Review RPG Watch reviews Geneforge 4

[Ivy Mike]

Good Art can help a lot to immerse you into the gameworld, to make you eventually fall in love with it. That has nothing to do with the "omg bloom bump mapping lolz" crap people like to pull out of their asses. Good artwork has nothing to do with fancy technology. There's a reason I'm not playing text adventures.

Sure it can, nobody's saying otherwise. The debate was about the stupidity of not playing a game because of the graphics when the content more than makes up for the lack of shiny stuff. Immersion? Are you telling me immersion is dependent on graphics? Do you read books? Text adventures have some of the best "immersion" there is - and if you don't play text adventures because of the lack of graphics you're really missing out on some good stuff.

 

[Gwendo]

Good Art can help a lot to immerse you into the gameworld, to make you eventually fall in love with it. That has nothing to do with the "omg bloom bump mapping lolz" crap people like to pull out of their asses. Good artwork has nothing to do with fancy technology. There's a reason I'm not playing text adventures.

Sure it can, nobody's saying otherwise. The debate was about the stupidity of not playing a game because of the graphics when the content more than makes up for the lack of shiny stuff. Immersion? Are you telling me immersion is dependent on graphics? Do you read books? Text adventures have some of the best "immersion" there is - and if you don't play text adventures because of the lack of graphics you're really missing out on some good stuff.

The problem is that text is more imersive than bad graphics. A good description is better than a poor graphic background. The text is there to guide the readers imagination. Bad graphics make it hard to abstract and use imagination. You can't ignore what you see. Don't compare the level of detail of a text with (bad) graphics.

Conclusion: if it has graphics, there should be good graphics.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Yeah, and I'm not arguing otherwise. The point was, and still is, that it's questionable to not to play a game when the content more than makes up for "bad" graphics. Especially when the game in question contains all that which other current cRPGs lack. And who's compairing anything? Nedrah stated he/she didn't play text adventures. Going by the context of his post, it's because of the lack of graphics. That's what I replied to. Finally, I disagree with your conclusion since that would marginalise a whole lot of games that arn't upp to snuff in the graphics department. Such as Avernum, Geneforge, Gearhead etc, etc.

 

[Roqua]

Bullshit. You guys are killing me with your stupid catch phrases. Whens the last time any of you played a text adventure? Don't say "if it has graphics" when every game you play has them. Should books have pictures to help our precious immersion? No. Stop being idiotic. Video games are games. Chess is a good game and is good if you play with generic, crappy looking pieces, or fancy custom made pieces crafted with love and care.

The game play and the story, setting, etc being interesting should be what sucks you in, regardless of graphics. Take, for instance, Tugador (or however you spell it) and the alliance with rome: shit graphics but so interesting that you can't help but being sucked in or immersed. But of course that will never happen if you are a graphics whore since you'll never give it a try.

Saying "if a game has graphics they should be good graphics" nullifies any game that can't afford to have good graphics, and undermines any developer that has his priorites straight (gameplay over pooring money and resources into graphics). Just say that you are a graphics whore and stay the fuck out of discussions where normal people that actually like games are talking.

 

[Section8]

I think it would be amazing to see what an indie developer like this could do with a 500,000-1,000,000 dollar budget and no publisher issues.

Sooo... anyone have a spare 500k to a million they'd "entrust" to me?

 

[Joe Krow]

Section8-

You make some good points. (And the hive seems to agree with you... no suprise there).

Its not that i'm opposed to indies per se and, for me, the "snowball" you predict would certainly be welcome. However, I think rpgs, even independant ones, should already be well beyond what is currently being produced.

To illustrate my point comapre SpiderWeb to Paradox games. SpiderWeb is shit. The enire indie rpg scene is shit. No budgets. No teams. A fan base that will accept the same regurgitated drivel time and again. We are as large a niche, no? Where is our Paradox? After decades of development, at times even carrying the gaming industry, rpg fans are now settling for what some hobbyist throws together in his basement? Not me brother. I expect more, even from the indies.

 

[elander_]

Bethesda can be criticized for acquiring the Fallout name and not making a Fallout game, not even giving a chance to a game that sold very well and was considered a milestone in rpg evolution in it's time. In other words committing an artistic murder, trying to make the funeral to Fallout before players have a chance to try it again in a modern engine and decide for themselves if Fallout's gameplay is good or bad. This is the kind of people (not just Bethesda but all big budget devs) you expect to reason with or impress with some bitching act? Then you are truly a dumbfuck.

