>>3840010
>It has a thinly veiled sketch of a plot that is directed at giving the player a premise to work with.
I admit that I might overestimated the general story by cherrypicking the best from memory, like The Loon and elemental riddles. Nevertheless, these small bits have better writing than anything in PoR, and the fact that you still insist that it had decent plot with "twists" is very funny, all of them were as obvious as if it's a children's book except for the human Tyranthraxus not being real one.
>like most Wizardry's up until Wizardry 7
You never played 6 it seems.
>Even if we compare it to the SNES version, a whopping 4 years after PoR, PoR still comes out ahead
You have a vision disability or shit taste. Sole piece of Jun Suemi's art alone destroys every bit of PoR's visuals. And by the way, those were in 1990's PC-98 release as well. Needless to say, visuals is 1990's Amiga version of PoR barely been improved, I know that because it was the one I played.
>Mmmm, boy oh boy do I love seeing the same four walls over and over again!
Either complete retard or bait, no comments there. All PoR levels save for pyramid, Tyrnathraxus maze, and maybe graveyard were utter brainless garbage, even then they all combined held no candle to Manfretti's theatre.
>Just out-right objectively better.
Try using your left brain hemisphere instead of right to judge game's level design. This is as retarded as if you'd say that System Shock 2 level design is better than SS1 because it has more decorative assets and smoother details.
>occasionally
More like all the fucking time. This alone proves that your memory about the game is rather muddy and you barely know what you're talking about.
>Also, funny you say it was focused more on "substance" than on "looks".
I've meant the game itself, not the graphics. And I were right. PoR instead were showing off but underneath the game was shallow.
>God you are retarded.
No u, nostalgia-blinded fanboy.
