It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Of all the potentially controversial decisions GOG curation could made, this doesn't seem unreasonable.

I'm all for old-school graphics, but then you need to price your game accordingly. The same goes for gameplay mechanics or outdated user interfaces. If they are not up to nowadays standards, you shouldn't charge 21 € for the game.

Adding "inspired by beloved classics" to the description doesn't make the game automatically good. Those old-school beloved classics are remembered as classics because they were amazing at their time. You need to earn your own reputation. I haven't played the game so I can't tell if it's good or not, but just saying it's comparable to past games is not enough. Let's remember that GOG offers a refund guarantee if the game doesn't work, so they need to test it and support future customers, so releasing any game in the store has a cost in man-hours.

Also, the game is on Early Access because there hasn't been enough testing and they want to wait for feedback from early buyers (admitted by the developer on Steam). GOG can always reconsider when the game is officially finished, updated, balanced and bugs are fixed.
Post edited July 21, 2019 by ConsulCaesar
low rated
avatar
Lifthrasil: Well, GOG 'curation' strikes again. And this time I don't think that it was rejected due to the personality of the dev. He seems reasonable enough. The reasons he quotes are utter BS. Really, GOG? Why do you keep making up stupid reasons? At least you stopped that stupid 'too niche' drivel, after you became the laughing stock of everyone. But your new made up reasons aren't any better.

Why not stick to the truth? 'We don't think that it would sell well at this price' would be an acceptable reason. Or 'Come back when the game is actually finished' would also be an acceptable statement, that I would fully support.
'We reject it because it has no shadows', however, is just another way of saying 'Our curators are morons.'
Even if the dev could conceivably prove that was the actual response from GOG.com. (Headers and other mailer damon nonsense), this is still their word vs a group of people who have learned very well to keep their traps shut.

Bluntly put, this game looks worse than games designed in the early 90s, such as Drakkhen, the aformentioned Might & Magic, and even Mordor the Depths of Dejnol. It is as if there is a good reason nobody makes games like this anymore.
avatar
tomimt: Then again, GOG does seem to try push visual novels as well and they seem to sell even worse.
avatar
Lucumo: That's pretty easy to explain. GOG gives support (or at least they should *cough*) to all the titles and has to test patches and prepare them for the public. VNs don't really get patched, unless they include gameplay. Also, with no gameplay, there is basically nothing to support. So GOG has no real work getting those titles ready to be released as well as no maintenance costs.
I doubt the suspected number of patches really makes a big difference. IME GOG hardly gives support, and IME they don't test things too much. VNs do include some sort of gameplay elements, and they do get patched, or not, just like any other game.

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1880016212#changelog

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1532671653#changelog

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1387720706#changelog

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1907193220#changelog

Just last night I installed a VN and the first thing I had to do was download a patch :)
Post edited July 21, 2019 by clarry
Please notice that the game is in Early Access so it's not actually out yet. And for the most part GOG waits till a game is actually finished before selling it here.
avatar
Lucumo: That's pretty easy to explain. GOG gives support (or at least they should *cough*) to all the titles and has to test patches and prepare them for the public. VNs don't really get patched, unless they include gameplay. Also, with no gameplay, there is basically nothing to support. So GOG has no real work getting those titles ready to be released as well as no maintenance costs.
avatar
clarry: I doubt the suspected number of patches really makes a big difference. IME GOG hardly gives support, and IME they don't test things too much. VNs do include some sort of gameplay elements, and they do get patched, or not, just like any other game.

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1880016212#changelog

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1532671653#changelog

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1387720706#changelog

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1907193220#changelog

Just last night I installed a VN and the first thing I had to do was download a patch :)
Hm? I did say that VNs with gameplay elements get patched. It's pretty common. Usually, VNs without any are fine but I guess non-Japanese versions can bring their own set of problems.
avatar
Yeshu: Please notice that the game is in Early Access so it's not actually out yet. And for the most part GOG waits till a game is actually finished before selling it here.
Full release is August 1, so only a couple of weeks.
avatar
Lifthrasil: 'We reject it because it has no shadows', however, is just another way of saying 'Our curators are morons.'
Or, it's a more polite way of saying "MM3, released in 1991, has obviously superior graphics, including character animations and shadows, so your claim that it's to emulate the style of the 90s is bullshit." Without bringing up that the monster sprites would've been called ugly in the 80s, or the fact that the English is broken from the get go (admittedly common when the devs aren't native English speakers).
Post edited July 21, 2019 by darktjm
avatar
darktjm: Or, it's a more polite way of saying "MM3, released in 1991, has obviously superior graphics, including character animations and shadows, so your claim that it's to emulate the style of the 90s is bullshit." Without bringing up that the monster sprites would've been called ugly in the 80s, or the fact that the English is broken from the get go (admittedly common when the devs aren't native English speakers).
I do agree with the sentiment. Legends of Amberland does seem like one of those games, where the devs have confused the use of far too big pixels as a sign of their grasp of 90s graphical aesthetics, when the games already had begun to utilize a bit more higher resolutions, leaving bigger, but albeit still smaller, pixels than what they use here, to the 80s.

