Review Sword and Sorcery -- Underworld Review

[Elwro]

this only reinforces my query. next time just address the fucking issue.

I guess it should be clear from my review that 1) death is possible; 2) but to avoid instakills the author introduced the "first potentially fatal hit lowers hps to 0" mechanic, known e.g. from some roguelikes; 3) still, the AI is not ruthless in targeting the unconscious characters. Whether the AI would be better off by doing so is another issue, and it's nto clear by any means, since it may be better to make the fighter unconscious than to kill the already unconscious rogue; that's why I wrote "it's all for the better". What part of this was unclear in any way?

 

[Elwro]

I have one issue with the game. 12-hour long grid-based Dungeon Crawler? It's like a demo of a real one.
Then again, I don't have as much time for games as I used to, so this might be an advantage in the end.

Well, my thoughts exactly. Since it's quite short, it's highly possible I'll try it with a different party...

 

[Darth Roxor]

FFS you are all dumb shits. When I mentioned KotC, I didn't mean to compare its graphics to this. What I meant was people's attitudes that were the fucking same (lololo looks like 20 years ago, I ain't playin' this shit)

And suddenly it's some kind of a moral obligation to buy stuff when pointing out people's utter retardation? What in the fuck? Is this some clever recursively ironic inversion of the 'can't judge the game until you like it' shtick? I'm not going to buy this, and I already stated why - in the first fucking post. Perhaps if redding wasn't teh hard and you wouldn't be so busy clicking pictures and ignoring everything else, you'd notice it.

Let me guess you guys don't use electric kettles at home since they are Or would you be exactly the hypocrisy type of guy you mentioned in your post ?

I use an electric kettle, alright. I don't, however, feel the need to use a gold-plated electric kettle. In other words, get the fuck out with your misfired analogy.

 

[felipepepe]

I'm not going to buy this, and I already stated why - in the first fucking post. Perhaps if redding wasn't teh hard and you wouldn't be so busy clicking pictures and ignoring everything else, you'd notice it.

Hummm, let's see your post:

Well, in these games you could see the enemy coming from a distance. Not so in Sword and Sorcery -- Underworld

Sounds like Wizardry 7. The pretty much sole reason that made me raeg when playing it. Meh. Getting surprise buttrapes every 5 seconds is not fun, dammit. A shame, seems like a decent shameless M&M clone.

Wait, what? :shock:

Why, the first guy on the thread pointing out the graphics is now being all hardcore & "no one cares for graphics here". What happened, you just remembered you're in the Codex? Fucking Poser.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Why, the first guy on the thread pointing out the graphics is now being all hardcore & "no one cares for graphics here". What happened, you just remembered you're in the Codex? Fucking Poser.

Do you see me saying the game is completely unplayable because of that one screenshot, you dumb, dicksucking mongrel?

 

[Zdzisiu]

And who is saying that it is completely unplayable? It is playable but just looks a lot like a random mess sticked together.

As far as I can see, (And I didn't read all the comments here), people are displeased by the fact that the graphics are not in one style and are kind out of place here and there rather than they are super ugly and of very low quality.

 

[zeitgeist]

What I meant was people's attitudes that were the fucking same (lololo looks like 20 years ago, I ain't playin' this shit)

But "lololo looks like 20 years ago, I ain't playin' this shit" and "lololo looks like random clipart images haphazardly stuck together by someone with no sense for stylistic unity who likely doesn't care about his game at all beyond hoping someone will pay for it, I ain't playin' this shit" are not the same attitudes. The only thing they have in common is that they both deal with the visual aspect of the game in some way. They analyze it in a different context, and the final reasons for not "playin' this shit" are very different.

 

[Darth Roxor]

lololo looks like random clipart images haphazardly stuck together by someone with no sense for stylistic unity who likely doesn't care about his game at all beyond hoping someone will pay for it, I ain't playin' this shit"

So now you are also telling me that this game has pretty much nothing in it, and the only point of its gameplay is just throwing sucky pictures in your face?

Keep 'em coming, this is just getting better.

 

[Zdzisiu]

Darth, did you buy this game? If so, could you tell us what is good about it? If there are any saving qualities in it ?

 

[Darth Roxor]

HOW IS THAT FUCKING RELEVANT, YOU HAVE A WHOLE FUCKING REVIEW EXPLAINING ITS GOOD QUALITIES RIGHT FUCKING THERE, FUCKSHITBITCHFGSFDS WHY DO I BOTHER WITH YOU IDIOTS?

 

[felipepepe]

Why, the first guy on the thread pointing out the graphics is now being all hardcore & "no one cares for graphics here". What happened, you just remembered you're in the Codex? Fucking Poser.

