Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Is Depths of Peril Too Perilous?
Sir Lancelot: You were in terrible peril.Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Sir Lancelot: No, it's too perilous.
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
Sir Lancelot: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on.
Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?
--- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
While we got a ton of awesome computer RPGs this year, my favorite has been Depths of Peril. I'm not just talking indie RPGs, either. And we're talking some pretty stiff competition this year just from indie games alone. But talking to people, I've found some resistance to even trying to demo (which lets you get up to level 7, which IS high enough level to actually beat the other factions and "win" in one world). The game either intimidates them, or simply doesn't sound like their thing.
To Sample As Much Peril As I Can...
It didn't sound like my kinda game, either. Steven Peeler, the game designer and head of Soldak Entertainment, pretty much beat me over the head with press releases since this blog has had a focus on indie RPGs and adventure games, so I felt obligated to try it out. One Saturday morning shortly before the game's full release I installed the demo, and figured I'd give it at least a half-hour. But I wasn't a huge fan of Diablo-style RPGs, nor was I convinced it would be a good mix with a heavy strategy component. It sounded strange.
I started out with the tutorial, got lost halfway through the tutorial (I didn't realize I could bring up the quest journal to see that it was actually a two-part mission, and I'd forgotten part two), and proceeded to run out into the nearby wilderness with my rogue and play Diablo-style, winning quests (almost by accident, sometimes), gaining levels, and grabbing a couple of partner NPCs for my little "covenant" that I used as henchmen.
I began to figure things out - slowly - and then a strange thing happened.
I realized that the entire morning had passed by, I had missed lunch, I'd maxed out my character (for the demo), and I'd been having a ball. And I still didn't entirely understand the game. But it didn't matter.
Since then, I've played it quite a bit further, beaten the game a few times with different characters, and gotten to understand it a bit better. I have found that with enough discipline I can jump in for a "quick game," though I keep finding myself driven to do "just one more mission" to get it to a good stopping place.
It's a great RPG. One with pretty long legs, I expect. With replayability in spades.
No, It's Too Perilous
But it's also one that's probably going to be facing an uphill climb. Like all games that feature a high level of innovation or that crosses genre boundaries, it doesn't fit neatly into any category, and it's going to have trouble selling itself to would-be fans (like me).
It's got the Diablo-style action-RPG going for it. Which isn't a bad thing, by itself. I really enjoyed Diablo and Diablo II. I was able to jump into Depths of Peril and figure the basics out easily because of that. However, Diablo's success was partly because of its accessibility and simplicity. Depths of Peril builds upon that foundation, but really takes it to a place that's far more "hard core" than that. In a way, it's like a real-time strategy game that tests your RPG skills rather than strategy skills to obtain a victory over rivals and the enemy forces.
And therein lay the peril to Depths of Peril - it plays a lot better than it sounds. Fans of more simple action-RPG fare may think the pace and more hardcore sensibilities of the game to be too daunting for their tastes. Or they may be scared off by hearing about the "strategy" involved with it. And then the people who might really appreciate the depth of the game - the intensity of the decision-making and juggling of goals, the building of a covenant, alliances and wars between covenants - may dismiss it because it looks like a "Diablo clone." Or that it simply sounds strange (as I thought) trying to marry the higher-order strategic gameplay with the action-RPG foundation.
Oh, Let Me Have Just a Little Bit of Peril?
Depths of Peril has an image problem, I guess. It intimidates one group, and by it's description doesn't inspire the other. The problem is solved by simply playing the demo, but the trick is convincing people to actually download it and give it a shot. Taking the time to download, install, and try a game is as much an investment and commitment for most people as paying for a full release, so its not a trivial thing to ask. And that's a problem with all indie games.
It's one of those games that really has to be tried. So I guess I could have made this whole long story short and simply suggested:
Try Depths of Peril.
(Vaguely) related peril:
* Depths of Peril Demo and Quick Take
* Let's Talk About Depths of Peril
* What Were the Best Indie CRPGs of 2007?
* Depths of Peril Preview
.