 

[Special_Can]

No budgets. No teams.

And that's Spiderweb's fault?

A fan base that will accept the same regurgitated drivel time and again.

Aren't you talking about every game company, the gaming business in general?

 

[Dhruin]

This isn't an attack on Paradox as such.

...regurgitated...

You mean like...

Europa Universalis
Europa Universalis II
Europa Universalis III

Hearts of Iron
Hearts of Iron II
Hearts of Iron III


Europa Universalis: Crown of the North
The Two Thrones (which is the same thing!)

Diplomacy (ooh, very original)

 

[Fez]

You forgot the expansions too.

 

[Woetohice]

__

 

[Roqua]

Section8-

You make some good points. (And the hive seems to agree with you... no suprise there).

Its not that i'm opposed to indies per se and, for me, the "snowball" you predict would certainly be welcome. However, I think rpgs, even independant ones, should already be well beyond what is currently being produced.

To illustrate my point comapre SpiderWeb to Paradox games. SpiderWeb is shit. The enire indie rpg scene is shit. No budgets. No teams. A fan base that will accept the same regurgitated drivel time and again. We are as large a niche, no? Where is our Paradox? After decades of development, at times even carrying the gaming industry, rpg fans are now settling for what some hobbyist throws together in his basement? Not me brother. I expect more, even from the indies.

Id spiderweb made more money vogel can spend more on the games. But since most of you are graphics whores and pirates, the cash probably isn't flowing in.

How is spiderweb's games, which present the same, if not better, gameplay as nwn and most other big budget games (minus the RT combat) but has worse graphics, drivel?

Stop trying to make it spiderweb's fault and not you being a graphic whore. If the only real barrier to people playing spiderweb games is the graphics, the only logical explenation is they are graphics whores. Maybe less so then some, but still graphics whores. If you don't like the gameplay, explain how it could be better. Maybe some action combat? Scaled monsters? A sniper rifle and a strafe button? Incindarary bullets and a chainsaw? Maybe fully voice acted dialogue?

Tell you what, I bet if more people played and paid for vogel's games, and it was cost effective fo4r him to improve his graphics, he would. But as of right now, it isn't, thank God. It gives me a dirty feeling knowing that I would be playing the same game as a bunch of pansy ass retarded graphic whores who can;t understand that an indie devloper shouldn't spend more making a game than he will make selling it.

What it seems like you demand from independant games is a mainstream game, wouldn't it make more sense to stick to triple AAA titles for you?

 

[Volourn]

"which present the same, if not better, gameplay as nwn and most other big budget games (minus the RT combat) but has worse graphics, drivel?"

No, and bullshit.

I already explained why Vogel's games are 'drivel' well.. that's exaggeration; they're not THAT bad; but pretty damn bad), and it has NOTHING to do with graphics but piss poor writing, game play, dialogue, and combat.


R00fles!

 

[Roqua]

"which present the same, if not better, gameplay as nwn and most other big budget games (minus the RT combat) but has worse graphics, drivel?"

No, and bullshit.

I already explained why Vogel's games are 'drivel' well.. that's exaggeration; they're not THAT bad; but pretty damn bad), and it has NOTHING to do with graphics but piss poor writing, game play, dialogue, and combat.


R00fles!

Crap: Geneforge has better combat, better character development, better writing, better story line, better setting, and better everything than nwn but graphics. It even has faction and choices, and most of all doesn't have endless hordes of barrels needing to be smashed or something needing to be picked every 1.3 seconds. G4 decided to skip character generation, but the writting and story are actually interesting. The only way you could possibly think nwn had good combat, or better combat than any game, is if you only compaired it to minesweeper or a painting.

I'm not a huge fan of either game, but there is zero possibility that any sane person could compare and contrast nwn and genforge (minus the superficial nonsense like graphics, voice acting, anaimated cutscenes, and of course the whole mod making think nwn has and the mp option) just gameplay vs. gameplay, story vs story, writing vs writing, and combat vs combat, choices vs choices, consiquence vs consiquence, faction vs. faction, ect vs etc and say nwn is a better game.

Geneforge doesn't even have close to what I'd call good combat (toee, ja, roa, etc) and it still manages to beat a game with 80 billion times the budget.

