Review ToEE slapped around at Game Revolution

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Temple of Elemental Evil

<a href="http://game-revolution.com/">Game Revolution</a> gives <a href="http://www.greyhawkgame.com">Temple of Elemental Evil</a> a <b>C-</b> in their <A href="http://game-revolution.com/games/pc/rpg/temple_of_elemental_evil.htm">review</a>. It's not exactly the best review on the internet, or even the best review of this game, or even the best review based on reading the <A href="http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=286">official ToEE forum</a>, but it's worth checking out just for a few laughs to be had. Here's a clip:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>You'd think that the worst thing the developers of a game focused so heavily on the rules could do was to get those very rules wrong, but that's just what happened. The number of bugs in this game is just overwhelming. While most are small, annoying errors, they are simple things that should not have happened. Errors such as the <i>Holy Sword +1</i> giving +3 to attack are ludicrous, not to mention the character and quest errors that more directly and detrimentally harm the game. I experienced enough minor annoyances playing the game that it ruined what might otherwise have been a load of fun. </blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Not exactly ludicrious if it was intended to be <i>+1 damage, +3 to hit</i>. I think I would have picked a bug that couldn't be disputed, like the dwarves in silver full plate crashing the game, but that's just me.
<br>
<br>
Thanks for the word, <b>dipdipdip</b>!
<br>

 

[Sol Invictus]

Reviews like these make me want to open up a school for the stupid and teach them object lessons. I'd just like tok now what the deal with him is, juxtaposing Troika with Bioware after every couple of sentences.

Honest to god, I have never read anything from a reviewer which sounded more biased that didn't bother or was too lazy to hide it.

I'll pick it apart piece by piece as I read it.

Question the first: why didn't Wizards of the Coast (TSR) get Bioware to make this game?

1) It'd cost too much
2) Bioware doesn't have experience with turn-based games
3) Atari wanted a turn-based game, not a pause and play game - to appeal to the hardcore D&D crowd. Too bad they botched it by insisting on a T rating.

Though I suppose after that horrible movie, nothing should surprise us regarding the D&D franchise.

He'll contradict himself in the next paragraph.

Behold.

While the developers, Troika, proved they can make an RPG with their previous outing Arcanum, it is one thing to make an RPG but it is a whole other ballgame to take on the kings of the D&D RPG genre, Bioware. From Baldur's Gate to Neverwinter Nights, Bioware has done amazing things with the D&D universe.

So let me get this straight - not only does D&D suck, Bioware does things which suck, but an in amazing sort of way.

So Troika games (with the help of Atari) decided to make a more hardcore version of D&D.

Atari helped? On the contrary, Atari hindered.

I could go on, but I just don't want to. Feel free to write your own comments on this so-called 'review'

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'll take it from here, Exitium

The Temple of Elemental Evil does a good job imitating Bioware's oft-repeated formula. Playing from a three-quarter isometric perspective, you control a party of characters via a point and click interface

Since when isometric perspective and point-n-click interface did become Bio's formula. Fallout and Diablo did it way before Bio did. If anything, Bioware's "oft-repeated" formula is to take somebody else's idea and hype it as "another revolutionary feature from Bioware"(tm). I'm surpised they didn't take credit for DnD itself.

While lacking the plot of a Bioware epic, the game does a decent job with the interface and general feel of the Dungeons & Dragons universe.

The plot of a Bioware epic? Please!

Errors such as the Holy Sword +1 giving +3 to attack are ludicrous, not to mention the character and quest errors that more directly and detrimentally harm the game

I agree, the bugs are overwhelming, I'm surprised nobody mentioned that once you cast a spell it's fucked and the only way to fix it is to sleep. I mean, what's up with that? :shock:

Too much attention to minor rules

It just blows your mind. Really.

The moral of this story: the lack of quality, integrity, and intelligence in gaming journalism is unbearable.

 

[Voss]

With such a strict attention to the rules, there's little that a novice player can do to fully understand everything that’s going on. In pen-and-paper RPGs, the human element of the Dungeon Master always smoothed over some of the more unforgiving rules, allowing newer players the chance to understand the combat system before penalizing them harshly for making mistakes. The Temple of Elemental Evil gives no such forgiveness, forcing players to understand and use all the various nuances of combat.

