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

×
A warmly received series of fantasy titles from Cyanide Spiders arrives on GOG.COM with juicy discounts. Join Orcs and Goblins in their desperate struggle against the Empire of Humankind in three unique games:

Of Orcs and Men (-80%) is an action fantasy RPG in which you follow the Orc warrior Arkail and his Goblin companion Styx on their quest to assassinate the human Emperor.

Styx: Master of Shadows (-80%) is a stealth game and a prequel to Of Orcs and Men. As the Goblin Styx you must infiltrate the mysterious Tower of Akenash.

Styx: Shards of Darkness (-60%) tells the further story of the ruthless Goblin. Our hero can sneak past enemies, set traps and clone himself in order to confuse his foes.

Discounts on all three games - Of Orcs and Men (-80%), Styx: Master of Shadows (-80%), and Styx: Shards of Darkness (-60%) – will last on GOG.COM until 31th January, 2 PM UTC.
avatar
CMOT70: I played Master of Shadows and did not like it in the end at all. Just some things that no one is telling you: it's one of those games in two halves- the first half is good, the second half is the first half played backwards. The same maps, just backwards and with increasingly more annoying enemies. I
Thanks for that info. I had never heard of these games before seeing this thread.

Last night I watched a bunch of video reviews of them to get a sense of what they are about.

Not one of those reviews actually contained this vital information about the recycled levels. I'm glad you disclosed it.
Post edited January 26, 2020 by Ancient-Red-Dragon
low rated
avatar
Pyromancer138: Will Styx: Shards of Darkness have support for multiplayer at some point?

Please GOG, don't ignore my question.
avatar
MarkoH01: That's probably not up to GOG but to the devs/publishers of the game. I am pretty sure that reworking the game to use GOG API instead of Steam API is quite time consuming and therefore costly so they decided to not even try and offer us a free DLC instead. Imo it's great that they at least try to do something to compensate for the missing MP - but of course it would even be better to get the exact same features. Still, because of what I said above regarding the costs and effort I doubt it will happen. You should contact Focus on their discord to get a definitive answer. They are replying quite fast and friendly.

Focus discord:
https://discord.gg/TYwT4B
No, it isn't great -- in fact, it sucks, because it shows that GOG's standards are in the gutter and "curation" is a sad joke. GOG should say NO to everyone that isn't fully committed to it's platform, or scrap Galaxy and be done with it. When I see this nonsense It makes me think that GOG doesn't have a real commitment to Galaxy -- or anything else, for that matter.
avatar
richlind33: No, it isn't great -- in fact, it sucks, because it shows that GOG's standards are in the gutter and "curation" is a sad joke. GOG should say NO to everyone that isn't fully committed to it's platform, or scrap Galaxy and be done with it. When I see this nonsense It makes me think that GOG doesn't have a real commitment to Galaxy -- or anything else, for that matter.
1. Galaxy is sh*t, anyway.
2. GOG is full of old games that have never received (and will never receive) Galaxy support. Games, developers and even entire publishers of which simply no longer exist, and, accordingly, will not change anything in their games.
Should we throw away all such old games (among them are many all-time classics and good old games), simply because they do not support a bunch of low-quality code pile on top of the Google's Electron?
Regarding this particular case: this game is a high-quality stealth game, why should we be left completely without it? Steam dominates and many games were made for it. The only thing you can do here: do not buy games in Steam, but buy only in GOG - encourage publishers to support this store with your money, simply that.
3. In addition, if GOG, as thoughtlessly as you suggest, refuses such big games from large publishers, then the chances of large games appearing here from large publishers will only decrease - many will decide not to get involved (which is what happens even now). If the support of the Galaxy becomes a MANDATORY requirement, there will only be fewer games here in future.

