It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
Rune ClassicClassic vs. Gold - a veteran's opinion(7 posts)(7 posts)
(7 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 13, 2013
I've played through Rune many times, when it came out, and on several separate occasions, including few times recently in Classic.

So whats the diffrence between Classic and Gold? (talking singleplayer here).

Basically, Gold is what people played when Rune came out. It had its flaws, but was surely a 9/10 game for genre/setting enthusiasts, and 8/10 for everyone else. A year after release Rune was badly ported to PS2. Never played this one, but I believe Classic can be called a port of the PS2 version.

Im sure you already read somewhere that Classic is missing some levels from Gold. These levels are mediocre, heavy in the platforming department, or ambigous when it comes to puzzles/progression. So they didnt fit the game, which is (mostly) linear hack and slash action (not a bad thing).

Meanwhile changes to other levels include better scripting, much welcome enemy variety and bugfixes. Some examples:

A fortress gate in Gold is guarded by mudcrabs (sort of). Classic changed them to skeletons.
An event in Gold started only when a certain enemy was killed. In Classic the event starts when you enter the room.

Moreover, Classic looks and performs better on my PC.

tl;dr

The overall quality of Classic is better than that of Gold. If you plan on playing just once, play Classic.
Posted November 16, 2013
avatar
Psuja: Never played this one, but I believe Classic can be called a port of the PS2 version.
Just to add to this, but what seems to have been brought over from the PS2 version are the new enemies. Rune: Viking Warlord had many levels cut and a number of new ones added.

My only real gripe with Classic when I first bought it on Steam were the directional sound issues. I'm not certain how common a problem this is though.
Posted June 26, 2014
Thank you very much for the breakdown!

I suspect the Gold edition may run on my old XP laptop, though. This would be a deal changer for summer travels. I'll have to give it a shot.
Posted June 26, 2014
I have not tried it out on my old XP machine yet, but here is what I found for the system requirements for the original release of Rune Gold from http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=35854&tab=sysreqs.

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM:
Windows 95/98/Me/NT (with service pack 3 or higher)/2000
AMD K6-2/3 or Intel Pentium II or Celeron 300 MHz or higher
64MB RAM
DirectX compatible video card with at least 8MB video memory
DirectX compatible sound card
88MB free hard disk space
4X CD-ROM drive

RECOMMENDED:
Windows 95/98/Me/NT (with service pack 3 or higher)/2000
AMD Athlon or Intel Pentium III 450MHz or higher
128MB RAM
Nvidia TNT series/GeForce series/ATI Rage 128/Radeon/3dfx Voodoo5/Matrox G400
DirectX Compatible Sound Card
650MB free hard disk space
SUPPORTED VIDEO MODES
Direct3D, Glide, OpenGL, MeTal, Software Renderin (only OpenGL, Glide and Software Rendering supported on Windows NT)

These may or may not be the requirements for GOG's version.


-Update: It works on my old Dell using the onboard graphics chipset
Latitude D610
Windows XP SP3
1.73 GHz Intel Pentium M Processor
1.99 GB RAM
Post edited July 02, 2014 by cstuckma
Posted October 05, 2016
The multiplayer is separated from gold and classic or you have one for each? The first assumption is the logic one.

All in all I'm usually against ports unless they improve a game instead of ruining it, so I can't see good reasons to go with Classic since by what was stated by the topic author, is a port of a port.

There might be, however, things that would have me leaning towards Classic if the pros are more than the cons in my mental scale for this game. But really, why should I play the port of a port? I'd have preferred if the topic's author went deep into defining much of a comparison..
Posted October 22, 2017
Those mediocre levels certainly add to the game. Rune was as much an adventure as it was a hack'n'slash. I was impressed more than once by the mere span of the game, and it would be a shame to play the game in an edited (for the sake of brevity) version devoid of experimental design (the hallmark of that era).
Posted October 22, 2017
avatar
Psuja: I've played through Rune many times, when it came out, and on several separate occasions, including few times recently in Classic.

So whats the diffrence between Classic and Gold? (talking singleplayer here).

Basically, Gold is what people played when Rune came out. It had its flaws, but was surely a 9/10 game for genre/setting enthusiasts, and 8/10 for everyone else. A year after release Rune was badly ported to PS2. Never played this one, but I believe Classic can be called a port of the PS2 version.

Im sure you already read somewhere that Classic is missing some levels from Gold. These levels are mediocre, heavy in the platforming department, or ambigous when it comes to puzzles/progression. So they didnt fit the game, which is (mostly) linear hack and slash action (not a bad thing).

Meanwhile changes to other levels include better scripting, much welcome enemy variety and bugfixes. Some examples:

A fortress gate in Gold is guarded by mudcrabs (sort of). Classic changed them to skeletons.
An event in Gold started only when a certain enemy was killed. In Classic the event starts when you enter the room.

Moreover, Classic looks and performs better on my PC.

tl;dr

The overall quality of Classic is better than that of Gold. If you plan on playing just once, play Classic.
Rune Gold includes the multiplayer-only expansion, Halls of Valhalla. It comes with 33 maps and 2 new multiplayer game modes.

Therefore it does not make any difference which version you play, if you play singleplayer only
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
Rune ClassicClassic vs. Gold - a veteran's opinion(7 posts)(7 posts)
(7 posts)