Do you see me saying the game is completely unplayable because of that one screenshot, you dumb, dicksucking mongrel?

Ahn, don't get mad. One day you will understand that life isn't like Oblivion. You can't start a thread making fun of graphics and then start yelling "graphics whore", because people will see that.

Now be a grown-up and stand for your words. No one said it was unplayable, just distracting (A LOT). And expensive.

Darth, did you buy this game? If so, could you tell us what is good about it? If there are any saving qualities in it ?

Don't bother. It seems he was to busy raging about himself on the Codex to actually play any game in the last 3 years.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I'm BR. hUEAHUAheHAuehUae yourself.

Indeed

 

[Excidium]

How very codexian of you all.

 

[Charles-cgr]

Well, in these games you could see the enemy coming from a distance. Not so in Sword and Sorcery -- Underworld

Sounds like Wizardry 7. The pretty much sole reason that made me raeg when playing it. Meh. Getting surprise buttrapes every 5 seconds is not fun, dammit. A shame, seems like a decent shameless M&M clone.

In all fairness you forgot that part Felipe.

I reduced the occurence of surprise encounters btw. Did you play recently Darth?

 

[felipepepe]

In all fairness you forgot that part Felipe.

True, I will even edit the post, but my point still stands. He started all the graphics complains he "hates" so much.

 

[Virtual Vice]

I dont mean to get into the art/immersion/graphic whoredom discussion.

But if you are looking for an indie rpg similar to the bard's tale or the very early wizardrys there is this:

http://www.devilwhiskey.com/

Not my cup of tea personally, but I heard good things about it.
The only blob games I was able to enjoy were M&M 6 an 7 and wizardry 8 which were a bit more developed.

But devil whiskey is indie, an it fits the style of the game discussed. Just a suggestion.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

There are some interesting opinions here. Games are a visual medium? What the fuck, no they aren't. Unless you don't count word games, interactive fiction, spoken games, and (deliciously ironically) role playing games...

And to be quite frank, the bitching about graphics here is hilariously disproportional to the point where everybody just sounds like a group of crying children. I mean really, are these actually the prioirities of people who claim to enjoy games? Really? I'm struggling to grasp this. Nobody here has even played the thing and yet it can essentially be totally dismissed based on some screenshots? Ok. Fine. I respectfully decline your retarded priorities.

And yes, I bought it.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

YOU'RE

ALL

WHORES

 

[Topher]

There are some interesting opinions here. Games are a visual medium? What the fuck, no they aren't. Unless you don't count word games, interactive fiction, spoken games, and (deliciously ironically) role playing games...

And to be quite frank, the bitching about graphics here is hilariously disproportional to the point where everybody just sounds like a group of crying children. I mean really, are these actually the prioirities of people who claim to enjoy games? Really? I'm struggling to grasp this. Nobody here has even played the thing and yet it can essentially be totally dismissed based on some screenshots? Ok. Fine. I respectfully decline your retarded priorities.

And yes, I bought it.

Really. Did you really think that I was talking about anything else but video games on this VIDEO GAME forum?!? Video games are a visual medium.

I haven't played the game but how was I supposed to decide rather or not I wanted to play it... buy it blindly?!? I can't speak for everyone but I'm dismissing this game because it hasn't given me a single reason not to, the graphics didn't entice me to try it out but neither has any aspect of the gameplay and I haven't heard any glowing recommendations from other posters. Any one of those things would have convinced me to at least check out the demo but it's given me nothing. So I'll ask again, what aspect of this game should make me want to try it out let alone drop $20 on it?

 

[latexmonkeys]

HOW IS THAT FUCKING RELEVANT, YOU HAVE A WHOLE FUCKING REVIEW EXPLAINING ITS GOOD QUALITIES RIGHT FUCKING THERE, FUCKSHITBITCHFGSFDS WHY DO I BOTHER WITH YOU IDIOTS?

Don't bother.

This place is a lost cause.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

Really. Did you really think that I was talking about anything else but video games on this VIDEO GAME forum?!? Video games are a visual medium.

Unless you're defining 'video games' to mean 'games which rely on graphics' (in which case you're right in the most pointlessly tautological sense) then this isn't true. Zork, for example - and all the other games in its genre - are perfectly playable by blind people using voice recognition and text-to-speech software without any loss of experience whatsoever. Games are a communicative medium, but that simply doesn't boil down to visuals.

If anything the fact people make this mistake reinforces the point. Gamers these days are so tied up in the graphical aspects of the medium they simply forget about or dismiss other perfectly viable computer games that don't rely on them at all.

Your other comments are a little besides the point - if you are of the opinion 'the game doesn't interest me' then fine, nothing has grabbed your attention. My point is simply that graphics are only one part of that impression, while in this thread they utterly dominate. How much discussion has focussed on the points brought up in Elwro's review, and how many posts are bitching about the graphics seen in the screenshots? Seems pretty fucking inbalanced to me.

