Legend of Grimrock 2 officially anounced.

*Grabs a chair and some popcorn*

Originally Posted by JDR13
*Grabs a chair and some popcorn*

Move over, enough space on that couch for two. I brought some beer.

Originally Posted by DeepO
That doesn´t mean squat.

Actually, it means that only 8% completed it. We're talking a pretty big sample pool.

I'm sure you don't think that's relevant - but then again, you're not exactly sane - are you?

Btw, you also don´t have any evidence that if the game emulated Dungeon Master to a t the completion rate would be higher.

I don't remember claiming that I had evidence. I just suggested there might be a message there.

There´s nothing wrong with emphasizing the puzzle aspect, different flavours and all.
I, for example, completed Grimrock precisely because it was puzzle-heavy. If it followed the format of Dungeon Master or the first Eye of the Beholder (worse game than Grimrock, regardless of audiovisual side, btw) I very likely wouldn´t because sparse story, simplistic combat and a puzzle here and there would not cut it for me nowadays.

You seem confused.

Let me clarify.

I'm not saying their changes to the Dungeon Master design are bad if you like constant samey puzzles.

As for sparse story and a puzzle here and there, that's not a problem for you. Only thing missing would be constant combat - and you'd be in heaven like you were in Dark Souls

I'm just saying I don't think they fully understood the design - if that was supposed to be an imitation.

If it wasn't supposed to be a real imitation - then that's different.

Yeah, it´s just dumb.

Oh, that's a powerful statement. I'm impressed

Let me see if I can counter it:

You're super duper dumb!

BAM!

That's a counter if I ever saw one!

IIRC, their stated influences were Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder and Ultima Underworld.
If they didn´t manage to "emulate" one of these, it´s Ultima Underworld, with which the game shares only very general, superficial similarities.

They emphasized Dungeon Master all the way. You're right, they couldn't emulate Ultima Underworld to save their lives - but then again, that's in a league all its own.

As for Dungeon Master - they failed to emulate it to my satisfaction.

I'm not surprised you prefer it, though. Aren't you the guy who called Mass Effect 2 superior in pretty much all ways to Mass Effect? I'd be surprised if you didn't prefer it. You like this "constant" thing in general - be it samey combat or samey puzzles!

Yeah, story in Dungeon Master was indeed stellar.
As for exploration, Grimrock is certainly not worse than DM - it comes with a good amount of optional content (more than DM) and a lot of the best rewards come from there. The level design is not significantly, if at all, less inspired than in DM.

Interesting opinions that I don't share. Surprise.

That said, my problem with Grimrock is the pacing and the AMOUNT of SAMEY puzzles. I love puzzles - but they need more variety and they need to be spread out. Dungeon Master never felt like playing Portal - not even close.

The level design would improve tremendously just by letting the player breathe during some quiet moments.

I´m pretty sure the design of Grimrock came largely from understanding that providing a focused, not overtly ambitious, but well working game was a reasonable way to debut in the field.
I´m also pretty sure they understand that providing a richer and more varied experience is where it´s at when it comes to a sequel, just as the authors of, say, Chaos Strikes Back or Eye of the Beholder 2 did.

Well, let's hope you're right.

I mean - you being "pretty sure" about something you can't possibly know anything about is making me feel very good about the sequel already

Grimrock was a decent first effort - but only a fool would pretend its success was due to design or mechanics over the production values and marketing/hype.

Had it looked like the average indie - that 8% completion rate would suddenly mean "squat" even to people with blinders on - like you.

I see the 8% completion rate quoted a lot here, does that count people that use the offline function in Steam? Because I'd truly be confused if only 8% of purchasers are finishing a game, lol what's the point of buying the thing if you aren't going to finish it??? I'd say I know quite a few people that play Steam in offline mode, so I'm just wondering if that could explain the anomaly.



-Carn

Originally Posted by Carnifex
I see the 8% completion rate quoted a lot here, does that count people that use the offline function in Steam? Because I'd truly be confused if only 8% of purchasers are finishing a game, lol what's the point of buying the thing if you aren't going to finish it??? I'd say I know quite a few people that play Steam in offline mode, so I'm just wondering if that could explain the anomaly.



-Carn

First time I've seen it around here - I read it at QT3.

As for the offline mode - I'm not sure how it works, but then that would go for all games.

AFAIK, it's not uncommon to not finish what you buy. Especially when it comes to cheap games.

That said, for something like Grimrock - I'd have expected something closer to 30% if it was really that fantastic.

Honestly, I think most people loved the way it looked and they loved the idea of a rebirth of that particular genre - I know I did.

But the experience ended up being way too repetitive and I've heard the puzzle-complaint a LOT on various forums.

That's not to say that lots of people didn't enjoy the puzzles.

All I'm saying is that puzzles never took up so much playtime in the original Dungeon Master.

Then again, back in 1987-1988 - the game was a complete technological marvel. It was EXTREMELY impressive and immersive. It made every step of the dungeon worth exploring. I still remember the impact of true stereo sound in a first person real-time environment on my Amiga. That game changed everything.

