Legend of Grimrock 2

[---]

They should go on Kickstarter, if they haven't the needed money.
Fuck, everyone is going on Kickstarter.
Even if it's a niche game, it is not so obscure, I'm sure that they could find some backers.
I just want a fucking badasssss third chapter

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Grimrock 3 with turnbased combat would be nice.

 

[Doktor Best]

What? Both are great games exploration and puzzlewise, but the dancing sucks ass after a while. It would be much better as a Wizardry-light with some simple but good turnbased combat.

Baldur's Gate series would also be much better with turnbased combat. There, i've said it.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Err...no. It would not be "better" if it was a Wizardry-lite game. It's trying to be Dungeon Master, not Wizardry. Pretending to be the former by being the latter is retarded. The lack of turn-based combat is a core aspect.

There are plenty of games with turn-based combat, just go play those, you Turn-based Justice Warrior.

 

[V_K]

They should go on Kickstarter, if they haven't the needed money.

I don't think they'd be developing a new engine if they didn't have the money.

 

[Great Deceiver]

Err...no. It would not be "better" if it was a Wizardry-lite game. It's trying to be Dungeon Master, not Wizardry. Pretending to be the former by being the latter is retarded. The lack of turn-based combat is a core aspect.

There are plenty of games with turn-based combat, just go play those, you Turn-based Justice Warrior.

I understand and agree that the lineage of this game is very much so DM/CSB, but would you say that turn-based combat would be a hindrance to the game as a whole or go so far as de-characterise it? I love Grimrock's dungeon design, atmosphere and puzzles (especially the second game), but my absolute least favourite aspect of the game is the combat. I don't think it's fast enough to justify the tradeoff for tactical depth; enemies are quite bullet spongey and the situations where tactical dancing isn't possible because of clever map design are few and far between (even in 2).

I get it that enemies moving about in realtime are supposed to add tension, and in the best cases they do that to some degree, but more often than not, combat is just tedious in my opinion. The positional aspects aren't exploited nearly enough by the game. I think a good fight was the

Spoiler

rat boss

, it was tense and it wasn't possible to cheese, at least not from the start.

Anyway, I am very much looking forward to a third game, hopefully before too long.

 

[---]

Reading your experiences with the rat boss, when I was playing the game few months ago, I was prepared for a super hard fight, and at the end I beated it during the first try.
I had much more problems during the boss fight with the warrior skeleton in the catacombs or the one (not a boss) with the dozens of zombies...
Not to talk about the one in the pyramid, to unlock the Ancient Claymore, with the snakes and the archers... That fucking room was incredibly small, square-dancing was literally impossible.

I agree, though, I don't think that I would like a turn-based combat system in a game like this.

 

[Maggot]

There's a good amount of puzzles that are designed to be solved in real time or places and traps where you need to time your movements and I think the game wouldn't work as well if it was TB.

 

[Jaesun]

What? Both are great games exploration and puzzlewise, but the dancing sucks ass after a while. It would be much better as a Wizardry-light with some simple but good turnbased combat.

You haven't played the original Dungeon Master?

 

[Great Deceiver]

Reading your experiences with the rat boss, when I was playing the game few months ago, I was prepared for a super hard fight, and at the end I beated it during the first try.

I didn't say it was a hard fight, I said it was an interesting fight due to its positional aspects that weren't possible to cheese entirely (the shotgun having knockback, for instance). It was tense enough. It took me a couple of tries to beat. I was trying to illustrate the point that while there are benefits to having real-time combat when the positional aspects are set up properly, most of the game doesn't manage to do it.

 

[Darth Roxor]

most of the game doesn't manage to do it.

Eh, I dunno. I remember Glimlock 2 having consistently good encounter/location design that limited the usefulness of cheese dancing (to a degree anyway, not saying it was completely unviable because that would be bullshitliesr00fles). The first one was super easy to cheese otoh.

 

[---]

The first one had super slow monster: their attacks were powerful, they had a lot of hp, but their slowness made them almost harmless. The first time that I played Grimrock 1 I didn't notice this, but when I replayed it, after the second game, I found the battles super easy, even the final boss.
In the second game not only the encounter design was almost excellent, but simply speeding the monsters made them much more fearsome.

 

[Bubbles]

They should go on Kickstarter, if they haven't the needed money.

I don't think they'd be developing a new engine if they didn't have the money.

