Grimrock

minmay wrote:...But you would know that about a 256x256 map too.

Not really. In the maps now in the Campaign, you can scroll out slightly and see the square box the map is in. If the room your in is in the cornor of the map, you know the 2 walls facing the edge of the box will not have secret rooms, Because there is no room for them to be there! Each of the 'box' is it own 'world' To exit the box and go to the one next to it, you have to 'exit' the map your on. Either by stairs or teleporting.

In a massive map tho, that is 4+ times bigger, There are no limits in size. So you can no longer go, 'Reaching edge of map, so know there are no secrets or anymore rooms over that way, because they wouldn't fit in the map!' Also, people would be able to map dungeons in any shape or design they want, with as many secrets as they want. A dungeon wouldn't have to fit into a square, could be a very long retangle, circle, even an hexagon shaped dungeon. Could just not even follow a shape and be completely random, as big or small as they need.

Jirodyne wrote:

minmay wrote:...But you would know that about a 256x256 map too.

Not really. In the maps now in the Campaign, you can scroll out slightly and see the square box the map is in. If the room your in is in the cornor of the map, you know the 2 walls facing the edge of the box will not have secret rooms, Because there is no room for them to be there!

Except there absolutely can be rooms there, because the game can have more than one level. That wall could be a secret door just as much as any other, because it can lead to another level. There are even examples of this in the main campaign, such as the summon stones boss. You can already make a long rectangle or circle or hexagon.

Here, look at it this way. It almost certainly would have been really, really easy for Almost Human to use 128x128 maps for the main campaign, putting Shipwreck Beach, Twigroot Forest, Hamlet of Stormbeach, Barren Desert, etc. all on the same level. Think about why they didn't do that.

minmay wrote:Think about why they didn't do that.

Because they were too lazy? The game is short, especially after the first time through. I only played it twice, and can't play it a third time because there is no reason to. I already know all the shortcuts, where to get the powergems, where the armor and weapons I need are, know all the spells, know what to advoid. Since every character can use every skill, and it's very easy to max out the only useful skills, every characters ends up the same with very very little difference and all play the same. The game looks big, and the first play through because of the nature of the game forcing you to leave puzzles half finished to go explore 2-4 other puzzles in another area you don't know about, gives the illusion of it being a big game. But when you have beaten it, and know all the tricks, the game is very very short. In LoG 1 you were exploring everything because the Secrets had the best gear and it was all linear progression. Here tho, you can go right to the best gear, that most of the time isn't even in a secret but a Golden locked door and bam! right at lvl 4-5ish you have the best gear in the game and everything else you pick up is garbage and no need to look for secrets as there is nothign useful anymore.

In a much bigger map tho, the gameplay can be many many MANY hours long. Heck, you could turn it into an actual open world game, one big massive map, with many entire 10-50 floor dungeons scattered all of the map that you can play through and have fun with, each with their own envirements, monsters, tilesets, and puzzles. But no one will make that. Why? Too lazy. Playing something like that would be awesome, but no one will take the time to make something that massively epic. Heck, people couldn't even finish rebuilding a game already made 10-20 years ago, couldn't even finished more than 3-4 levels of it.

And yes, I do believe they got lazy making this game, and that's why they force you to exit a dungeon and explore new areas. To padden out the gameplay because it's too short, the maps are too small, and it's actually very very short. As I pointed out, even tho it's '20% bigger than LoG 1'... yeah right...

Jirodyne wrote:

minmay wrote:Think about why they didn't do that.

Because they were too lazy? The game is short, especially after the first time through.

Well we know that's not so. The game is far larger than the original, and there is nothing lazy about it; from a four man team? The game is a gem in a sea of rock salt.

In a much bigger map tho, the gameplay can be many many MANY hours long. Heck, you could turn it into an actual open world game, one big massive map...

Isn't it that already?

...with many entire 10-50 floor dungeons scattered all of the map that you can play through and have fun with, each with their own envirements, monsters, tilesets, and puzzles. But no one will make that. Why? Too lazy. Playing something like that would be awesome, but no one will take the time to make something that massively epic. Heck, people couldn't even finish rebuilding a game already made 10-20 years ago, couldn't even finished more than 3-4 levels of it.

