Avernum 6: Critique

[lukematt]

POSITIVE

• Lots of excellent quests
• Mechanics (inventory, skills, availability of merchants, etc.) are fine
• Overall, Avernum 6 is fun.

NEGATIVE

• The game is TOO long. I was ready to finish after killing Ghavassa-Oss in Formello.
• "Repairing the Great Portal" is too difficult. Even with cheats, which I needed to use, this final mission is TOO long, tedious, and NOT FUN.

[Tirien]

Wait, you thought it was TOO long? I thought it was short. Then again, I consider 90+ for main quest to be medium length, not counting sidequests. So of course I would consider A6 to be short. Gamers these days...

[lukematt]

Originally Posted By: Custom PDNs for all!

Wait, you thought it was TOO long? I thought it was short. Gamers these days...

I'm old enough to bend you over my knee. I was playing RPGs when you were still in Heaven, begging God to let you go down and show everyone how it's done.

Seriously, compared to the many RPGs that I've finished, Avernum 6 seemed long. Maybe not in terms of number of quests, but at least in terms of my mood. After killing Ghavassa-Oss in Formello, I found myself repeatedly mumbling, "Not more quests" as Fort Dunvo and Fort Draco opened up, "Not more quests" as I had to complete two difficult quests for Melanchion.

Quality of the experience is more important than length.

[lukematt]

I want to whine some more about the "Repairing the Great Portal" quest.

 

The "Crystal Mover" NPCs on my side (ha ha ha) were worthless. After one spawns, he runs right past viable enemies to meet at some central spot with other crystal movers, who appear to be gossiping or planning a coup or whatever else because they sure aren't helping to fight the waves of enemies.

 

[Yeah, I know, they are crystal movers. Is that a crystal each carries? Sure looks like a sword to me. If it's a sword, why aren't they using it for something besides scratching their backs?]

 

Speaking about "waves of enemies", guess why I stopped playing RTS (real-time strategy) games after a very short foray into that genre...because the designers seemed to rely simply upon the (brainless) approach of throwing waves of enemies at the player. With a little more thought [but, doctor, my head hurts], the game designers could have devised various interesting ways to challenge the player.

 

Now, whenever I see waves of enemies, like in Avernum 6's "Repairing the Great Portal" quest, I have an involuntary Pavlovian response of foaming at the mouth followed by screaming, throwing objects, and just flat-out rage.

 

Why can't the "Repairing the Great Portal" quest be changed so that the quest finishes as soon as a "Crystal Mover" NPC reaches the portal? It does not work that way now. According to my experience and the walkthroughs that I read, "Repairing the Great Portal" now has a set number of enemy waves.

[MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics]

So you hate enemy waves.

DEAL WITH IT.

 

I've also played RPGs for a long time before these games, and let me tell you this:you should not compare the two.

 

RPGs are meant to be shorter, but these games are not RPGs, they only have some RPG elements in them.

 

If you don't like these games, go play actual RPGs instead, don't whine.

 

You're practically saying that all games that you don't like should be altered for you (to be more RPG-like, in this case), which is greedy and disrespectful.

 

You probably think that you're above others because you played RPGs for a long time.

Well, you're not.

[Jerakeen]

MMXPERT, everybody is entitled to express his opinion. Game critiques are nothing new here, and often lead to interesting discussion. There's no need to respond with a personal attack on the poster.

[Lilith]

I gotta be honest, I used up my remaining stock of invulnerability potions and skribbane for the final battle, because (a) there's no reason not to and ( I really, really did not feel like making it a fair fight.

 

Originally Posted By: MMXPERT

I've also played RPGs for a long time before these games, and let me tell you this:you should not compare the two.

 

RPGs are meant to be shorter, but these games are not RPGs, they only have some RPG elements in them.

 

W-w-wait, what? What do you consider an RPG if Spiderweb's games don't count?

[BMA]

Originally Posted By: lukematt

Speaking about "waves of enemies", guess why I stopped playing RTS (real-time strategy) games after a very short foray into that genre...Now, whenever I see waves of enemies, like in Avernum 6's "Repairing the Great Portal" quest...

You say you hate the 'waves of enemies' in both RTS and turn-based games as if they were the same thing.But what about the major strategical difference of gameplay between the two?

While success in RTS depends on your facing the oncoming enemy horde with mouse-quickness and dexterity with the keyboard (action oriented), in the turn-based ones like Avernum and Geneforge you can carefully consider your options, while sitting comfortably on a couch with a cup of coffee. Makes a lot of difference to whether you come out victorious.

[lukematt]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

W-w-wait, what? What do you consider an RPG if Spiderweb's games don't count?

Can I rephrase your question to MMXPERT?