The new engine is being coded by one dude, who also developed the Grimrock 1/2 engine on his own. Whether he's soloing it because of financial concerns or because he's a passionate loner is anyone's guess.

 

[V_K]

They should go on Kickstarter, if they haven't the needed money.

I don't think they'd be developing a new engine if they didn't have the money.

The new engine is being coded by one dude, who also developed the Grimrock 1/2 engine on his own. Whether he's soloing it because of financial concerns or because he's a passionate loner is anyone's guess.

My point is, a lone dude still has to eat. And Almost Human are a full time studio, so he does not have another paying job. On the other hand, LoG2 enginge is pretty powerful, so if they were in financial trouble, it would make more sense to quickly build another game on the existing tech than to go into engine development.

 

[Metro]

Loved Grimrock 1. Enjoyed 2... but never finished. Agree that it went on a bit too long. Don't think I'd be particularly interested in a Grimrock 3. They didn't advance many new features in 2 so I doubt 3 would contain any major improvements/additions. I would expect something like a grid based Arx Fatalis from 3 but I doubt they could deliver that.

 

[Doktor Best]

Err...no. It would not be "better" if it was a Wizardry-lite game. It's trying to be Dungeon Master, not Wizardry. Pretending to be the former by being the latter is retarded. The lack of turn-based combat is a core aspect.

There are plenty of games with turn-based combat, just go play those, you Turn-based Justice Warrior.

What modern turn-based blobbers are out there that are not infested with pedophile artwork and were released on pc with ui and controls designed for pcs?

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Don't know, and it's not my problem.

But next time you're going to force your antiquated opinion upon others, try to be less blatant about your own prejudices.

 

[V_K]

What modern turn-based blobbers are out there that are not infested with pedophile artwork and were released on pc with ui and controls designed for pcs?

7 Mages.

 

[Doktor Best]

Don't know, and it's not my problem.

But next time you're going to force your antiquated opinion upon others, try to be less blatant about your own prejudices.

So i "force my opinion upon others" by posting them? Guilty as charged in that case, just like you.

Anyways, my claim still stands: Grimrock is a great game that could be even greater with a good combat system.

Oh, Jaesun didnt see your question. Yes i started playing it until level 5 or something but then i abandoned it because i lost my map files and that pissed me off too much. Will start another playthrough in future though of either Dungeon Master or Chaos Strikes Back.

 

[Ulminati]

Grimrock 3 with turnbased combat would be nice.

Err...no. It would not be "better" if it was a Wizardry-lite game. It's trying to be Dungeon Master, not Wizardry. Pretending to be the former by being the latter is retarded. The lack of turn-based combat is a core aspect.

There are plenty of games with turn-based combat, just go play those, you Turn-based Justice Warrior.

A wizardry game with grimrock quality environment graphics and turn-based combat. Most blobbers have super basic gfx for environment.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

So i "force my opinion upon others" by posting them? Guilty as charged in that case, just like you.

Anyways, my claim still stands: Grimrock is a great game that could be even greater with a good combat system.

I'm torn here. Should I point out the stupidity in your "sensible" argument, or just not bother and tell you to fuck off?

I'll go with the former, as the latter option would put me on your level.

*deep breath*

35+ years ago there were CRPGs, but due to technical limitations they were all turn-based. They did the best with what they had. I'd best say this next bit right now: Turn-based game mechanics have their time and place and can, in certain circumstances, be the best system for a game to use, RPG or otherwise. But turn-based mechanics are NOT the Alpha and Omega of RPGs - quite the contrary as I'm about to show. Anyone thinking otherwise is bat-shit insane. I don't care how many Codexers I insult with those words, they are the truth. Get real or get butthurt, I don't care.

Moving on to 1986, and there's a game in development that has everyone raving, and it's an RPG to boot! What's so amazing about this game? Is it the next-generation graphics that computers such as the Atari ST and Amiga could only provide, compared to their predecessors? Fuck yeah. Is it the fact that the player interacts directly with the game world? Oh yes. But the biggest factor? Everything happens in real time. Turn-based mechanics are gone, thrown out the window at the first opportunity. As a result this game offers immersion and atmosphere unheard of in any RPG before that time - and a lot of them afterwards as well. This is Dungeon Master, the best-selling game of the Atari ST - a title that left Amiga owners jealous (even though they had the superior hardware) and one of the cornerstones of CRPGs - period. One simply cannot talk about CRPGs in a broad sense without touching upon Dungeon Master at one point, it cannot be ignored. But despite its brilliance, Dungeon Master couldn't abandon the grid - it would take another 5 years before RPGs could pull that off. Games that tried to be exactly like Dungeon Master would spawn their own sub-genre of RPGs that would last until the end of 1995, but strong seeds of real-time gameplay were sown with that game, and they blossomed all over the gaming industry.

