Forums > Submission Feedback > aschultz's Order of the Griffon review

Okay, my main word for this one is focus.

There's also a lot of confusion as to whether you actually like this game or not, which is created by the fact that you spend a really long time complaining about the combat and then a very short time saying that the game is playable. It's a little off putting. I know that's the danger of reviews that fall in the 4-7 category, but I'm gonna use as an unhumble example my own Mirror's Edge review (Resolution Version). If you look at that, you'll see I start off with some pretty strong praise, but end with a lot of harshness. This ultimately leaves you with the impression that the game is poor, but my praise at the start makes it clear why I haven't dropped it to a 1 or 0.

In your review of Griffon, you insert some praise at the end, but we've just spent five or six paragraphs reading about terrible combat. It doesn't leave us with a fresher taste in our mouth. My advice would be to start with praise and then explain where it all goes wrong.

You also need to re-read this and watch your grammar. I'll use one paragraph as the sacrificial lamb here:

Thankfully the mapping and combat are a little more sophisticated. Radlebb Keep, where you start, has the usual collection of fellows who assign you your quests, traitors behind locked doors, and citizens held hostage by orcs. Once you've cleared that, Listen carefully to the Order of the Griffon, or you'll wind up at the wrong dungeon where something invisible blocks your path. Be careful: there's Koriszegy Crypt, Keep and Cellars. The cellars are the hole in the ground next to the Keep, and while they're not too far away, that leaves the south half the world as unpopulated woodland.

First of all, this is a strangely placed paragraph that highlights the confusion I was talking about. You just got done saying that dungeons never let you out and the game is unforgiving. Now you start this one by saying the mapping (which means level design to me) and combat (which you'll go on to bash later) are strong. Very strange.

Your next sentence seems unconnected to the first, unless you meant mapping to be scripting, because now you're talking about characters and events, and that has nothing to do with level design (or combat, in this case). Whatever you lead in with a paragraph has to be what the paragraph is about. Think of them as mini reviews. Paragraphs need intros, middles, and outros just like a full essay, only they also need transitions and continued themes.

This next bit I've bolded the error:

Once you've cleared that, Listen carefully to the Order of the Griffon, or you'll wind up at the wrong dungeon where something invisible blocks your path.

Couple other things here. First off, once we've cleared what? You seemed to be talking about dungeons in general in your last sentence, now you've gotten more specific without letting us know what it is you're trying to be specific about.

Also, what's the Order of the Griffon? So far all I know it's a game, but here you seem to be giving it a persona. Is it some kind of in-game mechanic as well? It's not clear. And then there's invisible things blocking my path... what path? What things? I'm totally confused at this point.

Your last line doesn't help the confusion. You start talking geography but I have no frame of reference to understand what exactly these places are or why your description of them leads to a conclusion that the south part of the world is uninhabited. What world?

In any case, I think you should pull each paragraph apart like this and see what makes them tick and what's making them not tick.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

Thanks again. I think I see how to link up a few paragraphs...the thing is, review writing does have a certain checklist, but adhering too carefully to it gets into trouble and doesn't let you express what's different about the game. You've given me a lot of good rewriting ideas and now I just need to execute.

My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips

Like the previous comment, I also find this review to be confusing. Also, many of the points raised reflect a misunderstanding of the era in which the game was made, and so many of the critiques levied are simply invalid.

That said, the inability to create a character from scratch is a valid critique. However, for players that just want to jump in and play straight away, this is not such a bad thing. Nevertheless, I would have indeed preferred to have been given both options (pre-selected characters or a default party plus the option to create one), for those players that want more control of character creation. That said I thought OotG had strong, likeable characters in each of the classes (in my opinion) and so this was not a big issue for me.

However, where the review starts to go downhill is in the discussion of its plot, perceived lack of originality, and combat rules.

Most of the review is a big diatribe against OotG's turn-based combat system, particularly various perceived AI issues. However, these critiques make little sense given both the competition and the time period in which the game was produced (1992). Games have certainly come a long way since then, so I find the author's critique especially unfair, given that the Gold Box games he mentions (including Pools of Radiance) have nearly identical failings (and others) with the combat AI. This makes sense given that OotG's combat system was derived from said games.

Sure, OotG's gameworld is "small" compared to something like Ultima 7, but it still provides ~15 - 20 hours of gameplay (possibly more). For a console at the time with small hucards, that's actually pretty good and typical. Pools of Radiance may take 30 hours or so. That is longer, sure, but it is still nothing compared to much later games like Baldur's Gate or Pillars of Eternity (60 - 100 hours or more). Unfortunately, in my advancing age, and with many responsibilities, I simply do not have the time I had when I was younger, so I do appreciate games I can power through in a day or so.

The author says the game has no plot, but OotG definitely does have a nice one (for its time especially). Check the wikipedia article. It may not be Planescape:Torment quality (and, again, that is a much later 1999 game), but there is definitely a strong horror element that permeates it, with conspiracies, attempted assassinations/kidnappings of political leaders, and alliances between different dark forces. The author is selling this point way short.

The author also has issues with both: a) the players being 'restricted' to playing lawful good characters and, b) having limited dialogue options. However, it wasn't until the Fallouts and Planescape:Torment (several years later, 1997 - 1999) that we actually got to see that being done in a truly big way. It is worth noting that none of the other popular PC RPGs at the time (e.g. Gold Box, Eye of the Beholder) had very meaningful dialogue either. Alignment in the Gold box games did have some impact on you, but it was relatively minimal by comparison, mostly influencing in more subtle ways (e.g. whether a particularly-aligned character can use a certain weapon).

In my view, where Order of the Griffon "innovates" is in removing many of the annoyances in many Gold Box games (poor graphics, bad or nonexistent music, some unnecessary details), resulting in a more enjoyable and immersive overall experience. The music, for instance, also fits the mood and jived well with the action and vampire story line. This was done better than any other game that I had played at the time. it does not hurt either that OotG was the first video game (RPG or otherwise) made for the Mystara campaign setting.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.