The Arx Fatalis Thread

[DrattedTin]

I was thinking about this last night, and it really got to me.

I suppose I expected something different from the demo of Arx Fatalis, but actually buying and playing it was a bit of a disappointment.

Yes, its a solid game with no real glaring flaws... Except that solidity.

The combat really isn't that enticing, the story is bland, and the personalities that some people seem to be so heavily advocating in the discussion of Arx Fatalis I've seen are rather... well... again, flat.

Now as for the meat of this topic. Why am I wondering whether Arx Fatalis is an RPG or an Action Game? Well, when I actually took a step back and looked at it, I realized it felt a lot like an action game.

Which brings up the question of what an RPG is. Is it just playing a role? Nearly every game on the market can claim you are playing *some* sort of role. So, then, is it statistics, leveling up, and improving said statistics? This seems to be the industry's way of labelling RPGs: Any game with dexterity, strength, and so on seems to be automatically labelled as an RPG. But what about the story? Is a straitjacketed story with absolutely no options at all (even superficial ones) still an RPG? Diablo and Co seem to think so.

Then I remembered that Gothic, nominally an RPG, has been called an adventure game. I think this would describe Arx Fatalis very well. Its a twisted mix of RPG and Action, which, in my opinion, doesn't really get the best of either quite right. But enough Arx Fatalis bashing.

What's an RPG to you? Stats? Branching, interesting plotlines? Or just orcs, dwarves, and elves?

 

[protobob]

Role playing, at its most basic, is defining a set of attributes representing a character and acting out that character based on those attributes. At the most abstract end, you could say that actors roleplay. They base their performances on how they belive their character would act. Instead of STR = 12 they work on more abstract attributes like "walks with a limp," "talks fast," or "likes cheese" and work out a performance.

However, they are generally working of a script or screenplay.

Roleplay is basically imprumptu acting (based on attributes). A roleplay game is where you and possibly several others act out a character based on attributes in a gameworld.

For instance, I used to play a MUSH (Elendor) where my character didn't have any stats, per say, but we roleplayed like crazy. Now, in fact we did have descriptions for our characters, so these were the attributes that we used to define our character and how we roleplayed them.

In Pen and Paper roleplay, you generally have a mathematicaly defined set of play rules that depend on mathematical stats. STR=12, DEX=17, etc. etc. You really have two levels of play here, the system level and the roleplay level. The system level is where combat and skill checks take place, the roleplay level is where you act out your character. Generally you base this role play on the character system attributes (ie. a character with a low intelligence could be roleplayed as stupid), but you also base this roleplay on non-system attributes as well (he doesn't trust elves, she is a loaner).

Now, when you get to the single player CRPG, you find that its easy to code in a system that deals with the game rule stats (ie. STR=12), and you find it a good deal more difficult to handle the roleplay element. Not only do you have to present enough options to the player so that they feel they can play out the character as they see it, you have to also convince the player that their choices actually make a difference in this imaginary world they've entered.

Thats why people who want to truly roleplay while playing a single player CRPG are rarely satisfified. The computer is a poor subsitute for a DM.

Thats why most popular CRPGs are stat heavy combat fests. Its what the computer is good at.

It takes a whole heck of a lot of scripting to create a world where in the player can make a difference. And there will always be limitations. But there have been some pretty succesfull attempts.

...

So all this to say, is Arx Fatalis a roleplaying game? Yes. But its severly limited. You can control how that character does some things (namely combat), but you don't really have any control over other things (who that character is or how he responds to others).

Sometimes combat and exploration alone can be fun.

 

[DrattedTin]

I think my complaint with Arx is not that it's not "deep", but that it doesn't do what it does as good as some other games on the market.

I mentioned Gothic earlier because its gameplay was similar in an action-y sort of way, yet it still managed to provide choices, not to mention a superior ambience.

I don't mind a hack & slash if there's some sort of motivation. This motivation can either be a solid story (linear can be good, contrary to the prevailing opinion here) or addictive/engrossing gameplay. In my opinion, Arx lacks this. Obviously others agree, so it's probably just a personal thing in this case.

--

To get away from bashing Arx, I'd just like to agree with everything you said. Frankly, when I play CRPG's, I'm not looking for real ROLEPLAYING Game; I'm looking for an adventure with statistics, cool skills, and a good story! When I really want to get the true roleplaying touch, I can RP online. However, it should also be noted that what I tentatively call an adventure here is basically what the best CRPG's have become synonymous with.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I mentioned Gothic earlier because its gameplay was similar in an action-y sort of way, yet it still managed to provide choices, not to mention a superior ambience.

Gothic started out good.. Then you picked a faction. After that, my interest started waning because it did get purely hack and slash. I loved dealing with the towns and things, but after everything started falling apart once you picked a faction, it just got crappy.

 

[DrattedTin]

Agreed, to a certain extent.

I still liked the game after that, but the ambience of the dark settlements and their interactions was just impossible to match with a standard "kill foozle" linear endgame. Gothic II looks nice, though... and even if it's more of the same, I'll be the first to grab it.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Agreed, to a certain extent.