Oh me, oh my. They have to think and understand and read.
Maybe this is the core of his problem.
I lilke the bit about the human element of the Dungeon Master...
first because of the potential opposition of a non-human part of a DM.
and this idea that they're all nice little guys that'll give you a break.
Heh.


And too much attention to minor rules?
Like all the ones he doesn't name... but really, what minor rules are being referred to in. Yes they put in a lot of the combat special attacks rules, which a lot of games haven't done before, but... they are part of the combat system. It doesn't make them minor.

 

[Spazmo]

Not exactly ludicrious if it was intended to be +1 damage, +3 to hit. I think I would have picked a bug that couldn't be disputed, like the dwarves in silver full plate crashing the game, but that's just me.

That's not a bug and Saint is wrong here. The +1 holy sword is +1 for most, but for a paladin, it acts as a +3 weapon. The problem here is not with the holy weapon but rather with the lack ofa detailed description of what a +1 holy sword is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here is my take on that. You find a sword in a dungeon, it looks magical, you can cast a spell to figure out what it is and turns out it's a holy sword, for example. Then you give it a try and pass it around to see if somebody's has a better luck with it, i.e able to hit constantly, or hit more often, or deliver an additional damage. The ability to see detailed results is provided by ToEE. Lvl 1 spell is not a google search, I don't see why it should come with a full print out including info on previous owners and their criminal record. May be a wizard from a big city can tell you more about a particular piece, but certainly not a blacksmith in a small rural place.

 

[Spazmo]

Oh, bullshit, Vault Dweller. It is flat out not fun to find a magic item and not know what it does. The magic item descriptions in ToEE need to be more detailed.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

You'd think that the worst thing the developers of a game focused so heavily on the rules could do was to get those very rules wrong, but that's just what happened. The number of bugs in this game is just overwhelming. While most are small, annoying errors, they are simple things that should not have happened. Errors such as the Holy Sword +1 giving +3 to attack are ludicrous, not to mention the character and quest errors that more directly and detrimentally harm the game. I experienced enough minor annoyances playing the game that it ruined what might otherwise have been a load of fun.

I would like to mention other errors .
Why my Barb gets less than 12 hit points more every level ?
Doesen't Dice12 hits points means that he always get 12 hit points each level up ?

Serious error. :wink:

I would also like to question Troika why havent you got into your game
the 3 elite clazzes sorriez subzrazies ?
Da spezial ghoul a sorry meanz undeadiez with spezial secret powarrz da Bibmo biiatch weildingz da 2 coolez gumz sorry magicka crozbbowz and da matcho amerizan marinez sorriez barbarianz with da big muslez and daz powah ehh meant warz hammerz.

Seriouz errorz !!!!


:wink:

 

[Vault Dweller]

It is flat out not fun to find a magic item and not know what it does

I didn't say it's fun, I meant it makes sense. Like I said let's say you are in a dungeon, you found a sword, you cast identify, now tell me what you expect the spell to reveal? Give me an example to provide me with an excuse to admit the errors of my way.

 

[Spazmo]

Once again, garbage. I'd say fun is a hell of a lot more important than logic in a game, isn't it? It'd make sense for everyone to get the plague and die in a medieval setting, but that is not fun. There's this idiotic idea that more realism makes for more fun, and this works for games like Rainbow Six. But when the realism you're trying to adhere to is fictional in the first place and is no fun, it makes to sense to stick with it. Fun comes before making sense, especially when the fun solution still makes sense.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The adequate solution, if you wish to maintain 'realism' would be to include minimal descriptions of such a weapon. For instance, "This weapon glows with a divine aura and seems to be more potent than your average weapon" as opposed to "Special 1d6 vs Demons"

The IDEAL solution however would be to implement full descriptions because that's just damn well how it should be.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Once again, garbage.

You know, Spazmo, I prefer the term "different opinion" vs "garbage". You know, mutual respect and all that crap.

I'd say fun is a hell of a lot more important than logic in a game, isn't it?

That depends. When you get a new weapon in Fallout, you try it and see how it works and what the results are.

