# Sword coast legend questions.



## RagnarLutjebroek (Oct 2, 2015)

Greetings fellows,

I want some information about this game. I already did some research and think i want to buy it.
What is the current state of this game? Does it resemble D&D 5th edition ?

And why is there so much grief about this game?
It even goes so far that the CEO of this game is actually calling out people that refunded ? (See attached image.)
Why on earth would a CEO of a game company do this ? Seems pretty low and childish to do. 
Is that normal ? That does not give me reassurance at all.

So please can anyone tell me if this game is good ?


----------



## Gnashtooth (Oct 2, 2015)

It is like an MMO with D&D-named things.
It plays nothing like 5e, it's an action RPG like Diablo and has a cooldown-based magic system a-la everything on the market now.
Wow, I didn't even notice that post.  I don't even know how to respond.  That was me he replied to.

People are getting refunds pre-release on what is actually a beta.

Wait till after release to buy it.  The free DLC may not be worth it if the game sucks.

I personally will speak with my wallet if a game is good, I don't mind investing big chunks of my expendable income to support something I love.

But right now, I don't love this game, nor do I really like this game.  It's just kinda meh.

N-space and its community though, I'm feeling like I could definitely do without.

If you do approach this game, ignore their marketing, and only assume it has a relation to the Forgotten Realms and NOT the game system.

And maybe the story mode will be good? I don't know, I found the game play pretty lackluster.  Lots of repetitive clicking and no auto-scroll.


----------



## Ahrimon (Oct 2, 2015)

Is the game a perfect mimic for DnD 5e rules?  No.  But it's a game that allows multiple people to work together and play a dungeon with DnD themed elements.  It uses a skill tree rather than the complete free form rules of 5e.  Rather than using spells and abilities that are only usable once and then spending the rest of the adventure doing nothing but swinging your sword or casting your cantrips for several battles they went with a cooldown method so that you can use your abilities more often.  While this does stray away from the 5e rules I think it's a smart thing to do to make the game more enjoyable.

In short it's a DnD themed game that sticks close to the spirit of the classes while altering the DnD game enough to make it more enjoyable in a multiplayer online format.


----------



## Gnashtooth (Oct 2, 2015)

Neverwinter and its module mode, despite me not really liking the game, I find to be much better at their intent.  Play that would be my advice.  It's free.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 3, 2015)

RagnarLutjebroek said:


> What is the current state of this game? Does it resemble D&D 5th edition ?



Okay, the state of the game.

Powers recharge on a cooldown rather than resting. That's a big change but not a deal breaker. Games with rests either have to limit people to resting at inns or accept a 5 minute workday problem and balance accordingly. 

The problem comes in that the classes don't gain anything remotely like D&D 5e abilities. Instead there are skill trees. There's some familiar spells for wizards and clerics, but the fighter and rogue have tonnes of tacked on options that don't even seem pulled out of 4e. The classes and PCs do NOT feel like D&D characters. It really feels like they started designing the game four years ago for 4e and never bothered to change much.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 3, 2015)

I would highly advise you not to buy this game. It is nothing like the 5th edition rules, it's very clunky, you can't set the camera to actually follow your PC, you have to keep moving it around and rotating. The art is very obsolete looking such as the weapons look like they are made of foam in character creation. It also has extremely long load times. 

I'm working on trying to get a refund now, I was stupid and bought it directly from the company and not Steam.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 3, 2015)

Update: I successfully got my refund through Paypal.

Good work guys!


----------



## Dargrimm (Oct 10, 2015)

Stay away from this game. It has absolutely nothing to do with D&D except the name and the location it is based on. I preordered and totally regret wasting my money on this thing.

I requested a refund and I'm waiting for their answer.


----------



## Ahrimon (Oct 13, 2015)

I'm having a lot of fun with the game.

Demanding that it sticks 150% to the TTRPG rules is a bit unrealistic for a computer game.  Especially a multi-player one.  If it was a single player game it could stick closer to the book rules, ala the temple of elemental evil game.

