Serpent in the Staglands - Review @ RPS

Rock, Paper, Shotgun takes a look at Serpent in the Staglands and complain about it missing a 'getting started' guide as it is a good RPG but the path to finding that good RPG is frustrating.

It’s this layer of character that carries the game through the needlessly frustrating opening, which largely assumes you’re coming to the game from things like Dungeons and Dragons with clarifications like “Strength gives a natural bonus to hit damage for melee and range fighters. Phys Damage: (above base)Strength/2 + equipped weapon damage + item/skill mods.” There’s a lot to juggle in both the raw rules, from that, to the different skill trees that handle basic stats and skills and Aptitudes, which give additional options in certain situations, to the point that I ended picking up most of it by sheer accident. There’s an early quest for instance where a farmer wants you to get rid of a fox from his field, and it was only in the ‘I defeated the foul beast’ options that I saw the option indicating that had I put a point into the right Aptitude, I could talk to it and persuade it to leave.

Click to expand...

More information.

This review says exactly zero words about the combat, which I find a little bit weird.

It's obvious from this clip that the reviewer did not read the manual, like we used to do in the old days. This game is very much old school and if you don't read the manual then it will be hit and miss to figure out what to do.
The combat is RTWP, your fighters charge in and ranged guys blast away same as most but the spell casting takes some timing as it takes several seconds in most cases before things engage. Over all a fun game if you like this style.

Terry said:

It's obvious from this clip that the reviewer did not read the manual, like we used to do in the old days. This game is very much old school and if you don't read the manual then it will be hit and miss to figure out what to do.

Click to expand...

It's obvious from your response that you did not read the review, like we used to do in the old days before commenting.

Seriously, 1) this isn't really a review (which RPS calls a "Wot I Think"), but rather a group discussion (which it calls "Scrollbar"); and 2) the RPS folks directly comment on the manual, the necessity of reading it, and (what they see as) its relative unhelpfulness. They felt they needed more context than the manual provided. Which seems like a fair comment, and one I can echo just from my experience with the demo. That doesn't mean it's not a good game, and maybe even a great one (and RPS notes that, too).

Terry said:

It's obvious from this clip that the reviewer did not read the manual, like we used to do in the old days. This game is very much old school and if you don't read the manual then it will be hit and miss to figure out what to do.
The combat is RTWP, your fighters charge in and ranged guys blast away same as most but the spell casting takes some timing as it takes several seconds in most cases before things engage. Over all a fun game if you like this style.

Click to expand...

I didn't need the manual to figure out the game. Anyone that played IE games should have no problems figuring it out unless all years of KISS rpgs destroyed their brains.

Seriously, figuring out how the game works is half the fun and SitS does not hide any numbers unlike for example wizardry 8.

Guilty as charged I only read the clip here and thus only commented on the clip.
I too am bad about not reading the manual before playing many games, than again most manuals in modern games are crappy and not worth spending time to read.
The apitudes complaint in the clip is what set me off as that is definatly in the manual.
I know I pondered the merits of talking to animals vs being a linguist during character creation.

I'm no graphics whore and this is a game I'm most likely to play quite soon, maybe even buying it this week, but I still feel an element of frustration when presented with a game like this, for purely graphical reasons.

It seems that good isometric games made on a budget are still restricted to pre-1995 quality graphics, as if some physical wall was invented in 1995. You'd think that at some point 1995-2002 graphics would become the low budget look, but, as we've seen from Pillars of Eternity and the new Torment late 90s graphics are still pretty darn fancy when it comes to squeezing the cash-flow.

Instead of making a sequel, if this game makes loads of dosh, it would be nice for them to just replicate the game exactly as is, but with something less 'quite so pixelated'. Graphics shouldn't make a big difference, but it's undeniable that a smooth appearance helps to generate a smoother audience reception. Not suggesting individual pubic hair detail is the aim, but just something a little less pre-minecraftian in it's charming ugliness.

Sometimes best things come in ugly packages -> see KotC

Knights of the Chalice was made by just one guy though, and, anyway, I thought that even that looked prettier than this. :lol:

I can honestly say that this is probably the (decent looking) ugliest game I have ever seen. Can't wait to try it though...

Sits was made by 2 people - wife + husband duo

That's one more than the Chalice guy

Double in fact!

Instead of reaming out excuses as to why it's ugly, can you at least provide your opinion on whether you think it's particularly ugly? You're very forthright in providing harsh opinions on many games, I've noticed, but you seem particularly white-knightish in your response to my observation. For this game are you relenting on the call-it-like-you-see-it approach to forum'ing?

lackblogger said:

That's one more than the Chalice guy

Double in fact!

Instead of reaming out excuses as to why it's ugly, can you at least provide your opinion on whether you think it's particularly ugly? You're very forthright in providing harsh opinions on many games, I've noticed, but you seem particularly white-knightish in your response to my observation. For this game are you relenting on the call-it-like-you-see-it approach to forum'ing?

Click to expand...

It is not an excuse, it is how it is. Nobody in the world can create a good looking game without enough people, money and time.

