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

[Great Deceiver]

Not Wiz8 though. And to allow stackable buffs is pretty lazy design or an oversight. Also (imho) there is really no excuse for cluttered UI design if you worked on this game for 20 years. Vogel shits out a game or two per year and while he is declining pretty hard, at least he improves the UI part of his games.

Similar buffs in the Bradley games (including Wizards & Warriors) are stackable by design. It's not an oversight in those games, or in Grimoire. Get over it, and get over 1-hit kills. Learn to play.

 

[Lurker King]

Tigranes , I think I’m noticing a pattern here. Some of the decisions that negatively affect cRPGs are simple choices that seem trivial to everyone. In W2, you have the “obvious” choice of adding a bunch of situational skills, etc., that together with an attempt to make them all equally useful resulted in a game world that is artificial, repetitive and punishing for players. ToN’s design was also severely compromised by a few “obvious” decisions such as reducing combat to a minimum because “PS:T was good despite the combat”, making all the NPCs human so that the game does not become too weird, presenting the main narrative premise in the trailer, etc.

Regarding W2, I was wondering what made the skills so underwhelming in comparison to Underrail. In W2, ignoring your weapons expertise, if you include knowledge skills (alarm disarming, brute force, computer science, demolitions, mechanical repair, safecracking, field medic, lockpicking, surgeon and toaster repair) and general skills (animal whisperer, brute force, barter, hard ass, kiss ass, leadership, outdoorsman, perception, smart ass and weapon smithing), you have a whooping total of 20 skills! But some of them feel unnecessary (safecracking, traps, toaster repair, leadership), dissociated from the game world (e.g., alarm disarming, safecracking), redundant (what is the point of lockpicking if you have brute force, or field medic if you have surgeon?), or misguided (perception should be a stat, not a skill, but it seems that having a system called “classic” was more important than good gameplay)

Now consider Underrail. If you ignore pure combat skills, you have five skills from subterfuge (stealth, hacking, lockpicking, pickpocketing, and traps), five from technology (mechanics, electronics, chemistry, biology, and tailoring) and three from social (persuasion, intimidation and mercantile), adding to a total of 13 skills. If you consider that stealth and traps are used practically as direct combat skills, we could reduce the number to 11 skills. Some of them are mostly useless (social skills), and others are practically mutual exclusive choices (if you invest in pickpocketing, you don’t invest in lockpicking), but practically everyone will invest in all five technology skills and they feel directly connected to gameplay. Moreover, in W2 you can heavily invest at most in five skills with high INT, while in Underrail you can easily invest in seven skills, without considering the feats.

Moreover, the use of situational skills as you mentioned should not be ignored. In Underrail I may use hacking or lockpicking a few times, but in W2 I may need to use demolitions, alarm disarming, brute force, computer science, lock picking, mechanical repair… it is a nightmare how many obstacles you need to overcome in order to make the damn skills useful.

 

[Tigranes]

Right, they're sides of the same problem. Underrail actually is lacklustre both at making 'all skills useful' (which we're not sure is a good goal at all) and the goal of forcing hard choices (which we know is a good goal). There are only 8 noncombat skills worth your while by your count, and by midlevel/midgame you've practically got everything any build could want all covered. The real question is, how would Underrail have been better 'balanced'? If you double the skills, then you have to change the content so that those skills get some use, otherwise their existence is pointless. But if you start straining to include frequent uses for all 20 skills or whatever, you run into the WL2 problem.

One way out is, obviously, skill point scarcity so that you can stick with a lower number of skills and still make them realistically useful in the gameworld. The consequence being that any character concept you can think of has to be more Spartan and compromised than RPG characters can usually afford to be (the power fantasy of a cool badass ranger who's also good at picking locks and can cook a killer pad thai in a pinch). In general, I approve of this. This is why in most RPGs, the easiest way the player can mitigate these problems is to houserule low XP/SP gain, introducing at least some degree of hard choices.

