The games in this set are very different from each other in many ways, despite their storylines and the common setting. While the first game is a classic dungeon crawler and blobber in the style of Dungeon Master, the second game clearly drew inspiration from early 3D RPGs (like Ultima Underworld and TES: Arena and TES II: Daggerfall) and first-person action games. The result is two distinct and vastly different titles, demonstrating how interesting and quirky the evolution of the RPG genre can be, even within a single series – and in this particular case it was through the dialogue with other genres such as action-adventure or trends like DM-clones or FMV-games. The Throne of Chaos is a kind of “Dungeon Master light version”. The gameplay fundamentals are generally similar to Dungeon Master and Eye of the Beholder (which Westwood developed themselves): you assemble a group of several characters (three in this case) who share the same screen and navigate through grid-based locations in the game world, fighting enemies and solving various logical and mechanical puzzles. The game features an automap, which even marks the locations of levers and buttons that open various secrets and passages. The game still delights with its beautiful and stylish pixel art graphics, and overall, it feels like an enjoyable and engaging adventure. While the plot is a standard fantasy, it offers plenty of unexpected twists and charismatic characters. As a DM clone, the game offers the player a wide variety of locations and challenges. The first game, of course, isn't all smooth sailing. The final levels, set in the main villain's castle, lack the thoughtfulness of the previous two-thirds of the game – they're very drawn-out and empty. There are virtually no side quests. You can't create a full party – you can only choose your hero at the beginning of the game, and subsequent companions will join you as the story unfolds. This limits tactical options compared to Dungeon Master and Eye of the Beholder. My main gripe with ToC was that it could do (and be) more than what it actually was. Perhaps some minds in Westwood also thought so. Let's talk about Guardians of Destiny. As I mentioned before, it's a completely different game, with a very different gameplay experience. As in Ultima Underworld and the early TES games, we play as a single player character who adventures in a mixed sprite-meets-3D environment. There's no grid-based level structure, and you can freely move around. You can even jump, run, and—to a limited extent—swim. There are lots of objects to pick, to eat, to combine with other. Perhaps it's not immersive sim, but something close. The game's protagonist can transform himself into a large monster (who is OP in fights) or a small creature capable of slipping through small openings and discovering secrets and optional parts of the game's levels. Although it's not immediately obvious, but unlike the first game, our actions and choices can alter the game's plot and influence the protagonist's personality. The game features many stylish FMV cutscenes with live actors rather than computer animation. While the aesthetics of the first game resemble those of a stylish fantasy cartoon, the sequel evokes memories of old fantasy action movies made in the 1980s and early 1990s. – like Conan the Barbarian, Kull the Conqueror, Legend, Labyrinth, or The Princess Bride. Unfortunately, the problems here are in some ways even more serious than in the first game. First of all, the player character can't control their mutations in the first half of the game, which can be quite annoying. Many actions (including those related to the story) are not obvious, forcing the player to watch for walkthroughs and solutions – which is especially noticeable towards the end of the game. The protagonist's movements are very clumsy and a bit off. Sometimes it's very difficult to perform such a simple operation as placing one crate on top of another. Unlike Quake and Build engine shooters, diving is not allowed here, and swimming in any deep water will result in drowning. Both games are quite atmospheric and interesting, each in its own style. Both games are uneven in quality and unfinished, each in its unique way. While the first game felt a bit cramped within the story-driven dungeon crawler format, the sequel represents a still tentative and shy (compared to Ultima Underworld or Daggerfall) step toward a 3D story-driven RPG with highly interactive environment. It's rather a step on a longer journey than a destination, and games from the end of 90s and early 2000s — for example, System Shock 2, Deus Ex, Morrowind, Gothic, and Arx Fatalis — were better able to achieve what Guardians of Destiny was aspired to. Yet it still very interesting case and ton of fun to play (even despite all shortcomings of both games). As for me, sooner or later I'll get around to Lands of Lore 3 to see how this series evolved for one last time.