It'd make sense for everyone to get the plague and die in a medieval setting

Uhh, no it wouldn't. Now that's garbage :wink: Sorry, had to return the favour The plaque wasn't around all the time in medieval times, just like any game set in the 20th century doesn't have to be set during WW2.

 

[Sharpei_Diem]

Feeling a little antagonistic, Spazmo? Since when do other's reasonable opinions constitute as garbage?

My feelings are more in line with Vault Dweller. I don't think a first level spell should necessarily tell a player everything about an item or even work all the time(or accurately). However, i also don't think most games have a good mechanism to relay this kind of thing to the player.

As a player, i don't want to be forced to bring every single item from an encounter back to a city to get tested to see if it's magical. However, i don't want to know what an object is as soon as i pick it up, either. Knowing which items are magical is good, and then allow me to decide how badly I want to know about it. The information given about an item should be based on the caster's proficiency vs the item's level. High level casters/spells should deliver flawless results, low level casters/spell should deliver questionable information. There should be someway to impart this information to the player: ie Sword +1(100%) vs Sword +1(12%) would mean that in the first case, we know exactly what the item is, in the second case, we have an idea. This kind of system would allow a player to make a decision (OMFG, can you believe that!) - spend more time/money, or leave it be? I'm not saying it works for everyone, but that's what i'd prefer. Then again, some people love Dungeon Siege, so it takes all kinds....<dig>I guess you like your RPG more like DS then, Spazmo.</dig> Just a joke, spazmo...

 

[Aelfina]

Silly

Here is my take on that. You find a sword in a dungeon, it looks magical, you can cast a spell to figure out what it is and turns out it's a holy sword, for example. Then you give it a try and pass it around to see if somebody's has a better luck with it, i.e able to hit constantly, or hit more often, or deliver an additional damage. The ability to see detailed results is provided by ToEE. Lvl 1 spell is not a google search, I don't see why it should come with a full print out including info on previous owners and their criminal record. May be a wizard from a big city can tell you more about a particular piece, but certainly not a blacksmith in a small rural place.

Now that's just silly. If a character was using say their LORE ability, as in Baldur's Gate, to try and figure out what an item is then that would make sense. But a spell (which you can only use once per memorize and which is designed to magically divine the nature of an item) should tell you what the thing does over what it's freaking name is. That just seems like a no brainer to me. Instead of saying it's holy and +1 it could tell you that it's a magical sword that makes you deal more damage and/or gives you a better chance to hit. That would be more realistic! And about casting an identify spell, it's a low level spell, as in it's simple for a low lvl magic user to cast, which is realistic, it's simple divination, the casters ability doesn't affect what information you get, that's just the way D&D works. High lvls will on give you the ability to cast it more often. It's not as if you can cast it an infinite amount of times in a dungeon, you'd need to rest which would most likely get you attacked. So it's well balanced, and it makes sense. And in reference to the fallout comment, items already tell you what they do in fallout, it's like your character has a database in their head telling them what everything is and does, how realistic is that? (not that I'm mocking the fallout, I love fallout)

 

[Spazmo]

You know, Spazmo, I prefer the term "different opinion" vs "garbage". You know, mutual respect and all that crap.

What? It's the RPG Codex spirit!

That depends. When you get a new weapon in Fallout, you try it and see how it works and what the results are.

When I get a new weapon in Fallout, I compare the damage output it does with my current weapon as well as other things like range and ammo avalibility. And you still haven't addressed my statement that fun is more important than realism.

Uhh, no it wouldn't. Now that's garbage :wink: Sorry, had to return the favour

Now you're getting it!

The plaque wasn't around all the time in medieval times, just like any game set in the 20th century doesn't have to be set during WW2.

Perhaps not the best example. Consider, instead, that the game doesn't simulate having the players eat and expel waste. Why? Hell, that's no fun. Sometimes, you have to ignore realism in favour of fun and playability.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Since when isometric perspective and point-n-click interface did become Bio's formula. Fallout and Diablo did it way before Bio did. If anything, Bioware's "oft-repeated" formula is to take somebody else's idea and hype it as "another revolutionary feature from Bioware"(tm). I'm surpised they didn't take credit for DnD itself.

