So, has anyone tried Sacred?

[Ashock]

Yeh, I'm sort of getting bored of GW. My first char reached lvl 20 and Ascended, and immediately following that, I got bored of him.... seems like nothing more to play for (stupid decision on the designers part, making lvl cap so low, which is what I tried to argue about on some forums when I was still just starting out, but whatever). Anyway, looking at Sacred right now. Any input?


tia



-A

[gothmog]

Yeh, I'm sort of getting bored of GW. My first char reached lvl 20 and Ascended, and immediately following that, I got bored of him.... seems like nothing more to play for (stupid decision on the designers part, making lvl cap so low, which is what I tried to argue about on some forums when I was still just starting out, but whatever). Anyway, looking at Sacred right now. Any input?
tia
-A
[right][snapback]78301[/snapback][/right]

There should be a thread on it from last year buried somewhere, but my verdict still stands: Not worth the money. They fixed the bugs, which made the game nearly unplayable, but I still don't find it entertaining enough to be compared to D2 or even the newer offerings like Guild Wars (or WoW, but other genre, that one ;)).

[Ashock]

There should be a thread on it from last year buried somewhere, but my verdict still stands: Not worth the money. They fixed the bugs, which made the game nearly unplayable, but I still don't find it entertaining enough to be compared to D2 or even the newer offerings like Guild Wars (or WoW, but other genre, that one ;)).
[right][snapback]78306[/snapback][/right]

Ooh, strike one.


Thanks.


-A

[Alram]

I liked Sacred. I played it for months. Even in the beginning the bugs were not a gamebreaking problem.
It is not as good as D2, but I got a lot of enjoyment out of it.

[Ashock]

I liked Sacred. I played it for months. Even in the beginning the bugs were not a gamebreaking problem.
It is not as good as D2, but I got a lot of enjoyment out of it.
[right][snapback]78330[/snapback][/right]

A-HA, ball 1!

Quick question. Is there a difference between SP and MP? Can you gain lvls the same way in SP as in MP?

Thanks.



-A


Edit: Except the difficulty of the game itself, what are the differences between the 4 difficulty levels? Better drops, faster XP?

[Drasca]

Edit: Except the difficulty of the game itself, what are the differences between the 4 difficulty levels? Better drops, faster XP?
[right][snapback]78349[/snapback][/right]

Last time I played, the enemies were numerically more difficult. Higher hp, higher exp, etc.

The game was fun enough to be worth the price at the time. If you can find it at a bargain price, I'd recommend it. I didn't play beyond one character class (vampire) though.

I loved the side-quests I encountered. They were hilarious.

I've been trying to get lemmingofglory to play majesty recently. To anyone who hasn't played the game, its being sold for one cent plus shipping at amazon.com right now, I recommend getting it before copies are gone.

Old game, low system requirements, but soooo fun.

[Ashock]

Thanks.


-A

[Alram]

A-HA, ball 1!

Quick question. Is there a difference between SP and MP? Can you gain lvls the same way in SP as in MP?

Thanks.
-A
Edit: Except the difficulty of the game itself, what are the differences between the 4 difficulty levels? Better drops, faster XP?
[right][snapback]78349[/snapback][/right]

In SP you cn play in campaign mode, following the story line. They removed that feature from MP after people found a way to abuse it in order to dupe and farm runes. So MP is for levelling only.

In MP the hardcore community was great. People gave away all kinds of Uber equipment that their characters couldn't use or had outgrown. It was not unusual to find all kinds of cool stuff lying on the ground in the starting area.

The drops were appropriate to the difficulty level. XP slows down when you get really high up there.

I played all the characters and explored all kinds of subvariants.

There is an expansion which has been released in Europe.

[Ashock]

In SP you cn play in campaign mode, following the story line. They removed that feature from MP after people found a way to abuse it in order to dupe and farm runes. So MP is for levelling only.

In MP the hardcore community was great. People gave away all kinds of Uber equipment that their characters couldn't use or had outgrown. It was not unusual to find  all kinds of cool stuff lying on the ground in the starting area.

The drops were appropriate to the difficulty level. XP slows down when you get really high up there.

I played all the characters and explored all kinds of subvariants. 

There is an expansion which has been released in Europe.
[right][snapback]78393[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for the info, but alas I tried the demo and did not really like the feel of it... was too monotonous unfortunately including the combat part. That just saved me $30, so it's not all bad....