Yes, it is ugly compared with modern games, PoE or even IE games. But its graphics are not its main selling point (and they probably are for a super small group of people).
But so are not for KotC and that game is better then most combat focused cRPGs.

I know and I know and I know. But it's still ugly, and even in comparison to other games of a similar budget. You then talk about stuff that has nothing to do with what I was saying, to which, I know and I know and I know etc etc etc.

lackblogger said:

I know and I know and I know. But it's still ugly, and even in comparison to other games of a similar budget. You then talk about stuff that has nothing to do with what I was saying, to which, I know and I know and I know etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

This game was made for 20 000$, do you know other massive RPGs made for 20 000$ that have noticeable better graphics?

Oh for dong's bell…

It doesn't matter what the reasons are, either it's ugly or it's not…

And yes, there have been better looking games made on a similar low budget. This site has reviewed hundreds over the years, but I'm sure as heck not letting you zoom into a long and detailed derail by mentioning any as I'm sure you'll invent some reason why none of them count…

(And we have already mentioned Knights of the Chalice and since you're already ignoring that, why would listing any others help move you on from whatever broken record state you've found yourself in?)

Kotc is uglier than SitS, far uglier.

I think we should have a vote.

Is this uglier:



Than this:



?

I am greatly disappointed by the turnout for this poll

Seriously, probably the most interesting isometric RTwP game out this year (bar that which shall remain nameless until all the reviews are in) and people can't even be bothered to pass comment on it's graphics and colour schemes?

With DA3 there were pages, literally pages just on the look of the hair…

I am dissappointed in you all - all stay behind after class for a good whippi extra lines.

Well, I fired this up today and I'm loving it so far. But I haven't got very far as I spent most of my few hours reading the manual and wandering around the passive opening Temple trying to learn how everything worked.

And at this point I am in agreement with the aspect of the review which says that there are quite a few things which aren't explained anywhere and are left to pure guesswork. I'll give a few examples:

1. War and Spell skills can be leveled up to make them stronger. However, nowhere does it say how many skillpoints are required for the next level. You can put the first skillpoint into one to make it level 1, but your second skillpoints fails to make it level 2. That's all the information you've got.

2. The opening Temple is packed with bookshelves which claim you need Insight to make use of them. Nowhere does it say what it means by 'Insight'. These shelves are the only time the word is used.

3. The manual and tooltips have quite a few typos/translation issues, including some really awkward ones where it even confuses such things as Spell Grades/Spell Levels, at one point even saying "spell grade or level" as an interchangeable descriptor, when they are two completely different things.

4. It suggests different characters will specialise in different skills and this will enable them to interact with objects and people differently, but when you 'select all' and click on something it's just the frontman who interracts with the object. It's not in any way abundantly clear if you're going to spend the whole game clicking on everything five times, once for each character or if it will become somehow 'obvious' which character to use in which situation beyond the odd convo where it will provide a choice automatically.

5. There's this whole sub-set of rune curses that are items instead of skills, but when I used one it said my guy didn't have the necessary stats to perform that curse. That's the entirety of the information I have.

It has to be said that most games have some stuff that leaves you in the dark, even after reading the manual and all tool-tips, but this game makes it that bit harder because it's a completely new system and it shoves such a huge amount of data at you in a very short amount of time instead of gradually introducing stuff over time as and when it's actually relevant to do so.

Another thing that's somewhat jarring in the manual is this creeping attitude that can't help but be expressed by the creators "We want to make a game that doesn't hold your hand, that doesn't blah blah blah we hate popamoles and are proud of it blah blah blah" - so what, you're going to make it deliberately over-obtuse just to make a point? The game is about you proving something rather than just having fun? Seriously, just cut the crap preaching and provide a game, people really don't give a shit beyond forum wrestling matches and no-one likes attitudal manuals, it creates a combative attitude instead of a leisurely one.

That said, I'm really looking forward to leaving the Temple and getting on with the first quests, puzzles and encounters (assuming I haven't missed 10 puzzles already…?)

(edit: And, no, someone writing on a forum telling me how the above works does not make everything ok, the points still stand, and, no I don't want to know via a forum, as that would be a spoiler to playing the game as it was presented. I did not phrase my post in the form of questions…)

Ok let me tackle some of these issues:
1. Each one point into war skill or spell does raise it by one level. It is always 1 for 1. When you read war skill or spell description it will describe what you get at next level, maybe at this one you got nothing so you were confused.
2. Game is full of puzzles, and not all of them are the classic kind you find in dungeons
3. I got bored with manual after 15 minutes and learned the game mostly by playing it and some by reading the forums.
4. Using Aptitudes in most cases works like in WL2, you need to click on character with best Aptitude you want to use, click on Aptitude and then click on interactible. It only works automatically in conversations (and the game asks you which of your characters you want to send to talk)
5. You need to read what each Aptitude does. In this case Linguistics lets you use Curses. That means you need to use the Incantation Book with the character that has at least one point in Linguistics Aptitude.

I agree that the game could and should present its system better but I didn't have any problems with what you had problem with because I actually went and read stuff in the game like all Aptitudes.