Baldur's Gate wasn't even the first D&D isometric, point and click game.

That's not a bug and Saint is wrong here. The +1 holy sword is +1 for most, but for a paladin, it acts as a +3 weapon. The problem here is not with the holy weapon but rather with the lack ofa detailed description of what a +1 holy sword is.

Note the part in my statement with the phrase if it was intended. My point was that it is disputable that it's a bug, and not all holy swords are made the same way.

 

[EEVIAC]

The brevity in identification was a little silly. Applying logic as to how a first level spell could allow you to see detailed stats of an item - say a historian/archeologist out on a dig finds a sword in a field. He takes a look at the handle and can ascertain the sword is Roman. He looks at the blade and sees a number of small nicks, not the sort that would be caused by armour or steel, but by bone. Is it too much of a logical leap to assume that a magical diviner could use a spell on the same item and find out that the soldier's name was Bruce, he butchered an entire Village of helpless Barbarian women, and as such the blade is only usable by evil alignments?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, that'd be too much and Identify isn't supposed to tell you that sort of thing - that's what Bardic Lore is for.

 

[Barghest]

Hey,

Can we get back to the subject at hand, which is slagging off those mongs at Game Revolution?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Hey,

Can we get back to the subject at hand, which is slagging off those mongs at Game Revolution?

Sure, I'll address that part of the review about why didn't they get BioWare to make the game.. The reason is simple, they wanted something like the Gold Box games and BioWare isn't suited for that. Another good reasons is that BioWare often one-trick ponies their way through a CRPG. They come up with one new idea, and then beat it to death in the course of that game like in NWN with all the Head-Ex quests and nearly every chapter being about bringing one person three to four pieces of something.

There's also the idea that when you have something like D&D, a bit of diversity might be a decent thing. That is, if you want to maintain a huge market share. If all D&D games were alike, the interest in them would fade gradually.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Now that Saint addressed the Bio part, we've covered pretty much everything, so I'l go back and reply to Spazmo

What? It's the RPG Codex spirit!

Touche

When I get a new weapon in Fallout, I compare the damage output it does with my current weapon as well as other things like range and ammo avalibility

Fine, compare the damage of a minigun (7-11), a combat shotgun (15-25), and an assault rifle (8-16). Can you correctly evaluate and compare each weapon without trying it? I don't think so. The ammo should be plentiful for each by the time you find a minigun, so it shouldn't be a factor.

And you still haven't addressed my statement that fun is more important than realism.

I didn't address it because I didn't disagree with you. I said 'make sense' not 'that would be awesome and totally realistic'. There are many realistic things that don't make any sense (like taxes ) and things that make sense but totally unrealistic like world peace. So my overall point was that it's not a big deal and there could be some explanation for that that could fit into the setting of low lvl characters and a small town.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Reading these comments, I am reminded of an argument a friend of mine and I used to have all the time concerning realism in video games. He would always bitch about how a 'real' person would not be able to jump that far (insert first person shooter title here) or that a 'real' person would not be able to make that many attacks in so much time (insert RPG title here). I think he did it mainly for arguments sake though, since everytime we argued about it, they all ended the same way: Me asking him if he had FUN playing the game and him replying YES.

Well, boys and girls, that's the whole point. Who cares if it's 'realistic' or not as long as you had fun playing. There are some games out there right now where realism works, but there are plenty of other games where realism would just ruin the whole thing. If it came down to choosing realism over fun, I'll take fun anyday. After all, I play games to escape the real world for awhile, not emulate it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, Otaku, if you read the comments from the beginning, you would notice that we didn't argue about an abstract concept of fun in games, but about a specific situation that is already in the game. I offered a somewhat logical explanation so that people who complain about the way identify works could move on and have fun.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

There's also a difference between realism and realism within and defined by the setting. At this point, everyone is used to seeing numbers in CRPGs, though. People love them numbers. That's the problem with the identification in ToEE, no numbers.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There are numbers. The way it's done in ToEE at this point (the patch may change it) is that you have to try it (put it on, whack somebody with a sword) and see if them numbers have changed. Not the most convinient way, I agree, but a way nonetheless.