The origial DOS version of "Eye of the Beholder" had its ending cinematics cut to save space; on the assumption that not enough players would reach the end for it to matter ~much~ if it even had one. EOB had the same number of levels as Grimrock did. Grimrock 2 is already large enough that I think most players wont finish it... so the game seems a fine length as it is ~and I've not even visited the pyramid or the cemetery yet.

However... don't be too sure about those mega-level dungeons. I'm certain there are those out there interested in mapping out Undermountain for Grimrock 2.

Isaac wrote:

Jirodyne wrote:

minmay wrote:Think about why they didn't do that.

Because they were too lazy? The game is short, especially after the first time through.

Well we know that's not so. The game is far larger than the original, and there is nothing lazy about it; from a four man team? The game is a gem in a sea of rock salt.

In a much bigger map tho, the gameplay can be many many MANY hours long. Heck, you could turn it into an actual open world game, one big massive map...

Isn't it that already?

...with many entire 10-50 floor dungeons scattered all of the map that you can play through and have fun with, each with their own envirements, monsters, tilesets, and puzzles. But no one will make that. Why? Too lazy. Playing something like that would be awesome, but no one will take the time to make something that massively epic. Heck, people couldn't even finish rebuilding a game already made 10-20 years ago, couldn't even finished more than 3-4 levels of it.

The origial DOS version of "Eye of the Beholder" had its ending cinematics cut to save space; on the assumption that not enough players would reach the end for it to matter ~much~ if it even had one. EOB had the same number of levels as Grimrock did. Grimrock 2 is already large enough that I think most players wont finish it... so the game seems a fine length as it is ~and I've not even visited the pyramid or the cemetery yet.

However... don't be too sure about those mega-level dungeons. I'm certain there are those out there interested in mapping out Undermountain for Grimrock 2.

LoG 2 is not that big... It is the first time, because it has you needlessly going all over the place multiple times to look for clues. But a second run through the game, completing all the ares and beating all the bosses and seeing both ending and finding the 5th element and so one? Took me 1/5th of the time of my first run, where I ignored all the optional things and just went to the end. LoG 1 was very linear, and because of that you HAD to solve 90% of the puzzles in the game, even if you know all the tricks. In LoG 2 more than 50% of the game is completely optional if you know the way. You just have to find 20 Power Gems, doesn't matter where they are from or how you get them. And a lot of them are just out in the open behind a single puzzle, not even in dungeons.

Jirodyne wrote:LoG 2 is not that big... It is the first time, because it has you needlessly going all over the place multiple times to look for clues. But a second run through the game, completing all the ares and beating all the bosses and seeing both ending and finding the 5th element and so one? Took me 1/5th of the time of my first run, where I ignored all the optional things and just went to the end. LoG 1 was very linear, and because of that you HAD to solve 90% of the puzzles in the game, even if you know all the tricks. In LoG 2 more than 50% of the game is completely optional if you know the way. You just have to find 20 Power Gems, doesn't matter where they are from or how you get them. And a lot of them are just out in the open behind a single puzzle, not even in dungeons.

And I don't have a problem with that.
I don't see any of it as needless, and I don't see any other way to do it aside from having contrived 'road blocks' that prevent free-form exploration. I'd say if you play it once, you should move on to a new game afterward, and return to it a few months later, or play the mods ~and they will start to appear soon after the reference pages are mostly complete.

Fallout 1 and 2 are IMO the best of the series, and both of them can ~technically~ be completed in minutes if you know how; but so what? It allows the new player a great adventure, and that's its job, no? It's the same with Grimrock 2, and it ships with an excellent editor to extend the adventures indefinitely.

Isaac wrote:and that's its job, no? It's the same with Grimrock 2, and it ships with an excellent editor to extend the adventures indefinitely.

I don't believe so. LoG 1 was going from point A to Point B, completing puzzles blocking your way, finding a few secrets for better gear and items, and enjoying the game. LoG 2... It's completing a few puzzles, collect Power Gems, go to where the best gear is, and ignore everything else because it's all pointless.

