Review Inquisitor Review at RPGWatch

[Crooked Bee]

Tags: Cinemax; Inquisitor

We had our own - rather negative than positive - review of Czech RPG Inquisitor not so long ago, but now RPGWatch has put up their - rather positive than negative - take on the game. Website rivalry? No way! (Our review is better.) Anyway, have a snippet:

On most of the outdoor area maps is at least one dungeon entrance and each of these can have up to five levels. These dungeons have great atmosphere though a light spell will often prove helpful. There are hidden or disguised switches, traps and poison/lava pools to avoid ( the levitate spell helps here ) and there are secret tunnels/rooms as well. ( The perception skill works for them ). Oh, they are filled with monsters too. However, there is very little variety with the monsters in each dungeon. You might, for example, find 3 different types of lizard creatures in the one dungeon, while another will just have undead skellies. There is some limited respawning on both maps and within dungeons, so an area is never totally clear, but it is minimal and usually not too annoying unless you’re trying to make it back to town with few hitpoints and no potions.

In my opinion, fights become tedious after awhile, especially as you reach the fifth level of a dungeon facing hordes of the same critters. One of my biggest criticisms of the game would be too much filler combat in an already overly long game. There is also a ‘sameness’ about each act. The NPC’s are just a little too stereotyped and similar in each city. While act 2 is more complex than act 1, much feels like little more than a variation or repeat of the same themes. It holds your interest for 2 acts, but you dread the thought of more of the same in act 3.

The combat can either be quite easy, or quite challenging. Most was easy, but the game does have several difficulty levels from which to choose. I took the easy option to save time. While it is possible to pause the game during combat, it doesn’t help much. As long as the enemies are at some distance, you can usually take them down easily. However, when you are swarmed, or if combat with a ‘boss’ level monster is initiated from very close range you can be dead in seconds. Spells not only have a cool down, but can fail, especially at low skill levels. I found using ‘Seals’ much better than spells at the lower levels. These are easily obtained and fairly cheap to buy, though they drop in chests quite regularly. As in most games, I soon found myself using only a few spells which are easy to swap in and out to your quick bar.

[...] In summary then, what we have here is an old-fashioned RPG where you really have to bring both your mind and your physical skills to the table. Nothing is made easy for you and while parts become tedious overall I found the game to be fun and enjoyable. It’s definitely not for everyone, but if you enjoy this type of game then it is well worth the price.​

Still want to read it in full? Then click here.

 

[Bulba]

The game was fun till it was challenging, shame it becomes easy very quickly and thus boring

 

[sea]

In fact, I’m only about 2/3 of the way through the game. However, I have played enough that I believe I can give a solid overview of what players can expect for their $15 investment.

Shame he didn't get 2/3 through. The game gets even worse past that point.

There is little you can do to control them; basically, you’re limited to stay, attack, or don’t drink my potions. Fortunately, money soon becomes a non-issue so keeping them around, while costly, doesn’t drain the purse too much.

Oh good, money is a non-issue, that sounds like good game design already.

If you build your character a certain way, you can often intimidate people rather than bribing them. Different character types will have different options which does give the game some replay value.

Except almost all the dialogue checks in the game are mandatory to solve various plot-critical quests, and you can't fail persuasion/intimidation/bribe checks, so all you do is click the options over and over until the RNG favors you. Replay value, yeah, I guess you don't have to set up an auto-click macro for the same dialogue options each time through.

Each has a cap level determined by class as well. You get four attribute points each level and that was never an issue; by the time my character was over level 30, I had more points than I really needed.

Oh good, I'm glad that you never felt like you had to make a choice during character development. That would have been bad!

The problem is obvious; you MUST specialize.

One of the most controversial aspects of the game is the use of torture, which, to be honest, does fit with the milieu of the game. However, it is not as prevalent as one may have been led to believe. I did not torture my first ‘victim’ until I was level 22.

When did character levels become an adequate method of measuring time investment into a game, exactly? I can get to level 22 in a Diablo game in a couple of hours, and I'll never, ever reach level 22 in Baldur's Gate.

