I plan to play this whole series at some point. I own the original Blade of Destiny thru Shadows over Riva. If I am only going to play this series once (either original or remake), would you recommend playing the old ones or starting with the new BoD? Thanks!

The sentence "it is fixed now" can lead to some wrong conclussions.

I bought it when it was "fixed" and yet it was terrible. Making a 1-1 replica of a 25 years old game with such an awful presentation is IMO just silly. What's the gain?

Apparently it is true that it is a 1-1 remake, even of the stupid 25 years old design errors. For instance, for the first quest you can visit an armorer or something like that, and he'll give you some equipment. But you have to take it the first time you visit him, otherwise he'll never give it to you (at least you are warned). It is not such a big deal but it gives you a good impression of what you may expect from the game. The reason why such a stupid design was kept in a remake is beyond my imagination.

Its been a long time since I played them. I think the original Blade of Destiny was super hardcore. As I remember, if you fled from battle, I think you lost XP, and I think you could only save at an inn.
Each future episodes were a big improvement. I personally prefer not playing with pixel graphics on DOSbox.

I dont mind about little thingies like that, when there are too few games that can scratch the itch of a 'being there and feeling the survival stress' rpg with a deep genuine rpg system on top, like RoA does. Of course the originals are playable and classics, but i 'd prefer the modern gfx + new content :o .

P.s. carrying over party to the next game, now how many years have passed since we saw THAT.

First its not 1-1. It uses a more modern set of the Dark Eye rules, some skills were removed, and its a little more forgiving than the original. How far to modernize things is always a matter of taste. Take for example Pillars of Eternity, which is supposed to be inspired by Baldur's gate. It looks similar, and the character mechanics are similar, but Josh Sawyer, didn't like some things about 2nd edition D&D which he considered outdated and made a new set of rules, which doesn't bother me, but which some people find terrible. Take for example Fallout 3, which has a much larger fanbase than the original. Its streamlined and modernized, but in my opinion only superior to the original in its graphics and sound. Personally I'm glad that they kept most of the points of the original. Its true though, it caters to a niche audience that wants an authentic pen & paper feel, is pretty unforgiving at times, is so complex that you really need to work your way into the game, and leaves you to flounder at times.

Yep yep. I should have said, it's not quite a 1-to-1 remake, but it is quite faithful to the original, and certainly one of the deepest p-n-p style RPGs out right now. Niche, for sure, but satisfying as heck for that niche, IMHO.

The thing that gets me is people like Vitirr shitting on games like this. There are dozens, hundreds, thousands of other RPGs with modern mechanics, exciting action gameplay and no mental investment required. So if you don't like it, why not play something else? I root heavily for devs that bring back relics from the Stone Ages. How many pen-and-paper-style CRPGs do you have right now, especially that use the The Dark Eye ruleset? Whatever, man. I'll continue supporting these little ventures. :)

I'd recommend playing the new one. It's your own preference, really. The originals are obviously mega-classick, but the new one has updated visuals and what not. The new one is pretty hardcore in terms of modern RPGs, you can die easily, it requires some wise character building and paying a bit of attention, etc.. It's quite good. I wrote a review for an older build at the time, you can find it here on the 'Watch.

BoD remake review (from an early version that wasn't fully patched like it is now) -
https://www.rpgwatch.com/articles/re…eview-227.html

Perhaps I'm wrong but I interpreted his posts as criticizing the remake, not the game itself. Remaking classics on a shoestring budget with awful production values doesn't make much sense. If the original game was worth remaking, then it should be worth remaking right. What we have here is like remaking Casablanca on a $500K budget, calling it "Casablanca HD with Color!" and then releasing it in theaters.

Why criticize the thing? It's a tiny indie, niche product made by a couple guys. Is Disney supposed to develop it? :D

The original is 25 years old. I don't think Bethesda was knocking down Guido Henkel's door to remake the game. So why not? A small indie that updates an ancient RPG to make it play a bit better on modern systems with modern-ish graphics is a fine endeavor and I hope more studios take on such projects. They are also sticking to the script of the original and just updating it a bit, which shows a nice touch and respect for the original material. No one else was going to remake it, so what's the problem?

There is barely anything modern that uses such a deep and complex pen-and-paper ruleset, and many remakes gut the complex elements in the process. So for them not doing that with this game I say - Do your thing, Crafty! You are appreciated. :)

Who would remake them as AAA games, or even a mid level development game without departing significantly from the mechanics of the game? The only people who seem to make complex pen and paper rpgs on a high level budget these days are the Japanese, and studios like Obsidian, and even they compromise on mechanics and are only interested in developing their own ips.

^ Word! Exactly my point. We should be happy that they are being remade at all…

I'm with you. Do they own the rights to the franchise now? Or do they just have permission to do the remakes? I am wondering if they want to make a stand alone RoA in the future. Someone needs to.

That would be great, but hopefully it's not these guys that do it.

Not sure, but I know they plan on remaking the third game as well.

Chris is a nice dude who will chat with you about the games. Chris Firefox on Steam. If you have any suggestions for new content, etc.., hit him with it. He implements things from the community. I think he added a few things I suggested awhile back to the first game. :)

Nah, I want Crafty to do it. They made it very pen-and-paper oriented. Other devs might not do that.

There is also an explanation from the devs why the game released as it did. I can't find it right now but it had something to do with the publisher possibly forcing them to release it very early (don't quote me.) But it wasn't meant to release the way it did.

I criticize the game because I paid for it.

I don't owe them anything.

Who said you owe them something? It's not a matter of owing them, it's a matter of cheering for the underdog. Criticism is fine, I gave them plenty of constructive criticism when I played the game. But ripping a developer to shreds, especially a small-time dev who is undertaking a worthwhile project, in this case trying to breathe life into a 25 year old RPG series, bashing them without knowing the entire story which usually means they can't make another game is BS to me and always will be. And I see this a lot on various forums.

Instead, inform yourself (not you specifically, rune.) The developers and the publisher flubbed the first release badly, but that's not a reason to throw them all in a ditch and bury them. They worked hard at patching it and didn't give up. But hey, what do I know. I just like seeing small developers giving a damn about RPGs that many people have forgotten about.