Sunday, February 5, 2012

Making the Cut - Part 2 (Golvellius 1988)

How does a game get released without battery saves when Zelda and Phantasy Star had it?
First up in 1988 we have Golvellius. Released for the Sega Master System, a lot of opinions are that it's a response to Zelda on the NES. I see more similarities to Zelda II honestly, but that game is released after and goes much further than anything here. Let's get on to the scale though:
(SMS) Golvellius: Valley of Doom - Rating(6)
1) 1 - Character advancement: stat or level increases
2) 0 - Combat: none
3) 0 - Items and equipment: none
4) 2 - Story: main story at the forefront; world full of hints and lore
5) 2 - Exploration: open world from the beginning, visited locations remain open
6) 1 - Quests and Puzzles: puzzles and riddles to solve

The game loses big RPG points for real-time weapon based combat, no levels (only health upgrades), and no economy of buying and selling. There aren't any decisions regarding items or equipment (get it all, use them automatically), and only a single attack in combat.

I felt a little sorry for it, so I called the world open (from what I can tell of videos it might be) although I have a feeling the dungeons are sequentially locked. Puzzle points were given because there is at least once when you need to take a hint from an NPC and apply it in the game world to unlock a dungeon.

The game itself doesn't look too bad, and there are still fans of it. If I had more time (and a Sega Master System), I might give it a chance. However, I'm not sorry to see it go, as I'd have to skip over it anyway.


  1. Sorry, are you starting new games before you finish the previous, or do you just like working on your list? I'm cool either way, just wondering.

  2. The games I showcase in these "Making the Cut" posts are ones that I've found don't quite fit into the same category as other RPGs. So, I'm not playing through them. Since there were on the list though, I'm not outright removing them either in case someone has questions about them in the future.

  3. Clever- I like it.

  4. Clever- I like it. It should avoid all those 'You should play X' comments that are still going up on the CRPG Addicts blog, or at least focus them.

  5. That's the hope. Glad it's well received.

  6. I like this too Zenic, but I have to admit it's a little off-putting jumping between games. I understand why you would only apply the Game 1, Game 2 etc. headings to games you're actually playing through, but it would certainly be easier to follow along if you handled things in the order they are on the list.

    That's just my five cents though. :)

    1. I can see the reasoning behind that. Going forward, I'll make these posts between games, so as not to interrupt the flow of one game's posts. I jumped between in this case because I hadn't thought about how far in advance I'd want to do this until I was in the middle of Phantasy Star. So, from now on the cut post for a game will be a year before it appears in the timeline (i.e. a 1990-02 game will get a post before I play any 1989-02 games).

      Hopefully this way will make a little more sense.

    2. Sounds good. I think making them between games is the key, but it will be nice to know what your system is so we can see what's coming up.