From the moment Dungeon Master was released, turn-based RPGs were doomed. Doomed to the life of the "inferior" product, of the game that felt out-dated, of the game that only had a niche following. By 1990 everyone was gunning for real-time gameplay in their games, the last major turn-based RPG of that era was released in 1992 - it would take 5 years for any major studio to even dare release a turn-based RPG, especially after a game like Diablo. But Fallout did get released, and it did show that turn-based RPGs at least deserve to exist...but look at what happened to the franchise. Fallout 2 was a straight-up sequel, no time for innovation. What came next? Fallout Tactics, that tried to merge both turn-based and real-time. How did that go again? What became of Fallout after that? Like every major RPG released after Baldur's Gate, the Fallout games went real-time with turn-based combat tacked on as an afterthought "to please the fanbase". (Even I feel sick at the thought of it.)

By the turn of the century, "turn-based" was pretty much a derogatory word in the gaming industry, regardless of genre. "Real-time or bust" was the name of the game, and games that eschewed that just wouldn't sell as much as others. Hell, RPGs that favoured real-time over turn-based were having a tough time selling, but that's a somewhat different story. It wasn't until the indie scene started kicking into gear that we started seeing RPGs that dared try something different, to try to be like Dungeon Master, or some other 'ancient' RPG of yesteryear - including turn-based games. But they did get released and are still being released - but just like around 1991, turn-based RPGs don't get as much love and attention as real-time RPGs, especially games that try to imitate Dungeon Master, which is precisely what Legend of Grimrock does.

Which brings us to your words. You, for some deluded reason, prefer turn-based to real-time in all circumstances, especially in RPGs...even though it has no purpose being there. But the market isn't paying heed to your demands, its attention is focused elsewhere. So just like all those jealous Amiga owners from 30 years ago, you gaze upon your object of affection and wish it was something else than it is. It does not conform to your (very narrow) perspective, but instead of letting it be, you continue standing there like a madman and declare that it would be better off being something else than it is, in the vain effort that someone will actually pay heed to your words and Something Will Be Done About It.

Newsflash: It won't. Legend of Grimrock has stated its sources of inspiration quite thoroughly: Real-time dungeon blobbers, not turn-based ones. The whole game is designed around the real-time concept, but your ignorant prejudices cloud your senses to that. You can't grasp the notion that the game was designed with something else in mind than your wishes or desires, therefore you concoct hypothetical situations that lack all basis in reality, and then wrongly put them forth as a valid point of opinion, like SJWs do all the fucking time. Your "opinions" aren't valid because if Grimrock had been designed as a turn-based game, it both wouldn't be the game everyone knows it for today, and also that it would have sold jack shit compared to what the Grimrock games have actually sold today. I wouldn't dream of stating that the Wizardry games would have been better off being real-time than turn-based, because of the simple fact that the Wizardry games weren't designed that way. They are what they are, and no amount of possible "wishful thinking" (via force or otherwise) is gonna change that. But here you are, yelling at clouds because they don't look quite exactly as you want them to, hoping that they'll change shape. You might be more successful with a title that's currently in development, so get off your ass and go look for one and yell to your heart's content. But leave already-established titles alone.

 

[Jaesun]

And yet the Gold Box Games continued to sell very well....

 

[Sacred82]

RPG's are not combat simulators.

And while turn-based systems may allow for more depth, real time and even RtwP disrupts the flow of the simulation less and may be preferrable.

On topic, the only original Dungeon Master game I've played was DM2, but that had a very different flow to it than Grimrock due to skill grinding and unlimited food supply. Definitely preferred that over the way things are going in Grimrock. In general, I would have preferred more cerebral gameplay in Grimrock with turn-based combat and a food counter that doesn't go down while I'm backtracking over half the map trying to solve a puzzle.

 

[Doktor Best]

So i "force my opinion upon others" by posting them? Guilty as charged in that case, just like you.

Anyways, my claim still stands: Grimrock is a great game that could be even greater with a good combat system.

I'm torn here. Should I point out the stupidity in your "sensible" argument, or just not bother and tell you to fuck off?

