Mortmal said:
herostratus said:
Didn't Jeff write that post about how indies shouldn't price themselves too low?
Yes he said that, like many things, like rpgcodex is a den of people hating all his game despite the many praises for geneforge 5 and avernum 5.
I ve played further avadon, it isnt so bad, the challenge pick up a bit after demo, but really none of the quests choices have any significant differences, a decent game but could have expected better.
I'm one of those who criticsed Avadon while loving the Geneforge series. Vogel kind of missed the point of the criticism. There's a lot to like about Avadon and it does exactly what it says - it is a gem of an attempt to make an old-style turn-based epic rpg, of the style where you went from plot area one to area 2 to area 3 etc. Not saying it's just a dungeon crawl - more like Vogel's go at a Baldurs Gate 2, but with old-school turn-based gameplay. Good stuff for what it is (tm).
My complaint was that for many of us, the latter Geneforge games were approaching greatness in a manner that is completely different to early Bioware - less an attempt to recreate oldschool gameplay, and more an attempt to create something far more ambitious. By that, I mean the factions within factions within factions, sprawling maps where different sides doesn't mean red-shirts v blue-shirts, but often means different objectives on different parts of the world map. Quest-hubs for some factions will be dungeon-crawls for others, and different builds will make some areas utterly impassable, other areas open to 'stealth-disrupt-the-tech-defences+assassinate' tactics, and others as direct combat crawls.
And of course one of the more innovative settings around - and even though he stuck with the one setting for 5 games, it's a bit unfair as a criticism, because the way the world evolves is awesome, with previously 'crazy-evil' factions starting to looking a lot more sympathetic as tech-proliferation starts fucking everything up. I would have thought that certain parts of the Codex 'general discussion' fauna would have enjoyed the take on slavery as well - it starts off in early games as a near-straightup 'oppressed serviles' rebelling against their shaper masters (with a few prophetic signs of the free serviles not being able to effectively farm without damaging the land with ill-handled shaping tech...) but by later games the 'heroic rebels' trope is completely subverted, where the hardline shapers' fears about free serviles actually have substance to them (and there are several ways that a successful rebellion can have rather dark consequences depending on what the player does). Plenty of goodies for roleplayers and white-supremacist slavery-apologists alike!
My problem with Avadon is just (a) it's so much less ambitious than the latter Geneforge games, and (b) it isn't playing to Vogel's strengths. Vogel is a great setting designer, good with macro themes, great at factional design and C+C and good at setting up cities and dungeons. He has NEVER been a great writer - I'm talking the difference between the 'grand plans' (which Vogel has always done well), and the actual dialogue and characters (which don't suck, but you'd never consider playing the game for those alone). Avadon places a lot less focus on the former (more linear, classic fantasy setting, more straight-forward choices both in their complexity and the amount of greyness), and a lot more emphasis on the latter.
I'd still say that it's worth buying for turn-based crpg - come on, it isn't like we're spoiled for choice, and simply by not sucking, that pretty much makes Avadon game of the year material. And for $10 you'd be crazy not to give it a try unless you completely hated the demo (keeping in mind that Vogel's demos are always the least challenging parts of the game). I just think the guy is capable of better things when he goes with his own approach to world-creation, rather than trying to emulate a turn-based version of early Bioware.
, sell-out that happened.