In the end, if you don’t like it, just don’t buy the game - let it personally not appear here for you. Imagine that the game was refused, as you want. That's it, your problem has been solved: "there is no this game here at all" and "you cannot buy it", just like it was a week ago.
Nothing has changed for you. Everything is exactly as if it had been refused.
high rated
avatar
MarkoH01: That's probably not up to GOG but to the devs/publishers of the game. I am pretty sure that reworking the game to use GOG API instead of Steam API is quite time consuming and therefore costly so they decided to not even try and offer us a free DLC instead. Imo it's great that they at least try to do something to compensate for the missing MP - but of course it would even be better to get the exact same features. Still, because of what I said above regarding the costs and effort I doubt it will happen. You should contact Focus on their discord to get a definitive answer. They are replying quite fast and friendly.

Focus discord:
https://discord.gg/TYwT4B
avatar
richlind33: No, it isn't great -- in fact, it sucks, because it shows that GOG's standards are in the gutter and "curation" is a sad joke. GOG should say NO to everyone that isn't fully committed to it's platform, or scrap Galaxy and be done with it. When I see this nonsense It makes me think that GOG doesn't have a real commitment to Galaxy -- or anything else, for that matter.
It's better than getting nothing (and it's not as if they aren't informing you before you buy) - that's all I said. Anyway, if you think GOG should rather refuse such offer and reject the game completely then just don't buy the game and be done with it. Let those who are interested to buy at least the SP game here the possibility to do so and keep your useless and senseless rant to yourself.
Post edited January 26, 2020 by MarkoH01
low rated
avatar
richlind33: No, it isn't great -- in fact, it sucks, because it shows that GOG's standards are in the gutter and "curation" is a sad joke. GOG should say NO to everyone that isn't fully committed to it's platform, or scrap Galaxy and be done with it. When I see this nonsense It makes me think that GOG doesn't have a real commitment to Galaxy -- or anything else, for that matter.
avatar
Loger13: 1. Galaxy is sh*t, anyway.
2. GOG is full of old games that have never received (and will never receive) Galaxy support. Games, developers and even entire publishers of which simply no longer exist, and, accordingly, will not change anything in their games.
Should we throw away all such old games (among them are many all-time classics and good old games), simply because they do not support a bunch of low-quality code pile on top of the Google's Electron?
Regarding this particular case: this game is a high-quality stealth game, why should we be left completely without it? Steam dominates and many games were made for it. The only thing you can do here: do not buy games in Steam, but buy only in GOG - encourage publishers to support this store with your money, simply that.
3. In addition, if GOG, as thoughtlessly as you suggest, refuses such big games from large publishers, then the chances of large games appearing here from large publishers will only decrease - many will decide not to get involved (which is what happens even now). If the support of the Galaxy becomes a MANDATORY requirement, there will only be fewer games here in future.

In the end, if you don’t like it, just don’t buy the game - let it personally not appear here for you. Imagine that the game was refused, as you want. That's it, your problem has been solved: "there is no this game here at all" and "you cannot buy it", just like it was a week ago.
Nothing has changed for you. Everything is exactly as if it had been refused.
Letting publishers peddle gimped software, that probably won't have update parity with that *other* platform, isn't a victory if you're trying to build something that's more reputable than G2A. Make Galaxy work for the publishers and the customers -- assuming that's possible -- or get rid of it. Obviously GOG is trying to be attractive to Steam users, but that's never going to work if it doesn't fully commit to making Galaxy work. As things presently stand, GOG is a half-assed company that doesn't do anything particularly well.

