Probably you are right, although I stand by what I said about dungeon crawlers being simple games, and that means - in my opinion - they should not be demanding.

While I personal enjoyed LoG very much, I shared to some degree SLP2000 assumption on the HW requirements of LoG. ;c)

I think 3 things tricked me into believing my ATI HD3650 would be powerfull enough. Similiar to SLP2000 I was thinking as this is dungeon crawler aimed on the retrogame crowd (which is not known to have the newest and most powerful rigs) it can't be too demanding. Second, it is also sold on godoldgames, come on! Most games here are only low compuational power demanding games from dos or windows era or small indie games also with not to big requirements. And third one, I was up to LoG always able to downscale the resolution and graphical settings to achieve acceptable fps with all games.

But, oh well, maybe it was really time for an new card (have now a HD5670). ;)

> I always thought about dungeon crawlers as a genre that doesn't require modern
> machines. Maybe it's because this genre is old

Many of those old dungeon crawlers were quite demanding on the systems of the time. They only seem low-demand now because a modern cell phone probably has more processing power than those computers did!

Yes, of course you shouldn't, even for those kind of games

Chess engines, even with a basic 2D interface, are very CPU intensive; if you want to make the most out of it, you need good hardware... now take Fritz 12 with the D3D board enabled, and you need and even more powerful PC to run it at it's fullest.

What about the Championship Manager series? up to a few years ago they used an extremely barebone user interface... basically, only menus, charts, lists, no graphics at all, yet you needed a good CPU to manage multiple divisions

The old Ultima Underworld titles? classical crawler game, yet the software 3D engine was quite demanding for the time...

Point is, you can only make, at most, very loose assumptions based on the genre as an abstract concept; it's the actual implementation that really dictate how modest/powerful your machine needs to be, and LoG was always pretty straightforward about requiring at least a decent CPU/GPU couple

Back to the game. I'm just before level 8.

And about one hour ago, I started to dislike this game.

I don't want to use any strong words right now, because I will when I finish it, but right now I can say that this game is one big frustration (timed puzzles, of course).

Games should be hard. Games shouldn't be frustrating.

I know how this game was developed thanks to the devs blog, and for me it looks like they didn't test it enough.

This may be the first time I regret spending money on a game.

I still think that 20fps are not enough for a non-annoying timed puzzle experience in LoG.

Most people on the LoG forum who called the timed puzzles unbeatable and frustrating had low fps.

I have no problem with game running fast on lowest settings, and I finally, after 2 hours managed to beat that puzzle, so that's not the problem. It's just poorlu designed game (at least timed puzzles are). This is dungeon crawler, not arcade game.

Oh, and about specs - I run Kings Bounty on my computer without flawlessly on highest settings. Everyone who played Kings Bounty knows how demanding this game can be, if you have older computer. Level of details and so many things happening on a map at one time, and it was all ok. And Grimrock with very little things happening on a screen should be running on a calculator.

Yeah, I as I told already I was forced myself by LoG to upgrade my graphic card. Would be better if LoG would offer a broader scalability on the hardware (e.g. even lower settings and resolutions). But I can understand the developers, such extended scalability of the engine would be much extra work with little benefit for most of the customers.

I just have to ask. Are there more people that play at 20FPS?

Mine is running at 60FPS and I have to say, I would probably have got stuck in the timed puzzles even at 40FPS... :P

Well, I'm running this game on an Intel HD3000. I guess my FPS hovered slightly above 30 for the most part. Had absolutely no problem with the puzzles once I figured them out. I only experienced some noticeable slowdown in the lowermost dungeon. I think it had to do with the lighting effects. Anyway, I still managed to beat the game just fine.

Because it's reversed! You find a new room quite similar to a previous with a puzzle, it's tempting to try apply again the puzzle solution and when it doesn't work then try the reversed solution. The point is also there's a visual hint that there's something behind a wall so a possible secret.

Myself I found this one well designed but I'm sure I didn't noticed some (I hope not many) as soon as the game is keeping e good balance even when you don't find all secrets but some, then it's ok to not detect all secrets.

Still haven't finished the game but some more comments.

The fights shouldn't be done with static face to face. Well sometimes you can use that approach but it's not how fights are designed. Movements is a key to use to avoid be hit and hit. Even 1vs1 it's not that basic because they implemented well various behaviors to try trick you or not much, to try outrun your maneuvering, the react time and more details.

But the more fun part is how manage fights to make them in a place that suit you, to manage 2 or three enemies, to kill fast enough an enemy before a second come, manage long range enemies and more.

The fights are in fact quite fun, even if on some points they don't match all details and finesses of Dungeon Master. I think that LoG put a bit more focus on managing the enemies in tricky dungeon architecture than the maneuvering of multiple monsters in places where you have the space for maneuvering. LoG use that too but it's more how you'll manage it to fight in a more suited area. The spell system is at the opposite a quite good idea. The magic is more powerful than standard attacks so it's normal that cast a spell is harder.

It makes sense that cast a spell isn't just a simple click but it's a gesture. Look at the series of click required to cast a spell like a casting gesture. It makes sense, it works well, and it put magic on a special side as it should.

I found that gesture approach a lot more friendly and suited to help players learn master it, than an approach like in Arx Fatalis. It's in fact two very similar ideas but implemented in a much more smart and more friendly way in LoG.

I'm with OP

Well ok but OP isn't agree with himself so you are on your own. ;-)

I quote OP last post:
Well Dungeon Master, Land of Lore and other can be very frustrated too and cause nerves. And seriously, nobody finish a bad game.

Ha well, enjoy or not a game is a complicated matter. And for those quite challenging stay positive is an element that influence.