D&D: The Temple of Elemental Evil Review at d20 Magazine Rack

Remove all ads!

(Originally posted by Veldrin)

Another positive review for The Temple of Elemental Evil can be seen at d20 Magazine Rack, where they gave the game a score of A-. Here's a clip:

After months of anticipation, the game finally arrived on my doorstep. The Temple of Elemental Evil (hereafter referred to as ToEE) is a single-player party-based computer roleplaying game for the PC. You create a party of up to five adventurers – to which can be added up to three non-player characters, animal companions, familiars, and summoned, charmed, or dominated creatures – to begin adventuring in the village of Hommlet. Characters start at level 1, and eventually may progress to the 10th level of experience (with a cap of 55,000 experience points). The game is true to the original module – so much so that if you own the original, you could use it as a strategy guide – though the developers have added some expanded areas for adventure like the battlefield at Emridy Meadows, and added some roleplaying-based sub-quests. The rules set, however, is completely updated to use the revised, 3.5 version of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS ® rules. A 176-page spiral-bound manual accompanies the two CDs in the box, and explains the complete rules set used, along with two pages explaining the differences between the 3.5 pen-and-paper rules and those implemented in ToEE (more on this later). Total game length is promised at 30-40 hours, though this varies depending upon side-quests and approach to the game.

Read it all here.

 

(Originally posted by catbert)

Lord gracious, am I the only one who realizes this game stinks, underperforms and creates incessant vacuum? Of course, what a brilliant representation of 3.5E, but who wants to go through the torturing soundtrack, debilitating voiceovers, 1869 graphics and control from approximately the same era merely for a reason of getting to the brilliant representation of the aforementioned 3.5E. And in the end.. it's single player, which seems to entirely defeat the point of any detailed ruleset implementation. *snort*

 

(Originally posted by Sorcerer)

Umm... so you're saying you don't like the game?

 

(Originally posted by catbert)

Yes, that's the point, but can't I be verbose for no reason for once? teehee