Review Arcanum praised at MyGamer

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Arcanum: of Steamworks and Magick Obscura; Troika Games

<a href=http://www.mygamer.com>MyGamer</a> has posted one of those <a href=http://www.mygamer.com/index.php?page=gameportal&mode=reviews&id=226>better-late-then-never reviews</a> of <a href=http://www.troikagames.com/arcanum.htm>Arcanum</a>, giving it <b>8/10</b>, and using words like unrivaled, masterful, and amazing to describe it.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>If you can see past the gritty surface of Arcanum you will discover a game with possibly the single most incredible storyline, quest system, and character-dynamic world featured in any RPG to date. I remember the first time I played Arcanum, I thought it was total garbage, but once I understood the inner workings of the character dynamics and the magnificent storyline tied beautifully to the game world—well, I couldn’t put it down. Since the game is different virtually every time you play, the replay value is immeasurable due to the endless possibility of character types, via mixing and matching. A mod system and mod-based multiplayer can also add to the value of the game if you can find some other Arcanum players who are interested in ‘team-bashing’. Arcanum is a superior purchase, reminiscent of the combat style seen in Diablo 2 combined with a Final Fantasy 3 caliber storyline. It’s a must for absolutely any RPG fan.</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not sure I'd describe Arcanum like that, but it's definitely a great game, so pick it up if you haven't already.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Arcanum is a superior purchase, reminiscent of the combat style seen in Diablo 2 combined with a Final Fantasy 3 caliber storyline.

...Final Fantasy 3 revolved about 4 'Onion Kids' who had to save the world, if I remember correctly. That hardly compares.

Unless he means Final Fantasy 6 (numbered 3 in the US), in which case its still a ways off, considering it revolved around a group of misfits trying to save the world from the Empire, then failing, then trying to save what little was left from the world. Its hardly reminiscent either, unless he's looking at Narshe's (and generally, the gameworlds') steampunk setting and equalling that to storyline.

 

[jiujitsu]

I think I may start playing Arcanum soon. It's been a while.

 

[Jora]

I haven't played Final Fantasies and didn't like Diablo 2 but I agree with everything else he wrote. Oh, Troika! 1 want to be your fanboy!

 

[Surlent]

Good point Roleplayer. But I think he meant FF3US. :wink: (=FF6)

Arcanum truly is great game with original setting.
For one who can't bear to play Fallout because of all those pixels, Arcanum is the best option for computer roleplaying though it doesn't really shine with its graphics too.

Considering how so-so reviews Arcanum got at the time of its publish, it doesn't seem bad if it gets one fanboi review from time to time.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

It's about time it got some praise, but that's my opinion.

 

[Flink]

I agree completely.

 

[Seven]

I thought that a lot of the reviews with Arcanum were fair (7.5-8.4), except gamespot (the reviewer actually claimed that the replay value of the game was a draw back). The one thing that I didn't like was when you compared it's scores to other games (*cough* IWD2 *cough*) some thing was definitely rotten in Denmarc. I don't mind a game getting a score that it deserved, but I do mind the shifting review scales that some sites seem to throw out when dealing with a particular publisher or developer. On a side note, I think that TOEE got scores that were a little too high in some instances (IMO, it deserved between a 6.8 - 7.4).

 

[Sammael]

Well, IWD2 got decent scores for being a fairly good dungeon crawl. Arcanum got the same sort of scores for not being as good of a nonlinear story-driven game as it could have been. The two really aren't comparable.

 

[Transcendent One]

IWD2 would've been a decent dungeon crawl. If it didn't have the ice temple, fell wood, and a few other areas. As it is, the game is mediocre.

 

[Seven]

Well, IWD2 got decent scores for being a fairly good dungeon crawl.

No it wasn't. Can you say reload because of ridiculous battles.

EDIT: If you want to call IWD a dungeon crawl and that alone, then it was a Diable clone that offered less.

 

[Sammael]

I played IWD2 through on nightmare (or whatever the hardest difficulty setting was called) my first time and never had a TPK until the very end.

And if you call IWD2 a Diablo clone, you probably haven't played Diablo.

Ice Temple, Fell Wood, and Dragon's Eye were horrible. But Targos, Underdark, and Severed Hand were good enough for me to ignore the bad areas.

 

[Spazmo]

...so half the game is crap? More than half, even, because Dragon's Eye and the Ice Temple are pretty beefy locations. I agree that there were some fun bits in IWD2, but there was so much awful.

 

[Flink]

*shudders*

The Fell Wood, Ice Temple and the weird time loop place under Dragon's Eye still gives me nightmares.

