Codex Review RPG Codex Review: Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar

[Fowyr]

But it speaks a lot about his deep spite for Cleve that he couldn't even add little edit. "Lol, guys, I'm such a fool! RMB works too!" "Inventory is kinda sucks, but Cleve added fast scrolling to it". Just look at Steam reviews above. Main complain of one of them was exactly "four clicks to cast spell".
It's one thing to rip game a new one because it sucks. But using half truths for it is unbecoming.

Apparently, two days earlier felipepe corrected himself. But I'm pretty sure that Codex sported old version of review when I wrote this.

I find particularly funny how "game has no right-clicking" seems to be more important thing to correct than "the game has 600 hours of gameplay".

Anyway, I already fixed that and the line about food being useless. I wonder if Cleve will do the same.

 

[Beastro]

To be fair, PoE did have spikes in combat difficulty here and there but it sucked on all other fronts. Bland character system, bland abilities, bland spells, bland itemization, bland encounters copy pasted ad infinitum. Literally nothing fun was allowed.

And don't get me started on Twitcher system and combat... makes Gothic 3 look like a fucking design masterpiece.

The only difficulty spike I encountered was taking on the pack of wolves solo before moving onto the first town. I kept dying but knew I could beat it and eventually did once I got the positioning at a choke point right while using a pike.

I went looking for other overleveled content similar to it to get a challenge from and never found it that one nasty fight in the Endless Paths that can be easily bottlenecked too.

 

[Beastro]

But from Felipepepe's review besides the balance and few other things there's nothing in Grimoire that really needs an immediate fix. I'd say that there is some problem if he managed to solo the hardest optional boss in the game despite not knowing how to use the interface and not having an access to the manual simply by abusing instakill mechanic.

You are right about encounters and chests. Encounter design is more of a difficulty problem, not a balance one.

Also, your arguments against PoE are valid, but not really relevant since I doubt that everyone (including) Felipepepe would be happy about applying this way of balancing to Grimoire. PoE is not some holy grail of balance, it's a failure of balance. The problem is not that Sawyer decided to work hard on balancing , this is actually very desirable for every kind of game. The problem is that he based his balance effort on a stupid presupposition: "Every build must be valiable". In RTS games it would mean: every base composition must be valiable. In Chess: every possible opening must be valiable. In Civilization: every placement of the first city must be valiable. Famous Polish traditional game designer once said that games are just a series of choices, without choices there is no game. So by making sure that every choice made during character creation is OK he basically made a game with no way to fail, which is a no-game. This speaks against Sawyer, not against balancing.

As I've said before the game is a series of choices. Balancing the game properly prolongs it's replay-ability by making choices more difficult to make. If, as you've said there are obviously OP and shit choices then after finding them players will just brake the game and be able to breeze through without thinking, unless they want to gimp themselves. The best comparison is FO1 and Age of Decadence. Getting 10 Agility and tagging small arms make the game incredibly easier, so unless you want to play a weak character for some reason there's no reason no to do this. This means that after playing the game a couple of times character creation becomes trivial. Now Age of Decadence have more balanced skills and stats with no obvious choices. Because of that making a character in AoD is still engaging even after beating the game a couple of times. Same principle applies to dungeon crawlers. If there are 5 "warrior-type" classes, each with strengths and weaknesses then making a party will be much more difficult then if there was only one good warrior class. Of course if JE Sawyer got his hands on Age of Decadence or a typical dungeon crawler and made sure that "all combination of skill and stats" and "all party compositions" are equally good, then they'd suck of course.

Infinitron, what in this made it earn a Retarded rating from you?

I often think most people here love to give you a hard time just for the fun of it, but you're really stretching it here...

 

[Infinitron]

Infinitron, what in this made it earn a Retarded rating from you?

I often think most people here love to give you a hard time just for the fun of it, but you're really stretching it here...

These are tired arguments.

In RTS games it would mean: every base composition must be valiable. In Chess: every possible opening must be valiable. In Civilization: every placement of the first city must be valiable.

Those games aren't roleplaying games.

Famous Polish traditional game designer once said that games are just a series of choices, without choices there is no game.

And by reducing the amount of viable builds you reduce roleplaying.

New Sawyer interview: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/hes...-on-nearly-20-years-spent-making-rpg-classics

What was the number one thing that you learned from working with Chris Avellone?

[...] Sometimes when we would play through games, he would make a character with an odd build that would seem kind of unusual and he would say, "Why can't I use these things," which is a good point.