 

[Jim Cojones]

I can understand why someone refuses to play games with graphics that are below his standards. But claiming that the game has bad visuals so it shouldn't cost as much as 20$ (while f.e. Dragon Age 2 costs 50$) is absurd. The graphics are only one of many aspects that make a quality game and they are not even close to being the most important. Furthermore, if you absolutely cannot stomach the style of S&S, you wouldn't buy it if it was sold for 1$. Hell, you wouldn't play it for free. If you can, and you're a fan of that style of gameplay, then I cannot imagine why wouldn't you buy it even if it was much more than 20 bucks (well, unless you don't have much spare money for entertainment but that is completely irrelevant issue).

This game costs more than 200$ and many gamers would also believe it's hideous. But it's a complex game targeted at small but not overly saturated niche so it's expected not to be cheap. Situation of blob dungeon crawlers is similar. How many blobs were published on PC in the last decade? Three, I guess; Wizardry 8, Devil Whiskey and S&S. Witch such huge competition. it's perfectly reasonable for its developer to be able to dictate any price he wants.

Really. Did you really think that I was talking about anything else but video games on this VIDEO GAME forum?!? Video games are a visual medium.

Only consoletards play video games. Übermensch prefer computer games.

 

[bobo_monkey]

I propose a new rule for the Codex

Ban anybody who brings up "quality of graphics" in any post (concering a computer rpg game) anytime.
Please.
I beg you.
I will support the codex and donate via paypal 1 dollar everytime you ban one of this little shit crap fucking dick loser wanker rpg wannabe consolefag jrpging larping cockmongering whatevercantthinkofanotherinsultbecauseiamtooangrywiththelittshitsingly FUFCJKDIKFUCKDDUIDKCFDFUCKDFUFCKDFUFKC DIUE DIEDIECIDEID EIDIEID EIDIE DIE DIEIDIEIDIED ban themP!!!!


I am serious about the donation. Prove they are gone, show the real details of their account/name/posts/history of their whining shittalk and the money is yours.

 

[Topher]

Really. Did you really think that I was talking about anything else but video games on this VIDEO GAME forum?!? Video games are a visual medium.

Unless you're defining 'video games' to mean 'games which rely on graphics' (in which case you're right in the most pointlessly tautological sense) then this isn't true. Zork, for example - and all the other games in its genre - are perfectly playable by blind people using voice recognition and text-to-speech software without any loss of experience whatsoever. Games are a communicative medium, but that simply doesn't boil down to visuals.

If anything the fact people make this mistake reinforces the point. Gamers these days are so tied up in the graphical aspects of the medium they simply forget about or dismiss other perfectly viable computer games that don't rely on them at all.

Your other comments are a little besides the point - if you are of the opinion 'the game doesn't interest me' then fine, nothing has grabbed your attention. My point is simply that graphics are only one part of that impression, while in this thread they utterly dominate. How much discussion has focussed on the points brought up in Elwro's review, and how many posts are bitching about the graphics seen in the screenshots? Seems pretty fucking inbalanced to me.

Wrong. The fact that Zork and other text adventure games are on computer doesn't stop them for being anything more then books that got transcribed. So that makes 99.999999999% of computer games reliant on visuals hence making them a visual medium... fucking moron. As for the rest of my comments they aren't directed at you or anyone else in this thread save for the developer himself. I figured it might be helpful for him to have the perspective of a potential customer who decided not to buy his product.

*I'll give you the fact that graphics has needlessly dominated this topic. Though by all accounts the gameplay seems to be par for the course, if not a little lacking, so that doesn't leave a whole lot to talk about.

But it's a complex game targeted at small but not overly saturated niche so it's expected not to be cheap. Situation of blob dungeon crawlers is similar. How many blobs were published on PC in the last decade? Three, I guess; Wizardry 8, Devil Whiskey and S&S. Witch such huge competition. it's perfectly reasonable for its developer to be able to dictate any price he wants.

Which is why I agree that he should keep the price point at $20.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

Wrong. The fact that Zork and other text adventure games are on computer doesn't stop them for being anything more then books that got transcribed. So that makes 99.999999999% of computer games reliant on visuals hence making them a visual medium... fucking moron.

Er, right. "It is it is because I say so and your counterexamples are wrong and don't count nerrrr! Plus ur a moran!" Ah codex, how I do love thee.

Fucking lol at "books that got transcribed" though, what is this I don't even. So the existence of 'gameplay' is apparently completely irrelevant to whether something counts as a 'video game', while graphics are a necessity? Really dude, you could not have proven my point better.