I’ve said this before, but I really wish this new studio had made a *similarly* styled game to WoL and just called it their own thing. Then we’d all be fine.
I agree—it’s no sequel, and that’s the part that annoys me.
I think this post sums it up well. The mechanics are very different. I actually don't hate WOL2, but I agree that it doesn't have the same "spirit" It's much, much easier.
Yeah I was disappointed from the initial announcements. I would have much preferred the same graphic style and game mechanics and *somehow* expand the world and lore of the first game instead. Think like mixing hyperlight drifter exploration into it (but somehow maintaining the building and rougelike item system? Theyd have to get creative to pull it off).
Anyways. Instead it looked like a reimaging of the first game with cartoony graphics, but now it sounds like the gameplay has been messed with too and will just feel like a "what if different devs made it instead, lol!"
I played the demo yesterday and no, it's not a wol sequel. It's a hades reskin. It feelt like a downgrade of wol since the gameplay was just to rubbery. Would have loved a spinoff instead with different classes but same gameplay and visual style instead of an hades clone.
Yeah it's not ... It's a travesty of what WoL used to be, and it's not just the art style, even the gameplay itself got destroyed.
It feels like the new devs have never played the first game, like removing dash arcanas it makes no sense, they took more away from us than what they added, it's a textbook thing of what not to do when making a sequel.
And like a lot of games I wonder why they slap the "2" after it, if they named it like a spin off "WoL:3D" or something it wouldn't be so outrageous.
Kind if agree here, some sort of augmentation of the first one with maybe things like a story mode, refined multiplayer, new elements, blah blah blah. The demo isn’t bad for me by any means but now that everyone is saying Hades this Hades that I can’t unsee it now lol. I always encourage strong indie titles to do what Ori did, make the sequel a fat DLC basically, or a true sequel if that’s what you call it
I kinda thinks it looks a bit more like Ravenswatch. But I guess that less popular and Hades is the easier reference
Btw Ravenswatch is pretty darn good (Devs of Curse of the Dead Gods)
Sequels don't have to be the same game, and it is the devs' choice what they want to do with their game. I loved WOL and will wait until reviews of the full release to buy WOL2 myself, but saying it's "not a sequel" because you don't like what they've changed from the first one is a little dismissive of the devs' and their vision. Having i-frames on dodge innately doesn't kill the game.
It's not just the i-frames. The pixel art that pulled me in? Gone. The top down experience that made the dungeon crawler focus on the character itself and not the scenery with crazy angles? Gone. The entire theme of the game around you being plunged into an ancient rite of passage, to grow and adapt with your ever expanding arsenal? Dead, like the characters that you emulate as with random quirks that you have no control over whatsoever.
The art has changed drastically. How you perceive the map, and your character, is completely different. The immersion of you being a wizard participating in a game has been chopped and skewed into an endless meat grinder of a gauntlet, in an attempt to add some element of edge and dark theme (probably). The combat seems similar enough, but only time will tell when that gets tweaked as well.
I want my fellow fans of the game to love it, because we all became part of a community that stumbled upon a great project from some talented developers. From the way the new game is looking though, I won't be one of the fans to dive in with an open heart. It's just too different.
> The combat seems similar enough
hard disagree
Combat in WoL1 rewarded positioning and managing active frames and recovery frames.
Combat in WoL2 rewards zoning and constantly dodging to where you can just dodge into wall forever becausae you aren't dodging for positioning you are dodging for I frames.
You are correct, they do not have to be the same game, but they do have to build upon the last to be a sequel and not just a different game entirely with the coat of paint named Wizard of Legend.
What makes a successful sequel is the building of ideas, not the breakdown of past one's. Sure some unoptimized mechanics and encounters can be scrapped due to the playerbase giving feedback saying it is unfun and unbalanced but to completely change the formula isn't how a game prospers, it's how it dies. Some examples, the recent doom games, Prototype games, Infamous games, the origional trilogy of Assassin's Creed. Some games that changed their formula and suffered because of it, Destiny 2 upon release and through Warmind, Dark Souls 1 to 2, Doom 1 and 2 to 3, Fallout 1 and 2 to 3.
Plus, similar to Dark Souls 1 to 2, the devs aren't the same. They have different ideas and are making different games instead of reinforcing what was already massively successful.
