Eschalon: Book II

 PC
User Score
6.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 25 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 25
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 25
  3. Negative: 4 out of 25

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. LucidDream
    Sep 7, 2013
    7
    Eschalon book 2 shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses of the first game. I will not repeat everything I said in my review of the first game but in short I thought that character creation was great with many different skills and attributes, including place of origin and religion, which all make a difference. The weakest aspect of the game is still the combat, which still tends toEschalon book 2 shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses of the first game. I will not repeat everything I said in my review of the first game but in short I thought that character creation was great with many different skills and attributes, including place of origin and religion, which all make a difference. The weakest aspect of the game is still the combat, which still tends to require patience more than strategy for the reasons I explained in my review of the first game.

    There are also several aspects of gameplay that have been improved compared to the first game though. In particular, non-combat skills are more important than in the first game since there are many traps, locked doors, chests etc. that require use of non-combat skills. All these can be dealt with in multiple ways. The addition of optional hunger and thirst and deterioration of weapons and armor as well as a foraging skill to find ingredients to make potions from also contributes to making this a better game than the first.

    The story is still nothing special. The introduction of sci-fi elements to the story does nothing to improve it.

    The best aspects of the game are probably the detailed character creation and the process ofl levelling up your character and developing the many skills that are available.

    I would recommend the game to anyone who liked the first game and to old-school rpg fans who have already played the many better games in the genre.    … Expand
  2. sh4dow
    Aug 25, 2011
    9
    it's surprising to me this game apparently has not gotten more attention in the indie community. there really isn't much to say about it - if you are a fan of old school turn-based RPGs, this is probably a game for you. it has a great storyline, nice side quests, decent variation of monsters and items - all of which made me play the game for almost 100 hours... now there's money wellit's surprising to me this game apparently has not gotten more attention in the indie community. there really isn't much to say about it - if you are a fan of old school turn-based RPGs, this is probably a game for you. it has a great storyline, nice side quests, decent variation of monsters and items - all of which made me play the game for almost 100 hours... now there's money well spent!
    the only thing i did not like at all and which might be a big turn-off for others too is the fact that one can't run and the walk speed is very slow. this is supposed to be finally changed in part III of the game though.    … Expand
  3. FurthestFlung
    Apr 7, 2013
    0
    The previous iteration of this game was described as "a turn-based game with none of the depth such a game requires," and since then, all that's really changed was the graphics. In spite of being turn-based, all I can really compare it to is Diablo, but with none of the pacing. Even without being turn-based, it's just a monotonous crawl of walking-by-clicking from place to place followedThe previous iteration of this game was described as "a turn-based game with none of the depth such a game requires," and since then, all that's really changed was the graphics. In spite of being turn-based, all I can really compare it to is Diablo, but with none of the pacing. Even without being turn-based, it's just a monotonous crawl of walking-by-clicking from place to place followed by 3 seconds of combat consisting entirely of spamming clicks on an enemy, followed by having to camp to restore HP or MP. Worse, it might be a trip back to town followed by an awfully long walk back Diablo had town portals for a reason. The only thing keeping you from realizing how small the world really is is how long it takes you to walk anywhere, and you're actively discouraged from exploring by just how utterly barren and empty the gameworld truly is. Yes, you can go off the beaten path, but all you'll find is a couple more monsters that are exactly the same as the monsters ON the beaten path, and a barrel that MAYBE has items in it, exactly the same as is on the beaten path. A better game would have rewarded your exploration to make it feel worthwhile.

    Also like Diablo is the fact that every monster is just a different name on the same old monster. Every monster has the same dumb-as-bricks AI of running straight at you, then punching. No elemental weakness to exploit, no tricks, no variety, just the same monster with more HPs and slightly higher damage.

    It's the hollow drudgery of a procedural Roguelike random dungeon without the expansiveness of one.

    Or the interesting monsters of a Roguelike.

    Or the clever tricks of a Roguelike that makes the game feel exciting.

    Or any excitement at all.

    It wants to be a Roguelike (actually, it wants to be a "Golden Age" RPG, but doesn't come close,) on some level, but doesn't seem to understand what makes those games fun... and Roguelike games are generally available for free, while you have to pay for the pain of playing this one. Go play free Roguelikes such as NetHack or Elona, instead, or play Dungeons of Dreadmore for a similar price. They're much more expansive games with far more character variety and gameplay to explore.    … Expand
  4. dyspeptic
    Sep 26, 2015
    5
    In a market saturated with indie games that are actually really good, mediocrity is not worth paying for. Unfortunately, that is all this game can really offer you--even though it wanted so badly to echo Fallout or Baldur's Gate. Simply saying that the game is like the classics doesn't make it a classic, especially if there is no "soul" to the gameplay/abilities or even theIn a market saturated with indie games that are actually really good, mediocrity is not worth paying for. Unfortunately, that is all this game can really offer you--even though it wanted so badly to echo Fallout or Baldur's Gate. Simply saying that the game is like the classics doesn't make it a classic, especially if there is no "soul" to the gameplay/abilities or even the story/characters. I simply had to make myself get through it, and in the end I have more complaints than I have compliments for the game.

    (+) I happen to like turn based RPGs and this one fills the niche without trying weird genre-crossing stuff. I would like more (good) new games in this style.
    (-) The attempt to make the world feel "big" mostly happened by having huge maps with very little in them. As a corollary, walking from place to place is a chore, even with the "fast travel" option.
    (-) Except for mages, each class will probably only have access to a single combat ability, which means that combat is mostly using your weapon to bash/pierce/shoot the enemy repeatedly while using potions.
    (-) The difficulty scaling is screwed up. I played it on "hardcore" (with no plans to replay) after abandoning a "normal" game with the useless ranger class because there is essentially no difference between the difficulty settings.

    The bottom line: I got it randomly through a GOG.com promotion, but I wouldn't have paid for it otherwise, and neither should you.    … Expand
  5. Voyou
    May 27, 2021
    1
    2010 and the buffoons at Basilisk Games still haven't figured out the basics of a good interface. They reuse their retarded movement scheme and wasted feedback. Actually, they managed to make their bad engine worse by adding hunger and thirst. They added micro-management instead of removing some. They spent years unstreamlining. A phenomenal level of stupid. Meanwhile, their graphic engine2010 and the buffoons at Basilisk Games still haven't figured out the basics of a good interface. They reuse their retarded movement scheme and wasted feedback. Actually, they managed to make their bad engine worse by adding hunger and thirst. They added micro-management instead of removing some. They spent years unstreamlining. A phenomenal level of stupid. Meanwhile, their graphic engine still sucks.… Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 1 Critic Review

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 1
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 1
  3. Negative: 0 out of 1
  1. RPG Fan
    74
    Instead, I'll say that it means well and may appeal to a breed of old-school gamers. All others, stay away or take my warning that enjoyment will vary.
    Read full review