Quote:Of all the stuff that claimed to be the "Diablo Killer" on the market, nothing has come close. Divine Divinity was weak. Neverwinter Nights was a completely different kind of game. Harbinger was fun and Diablo-like, but a little too short, and set in the future. Nothing has seemed to be able to capture the hack & slash fun of Diablo - until now.
This game does not even compare to Diablo, nor even Diablo II.
Quote:Sacred is immediately fun. The interface takes a bit of getting used to, but after a few hours feels intuitive. The character classes are different and fun. The level up system is fantastic - more like Diablo 1 where you have to find runes that upgrade your skills. The new twist being that you can trade with a "combo master" 2 useless runes for a new random one, 3 useless runes for a new class-specific random one, or 4 useless runes for the rune of your choice.
I found it immediately frustrating. With poor pathfinding AI, jerky animations, and pixelated graphics galore, the "fun" factor is almost nill. Although the interface is nice once you get the hang of it, there is absolutely NO explanation as to how to use it (in the game, nor in the readme for the demo), which is very irritating. And, I don't see how finding Runes compares in any way to Diablo, except the book-hunting from the original Diablo. But even that's not a great comparison,
Quote:There are plenty of items including uniques, sets, and socketable items. Not all character classes have the same number of slots. Battle mages can wear 4 rings and 2 amulets. Gladiators can wear 2 rings and 1 amulet, but get extra shoulder pads. Seraphims (angels) get upgradable wings.
Horrible inventory graphics, pathetic naming conventions (20 different "Shields" and they all have completely different modifiers, and requirements), horrendous loot-levels (a level 1 character finding loot that can only be used by a level 20 or above?!), and poor differentiation between normal, unique, etc. items? No thanks.
Quote:I was initially worried about the description of the world being "huge". Morrowind was huge - too huge - and I didn't ever really get into it. Way too open ended. I would have a quest to do, but didn't really know how to get going on it. Here is one of the really BRILLIANT parts of Sacred: There is a main story-related quest and hundreds of mini-quests. I think they total 290 in all. Unobtrusively in the lower middle portion of the window is a small compass. The large arrow points to the direction of your main quest. The small arrow points to the direction of your subquest. When you open the mini-map, there is a tiny yellow arrow, and a tiny blue arrow showing where to go for each. It is subtle, and winderful. You can roam around freely if you choose and never really lose your way when you feel like getting back to the quests.
Morrowind was a Godsend to the world of PC gaming. If more games strived to be of that high-caliber, incredible quality, we wouldn't be sucking down drivel like this Sacred. Sorry, but Morrowind is light-years beyond anything Sacred has to offer. And I'd MUCH rather have a huge world than a tiny one. Besides, Morrowind has customizability galore (equal to or greater than NWN), which only adds to the replayability. With no randomness, and no ability to add / change the world, replay value on this game is minimal, at best. A once-through with each character, and you're pretty much done. If you can stomach it that long, that is.
Quote:The quests are generally pretty standard stuff. Go kill this - go bring me that. But they are funny, too. Some of the dialog has me cracking up, but not in a way that makes the game silly. They probably put far too many "easter eggs" in the game. There are quotes from dozens of other games and movies littered through the game. There is even a "Pac-Man" cave where you are trying to gather up pellets in a maze while being chased by four slow moving ghosts that can kill you with a single touch.
Drab, childish humor that is entirely out of place in the fantasy setting? I'll pass, thanks. If I wanted that, I could go install Redneck Rampage or Duke Nukem 3D for a few chuckles. (Example: A SKILL for the Seraphim entitled "BeeEffGee". For those who don't know what that stands for, it's BFG, as in BFG2000, or "BigF-ingGun 2000", from Doom / Doom 2. Crude inclusion that just looks tacky and out-of-place in this game.)
Quote:Horses also change the dynamics of the game. You can still swing your axe from your mount, but it is slower. However, you can run away faster, too. More points in riding leads to the ability to use better and faster horses. I am anxious to play a mounted archer to see how it works out.
If not for the terribly jerky animations and the horrendous pathfinding AI, I'd say this would be a really neat feature. Because of them, however, it remains only a sub-par "bonus" that's sort of neat,.
Quote:The graphics are great. They aren't the most ground breaking graphics I've ever seen, but I would give them a solid 8 out of 10. Much better than Divine Divinity, and far better than Diablo 2.
The graphics are the equivalent of Divine Divinity, BG2, or any number of other, similar games. They're a touch better than D2 in the environment and character portions in some areas, equal to D2 in others, but entirely BELOW Diablo II (and even Diablo) in terms of inventory graphics! Overall, unpolished and ininspired.
Quote:To me, Divine Divinity felt like a cheaply made and poorly translated Diablo clone. However, Sacred looks and feels like what I would expect out of Diablo 3. It plays and feels like the "next step". If you are a fan of Diablo 2, I urge you to go out and get this game. I could only afford one - Spellforce or Sacred. I am glad I went with Sacred.
Actually, Sacred feels like a Divine Divinity clone. I see absolutely no difference at all between the two. In fact, they both suffer the same problems (with Sacred adding in a few new ones to the mix).
The game suffers from poor gameplay mechanics, mediocre graphics, poor sound, unpolished and just outright jerky animations, and little immersion (at least in the demo). I don't feel like I'm making a difference in the game. I feel like I'm getting a migraine from trying to watch my character swat at a couple goblins, seeing my sword high over her head one moment, and low down around her knees the next, with virtually NO animation inbetween. Keeping track of your health mid-fight is a pain because I keep having to pull my eyes away from the MAIN screen and point them into the upper-right - a massive step back from Diablo II. The leveling system is about average, with a few neat features, but nothing that overall jumps out at me (via the Demo). And it, like everything else in the game, feels unpolished and a bit rushed. There doesn't seem to be any clear distinction between the different things (I can't even think of a better word for them - how bad is that?) They're so jumbled together, with no clear correlation, that it gives me a headache just trying to think about character planning.
All in all, I am sorely disappointed. After reading your positive review, I decided to check out the demo for myself. What I found left me with a poor aftertaste in my mouth, feeling disgusted with how poor the quality of games has been lately, and feeling greatful that I didn't waste my money on another cheap piece of trash.
My advice: Don't even bother. Nothing spectacular jumps out from this game, and many features that make Diablo and Diablo II shine so brightly above the rest are just plain lacking. The entire game (from what I've seen in the demo) is very unpolished, and some components just feel jumbled and out of sync. Combine this with pathetic game mechanics problems that should never have existed in the first place, and you have a piss-poor slop of a game. I won't be buying it, except MAYBE if I see it as a bargain-buy from my local EBX for ~$4. And even then, I might just keep my money. After all, I've bought games from a decade ago at that price that gave me more enjoyment than this piece of drivel could offer.
Roland *The Gunslinger*