Review Just RPG loves Sacred

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Ascaron Entertainment; Sacred

<a href=http://www.just-rpg.com>Just RPG</a> has posted a very positive <a href=http://www.just-rpg.com/default.asp?pid=1020>review</a> of <a href=http://www.sacred-game.com>Sacred</a> giving it <b>95%</b> and stating that <i>not everything in Sacred is perfect, though much of it is.</i>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>My final review ratings of games are very subjective in nature. High ratings come from the following factors: Is it virtually impossible to stop playing before 2 am? Does my mind wander during gameplay? Do I feel a sense of urgency while playing? Do I develop some sort of attachment to my created character? Do I think about the game while away from home? Do I make notes about things to try or places to go whenever I take a respite from playing? Will I replay the game at least once? My answers to the above questions where Sacred is concerned are yes, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. That’s a perfect 7! </blockquote>Couldn't agree me. Sacred reminded me of a time when games used to be fun. Literally.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPG Dot</A>

 

[Seven]

Couldn't agree me.

WTF, you talking in tongues again. And yeah 95 my ass.

 

[HanoverF]

You really shouldn't put a question with a positive no in between questions with negative nos

 

[fnordcircle]

How come Sacred is fun when it's RT combat?

I thought that was a mortal sin around these parts.

 

[Astromarine]

just shows how much you know

 

[Anonymous]

How come Sacred is fun when it's RT combat?

I thought that was a mortal sin around these parts.

ROOFELS U NO IT ACE WTF SACERD SI POP.

Havent you learned a damn thing there? If not, we must resort to shock therapy.

 

[Seven]

How come Sacred is fun when it's RT combat?

I thought that was a mortal sin around these parts.

Says who. RPGs and RT are not diametrically opposed. Plus you should qualify that statement.

The whole thing started when they wanted an RT Fallout which didn't make sense given the nature of SPECIAL. Likewise, RT doesn't make sense given the nature of DnD rules. This is not to say that RT is bad for RPGs as a whole; it's just saying that RT and TB have their own contexts and should be evaluated on their own merits.

 

[Barghest]

Real Time combat should have been done better.

Respawn = not good.

 

[fnordcircle]

Qualify that statement? Do you want me to post links to all the posts on this board bemoaning the inclusion of real-time combat? Personally, I prefer neither, but I find it mystifying to see Vault Dweller talk about how Sacred was remeniscent of a time when games are fun yet it doesn't have turn-based combat, something that gets bitched about ad nauseum when it doesn't make the feature list of other games.

How about some fucking consistency, huh? Is that too much to ask? Don't you people realize that I come here expecting to be told what I think?

 

[JanC]

What is special about Sacred? It sounds like a straight Diablo clone to me from the review - what makes it so amazing? Or are you being sarcastic?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Another controversy sponsored by RPG Codex! Well, I do believe that some explanations are in order.

WTF, you talking in tongues again. And yeah 95 my ass.

I was having me a little fun and was curious what kinda reaction that would generate

How come Sacred is fun when it's RT combat? I thought that was a mortal sin around these parts.

It's not. Diablo II is well liked by many here. D2 has great skill trees that support at least 21 different builds. One of the things we praise "around these parts" is the choices and D2 offers plenty. RT fits perfectly well into the action RPG formula, and can work in more serious RPGs as well. If you dig up some old Bio and BG related thread, you'd see that our complains about BG2 have nothing to do with it being RT. It was a poor RPG, imo, because it didn't have much roleplaying, not because it was RT. D2 and Sacred don't claim to have any depth, they are simple action RPGs or action games with stats, whatever. Daggerfall was RT as well, but as you know, it's also liked by some people here. Those who didn't like it, didn't like it because of overall gameplay not the RT thing. MW is disliked by many because gameplay is dull and boring, so it all depends on a game not a combat mode.

find it mystifying to see Vault Dweller talk about how Sacred was remeniscent of a time when games are fun yet it doesn't have turn-based combat, something that gets bitched about ad nauseum when it doesn't make the feature list of other games.

