Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
0 
Anmäl detta inlägg
But the controls and saving system weren't improved at all, the map was removed and some weird issues like FPS drops in Cruxfirth appeared in the final version that weren't there before. They added two parts that seem to me each with decreasing quality in comparison to previous.
I've played games in the past that frustrated me in some ways at first, but I still liked them later on. That didn't happen with Graven. It seems to me just unsatisfying overall, except for the good atmosphere and music, but it is not enough for a video game.
Otherwise, I agree with OP: Fix what's there instead of trying to make drastic changes. No need for a map, for example, since the level layouts are memorable enough and exploration is an inherent part of the game, after all. A save system would be nice, but only because of the many bugs left in the game. If those got fixed, the whole respawning thing wouldn't be a problem.
I'll also say I don't quite get how much people hate on "odd design choices" in this game. As I've said, I haven't played past Grimwine yet, but I've yet to encounter a design choice that actively detracts from my enjoyment of the game. I mean, it's obvious this game was developed with very little in way of a plan. Just take the fact that the EA version had explodable gas, electrify-able puddles, electrify-able gears and spiked barticades patched into it after the initial EA release, in a desperate attempt to add some kind of purpose to the magic and the kick. But does it really detract from the game? Don't approach Graven expecting a complex imsim or RPG and you're still left with a solid (if buggy) exploration shooter with some added gimmicks.
To put those numbers in perspective, it's about 10:30 in Europe at the moment and most people are at work or in school (I'm at work BTW
Retro shooters ARE niche, and slow exploration-focused shooters like Graven are a niche within a niche. So yes, I think it'd be pointless to change everything that makes Graven a different kind of experience that appeals to a specific niche, just to try and get a shot at appealing to a greater audience with very different ideas of what's "fun". Fix the bugs, improve the quality of the later levels, but if some players have trouble navigating the world without a map, for example, then maybe this game just isn't for them. Not all games have to appeal to everyone.
-inventory and hot bar that serve no purpose other then swapping weapons a pain
-Stamina that is there for an inconvenience outside if running melee is worthless
-basic level spells are worthless in combat and upgrading them being a expensive.
-random spikes of mob density and a game they claim in “slow paced”
That’s just a start game being “niche” even though it isn’t doesn’t make those choices good.
True, but beside the point. I only said that 3DR's releases have been of wildly varying quality and reception for a while now, and Graven probably won't be the one thing that makes Embracer cull the weak in this instance, as I think a7 meant to suggest.
I fully agree that many design decisions in the game are odd and seem to be vestigial remains of design directions that were abandoned at some point in development, but I'm not arguing that these are GOOD choices. I'm saying just because they're odd or don't add to the game very much doesn't mean they're BAD design choices that objectively detract from the game. My argument is that a lot of people on these forums pretend like Graven is the most awful game ever released, just because it has a bunch of vestigial design elements that sometimes serve little purpose. To get back to talking about Deus Ex, that's like saying the original Deus Ex is objectively a terrible game because the swimming and environmental resistance skills are pretty much useless in that game. Just don't put points in them and you'll be fine.
Yes, it's odd that the game limits the number of weapons you can readily switch to in this way, but with my current inventory, I can easily build fully functional loadouts for every possible combat situation: Fletchant/Crossbow, Cuff Arrow for sniping, Peat Burner for mass destruction, plus spells and the staff as a fallback weapon, plus one slot for healing potions. Or Orthogonal Hymnal, Ballista for sniping, plus Peat Burner for crowds, plus spells and staff. Even if I choose as many three-slot weapons as possible, that still gives me 4 weapons plus three spells. So what's the problem here? Sure, I wouldn't mind just having all my weapons assigned to the number keys, but it still works with these arbitrary limitations in place. It could even be argued that the system makes the player think about which weapons they should combine in the hotbar to be ready for whichever combat situations are coming up.
Increasing your stamina with the shrines and not bunnyhopping everywhere does the trick. Graven wants to be a slower, exploration-heavy game and the stamina system is an admittedly heavy-handed, but still effective way to prevent the player from just flying through these levels. What I will give you is that it's too easy to get into situations where you're stuck in places that require you to jump to get out of, as jumping on 0 stamina won't allow you to jump high enough. You'll need to wait a few seconds to let your stamina refill.
Basic level spells are indeed worthless in combat, and as I've mentioned above, using them as environmental tools is also not weaved into the overall game in a very elegant way. But they become useful in combat with the very first upgrade and those aren't THAT much more costly compared to upgrading weapons overall.
I've also sometimes run into surprisingly large groups of enemies, but this is actually something which the game's design fully accounts for, for a change: You don't get XP from enemies, so simply avoiding them is a legitimate tactic. If you bother upgrading your spells, you can also zap them or set them on fire for crowd control, and the upgraded Fletchet, the Peat Burner, the Ballista etc. all have crowd control capability.
Bunny hopping would mean you get a boost while jumping you don’t so just sprinting is all you need. So again why have it when it’s there as an inconvenience especially since quoting brings you back to the hub. Like inventory it’s a hold over from what the original scope of the game was.
Spells require why more compared to weapon upgrades especially since the alt fire is all you need. Maxing out fire requires 10k along with feathers so you’d only purchase them if you have the money
You could only avoid the mobs if you know where to go, which you won’t on a first time playthrough, plus there are either blocks or puzzles need to progress so how would you avoid mobs at that point? Like I said like of focus and direction. The game isn’t awful is the weird design choices in a game that was in EA for 3 years with little to no update.
The game is just average that I don’t expect fixes with both kingpin remaster and phantom fury being worked on at the same time.
Try the gamepad and cycle through it with D-pad keys to see the problem. You may be dead before you switch from spell to weapon. But even with keyboard, it's still unnecessarily clumsy and having to select only some weapons for active use makes no sense.