I hope that this clarifies things a little bit for you.
Last edited by sea; September 17th, 2012 at 16:38.
sea is offline

sea

sea's Avatar
Watcher

#12

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 60