From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


Unsurprisingly, I played the original "Temple of Elemental Evil"
tabletop module way back in the day. In fact, it was one of my /first/
AD&D gaming experiences. The DM was inexperienced (then again, so was
I as a player!) so we didn't have the best time with it, but its dark
mythos and the expansiveness of the campaign made it a more memorable
adventure than it really deserved to be.

I, of course, played the 2003 computer translation too. I was equally underwhelmed with that. In part, it was because I didn't like that it
had been translated to D&D 3.5Edition rules (the original was made for
1st Edition rules, which have a tone much more fitting with the brutal
nature of the adventure). But I was also getting quite tired of
top-down 'isometric' CRPGs, and fiddling about with 8 characters in my
party felt more a chore than delight. Apparently many felt the same,
since the game didn't sell all that well.

Still, it eventually resurfaced... first on GOG and later on Steam.
And then it disappeared on Steam... only to now resurface as the
"Temple of Elemental Evil Re-Release".

On the one hand, cool. Even if I'm not the biggest fan of the computer
game (or the module), I'm all for games of yore being made available,
and that ancient nostalgia for my tabletop experience still makes me
look favorable on its electronic descendent.

But on the other hand... this really isn't anything to be excited
about. It's not really like you're getting anything new. It's
basically the GOG version with some fan-patches applied on top of it
(and even that is clumsily done; reviews indicate you get a better
experience if you buy the GOG version and apply the patches yourself).
Plus, the publishers took this opportunity to jack up the price (it
used to be $5.99 USD; now it's $9.99 USD).

Nonetheless, I can't help but give it the nod. It's classic D&D and
classic gaming. It may not be good, or worth the price, but it
deserves a place in everybody's library regardless. ;-) https://store.steampowered.com/app/3843520/The_Temple_of_Elemental_Evil/





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 12/10/2025 1:59 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Unsurprisingly, I played the original "Temple of Elemental Evil"
tabletop module way back in the day. In fact, it was one of my /first/
AD&D gaming experiences. The DM was inexperienced (then again, so was
I as a player!) so we didn't have the best time with it, but its dark
mythos and the expansiveness of the campaign made it a more memorable adventure than it really deserved to be.

I, of course, played the 2003 computer translation too. I was equally underwhelmed with that. In part, it was because I didn't like that it
had been translated to D&D 3.5Edition rules (the original was made for
1st Edition rules, which have a tone much more fitting with the brutal
nature of the adventure). But I was also getting quite tired of
top-down 'isometric' CRPGs, and fiddling about with 8 characters in my
party felt more a chore than delight. Apparently many felt the same,
since the game didn't sell all that well.

I actually helped the official patches on that one by playtesting for a
bit after it came out.

The furthest I got with it was when I ran a solo run. Just a druid, no
other party members. That would've worked better if there wasn't a
level cap. If I were to retry it, I'd probably go with a duo or trio.
I still didn't like the temple proper and stopped playing shortly after
I got into it.

I've never even got into the temple running it, which I did several
times. The module seems to be cursed. The Village of Homlett/Moathouse
is pretty good by itself though. Other than being very low treasure for
1e, unless you go evil and loot the village, and the frogs which TPKed
one party, and typically kills at least half of them.

We only had T1 when I played/ran it originally.

But on the other hand... this really isn't anything to be excited
about. It's not really like you're getting anything new. It's
basically the GOG version with some fan-patches applied on top of it
(and even that is clumsily done; reviews indicate you get a better
experience if you buy the GOG version and apply the patches yourself).
Plus, the publishers took this opportunity to jack up the price (it
used to be $5.99 USD; now it's $9.99 USD).

Probably re-released and jacked up to cash in on the (percieved?) new
interest in turn based rpgs after BG3's success
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:35:05 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 12/10/2025 1:59 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Unsurprisingly, I played the original "Temple of Elemental Evil"
tabletop module way back in the day. In fact, it was one of my /first/
AD&D gaming experiences. The DM was inexperienced (then again, so was
I as a player!) so we didn't have the best time with it, but its dark
mythos and the expansiveness of the campaign made it a more memorable
adventure than it really deserved to be.

I, of course, played the 2003 computer translation too. I was equally
underwhelmed with that. In part, it was because I didn't like that it
had been translated to D&D 3.5Edition rules (the original was made for
1st Edition rules, which have a tone much more fitting with the brutal
nature of the adventure). But I was also getting quite tired of
top-down 'isometric' CRPGs, and fiddling about with 8 characters in my
party felt more a chore than delight. Apparently many felt the same,
since the game didn't sell all that well.

I actually helped the official patches on that one by playtesting for a
bit after it came out.

The furthest I got with it was when I ran a solo run. Just a druid, no >other party members. That would've worked better if there wasn't a
level cap. If I were to retry it, I'd probably go with a duo or trio.
I still didn't like the temple proper and stopped playing shortly after
I got into it.

I've never even got into the temple running it, which I did several
times. The module seems to be cursed. The Village of Homlett/Moathouse
is pretty good by itself though. Other than being very low treasure for
1e, unless you go evil and loot the village, and the frogs which TPKed
one party, and typically kills at least half of them.

We only had T1 when I played/ran it originally.

We used the T1-4 Temple of Evil compilation when doing it tabletop.
Most of our time was spent futzing around in the countryside making
general nuisances of ourselves (we weren't quite the 'murder-hobo'
trope, but close). I don't really recall too much of our actual
adventures in the eponymous Temple, except I remember it being overly
long, sort of boring, with way too many overpowered monsters. After
all the detail poured into the overworld to help create a realistic
setting, the dungeon itself felt silly and unrealistic.

Also, I got swallowed by a giant frog at one point. (That wasn't the unrealistic bit, just something I remember in particular).


I don't have any real memories of the computer version. I seem to
recall it used some fiddly mouse interface that made it a pain to find
and select options.

[Looking at screenshots, I see it used this disc-like
right-click context menu with multiple-levels of fly-out
menus that appeared if you hovered over certain points. Not
difficult to use, but I recall having to dig through the
menu-structure multiple times to cast spells, pick up items,
or whatever and it always seemed extremely cumbersome and
non-intuitive]

Otherwise, the overwhelming memory I have was of the computer game's
blandness. In part this was, as mentioned, because I was tiring of the
genre's tropes, and my dislike for the top-down viewpoint. But it was
also I think because the game was based on a 20-year old adventure
module; it felt dated because it /was/ dated. Following on the heels
of games like "Planescape" and "Baldurs Gate" (and not facing off
against newcomers like "Gothic" and "Morrowind"), ToEE just seemed to
lack any spark that made it stand out (besides, of course, the fact
that it was based on the old tabletop module). But under other
circumstances, I might have enjoyed the game more than I actually did.
It's not a bad game (although I seem to recall on release it was
rather buggy); it just wasn't a /fresh/ game.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2