For a D&D computer game I think it's great and a good amount of fun.  I'm looking forward to the single player story.


----------



## Dargrimm (Oct 14, 2015)

Ahrimon said:


> I'm having a lot of fun with the game.
> 
> For a D&D computer game I think it's great and a good amount of fun.  I'm looking forward to the single player story.




But that's the thing... It is not a D&D computer game. If instead of advertising it as a D&D based game they'd done it as a game based on the Forgotten Realms (but with it own rules) there wouldn't be such uproar. It all boils down to misleading advertising, and thus wrong expectations.

I'm sure the game will be fun, but it is not a D&D game no matter what the developers say.


----------



## Ahrimon (Oct 14, 2015)

Dargrimm said:


> But that's the thing... It is not a D&D computer game. If instead of advertising it as a D&D based game they'd done it as a game based on the Forgotten Realms (but with it own rules) there wouldn't be such uproar. It all boils down to misleading advertising, and thus wrong expectations.
> 
> I'm sure the game will be fun, but it is not a D&D game no matter what the developers say.




I think we have a Ben Kenobi point of view difference here.  From my point of view it is based on the DnD 5.0 rules.  It has many of the thematic and story elements of 5.0 as well as many of the abilities are there in name.  The only place it differs is in the execution of the adventuring mechanics, but from my point of view, that's ok.  The game would be horridly boring if you could only do two or three fights and then had to retreat for a short rest.  Or when the fighter is siting there clicking on an enemy and then going to the bathroom because all their character does is swing their sword since they are a champion or out of maneuver dice.  Or the wizard spamming his cantrip and nothing but his cantrip because it's the 4th fight of the dungeon and he's out of spells.  Woo boy, that'd be exciting...  Would the game auto pause every time an enemy left someone's area so that person could decide if they wanted to take their reaction attack?  Would it pause constantly every time the rogue or wizard got attacked so they could decide if they wanted to use their dodge or cast a shield spell?

I can understand that people thought they were getting a digital version of 5.0 but I think that they set themselves up for failure by assuming that based on 5e meant a digital re-creation of 5e.  I won't argue with you though, you are welcome to your feelings on the matter, but this wasn't misleading advertising.


----------



## Reinhart (Oct 15, 2015)

Regardless of its intent, marketing that results in its customers having the wrong impression of the product is, by definition, misleading. Just glancing at the steam community for this game shows a lot of people who ended up with different expectations than the reality. I'm naturally skeptical of advertising, but even I got the impression from the ads that this would be more like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights. It's only when I looked into the game before buying it that I found it to be radically different from how it was portrayed in its press releases. The consternation of those people who pre-ordered the game and found out it was totally different from what they were told came as absolutely no surprise here. 

I suspect that the game's developers were very aware of the differences between D&D and their own RPG, but I don't think the developers wanted to sell their game as something it's not. Someone in a marketing role, either at Digital Extremes or Hasbro, made that decision, and it's solely the reason why people are so upset about this game. And if you think this is a problem with the public and not the marketing for the product, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of marketing and advertising. That's like a weather forecaster blaming the weather for why his predictions are so bad.


----------



## RedSiegfried (Oct 15, 2015)

The term "misleading advertising" is a redundancy anyway.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2015)

He's got a point.  Somebody got 56 hours of play out of a game and THEN asked for a refund?  It's like someone eating their meal at a restaurant and then asking for a refund.

If you hate it that much, you aren't going to play it for 56 hours.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> He's got a point.  Somebody got 56 hours of play out of a game and THEN asked for a refund?  It's like someone eating their meal at a restaurant and then asking for a refund.
> 
> If you hate it that much, you aren't going to play it for 56 hours.




He doesn't have a point. 

He spent 56 hours on a "demo", not a full game. Also, if you've beta tested games before, you will know that lots of people will spend days testing a game before they commit to it. 56 hours is nothing compared to the norm. I have tested loads of games in the past and 56 hours is a small amount of time. The game has lots of combinations with regards to race and class so it would take a significant amount of time to test each one. The loading times of the game are very slow as well, not to mention we don't know if the player walked away and left the game up which still runs up the clock over on Steam. 