The question is whether other answers are possible. How can you have skills that you might only use a few times and skills you use very frequently, while retaining sufficient balance of attractability to force hard choices? I think it's quite weird to gain one single currency that you expend equally on combat skills and noncombat skills, on always-use skills and situational skills. When you put them in the same category and you use the same currency for them you end up comparing and equalising them or making some lose out. Is the best system for lockpicking a 1-10 progression where you input skill points? Or is it better served by having, say, a single perk on character creation, or even a tiered set of perks?

In Wasteland 2, I would have liked to see things like 'mechanical aptitude' as on-creation traits that define your character, which then funnels you towards certain kinds of skills to expend points on, e.g. safecracking and gunsmithing. You can then define synergy effects that come from, say, having 8 safecracking and 6 gunsmithing, but even unusual ones like 3 pickpocketing and 3 surgeon, which would give you not quantitative increases but qualitative bonuses. This would first of all enforce restrictions and penalties on player use of skill points, lessening the god of everything problem; it would also mathematically give players reasons to pick the kinds of skills they would otherwise consider too situational; it would also make it easier to design in hybrid skill checks (a la AOD) that reward 'interdisciplinary' characters that would otherwise be gimped from lower total points; etc. It's not a perfect idea by any means, but I'd like to see more consistently thought out ways in which developers assign the economy of skills and abilities. In this specific regard, Underrail and POE are very unimaginative; VD's games are good examples of really trying to hash it out and therefore ending up with unusual pros and cons, which I appreciate. (It's well known that I love Underrail and like POE, by the way, so...)

 

[Roguey]

Yet I posted a video where I kill the game's final boss on the highest difficulty in one turn! With no buffs! Yeah, I used the Vorpal Sword, but there were plenty of other options that would achieve the exact same effect.

There's always Might and Magic X where all bosses are immune to all awesome spells and effects on account of being bosses.

Same thing for the "true" hard counters. In Baldur's Gate the basilisks will turn you to stone unless you use hard counters like Protection from Petrification or Potion of Mirrored Eyes. If you're using hard counters, then a fair battle truly begins. In Grimoire you enter a Cockatrice's cage, find an item that casts reflect right next to the monster - and if you use it in battle the Cockatrice turns itself into stone - the battle is over.

Saying this is balanced "just like the old games" is an offense to them.

Basilisks are a trash mob joke without their petrification.

And speaking of reflections http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Shield_of_Balduran

 

[Delterius]

Correct me if i'm wrong but CON going down were a staple o AD&D weren't it? Happened wi raise dead spell but not wi ressurection, unfortunately as a drawback ressurection worked on Elves while raise dead didn't, one step forward two streps back eh?

It didn't happen in Baldur's Gate II, therefore nobody fucking remembers this. But yes, there were CON penalties for bringing back the dead in DnD.

I do think BG1 had rules about CON making it easier to prevent perma death during Resurrection.

 

[Iznaliu]

And speaking of reflections http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Shield_of_Balduran

Grimoire should be better than a 20-year-old game.

 

[Roguey]

Grimoire should be better than a 20-year-old game.

It should be a 20 year old game because that's what it is. It's not some retro-styled "fixing the flaws of the past" Sawyerfest nor a retro-styled attempt at recreating the past from modern developers like Fargo's follies. By a living fossil for living fossils.

 

[Viata]

By a living fossil for living fossils

I'm still young.

 

[Iznaliu]

It should be a 20 year old game because that's what it is. It's not some retro-styled "fixing the flaws of the past" Sawyerfest nor a retro-styled attempt at recreating the past from modern developers like Fargo's follies. By a living fossil for living fossils.

But the issue comes in when it isn't released 20 years ago.

 

[Rpguy]

Another question would be, if someone avoided using bards or instruments or lethal blow weapons or deep freeze, would they actually have the tactical options to play effectively in a way they aren't getting killed all the time? That would be an important criterion to answer, and we won't know until people have played more.

Get the armorplate spells, magic screen spells, 1 skill point in robbery.
Go to gorlo, pickpocket all his items (he never catches you), sell them back to him - all items replenish , repeat = infinite gold and 100 robbery skill
Go to the vendor that sell faery water ( replenish all mana, with several charges ) steal/buy all his inventory - sell everything except the water, his inventory replenish , repeat = infinite mana potions.
Cast maxed armorplate, maxed magic screen, drink a mana potion, repeat = as much physical and magic defense as you may possibly need for any fight or boss fight in the game. No instruments , no lethal blow, heck you can probably fight naked.