avatar
richlind33: No, it isn't great -- in fact, it sucks, because it shows that GOG's standards are in the gutter and "curation" is a sad joke. GOG should say NO to everyone that isn't fully committed to it's platform, or scrap Galaxy and be done with it. When I see this nonsense It makes me think that GOG doesn't have a real commitment to Galaxy -- or anything else, for that matter.
avatar
MarkoH01: It's better than getting nothing (and it's not as if they aren't informing you before you buy) - that's all I said. Anyway, if you think GOG should rather refuse such offer and reject the game completely then just don't buy the game and be done with it. Let those who are interested to buy at least the SP game here the possibility to do so and keep your useless and senseless rant to yourself.
Sorry to offend, Marko. Enjoy your crumbs. lol
Post edited January 26, 2020 by richlind33
avatar
richlind33: Letting publishers peddle gimped software, that probably won't have update parity with that *other* platform, isn't a victory if you're trying to build something that's more reputable than G2A. Make Galaxy work for the publishers and the customers -- assuming that's possible -- or get rid of it. Obviously GOG is trying to be attractive to Steam users, but that's never going to work if it doesn't fully commit to making Galaxy work. As things presently stand, GOG is a half-assed company that doesn't do anything particularly well.
You keep writing meaninglessness.
I will try to simplify:
Imagine Rockstar turns to GOG and says: we want to publish GTA 1-5 here.
GOG replies: Only if you build-in Galaxy support.
Rockstar: Okay, than stay without us. But tell us: A lot of games are being sold in GOG without the support of the Galaxy - why do you sell these games without the support of the Galaxy, and refuse our games?
GOG at this moment probably should answer: 'Cause here we have such discrimination. One guy on the forum told us to do so".
Good thing I waited before getting "Of Orcs and Men" elsewhere this time. It's the last RPG where Spiders was involved that I'm still missing and the premise always intrigued me. Thanks for bringing it to GOG (along with the Styx stealth games)!
high rated
avatar
richlind33: Sorry to offend, Marko. Enjoy your crumbs. lol
Oh, if we would have it your way I could probably tell you to enjoy your sweet nothing - I guess that would be better?
The Missing COOP mode for Shards of Darkness don't bother me much tbh ad the game works much better as a single player game.

In truth most stealth games fits much better as a single player experience atleast for me as it reinforce the feeling of isolation and danger you can only overcome by not being seen, making the opposing force seem more threating.

Usually i'm a strong advocate for full feature releases but i don't think it's a big loss here.
Post edited January 26, 2020 by ChrisGamer300
avatar
richlind33: Letting publishers peddle gimped software, that probably won't have update parity with that *other* platform, isn't a victory if you're trying to build something that's more reputable than G2A. Make Galaxy work for the publishers and the customers -- assuming that's possible -- or get rid of it. Obviously GOG is trying to be attractive to Steam users, but that's never going to work if it doesn't fully commit to making Galaxy work. As things presently stand, GOG is a half-assed company that doesn't do anything particularly well.
I feel your frustration. The thing I see though is, even if GOG did do what you say and "fully commit," those Scheme users are unlikely to budge, at least not in significant numbers. What is GOG's unique selling point...DRM-free of course. But if a user doesn't care about DRM-free, as Scheme users have proven they don't, what motivation do they have to bother buying on GOG? Even if the game features are the same and Galaxy 2.0 fulfills their "need" for a client; there's no reason for them to buy it on GOG versus on Scheme.

Scheme's strategy over the years was, in my view, to get people in so deep that people would feel really uncomfortable trying to get out. They did this largely with extreme, unprecedented sales, which in turn got users to build up very large game libraries, all tied into Scheme client/ecosystem of course. People buying all these games are thus reticent to leave the platform. This helped build a sort of tribal brand loyalty; surely you've heard the phrase "No Steam no buy"?

On that note, even though most Scheme users seem to grudgingly respect CD Projekt Red, go take a look at the GOG Thronebreaker reviews. SO MANY dissatisfied customers who bought the game here, but then got upset when they learned later they could've got it on Scheme. Same game. Only difference being it doesn't tie into the Scheme ecosystem.

Brand identity matters. I think, with Galaxy, GOG is trying to please an audience beyond its original audience. However, I see this as causing serious brand confusion to the point that the terms on GOG's sister site FCKDRM.com ("100% DRM-free") seem to invalidate GOG itself as a DRM-free site due to the client requirements for things like multiplayer. So as for Galaxy, I would opt for "get rid of it".

I am very pleased to see the Styx games here myself. They had caught my eye years ago and I have accepted this is basically par for the course to get releases years after the fact. For me it is worth owning them. Not unlike how people often wait for a "GOTY" edition with all the DLC included. Similar approach, really; I am fine waiting for what I consider a full product. We are getting more and more big releases lately so hopefully publishers are seeing that our money is just as good as that of Scheme users.
Post edited January 26, 2020 by rjbuffchix
low rated
avatar
richlind33: Sorry to offend, Marko. Enjoy your crumbs. lol
avatar
MarkoH01: Oh, if we would have it your way I could probably tell you to enjoy your sweet nothing - I guess that would be better?
Have you no moxie!?!? No backlog? lol
low rated
avatar
richlind33: Letting publishers peddle gimped software, that probably won't have update parity with that *other* platform, isn't a victory if you're trying to build something that's more reputable than G2A. Make Galaxy work for the publishers and the customers -- assuming that's possible -- or get rid of it. Obviously GOG is trying to be attractive to Steam users, but that's never going to work if it doesn't fully commit to making Galaxy work. As things presently stand, GOG is a half-assed company that doesn't do anything particularly well.
avatar
rjbuffchix: I feel your frustration. The thing I see though is, even if GOG did do what you say and "fully commit," those Scheme users are unlikely to budge, at least not in significant numbers. What is GOG's unique selling point...DRM-free of course. But if a user doesn't care about DRM-free, as Scheme users have proven they don't, what motivation do they have to bother buying on GOG? Even if the game features are the same and Galaxy 2.0 fulfills their "need" for a client; there's no reason for them to buy it on GOG versus on Scheme.

Scheme's strategy over the years was, in my view, to get people in so deep that people would feel really uncomfortable trying to get out. They did this largely with extreme, unprecedented sales, which in turn got users to build up very large game libraries, all tied into Scheme client/ecosystem of course. People buying all these games are thus reticent to leave the platform. This helped build a sort of tribal brand loyalty; surely you've heard the phrase "No Steam no buy"?

On that note, even though most Scheme users seem to grudgingly respect CD Projekt Red, go take a look at the GOG Thronebreaker reviews. SO MANY dissatisfied customers who bought the game here, but then got upset when they learned later they could've got it on Scheme. Same game. Only difference being it doesn't tie into the Scheme ecosystem.

Brand identity matters. I think, with Galaxy, GOG is trying to please an audience beyond its original audience. However, I see this as causing serious brand confusion to the point that the terms on GOG's sister site FCKDRM.com ("100% DRM-free") seem to invalidate GOG itself as a DRM-free site due to the client requirements for things like multiplayer. So as for Galaxy, I would opt for "get rid of it".

I am very pleased to see the Styx games here myself. They had caught my eye years ago and I have accepted this is basically par for the course to get releases years after the fact. For me it is worth owning them. Not unlike how people often wait for a "GOTY" edition with all the DLC included. Similar approach, really; I am fine waiting for what I consider a full product. We are getting more and more big releases lately so hopefully publishers are seeing that our money is just as good as that of Scheme users.
I wouldn't touch Galaxy with a 50 foot pole. Suffice it to say that I take Marko's user title a tad more seriously than he does. ;p

Whither thou goest, oh GOG of mine? lol

So yeah, go all in and make Galaxy work, or ditch it and go back to being what you used to be, which was plenty good enough for me.

That's all I'm sayin'.
Post edited January 27, 2020 by richlind33
Sometimes you have to make the best of an unfortunate situation. If you aren't buying it because of the missing co-op, consider telling the publishers about this.
So I'm playing Styx Master of Shadows atm, and am barely in (just 6% on load screen); and so there is plenty I probably haven't seen or done yet.,

But at this early stage, it is a quite fun sneaker game. I'm able to play more or less the way I like to play Thief - which is taking my time and finding places where I can observe the goings on at my leisure, then make my moves.

So far I am able to avoid all the AI (except, ofc, those few you are targeted to get) and more or less "ghost" the areas. If I wanted to, it looks like I could kill and hide the bodes of most or all the mobs. But I prefer just sneaking around them - and that is going well.

Not sure if it will stay that way - and I haven't reached the point of "playing the levels in reverse" yet.

But so far - lots of sneaking fun. :)
Comparing the two games, I find Shards of Darkness to have the superior gameplay - but the narrative is weaker, and Styx's characterization might not appeal to people who dislike Deadlpool. I recommend playing the games in order, to avoid being spoiled by the refined gameplay of the sequel.