Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Kieron Reviews Depths of Peril
My favorite RPG of last year, Depths of Peril, gets some pen-time with Kieron Gillen at Games Radar. The introduction sums up many of my own feelings about the game:"At the time of writing, Iron Lore, makers of Titan Quest, have just gone bust. A THQ Creative Director put the blame pretty firmly at the feet of software piracy. While it’s easy to sympathise - there’s nothing funny in hundreds of thousands of people playing a game for free while its makers run into financial difficulties - you can’t help but think if Iron Lore had actually displayed even a fraction of the imagination this indie action-RPG does, they’d still be here today. With Depths of Peril, the only element in the game that doesn’t display vision and quiet confidence is its somewhat underwhelming name."What I like about the review is what I like about the game - while it's certainly flawed, its attempts to innovate the genre and provide an exciting "living world" covers a multitude of sins for me.
He goes on to further comment on the mechanics of the game in an editorial at Rock, Paper, Shotgun - without the word-limit demanded by the magazine that the review was originally intended for (
"It’s an enormously dense game in terms of strategic decisions - which is the thing which would alienate some RPGers - quests exist to be solved or destroy you rather than just existing as a means to get XP, as in most games."The note about it alienating some RPGers is an interesting one. And unfortunately, it hits right on the mark. That living, dynamic world, where your actions (or lack thereof) have a real meaning and impact on what's happening - is one of the most-requested features by RPG fans. At least, based on my very informal polls, it is. Unfortunately, as implemented in Depths of Peril - indeed, as far as I see it being implemented in any game - this means WORK and a lot of decision-making. And work is sort of the opposite of fun for many gamers.
Is there a happier medium in there somewhere that could be achieved? I don't doubt it. But I'm pretty thrilled with Depths of Peril for putting a stake in the ground and exploring what could be done.
Depths of Peril review at Games Radar
Rock, Paper, Shotgun commentary on the Depths of Peril Review
Labels: Indie Evangelism, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 3:55 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I happen to be playing Depths of Peril, Sacred and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (PSP version) at roughly the same time. All are action RPGs, but each has a very different approach and appeal.
MUA is trivially easy - in fact, the PSP version includes a mode that starts you off at maximum level. The 'world' is downright boring. The fun bit (for me) is experimenting with the powers in a destructible environment where it is difficult (but possible) to fail at your task.
Sacred is geared toward explorers. The world is pre-generated, huge, and filled with little details a-la Ultima VII or Elder Scrolls. Fun comes from revealing what already exists. Loot makes up an important part of the process of revelation, as it comes in myriad flavours. Combat can be a little boring. It's easy to find yourself outmatched, but death is painless, which only encourages further exploration.
In Depths of Peril, the pre-existing world is of little to no consequence. This meshes well with its random generation. Fun in DoP, for me, has come from *shaping* the world - creating relationships and balances of power. Choosing which monsters you and regions you allow to proliferate, and which you thin down. The combat system reinforces this approach - all powers are technically available from the outset, but you are limited in your choices by the rate at which resources trickle in, and your willingness to give up instant gratification for delayed might.
I enjoy all three of the games at different times. I play DoP when not being able to change the world of Sacred frustrates me. I play MUA once I tire of balancing diplomatic needs in DoP. I switch to Sacred once MUA's levels start to look a little too generic. And so on.
There's room for all sorts of worlds, approaches and types of difficulty, even within a well-mined sub-genre.
MUA is trivially easy - in fact, the PSP version includes a mode that starts you off at maximum level. The 'world' is downright boring. The fun bit (for me) is experimenting with the powers in a destructible environment where it is difficult (but possible) to fail at your task.
Sacred is geared toward explorers. The world is pre-generated, huge, and filled with little details a-la Ultima VII or Elder Scrolls. Fun comes from revealing what already exists. Loot makes up an important part of the process of revelation, as it comes in myriad flavours. Combat can be a little boring. It's easy to find yourself outmatched, but death is painless, which only encourages further exploration.
In Depths of Peril, the pre-existing world is of little to no consequence. This meshes well with its random generation. Fun in DoP, for me, has come from *shaping* the world - creating relationships and balances of power. Choosing which monsters you and regions you allow to proliferate, and which you thin down. The combat system reinforces this approach - all powers are technically available from the outset, but you are limited in your choices by the rate at which resources trickle in, and your willingness to give up instant gratification for delayed might.
I enjoy all three of the games at different times. I play DoP when not being able to change the world of Sacred frustrates me. I play MUA once I tire of balancing diplomatic needs in DoP. I switch to Sacred once MUA's levels start to look a little too generic. And so on.
There's room for all sorts of worlds, approaches and types of difficulty, even within a well-mined sub-genre.
Just to make clear, the indie-review wasn't bumped out of print. It ran in PCG:UK. It's just that the Future magazines all feed content to the Future websites - Gamesradar and C&VG use content which was originally written for the magazines.
KG
KG
My bad - I've posted a correction up above. Sorry about that, Kieron.
Freit: Agreed completely. I wouldn't want every RPG to be Depths of Peril, either. But I really want to reward those companies and games that build on a foundation like this, and then move the genre into different areas. This is one direction. There are plenty of others.
Post a Comment
Freit: Agreed completely. I wouldn't want every RPG to be Depths of Peril, either. But I really want to reward those companies and games that build on a foundation like this, and then move the genre into different areas. This is one direction. There are plenty of others.
Links to this post:
<< Home