I'm okay with grognardy RPGs that let you build broken/unfun characters. But the fans of those games should acknowledge that they're sacrificing something in return for the character building metagame that they crave.

 

[Beastro]

Those games aren't roleplaying games.

But they are games, video games, and video games emphasize gameplay more than anything else, even in RPGs.

New Sawyer interview: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/hes...-on-nearly-20-years-spent-making-rpg-classics

The idea is like if a NPC says something, imagine if you're sitting at a table. You have to write the possibilities of what the player can say. If an NPC is a jerk, think about, "Okay, well how is a player going to want to respond? How are different players going to want to respond? Is the player going to want to slap this character? Is the player going to want to take the high ground and be above it all? Are they going to be quiet and just accept it? Or are they going to want to do something else?" Also like, "Oh, if there's a quest that presents this thing, does that sort of beg, 'Oh, I'm a character with these skills and that makes me want to do these things?'"

When it comes to dialogue options, that is viable since it mostly involves simply more writing, but not other bits of gameplay and a crucial piece of them ignored in that quote is the discovery and employment of advantages as you skill up, something which doesn't arise in a game where all paths are viable.

It's a crucial part of human nature to get one over on the circumstances you struggle against and drive that home. It is massively fun and so much of my love of RPGs is finding such advantages and then finding an encounter over my head to use it against I couldn't possibly do without being "OP". It was something I simply couldn't find in a game like PoE because the founding principles of the game were based on eliminating losers and so cheapened the achievements of the winner by making them ubiquitous.

To find what I thought were advantages and use them only to realize that no matter what I'd picked in my guys builds would have resulted in the same outcome robbed me of that sense of accomplishment in PoE and it's a problem with many modern RPGs.

If you want to make a game that emphasizes roleplaying over the rest that's fine, but I don't think it can be done in a video game, where all options have to be programmed and written in limiting what can be done whereas in a tabletop game much of that is accomplished verbally and through everyone's imaginations preventing it from detracting from the rest of the game.

Sometimes when we would play through games, he would make a character with an odd build that would seem kind of unusual and he would say, "Why can't I use these things," which is a good point. Again, if you make a character that's built in a certain way, if the player doesn't have some opportunity to really shine and go, "Ah yes, finally, all those points I put into doctor make me feel like I'm really cool," then that sucks. It feels like a huge letdown.

And here is that mentality again. To make good choices shine you need to have bad ones. From failure you struggle and seek that which works and feel rewarded for thinking and digging enough to find a build that clicks. You want to play something like what he describes in a video game you're picking the wrong medium of game to play because by doing that you will reduce the chance of failure, water down the sense of challenge and accomplishment while also weakening the game overall by having developers devote more time in making bad builds viable instead of devoting that time and effort in other places.

Tigranes, I think that the problem is that cRPGs strive for realism. Developers want to offer a variety of skills that simulate people's actual skills (realism). But some skills need to be less useful than others, because a plausible game world cannot support them all equally (realism). Your point about some skills not being situational is spot on and I would add that they should not affect players that did not invest in these skills. The point is that developers did not think really well about their initial choice of skills and this had enormous repercussions about every design decision that came afterwards.

I think the discussion about Grimoire’s balance should be about whether the game must be evaluated by its own aims, e.g., as a spiritual sucessor of Wizardry with such and such features, or by other general principles we tend to accept for independent reasons. If you take the first assumption as axiomatic, any further discussion is pointless.

I think Verisimilitude is a better word to use as it is less constrictive and less prone to misunderstanding and derision than realism, that increasingly takes on the connotation that realism is something in a game that operates the same way as what happens in reality, such as a AK-47 in a video game having the same properties as one has in reality.

What it comes down to is things "feeling right" for a game. What feels right in a game can have little to nothing to do with reality, but it's suitable for the game whereas the same feeling won't work in another (and is why strict realism as we know it in this day and age of gaming makes for crappy games - the reality around things like combat with firearms isn't fun, or in pursuit of establishing a balance between gameplay and getting close to real properties the game is compromised in different ways).

While I understand the fundamental tone Grimoire is built upon, I don't like the sound of this gameplay that feels more like nuclear warfare than something entertainingly challenging in a game. Having a game where enemies and the player can kill one another very quickly, and so force quick action to get there first is one thing, making it all or nothing "the first person to fire their nukes and catch the opposing sides ICBMs on the ground before they can launch wins WWIII" sounds repelling for the same reasons modern warfare is so odious while many in centuries past could strangely find war to be something of an adventure to a larger degree than today (Humans being human, and so capable of anything, means we'll always have at least a handful of de Wiart's around even if increasingly the rest of us are unable to see eye to eye with what they enjoyed so much about war).