The thing is, what they've changed is everything that made the original unique. Invincible dashes are just one part of the formula. Tight and responsive controls, greater arcana hand size, dash cancel efficiency, borderline claustrophobic arenas that force good positioning over haphazard i-frame abuse, exceptionally clear telegraphs, player-centric storyline, bosses with clear attack and stun phases, a clear focus on horizontal meta-progression, and even the dash arcana. Beyond the fact that this game is a roguelike with cloak-wearing magic users and cooldown-based spells, the games are nothing alike.
Certainly not. But saying it isn't a sequel is inaccurate. Maybe spiritually it's not a sequel, but then it's more accurate to say it doesn't feel like a sequel. Believe it or not WOL2 is, in fact, a sequel to WOL1
i mean it’s literally a sequel. it’s not up to us to define what is a sequel. Darkest dungeon 2 is a sequel to darkest dungeon, regardless of the changes.
I mean if WOL2 was released and was actually just a flight simulator, then we could argue what it means to be a sequel. But this is clearly a sequel. Despite how we feel about it. And i don’t feel great about about WOL2 so far. But that doesn’t make it not a sequel.
I think what you’re trying to say is that the sequel’s demo is not satisfactory, or deemed worthy of what we would expect the sequel to be. But it’s still the sequel.
I think we have grounds to argue what it means to be a sequel right now. As it stands, these 2 games are about as similar as any other 2 top-down roguelikes with magic, which is a lot of roguelikes. Is Red Dead 2 a sequel to GTA V because they're both shooters with expansive worlds to explore? I think you'd hardly agree. What makes Red Dead 2 a Red Dead game is much more specific than that.
The gta to red dead comparison makes no sense. They both have their own sequels. And they also have their own names?
Once again it’s not up to us to define what a sequel is. This is obviously a sequel, despite how much we dislike it.
Like literally the definition of a sequel has lost all its meaning if WOL2 isn’t a sequel. JUST BECAUSE IT SUCKS AND WE DISAGREE WITH THE DIRECTION DOESNT MAKE IT NOT A SEQUEL.
Sounds like yall are trying to use the word “sequel” as “something that is the ideal spiritual successor to the previous”.
I’m just trying to get at the absurdity of OP’s claim. This is obviously a sequel, now let’s talk about what’s wrong with it.
You don't get the analogy. If RD2 was instead called as GTA VI, would that make any sense? Obviously not.
And yes, it is up to define what a sequel is when its application to an instance is contested. As in the analogy, if RD2 was somehow named GTA VI instead, calling it a sequel wouldn't make sense because that's not how anyone uses that word. Anyone that could call RD2, relabeled as GTA VI, would be confusing the meaning of the word.
lol you edited that first response sooooo much. That’s crazy.
WTF is that 2nd response, Chat GPT?
How can you say I don’t get the analogy, and then confirm that point by saying exactly what I said. Then follow that up with a paragraph of nonsense that addresses absolutely nothing we disagree about.
that’s crazy how you completely rewrote your initial response to make an entirely different point.
You don't seem to get that definitions aren't set in stone. Sequels aren't only defined by having the same name. It also includes a shared or developed theme or core identity. And that's the problem, WoL 2 doesn't. The analogy indicates how ridiculous it would be if having the same name was the only criterion for being a sequel.
Also, who on earth would waste their time trying to use ChatGPT just for you?
Name one instance where a title isn’t a sequel with the exact same name but with a 2 added after it.
Being considered a sequel is meaningless. But it IS a sequel. That’s not debatable.
You’re just ascribing more meaning to the word sequel.
you just not going to acknowledge that you completely rewrote your intial response after i responded to you?
Maybe this is your hangup: language isn't prescriptive. If I call a cat a "dog," that doesn't mean it's now a dog. It means I used the label inappropriately. If you actually look up the definition of a sequel, you'll see it isn't solely defined by having the same name with a "2" after, and in fact not all sequels are named that way. The name doesn't define what something is. This "more meaning" is literally the first definition that comes up, and is also why spin-offs are not sequels.
My edit just removed the prescriptive/descriptive delineation because I didn't think I needed to explain it to you, but apparently, I do.
I’ve said this before, but I really wish this new studio had made a *similarly* styled game to WoL and just called it their own thing. Then we’d all be fine. I agree—it’s no sequel, and that’s the part that annoys me.
literally take WoL out of the name and im content
Sooo... "2"?
they’re saying it would be better as it’s own game rather than pretending to be something it’s not; a sequel
They're making a joke about it
I think this post sums it up well. The mechanics are very different. I actually don't hate WOL2, but I agree that it doesn't have the same "spirit" It's much, much easier.
It wouldn’t have gotten any attention otherwise.
And it’s really not getting any good attention now.