Labels: Indie Evangelism, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:55 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
At least at the time that I tried it, the demo (the very beginning of it anyway) was *still* intimidating and left me feeling too baffled and overwhelmed to keep going. However, that was right when it first came out, iirc, so it may have been adjusted since then. I suppose I can try it again sometime...
I don't know if the early part of the game has been cleaned up at all.
I know I kinda barreled through it at first without paying any attention to the other aspects of the game - the other covenants or even recruiting allies (I kinda ran into them in the wilderness the first couple of times).
At higher levels (and higher difficulty, if you set it there), it seems that might bite you more but for the first five levels of the game, it felt like I could play it just like Diablo or something without too many ill effects
Later in the game, when the "boss monsters" gather together a posse... yeesh! Pretty much plan on dying a couple of times. At least, I do.
I know I kinda barreled through it at first without paying any attention to the other aspects of the game - the other covenants or even recruiting allies (I kinda ran into them in the wilderness the first couple of times).
At higher levels (and higher difficulty, if you set it there), it seems that might bite you more but for the first five levels of the game, it felt like I could play it just like Diablo or something without too many ill effects
Later in the game, when the "boss monsters" gather together a posse... yeesh! Pretty much plan on dying a couple of times. At least, I do.
I tried out the demo, and I dropped it pretty quickly. The pacing at the beginning was right for an action-RPG like Diablo, but way too fast for a strategy game. Knowing that all the game mechanics were running right from the start just overwhelmed me. A tutorial mode where you could play without other factions, or with a limited number of available quests would have been a lot friendlier. But as it is, the game makes me feel incompetent, which is the opposite of what I play games for.
# posted by 
: December 19, 2007 4:10 PM
: December 19, 2007 4:10 PM
If ya tried it out and still didn't like it, then that's all I could ask. I may be in the perfect niche for the game, which is why I enjoyed it so much.
It's funny - while I am something of a strategy game nut (witness my obsession with 4x games), I didn't think a whole lot of the "strategy" elements of the game. I don't really think of them as strategy at all - just different aspects of the RPG that go beyond just beating on monsters. I think Empires and Dungeons had more of a strategic element, and it was really more like a boardgame-level of strategy.
It's funny - while I am something of a strategy game nut (witness my obsession with 4x games), I didn't think a whole lot of the "strategy" elements of the game. I don't really think of them as strategy at all - just different aspects of the RPG that go beyond just beating on monsters. I think Empires and Dungeons had more of a strategic element, and it was really more like a boardgame-level of strategy.
I honestly can't give the game a fair rating at this point. What I did like about it was how fast I was able to get going in the game. The learning curve is gradual and you can learn new things as you go along. I chose eschalon at the time because I have been so busy I wanted a relaxing good time.
DoP is fast based, easily comparable with Diablo II, and I enjoyed every minute I had to play it. I can easily see myself buying this one in the near future. It is one of the four games I am torn between right now.
DoP is fast based, easily comparable with Diablo II, and I enjoyed every minute I had to play it. I can easily see myself buying this one in the near future. It is one of the four games I am torn between right now.
We did do a second demo that hopefully made the game a little easier to get into.
Also, if you want a more laid back game you can set the enemy covenants to easy and/or set their level to lower than yours.
Also, if you want a more laid back game you can set the enemy covenants to easy and/or set their level to lower than yours.
# posted by : December 20, 2007 2:21 PM
: December 20, 2007 2:21 PM
I liked it, but the other covenants didn't really do quests. Also, raiding is hard! my first 3 raids were against covenants who had been at war, and i even joined in with another covenant's raid for one of them. the 2nd to last covenant was slightly weakened and had no guards and weaker members. the last one ended up hitting right after i was raided, and i took out a number of enemies before engaging weakened guards. I'd been in an intermittent war with these guys and raided them once, then crushed several counter-raids before the killing blow.
Post a Comment
# posted by : December 28, 2007 11:22 AM
: December 28, 2007 11:22 AMLinks to this post:
<< Home
