Let's have a recent crpg thread. Pillars of Eternity, the Shadowruns, Underrail, Tyranny, Wasteland 2...

Let's have a recent crpg thread. Pillars of Eternity, the Shadowruns, Underrail, Tyranny, Wasteland 2, Divinity and all that jazz.

I enjoyed the shadowrun game but I hated the matrix revamp in hong kong.
Never finish Wasteland 2, I stopped after liberating the mayor, I was bored with it.
Divinity was fun in co-op.
I'm playing Tyranny with the new dlc, for the moment it's not as bad as /v pretend, it's just average, I like the combat animation for the unarmed skills.
PoE was alright but the dlc was the best part.
i can't bring myself to play underrail, I spend to much time on it during the beta.

6 D A Y S
D
A
Y
S

How did Glory wipe her ass?

Very carefully?

I prefer the matrix revamp, what did you not like about it friend?

I'm a bit dissapointed of the crpg renaissance desu.
Tranny was ok but not all too special, most of the time it was clearing trashmobs but atleast the setting was a bit different.
PoE was boring as fuck and also generic as fuck and it reeked of fedora tipping which I really don't like in a medieval/renaissance like setting.
Divinity was basically a turnbased strategy game.
Wasteland 2 was boring as fuck.
For some reason I really couldn't get into underrail but I really should try it again.
The first shadowrun was fun but for some reason dragonfall didn't really grab me so never finished that one.
Age of Decadence was really nice but I found it a bit too hard but the setting etc was really interesting, one gripe I had was that either you needed to spec into combat or non combat abilities but when you spec into non combat abilities you need a certain selection of them which you never can know before you need them and skillpoints are hard to come by anyway.

Serious question:
Do poeple really dislike AOD here?
AOD is really unforgiving, and yes it is RNG based, there's no other way around it, even if you do the perfect strategy you might luck out and die, which while pretty realistic but not that fun.
Although I personally love that game, the options, the challenge, the setting, the atmosphere, I´m a huge history buff so of course I'll always prefer that setting over many others, except comfy cyberpunk, but even if you don't particularly love it you have to admit is unique and thus interesting from a rpg standpoint.
I know most of Sup Forums is not really hardcore, and just plays videogames because it's the easiest way to have fun alone, but to claim shit like POE is better than gems like AOD really makes me wonder how can taste be so SHIT.

I don't like when they try yo put stealth part in-game without making proper stealth mechanics, and I don't find it appropriate to put mechanics in a turn based rpg that aren't base on your character sheet.

I clean it for her with my tongue

>Do poeple really dislike AOD here?
I dislike it because the game is completly decided for you once you validate your char at the creation. You can never change your way to approach a situation from start to finish.

desu Dragonfall had the most memorable cast of characters in western RPGs since what, the first KotOR? Good shit, HBS.

So you like games like Skyrim?
You like being able to do everything in the same play through?

Why does no one talk about Tides of Numanuma?

Was it that much of a failure? I played past the boring ass tutorial but I guess it's not worth going further right?

No but I like to have at least a choices between some options not just one.

Tbh I really wanted to like AoD but they made it too hard.
The enemies you find are equal or stronger than your character in combat so when you fuck up a non-combat skill check you are definitely going to get killed.
It wouldn't have hurt if they made it a bit easier but not by much.

You're a disgusting degenerate.

Seemed like a wacky PoE so I never tried it desu.
If someone can give a short review I would appreciate it,

It's one of the better new cRPGs in my opinion, even with all its problems. Even though the overall story falls flat near the end, I really enjoyed the writing, the music and the environments of the game.

I've only done one playthrough of the game so far, but I'm pretty sure I'll do another one since there have been some additions, like the new companion.

Divine Divinity > yes
Beyond Divinity > no
Divinity 2 > fucking yes

I cared more for the Hong Kong cast to be honest. But that's my opinion

Is Divinity 2 that good?
Is it like Kotor or Oblivion?
Are you forced to play female protagonist?

The DF cast are old veterans and the HK cast are teenagers, both are good imo, I really liked Gobbet and Eiger.

It's a rpg in a discworld-lite settings with a nice mind reading mechanics. You can play male or female.

Yeah, HK was pretty cool too, but Is0bel and Duncan dragged it down for me a lot. I kind of wanted to have that LARPing vampire chick as a permanent party member too, she would've been fun.

From best to worst for me:

>Great
Divinity: Original Sin
Shadowrun: Dragonfall
Underrail

>Good
Torment: Tides of Numenera
Shadowrun: Hong Kong
Wasteland 2

>Meh
Pillars of Eternity
Age of Decadence
Shadowrun Returns

Super excited for D:OS2, I finished the Early Access version and if it improves in Act 2 like they said it would, it'll be the best of the bunch for me.

So which of these games should I play when I don't particularly care for CRPG combat and just want to get lost in an interesting world?

I had loads of fun with lords of xulima. Feels like a very cute take on dungeon crawlers with food system and traversal of harsh terrains. Combat system can be fairly easy broken with dot stacking, however, but the feeling of level progression and ability to backtrack to finish off previously impossible foes with ease always makes me hard.

