RPGWatch Feature - Serpent in the Staglands Review

Archangel said:

Things he didn't like are like basic stuff, you cannot really like these games if you don't like their basic stuff. Also tough puzzles are common in so many older games, it goes beyond Ultima. It is normal that I conclude he only likes modern RPGs that have none of those.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. It's fully possible to dislike basic stuff about games while liking them as a whole.

I'll take his word over your word when it comes to what he likes. At least he seems to be a rational individual and you seem like an irrational fanatic who keeps responding like a 5-year old when someone dislikes a game that you're fanatically attached to.

It's like you're so deluded that you think you have to stay loyal to everything about a game, simply because you like it.

I think 5 year olds can barely use internet forums
I am at least 6

The bars representing "fun factor" and "character power" overtime is representative of the majority of games I played. It's not just a RPG thing.

Archangel said:

Things he didn't like are like basic stuff, you cannot really like these games if you don't like their basic stuff. Also tough puzzles are common in so many older games, it goes beyond Ultima. It is normal that I conclude he only likes modern RPGs that have none of those.

Click to expand...

Sadly you didn't understand what I wrote. Baldur's Gate combat was much more than kiting enemies. You wizards and priests could cast a number of spells. You could prebuff. You had many, many more abilities on hand than SitS. I played through Baldur's gate 3 times. Serpents in the Staglands doesn't have the character development, combat complexity, comfort features, exploration, or interactiveness of Baldur's Gate.
Fallout has many good maps, with lots to do and different ways to solve puzzles. It has many, many good combat maps, but it also has maps almost solely full of scorpions or geckos. But luckily Fallout has a much, much, better combat system than SOS, so these maps aren't as annoying.
As for Ultima, it has a lot more to interact with. I'll admit though that I always liked Might and Magic and Wizardry better than Ultima. The good thing about Ultima was the world and atmosphere, and I'll agree that's where the strengths of SitS also lie.
I'm currently playing Avernum 2 and Lords of Xulima, and both of those games leave Serpent in the Stagland in the dust when it comes to comfort and combat. And both of those were made by small indie teams. Avernum was made by one guy. I just don't understand how a 10+ year old Geneforge, which by the way is an awesome old school rpg can be so much more comfortable to play.

Kiting and simple melee was needed in BG games because spellcasting classes were so complicated. Not everyone likes to play complicated characters.

Outside random encounter maps Fallout had very little of big empty maps you talked about.
Certainly not enough so it can be used a point of comparison with SitS. Actually BG1 is more similar to SitS in this regard.

And puzzles has nothing to do with Ultima directly, just that hard puzzles were widespread in old games and even today are often used as a reference of a good game compared to piss easy puzzles in modern game.

Archangel said:

Kiting and simple melee was needed in BG games because spellcasting classes were so complicated. Not everyone likes to play complicated characters.

Click to expand...

There was a balance between complicated and simple. SitS has just simple combat. Kiting alone doesn't make for interesting combat alone for me. I found the combat tedious after awhile, because of lack of variety, but I'll concede I like tactical depth in combat.

Archangel said:

Outside random encounter maps Fallout had very little of big empty maps you talked about.
Certainly not enough so it can be used a point of comparison with SitS. Actually BG1 is more similar to SitS in this regard.

Click to expand...

There was at least one where you were sent out to find the cabin of a prospector where there were only geckos. I believe their was another radioactive cave with just geckos as opponents. I also think there was one case with more or less just rad scorpions, but its been a few years since I've played Fallout 2, and I think about 5 since I played Fallout. Baldur's Gate's maps tended to have more variety.

Archangel said:

And puzzles has nothing to do with Ultima directly, just that hard puzzles were widespread in old games and even today are often used as a reference of a good game compared to piss easy puzzles in modern game.

Click to expand...

They were also in games like Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Bard's Tale, I know. These games, however, were to some extent fairly linear and either you were given everything and had to figure out how to use it, or they were optional. In Ultima games you had huge open worlds and you needed to search all the corners of the world to find what you needed to solve certain puzzles. Ultima also had a ton of items which you weren't sure would be useful or not. Sometimes you needed things which were hardly apparent at all, and you may have not picked something seeming innocuous up, or gotten a clue which you didn't realize was a clue, and then had to go search through the whole (very large) world again to find it. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't have the time to spend 5 hours combing the world, like I did when I was a teenager (or at least it isn't a fun way for me to spend my time.)

forgottenlor said:

A good review, but for me the game would be 3 stars at best. I found the combat tedious due to the fact that most skills only passively influence combat and because spellcasting has such long casting times, that you rarely get more than one or two off per combat. The UI including the terrible minimap and lack of journal were really not for me.

The game reminded me a lot on what I didn't like about Baldur's Gate (for example, stupid AI, which allows itself to be kited, pulled, et. which the developers compensate for by putting tough monsters in place that one can't beat without kiting, et. and terrible pathfinding), what I didn't like about Fallout(huge maps with little to do and the same opponents again and again) and what I didn't like about Ultima (Difficult puzzles that aren't always intuitive, and being left at times without a clue).

