Bit of an interesting game, when I tried it a long time ago, but it was too much of a grindfest for me. Then again, I never got into Runescape either for similar reasons.
RS was a grind but it was relaxing. That’s what I loved. Come home, chill, chop some trees, level some skills, be a mage and kill some bad guys for slayer. Now it’s just min maxing for end game. The grind is unreal for some people, they kill the same bosses 20000 times for a pet to drop
Come home, chill, chop some trees, level some skills, be a mage and kill some bad guys
Well, that sounds a lot like what I found in Albion Online, though I can’t speak for how it’s changed. From what I understand, it has some extensive guild/clan systems too, where you can work together to build larger projects and wage war with rivals.
Albion Online has a fully player-driven economy (or at least had last time I played it, back in 2022, prolly still does)
You can play it almost entirely as a gatherer, crafter or merchant (auction houses/markets are local to the cities they’re in), avoiding combat nearly everywhere. It does put a lot of emphasis on PVP tho, but at least the areas/maps where that can happen are clearly marked. Higher level materials are only found in these pvp maps, though it can take quite a while until you can even start gathering them.
AFAIK, all gear that drops from dungeons can be crafted as well. Nothing is character bound and being on red or black maps means that you lose all your stuff being carried on death.
Glad I didn’t buy the DLC and decided I’ll wait for some sort of definitive edition to play Starfield again. I hope by that point it will be a better overall game and have enough new things to make it worth the time.
It depends on the game. I wouldn’t remove the open world from Elden Ring at all, since sightlines are so important to you figuring out how to get somewhere. Horizon: Zero Dawn and Ghost Recon: Wildlands are two games that I love, but both would have been better if you just selected missions from a menu. In Metal Gear Solid V, they basically give you the option to play the game that way, which is nice, since there are open world systems, but you don’t really interact with them constantly. If you can get away with the Uncharted thing though, where you’re seamlessly moving from one thing to the next, it can be great for pacing and presentation. Especially since Bandai-Namco had the patent on loading screen mini games, a lot of developers ended up inventing “load bearing walls”, where tight spaces that you have to crawl through will mask a load screen between two scenes.
Your desire to dumb down diablo-likes is your own and I hate it. PoE and Grim Dawn are about the only games like this that I have truly enjoyed in a long time. Blizzard ruined Diablo and WoW with this bullshit take.
As I said, if you just took away all those mechanics, you’d be left with a boring empty game.
What I said was that it would be nice if you could make the combat feel more like hunting than gathering, so you wouldn’t have to make up for it with a:) number-go-up and b:) np-hard - then you could then go for much more enriching forms of complexity.
For instance, making mobs fight a lot more tactically as their level increases instead of just stacking on the HP and damage - and instead of your perks just driving stat inflation, they unlocked new tactical options on your part, giving you a series of new stops to pull out as the battles got more fraught.
Ok, I see where you’re going now, but I’m still not sure I agree with you here overall for the genre.
I think the “add tactics” thing is already done to a degree in these games as early enemies in these games tend to be dead simple since players like likely still acclimating to the game, but I suspect that there is only so much you can do before you end up turning later enemies into some sort of frustrating puzzle. Diablo-likes, for better or worse, aren’t generally mind bending affairs, high skill ceiling affairs.
There is definitely room in the genre for more tactical, skill dependent entries, but I not sure the end result would be as fun for most people as that would be a fundamentally different type game. Hey, maybe I am wrong and this would lead to some sort of souls-like Diablo game where skill and learning are all that matters and items and character building are far less important. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Hades in a way.
Yeah at that point it kind of morphs genre from dungeon grinder to isometric action. That being said I think isometric action is a way better game type due to the level of involvement and a challenge that’s skill based; whereas I find dungeon grinders to boring from overly simplistic controls and gameplay loops.
That being said I am tired of so many game just giving you 3 real buttons, but this is the problem with making games to make money, if you want to market broad you have to keep it simple.
Behind every problem in life lies capitalisms ugly asshole.
I looked at the latest and most “recent” heroes games… they’re all rated/reviewed SO harshly.