 

[Tigranes]

Sounds excruciatingly slow going, though.

 

[Rpguy]

Sounds excruciatingly slow going, though.

Yeah well, most fights in grimoire you don't really need any special tactic, you can just melee all, press enter and win without dying. When shit hit the fan you can go to your favorite exploit tactic.

 

[aweigh]

just chiming in to point out that the reviewer utilized a specific comparison when evaluating the strengths of grimoire's dungeoneering, and that was in comparison to the hand-held mobile game series "etrian odyssey" which are specifically made for play-on-the-go and feature simplistic turn-based combat and simplified attribute and job/class systems.

it would've probably made the review ring truer if the reviewer had actually bothered to play one of the dozens of true Wizardry successors and spiritual successors that are available.

tl;dr It always annoys me when people trouble themselves with playing a mediocre Wiz-clone while lamenting that even with all its faults they/we're still lucky to be receiving such a "classic" piece of gaming.

Forget Grimoire, play Wizardry Empire 2: Legacy of the Princess or Elminage: Gothic, both made by ex-Wizardry developers and both in english and both on Windows PC.

Putting my agenda aside for a sec, I have Grimoire pirated and installed currently and have begun two different parties and explored for a few hours: my verdict is that Grimoire is a content-packed Wiz 7-clone that somehow manages to be even more badly balanced. The atmosphere and the wealth of areas to explore and things to do is quite high, most definitely higher than what you'll find in any game featuring the name "Wizardry" be it from the 80s or a Wiz-game from the 2000s; however the battle system is simply broken in the literal sense, in that the classes are not balanced in any discernible way and the itemization design never feels like "you earned what you needed/wanted" and instead it is just random junk 90% of the time.

in my professional Codexian opinion the game (Grimoire) could actually be "saved" quite a bit if Cleve (or whoever does it) does some real, legit class re-designing and overhauls the attribute system, the skill systems, the races, the classes and even down to the amount of active party members allowed.

the enemy encounter rate would also need to be completely worked over and, needless to say: the entire biomap of the game's itemization design needs to be done over from beginning to end.

the "over powered" Bard problem the reviewer mentioned (to pick the easiest example) is not actually Cleve's fault, by the way: the OP Bard problem began in Wiz 6 when Bradley "forgot" to balance the class by making their musical instruments feature an actual penalty to being used and re-used over and over, combined with Bradley's terrible skills system which promoted/promotes making each character entirely front-loaded (and thereby entirely shallow) mid-game Bards would then also never "miss" with their instrument's special effects.

Cleve just "borrowed" the same problems, and, by god, he managed to fuck up the classes/balance even more than Bradley already did when he dumbed down the Wizardry mechanics.

In Cleve's defense the reason for all of these faults is obvious: the game is too big. It has too much content. It has too much of everything.

Slicing off about half of all the dungeons, enemies and shit would be the first step to making a better Grimoire game, as then Cleve could focus on making more dynamic and complex core mechanics, and really polish the foundation of a game such as this.

I truly believe Cleve's first fatal mistake was in simply borrowing whole-sale Wiz 6-7 mechanics and not bothering to implement anything of more depth, complexity, or even more elegant design; instead he spent the majority of his time/efforts in making a gigantic amount of content (the dungeons, the endless enemies, the incredibly huge amount of loot that yet manages to be 90% junk and misplaced, etc).

I think Cleve would actually be well served by studying that game series the reviewer mentioned, those hand-held games the ones called "etrian odyssey"; they are without a doubt made for children, yet at least they feature rock-solid combat and the few classes they feature are expertly woven together.

...but that's just me thinking out loud, as I personally find those games tiresome and too simplistic. Cleve would be better served....