Normally when you take elements from classics, you try to take the strengths, and leave the weaknesses be. Needless to say some people will like this kind of gameplay, some like me will tolerate it for the 17+ hours I put into the game, and others won't be able to get past the first map. The story and atmosphere really are super, and the game has a lot of unique and interesting ideas. Its one of those games that frustrated me, because I wanted to have fun with it, loved certain parts of it, but came back to not really enjoying it. Buyer beware.

Click to expand...

I can see where you're coming from here and I 'll agree with some points but disagree with others.

I actually found it a great plus that the warrior skills were all passive, I definitely prefer not having to activate things like Shield Bash during combat and just have it automatically trigger every 3rd or 4th hit. I've no idea why, but I like my fighters to be as automated as possible while spellcasting as non-automated as possible. You are right though that the Spellcasting needs restructuring and that in many battles spellcasting beyond the heal spell is far too often futile. Not always, but just too often.

I had no real problem with the Map and I didn't mind not having an automatic Journal. I guess it could be a problem if you go long stretches between plays, but I didn't find myself forgetting much as the game isn't over-packed with rubbish quests like a lot of auto-journal games are.

I also prefer it when things like kiting and agro-pulling are a part of the designed gameplay, it's something very specific to RTwP isometric games and something I view as sound tactics rather than an exploit or mismanaged development. I'd be more disappointed if a game didn't have these requirements, after all, I've spent many years honing the talents involved and it would be a shame to waste them

You are right though that three or four of the areas just tip over into repetitive same-monster combat for just too long, but it never got to tedious levels for me. I was just starting to notice it when the area was nearly completed anyway. So perhaps you have a slightly lesser threshold to me.

You're right that a couple of the puzzles are unintuitive and leave you no clue, but the few I found this with I was able to solve with minor clues and hints combined with traditional trial-by-error - and I have a very short puzzle-attention-span when a game hit trial-and-error I can assure you, but this game didn't come close to some retarded adventure games puzzles I've briefly endured. There was one door I never opened, in one of the archaeological temples (not in the Lady of Portals area), my only memorable loose-end, but I don't think it mattered for my game.

I thought the game played to many strengths and had very few major weaknesses by comparison to the average game and I'm not sure I could give it 3 stars after having so much fun in its world, but if you don't like some things which I classed as strengths I can see how you might tip over to slightly negative rather than comfort-zone content.

azarhal said:

The bars representing "fun factor" and "character power" overtime is representative of the majority of games I played. It's not just a RPG thing.

Click to expand...

I can see that. Just for the fun of pedantry though, and because Tower Defence games are one of my guilty pleasures, TD games all start piss easy and end up impossible, that is the format of that type of game, so there kind of has to be some kind of objective difference in this regard between genres. Strategy games also tend to be all-easy or all-hard depending on difficulty setting, I dunno, you'll have to give some examples so I know what other types of games you mean

lackblogger said:

I can see that. Just for the fun of pedantry though, and because Tower Defence games are one of my guilty pleasures, TD games all start piss easy and end up impossible, that is the format of that type of game, so there kind of has to be some kind of objective difference in this regard between genres. Strategy games also tend to be all-easy or all-hard depending on difficulty setting, I dunno, you'll have to give some examples so I know what other types of games you mean

Click to expand...

I play mostly action games (shooters, action/adventures) and RPG (of any kind), both these tend to start you with crappy gear and give you t he best stuff toward the end (in addition for increase in power for RPGs). There is also the learning curves involved with the gameplay staying the same all the way so at some point you just get "good" at it.

I'll give you TD games (and most puzzles games) though, they start easy to teach the system and go toward "needs godly skills" the higher you go.

As for strategy game, I have a love-hate relationship with them so I don't play them that much. My experience with RTS is hard with low level units to easy once you unlock the best units (at which point I get bored). The turn-based variety is a bit different to me, it seems as if a single encounter can be super hard or super easy based just on if you approached from the left or right. Although, yes the settings (or more likely the developers) seems to define if the game is going to be super-hard or not in that case.

it can be better scaled and controlled, thats for sure. most aren't even trying

@lackblogger. I think you wrote up a very good review, and just wanted to give my 2 cents, since we obviously differ in what we see as fun and not fun. I think people should be aware of what they're getting into if they buy SitS. As I stated earlier the gameplay will appeal to some people. Steam reviews show that some gamers are really in love with the game. I think those who consider Ultima 7 the pinnacle of rpg history will have fun with the game. It's not a game for me, even though I consider myself a fan of both old school and indie rpgs and I could see how many others could be turned off by it.

The deliberately pixelated style would put me off. I think it's fine as a stylistic retro choice in simple games, but when there's lots of text to be read, I can't stand it.

I like the game but I'm finding the load times to be horribly long. It's making it feel like a chore more than a fun game experience. Hope they are working on a patch… putting this on the shelf for now.