CEO's are supposed to have a level of professionalism and this guy clearly doesn't. Not a good image for the game or the company.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> He doesn't have a point.
> 
> He spent 56 hours on a "demo", not a full game. Also, if you've beta tested games before, you will know that lots of people will spend days testing a game before they commit to it. 56 hours is nothing compared to the norm. I have tested loads of games in the past and 56 hours is a small amount of time. The game has lots of combinations with regards to race and class so it would take a significant amount of time to test each one. The loading times of the game are very slow as well, not to mention we don't know if the player walked away and left the game up which still runs up the clock over on Steam.
> 
> CEO's are supposed to have a level of professionalism and this guy clearly doesn't. Not a good image for the game or the company.




Meh. He wasn't playing the beta version out of the goodness of his heart. He was playing it because he wanted to.

Don't worry; we totally get how much you hate this game and the company, @_*Corpsetaker*_. You've made it excruciatingly and repeatedly clear.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 17, 2015)

Ahrimon said:


> I'm having a lot of fun with the game.
> 
> Demanding that it sticks 150% to the TTRPG rules is a bit unrealistic for a computer game.  Especially a multi-player one.  If it was a single player game it could stick closer to the book rules, ala the temple of elemental evil game.
> 
> For a D&D computer game I think it's great and a good amount of fun.  I'm looking forward to the single player story.



Nobody is demanding it stick to the rules more than 100%.

But it doesn't even attempt to reach 80%, it simply doesn't use the rules at all.

So it shouldn't be advertised as such!


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 17, 2015)

Ahrimon said:


> I think we have a Ben Kenobi point of view difference here.  From my point of view it is based on the DnD 5.0 rules.  It has many of the thematic and story elements of 5.0 as well as many of the abilities are there in name.  The only place it differs is in the execution of the adventuring mechanics, but from my point of view, that's ok.  The game would be horridly boring if you could only do two or three fights and then had to retreat for a short rest.  Or when the fighter is siting there clicking on an enemy and then going to the bathroom because all their character does is swing their sword since they are a champion or out of maneuver dice.  Or the wizard spamming his cantrip and nothing but his cantrip because it's the 4th fight of the dungeon and he's out of spells.  Woo boy, that'd be exciting...  Would the game auto pause every time an enemy left someone's area so that person could decide if they wanted to take their reaction attack?  Would it pause constantly every time the rogue or wizard got attacked so they could decide if they wanted to use their dodge or cast a shield spell?
> 
> I can understand that people thought they were getting a digital version of 5.0 but I think that they set themselves up for failure by assuming that based on 5e meant a digital re-creation of 5e.  I won't argue with you though, you are welcome to your feelings on the matter, but this wasn't misleading advertising.



We don't want a "horribly boring" game, we just wish they wouldn't use blatant falsehoods in their marketing.

You, on the other hand, REALLY need to stop setting up straw men. Stop attributing ridiculous claims to the side you're arguing against!


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Meh. He wasn't playing the beta version out of the goodness of his heart. He was playing it because he wanted to.
> 
> Don't worry; we totally get how much you hate this game and the company, @_*Corpsetaker*_. You've made it excruciatingly and repeatedly clear.




Well of course he wanted to play it. Not really sure why that's relevant because that is a given. I purchase things I want just like I purchased this because it was what I wanted. I was led to believe it was one thing but it ended up being something else, that is why I got my money back. Some of us like to play things extensively in order to make decision. 

They should have introduced the head start first and then let people decide if they wanted to buy it or not.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Well of course he wanted to play it. Not really sure why that's relevant because that is a given. I purchase things I want just like I purchased this because it was what I wanted. I was led to believe it was one thing but it ended up being something else, that is why I got my money back. Some of us like to play things extensively in order to make decision.
> 
> They should have introduced the head start first and then let people decide if they wanted to buy it or not.




