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

×
Fellow Might and Magic fans,

For those of you who played MM1 and MM2 and enjoyed them, there is a (relatively) new indie RPG in the same style as those games (but with full automapping) that you may be interested to try. It's called Underworld, and it costs $20 but there is a free demo. It's been getting some good reviews from a few websites. You can grab the demo here:

http://www.classicgamesremade.com/

I have purchased the game but haven't actually played it yet as I have a big backlog of games, so I can't comment on it myself. But I think the creator is working on a sequel so he could probably use a few more sales to help fund it. So I figured I'd share.

I am in no way affiliated with the game, in case you were wondering. Just thought some of you might be interested.
Comic sans.
Reminded me of The Dark Spire (or tower cant remember well now lol) on the nintendo ds.
Some time about a million years ago there was a series of games called Yendorian Tales. I believe there were 4 games in the series (I, II, III and then something after III but not called "IV"). I think they are lost to the ravages of time, unfortunately.
avatar
TheJoe: Comic sans.
Seconded. Of all the fonts in all the world.
Hey all,

There's a new review of this game at RPGCodex:

http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=223

Here's an older review at RPGWatch (this was before the game was patched):

http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=155

And yes, apparently the game does indeed include Comic Sans. I apologize to those offended by this.
huu... Well I don't know how much I will play this game since I am all loaded with games and barely got time as it is, BUT...Am I the only who notice that all the monsters avatars and such are copied from google's image search? lolz

Kinda makes the game look cheap...
I don't really care about graphics, but I have to be honest, these make a VERY bad first impression. If he didn't give enough of a damn about his own game to at least make it look presentable (in the sense that Avernum is presentable by being internally consistent and staying out of your way), why should I trust that he gave a damn about the gameplay either?

They may not make them like this on PC any more, but handheld consoles and cell phones still get 'em, and even the smallest independent ones at least make an attempt to be visually coherent and use things like proper transparency and window placement. And this kind of visual laziness never would have been accepted back in the day either... they did the absolute best with what they had.

He's not an artist, and I get that, but there's just no excuse for this. Not only are the art assets completely incompatible with each other, he doesn't even organize them properly on the screen! That's not something that requires a budget or artistic talent, just the desire to do things right. Claiming "it's all about the gameplay" is just an excuse for laziness here, and since it's a rallying cry for older or indie games that are legitimately great I guess he's hoping it'll convince some people to misinterpret this laziness as some kind of bizarre strength ("if it's this ugly it must play REALLY WELL").

If he can't be bothered to care, why should I? It may be one of the only games of its type on the PC, but it's not one of the only modern games of its type period (hell, a new Wizardry is coming to PSN later this year), so if he's hoping that sheer desperation for old-school first person grid based RPGs will convince people, it isn't going to work on me.

tl;dr: Graphics don't matter, but it's not a good sign for the rest of the game if the developer didn't even bother to try.
I'll play the demo at some point before I comment or review it too much, but in the vein of other comments so far... Ehm, it's giving me a kind of unpleasant Limbo of the Lost vibe. I mean, since I can't do art, I work in text adventures; there's always a way around one's weaknesses.

I don't know, it just doesn't sit quite right with me.
Post edited April 09, 2011 by ostpreussen
avatar
ostpreussen: I'll play the demo at some point before I comment or review it too much, but in the vein of other comments so far... Ehm, it's giving me a kind of unpleasant Limbo of the Lost vibe. I mean, since I can't do art, I work in text adventures; there's always a way around one's weaknesses.

I don't know, it just doesn't sit quite right with me.
You said the same thing I was trying to say much clearer.

I've seen comments on this game elsewhere saying "if you expect modern graphics, look elsewhere" as though the complaint is that it doesn't have enough HDR and bump mapping. Honestly, I would have rather seen this look like Wizardry than it does now. Hell, Dark Spire on the DS has a wireframe mode and that's how I played the entire game, mostly because I found the "main" graphics too distracting. At least imitating Wizardry would be a coherent style and have some "retro cred" for those who care about that sort of thing, and as a bonus it would keep every screenshot from looking like a little kid's Photoshop mockup.

For what it's worth, I downloaded the demo. I have to admit, I'm curious to see if the laziness extends beyond the surface. I'll report back later with my opinions on it.

Edit: well, I gave it a shot.

The mouse stutters and lags, and sometimes doesn't notice clicks (except for times when it inexplicably changes back to the Windows mouse, like when you want to confirm a created character). Little white spots are everywhere in the graphics, presumably left over from attempting to erase the background of an image and not bothering to finish the job. He forgot to draw grass for the square you're standing on, so it's just a green block, and none of the graphics scale up properly so everything is a mess of pixels and weird proportions (a proper scaling routine would have easily solved this). Everything seems to take too long to execute, most of the time because it's pulling up a generic sound effect. Battles are a pain in the ass, mostly because the main battle screen gives you precious little usable info while still having a ton of empty space. Life bars are used in lieu of numbers, which can only be viewed on a separate screen, and god help you if you need to cast a bunch of spells because you are given no information on resources for that.

There's also no animation (obviously, since it's just a bunch of random images from various sources), and things are frequently either out of aspect ratio or improperly placed on the screen. The white border surrounding text boxes doesn't connect properly all the way around (nitpicking? of course, but it's symptomatic of how little the developer cares because this is literally a twenty second fix and yet it's left as it is anyway). The sound has not been properly balanced. The engine seems to have trouble using apostrophes in text, leading to things like "Brad s turn." The text box is massive with a very tiny font, yet we still get sections where we have to advance the text a sentence at a time, to no great effect. The writing itself isn't particularly impressive... I can't comment on the quality of the overall scenario of course, but descriptions and dialog are bland.

The actual underlying mechanics seem solid enough, if completely unimaginative. I didn't see anything offensive here, but I also didn't see anything particularly inspiring. I can't comment on the quality of the world design except to say that the demo didn't show off much of interest and has no character.

There may be some workable mechanics somewhere here (maybe later levels start to show something interesting), but this is not a $20 game, it's a proof of concept that could, eventually, result in an actual product with a lot of work. As it exists right now, it does exactly nothing better than the classics that inspired it, and does most things significantly worse.

To make an analogy, these kind of indie RPGs are like low budget films. I'm forgiving of a lot, and understand that the best actors aren't going to be available and that the best equipment won't always be on hand, but I still expect the camera operator to keep the damn thing in focus. If you can't even be bothered to do that then you're not "indie," you're just lazy or out of your depth.
Post edited April 09, 2011 by sethsez