[looks at Steam sales/movement of Grimoire]

you know what, Cleve is gonna be alright people! He doesn't need to do shit! $_$

 

[Ellef]

Nigga you just put your tldr 10% into that wall of text wtf

 

[Excidium II]

just chiming in to point out that the reviewer utilized a specific comparison when evaluating the strengths of grimoire's dungeoneering, and that was in comparison to the hand-held mobile game series "etrian odyssey" which are specifically made for play-on-the-go and feature simplistic turn-based combat and simplified attribute and job/class systems.

it would've probably made the review ring truer if the reviewer had actually bothered to play one of the dozens of true Wizardry successors and spiritual successors that are available.

tl;dr It always annoys me when people trouble themselves with playing a mediocre Wiz-clone while lamenting that even with all its faults they/we're still lucky to be receiving such a "classic" piece of gaming.

Forget Grimoire, play Wizardry Empire 2: Legacy of the Princess or Elminage: Gothic, both made by ex-Wizardry developers and both in english and both on Windows PC.

Putting my agenda aside for a sec, I have Grimoire pirated and installed currently and have begun two different parties and explored for a few hours: my verdict is that Grimoire is a content-packed Wiz 7-clone that somehow manages to be even more badly balanced. The atmosphere and the wealth of areas to explore and things to do is quite high, most definitely higher than what you'll find in any game featuring the name "Wizardry" be it from the 80s or a Wiz-game from the 2000s; however the battle system is simply broken in the literal sense, in that the classes are not balanced in any discernible way and the itemization design never feels like "you earned what you needed/wanted" and instead it is just random junk 90% of the time.

in my professional Codexian opinion the game (Grimoire) could actually be "saved" quite a bit if Cleve (or whoever does it) does some real, legit class re-designing and overhauls the attribute system, the skill systems, the races, the classes and even down to the amount of active party members allowed.

the enemy encounter rate would also need to be completely worked over and, needless to say: the entire biomap of the game's itemization design needs to be done over from beginning to end.

the "over powered" Bard problem the reviewer mentioned (to pick the easiest example) is not actually Cleve's fault, by the way: the OP Bard problem began in Wiz 6 when Bradley "forgot" to balance the class by making their musical instruments feature an actual penalty to being used and re-used over and over, combined with Bradley's terrible skills system which promoted/promotes making each character entirely front-loaded (and thereby entirely shallow) mid-game Bards would then also never "miss" with their instrument's special effects.

Cleve just "borrowed" the same problems, and, by god, he managed to fuck up the classes/balance even more than Bradley already did when he dumbed down the Wizardry mechanics.

In Cleve's defense the reason for all of these faults is obvious: the game is too big. It has too much content. It has too much of everything.

Slicing off about half of all the dungeons, enemies and shit would be the first step to making a better Grimoire game, as then Cleve could focus on making more dynamic and complex core mechanics, and really polish the foundation of a game such as this.

I truly believe Cleve's first fatal mistake was in simply borrowing whole-sale Wiz 6-7 mechanics and not bothering to implement anything of more depth, complexity, or even more elegant design; instead he spent the majority of his time/efforts in making a gigantic amount of content (the dungeons, the endless enemies, the incredibly huge amount of loot that yet manages to be 90% junk and misplaced, etc).

I think Cleve would actually be well served by studying that game series the reviewer mentioned, those hand-held games the ones called "etrian odyssey"; they are without a doubt made for children, yet at least they feature rock-solid combat and the few classes they feature are expertly woven together.

...but that's just me thinking out loud, as I personally find those games tiresome and too simplistic. Cleve would be better served....

[looks at Steam sales/movement of Grimoire]

you know what, Cleve is gonna be alright people! He doesn't need to do shit! $_$

Are you saying that grimoire will be the best blobber evar in 10 years?

 

[Lady_Error]

You're late to the party, aweigh. And yeah, a balance patch is coming soon™, so let's see how that changes things.