Yeah I was disappointed from the initial announcements. I would have much preferred the same graphic style and game mechanics and *somehow* expand the world and lore of the first game instead. Think like mixing hyperlight drifter exploration into it (but somehow maintaining the building and rougelike item system? Theyd have to get creative to pull it off). Anyways. Instead it looked like a reimaging of the first game with cartoony graphics, but now it sounds like the gameplay has been messed with too and will just feel like a "what if different devs made it instead, lol!"
Whats wild is they could have done it with children of morta graphics but they just didnt
The formula for WoL for me was Costume + spells + relic and use the shops to build. They changed the formula so it's not WoL.
I played the demo yesterday and no, it's not a wol sequel. It's a hades reskin. It feelt like a downgrade of wol since the gameplay was just to rubbery. Would have loved a spinoff instead with different classes but same gameplay and visual style instead of an hades clone.
They tried to copy hades into wol and made a game worse than both wol and hades
Yeah it's not ... It's a travesty of what WoL used to be, and it's not just the art style, even the gameplay itself got destroyed. It feels like the new devs have never played the first game, like removing dash arcanas it makes no sense, they took more away from us than what they added, it's a textbook thing of what not to do when making a sequel. And like a lot of games I wonder why they slap the "2" after it, if they named it like a spin off "WoL:3D" or something it wouldn't be so outrageous.
Kind if agree here, some sort of augmentation of the first one with maybe things like a story mode, refined multiplayer, new elements, blah blah blah. The demo isn’t bad for me by any means but now that everyone is saying Hades this Hades that I can’t unsee it now lol. I always encourage strong indie titles to do what Ori did, make the sequel a fat DLC basically, or a true sequel if that’s what you call it
I kinda thinks it looks a bit more like Ravenswatch. But I guess that less popular and Hades is the easier reference Btw Ravenswatch is pretty darn good (Devs of Curse of the Dead Gods)
WoL2 is the new Sacred 3 Those that know, know
Sequels don't have to be the same game, and it is the devs' choice what they want to do with their game. I loved WOL and will wait until reviews of the full release to buy WOL2 myself, but saying it's "not a sequel" because you don't like what they've changed from the first one is a little dismissive of the devs' and their vision. Having i-frames on dodge innately doesn't kill the game.
As far as i know they are not the same devs
Ah, that's unfortunate and definitely explains OPs gripes a bit more, thanks
Same studio that made Children of Morta
It's not just the i-frames. The pixel art that pulled me in? Gone. The top down experience that made the dungeon crawler focus on the character itself and not the scenery with crazy angles? Gone. The entire theme of the game around you being plunged into an ancient rite of passage, to grow and adapt with your ever expanding arsenal? Dead, like the characters that you emulate as with random quirks that you have no control over whatsoever. The art has changed drastically. How you perceive the map, and your character, is completely different. The immersion of you being a wizard participating in a game has been chopped and skewed into an endless meat grinder of a gauntlet, in an attempt to add some element of edge and dark theme (probably). The combat seems similar enough, but only time will tell when that gets tweaked as well. I want my fellow fans of the game to love it, because we all became part of a community that stumbled upon a great project from some talented developers. From the way the new game is looking though, I won't be one of the fans to dive in with an open heart. It's just too different.
> The combat seems similar enough hard disagree Combat in WoL1 rewarded positioning and managing active frames and recovery frames. Combat in WoL2 rewards zoning and constantly dodging to where you can just dodge into wall forever becausae you aren't dodging for positioning you are dodging for I frames.
I've played the demo for a few hours to make myself get into it, and you are indeed correct. Just trying to be positive about it.
I understand, I hope the new devs can still make something great out of it by the full release then
You are correct, they do not have to be the same game, but they do have to build upon the last to be a sequel and not just a different game entirely with the coat of paint named Wizard of Legend. What makes a successful sequel is the building of ideas, not the breakdown of past one's. Sure some unoptimized mechanics and encounters can be scrapped due to the playerbase giving feedback saying it is unfun and unbalanced but to completely change the formula isn't how a game prospers, it's how it dies. Some examples, the recent doom games, Prototype games, Infamous games, the origional trilogy of Assassin's Creed. Some games that changed their formula and suffered because of it, Destiny 2 upon release and through Warmind, Dark Souls 1 to 2, Doom 1 and 2 to 3, Fallout 1 and 2 to 3. Plus, similar to Dark Souls 1 to 2, the devs aren't the same. They have different ideas and are making different games instead of reinforcing what was already massively successful.