I still liked the game after that, but the ambience of the dark settlements and their interactions was just impossible to match with a standard "kill foozle" linear endgame. Gothic II looks nice, though... and even if it's more of the same, I'll be the first to grab it.

I'll probably grab it too, but I really won't be happy if it goes all linear like the first one did at one point.

Really, I'd like an alternative to the combat from Gothic as well. I hated that arcadish combat in the first one.

 

[DrattedTin]

I rather liked the combat. But then, I guess that depends on whether you can stomach elements of action games.

I'm not incredibly picky about RPGs. I'm not looking for a grand non-linear product that is perfect in anyway. If it entertains me, I consider it well and good. I loved BGII, for example, which everyone here seems to revile.

...of course, as long as the weed-smoking cult has a cameo, I won't be able to resist playing Gothic II.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

...of course, as long as the weed-smoking cult has a cameo, I won't be able to resist playing Gothic II.

I doubt they exist in the second one, considering their cult was basically responsible for the "bad thing" in Gothic and it revolved around that "bad thing". I did join the cult in Gothic, though, mainly because they seemed to have the best stuff.

 

[Calis]

This is the comments thread for <A HREF="/gamedetails.php?id=93">Arx Fatalis</A>

 

[Quigs]

I heard this game was similar to the old ultima underworld games, and thus almost like a single player everquest. Any truth to this?

 

[Stark]

some of it, yes.

like you'll need to eat occationally, and they reward you for exploring around. And you get to experiment combining different ingredients to make new equipments/food. try apple with dough, water and fire place to make apple pie.

it's very unpolished though. Ingame journal is next to useless, (and the developers acknowledged that) and most people would be at a loss on what to do next, simply because the game does not prod you sufficiently in the right direction.

there are occational brilliance, but overall it pales in comparison to some of the bigger titles.

I would rate it around 6.5/10. The story was so-so. Never the less I like it, simply because it's attempting things differently from other games of the same genre.

if you're dying for dungeoun roaming this is a good title to check out.

 

[Quigs]

any game youd reccomend over arx to get that underworld flavor?

 

[Stark]

erm, sorry no. I've never liked the dungeon crawling genre, so never followed their developments. I get the impression that most dungeon crawling games are indie efforts now. Arx is the only that comes to my mind immediately.

it must have sold reasonably well. I heard they're making a sequel.

 

[dipdipdip]

With the HL2 engine no less.

 

[Quigs]

Looked it up, gonna buy it pretty soon. Ill write up a review for any interested ones afterwards.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I already wrote a review.

http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=26

 

[Quigs]

huh, long review. well written. Shame its for the comp version. was going to buy the xbox port.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The comp version is superior in every way, especially interface and controls. Casting spells on the XBox port is a complete pain in the ass.

 

[Whipporowill]

I liked the game and the underworld feel, but as usual I quit about 80% into it.

 

[kenney bounces]

I was pretty far into the game (arx), but i lost interest completely. It wasn't really fun to play...the world felt somewhat dead, no memorable characters, so-so storyline, frantic combat due to the spellcasting nonsense that allows you to precast 3 spells? Something like that. It's not that good of a game...
It's also very linear and that the number sidequests can be counted on one hand.

The only new thing they had was the cast spell thing by dragging the cursor. That's it.

Other than that, it's really boring. Don't play it unless you're really bored. I would give it a 60% rating.

 

[Section8]

I really wanted to get into Arx. I love Underworld and it's sequel, and Arx had a lot in common with them.

Some of the things I really liked. Anything that encouraged creative resolutions, like "poisoning" an apple pie with wine piqued my interest, but on the whole there were way too many shortcomings, the most siginificant of which in my case, was a crash bug that I couldn't circumvent on 3 entirely different PCs.

 

[Mantiis]

Thinking of buying this game as I have heard good things about it. Is it consoly or a good rpg? Comments welcome.

 

[Data4]

Some people call it the true successor to Ultima Underworld, if that means anything. I never played UU, so I can't say if that's good or bad.

The game is interesting in a few ways. You can cook things, for one. The magic system is unique in that you cast spells by drawing runes in the air with your mouse. I've never seen that done before in a game, though that's not to say it hasn't been done before.

I never got a chance to finish it, so you might get a better sense of it from someone who has. I'd go to all the major gaming sites and see what they say. You can still get a general idea of what to expect, even if the reviews are fluff.

HTH

-D4

 

[Jora]

Arx is one of my favourite games. The gameworld is very interactive allowing you to forge weapons or cook the meat of the rats you kill, among other nice features. It's also a rather small world with no mountains and picturesque landscapes like in Gothic or Morrowind. The game takes place in a big network of caverns populated by humans (living and undead), greedy goblins, ratmen, trolls, creepy giant spiders, giant worms and rats. There are some good role-playing options and the atmosphere is thrilling throughout the adventure. Although the game has been ported to Xbox, it's definitely not "consoly".

 

[Balor]

Yea, it reminded me of Ultima:Underworld.