Again, meh. You don't spend 56 hours engaging in an activity you dislike unless it's your job or you're insane.  I think the developer's response was wholly appropriate.


----------



## Nagol (Oct 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Again, meh. You don't spend 56 hours engaging in an activity you dislike unless it's your job or you're insane.  I think the developer's response was wholly appropriate.




When I was still involved in MMOs, there was a game I desperately wanted to like since I loved its predecessor.  

I got into the beta and spent nearly 200 hours over the course of 6 weeks trying things, providing feedback, and trying new iterations hoping I was simply not "getting it" and the game would snap into a place.  It was not to be.  I felt the game, frankly, sucked.  I did not purchase it on release.  I hear it stumbled badly out of the gate and was eventually shut down after 3 years in 2005 -- its predecessor survived until 2014 giving it a 15 year run.

The developer's response was understandable, but not appropriate.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2015)

Nagol said:


> The developer's response was understandable, but not appropriate.




I suppose we could all continue saying "oh yes it is", "oh no it isn't" but that's gonna get tedious real quick.

Except, oh yes it is.


----------



## CaptainGemini (Oct 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Again, meh. You don't spend 56 hours engaging in an activity you dislike unless it's your job or you're insane.  I think the developer's response was wholly appropriate.




Maybe in the old days, but anymore 56 hours really isn't that much. It's not unusual to see someone with 200+ hours on a game they gave a terrible review to.

56 hours, anymore, usually isn't even bothering to complete a full playthrough of the game when it's an RPG.


----------



## jhingelshod (Oct 26, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> Maybe in the old days, but anymore 56 hours really isn't that much.




I was there in the old days and, unless something VERY weird has happened to the Space Time Continuum, 56 hours then was almost precisely 56 hours today.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 27, 2015)

CaptainGemini said:


> Maybe in the old days, but anymore 56 hours really isn't that much. It's not unusual to see someone with 200+ hours on a game they gave a terrible review to.
> 
> .




Do you have some examples?  Because so far every single one of the SCL reviews I've read gave bad reviews after less than 5 hours of "play time".  I put that in quotes, because most of that time was dealing with crashing.

Personally, I can't see how anyone with a deadline can spend 200 hours on a game before doing a review.  That's more than a month playing the game, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day.  I don't know ANY reviewer who does that.  But I admit I could be wrong.  But I'm betting I'm not wrong when I say that that is unusual for someone who hates a game to spend that much time on it.


----------



## Gnashtooth (Oct 27, 2015)

jhingelshod said:


> I was there in the old days and, unless something VERY weird has happened to the Space Time Continuum, 56 hours then was almost precisely 56 hours today.




Good job ignoring the intent and context of his reply, so you could work your snark in, smart guy.

Next time I need to sync the time on my computer, I'll set it to you instead of time.nist.gov.


----------



## jhingelshod (Oct 27, 2015)

Gnashtooth said:


> Good job ignoring the intent and context of his reply, so you could work your snark in, smart guy.
> 
> Next time I need to sync the time on my computer, I'll set it to you instead of time.nist.gov.




I'm sorry if it came across that way. It was meant to be a light hearted comment. No offence intended.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 27, 2015)

56 hours isn't long for an RPG but it's still a long time. You could beat several good AAA games in that time. Apart from Sandbox games, video games feel shorter these days. Even trying to master the DM tools and test them - which can take a long time - 56 hours is a lot. Eleven days of playing for 5 hours each day. 
You can generally tell if you'll like a game or not from a lot less than that. I'm likely clocking <20 hours between the launch and head start and I know the game is ass.


----------



## Reinhart (Oct 27, 2015)

Keep in mind, when the 56 hours were put in was during early access without the single-player campaign. Essentially this person spent 56 hours during the early access to test out the DM mode and see how it was coming along. They weren't beating the game and then demanding a refund, they were testing the tools and determining they weren't worth owning. Perhaps some people think that the single-player content makes SCL worth buying, but this person was clearly more motivated by the value of the promised DM mode. We should at least agree this wasn't a rush to judgement.


