If the original "Legends of Eisenwald" was a solid, albeit somewhat clunky, representative of the genre, then "Bastard" is a small expansion built on the same engine. The main focus here is on a grim story and a philosophical undertone that, while deserving of some praise, is not enough to make this game truly enjoyable.
All game mechanics are carried over from the original. The only new addition is the "reputation" system. As you progress, you encounter various events where you must make decisions that affect your reputation. Almost always, this boils down to choosing between a "bad" option - encouraging violence and ignorance to gain reputation points - or a "good" option, where you do the right thing but lose reputation, endure insults and curses, and often receive no gratitude from those you save.
This reputation can be used in just a handful of situations to "assert authority" - usually to intimidate someone and avoid a fight. But why bother with this feature when defeating enemies provides both experience and loot? Fighting is almost always the better choice.
The most contentious design decision is that to unlock one of the three endings, you must participate in every reputation-related event and consistently choose options that build your reputation. If you fail to earn even a single reputation point, that ending becomes inaccessible. Meanwhile, some achievements still require making "positive" decisions, so frequent saving is a must. This allows you to test both outcomes, collect all achievements, and accumulate enough reputation points to unlock the third ending.
Not everyone will want to turn into a brutal sadist, encouraging murder and violence. But let's not forget - it's just a game. You likely won’t feel compelled to replay it multiple times to see all the endings. Therefore, it’s best to start accumulating reputation points during your first playthrough.
The gameplay is dull. There are few battles, and the supposed non-linearity is limited to decisions affecting reputation. This has almost no impact on the gameplay and barely affects the story. Moreover, the game is short - I completed it thoroughly in just four hours on the hardest difficulty.
The philosophical questions the game raises are genuinely interesting. Humanity is portrayed as cruel (sadistic) and ignorant (foolish), a depiction that resonates strongly with current events in the real world. This strikes a chord emotionally, but ultimately, it feels like grim overkill from the developers. The three endings are even darker and more ambiguous than those of the original game:
[spoiler]1. You can die, taking your insane brother with you. This is perhaps the "good" ending - saving people from a tyrant and finding peace for yourself.
2. You can support your brother’s madness and indulge in depravity.
3. You can seize power for yourself, which requires accumulating all those reputation points. However, these decisions lead to famine, plague, war, and death ravaging your lands. A Pyrrhic victory.[/spoiler]
I appreciated the moral lessons and philosophical depth of the story. But I would have preferred this as a standalone game focused on text-based narrative and moral choices. Why was it built on the "Legends of Eisenwald" engine without utilizing its full potential? The developers clearly had something to say but used the tools they had on hand.
I cannot recommend this game because I expected something entirely different from an expansion to "Legends of Eisenwald".