Torment: Tides of Numenera. Combat is entirely optional, and every single ability and character trait can greatly affect dialog. Every quest has multiple solutions, and you can tell all companions to fuck off and play solo if you'd like.

POE has shit combat but it's Reddit: the game

Try planescape torment and go charisma

Are the story, reactivity and characters any good?

>it's Reddit: the game
Explain?

Don't play any of them then because almost all of them are 90% combat.
Aside from Age of Decadence it is.

Whatever happened to Expeditions: Conquistador? Remember there was another CRPG where every time someone made a thread about it some fags would shit it up telling people to Conquistador instead of said game. Was it just FOTM for a while and then died?

There are feminist and atheist tones in a 15th century like setting.

Yes. Also, if you like getting really crazy with the reading, every single item in the game has vast amounts of flavor text that's further expanded by the lore skills (natural, mechanical, mystical) and their various ranks.

There is a sequel of it with vikangs and sheeid.

>like

I played it. It's OK but it becomes repetitive and boring after 10 hours. Didn't finish it. The setting is great though. Also they made another one in a different setting but don't remember the name.

How does that make it a website?

Well I don't remember there being people in the 15th century that killed god with a bomb or something.

yeah, which is why there is no problem with there being atheists or feminists in that setting either

Well reddit is know to be a stronghold of progressiveness, feminism and atheism. While atheists are also many here even if its for trolling purposes people here act as if they are conservatists.

>I'm a bit dissapointed of the crpg renaissance
You could hardly call it a renaissance.

It's shit

For me it seems cheap and too modern that way.
When I watch a movie or play a game set in the equivalent of a certain time period in the real world I want them to follow sort of the same ideals or even if they don't give good reasons for it. It just comes off as cheap when the setting is basically modern people with old clothes and shit.

Actually there is, they are incompatible with the feudal society of that game, maybe crypto-atheists might get a pass but feminists? I don't think so.

I absolutely loved AoD. I put more than 100 hours into it and I consider it one of the most important RPGs of the recent years.

>you have to admit is unique and thus interesting from a rpg standpoint
It's not interesting from an RPG standpoint whatsoever. The setting is basic post-Roman collapse Europe that's trying to act like it's post-apocalyptic sci-fi.

It was the biggest disappointment since PoE.

How many post roman setting games have you seen?

That's not true though. There are a lot of things your character won't be able to do if he lacks the ability or skill but there are other things he will be able to do, e.g. just looking at the Assassin's Guild there's a lot of room for your approach. You can betray your masters at various points, switch to different sides, etc.

6 D A Y S

The game is only hard if you try to play a hybrid character - and even then if you know what you're doing and make use of everything that is tactically at your disposal (alchemy, bolas, nets, the right weapon, the right positioning/attack) you can still easily beat the game.

I agree that it can be unforgiving, however, I'd also argue that if it were easier it would devalue pure combat builds.

Does it matter if that setting isn't intersting at all? If it were set during the age of Gods leading mortal men before they threw a big bitch fit I'd say it was interesting but it wasn't.

>Shadowrun REEEEEEturns

cmon it was mediocre at least
you gotta give them credit for trying to revive it

Because trap skills are fucking stupid and doesn't make a game """""""""""challenging""""""""""""

You're joking right? Combat builds are underpowered as fuck.

Not the guy you're talking to but you're wrong: it was interesting. I don't know another RPG that handled plots between various factions similarly well. New Vegas came close but AoD took it one step further.

i bet she has fucked at least 30 men

I should try it again I guess.

The only reason to play it is if you're interested in the setting and even then its still not very good

How are combat builds underpowered? A pure fighter will effortlessly beat the game and have a much easier time in the beginning (where the game is actually hard).

>That's not true though
It's true for the most part, if you don't min-max you will end-up in impossible situation. You can't deviate from your starting build.
It's still worth at least 1 playthrough because the settings is interesting.

Well I find the roman empire interesting and we dont see much of them in games aside from startegy games maybe but those are limited anyway.

Hahaha, no.

What?
They nailed the setting great, history cuck here:
>Petty local warlords take over the cities and towns that remain
>They have no organized structure so half the cities are falling on themselves with no resources to sustain them or the large populations they used to house
>With no organized military, nomadic barbarians do what they want, a hunnic/avar-esque horde is represented as a main faction in the game
>Roman succesors will talk about "the good old days" for hours
>The merchant class is steadly getting more power as there is no organized nobility to put a stop to them
>Poverty and crime are rampant
>The "police" turn a blind out to crime unless they see inmediate profit because the idea of the nation state is lost and only the loyalty of the warchief, who's also probably a criminal boss, remains.

Compare that to a Tolkiencopy bootleg world or MadMax bootleg that most other wrpgs try to do.

I love AoD, but the design is obviously divisive, and the devs even admitted that they've fucked up a little.
>We balanced combat around ‘specialists’, which made playing a ‘hybrid’ the hardest difficulty mode. The idea was that the players would beat the game with a specialist first and then play with a more balanced but more challenging character. Turned out everyone wants to play a hybrid but not everyone can figure out the combat system on the fly. That’s why “too difficult, can’t play it” is the #1 complaint.

How about you prove me wrong by giving me a counter-example or telling me precisely how the game did not handle faction dynamics well?

Aside from the ass she doesn't have much special.

The feminists are all either backer NPCS(which were a mistake) or from outside Dyrwood, which is supposed to be a shitty little backwater stuck in the middle ages while everyone else if having a renaissance

Hows Path of Ecile?

Why don't they just make an easy difficulty option?
Just give the player more hitpoints and %chances or whatnot

geart

What this nigga said.
This basically happened when the western roman empire was falling apart.
The chaos resulted in romano celts like the iberian celts, gauls and britons being raped by germanics.

What diablo 3 should have been but I would rather have had a skill tree instead of what they have now.

Find a flaw

It's just a glorified visual novel with a hardon for stat checks

I mean, it manages to have actual routes, unlike other glorified visual novels like shadowrun but it still suffers from either being all about skill banking if you're a noncombat guy or spamming one of the three viable attack types if you are a combat guy.

Not the guy you're talking to but I would argue that the design flaws in AoD are flaws of the genre itself. AoD made them apparent because they took the whole choices/consequences thing to its conclusion.
There will always be a conflict between making choice and character builds meaningful and not locking the player out of content. In other RPGs choice/builds often become arbitrary, with newer Bethesda games being at the opposite end of the spectrum where everyone can do anything and choice becomes meaningless.
AoD pretty much forced the player to meta-game by hoarding experience to spend it in order to "unlock" content, but I have yet to see how to solve this problem. In other games it's pretty much the same, except that there are fewer skill-checks and often the player has enough experience at his disposal to become proficient enough at everything. For a single-character based RPG there will always be such issues - at least with common RPG mechanics.

1st house: Either gets killed off by the Legion or does fuck all in their little edge of the world

2nd house: The only guy with his shit together

3rd house: God will save us they're totally not dead because I'm going to become one.

Legion: Worthless barbarians GTFO. Oh hey, a noble gained slightly more power than the others. All hail the new emperor!

Boatmen: *sharpens knives*

Thieves: Money money money money!

>Poe High tier
>Witcher 3 on low tier, lower than Broken Protocol
I know being contrarian is edgy but you went even further beyond

You have brain damage child

put underrail in great tier

tyranny deserves to be in mid tier

deus ex hr is no rpg

>witcher 3
>low tier
witcher 3 does story, characters, choice and consequence better than any other AAA RPG nowaydays and deserves to be atleast in high tier

Wow how accurate! And how boring.

One is a choice and consequences simulator, the other one is a shitty open world date simulator with no redeeming qualities.

Tier lists don't fit the genre as RPGs are too multifaceted to be ordered one-dimensionally. For example: Gothic 2 has a world that feels much more "alive" than the worlds of Torment or Baldur's Gate, making it a much more immersive experience. Torment does dialogue-based role playing better than most games on that list but has rather crappy combat. Div:OS has great combat, but pretty poor meaningful role playing choices. Which is better? It would depend on what you're looking for in an RPG. Some might argue an RPG without good combat is a shit RPG, others look more for meaningful role playing choice and multiple choice dialogue. A one-dimensional space is not enough to do the genre justice and therefore every tier list will ultimately fail to give a proper representation of the games' quality.

>shitty little backwater
Readceran pussy detected

>RPG
How is it an RPG? What roles am I choosing and playing?

I'm always the same character with the same backstory, personality and goals, the different "builds" in the game are barely different at all, there's no party to manage and the weapon/equipment variety and management is laughable, at best.

PROTIOP: Dialogue choices do not make or break an RPG. Adventure games have dialogue choices, they're not RPGs. If W3 is an RPG, its a pretty fucking bad one. All it has going for it are story and visuals, the actual mechanics and gameplay are awful.

what this user said

That's a complain I have about The Witcher in general really. When you have a middle age society talking about genetics, sorceres or no, I'm rolling my eyes.

That's a nice description of the status quo, but it does not tie into faction dynamics. All the interests of these factions overlap and you as the player have the opportunity to make their ambitions come true or thwart them.

>better than any other AAA RPG
not an accomplishment

Why do you like divinity this much?

Not the guy you're talking to but I didn't find it boring at all. Maybe you just have strange tastes?

Doesn't ever amount to much considering everything remains the same unless you're stupid enough to awake the god who goes on to rule the world through a puppet of your choosing.

Tell me a better scenario and I will tell you why its shit.

How does everything remain the same though? Even if you don't awake the god you can have a lot of impact on the world. You can help a faction of your choice become powerful, fuck the other factions' shit up, or even become a god-emperor yourself.

You are right with the science in the witcher universe but if you think of it as a early 15th century setting without guns then it would make more sense.

Oh yes, all the actions they basically pay off as a pat on the back. The god-emperor ending is the only one that really matters.

Yeah but it's a product of the 90's Tolkien rippoffs.
The Witcher games are great, but the franchise and thus the setting is honestly average at best, in fact, the books only got translated to English because of the popularity of the games.

that black choker is the mark of a whore and every girl I've seen wearing it has either really bad judgment regarding men or is just easy and either way she has done it with hoards of men