----------



## darjr (Oct 28, 2015)

How fiddly are the DM tools? How long would it take to try everything at least once, for example?


----------



## Jester David (Oct 28, 2015)

darjr said:


> How fiddly are the DM tools? How long would it take to try everything at least once, for example?




There's a lot of hidden stuff and you can fiddle and tweak for some time. Plus testing is tricky since you're not given a full party. I can see running through something you created eating up time as you constantly die and nickle-and-dime your opponents.


----------



## CaladanGuard (Oct 28, 2015)

darjr said:


> How fiddly are the DM tools? How long would it take to try everything at least once, for example?




10 minutes?

Sadly...that's probably not much of an exaggeration. The DM tools are pretty basic. Pretty, at some points, but very basic and very samey.

Randomly generated dungeon. Place chairs, crate, lamp, blood pool. Creatures are pre-set and level scale, so no trying out there, just jam them down (But only from two creature sets per dungeon, ie. Undead and Goblins. Or Mercenary and Spiders). Quests are quick shot, twitter length (Literally, character limits on quest text) descriptions, no dialogue to write (Because there is no dialogue in DM tools) Place markers on a little chunk of the northern Sword Coast, or the corresponding Underdark location in their map and link them to your randomized dungeons. Jam players in. Done.

The tools feel like they -could- have been worth something, but currently, they're just not.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 29, 2015)

CaladanGuard said:


> 10 minutes?
> 
> Sadly...that's probably not much of an exaggeration. The DM tools are pretty basic. Pretty, at some points, but very basic and very samey.
> 
> ...




You can also place individual monsters in the dungeon and NPCs, and the later can be made from any set and have a wide variety of abilities. So you can populate a dungeon full of mini-bosses if you so wish.

So... 20 minutes.


----------



## Noctem (Nov 2, 2015)

I played 4 hours of this game and I plan on getting a refund ASAP.  I've been refused by steam since I played more than 2 hours but it took me 4 hours to figure out how much bs the devs had fed the public.  I'll be contacting them over the phone or going straight to my bank.

1.  This game does not use the 5e ruleset.  That's a joke from the devs.  The monsters auto level to ramp as your PC's level.  The level up system is totally different and the unlocking of abilities is not from 5e at all.  I haven't seen feats at all in the game.  I can't believe they actually think they're using the 5e ruleset for this game.  

2.  Graphics engine the game uses is very old.  We're talking Neverwinter nights 2 era and even then NWN2 runs better than this game does.  Graphical errors, bad textures, etc..  are on the menu.  Considering it's 2015, and the competition for this game archtype is Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: OS and even the enhanced versions of Baldur's Gate and Icewind dale..  This is a total let down.

3.  There are quotes floating around of devs stating that they wanted the DM tools to be able to do things like taking the 5e starter set and re-creating it within SCL.  The quote in question even states that the DM tools would not be considered completed before they could do this task.  This of course is another total let down since the tools in the game wouldn't even be able to recreate the first few encounters, towns and areas the starter set uses for example.  All you can actually do is modify existing areas in simple ways.  You cannot run a custom campaign, you will be completely limited by what is available.  Not saying it's impossible but it's needlessly complicated.  We were promised the ability to run entire campaigns via SCL.  We were promised customization.  They did not deliver at all.

4.  Bugs, bugs everywhere.

5.  The campaign that comes with the game, which I understand to run around 25~ hours has terrible voice acting.  I myself played what I believe is essentially the prologue.  The story was interesting for the time I played but the PC constantly speaking at every command combined with the bugs just made it annoying to force myself to play.  Combine that with the realization that the game is not using the 5e ruleset amongst other things listed here I think, like others have posted, that this is colonial marines all over again.  

All in all, I would give this game 3/10 and will be recommending to everyone asking not to buy.


----------



## darjr (Nov 2, 2015)

Also I think the advice of folks to play the single player story for longer to give it a chance is a trap, if you do you won't be able to get a refund.


----------

