I think it's rather crude to publicly gossip about someone like this when the alleged flaws are either irrelevant to the topic, unspecified (last comment) or pretty inconsequential anyway (someone was annoyed by his behaviour during a tabletop session - so what?).īut then I'm seemingly in a minority with my opinion that well-known people deserve just as much respect and privacy as anybody else. In summary, even though I agreed on the star rating, the review kind of annoyed me.Īside from the probably valid criticism of his reviews, regarding the rest of the comments: Most of the rest of the review is occupied with speed and loading issues. It is thus too bad to see him bumble right out of the gate by calling the Might and Magic series " Eye of the Beholder-style games." His subsequent review makes it clear that he didn't get very far: he thinks the game is too generous with money and marvels at the 50,000 experience points he got for solving one puzzle. He also contributed to several computer RPGs, including Darklands (1992). Petersen is himself a game designer, having written Call of Cthulhu and the third edition of RuneQuest for Chaosium. The combined World of Xeen gets only three stars. Petersen makes it clear that three stars is "Good" and five is "Superb," and there's a new "X" rating for "Not recommended" that's even worse than one star ("Poor"). The over-inflated rating system seems to have gone with the previous title and reviewers, which I suppose is good, as I was running out of ways to make fun of that. The "Role of Computers" section was re-titled "Eye of the Monitor," and a newer reviewer-Sandy Petersen-seems to have taken over. Later, the magazine nominated it for "Game of the Year," but it lost to Betrayal at Krondor.ĭragon made some changes to its computer game reviewing in 1993. "A satisfactory conclusion to the current Might and Magic saga," she concluded. She also thought the endgame to the Worlds content (which she completely spoils) was worth reaching, even if it involved so much pointless walking on the final level. (She agreed with the game that she was a "super goober" for having wasted her time with it.) She thought the cinematic ending was worth not having any kind of final battle, and I have to grant her that, since it was very well done for its year. She also thought the crossword puzzle was "pointless and boring" and that the Dungeon of Death in general was ridiculous. She was more upset about the ease of the puzzles-she called out the same one that I did, involving the Vowelless Knights. She covered the economic problem, though didn't seem quite as bothered about it. Once again, my review aligns reasonably well with Scorpia's September 1993 coverage in Computer Gaming World. Trying to figure out that story, filling in the gaps left by the materials, was a fun part of playing each game. Looking through my notes in on Secret of the Inner Sanctum and Gates to a New World, I see all kinds of messages and interleaves, prisoners you can torment or free, some kind of puzzle involving black and white checkerboard floor patterns, word games and riddles, a giant sudoku puzzle, a city where males take damage at every intersection but you can change sexes in the basement, an arbor in which you get rewarded for climbing every tree, and dozens of other encounters and side-quests-this in an era that otherwise showed no awareness of the concept of "side quests." Perhaps more important, each area offered a bit of lore, hinting at a large, complex story beneath the surface, one that occasionally (usually at the end) introduced elements of science fiction. This generosity is key to the first two games, immediately distinguishing and elevating the series from Wizardry and The Bard's Tale (which I find hopelessly boring in contrast).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |