Swords and Serpents
United States
Interplay (developer); Acclaim (publisher)
Released 1990 for NES
Date Started: 8 October 2024
Date Ended: 26 October 2024
Total Hours: 18
Difficulty: Easy-Moderate (2.5/5)
Final Rating: (to come later)
Ranking at time of posting: (to come later)
When I last wrote, my party was halfway through the 16-level dungeon, where our goal is to defeat a dragon. This will apparently involve seven ruby items, five of which we had collected at the close of the last session. We picked up the other two this time. I was wrong in my comment last time that we had all but one spell. I don't know where I got that idea. I was still missing four spells at the end of that entry, and I'm still missing two as I explore Level 13.
Level 9, as we saw last time, was called "The End of the Beginning." It consisted of two halves, top and bottom. The bottom half, where the party could enter from two stairways, led to two nearly identical areas, with large rooms and fixed combats. The corridors ringing these areas had traps in every square and required "Flight" to cross safely.
|
The game is not giving me encouragement.
|
The northern half really started to make use of "Passwall," with several areas--and one block of 10 individual rooms--that could only be entered by casting the spell. Fortunately, there were three magic-restoring fountains within this block. A 3 x 3 area was surrounded by teleporters that sent the party to the center square each time. On the first visit, an old man in the center gave us 1,000 experience points. On every subsequent visit, he teleported us to the southern half of the map.
This message offered an unwelcome revelation: "Some Zoom Tubes can be entered backwards!" I tried the ones on this level and all the ones I discovered after this level, but I didn't go back up to previous levels. Level 9 had a section of 5 stacked corridors, each of which had the same messages ("There's no telling . . . what's at the end of . . .") before dropping us into a Zoom Tube. One led to Level 13; one led to Level 10; others led to earlier levels or other places on this one; only one took us to a different place walking backwards than forwards.
|
Backing up into a teleporter.
|
We had to use one of the tubes to get to Level 10, as there were no stairs down. Level 10 ("The Beginning of the End") also had two major sections. The northern section had the game's last services, including a temple and an armory. The only new item in the armor was Mithril Shields for 300 gold pieces; I had almost 10,000 when I visited. There was nothing else to spend money on, which I suppose is a good thing since our money rolled over to 0 after 9,999.
While we're on the subject of rolling over, we hit the game's maximum experience Level (16) while on this dungeon level. That always annoys me. We kept accumulating experience, but it just disappeared when we hit 6,400, with no new benefits.
|
The last promotion we'll receive.
|
Getting from the lower area to the upper area involved activating a teleporter clued with a message: "Back and forth, forth and back." It refers to two squares labeled "back" and "forth." To activate the teleporter, you have to step on "back," walk to "forth," step off "forth," step on it again, then walk back to "back." Easy, but something tickled me about it.
The lower half of Level 10 had areas accessible only by "Passwall" in which we found fire traps. We found a Fire Sword in the southeast corner and a Fire Shield in the southwest. Armor is pretty straightforward in this game when it comes to the relationship between protective value and sale value. I can't say the same thing about weapons. There are four major variables--efficiency (how fast the weapon swings), damage, number of foes hit per turn, and armor class (some weapons have a defensive value). Based on these variables, you'd think there would be some obvious formula that determines the sale value, but there isn't. To take the most obvious example, the Plus Three Sword costs only 320 gold pieces while the Plus Two Sword costs 750. The game insists that a higher efficiency is better, but the "Quickblade" has the lowest efficiency score in the game. The Fire Sword, meanwhile, does more damage than any weapon I've found so far, but it only hits one enemy. The Glow Sword costs a third as much but swings faster and hits two enemies. My confusion isn't just about the cost, but about the location where you find the equipment and the relative rarity. The Fire Sword seems to be unique, and yet it seems statistically worse than the Glow Swords I find everywhere.
|
Perhaps the thing I like most about this game.
|
These issues became important on this level, because combat got a lot harder. Enemies started attacking in packs of seven or eight. Sometimes, the game has enemies surprise you, and some enemies get multiple attacks. When a pack of 8 surprises you, you can literally sit there and watch the screen for two minutes before your characters get a chance to go. I'd like to be able to do more with spells in such situations, but my unwise decision to take only one mage means that I need to save all my spell points for healing and "Passwall."
|
This guy is pretty creepy.
|
I got a few equipment upgrades in the final half, mostly in terms of armor. Most of my characters never found anything better than regular helms, but I upgraded from chain to plate to Mithril Chain to Mithril Plate. Another Bard's Tale similarity: the game constantly has you
automatically pick up items at the end of combat that you have no use
for, forcing you to go into the characters' inventories and drop them,
lest all your free spaces get filled up with junk.
Two staircases led down to Level 11: "The Sword." Both led to small mazes on the east and west sides of the level. In the center, the walls made the shape of a sword with a hilt and pommel. A message back on Level 1 had warned: "The Ruby Sword lays at the point of the sword." When I went down the corridor to the "point," I found nothing. Fortunately, I remembered another message from Level 5: "Seven turns and the sword will appear!" I spun in place for a bit and soon had the Ruby Sword.
|
I'm just glad they gave the sword a pommel.
|
A staircase led to Level 12: "Black Crystal." This large maze had exactly three things to find: the "Viper" spell, the "Regenerate Spell," and the Black Crystal. "Viper" is an offensive spell that underwhelms me; "Regenerate" heals all hit points, however, and is vital.
|
Perhaps the most useful spell in the game.
|
The Black Crystal was demanded by an NPC back on Level 1, so I took a combination of teleporters to get back there. His "reward" was to send us to a secret area of Level 13; there are otherwise no stairways down from Level 12. Level 13 is called "Secret." The main part is accessible from a teleporter on Level 9, but the part that the NPC on Level 1 sends you to is its own special area, inaccessible from anywhere else, even with "Passwall." The purpose of this area was to find the Ruby Amulet, at the center of a maze of 1 x 1 rooms that I had to cast "Passwall" in the right places to navigate. The spell fails most of the time. Even worse, each room has a mandatory combat with a large party. I reached the center nearly out of hit points and spell points and was thus happy to find the fountain and the Ruby Amulet. A Zoom Tube took us back to Level 10.
Level 13 had no stairs down. The way to Level 14 was by bringing the seven ruby treasures to an old guy on Level 10; he then teleported us.
|
My reward is again transportation.
|
Levels 14 and 15 were called "Over" and "Under," and they consisted of mazes with multiple stairways up and down, plus lots of secret doors, one-way doors, areas that required "Passwall," and teleporters. Combat began to get oppressive in the mazes, with the enemies previously described joined by fleshy skeletons, giant squid brains with teeth, and sorcerers with staves. In a sense they were annoying, but in another sense they were trivial, since full party death just meant resurrection back on Level 10, with no loss of levels or items, any battles I'd already fought still cleared, and a quick trip back down to Level 14 from the Level 10 temple.
|
Level 14
|
The levels delivered the final two spells: "Phalanx" and "Crystallize." Despite its name, "Phalanx" is a lightning bolt spell that hits a couple of characters. "Crystallize" supposedly "freezes the enemies' ability to fight." I didn't find either of them useful. I continued to spend most of my spell points on healing spells and "Passwall."
|
I finally have all the spells.
|
A stairway in the southeast corner of Level 15 led down to the final level, titled "Behemoth is Here!" We started in a large, open area with multiple signs warning us "Welcome to . . . Dragon!" and "Prepare to die!" But one sign, in the upper-right corner, said: "The path to VICTORY begins here!"
Throughout the game, I had been collecting messages that told me what to do upon seeing this sign. This started with facing north and ignoring all walls when the instructions said to go forward (i.e., to cast "Passwall"). I thus did not end up mapping the final level. The instructions took me through some traps ("Flight" was a must), solid walls, turns, and one teleporter.
|
I had to back into this.
|
Eventually, I ran out of instructions in an area with a corridor spiraling inward to a central chamber. Signs offered nonsense: "Now comes the tough part"; "Is this it?"; "Sorry. Just a tease"; and finally, "Goodbye, and good luck."
|
Thank you, Edward Murrow.
|
On the other side of that final door was the dragon. He got to attack first and blasted us all with a breath attack. Over the next few rounds, my fighters and thief swiped at him, doing no damage, while my mage kept up with healing and tried to damage him with spells. I think "Crystallize" actually worked to stop his attacks for a few rounds. But I still did no damage to him and started to despair. In desperation, I tried "Deadeye" on Chet, who had the Ruby Sword, and then suddenly I killed him in two hits.
|
Although we've seen several swords, this is the only serpent in the game.
|
The victory screen told me that we received 5000 experience points and 5000 pieces of gold, both of which would have been worthless even if the game wasn't over. After a lot of flashing lights, the game gave me codes to write down, for some reason, and then the victory message at the top of this entry.
|
That's so useless it's actually insulting.
|
In the end, the game was boring and basic--and I mean "basic" in the pejorative way that the kids use it these days. I enjoyed mapping because I always enjoy mapping, and some of the navigational obstacles were okay, but overall it was a poor showing from a company capable of much better stories and mechanics.
In a GIMLET, the game earns:
- 1 point for the game world. The framing story is trite and makes little sense. There's nothing special about the dungeon itself as a dungeon.
- 2 points for character creation and development. Attributes and leveling are both simple, with no choices, and with a very low level cap. Because monsters keep pace with their difficulty as you descend levels, you never really feel like you're getting any stronger.
|
Chet's statistics at game's end.
|
- 1 point for NPC Interaction, and it's generous calling those random old men "NPCs." Their messages might as well have been scrawled on the walls.
- 2 points for encounters and foes. The foes are really distinguishable only by portrait. They just hit; they have no special attacks, strengths, or weaknesses. They don't even have names. The points in this category are for the navigational puzzles, which I consider a kind of "encounter."
|
The last new enemy I encountered.
|
- 2 points for magic and combat. Boring, annoying, and too long towards the end, the combat never even rises to the level of an early 1980s RPG. Spells are mostly useless.
- 2 points for equipment. I like that the statistics were plain, even if they sometimes (as above) didn't make any sense. Some usable items would have been nice.
- 1 point for the economy. Utterly worthless except for a few moments on Level 1.
|
The game occasionally has you find gold. Why?
|
- 2 points for having a main quest with no choices, alternate endings, or side quests.
|
A step on the main quest.
|
- 2 points for graphics, sound, and interface. The graphics are only serviceable. The constant music is headache-inducing. I found the controls clunky even for a controller.
- 2 points for gameplay. It gets those for at least not being too hard or too long (although it's also not short enough). It's otherwise linear and not replayable, and the password system is so annoying that I wouldn't have finished the game without save states.
That gives us a dismal final score of 17. The Bard's Tale came out for the NES the same year as Swords and Serpents and would have been the better purchase in every way.
I wish I could offer some choice quotes from contemporary reviews, but the Internet Archive is still behaving squirrely, and while I can find old magazines, I can't read them. According to MobyGames's review round-up, it rated between 55% and 82%. in its day, with the worst review coming from
Electronic Gaming Monthly and the best from
Total!! in the U.K. We can turn to more modern coverage by The RPG Consoler, Zenic Reverie,
who looked at it in 2013 and apparently concluded the same things that I did. He liked the "puzzles" and praised the equipment statistics but found everything else blah.
|
One of several games for which the cover art is better than anything in the game.
|
Wikipedia offers some uncited facts about the game, including that Paul O'Connor, the lead designer for
Dragon Wars (1990) started work on the game, but gave it over to Bruce Schlickbernd after a couple of weeks. According to the summary, Schlickbernd didn't feel comfortable taking sole "designer" credit and thus appears in the credits as the "associate producer." If this is true, it still doesn't explain much, as Schlickbernd, like O'Connor, had been with Interplay for several years and had worked on
Wasteland,
The Lord of the Rings, Vol. I, and
The Bard's Tale III, among others. Surely, he knew what a good RPG looked like. On the other hand, this was programmer Jim Sproul's first game. The company inexplicably went all-out on production elements, including a box cover by Boris Vallejo and a rare
television commercial.
According to my master game list, there were only three native NES games from western developers: Eurocom's
Magician (1990),
Swords and Serpents, and Sculptured Software's
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991),
which I tried a couple of years ago. If anyone was going to compete with the Japanese market, it was going to be Interplay. It's too bad they didn't step up.
Sounds about right. I genuinely find this game kind of charming -- I like the aesthetic, at least -- but the execution is uniformly bad. The real killer is the pointless combat. Even simplistic menu combat in the style of Dragon Warrior would have been a significant improvement. The game is too hard overall to be "baby's first dungeon crawler", either.
ReplyDeleteIsn´t it a problem if a first dungeon crawler is boring, nothing against simple rpgs but boring ones are not the way to go in my opinion.
DeleteI'm not sure what you're responding to. I don't think a first dungeon crawler has to be boring, it just probably shouldn't have a ton of teleporters and require passwall spells etc. if you expect a young person inexperienced with the genre to be able to complete it.
DeleteCongrats on finishing in spite of boredom. Looking for any redeeming qualities, was the idea to back into a teleporter a first? I seem to recall games where using a teleporter a second time would lead somewhere else, but not this.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason for the respective costs and rarity of the Fire and Glow swords I could see would be the former having a higher AC based on the walkthrough on gamefaqs (https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/nes/587676-swords-and-serpents/faqs/21153) and this and damage being valued more (by the game) than efficiency and enemies hit, maybe because on higher levels it‘s all about not being hit in the first place? Still doesn‘t explain the Plus2 vs Plus3 sword, though.
According to said walkthrough and a thread on the speedrun site linked earlier by another commenter, there are also some additional items which are (very) rare drops.
Is Edward Murrow common knowledge in the US (in your generation) or did you know him and the alluded quote from the Straitharn/Clooney movie (which was the case for me)?
BTW, the caption on the „You‘re on fire“ screenshot made me chuckle :-).
> Is Edward Murrow common knowledge in the US
DeleteFor my part (roughly 10 yr younger than Chet) it was definitely through the Clooney movie. Murrow died in 1965 and his sort of show doesn't lend itself well to reruns... thus I'd be surprised if anyone younger than 65 or so has firsthand knowledge of the man & his work.
He was famous enough to my parents' generation that I absorbed stuff through osmosis. When I first watched Keith Olbermann in around 2004, I recognized his use of the phrase as an homage to Murrow. I think that was about a year before the film.
DeleteMurrow still makes appearances in history classes today, both for his work during the war and his opposition to McCarthyism.
DeleteA great number of young people today would likely recognize his very distinctive voice.
I would guess that his influence has faded quite a bit over the last decade or so, with the change to the media landscape disconnecting young people of today from the CONCEPT of a national news anchor holding that sort of cultural sway. I reckon millennials and older would understand the broad trope of the Highly Respected National Newscaster With Distinctive Mannerisms, but you'd probably need to be Gen X to recognize a Murrow reference specifically. (For example, Cronkite was before my time, but I would catch a reference to his catchphrase mostly because a book I read as a kid had a character whose quirkiness was demonstrated by him being a Cronkite fan)
DeleteI am a middle millennial (late '80s) and I was aware of Murrow before the movie, as the newsman who had stood up to McCarthy, but he certainly became much more well-known and culturally relevant after the film came out. The movie came out in 2005 and was a response to the tenor of the times (the independence of the media versus "patriotism" had become an increasingly salient issue in the years after 9/11, accelerating with the Iraq invasion), so the McCarthy era was a recurring topic (at least, if your politics inclined that way). And yeah, I'm pretty sure my parents specifically pointed out that Olbermann was paying homage to (and/or ripping off, depending on your perspective) Murrow.
Delete"One of several games for which the cover art is better than anything in the game."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and by fantasy art standards the woman can be considered fully clothed. For once the men actually wear less than the women.
That guy is holding the axe the wrong way, though.
Also, is there any in-game reason for the giant snake/dragon to have a squint eye?
DeleteSo we know that the dragon is EVIL.
DeleteHa. I only just noticed those are the nostrils, and the glowing red thing in the back are the eyes. That makes it look more like a dragon instead of a snake with digestion problems.
DeleteHello, I'm completely new to this blog, so I'll just ask: I thought you were following a chronological order and finished already with 1990 games? Why are you playing a 1990 game? Aren't you currently at year 1993?
ReplyDeleteThere is a strict chronological listing, but there are games that either escaped the initial chronology (like obscure computer games he was told about later) or which aren't treated as part of it (console games). Console games are pretty much wild cards, as he doesn't regularly play them.
DeleteThere is a ‚CRPG Addict FAQ‘ page which addresses this and other questions you might have. You can find it through the drop-down menu at the top of the page if you‘re in mobile view.
DeleteThe blog also has a ‚web version‘ / desktop view, accesible e.g. through a link at the bottom, which shows a couple things in the right sidebar I think can‘t be seen in mobile view, e.g. the rules, the ‚recent, current and upcoming‘ list and others, so that might also be helpful/informative.
Thank you, killias2 and Busca, for your answers. It was initially difficult to find in mobile view, but the FAQ answered my questions.
DeleteI don’t know if Chester will read this message and reply, or if he'll treat it as a settled matter and toss it aside, but I'm reaching out to him anyway:
Forgive my boldness, but I think continually going back into the past slows down your progress in the main year you're focusing on (in this case, 1993) quite a bit. Plus, the older games you find you've forgotten tend to be less significant niche titles, right? That’s probably why you left them out in the first place, so I feel like they can wait. You’re never going to finish if you keep revisiting previous years.
This is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better to set yourself a milestone (for example, reaching the year 2000) and, only after reaching it, allow yourself to review what you've missed in the past? What do you think?
Oh boy, here we go again....@Herbst Not to sound rude but we had this discussion a thousand times before
DeleteDon’t worry @fireball, you’re not being rude. So, what was his motivation for not following this approach? Or is there a thread where I can read about it? It’s not something that’s covered in the FAQ, or at least not exactly what I’m looking for, namely a milestone approach to review old, forgotten titles after progressing through a few years, rather than interrupting the current year being played, to improve progression pace, of course, this is just my opinion.
DeleteHi, Herbst. Welcome to the blog. I'm never going to "finish," period, so that's not the goal I'm shooting for. Alternating a game from the "maximum year played" list with an older game is my compromise between never making any progress and rushing past minor games that are worth documenting. It's taken me a long time to settle into this pattern, but it works for me.
DeleteHi Chester, I might have expressed myself poorly. I didn’t mean "finishing" as in completing the entire project; rather, I meant finishing the "maximum year played" at a reasonable progression pace. I think I expressed my idea more clearly in my reply to @fireball, so please take a moment to read that.
DeleteWith that said, thank you for your blog! I’m fairly young (in my twenties), so it’s not nostalgia, but I’m having a blast reading your reviews of old CRPGs and playing those that seem like the best for each year, according to my tastes. I’m currently at 1985 and enjoying Bard's Tale, Phantasie, and Ultima IV. You’ve inspired me to do this. I’m also getting into the solo, old-school TTRPG scene. I’m looking forward to seeing your progress—thanks for the effort!
Herbst, if you still want to read up on how Chet‘s policy evolved to the current one he described, there are a couple ‚Special Topics Postings‘ (list also in the drop-down menu on top) which reflect said process over the more than fourteen years the blog has been existing (plus a lot of comments on most of them which formed part of the discussion - there was also some of it on Patreon IIRC; I‘m pretty sure something akin to your suggestion already showed up along the path somewhere, too).