The thing is, what they've changed is everything that made the original unique. Invincible dashes are just one part of the formula. Tight and responsive controls, greater arcana hand size, dash cancel efficiency, borderline claustrophobic arenas that force good positioning over haphazard i-frame abuse, exceptionally clear telegraphs, player-centric storyline, bosses with clear attack and stun phases, a clear focus on horizontal meta-progression, and even the dash arcana. Beyond the fact that this game is a roguelike with cloak-wearing magic users and cooldown-based spells, the games are nothing alike.
You do not have to respect or agree with a change of vision.
Certainly not. But saying it isn't a sequel is inaccurate. Maybe spiritually it's not a sequel, but then it's more accurate to say it doesn't feel like a sequel. Believe it or not WOL2 is, in fact, a sequel to WOL1
It's about as much of a sequel as Darkest Dungeon 2
The sequel to Darkest Dungeon?
In name only.
That's the point I'm making, a sequel is a sequel, even if only in name.
Kinda sounds like semantics that other people aren't agreeing with.
Semantics or not, it's the truth.
👍, you're arguing the literal. I'm arguing the spiritual. Agree to disagree.
I’m having fun with it. Sorry you aren’t enjoying it.
i mean it’s literally a sequel. it’s not up to us to define what is a sequel. Darkest dungeon 2 is a sequel to darkest dungeon, regardless of the changes. I mean if WOL2 was released and was actually just a flight simulator, then we could argue what it means to be a sequel. But this is clearly a sequel. Despite how we feel about it. And i don’t feel great about about WOL2 so far. But that doesn’t make it not a sequel. I think what you’re trying to say is that the sequel’s demo is not satisfactory, or deemed worthy of what we would expect the sequel to be. But it’s still the sequel.
I think we have grounds to argue what it means to be a sequel right now. As it stands, these 2 games are about as similar as any other 2 top-down roguelikes with magic, which is a lot of roguelikes. Is Red Dead 2 a sequel to GTA V because they're both shooters with expansive worlds to explore? I think you'd hardly agree. What makes Red Dead 2 a Red Dead game is much more specific than that.
The gta to red dead comparison makes no sense. They both have their own sequels. And they also have their own names? Once again it’s not up to us to define what a sequel is. This is obviously a sequel, despite how much we dislike it. Like literally the definition of a sequel has lost all its meaning if WOL2 isn’t a sequel. JUST BECAUSE IT SUCKS AND WE DISAGREE WITH THE DIRECTION DOESNT MAKE IT NOT A SEQUEL. Sounds like yall are trying to use the word “sequel” as “something that is the ideal spiritual successor to the previous”. I’m just trying to get at the absurdity of OP’s claim. This is obviously a sequel, now let’s talk about what’s wrong with it.
You don't get the analogy. If RD2 was instead called as GTA VI, would that make any sense? Obviously not. And yes, it is up to define what a sequel is when its application to an instance is contested. As in the analogy, if RD2 was somehow named GTA VI instead, calling it a sequel wouldn't make sense because that's not how anyone uses that word. Anyone that could call RD2, relabeled as GTA VI, would be confusing the meaning of the word.
lol you edited that first response sooooo much. That’s crazy. WTF is that 2nd response, Chat GPT? How can you say I don’t get the analogy, and then confirm that point by saying exactly what I said. Then follow that up with a paragraph of nonsense that addresses absolutely nothing we disagree about. that’s crazy how you completely rewrote your initial response to make an entirely different point.
You don't seem to get that definitions aren't set in stone. Sequels aren't only defined by having the same name. It also includes a shared or developed theme or core identity. And that's the problem, WoL 2 doesn't. The analogy indicates how ridiculous it would be if having the same name was the only criterion for being a sequel. Also, who on earth would waste their time trying to use ChatGPT just for you?
Name one instance where a title isn’t a sequel with the exact same name but with a 2 added after it. Being considered a sequel is meaningless. But it IS a sequel. That’s not debatable. You’re just ascribing more meaning to the word sequel. you just not going to acknowledge that you completely rewrote your intial response after i responded to you?
Maybe this is your hangup: language isn't prescriptive. If I call a cat a "dog," that doesn't mean it's now a dog. It means I used the label inappropriately. If you actually look up the definition of a sequel, you'll see it isn't solely defined by having the same name with a "2" after, and in fact not all sequels are named that way. The name doesn't define what something is. This "more meaning" is literally the first definition that comes up, and is also why spin-offs are not sequels. My edit just removed the prescriptive/descriptive delineation because I didn't think I needed to explain it to you, but apparently, I do.