In my honest opinion, LoG 2 is a LOT worse than LoG 1. I like that skills are no longer locked to classes, and that there are more races and classes, and that there is an outside. But so far, that's the only changes I have found that I liked. Maybe custom dungeons will make up for it later, I doubt it with the importing and every character being a master at everything at such a low level... But we will see. As for the main campaign, too short, very forgettable, and most of it is pointless. Very boring compared to the first one, and will be going back to play that one insted.

Jirodyne wrote:

Isaac wrote:and that's its job, no? It's the same with Grimrock 2, and it ships with an excellent editor to extend the adventures indefinitely.

I don't believe so. LoG 1 was going from point A to Point B, completing puzzles blocking your way, finding a few secrets for better gear and items, and enjoying the game. LoG 2... It's completing a few puzzles, collect Power Gems, go to where the best gear is, and ignore everything else because it's all pointless.

~But that's on one's second play. How many times did you [anyone] play Grimrock start to finish? I think I did that just once, and moved on to other maps.

I do understand the point that the game offers many permutations for party make-up, yet the second run through the game is inherently spoiled for having played through it before.

I like that skills are no longer locked to classes...

This is something I do not like ~and usually never do in RPGs... it means that every PC is a polymath genius with no preference or aptitudes enabling or hindering them. Classes depict a character's past commitments and aspirations... A wizard [presumably] spent their youth in constant study of the arcane, while a barbarian spent their's surviving combat and training with weapons... to say that their vocations are interchangeable at whim; that a wizard can suddenly take up heavy arms, and the barbarian starts casting elemental magic and cantrips... is a straw too great for suspension of disbelief IMO.

Maybe custom dungeons will make up for it later, I doubt it with the importing and every character being a master at everything at such a low level... But we will see. As for the main campaign, too short, very forgettable, and most of it is pointless. Very boring compared to the first one, and will be going back to play that one insted.

I expect that they are intended to... If Grimrock 2 was an incremental challenge up from Grimrock 1 [sadly it's not], then new players would have to be expert Grimrock 1 players.
*Not at all unlike SSI's handling of the GoldBox adventures. While this is certainly my preference (and I assume yours too), I think that it makes poor business sense in today's diluted market, where the hardcore playerbase is woefully outnumbered for purchasing power; there are just too many novice players to ignore them like that.

User mods can be diabolical without hampering the game's sales... If they wish, AH could (and have ~I think) release supplemental dungeon adventures for the game.

Isaac wrote:~But that's on one's second play. How many times did you [anyone] play Grimrock start to finish? I think I did that just once, and moved on to other maps.

Just want to answer this. LoG 2, I played twice. But LoG 1? I played the main campaign... atleast 8+ times. Played it the first time, play with all warriors, played with all rangers, played with all mages, played with rogues and mages, played with rogues and ranges, played with all backstabbing rogues, played with warriors and reach rogues. I played the HECK out of LoG 1, because it was fun, straight forward, and had progression.

I have start 3 different games after my second playthrough of LoG 2, and I just can't do. No matter what characters I roll, I always end up going the same path, doing the same thing, making the same choices. In LoG 1, you can make 4 warriors, and every single one will play differently. Different armor sets, different weapon specialization, and different skill choices. Here in LoG 2? Every Knight I roll will be Heavy Weapons 5, Fire 1 or Crit 1, Armor 5, Acc 2, Con 2, and Athletics 3. Using full Crystal Armor set and shield while using either Meteor Hammer or Bane depending on the situation. And my knight will ALWAYS have that build, no matter what! It will never change! I roll each class a certain way, and it never changes, because playing it a different way 1. Wouldn't make sense, and 2. would make it weaker and inferrior! The only with 'choice' is the Rogue to use either Firearms, Missle, or Acc, Crit, and Light Weapon for backstabbing from backrow.

Jirodyne wrote:Because they were too lazy?

Gee, thanks! You are free to think of the game what you want, i.e. it's ok to not like it, but I can only assure you I have never worked so hard on any project before. LoG2 was a massive undertaking for our team (over twice as long development time, over twice the amount of content, almost every feature of the game was expanded or touched in some way), and frankly the project was almost too large for us to complete while staying mostly sane. I myself worked pretty much 7 days a week from start of August to release of the game, sometimes stretching 12+ hours a day. Just because we love making games.