DeleteIn chronological order these here might give you an overview and explain things a bit more in depth:
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2013/02/past-present-and-future.html;
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-new-plan.html;
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-list-never-ends-new-new-plan.html;
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2020/02/tenth-anniversary.html;
http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2020/05/chickened-out.html.
Thank you, Busca; they’ll make for an interesting read.
DeleteNice @Busca. Good reference if the topic comes up again.
DeleteI don't know if it's come up explicitly before, but there's also the simple fact that as we progress into the '90s the average game is getting longer and wordier, and having two long and complex games running in parallel has historically proven to be exhausting without something to leaven the mixture.
Deletere: Internet Archive, I found that I could download a file in PDF form and look at it that way even when the display is being wonky.
ReplyDeleteText search still isn't working, though.
Sad that they did so little with the game when it looks like a lot of the buildingtiles for a better game are in place.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The art definitely pulls out some Bard's Tale vibes. The dragon in particular, plus the ogre/goblin from an early entry, and some of the skeletons. The style's just the same.
DeleteAlso, backing into the teleporter seems like a nifty reveal -- reminds me a little of the directional teleporters in Legend of Zelda, for instance -- but it's a shame it didn't pay off more (you go back and find valuable stuff you missed, or they teach you in a way that says "don't worry about the old stuff, but starting now it's true").
Who is Boris Vallejo, one might ask - well, he's one of the best fantasy illustrators who ever did it, link as a public service:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.borisjulie.com/
TBH, if Chet didn't point it out, I don't think I'd have noticed that it was Vallejo; It's not one of his better works. Probably the worst game cover he's done.
DeleteI think it's recognizably his style, but I agree it's not one of his better works. What in the world is that guy doing with the axe?
DeleteVallejo is highly overrated IMO. The Dragon Wars cover was also pretty bad. The way the "models" pose in their underwear just looks so phony.
DeleteI think the ax man is preparing to throw it in a sort of sideways toss? Not sure why though, especially since he hasn't seemed to notice that the dragon is *behind* him.
DeleteAre "fleshy skeletons" not just people?
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of "top models", but I suppose other people qualify as well.
DeleteYour upcoming games list looks like it's going to be a bit of a slog...
ReplyDeleteI rather think it‘ll be the opposite. Of the six games, four look to me like they won‘t fulfill Chet‘s criteria and he could just BRIEF them if he doesn‘t want to finish them or can‘t do so quickly.
DeleteThe other two are sequels to games he already played. Ultizurk II was covered in two entries and Sword Quest was a slightly extended ‚Afternoon RPG‘. So unless the next installments were massively expanded, they also should not take forever.
Of course in between there would probably still be BaK and the ‚random‘ games from the extra pile, both of which may or may not turn out to be slogs.
That's probably true. I was just going by how obscure they are. And I often do enjoy reading about weird crappy games more than about the classics. I was just fearing for Chet's sanity.
DeleteMeh, if Chet can stand the year it took for the last Ultima game and the year it'll take for Krondor, he can stand some DOS-era coffee break games. There's nothing on it that I can see which should wear on Chet's sanity otherwise. (It's not another attempt at clearing out the '80s)
DeleteI'm glad you finished this one. I definitely still had about 10 hours left and that would have pushed me waaaaay off schedule.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Chet!
I vaguely remember Magician being kind of interesting and adventure game like but not clearly enough to know if it’s actually any good.
ReplyDeleteI played magician a few years ago. I enjoyed it as an adventure game, but it is not a role-playing game at all. There are statistics, but they are just your percentage of health, hunger, thirst, poisoning and four different magical barriers.
DeleteI would say that the biggest sin of this game is ABYSMAL graphics, as far as games for children are concerned. You can get away with a certain level of abstraction in adult games, but in games aimed at children you simply have to have a decent visual representation of everything.
ReplyDeleteThese are not terrible graphics for a lower-tier NES game. I absolutely played and enjoyed worse-looking games when I was a kid. My problem with this game wasn't that it looked bad, but that the monster art was too scary, and I couldn't figure out the mazes without reading a guide.
Delete