I would bet anything that if bioware remade all 4 genforges with the nwn engine you would have a new favorite series.

I don't see how the writing or story is bad in the avernums, especially compared to nwn, but to each his own i guess.

 

[Volourn]

"It even has faction and choices"

And? So does NWN.

Face it, Geneforge sucks.


"I would bet anything that if bioware remade all 4 genforges with the nwn engine you would have a new favorite series."

No.

 

[obediah]

Crap: Geneforge has better combat,...than nwn

Yeah, just like masturbating with sandpaper is better than masturbating with sandpaper that's on fire.

 

[Roqua]

The combat it geneforge is pretty staple TB, choice-light Tb. Its uninspired but so much better than the non-thinking, hands-off, mindless, retarded combat in nwn. If neverwinter night was a grill it would be the one with the comercial "set it and forget it."

I guess if you don't like to participate in combat that would be a good choice for you, but I'd even take a mindless click-fest like diablo over it, since it actually needs player involvement somewhat.

 

[k_bits]

Bullshit. You guys are killing me with your stupid catch phrases. Whens the last time any of you played a text adventure?

Within the last 12 months. I try to get around to playing the more promising IF contest winners. "FailSafe" was fucking amazing.

O/T
And speaking of text - the ASCII graphics in ADOM are fucking cool, franky. I say this as a graphics whore. The fire pyramid (or whatever the fuck it was called) was a wonderful example. There's another ASCII rpg that simulates rain and weather conditions that looks bitching as well.

Take, for instance, Tugador (or however you spell it) and the alliance with rome: shit graphics but so interesting that you can't help but being sucked in or immersed. But of course that will never happen if you are a graphics whore since you'll never give it a try.

Teudogar has pretty freaking stellar graphics, actually.

Anyway...

I get the feeling that the whole Geneforge argument is not about graphics. It's about serving up virtually the same game 4-8 times in a row and expecting people to go ga-ga over it.

 

[Roqua]

No, the people that went ga-ga over the first goldbox game went ga-gao or at least go=go over the rest. I would creme my pants if ToEE came out with a part 2-20 with the exact same gameplay and little too no new content. I'm looking forward to keep on the borderland as much as aod, exhalon, etc. I would scream like a NKOTB fan if Drakanseng was really RoA4, and everyone normal here would much rather fo3 use the same engine and mechanics as fo1 and 2.

If you like spiderweb's games, you like them. If you don't, fine. But if your not willing to try them because of the graphics don't fucking chime in with your unwanted opinion.

If you have other problems with the game, please, explain and expand on what they are.

 

[k_bits]

There's no need to insult anyone. I stated my opinion clearly. It has nothing to do with graphics. I like 'shitty graphics' just fine, even as a so called graphics whore.

My problem with geneforge series (as someone else metioned previously) is that Vogel has basically released the same fucking game four times yet expects people not to notice.

The graphics stay the same, the gameplay mechanics stay the same, the themes stay the same. Where's the progress? What's different? It isn't going into the graphics, it isn't going into the combat system so WTF is going on?

And yet, people laud them because...what?

 

[Dhruin]

I already explained why Vogel's games are 'drivel' well.. that's exaggeration; they're not THAT bad; but pretty damn bad), and it has NOTHING to do with graphics but piss poor writing, game play, dialogue, and combat.

No you didn't. You muttered something about quests from a game you couldn't specifically identify from years ago. Not a compelling argument, or even a coherent one.

I get the feeling that the whole Geneforge argument is not about graphics. It's about serving up virtually the same game 4-8 times in a row and expecting people to go ga-ga over it.

Bullshit. Half the people using that line haven't fully played one Spiderweb title, let alone more. There's a big difference between a genuine comment like "I really enjoyed G1 and G2 but I'd like to see more active combat skills before I play a new one" to disingenuous crap like "why aren't they like Paradox with all of their original titles like Europa Universalis I, II, III, IV and V?" or "I don't play hobby games from some guy's basement".

What's different? New scenarios, quests, characters, stories. G4 has a better stealth model with different traps and forcefields. Good gameplay is good gameplay. There's plenty of room for improvement but so there is in Fallout, and I wouldn't complain if the Fallout engine was used to create a few more games with exactly the same gameplay.