Not that the size of pixels affects the quality of actual gameplay. But those chunky pixels do make the game a bit less appealing than say, something like Might and Magic 3.
avatar
tomimt: Not that the size of pixels affects the quality of actual gameplay. But those chunky pixels do make the game a bit less appealing than say, something like Might and Magic 3.
*grasp*
I think the game looks good and it should have a place here. I also agree the graphics look minimal effort, Dungeon Master came out in 1986 and it looked better plus had animations.

Presentation is important, a few animation frames and a little more effort on monsters and backgrounds would have made all the difference in the world.
avatar
jepsen1977: GoG is selling Daikatana...... let that sink in. GoG is selling one of the worst games ever made Daikatana.

With that said the RPG in question does look very bad and is way overpriced. Hollow Knight only cost 15 and looks far superior. I'm not a big fan of curation and I wouldn't object to letting this game onto GoG but I can only understand needing to make a profit and this looks like a game that will sell very few copies.

Also the Codex consists of people who loves old-skool RPGs to the point of obsession so I wouldn't take their words too seriously here.
FTFY
low rated
avatar
GameRager: If the game plays and feels good I couldn't care less how it looks. ;)
avatar
paladin181: That's well and good to an extent... I play ascii art games like Sanctuary RPG, Rogue, Wasteland and Nethack. If a game is good, it doesn't matter. But this game doesn't look that good, and between the price and the janky visuals, I'll give it a hard pass. GOG agrees, apparently.
You might, but some might like it.....this is how subjectivity works, after all.
low rated
avatar
Lifthrasil: Well, GOG 'curation' strikes again. And this time I don't think that it was rejected due to the personality of the dev. He seems reasonable enough. The reasons he quotes are utter BS. Really, GOG? Why do you keep making up stupid reasons? At least you stopped that stupid 'too niche' drivel, after you became the laughing stock of everyone. But your new made up reasons aren't any better.

Why not stick to the truth? 'We don't think that it would sell well at this price' would be an acceptable reason. Or 'Come back when the game is actually finished' would also be an acceptable statement, that I would fully support.
'We reject it because it has no shadows', however, is just another way of saying 'Our curators are morons.'
The times when gog staffers would make video apologies/interviews and connect with customers & generally treat the forum/store users like kings have passed, as well as the transparency. Now it's business as usual once they got big enough.

avatar
ConsulCaesar: Also, the game is on Early Access because there hasn't been enough testing and they want to wait for feedback from early buyers (admitted by the developer on Steam). GOG can always reconsider when the game is officially finished, updated, balanced and bugs are fixed.
Then GOG should wait to test the finished build BEFORE choosing whether to reject it or not.

avatar
Darvond: Even if the dev could conceivably prove that was the actual response from GOG.com. (Headers and other mailer damon nonsense), this is still their word vs a group of people who have learned very well to keep their traps shut.

Bluntly put, this game looks worse than games designed in the early 90s, such as Drakkhen, the aformentioned Might & Magic, and even Mordor the Depths of Dejnol. It is as if there is a good reason nobody makes games like this anymore.
1. Are you honestly trying to say everyone saying GOG is giving out copy-paste vague bs replies to devs are all lying?

2. I like such looking/playing games....:\
Post edited July 22, 2019 by GameRager
low rated
avatar
jepsen1977: GoG is selling Daikatana...... let that sink in. GoG is selling one of the worst games ever made Daikatana.

With that said the RPG in question does look very bad and is way overpriced. Hollow Knight only cost 15 and looks far superior. I'm not a big fan of curation and I wouldn't object to letting this game onto GoG but I can only understand needing to make a profit and this looks like a game that will sell very few copies.

Also the Codex consists of people who loves old-skool RPGs to the point of obsession so I wouldn't take their words too seriously here.
avatar
paladin181: FTFY
Daikatana is decent enough, without the AI NPCs getting stuck in things and saves turned on.
low rated
avatar
GameRager: Daikatana is decent enough, without the AI NPCs getting stuck in things and saves turned on.
Daikatana is only decent these days thanks to fan mods. At release it was a disaster. I say that as someone who likes Romero and respects what he was trying to accomplish with the game.