My partner and I played through Divinity Original Sin 2 many times with co-op, and now we are playing through BG3 and we are having the time of our lives. It’s really really good. It’s like co-op in DoS2 but I’d say it’s even better.
Just make sure you recruit someone and they recruit someone to your party (just like in DoS2) so you both get to control another character. But it’s really easy to switch out party members if they are in your camp.
I couldn’t see anyone mentioning so I would add Disco Elysium
Not your typical RPG by any measure, but one of my top favorite games of all time, more focused on exploration and talking/decisions rather than fighting. Also has a unique mechanic where “stats” are connected to mental attributes that talk with the character by offering advice, insight, or just poor suggestions depending on your level :D
I love Disco Elysium with all my heart, but suggesting it to a person who talks with emphasis about combat systems and strategic depth is sort of dangerous.
Disco Elysium is a novel masquerading as a game. If you like that and approach it as such, it can be extremely rewarding, but there isn’t much gameplay to be had.
It is basically a visual novel where you're able to walk around the world and interact with things. The only gameplay is making choices, but there are an incredible amount of choices to make.
I will say that I hate to call something like Cyberpunk an RPG at all. It feels almost entirely like a shooter, with the RPG parts somewhat tacked-on. This is more evident even with the missing 6th spec tree and how, even after massive rebalancing, the whole level-up and spec-system are entirely irrelevant without a lot of mods.
Don’t get me wrong, modded the system works well.
But as installed, it’s just all rubbish and feels almost forgotten by the devs.
The best thing a game has ever done with this is ask on first startup if it should go to the main menu or just load your last save on every startup after this one.
I’ve been playing Beyond All Reason, a free RTS that’s like Supreme Commander or Total Annihilation. The game handles 8v8 team games quite well, I’ve never played on such large teams in a RTS game, it’s fun.
The economy is similar, but it’s a little easier than sup com. Energy to metal converters are cheap and if you balance them right you wont waste metal or energy.
Used to play a lot of RTS, both single and multiplayer. The last one I bought was the new AoE game. It did scratch a bit of the itch, but on the whole was a letdown. Before that it was Iron Harvest, which was visually pleasing but clunky. I am still looking for an RTS I can really get lost in.
Generals with Zero Hour is fantastic, and I actually think it's the best in the series. While I think Company of Heroes is better, it's still a very good game.
The fear mechanic in games like Diablo is really obnoxious to me. Having my character run halfway across the screen uncontrollably over and over during a fight is super fun!
Pretty much any mechanic that just takes away control from the player is a bad one. It’s much better when the player can affect a negative event in some way in order to lessen the event, or just bring it to an end. I bet a fear mechanic that at least allowed you to steer your panicking character would make it a lot more palatable.
I love game mechanics that reward thinking or tactical decisions rather than rewarding how much time you spend grinding this or that. I do like having some kind of character progression - and that usually comes with grinding. But I hate it when the only challenge of a game is just how many hours you can sink into it. I much prefer when there are hard skill walls that you can’t pass until you really got genuinely better at the game.
I hate generic boring quests that feel like they came straight out of a story generator. It’s ok to have a few of them. But a hundred of them… You play one, you played them all… No incentive to do them. I much prefer a game that has only 10 hours of content but very solid content with well- designed narrative and places ; rather than 2 hours of human-made content and 48 hours of generated maps and quests.
One of the best games I have ever played is Dark Messiah of Might & Magic. That game has such an insane combat and a great narrative - I just couldn’t put it down, I finished it in just one or two weeks because it was so good! And at the end I felt an emptiness, like when you’ve just finished watching an excellent serie and wonder what to do next.
(hard coded behaviors) Like when you think that you are supposed to died but you can’t, or some character seems like it could die but it can’t. It feels like the devs are playing with you
-Real Time Timers: Think FF13 Lightning Returns. It doesn’t matter how many mechanics there are to alleviate the pressure, they make me so stressed out that I don’t enjoy playing the actual game.
-Unrepairable Durability Mechanics: I mean things like Breath of the Wild where you can use a weapon X times before it breaks with no way to repair it. I end up never wanting to use “my good weapon” and tryto beat entire games with a 2x4. If I can go to a vendor and repair my gear, I don’t mind as much.
-Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
Love:
-Meaningful Choices: Not two dialogue options with the same end result, but things that shape either story or gameplay. This could be a major branching story choice OR something like a talent tree.
-Base Building: I like build base. It doesn’t have to be a city builder or strategy game (Though I absolutely love those), but I am a sucker for games including any degree of base building. It’s my favourite part of the XCom games as an example. Bonus if I have to make choices about my base, see previous point.
Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
careful, you might alert the horde with a take like that. (i do agree tho)
I am kind of used to sometimes poking the bear on this one in particular. It’s what I personally dislike though, I don’t necessarily think they are badly designed. I totally get some people absolutely love that kind of thing in games, and I am glad they have games that scratch that itch. It’s just an instant turn-off for me though.
That said, I have never quite understood the people vehemently opposed to having a difficulty slider though; just keep it on hard and it’s literally no different.
Yeah I get why people like hard games too! It’s just baffling that so many are so opposed to others wanting to play on easy. I think maybe for these people they like to be “different” and be fans of something that’s “different,” in that it doesn’t have “medium” or “easy” difficulties. They want to feel like they’re part of a special club.
There are online modes in most of those games, besides Sekiro, that difficulty options would have an effect on, particularly invasions. Fortunately, invasions have been getting scaled back as time goes on, and the games have gotten easier in general, so we might converge on a game with difficulty options.
I am not the expert on the genre by any means, but would limiting invasions to “only other people on the same difficulty” just segregate the player base too much?
I think adding difficulty options is fine but the accessibility of difficulty is risky because lowering difficulty is so enticing to the average person. I love souls games but I admittedly, in games where I can change difficulty on the fly, swap the difficulty to quickly move forward if I hit a wall. On the other hand, I spent 8 hours fighting the Guardian Ape in Sekiro and beating them is my favorite gaming experience of the last 5 years. I am pro accessibility but there should be some disadvantages to doing so (ironic, less accessible accessibility options). The easy one is making them a one-chance option. For example, moving your difficulty down from hard to normal, forces you to play the rest of the game at normal (Dragon Quest XI does this). There are other considerations that can be done, hidden difficulty that gives concessions (Crash Bandicoot, RE4) or attempt to estimate a flexible difficulty.
I think with difficulty there’s always going to be a question of “can we make this easier”.
I think the obvious query is “why should I be punished because you can’t hold back your urge to decrease the difficulty” but the reply could easily be “why should Devs do more work so you can play a game not aimed at you?”
Tl;dr: Shits complicated, cheat engine is always an option for the time being. People who mock you are losers.
If Dark Souls had easier difficulties, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. People would turn down the difficulty instead of learning the bosses and how to beat them.
The games aren't as hard as people make them out to be. They just force you to adjust and learn to play in control. There's a reason people can play them with all kinds of goofy input options, though. If you pay attention to what enemies do and don't blindly spam attack every second, they're all beatable
I have definitely heard that argument, and I understand it, but at the same time there are a good number of us who would just simply not play the game then.
I realise it is up to the devs who they want to make their game for, and I am probably not their target audience, but banging my head against a wall until I get through something doesn’t give me any kind of feeling of triumph when I manage it. I just feel frustrated. Whereas the soulslike games I have played where I could turn the difficulty down, I enjoyed way more.
If Dark Souls had easier difficulties, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. People would turn down the difficulty instead of learning the bosses and how to beat them.
Which is hilarious because people 'turn down the difficulty' constantly by using summons or 'jolly cooperation' all the time in the games and don't seem to differentiate that from a difficulty option.
But some people play them with just a Dance pad. Doesn’t that, by your logic, mean they are too easy? Shouldn’t they be even harder? Maybe they’d be even more famous. The point is that difficulty is relative, therefore there OBJECTIVELY isn’t a correct difficulty. You’re just lucky enough to fit into their “difficulty demographic”.
But it’s moot anyway. Games with easy modes will still get played with high difficulty by people that actually enjoy it. Your own enjoyment of a game should not depend on other peoples difficulty levels.
