htown1980: Is it just me or does that game look a heap like Eschalon... like heaps like Eschalon... like it's almost like the took the art style from Eschalon and made a different game with it...
anyone?
Bearhug_at: Let's see...
minimalistic graphics...check
isometric view...check
turn-based combat
humanoid playing characters...check
familiar monster types...check
familiar spells...check
etc..etc..etc..
Oh my god...scandal!!! Get the lawyers and go after them from using some proofen concept which was used countless times before.
So what?
There's a difference between inspired and true copying. If everything which looks familiar could not be even remotely being re-used then we would still live in caves.
Well that was a surprisingly defensive response that also managed to miss the point of my post.
To explain, it almost looks to me like the
art style is identical to that in Eschalon. By that I don't mean they both have isometric view, familiar monster types and spells, etc. I don't see how anyone could think that
familiar art style could be interpreted as
familiar spells but here we are...
What I mean is, the graphics look eerily similar, like the grass, the trees, the walls, the rocks, the objects almost look like they have been taken directly out of Eschalon (I am guessing they haven't because someone smarter than me would have made that accusation by now). What got me was the spell animations. Watching the fireball type spell in the demo was like I was playing Eschalon again.
The spiderweb games and Eschalon have similar graphics, isometric view, monster types, spells, etc, but to me they don't look anything alike.
I appreciate that there is a difference between inspired and true copying. I was just wondering which side of the line this game fell on.