-A

[BrianLeichty35]

Yeh, I'm sort of getting bored of GW. My first char reached lvl 20 and Ascended, and immediately following that, I got bored of him.... seems like nothing more to play for (stupid decision on the designers part, making lvl cap so low, which is what I tried to argue about on some forums when I was still just starting out, but whatever). Anyway, looking at Sacred right now. Any input?
tia
-A
[right][snapback]78301[/snapback][/right]

I play Sacred, and I enjoy it. I don't know which character is the best to start out with for a brand new player, but I will say that once you have the game installed, go online and download the patch(the most recent is 1.8.26). Don't use the updater that came with the program as it doesn't do anything. Visit the Sacred Website to get the patch.

[Encore]

Sacred is like Diablo 2 on a bigger scale, and it's a bit more challenging.

[Ashock]

Well, I tried the demo and frankly the combat just did not feel right to me. It was jerky somehow and completely fake looking. Since I play melee only, that was just too big a negative for me, so I am not getting it, but thanks to everyone that answered.



-A

[Iolair]

I've been trying to get lemmingofglory to play majesty recently. To anyone who hasn't played the game,  its being sold for one cent plus shipping at amazon.com right now, I recommend getting it before copies are gone.

Old game, low system requirements, but soooo fun.
[right][snapback]78364[/snapback][/right]

Aye, I can definitely recommend Majesty too. Old game as Drasca said, but fun as in really fun :)
Sometimes it pays off to look for the old and cheap games!

[Dako-ta]

Hi, Iolair,

Aye, I can definitely recommend Majesty too. Old game as Drasca said, but fun as in really fun :)
Sometimes it pays off to look for the old and cheap games!
[right][snapback]78637[/snapback][/right]

Majesty, old?

Well, there's old, and then there's old.

Majesty has a copyright of 2002 - sorry, but that's not really "old" in my book - but maybe that's my "old" age talking (53). B)

[Edit - OK, AFTER posting this, I checked the link Drasca gave, and saw that the game was out in 2000; probably the 2002 © is for the combined package of Majesty & it's Expansion Pack]

However, I do give Majesty high marks; I ignored it for a long time; I didn't think I would like not having direct control over my heroes, but when I saw the "Gold Edition" for $10, I decided to take a chance. I'm glad I did, it is a fun game. However, I think some of the scenarios are really hard; there are a few I haven't managed to win, even with several restarts. Also, I don't like the "campaign" structure, in that it really isn't a campaign, all of the scenarios are basically stand-alone; even though they are presented as a campaign, nothing at all carries over from one to another. Still, something a little different, and there is surprising joy from building some structure that entices your heroes to spend some of the money they got from you as rewards to get them to do what you wanted them to. :D Plus, some of the unit responses are funny.

For the past few months, I've been making a point of playing my way through 'truly' old games that I never played, barely played, or haven't played for so long I barely remember what they were like. I'm talking games from 1993-1997 or so. I'm slowly working my way up to "new" games from like 1998-2000. :P

Surprisingly, I've been able to get almost all of them to run under WinXP; only two I think wouldn't, and one of those I didn't care about, it immediately went into my "to get rid of" pile.

Unfortunately, Chaos Gate wouldn't either, but it probably will run on my machine under Win95, which I theoretically have available (I use System Commander to have multiple OS's around), but there's some problem with the 95 install, and since I'm planning on a whole new installation Any Day Now ™ on a new HD (sitting next the computer as I write this), it doesn't seem worthwhile to try to get it working again on this HD.

Anyway, some of the games I've tried for the first time or revisited over the past few months include:

Return to Krondor (Not a bad game, I rather like it; I'd played this through twice, but decided after one more run-through, I'll probably be done with it for good)

Civilization II (not played since 1999; still darn good; the first time I completed a Wonder this winter and watched the video, I got shivers up and down my spine)

Deadlock II (liked DL 1, so picked up the sequel, then never got around to playing it; actually, not bad, kind of fun for a while)

Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain (my 3rd period playing this; not without its frustrating aspects, but I think this was a much under-rated or ignored game)

Total Annihilation (great game, don't know why I'd never gotten around to trying it before; still popular - combo's of TA & Core Contingency are going for $40-50 on e-Bay!! CC alone goes for $15-20 - too much for my budget, though I'd like to try CC someday)

Alpha Centauri (just started this again a couple of days ago, haven't played it since 2000; I remembered liking it more than Civ 2, but the learning curve... man, this game is much more complex than Civ 2...) :wacko:

Visiting some of these old games has just re-affirmed my belief that graphics are way over-valued in today's market. Sure, nice graphics can add a lot to a game, but the lack of whiz-bang graphics doesn't make a game a loser. I think this is a real problem with today's market, when game companies/design teams spend a year or two developing the underlying engine, before hardly starting the game itself. It just makes it so expensive to make games, that that alone causes a lot of problems.

Oh well, enough babbling.

Regards,

Dako-ta