I'll go with the former, as the latter option would put me on your level.

*deep breath*

35+ years ago there were CRPGs, but due to technical limitations they were all turn-based. They did the best with what they had. I'd best say this next bit right now: Turn-based game mechanics have their time and place and can, in certain circumstances, be the best system for a game to use, RPG or otherwise. But turn-based mechanics are NOT the Alpha and Omega of RPGs - quite the contrary as I'm about to show. Anyone thinking otherwise is bat-shit insane. I don't care how many Codexers I insult with those words, they are the truth. Get real or get butthurt, I don't care.

Moving on to 1986, and there's a game in development that has everyone raving, and it's an RPG to boot! What's so amazing about this game? Is it the next-generation graphics that computers such as the Atari ST and Amiga could only provide, compared to their predecessors? Fuck yeah. Is it the fact that the player interacts directly with the game world? Oh yes. But the biggest factor? Everything happens in real time. Turn-based mechanics are gone, thrown out the window at the first opportunity. As a result this game offers immersion and atmosphere unheard of in any RPG before that time - and a lot of them afterwards as well. This is Dungeon Master, the best-selling game of the Atari ST - a title that left Amiga owners jealous (even though they had the superior hardware) and one of the cornerstones of CRPGs - period. One simply cannot talk about CRPGs in a broad sense without touching upon Dungeon Master at one point, it cannot be ignored. But despite its brilliance, Dungeon Master couldn't abandon the grid - it would take another 5 years before RPGs could pull that off. Games that tried to be exactly like Dungeon Master would spawn their own sub-genre of RPGs that would last until the end of 1995, but strong seeds of real-time gameplay were sown with that game, and they blossomed all over the gaming industry.

From the moment Dungeon Master was released, turn-based RPGs were doomed. Doomed to the life of the "inferior" product, of the game that felt out-dated, of the game that only had a niche following. By 1990 everyone was gunning for real-time gameplay in their games, the last major turn-based RPG of that era was released in 1992 - it would take 5 years for any major studio to even dare release a turn-based RPG, especially after a game like Diablo. But Fallout did get released, and it did show that turn-based RPGs at least deserve to exist...but look at what happened to the franchise. Fallout 2 was a straight-up sequel, no time for innovation. What came next? Fallout Tactics, that tried to merge both turn-based and real-time. How did that go again? What became of Fallout after that? Like every major RPG released after Baldur's Gate, the Fallout games went real-time with turn-based combat tacked on as an afterthought "to please the fanbase". (Even I feel sick at the thought of it.)

By the turn of the century, "turn-based" was pretty much a derogatory word in the gaming industry, regardless of genre. "Real-time or bust" was the name of the game, and games that eschewed that just wouldn't sell as much as others. Hell, RPGs that favoured real-time over turn-based were having a tough time selling, but that's a somewhat different story. It wasn't until the indie scene started kicking into gear that we started seeing RPGs that dared try something different, to try to be like Dungeon Master, or some other 'ancient' RPG of yesteryear - including turn-based games. But they did get released and are still being released - but just like around 1991, turn-based RPGs don't get as much love and attention as real-time RPGs, especially games that try to imitate Dungeon Master, which is precisely what Legend of Grimrock does.

Which brings us to your words. You, for some deluded reason, prefer turn-based to real-time in all circumstances, especially in RPGs...even though it has no purpose being there. But the market isn't paying heed to your demands, its attention is focused elsewhere. So just like all those jealous Amiga owners from 30 years ago, you gaze upon your object of affection and wish it was something else than it is. It does not conform to your (very narrow) perspective, but instead of letting it be, you continue standing there like a madman and declare that it would be better off being something else than it is, in the vain effort that someone will actually pay heed to your words and Something Will Be Done About It.

Newsflash: It won't. Legend of Grimrock has stated its sources of inspiration quite thoroughly: Real-time dungeon blobbers, not turn-based ones. The whole game is designed around the real-time concept, but your ignorant prejudices cloud your senses to that. You can't grasp the notion that the game was designed with something else in mind than your wishes or desires, therefore you concoct hypothetical situations that lack all basis in reality, and then wrongly put them forth as a valid point of opinion, like SJWs do all the fucking time. Your "opinions" aren't valid because if Grimrock had been designed as a turn-based game, it both wouldn't be the game everyone knows it for today, and also that it would have sold jack shit compared to what the Grimrock games have actually sold today. I wouldn't dream of stating that the Wizardry games would have been better off being real-time than turn-based, because of the simple fact that the Wizardry games weren't designed that way. They are what they are, and no amount of possible "wishful thinking" (via force or otherwise) is gonna change that. But here you are, yelling at clouds because they don't look quite exactly as you want them to, hoping that they'll change shape. You might be more successful with a title that's currently in development, so get off your ass and go look for one and yell to your heart's content. But leave already-established titles alone.