There’s pros and cons to having a single standard difficulty. But anyway, you can use mods/editors to make the souls games (or any game for that matter) much easier.
I'll be one of the "horde" (albeit more tame) but personally I don't think developers should make their games easier or change their vision in order to broaden its audience. It kinda reminds me of the "rated R" debate. Certain people want movies like Oppenheimer to be rated PG-13 over being rated R so it can reach a bigger audience. But I don't think Nolan should be changing his vision of the movie just so it sells better
Your comparison doesn’t make a whole lot of sense though? Movies can’t be rated PG-13 and R at the same time, but games can have easy and hard difficulty levels at the same time. The developers don’t have to “change the vision,” they can just put a little tooltip that says hard is “as it was intended to be played” or something like that. I’ve played plenty of other games that did that.
I’m not out here wanting the game to “sell better,” I’m here wanting to enjoy the handcrafted and detailed story and setting without having to worry too much about it being difficult. I’m sorry for not being interested in the challenge?
Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
I'm torn on this... I love playing Dark Souls 1/2/3/etc for the world and the enemies and exploring and overcoming the difficulties and finding cool gear and weapons and trying out new builds.
But I also absolutely hate pretty much every single boss fight in the games.
One of my favorite examples of this was playing The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure on the Gamecube back in they day. Me and a friend were really into it, but had trouble rounding up extra players. We got his little sister and an unwilling third friend to join. After about 30 minutes the unwilling friend, Marcus, gets bored with the game and starts sabotaging the rest of us. He’d run around smacking us with his sword making us drop rupees or refuse to stand where we needed him. That’s honestly when it became fun for all of us, though.
The other three of us would plan out the room and then we’d figure out how to wrangle Marcus back into place. Someone would hold him so he couldn’t go rogue and hit us while the others got in place to pull some levers before the wrangler would toss Marcus onto a pressure plate or something. He got to continue being a little bastard while we (slowly) made progress through the game. He eventually came around and helped us when it was absolutely necessary, but it was always clear it was just so he could keep being a bastard again. I really enjoy that asymmetrical style of gameplay and wish more things capitalized on it.
Also on the Gamecube of notable mention was Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Always fun when someone would get the personal mission of “take the most damage” and become a suicidal maniac in every encounter, much to everyone else’s detriment. Ah the good old days.
One limitation that games like Civ suffer from is that diplomacy is ultimately pretty shallow because there can only be one winner, so even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).
What I would love to see is a multiplayer game like Civ but where each player has independent win conditions (so that a game could have multiple winners, or no winners). The condition could even just be to attain a certain level of happiness or wealth. And if you achieve that then you win even if other nations are bigger or stronger, and conversely if you don’t achieve it you lose even if you are the last nation standing. So decisions to go to war, or focus on technological development, or build alliances or trading relationships, etc, are driven by the wants and needs of your own people and not just a need to dominate others.
I think I’d like that if there was a single winner as well. Something like to win you need to complete two objectives, one public and one secret. So other players can still work against you but they dont know what you’re trying to do.
even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).
This is exactly what made me gravitate away from Civ games and more towards Paradox strategy, where the AI actually behaves more like a real country would do instead of a player trying to win a game.
All the mainline games are not interconnected at all, they are pretty much very separate in terms of story / settings / characters. So you can jump into any one of the games. Also, their turn-based systems, aka Active Time Battle, aren’t anything interesting, compared to say Shin Megami Tensei’s Press Turn system. All FF games have very linear / streamlined experience compared to other games, i.e. choices don’t matter much, you don’t choose the stats, equipments are streamlined.
Here’s some overview:
First 6 games were 2D games, the best of those bunches are Final Fantasy 6. Great story, great villain, great music
original FF7 is the one popularized the JRPG genre, and probably broke the base between older 2D fans and newcomers. It has memorable characters, music, story about eco-terrorism. The gameplay revolves around materia system, it’s like logic system where say if you connect Fire magic with All-effect and 2x-effect, you can casts double Fire magic that hits every enemies, etc. FF7 Crisis Core is one of the best FF spinoffs out there, while FF7 Remake is a ‘remake’. It’s advised that you finished the original FF7 before playing those two.