That's not something you can easily replicate with the standards of today.

Certainly not by going for the quick buck and focusing on high production values - and aping ancient designs without getting them quite right.

I know that's REALLY impressive for a lot of people - but I have to say I found the whole thing underwhelming.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Aren't you the guy who called Mass Effect 2 superior in pretty much all ways to Mass Effect?

Your obsession with my opinions on Mass Effect is mildly amusing, keep it up .

As for the rest of your attempt at response, zzzzzzzz.
Better luck next time!

Originally Posted by DeepO
Your obsession with my opinions on Mass Effect is mildly amusing, keep it up .

As for the rest of your attempt at response, zzzzzzzz.
Better luck next time!

Yes, I'm certainly the obsessed one who gets all excited every time you post something negative about a game I really like. What can I say, you're easy to impress and I'm not.

You're like having a dog barking at my feet everywhere I go

Also, keep up the impressive retorts!

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
But the experience ended up being way too repetitive and I've heard the puzzle-complaint a LOT on various forums.

Agree with this. Only managed about 3 levels of the game before getting burned out on it.

I also think its a complete cop out to make the strategy of a game almost entirely dependent on learning sequences of button presses. The only reason you can't write non branching keyboard macros to cast spells is that they didn't put in key bindings (no doubt for that reason). Strategy in RPGs should consist of being able to react to different challenges in different ways using different skills, not learning to play chopsticks with your mouse.

Maybe, I'll buy the sequel in the hope of some more depth, but murmurings from the devs on the site don't encourage me to believe that they understand what the appeal of party RPGs really is. And they probably won't be that tempted to find out considering that many of their audience appear to favour style over substance.

Why can't someone make a game with Grimoire's depth and Grimrock's polish?

Originally Posted by Roq
but murmurings from the devs on the site don't encourage me to believe that they understand what the appeal of party RPGs really is.

What you really mean is actually "what little I've read from the devs on the site doesn't encourage me to believe that they see what I see to be the appeal of party based RPGs. Notice the difference? It's probably helpful if you don't generalise your own interest in the genre to be the same as everyone elses (including the developers.) This may also help to lower expectations as well.

In response to DArt's navel gazing post of clarification after the "To my mind, they didn't really understand the games they were trying to emulate" comment, let me just say that this rubbed me the wrong way because of the implication that somehow you simply know better about these games than the developers, regardless of what their design process and choices were.

In short, you can't judge or gauge the depth of understanding of a genre based upon the creation of one game with smatterings of that genre. This kind of insight exists independent of what you create. Regardless of what their design decisions were, understanding and insight is subjective and is not contained in the totality of that one game. (Legend of Grimrock)

But after reading your clarifying post, I can see that you are genuinely passionate about the genre and so I suppose your point of view does make sense to a certain extent. I think I can at least understand why you'd come to that conclusion, so thanks for the extra clarity.

Originally Posted by Pessimeister
What you really mean is actually "what little I've read from the devs on the site doesn't encourage me to believe that they see what I see to be the appeal of party based RPGs. Notice the difference? It's probably helpful if you don't generalise your own interest in the genre to be the same as everyone elses (including the developers.) This may also help to lower expectations as well.

Sure, but the reason YOU think they DO undertand the appeal is probably because you liked the game, no?

I mean, if you'd hated their take on the genre - it's not impossible to imagine you being sceptical about their understanding of it, right?

In response to DArt's navel gazing post of clarification after the "To my mind, they didn't really understand the games they were trying to emulate" comment, let me just say that this rubbed me the wrong way because of the implication that somehow you simply know better about these games than the developers, regardless of what their design process and choices were.

Is there some reason I can't understand these games better than the developers?

I'm not saying I do - I was just wondering why that would be such a preposterous scenario?

While I can't know with certainty, let's just say I have a feeling I've played this kind of game more than all the developers put together.

In short, you can't judge or gauge the depth of understanding of a genre based upon the creation of one game with smatterings of that genre. This kind of insight exists independent of what you create. Regardless of what their design decisions were, understanding and insight is subjective and is not contained in the totality of that one game. (Legend of Grimrock)

I'm not basing it on that alone. I'm also basing it on their own very clearly stated intention of wanting to "remake" Dungeon Master.

So, if that was indeed their intention with Grimrock - I don't think they really understood Dungeon Master. However, it's not impossible that I misunderstood their intentions - though I do believe I read that very thing more than once on their site.

But after reading your clarifying post, I can see that you are genuinely passionate about the genre and so I suppose your point of view does make sense to a certain extent. I think I can at least understand why you'd come to that conclusion, so thanks for the extra clarity.

I'm trying to figure out what my motivation would have been if it wasn't that I'm passionate about gaming.

But I do prefer being understood - and I'm glad my clarification helped there.

I should probably also add that I don't think being a developer - successful or not - means you're automatically some kind of superior human being that enables you to have an especially keen insight that exceeds that of a mere gamer.

So, if some passionate and knowledgable gamer were to criticise a successful game - I wouldn't automatically assume it was arrogance. But that's me.