Originally Posted by sea
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.
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.
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.