The butthurt is that strong my friend?
I dig the effort you put in your wall of text, but you told me exactly absolutely nothing i didnt already know about gamedesign history. Also, appearantly you somehow did not read my post posts properly. I never said turn based is always preferable to real time. I only said that in this game it would be worth a shot to implement a turnbased system, because the current combat system is not worth to be preserved IN MY OPINION. And guess what, many other players didnt like it either. They liked the game DESPITE its combat system, just like in Witcher 1 or Planescape Torment.

Now of course Grimrock is designed as a spiritual successor to Dungeon Master, and yes of course the gamedesign would have to be shifted in order to make a turnbased combat sit well. I never said that i simply want the game as it is with TB combat tacked on. That was born in the frenzy you wrote yourself into with this reply. Also, ofcourse i know that my "wishful thinking" has nothing to do with the reality of the Grimrock series right now, but thats what wishful thinking is for, right?

Then on to the Whatifs. You do not know how well the game would have sold with another combat system, because the combat system itself never was the selling point of the game. I'd like to quote myself here saying that some "Wizardry-light" system would be interesting for me. Light, because it still would have to be fast paced. There are fast paced TB combatsystems out there. Just look at good roguelikes like Tales Of Maj'Eyal. If you had a system like this in the game you could even keep the use of enviroments, as monsters would move whenever you move so dodging fireballs would still be a thing.

Completely actionbased real-time combat is a good thing if its coherent with the gamedesign (I wouldnt dream of critizising the real-time nature of the combat in Gothic, or Dark Souls, or Deus Ex), but is not the revolution the early 2000s made it out to be. It was simply a trend, like multiplayer, or 3d, or mobile gaming. It shaped the landscape of rpgs, but rather than replacing turn based combat completely, it merely put a new layer on the genre and thank god for that.

I just have the feeling that all those real-time blobbers are on the brink to becoming something really good, that they just have to tweak the combat a little bit to become a fullfilled formula. Thats why for me its a sad thing all of them simply carbon-copy Dungeon Masters combat system. One good example of a game that atleast experimented a bit with the formula would be The Fall Of The Dungeon Guardian, which implented RTWP combat that you could also turn into a semi turnbased system by switching some gameplay options. Didnt play it yet, but i heard good things about it.

 

[Siobhan]

One of the highlights of the first LOG was a room filled with trap doors and two fire demons (or whatever they're called), which forced you to dodge their attacks while keeping a close eye on your surroundings. And once you're done with those two guys and start solving the switch puzzle, they release the next enemy from a hidden alcove before you're done with the puzzle. Another set piece involves moving across quickly disappearing platforms without getting trapped by some flying dinosaur thing (again, no idea what they're called). LOG2 had similar set pieces, and both games have many encounters where success or defeat depends just on how well you can maneuver through a large crowd of enemies without getting surrounded.

Turn-based completely kills this kind of design, and so does Fall of the Dungeon Guardian's RTwP. The challenge is that you have to literally think on your toes. This kind of design is much more valuable for LOG than a bit of combat depth because the latter is common in RPGs, whereas only a handful games in the whole history of RPGs --- not even ARPGs --- do the things listed above.

I agree that LOG's combat has shortcomings:

- many fights aren't integrated with environmental challenges,
- there's more than a bit of HP-bloat,
- too few enemies have special abilities like paralyzation, freezing you in place, or stealing your equipment (edit: given the emphasis on maneuvering, it's particularly puzzling that no enemies have the ability to alter terrain),
- related to the previous point, mob composition is too uniform so that the strengths of enemies cannot synergize to create an encounter that's harder than the sum of its part,
- you rarely need to adapt your choice of special attacks and spells to the encounter (it's pretty much fire or ice, plus your most powerful melee attack),
- there's no real buffing/debuffing system,

But these issues should be addressed by improving the mechanics and the encounter design, not by switching to turn-based. That switch would just be the typical AAA approach of "why fix it if it's easier to dump it?".