Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review Lionheart's Face Rocked at RPGDot

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Tags: Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader

<a href="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPGDot</a> have posted their <a href=http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=731>review</a> of <a href=http://www.reflexive.com>Reflexive</a>'s game, <a href=http://lionheart.blackisle.com>Lionheart</a>. They didn't much like it either--though whether they genuniely don't like it or if it's peer pressure, we will never know. It scored <b>60%</b>.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Even in this early game, however, the problems pop up - so lets take a look at them. First up is the ridiculously difficult combat. Combat takes place in real-time, and, for lack of a better analogy, plays like Diablo. You left click to attack, right click to use magic, and use the number keys as hotkeys for spells and items. The system is quick and visceral, but highlights one of Lionheart's biggest problems - it's just not that fun. In Diablo, the fun of combat (if you like that sort of thing) is that you're insanely powerful - the game throws myriad enemies at you, and you mow them down. You may come up against something powerful enough to kill you, or even just enough enemies at a time that you need to use strategy to defeat them, but you can handle pretty much whatever the game throws your way. In Lionheart, you're frighteningly underpowered for pretty much the whole game, and constantly watching your experience for the next chance to level up. In combat areas (which, after you leave Barcelona, is pretty much everywhere), you have to creep forward, luring one or two enemies out at a time, and even then you'll be reloading more than you would have thought humanly possible.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I'd say the main difference between Diablo II and Lionheart is this: Lionheart sucks. Diablo II doesn't. Fairly straightforward, isn't it?
 

Visceris

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
379
I dunno. If I had to choose between Diablo 2 or Lionheart, I would have to side with Lionheart.
 

Killzig

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
997
Location
The Wastes
That snippet is pretty much dead on. Add to that the fact that spells are ridiculously underpowered (as are potions) it makes the game a VERY SLOW CRAWL. You have to lure the enemies out 1 by 1 or in pairs. If you rush into the dungeon you're going to get killed. The ridiculously bad auto map makes unwittingly putting yourself in a bad spot very easy. The items are so friggen lousy that you're packing the same armor for 3-4 dungeons. That sort of thing is UNHEARD of in diablo, you'd always come upon new, better items everytime you went deeper into the dungeons. Which made the crawl exciting. Lionheart doesn't give you even that small reward. Instead you just feel glad that its over, then the game goes on to toss you into yet another dungeon, and you can't wait for it to be over again. I don't know who thought this would be fun but they should have their game designing license revoked.
 

Visceris

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
379
I have always hated Diablo and Diablo 2. Even the worst CRPG is better than Diablo 2's action crap fest.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
Let me guess... you bought Diablo and hated it. A few years later, you bought Diablo II knowing it'd be hack n slashy just like the first one and hated that, too?
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
14,046
Location
Behind you.
Either that or he's never bought either one. The second one is particularly good, mainly because of all the options you have in making your character, which ultimately translates in to additional gameplay options. For example, add Leap or Leap Attack to a Barbarian class in Diablo 2, and you then have the means to leap over obstacles blocking most other character classes, retreat from combat quickly by springing away from them, and best of all.. In a hallway, you're able to jump behind the critters, and pinch them between two characters in multiplayer. Then again, you can also be a pike wielding Barbarian with that nifty whirlwind attack, which also works very well. Or you can use battlecries. You can do any combination of the above.

Sure, Diablo 2 is all combat, but at least what it does it does remarkably well. This as opposed to Lionheart, which seems like it has no focus, and does little well.
 

Sammael

Liturgist
Joined
May 16, 2003
Messages
312
Location
Hell on Earth
Regardless of the character options in D2 (which were really, really good... most of them anyhow), I still feel as if D1 was a much better game. D2 lacked a certain... something.

I feel the same way about Warcraft I and II.
 

Voss

Erudite
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
1,770
It lacked a consistent atmosphere.
And the creepy horror touches...
D2 didn't really have any really horror overtones besides the cutscenes... D1 had betrayal, sacrifice, subtle touches on the decor, consistent townsfolk that seemed frightened rather than a series of shop guy, merc guy, talky quest giver, magic guy and id guy.
Atmosphere.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
14,046
Location
Behind you.
Sammael said:
Regardless of the character options in D2 (which were really, really good... most of them anyhow), I still feel as if D1 was a much better game. D2 lacked a certain... something.

There's two things I think Diablo 2 lacked from Diablo. One of them was the artwork for the dungeons. In Diablo, there was blood, bodies, body parts, and so on all over that damned dungeon. If I remember the story right, King Leoric locked a bunch of people in that dungeon for safety, and they were all slaughtered by what was in there - but they were certainly everywhere. The artwork, especially in those first few levels of the thing, certainly gave it an interesting atmosphere.

The second thing I think Diablo 2 lacked compared to Diablo were the quests. There was less distance between them in terms of play time.
 

Seven

Erudite
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
1,728
Location
North of the Glow
I wonder what's better Dungeon Siege or Lionheart?

Hmmmmmmm.... I didn't bother to complete either, but at least DS had pretty graphics and a combat system that worked as opposed to LH which had nothing except a nice musical score. That's the only thing LH does well, music.
 

Voss

Erudite
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
1,770
Hmm.
Do I want my left eye poked out, or my right one?
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,751
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
How many tracks does LH's soundtrack have? Two?

And Diablo 1 was way better than D2 when it comes to single player game. AFAIR there weren't any restrictions on saving, and the dungeons had a really dark atmosphere. And Hellfire was quite good an expansion.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom