Good Old Games
Donate to Codex
Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Odds are, something you like very much sucks. Why? Because this is the RPG Codex
News Content Gallery People Games Companies  
Forums About Donate RSS Contact Us!  

IGN likes BeyDiv despite the flaws

Visit our sponsors! (or click here and disable ads)

IGN likes BeyDiv despite the flaws

Review - posted by Vault Dweller on Tue 11 May 2004, 14:24:16

Tags: Beyond Divinity; Larian Studios

IGN posted a review of Beyond Divinity giving it 8/10 and noting that an impressive series of flaws can be fixed or tweaked.

But my strongest criticisms are reserved for Beyond Divinity's game balance, notably, again, in its skills system. Why divide up each kind of arrow (poison, fire, water, normal, explosive, etc) into its own separate weapons skill? Not only is this highly unrealistic, but it's frustrating to the player who prefers archers and is already willing to give up all melee proficiencies. Similarly, you can learn slashing, one-handed weapons early in the game, only to discover quite a while later that there's a completely different skill which improves slashing, one-handed weapons with the use of a shield. Oh, you might think, so that's why my Death Knight hasn't been doing any damage to even the weakest creatures, despite having allocated five expensive skill points in slashing, one-handed accuracy! I don't mind this non-standard weapons division, but would have preferred having a hint that the skill available at start-up was virtually useless when I equipped a shield.
Unfortunately, while the basic idea to create your own skills was good, the implementation wasn't. That pretty much summarizes Beyond Divinity: poorly implemented good idea.

There are 0 comments on IGN likes BeyDiv despite the flaws

Raise money for Pathfinder: Kingmaker


TARGET: $4,000 USD

RAISED: $3,705.20 USD (93%)

Site hosted by Sorcerer's Place Link us!
Codex definition, a book manuscript.
eXTReMe Tracker
rpgcodex.net RSS Feed
This page was created in 0.0643680095673 seconds