Sceptic said:
And also very similar in many ways, which is what Revenent was talking about in the first place. TBH your analogy of PST and MotB only reinforces his point.
The only thing I've seen him say that qualifies his comparison of the two games being similar is the following:
the presentation and inspiration of the game was very much like PoR
He's already eliminated the story specific aspects himself so these things are all we really have to go on. Let's look at both.
The presentation of PoR is one of a classic Advanced Dungeons and Dragons adventure that takes place primarily within a city's walls, with exploration taking place in first person step fashion, switching to overhead static camera once combat begins. This is completely turn-based, handled by the venerable AD&D ruleset. I think the art style might best be described as "spartan", or "as good as can be expected", since there's simply not much more you can expect with EGA/VGA-era graphics other than the occasional colorful little vest drawn on a character or a sort of blobby-looking brick wall-type thing. But, it was still attractive in its own primary way, and didn't distract from the overall experience. You fight classic AD&D monsters like orcs and ogres and eventually get to fight a powerful dragon at the end. The whole thing strikes me as simulating a classic AD&D module or module arc quite well. The "feeling" is that of allowing your computer to fill in for the other players' roles who are missing and for a DM in handling your adventures through this "module". It's a memorable experience and leaves one with the impression they've saved a city's populace and done away with a great evil while struggling, mightily at times, to overcome the odds.
The presentation of Storm of Zehir is one of newer D&D adventure where all the rules are changed. Not only are most of the restrictions removed from your character types but so are those of how you 'view' the adventure this time: we have much more advanced graphics that, oddly, don't do much to enhance the experience, we have a fully controllable camera which often causes more frustration than it solves, and we have a much more open world to be able to roam in. No more enclosed spaces like Phlan to adventure in, this time we're out in the countryside weaving our way in and out of (in real time) wandering creature icons (some of which are pretty bizarre). When combat does occur, it does so completely in real time unless you hit the spacebar, and it does a poor job of recreating the combat rules it as a game itself is supposed to be built on and inspired from. Tactical operations take second place to the "dynamic" feeling that dominates today's RPG design philosophy. This game "feels" more like a simulation of how an adventuring company might go about elevating itself to that of a corporate-driven entity rather than that of one who seeks to become heroes or famous through their deeds. Dungeons are very small, dialog and storyline feel completely different and attempt to achieve more 'epic' status which is also typical for more modern RPG's, and there seems to be a distinct lack of focus in SoZ. That point may not be a fault in many's eyes, but it's certainly a large difference in comparing the "feeling" of the two games.
That's how I'd compare the two on OP's terms. If I'm way off myself, so be it. I would appreciate clarification if I am, however, because if it's now common opinion that two games like PoR and SoZ are presented in the same way, or give off the same "feeling", or even compare favorably, it may be time for me to retire from the world of CRPG's and fade into the days of yore when things just made more sense.
Heh. That sure sounds funny coming from me, doesn't it?