You don't have to be excited but don't try to pull the wool over my eyes by telling me all the people in this thread have fully played half a dozen Spiderweb titles and really need something new. There might be a couple (and a couple more who genuinely don't like the gameplay) but the rest are really hung up on the graphics and have never actually played a Spiderweb title beyond firing up a demo or two and going "That sucks. Where's the specular lighting?"

 

[Amasius]

My problem with geneforge series (as someone else metioned previously) is that Vogel has basically released the same fucking game four times yet expects people not to notice.

The graphics stay the same, the gameplay mechanics stay the same, the themes stay the same. Where's the progress? What's different? It isn't going into the graphics, it isn't going into the combat system so WTF is going on?

And yet, people laud them because...what?

Progress is the death of RPGs. Not necessarily so, but exept the visuals what is better nowadays in RPGs than it was 10 years ago? The so-called progress led to the abhorrence that are Action-RPGs. :evil:

Spiderweb games are technically 15 years behind and even than the artwork of some games was much better, but they have conserved what most modern RPGs are missing. But what really intrigues me about the Geneforge series is the setting - its not the same generic fantasy scenariy with orcs and elfes like we have seen it again and again and the scifi/fantasy blend is different from anything I have read or played before. Name me a RPG with less clichés.

 

[Jed]

I think that this thread disproves the existence of the so-called Hive-Mind and proves that this site is going down the shitter in general.

I've played the first three Geneforge games and am looking quite forward to finishing the fourth when I have the time to invest. And speaking as someone who's actually played them, they do improve--quite a bit--despite the lies of smug dummies like Volourn, et al. who have never played the games.

They are some of the best cRPGs to come out in the '00s. I would say that they are closest to Fallout and Arcanum in terms of gameplay, writing, setting, and atmosphere.

Simply put, if you people actually like cRPGs, there is no reason you shouldn't play every game in the Geneforge series. (#3 is the weak link, however, should feel the need to skip one.) So shut up and download the demo for GF1 and play it through before you start your whining. And honestly, if the graphics prevent you from enjoying the game, you really need to turn in your Hive-Mind card and register at a Mass Effect fansite.

Game over. Period. I like Ruffles potato chips from a can.

 

[Volourn]

"they do improve--quite a bit--despite the lies of smug dummies like Volourn, et al. who have never played the games."

Except, i did play the game. the demosa re supposedly the beginning of the game. Theyw ere absolutely horrid. Nothing worthwhile at all. And, graphics wer enot the problem. They were more thana cceptable. It was the shitty non exisiting writing, the horrid non quests, the bland, crappy, shitty, easy combat that people here only approve of because it's turn base. It's too bad it's amongst the worst turn based combat systems EVER. POR2 horrible at that.

But, yeah, I knhow. The free demos, which SW supposeldy uses to sell their game actually isn't representative of the actual games themselves.

R00fles! L0LLERZ!



"No you didn't. You muttered something about quests from a game you couldn't specifically identify from years ago. Not a compelling argument, or even a coherent one."

Sure, i did. It's not my fault the game(s) were soc rappy to be nearly forgettable outside of the inherent shittiness. I cna't point out super specifics of POR2 either; but that doesn't change it was crap.

On top of that, i don't see the pro side going into specifics, Mr. Hippocrap. All iread is that it has superlkative combat,w riting, dialogue, and role-playing. Share an exmaple of this 'awesome' writing, and characterization, and awesome combat. HAHAHAA!!

Again, contrary what morons like Jed and the other goofball, it's not the graphics holding SW games down (for me); it's trhe utter shitty combat and role-playing, and writing. That's why AOD looks pretty damn goodd epsites it's 'less than AAA graphics.

Game over.

LONMG LIVE AOD! DOWN WITH SW!

L0L0L0L0L0L0L0LLIPOP

 

[Shagnak]

I don't have a lot to contribute except...Avernum 1 still rocks! Plus those early games support windowed-mode, which is great for when I want to play something while I wait for the build server to do its thing when I'm doing an extra bit of work from home.

One day I'll get to the Geneforges (I played the most of the demo of the first one, thought it was great), but I feel guilty if I don't finish an already purchased earlier effort. And with the bite-sized chunks I take these days...

I must admit I quite like olde-style games that have a party based aspect. Is this totally missing from the Geneforge games? In the first one I seem to remember having "shaped" (or whatever they called them) creatures tagging along, but no supplementary chars.