I haven't yet played the game, but Grimoire can have brutal, unforgiving combat that still feels right, but it seems it's not there yet.

 

[fantadomat]

Cleve butthurt over a review.

LOL

Why are you so surprised?The guy is a total narcissist.I am surprised that he is not on the gaming news,or in a video made by the fat faggot cuck jim niggersucking sterling.

 

[Iznaliu]

Why are you so surprised?The guy is a total narcissist.I am surprised that he is not on the gaming news,or in a video made by the fat faggot cuck jim niggersucking sterling.

I don't think anyone needs Cleve's nature explained to them. By the way, "narcissist" is a decline way of putting it. Call him a "real man".

 

[Kutulu]

Did he give copies to the ppl of the indiegogo campaign way back?

 

[Quantomas]

From failure you struggle and seek that which works and feel rewarded for thinking and digging enough to find a build that clicks.

Brilliant and outstanding post.

 

[ortucis]

I will probably buy this on some Steam sale, a year or two later when it's done getting patched.

Meanwhile, I am still enjoying the Steam drama:

Edit: Just as expected, the developer responded and complained, saying he'd have paid me not to play his game, that it's not for "people like me", and that I just bought it to write a bad review. He also claimed he'd report me to Steam to prevent me from getting a refund, saying I was just pirating it anyhow. Very mature and not very logically consistent! Cleve might be unhinged. Do yourself a favor and don't buy this game nor support childish bullies like Cleve.

 

[Iznaliu]

To be fair, PoE did have spikes in combat difficulty here and there but it sucked on all other fronts. Bland character system, bland abilities, bland spells, bland itemization, bland encounters copy pasted ad infinitum. Literally nothing fun was allowed.

And don't get me started on Twitcher system and combat... makes Gothic 3 look like a fucking design masterpiece.

This is what we call burnout from playing too many RPGs.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Wait....Cleve has a daughter? Did Cooper finally fully transition?

 

[Iznaliu]

Wait....Cleve has a daughter? Did Cooper finally fully transition?

I have no idea about any of Cleve's progeny, and I don't want to know.

 

[thesheeep]

Did he give copies to the ppl of the indiegogo campaign way back?

Indeed he did.
At least I got mine.

 

[Jacob]

Grimoire is not an anime grinder. It takes brainpower to play.

Another very inspiring quote for my signature

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

This is a gross representation of my entire post. To this day I've assumed that you've rated me "retarded" because you thought that I simplified Sawyer's approach too much, which is why I didn't complain about it. Your post makes it clear that I was actually spoton. I mean seriously, what is this shit.

In RTS games it would mean: every base composition must be valiable. In Chess: every possible opening must be valiable. In Civilization: every placement of the first city must be valiable.

Those games aren't roleplaying games.

Well, no shit. The entire point was comparing RPGs to other similar, but distinct genres.

Famous Polish traditional game designer once said that games are just a series of choices, without choices there is no game.

And by reducing the amount of viable builds you reduce roleplaying.

What does it have to do with the part of my post you quoted. Also, this is simply untrue. Role playing a non-optimal character is also role-playing. All you need to do to encourage role-playing is to give players enough tools, not make all outcomes equal. And seriously why even worry about role-playing in a heavy story-driven party based RPGs. Most of the role-playing is done via dialogue choices. It's not an open-world sandbox like The Elder Scrolls where majority of the role-playing is you interacting with an open world.
Muscle wizard, or brain wizard, they all work the fucking same in PoE. They walk into a location, trigger inevatible fight with group of enemies, and start whacking them. Either via strongspells or smartspells. In Morrowind being a muscle-wizard actually alters your choices. Morrowind has opposite approach to balance than Sawyer, it's almost Clive-level.

I'm okay with grognardy RPGs that let you build broken/unfun characters. But the fans of those games should acknowledge that they're sacrificing something in return for the character building metagame that they crave.

"Why can't I use this things" is an argument against arbitrary class, race restrictions, not for making everything equally powerful. Morrowind lets you make any character you want. Not all of them will be equally strong, because in real world an any fantasy worlds there are more and less useful things. Better weapons, better spells, better combat styles etc. Yes, hitting a guy with a magical sword is better then hitting him with your fist, but you still can create and role-play a fucking monk. The game gonna be harder because being a monk would be fucking harder in a fantasy universe without any Wuxia bullshit. There is exactly nothing to be gained from balancing game in a way that every build in existence is equally good. It's just a waste of time that could be spent better on anything else.

