I wanted it to be great but it's pretty poor.

Really regret wasting money on it.

this is the best cRPG made this decade, even with all the bugs.

i agree with InEffect, for me its on par with Planescape:Torment or will be after they fix all the story breaking bugs.

lol

In fairness, the difficulty puts a lot of people off. RPGs aren't generally known for being terribly punishing.

I've found vague, unspecific criticisms of "it's not very good" almost universally equate to "it's too hard."

I don't like cake.

Agreed.

imo the game is only "too hard" on unfair once you take some time to understand the mechanics. and that's just cause unfair damage is too swingy.

I bet 99% of "too hard" people don't use CC spells an don't take outflank on all melees, for example.

I think that is the point though. There is a logic to the RNG systems. The idea is to simulate a level of unprdictability of a given situation. Heck, this is why Gygax's AD&D was so heavily laden with statistical method/tools in play over Arnesons more relaxed design of D&D basic series. That is, the goal of play is to weight your development choices to a given focus or direction and then apply them to a situation (knowning that even a perfect execution comes with the chance of failure.. hence the concept of a critical fail/success), while then adapting to the unpredictable nature that occurs in a given situation. The more wild the swings, the more important each choice and approach becomes in its assessment of that decision tree. I honestly think that the goal of such is to give the feeling of accomplishment that comes from "just squeaking by" a given issue by pulling out every tool and stop measure you have and then praying to the god of luck that it is enough to see you through. I can't speak for others, but there were many a session in pen and paper where the encounter was akin to this nature of experience and I think this concept is very common in older cRPG systems as well (think of it more akin to the tournament modules of old often referred to as "character grinders" in AD&D... eg... "Tomb of Horrors").

OMG, I went into this camp of the "dark lizards" and we are ~level 7.
They rush you and kill you in under maybe 5 turns.

I usually just lead the group over the field, let them melee it out and continue with normal monsters.

After the first shock, I started by pausing the game, buffing everyone with everything we had and cast fireballs as an opener to kill them more quickly while they rush you. No joy.

Then I tried some other stuff like lightning, didn't work.

In the end, I used spiderweb across the whole plane towards me and on top of it let it rain fireballs (well 3, and one every 2 turns or so), we finished off the rest in melee. While Ekundayo dealt massive damage with a bow.

We had 2-3 characters downed, but killed them all :P

p.s. stupid lizards!

I both agree and disagree. Or maybe we are thinking the same thing, but expressing it differently. here is how I understand it:

DnD in basic form was pretty much a dice roller with a narrative attached. perfect for an evening with friends beer and snacks.

then they added ways to minimize "bad luck" through decisions. EG feats, multi-classing, class feats, sub-classes, point-buy systems, etc. this point is where golden age or cRPG takes roots from.

essentially game is a puzzle and you have to come up with tools to solve it. and just like any puzzle it can be solved just by randomly fiddling with it or with structured approach. the harder the puzzle goes the less chance there is at randomly solving it. This one is just happens to be slightly on the harder side, and just like with any puzzle people who can't solve it get annoyed.

I am not sure that the extra features of development were chosen to achieve the result you are attributing to, but I never looked at it that way either so I could be wrong.

From my experience and knowledge of D&D and its inception, basically it was a creation from Chainmail (board game) to which Gygax and Arneson wanted to give more "story and flow" to the game rather than making a game specifically to that of tactical and statistical play. (I apologize if I am "over explaining things you already know, just setting my point and explantation as clearly as possible).

Anyway, They had a disagreement at a point with the creation of the toolset. When it was released, there was a bit of confusion in its use and play. Gygax/Arneson left basic D&D open to the DM to fill in the gaps, adjust and conform the game to their own rule systems as they chose. The problem was that this created a lot of confusion in the game and its play for many. The intent was envisioned between the two in different focuses; Aneson wanted a completely open, shoot from the hip, anything goes, make it as you like without any real major structure or form and Gygax wanted a more stuctured "realism" in its play and design. He understood the importance of freedom to adapt and adjust, but he felt there needed to be a basic set of rules and structure to define the world, environment, etc.... It is basically the mission statement Gygax gives in the release of his AD&D books. So they split from there and the rest is history.

Point is, D&D was simplistic as you say, but it was so in pretty much every area. AD&D provided structure and form. It had physics based rulesets on various elements from environment and statistical swing dmg ratios to that of terminal falling speeds, etc... The point was to provide a robust toolset for GMs to create a realistic world where choice and consequence had real meaning, that failure was an important part of play. Naturally, all of this was at the descretion of the GM as when to apply and enforce, but the point is that AD&D focused on such while D&D was more about the "play" than the "game" if that makes any sense?

These two directions didn't die off initially, in fact they spawned their own directions of play over the years (games like Warhammer, and Whitewolf systems became more RP focused and less "Game system" focused by taking Arnesons design goal to heart). Though in the recent decade, Gygax's intent has been lost while the Aneson focus took over in many PnP systems and cRPG designs (ie it is about the story, the role play, the feeling in play, and providing freedom of choice at all levels, etc.... ).

Anyway, to get more specifically to your comment. The RNG aspects of the game, the inabilty to insure success and rely on luck a bit is not a focus of Arneson design and so naturally, this type of risk and failure based game play is a bit disheartening to some, but it is also what some of us find extremely fullfilling in a game (ie that is, the fails leading up to the sweet success) and was more common in games of old.

Yup. I even like it more than the original IE games.

Yeah, I have to say I am as well... which is surprising... because I was never a huge fan of the 3.5 ruleset.