 

[Transcendent One]

I agree Targos, the outlying areas, and Severed Hand were marvellously done areas, with great writing, memorable fun battles, and cool roleplaying options. But like Spazmo said, over half the game's areas are crap. I wasn't too thrilled by the Underdark, or at least the first part with the hook horrors *shudder* Rather than have decent AI or nice big battles with lots of spells going off, we'll just make common fodder come out of the woodwork so you have to make your mages run in circles while your fighters hack them up!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Rather than have decent AI or nice big battles with lots of spells going off, we'll just make common fodder come out of the woodwork so you have to make your mages run in circles while your fighters hack them up!

Welcome to the world of Infinity Engine games.

 

[Capelworth]

Arcanum really was a great game. Yes, the graphics were downright lousy. Yes, the turn-based combat was too easy, and yes, the real-time combat was too fast. Yes, the companions and characters in the game were weak, undeveloped, and forgettable. But the game supported a greater number of player-character archetypes than even the Fallout games. (If I recall correctly, the readme file had suggestions on different character types around which the designers tailored the game and there were at least half a dozen.)

The game had newspapers that would report on events that your character had influenced in the game world; it had a whole puzzle subplot revolving around the gods and altars that I really enjoyed working out; it had a huge, engaging game world; it had a relatively elaborate and involving story. The game certainly had its problems, but in terms of responsiveness of the game world to the player-character, I believe that it is unrivaled by even the Fallout games. I enjoyed it.

 

[Whipporowill]

It also had a dev team of only 10 people. So it's pretty amazing they managed what they managed.

 

[Seven]

And if you call IWD2 a Diablo clone, you probably haven't played Diablo.

Don't just make a statement, explain it, and then I'll address whatever I feel is necessary.

BTW, I have played diablo which was a dungeon crawl, IWD on the other hand was garbage in comparison.

 

[Deathy]

Diablo is a decent dungeon crawl. Always did tend to remind me of a simplified, fast paced rougelike.

From what I understand, IWD2 plays like an infinity engine dungeon crawl. Opinions of the Inifinity Engine aside, the two games are very different. Different enough so that they don't bear comparison.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I agree with Seven that IWD2 featured Diablo-style "deal with waves of monsters" gameplay but since DnD wasn't designed for fast action, it was incredibly boring.

Edit: To anybody who disagrees about the Diablo thing, I recommend playing ToEE for a bit, then switching to IWD2.

 

[Sammael]

The first Diablo was a great game. I found the second one lacking in many areas, although it was, in a way, a lot more sophisticated.

However, it is about as different from IWD1/2 as a dungeon crawl can be from another dungeon crawl. There are plenty of Diablo clones around (both outright clones and Diablo-inspired games with somewhat deeper gameplay - I'd place Divine Divinity and Sacred in that basket).

However, IWD played absolutely nothing like Diablo. It had pausable quasi-real-time combat, whereas Diablo was true real-time. It had a party, whereas Diablo was single-player, and utilized the D&D ruleset, meaning it was balanced for a party with melee, stealth, offensive, and defensive magic capabilities. It had a storyline, and, more importanly, a rich background, and the game revolved around progressing through the storyline (unfortunatley, the progress was handled mostly by hacking enemies to bits... with a few puzzles thrown in for good measure), whereas Diablo's purpose was always to get to the next level of dungeon/forest/desert.

Thus, the tactics employed playing IWD are utterly different from Diablo, and the two can only be compared on a general level, much like Fallout and Torment, for example.

 

[Sammael]

Edit: To anybody who disagrees about the Diablo thing, I recommend playing ToEE for a bit, then switching to IWD2.

Apples and oranges. You might as well tell people to switch to Doom 3 after playing ToEE and note how much more similar to Diablo it is. After all, Doom 3 is also nothing more than a dungeon crawl with creepy monsters and weapons and power-ups on the way.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Of course, technically they are different games, but overall the gameplay was very similar regardless of the pause thingy, the party, and the storyline somewhere in the background. Now, BG and even the original IWD were different, IWD2 was all about killing waves of monsters, even that increased difficulty mode was very Diablo-like. That was the point of the game - kill stuff. Done killing stuff? Well, kill them all over again and get even better loot and reach even higher levels! One word - Diablo.

As for the DnD ruleset "balanced for a party with melee, stealth, offensive, and defensive magic capabilities", it's worth noting that D2 was also made with party and cooperation of different classes in mind, and its ruleset also had melee, and offensive/defensive magic. You didn't have to have a party in both games, you could solo if you want. There were games that required a party like Star Trail, where there were situations that forced you to split a party, leave somebody behind to ensure the exit, etc; but IWD2 didn't have that.

What else did your write? Tactics? What tactics? Cast some buffs and kick some ass. Same in Diablo 2. Plenty of similar spells and abilities used in the same manner.

Anyway, that's just an opinion. Like I said in another post, I installed IWD2 again and tried to play it, after playing ToEE, and the difference was huge.

 

[Volourn]

, "I installed IWD2 again and tried to play it, after playing ToEE, and the difference was huge."

Yeah, there is. IWD2 doesn't crash everytime a screen loads! HAHAHAHA!