Yo, MMXPERT, given that you neglected to tell us in your original diatribe...

In which genre do you place Spiderweb games?

[Don't worry, MMXPERT; there's an "Edit" button on your reply , but you might want to go for the "Delete Post" button instead. ]

[lukematt]

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen

MMXPERT...There's no need to respond with a personal attack on the poster.

Agree completely. The same scolding should be directed at "Custom PDNs for all!", who started the urination contest with the snide remark:

Originally Posted By: Custom PDNs for all!

Gamers these days...

[Zummi]

TIL we were all playing non-RPG RPGs.

[Jerakeen]

Originally Posted By: lukematt

Agree completely. The same scolding should be directed at "Custom PDNs for all!", who started the urination contest with the snide remark:

Originally Posted By: Custom PDNs for all!

Gamers these days...

Er, no. That remark looks like nothing more than mild irony to me.

Look, I'm not angling to be labeled a mini-mod (horrors!), but when a thread consists mostly of people taking offense at each other, it serves no purpose and will inevitably be locked. Just so you know.

[MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics]

I would classify Spiderweb games as casual strategy games with only some RPG elements.

 

 

Also my personal attack was not because of your opinion, but because you think playing a lot of old RPGs gives you the right to act as a superior to others.

 

My only comment about your actual opinion is "don't compare Spiderweb games to RPGs"

[BMA]

@MMXPERT:

 

Which RPG games have you played?

[MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics]

I'm not making a list here.

 

It feels like bragging

[Aoslare]

MMXPERT, allow me to refer you to:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

 

Quote:

Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre where the player controls a character, and lives as this character when immersed in a fictional world. Many role playing games have origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

 

This seems like a pretty perfect description of Spiderweb's games, which have always and everywhere been categorized as old-school RPGs.

 

I am guessing that you have played a lot of fairly modern RPGs, possibly including some action-RPGs and FPS style games, so Spiderweb's old-school-looking games seem like the odd duck to you. Well, they aren't: the realm of RPGs is wide and the last few years of commercial games are only a small part of it.

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion, even if it is different from everyone else's. But being rude about it when you simply don't know as much as others in the discussion makes you look pretty silly.

[Alorael at Large]

That wasn't the point. Name some games that you do consider RPGs. I'd consider Spiderweb games to fall into no strategy category. They're not RTS, obviously. They're not 4X. They don't involve managing units or resources, really, so much as building a small group of characters and making equipment and minor tactical decisions. That's classic RPG.

 

—Alorael, who isn't even sure how Spiderweb games are casual. They are, in fact, rather the opposite: story-based, fairly long, with a lot of build decision required. They're in the Bioware/Black Isle school.

[MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics]

*MMXPERT casts warp*

 

adios.

 

I don't need to explain my opinions so they can be judged by others.

 

That was the first poster's mistake.

[Lilith]

Everyone calm down please, and I mean everyone. There is absolutely no reason in heaven or earth for anyone to get upset about someone else's opinions on RPGs. And I don't want to hear anyone arguing about who started it, either.

 

Originally Posted By: MMXPERT

I don't need to explain my opinions so they can be judged by others.

 

If you don't explain your opinions, they'll be judged by your lack of explanation for them. But that's your prerogative.

 

For what it's worth, I consider Spiderweb games to clearly be old-school RPGs in the vein of the Ultima, Might & Magic and Wizardry series, which are the games that pretty much originally defined what a computer RPG is.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

To return to a somewhat antiquated topic, but one that's a lot less incendiary:

 

I'm curious what people found so difficult about repairing the Great Portal. I found it one of the easier endgame quests. I beat it on the first try, which was certainly not the case with Loyalist Gavrahoss, Gssch of the Scourge, or several of the encounters in Rentar-Ihrno's fortress.

[Earth]

last battle just required that player puts characters to correct places, spellcasters can cast area and mass healing spells and aren't too far to cast single target spells and fighters are close enuf to portal to hit anything what comes out of portal w/o extra moves.

[Death Knight]

I think that spiderwebs games are rpgs but they do have quite a bit of strategy elements to them. I really cant say i dislike any of them although i prefer some to others. I have to agree though that really long games do irk me. I have no problem with games that are medium length, but once a game goes over 45 or so hours, unless its really just awesome i get preoccupied with other games.

[Harehunter]

If I may interject, by any definition, SW games are RPGs. However, I would put in a class of RPGs that stands above the rest. I play them (and replay them) because Jeff has added an ideal, IMHO, mix of action, strategy, and story plot. Even on replays, I tend to go through all the dialog as if it were the first time. In this fashion, it is more like an interactive book, that also tickles my puzzle-solving meter.