 

[Grauken]

aweigh is wrong, the later Wizardry's weren't early Wizardry's done wrong, they just were a different class of games that work perfectly on their own, which he can't accept in his myopic focus on the early ones

re the Bard, midgame on in both W6 and W7 most people class-change him to something else, as his utility (and using instruments) drastically decreases at that point, no penalty for instrument use needed

 

[aweigh]

Grauken, i actually agree whole-heartedly with that statement. Wizardry 6 and 8 are two of my favorite RPGs of all time, and both feature good design; the reason I bad-mouth them sometimes is because they completely broke away from what made Wizardry what it was and changed everything with "other stuff".

Wiz 6-8 are great RPGs, but they are not Wizardry games. However, it does not take a genius to find the shallow ends of Wiz 6 and 7's skill systems, and even more to the point even a cursory examination of the "overhauled" spell system(s) in Wiz 6-8 will point towards a general simplification and cutting away of the more emergent systems of Wizardry 1-5 (and all other Wiz-clones).

The removal of the vancian casting along with removal of hard-counters are the two biggest examples, but, as you say Grauken: it is not "done worse", it is simply "a completely different implementation".

Now I say to you, given these things that I've mentioned; is it not natural to ruminate on the deficiency of that which has over-written and replaced the previous foundation?

I do have a personal distaste for Mr. Bradley, however, which goes beyond any type of bias or lack thereof; he has stated that his mission was to completely destroy everything that Wizardry stood for when he began making Wizardry 6, and even so this would not be something necessarily bad; what is bad however are his explicit equivocations in interviews (circa release of Wiz 6) wherein he unabashedly states that "games like (old) Wizardry are dead, and that they are bad", and that he is going to completely re-invent the wheel and "save" the Wizardry name.

tl;dr Bradley is a man who was put in charge of making Wizardry 6 and 7 and he is also a man who does not like Wizardry games. To him they were boring and, among many things, he wanted wanted to turn them into sci-fi.

So yeah, my distaste for Bradley goes beyond what is inside the games themselves, as the man by his own admission does not like classic Wizardry gameplay nor does he like or enjoy the "Wiz-clone" formula. To his credit the games Wiz 6 and 7 (though 7 is more flawed), and later Wizards and Warriors; all 3 are great RPGs, but none are dungeon crawlers and none are Wizardry games.

And that's just how Bradley wanted it.

 

[Grauken]

I try not to obsess over the people who make the stuff I enjoy, lots of creators say dumb stuff all day long

 

[Lady_Error]

all 3 are great RPGs, but none are dungeon crawlers and none are Wizardry games.

It's actually excellent that Wizardry went beyond being a pure dungeon crawler. The addition of scifi was also good. So I completely disagree with your "purist" focus.

 

[Banana Smuggler]

Look at all the armchair game developers...

 

[Roguey]

Look at all the armchair game developers...

Welcome to the Codex!

 

[Lurker King]

There are only 8 noncombat skills worth your while by your count, and by midlevel/midgame you've practically got everything any build could want all covered. (…) The real question is, how would Underrail have been better 'balanced'?

Well, Styg tried to fix that by making the skill checks increasingly harder, so that you need to keep investing on skill points. The problem here is the sandbox wide scope of the game, not SP distribution. The abundance of SPs is just a consequence of it. Also notice that in order to make the game balanced in combat, you need to make the game more unbalanced by making other skills less useful, e.g., tailoring and biology work by relying on animals organs and pelts, but these animals are the typical trash mob enemy that makes the player overpowered-oddities system is not strict enough.

In Wasteland 2, I would have liked to see things like 'mechanical aptitude' as on-creation traits that define your character, which then funnels you towards certain kinds of skills to expend points on, e.g. safecracking and gunsmithing. You can then define synergy effects that come from, say, having 8 safecracking and 6 gunsmithing, but even unusual ones like 3 pickpocketing and 3 surgeon, which would give you not quantitative increases but qualitative bonuses. This would first of all enforce restrictions and penalties on player use of skill points, lessening the god of everything problem; it would also mathematically give players reasons to pick the kinds of skills they would otherwise consider too situational;

Hmm… a system where abilities are determined by traits. Sounds interesting on paper.

 

[hivemind]

lmao @ "people" who actually play blobbers

 

[Country_Gravy]

Game is confirmed shit. I totally called it.