Review AppleLinks reviews Blades of Avernum

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Blades of Avernum; Spiderweb Software

<a href=http://www.applelinks.com>Apple Links</a> posted a short <a href=http://www.applelinks.com/pm/more.php?id=1300_0_1_0_M>review</a> of <a href=http://www.avernum.com/blades/index.html>Blades of Avernum</a> giving it <b>4/5</b>.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>In my opinion, far too many game developers don't know what role-playing means. They release games with "role-playing elements," when what they really mean is "the ability to spend skill points and/or use different armor and weapons." The Exile trilogy and the updated Avernum trilogy remain a shining example of what role-playing is really about...with just one tiny problem: the games end. When they do, you leave behind fascinating worlds with histories and people that can be found nowhere else. Blades of Avernum changes that by giving you the ability to play in adventures others have created, as well as the ability to make your own adventures for others to play</blockquote>Can't argue with "far too many game developers don't know what role-playing means" part
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgdot.com">RPG Dot</A>

 

[S4ur0n27]

Except the graphics really look atrocious.

 

[Jung]

Except the graphics really look atrocious.

What do graphics have to do with roleplaying?

 

[suibhne]

Except the graphics really look atrocious.

Exactly!

Oh, wait. . . . Uh, no.

 

[Tris McCall]

Except the graphics really look atrocious.

I know why that's the consensus. Still, I think there's something very winning about the graphics from the Avernum games. They're suggestively cartoonish -- they look Eighties-style, kinda classic. They're non-representational: they don't strive to approximate reality. That way, while you're playing, you're able to quickly suspend belief and slip into the game. I contrast that with, say, Neverwinter Nights, a game where I think the graphics are *truly* terrible. By attempting to simulate reality, the NWN designers constantly call attention to the way they fail to achieve that simulation. It's jarring, and aesthetically hollow.

By and large I think the graphics in the Spiderweb games are good. They draw you into the gameplay. After an hour or so you forget about the graphics altogether, and concentrate on the story. It's another way that Spiderweb seems to know what they're doing.

Everybody designing games can take lessons from Spiderweb.




[/i]

 

[Country_Gravy]

I agree. I think that if Spiderweb's games had better graphics, the overall game wouldn't be any better. The focus on these games is GAMEPLAY and STORY. I don't play a RPG just to say, "Wow, look at these particle effects! To bad this story sucks balls, and there is no point in continuing." You can have photo realistic graphics, but if your game sucks, your game just sucks.

 

[Rosh]

It's because the graphics are functional and complete to the point where they deliver the game. It is because of this that they don't run into the same problems as others, like those in NWN or many others that have graphical issues because they are having to kludge it to be modern and detailed for the eye candy kiddies. This comes at a cost to development time, which I'm glad that Sipderweb's games don't have as much of a problem with, or none at all, which allows enjoyment of the game. I've played on such graphics before and the interface isn't bad if you're actually capable of using a keyboard.

Then again, don't mind Susan as usual. Susan should just go play Final Fantasy and remain silent.

 

[S4ur0n27]

Aww.

Spiderweb's games are good but the graphics could be better, without being 3D with particle effects and shit. FO (I always go back to FO) had (for today's criteria) shitty graphics, still I think FO's graphic were awesome and still are better than most of what we have today.

I just don't like Avernum's.

 

[plin]

how come he didn't use the geneforge 2 graphics for blades? seems much more up to date with acual animation.

 

[Rosh]

I just don't like Avernum's.

Perhaps you should have quantified the sentiment and said it correctly the first time instead of fumbling around and tearing the lining of your hat.

 

[Country_Gravy]

Aww.

FO (I always go back to FO) had (for today's criteria) shitty graphics, still I think FO's graphic were awesome and still are better than most of what we have today.

The reason that FO is so good is because of the GAMEPLAY and STORY. Once again, the graphics don't matter. That was my point. As long as the game isn't text based and you can tell what the items, background, characters and whatever are, then who really cares? Companies today focus so much on graphics and not enough on substance. I wish there were more companies like Spiderweb out there. This world would be a better place.

 

[Spazmo]

Fallout is an excellent looking game. Even today, I consider it to be an extremely visually pleasing game. That's just because of talented artists, skilled animators and the lasting appeal of quality 2D work. Any 3D game will necessarily look dated after a couple years, but even at low resolutions (Fallout ran at 640x480), 2D games never lose their graphical appeal.

 

[Greenskin13]

how come he didn't use the geneforge 2 graphics for blades? seems much more up to date with acual animation.

I prefered Avernum's graphics over Geneforges. Avernum, in my opinion, had lovely static graphics while Geneforge had merely passable animation.

Oh, and yes, Fallout is still a very beautiful game. It has great detail for their structures and the animations are for the most part seamless.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

I just got the beta version of blades of avernum, will take it home tonight from work and see what I can see. Haven't played avernum before so it should be an eye opener.

 

[Anonymous]

Only thing that bothered me slightly about Avernum is when you leave a town your guys get all tiny, I know the reasoning for this, but I just feel strange seeing my characters so far away.