Many of the negative reviews are (and rightly so) because of Ubisoft forcing you to use their crappy launcher, adding DRM, and otherwise making the customer experience horrible, and not because there is anything wrong with the genre.
I feel like the anime art style can make women of any age look pretty cute - which makes it hard for me to understand why they choose to make all of their combat-experienced, leader-professionals just entering high school or even earlier.
Dana is some sort of friggin leader-priest, and hasn’t even hit puberty. Japan is so weird sometimes.
There’s a perceived unpopularity with these genres. However, some truly great games like Baldur’s Gate 3 are living proof that you can make a niche genre very popular. It’s just that almost no one tries, or doesn’t like the risk involved. That’s why you don’t see a lot of these genres anymore. Well, you DO see them, if you look close enough and include indie and A/AA titles, but a massive AAA title with big budget and advertising for those genres is pretty much non-existant (I’m not familiar of any other exception like BG3). I think big studios are unlikely to risk such things. Look for smaller game studios, they’re much more innovative and either keep “dead” genres alive or they try mixing genres in innovative ways.
Just a heads up, it’s fine. It’s a fine shooter. It’s not more than that, the story isn’t brilliant, the online is a bit tedious (and customisation is limited at best for loyalists and almost entirely non-existent for heretics). The gameplay is fun enough. I’ve got like 20 hours out of it, I would say 14 of those were fun. I gave in and bought it too early 😂
Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous has crazy depth of story, can be turn based or active combat, and you can adjust a ton of difficulty options to suit your taste. Lots and lots of exploring.
Pathfinder Kingmaker & WotR are such strong titles in most aspects, but in both instances the mini-game they tacked on top of a perfectly fine RPG got on my nerves. Kingmaker’s management sim and WotR’s Heroes-of-Might&Magic-like army battles felt to me pretty rough around the edges (and ultimately tedious), especially compared to how engaging the rest of the games are. Ugh, I love-hate them sooo much.
Yep. And the worst part is the Fear-of-Missing-Out when disabling them.
Like, there is nothing stopping you from just not doing the kingdom management mini-game, except that nagging feeling that you might actually miss out on some content…
I play with a controller on PC, and while I’m fine with the campaign battles in WotR, it irritates me to no end how they change the controls for them. It doesn’t make any sense at all to do it, but they did. No matter what I will eventually accidentally skip turns because of that dumb decision.
One example, for those that don’t play with a controller: In regular party fights pressing the shoulder buttons will select an enemy, which can be a huge help instead of using the pointer.
But in the campaign army battles the shoulder buttons skip your turn. Why??
I’ve been kind of out of the RPG loop for a while, probably not the best person to suggest, and haven’t played the series, but I’m thinking that if you could expand a bit on that, it might help provide suggestions…I mean, not clear to me what you’re looking for that’s specific to that relative to other RPGs. Similar setting? A long-running RPG series with many entries? The combat system (absent the real-time aspect)?
You mention “depth of story”, so maybe something with a similar level of storytelling?
Sure. Tales games tend to be high fantasy settings where each game is its own setting (much like Final Fantasy in that sense). They tend to have a lot of “war against heaven corrupted” kind of vibes. But largely there’s a lot of places to explore, NPCs to talk to, and a bunch of great little skits that trigger between your team. They tend to be lighter on graphics in exchange for length and depth of story. But it’s also somewhat linear, and carefully crafted and you can sort of lose yourself in finding the next story beat.
But they also typically have active combat systems where it’s about button mashing and combos. This is the part I don’t like :)
I second on the Trails suggestion in this thread. Only played the Sky, but these games probably fit your preferences. Long story, large party of characters, short entertaining skits just like in Tales + turn-based combat.
Lots of Skyrim!
Also this game for Playdate called Spilled Mushrooms, I’d been waiting for it to come out a while. It’s a nice blend of simple card game and puzzle, each round only takes a few minutes. The goal is to pick animals to help collect your mushrooms from different areas, animals have different abilities and each biome can have modifiers. It’s pretty much endlessly replayable and very satisfying once you get into a groove! I’m glad it’s not on more platforms because I’d lose so much more time to it
bin.pol.social
Ważne