 

[Infinitron]

More tired arguments. We're not talking "equally powerful" (a meaningless phrase), we're talking about viable builds that don't feel like shit to play. Ooh, I made a 15 STR Fighter because my character concept that I want to roleplay is that I'm strong but I'm not that strong and 15/18 sounds high enough, right? Except no, my character is gonna feel kinda shit and be a drag on the party for the entire game and I'll feel bad about it until I've finally had enough and I restart the game. That's the kind of shit we're talking about here.

And seriously why even worry about role-playing in a heavy story-driven party based RPGs. Most of the role-playing is done via dialogue choices. It's not an open-world sandbox like The Elder Scrolls where majority of the role-playing is you interacting with an open world.
Muscle wizard, or brain wizard, they all work the fucking same in PoE. They walk into a location, trigger inevatible fight with group of enemies, and start whacking them. Either via strongspells or smartspells. In Morrowind being a muscle-wizard actually alters your choices. Morrowind has opposite approach to balance than Sawyer, it's almost Clive-level.

"This type of game is not as free-form as Morrowind - most of your character's build is only expressed in combat" doesn't seem like a good argument for reducing build flexibility. It would be easier to argue the opposite - because the game is so combat-centric, it should maximize combat build viability to compensate for the absence of non-combat open world sandbox player expression.

 

[Dorateen]

15/18 sounds high enough, right? Except no, my character is gonna feel kinda shit and be a drag on the party for the entire game and I'll feel bad about it until I've finally had enough and I restart the game.

Or until you find Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or other strength-enhancing equipment/methods of getting that character up to speed.

 

[Delterius]

19 strength is way too good, fam.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

More tired arguments. We're not talking "equally powerful" (a meaningless phrase), we're talking about viable builds that don't feel like shit to play. Ooh, I made a 15 STR Fighter because my character concept that I want to roleplay is that I'm strong but I'm not that strong and 15/18 sounds high enough, right? Except no, my character is gonna feel kinda shit and be a drag on the party for the entire game and I'll feel bad about it until I've finally had enough and I restart the game. That's the kind of shit we're talking about here.

But 15 str. fighter is perfectly viable, just not the best choice. Sure he's sub-optimal compared to 18/00 mutant but not as dysfunctional as you try to make him appear as. How do you think people played the original ADnD. You had one roll, and not a billion. Not to mention you didn't really explain for what reason do you want to role-play as a 15 str fighter. It's just a number, and not a character concept. If you want to play as a fighter who rely more on dexterity than on brawl then there should be ways of doing it (like "finesse" feat in 3.0 edition), but it's a matter of providing players with options. If your concept is just a weak warrior, then shouldn't your character being weak actually add to the experience?
Also, stop complaining about my arguments being "tired" in every other post. I write this stuff because I think they are reasonable, not because it's my life's goal to provide you with amusement. Seriously what the hell is wrong with you.

"This type of game is not as free-form as Morrowind - most of your character's build is only expressed in combat" doesn't seem like a good argument for reducing build flexibility. It would be easier to argue the opposite - because the game is so combat-centric, it should maximize combat build viability to compensate for the absence of non-combat open world sandbox player expression.

You should maximize diversity in combat builds in order to allow many different play-styles. Making sure that every possible build is equally viable is pretty much a waste of time. I mean sure I can make high str or high agility rouge in POE, but why would I bother if they are going to play very much the same?

 

[Sensuki]

Ooh, I made a 15 STR Fighter because my character concept that I want to roleplay is that I'm strong but I'm not that strong and 15/18 sounds high enough, right? Except no, my character is gonna feel kinda shit and be a drag on the party for the entire game

This was a non-issue in both the BGs. A lot of technically bad builds are saved due to good itemization. Icewind Dale's "3E style" attribute gains from items (which Sawyer implemented?) breaks this contingency.

 

[Iznaliu]

You had one roll, and not a billion

Then the game should've been designed with that in mind.

 

[Brayko]

So it's good then?

 

[Iznaliu]

We're not talking "equally powerful" (a meaningless phrase)

Everything is meaningless when you think about it too much. Then you wake up to a sharp pain to your head.

 

[aweigh]

jim carrey disagrees with cleve though