I don't care about combat, I just like bitching a lot No, seriously, it all depends on a game. If it's a serious RPG, especially isometric, then yes, we all prefer TB. RT lacks a certain depth, imo. If a game doesn't have any depth to begin with, I don't really care what combat mode it uses.

What is special about Sacred? It sounds like a straight Diablo clone to me from the review - what makes it so amazing?

The Diablo series ruled the action RPG world for a very long time. There were many games that tried to replicate that success, and it wasn't a rocket science, btw, but failed miserably (Harbinger, Blade&Sword, Lionheart, and many others). Sacred is the only game I can think of that came close enough to D2-style gameplay. That alone deserves some praise. Now, there is no doubt that D2 is a much better and more polished game, but the point still stands. As for it being a clone, it's a clone, but not a rip-off. There is a difference.

 

[Malak]

What is special about Sacred? It sounds like a straight Diablo clone to me from the review - what makes it so amazing? Or are you being sarcastic?

It's not even really a clone at all. In fact, there isn't much about it that actually reminds me of diablo. The game is completely different, just the same genre. There are a lot of reasons I think Sacred is better than Diablo ever was going to be, there are too many improvements in this game compared to going from diablo to diablo 2. Sacred even fixed one problem I saw in too many RPGs. The battle mage isn't all-poweful, nor is it the main damage-dealer in the party. It's actually pretty hard to play without support IMO, I actually have to use my staff in every fight. I've only played four out of the six classes, and none of them have been too powerful. It was easy in diablo to turn one class into a wrecking machine. Well, except for the necromancer, but who plays a necromancer?

 

[android]

Can Sacred appeal to people who disliked Diablo? (like me)

And do you plan to do an in-house review?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The Diablo series ruled the action RPG world for a very long time. There were many games that tried to replicate that success, and it wasn't a rocket science, btw, but failed miserably (Harbinger, Blade&Sword, Lionheart, and many others). Sacred is the only game I can think of that came close enough to D2-style gameplay.

I'd like to throw my vote for Nox and Revenant as well, not as direct and solid competition, but as fun titles with similar characteristics which were mostly ignored.

 

[Elwro]

Combat in Revenant was fun, iirc. Quite a number of moves was possible.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Can Sacred appeal to people who disliked Diablo? (like me)

Don't think so. The gameplay follows the same formula.

And do you plan to do an in-house review?

Very likely.

I'd like to throw my vote for Nox and Revenant as well

To remind you, neither Nox or Revenant had any char development system

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I don't know. Sacred has a lot more quests than Diablo, but it also has several things I'm not that keen on as well. It's fun though, but it could be more refined.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd like to throw my vote for Nox and Revenant as well

To remind you, neither Nox or Revenant had any char development system

Revenant didn't had character creation, but it had development. There were attributes and skills to be developed. From what i rememeber, you could increase 2 out of 6 attributes per level, and skills increased with use.

Nox, however, only had three classes and no development that i recall.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not much of a development, if you ask me. You had 6 attributes, no skills, and 1-2 points per level to increase the attributes. Obviously not enough to create different characters as there was no fighter/mage/thief specialization. I liked Revenant, at least the first half of it, btw, the attacks, animations, and criticals were very impressive, and the story was cool. Gameplay mechanics were screwed up though.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I was almost certain it had something in the way of skill improvement, but it has been a while since last i played it, so its possible i'm imagining things.

 

[Markman]

Revenant was THE shit. I dont know how come nobody made a game like it in the last 5 years. Coolest combat in ARPG's evah.

 

[Elwro]

Yes. Too bad it was so ill-coded that it still can make UberPentiums crawl sometimes.

 

[JanC]

I can't believe you guys think Diablo 2 was better than BG 2!


Plot? Character? Interest? I played it for 6 hours and was bored out of my mind.

Diablo 2 was just a hackfest, and if you are all going to pan BG2 for being a hackfest, at least be consistent!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Diablo 2's hacking was interesting. Pause and watch is dull as watching grass grow.

 

[Azael]

The combat in Sacred doesn't really bother, just the amount of it that's against identical enemies. At least Diablo II had some variations in the hordes of enemies you were slaying (well, maybe not so much in most of Act II).