 

I have played a few FPS games, such as Wolfenstein, Doom, and a couple of others. After the first few levels I start to become bored with the repetitive nature of the game. I never lose interest in SW games.

 

I doff my cap to Jeff.

[Death Knight]

Even if the games do have a lot of strategy in them, you really cant say any different from games like icewind dale, baldurs gate, temple of elemental evil, knights of the chalice, and planescape. In my opinion while some of those were real time, all of the d and d type games and games (like jeff) all have a high amount of strategy, which is cool.

 

I think what gets me hooked to jeff's games moreso is that he manages to combine all those things that i like about rpgs into one and make the roleplaying experience just plain old awesome.

[Alorael at Large]

Garriot has words to say about playing roles and RPGs..

 

—Alorael, who mostly agrees that the terms used for game genres aren't really the same as what the words mean outside the genre context. You can play a role in a non-RPG, and many games have strategies without being strategy games.

[Kendroxide]

This reminds me of all the youtube comments you see on music videos arguing over what kind of genre the music is.

 

Is it power metal... no its heavy metal... no your both wrong, its progressive metal.

 

My personal opinion: Its a RPG... you fulfill a specific Role/s while Playing the Game

[Alorael at Large]

Is Team Fortress an RPG? You fill a role on a team. Is The Longest Journey? You play a role. The genre should mean something, broadly, although exactly where the boundaries are is and probably always will be in dispute.

 

—Alorael, who thought about this and decided he wants an online game where you play an athlete. Just one, so for games you team up with other players to make a team, ideally with all the necessary positions covered. He'd bet that things like agents and contracts would very quickly emerge from the combination of necessity and analogy.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Clarion Unheard

—Alorael, who thought about this and decided he wants an online game where you play an athlete. Just one, so for games you team up with other players to make a team, ideally with all the necessary positions covered. He'd bet that things like agents and contracts would very quickly emerge from the combination of necessity and analogy.

judging by what happened with dota and similar games, what would actually happen is that those things wouldn't emerge and instead people would get very angry at each other all the time for losing the game for their team

[Alorael at Large]

Assuming high-level play, anyway. Pickup games with amateurs are always hit and miss.

 

—Alorael, who now has to ponder team RTS games where you, as the commander, have stats and level up as you play more games. Trading flexibility on a per-game basis for long-term character growth would at least be interesting. (And yes, there are some variations on this already, but he's unaware of any Starcraft + Stats.)

[Aoslare]

Genre names and boundaries, whether we are dealing with video games, music, or what have you, are determined entirely by convention. The genre name may be related to many elements of its members, or to a few, or to none at all. This can lead to confusion and misunderstanding among those who are new to the subject, or who may have significant experience in certain genres or subgenres, but not others. Not surprisingly, this sometimes results in people making false claims on the internet, or making arguments about edge cases.

 

Nonetheless, there is not actually a lot of contention over what falls into each genre among their consumers. A torch song is not a piece of romantic music, even though romance is its subject matter; and a low-fi jam band is not playing jazz, no matter how many technical similarities there may be.

 

It is much the same with video games. The locations of the boundaries are pretty clear for the vast majority of games. "RPG", "Action-RPG", "Tactical RPG", "Adventure", "RTS", and "FPS", among others, all have established meanings. Those meanings are by convention, just like the meanings of the words we use to speak English.

[Alorael at Large]

Trust those of a linguistic bent to bend language to their wills.

 

Slarty's getting at what I spoke around. I think there's still plenty of contention. Is Mass Effect an RPG? There are people who will argue fervently that it's an RPG, an action-RPG, an FPS-RPG, an FPS with RPG-like elements, or any of a number of other subgenres. It's an edge case. That doesn't mean that RPG and FPS are not sufficiently well understood that Spiderweb games cannot be firmly and unequivocally placed in the former category and Medal of Honor in the latter.

 

—Alorael, who has noticed that even the meaning of words in English can become fuzzy. Dictionaries are all well and good... if you're a prescriptivist. In actuality, language means whatever the speaker/writer and listener /reader manage to agree upon.

[Aoslare]

*nod nod*

 

It's possible to have a language that exists solely in private communication between two speakers/writers (or even one speaker/writer and one person who is only an audience). However, language generally implies community; it's the community of language speakers that sponsors the conventions that form the language.

 

So while your last statement above ("in actuality, ...") is technically correct, it is limited. If we limit the scope of what we mean by "language" to the words exchanged in a 2-person interaction, then yes, that's what language means. If however we want "language" to denote the entire system of words used by its speakers -- as we usually do -- then how it is used in a particular interaction is not relevant. A dada sketch does not alter what English is, although we might see a dramatically different version of it in the sketch itself.