You take an alignment hit if you torture innocents which could make your job more difficult.

It would, if alignment actually influenced anything at all in this game, and if you actually knew if someone was innocent or guilty before torturing them, which kind of defeats the purpose of torturing them in the first place... uh... yeah.

The game is composed of many small maps.

I guess huge dungeon levels made out of copy-pasted caves and full of hundreds of copy-pasted trash mobs are small? Oh, silly me, he didn't play past act 2, I forgot.

Buildings can usually be entered, though some may be locked. There is a very useful low level spell, ‘Shatter’ which allows you to open nearly all locked doors and chests.

Oh good, I was worried I might actually be cut off from some content due to my choices in character development.

The combat can either be quite easy, or quite challenging. Most was easy, but the game does have several difficulty levels from which to choose. I took the easy option to save time.

Oh, so combat is easy on easy setting, but is also tedious, even though easy also saves time? I guess that bodes well for normal and hard difficulties, huh?

While I didn’t make much use of weapons, I did try out a couple. Bows are good early on and arrows drop regularly, but they eventually become underpowered.

Good thing there's an entire class centered around using them. Oh, wait...

Graphically, the game is quite good, but not anywhere near the level of recent games such a Skyrim.

 

[Mrowak]

Website rivalry? No way! (Our review is better.)

 

[Darth Roxor]

You have to torture people

How is that a con?

 

[Jaesun]

Website rivalry? No way! (Our review is better.)

I was curious if you would debate some of this persons findings on your own experience playing the game.

 

[Mrowak]

Website rivalry? No way! (Our review is better.)

I was curious if you would debate some of this persons findings on your own experience playing the game.

Initially I wanted to write a looong rant about the style of the other review and how essentially it says "if you'd like the game, you'd like it", which to my mind defeats the whole point of the article, but I concluded that debating this is just a hassle. Generally I agree with the findings (e.g. combat is tedius) but I am puzzled as to why the reviewer just shrugged it them off when they define gameply i.e. the stuff you will be doing most of the time. He also appears to be bent at finding the positives in everything, even in the most mundane, and essentially broken features (e.g. magical boxes that let you shop in the dungeon is a "marvelous innovation", except that everyone and their dog knows that they fill the role of town-portals for the poor) which are fluff and have no little impact on your enjoyment.

It's as if the reviewer was hell-bent on sounding positive in spite of obvious flaws... or maybe liked the story aspect so much, that he didn't care for what actually he does in the game? Dunno.

 

[HiddenX]

Corwin's review is fair and in the the end it's 3 out of 5 stars = 60% - a litlle bit above average, main problem: too much uninteresting combat.
I can agree with that 100%.

Combat is more challenging on higher diffuculty levels and you have to use some more tactics, but it's still not a very good combat engine. Story and dialog are well done IMHO.

For me it's a 75% game. I spent over 150 hours with Inquisitor - that's a lot of time for just are 15$.

 

[Rivmusique]

Get on my level, pretender.

 

[Infinitron]

Initially I wanted to write a looong rant about the style of the other review and how essentially it says "if you'd like the game, you'd like it", which to my mind defeats the whole point of the article, but I concluded that debating this is just a hassle. Generally I agree with the findings (e.g. combat is tedius) but I am puzzled as to why the reviewer just shrugged it them off when they define gameply i.e. the stuff you will be doing most of the time. He also appears to be bent at finding the positives in everything, even in the most mundane, and essentially broken features (e.g. magical boxes that let you shop in the dungeon is a "marvelous innovation", except that everyone and their dog knows that they fill the role of town-portals for the poor) which are fluff and have no little impact on your enjoyment.

It's as if the reviewer was hell-bent on sounding positive in spite of obvious flaws... or maybe liked the story aspect so much, that he didn't care for what actually he does in the game? Dunno.

That's "gaming journalism" for you - not so much corrupt as it is filled with enthusiasts who are easily convinced to be positive about the genres they love.