FF8 also broke the base. The game is more romance-centric in some way, but still sci-fi. The gameplay revolves around junction / draw system, where you draw magic from enemies to junction it to your stats.
FF9 is kinda back to original game. It’s more high-fantasy setting, and was released during the end of PS1. It wasn’t as popular as FF7 or FF8, but there are definitely fans. I had hard time getting into it, because the animation is kinda slow, but maybe I should replay the HD version
FFX is very well received, it’s a sci-fi romance story that takes place in south east Asian-like tropical islands. The first FF game on PS2. FFX has a sequel, FFX-2, which is also well received
FF11 is MMO, I don’t play MMO, so I have no idea about it.
FF12 is great, it’s more political than usual FF games, because it’s written by Matsuno, who made Tactics Ogre and FF Tactics. The gameplay is bit weird, bit MMO like.
FF13 was not well received, the only mainline FF game on PS3. It spawned two other games FFX-2 and FFX Lightning Returns. The main complaint about FF13 was that the story was incomprehensible, the game is very linear, and the battle mechanics is very confusing. I think what happened is that
they used tons of opaque in-game terms (Fal’ Cie, La’ Cie), that’s barely explained until very late in the game.
the game also opens up very late, there’s a one large wide region for you to roam around and engage in enemy encounters, but they only give it to you very late in the game
the combat wasn’t explained clearly, the paradigm shift system is actually fun, and a step up from ATB
annoying characters, they focused too much on Hope and Snow. Hope is a whiny child, but he’s a child, so it’s ok. Snow on the other hand, is just an annoying character who likes to talk about himself.
FF14 is another MMO, I don’t touch MMO
FF15 is kind of a mess, it was in development hell. I like the roadtrip story, where you just drive around. The open world is bit sparse and serves mostly for enemy encounters. One of the main issue is that some of the stories are gated behind DLCs. The gameplay is bit more weirder than normal ATBs. I like this game, but not as much as others.
FF16 is great. Devil May Cry combat, very streamlined and nicely paced story, those huge spectacle Asura’s Wrath-esque battles, etc. This game is my current GOTY.
There are other spinoff games, e.g. Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, World of Final Fantasy, but they are mostly spinoffs, mostly for fans who want more after playing the mainline.
But there’s one that I want to recommend, and that’s Final Fantasy Tactics. It’s a strategy RPG and it’s amazing. There’s an updated version released on PSP, called Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions, which is probably the one you should play.
There are rumor swirling around about FF9 and FF Tactics remakes, but can’t say anything until we see it.
Final Fantasy is a lot like Zelda in that a particular person’s favorite is going to be the one they played when they were 12 years old. Depending on the age of the recommender, you are most likely to get 4, 6, or 7 as an answer.
So I’m assuming quadruple A is going to be a game from a large study thats recently been bought by a giant corporation and fucked with everything despite not knowing video games.
So yeah, that’s pretty much what AAAA means, although some end up decent
Fantastic concept. I agree that most of the other apps are either super monetized or too “in app” like a Pokemkon GO, or they’re just boring and don’t offer much.
This looks like something fun, motivating, and really well made.
Thank you! And I definitely know the feeling of “being boring and don’t offer much”. That’s what I also got from many of the fitness games out there - I felt the games were way too casual to offer long-term motivation. If I’m collecting stuff for the sake of just collecting, there’s not enough to keep me hooked.
We’re trying here to keep it quite casual friendly by that the complexity reveals itself slowly. But I also think that complexity often for people comes from controls and such - here the input being just walking already lowers the bar a lot.
The combat that’s coming to the game I think really is the final missing piece, as then all of the hard grind you’ve done also ties to combat progression. Making the perfect combat build to beat a boss with your hard earned steps!
I just got my access to the closed beta and fired it up today. Even the initial setup, character customization, story intro, and tutorials are top notch. I feel pretty excited to get this started, more than I’ve felt about a game in awhile. Looking forward to the experience and contributing to the feedback where I can.
Thank you so much! The current tutorial is just a placeholder, and not really that finished but I tried to make that nice looking and informative as well. Happy walking, and glad you’re liking it ❤️
bin.pol.social
Ważne