View Single Post

Default 

April 8th, 2008, 17:59
Originally Posted by Arhu View Post
Woah there. I'm actually speechless.

Those points are probably all valid from today's point of view. Thing is, you could probably apply them or similar points to other old gamest too, because they all had flaws.
Those reviews are from 1994-1995. Point is they were bad/mediocre games then allready.

And things like "combat takes too long" in a game with tactical, turn-based combat is just backwards. I guess some reviewers were totally sold on real time even in those olden times.
Not at all. I.E other turn based games like might and magic, magic candle and krondor got high scores back then. RoA simply had bad production values and design errors imho.

Originally Posted by Arhu View Post
Thank goodness for differences of opinion, it was still my favorite series.
Naturally the game sold well (in germany?) so som surely liked it. I would compare it to games that really divide opinnions (actually mentioned in the RoA reviews) like i.e two worlds today. Som like it som really hate it.

The point is I would never consider two worlds or RoA a classic. Even though I like the former.

Originally Posted by 20mithrandir View Post
People who argue with the graphics are hard to discuss with. I think that a great visual presentation is by far the less important thing a good crpg must have.
Actually I play lots of retro games with poor graphics like FF2 NES, might magic NES and pool of radiance, curse of azure bonds, etc. I dont mind the graphics as long as the gameplay and UI is good. With RoA its about the UI not graphics.

I kind of like retro gfx but I cant stand handbreaking user interfaces.
Last edited by zakhal; April 8th, 2008 at 18:12.
zakhal is offline

zakhal

zakhal's Avatar
VideoGamingWaste

#19

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europa Universalis
Posts: 3,014