It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Jorev: It is fantasy and no autosave so you need to save often or risk permadeath.
avatar
dtgreene: Doesn't that mean you can just reload if someone dies? (This is unlike Wizardry, where it's not as simple to do so. (But note that I always use save states or similar when playing Wizardry, unless I'm just playing around with the identify glitch.))
You can reload from your last save but you have to save prior to combat and there are many ambushes that you don't see coming, so save often.
avatar
IfYouHave2Ask: Thanks for reviewing them all. And thanks for your suggestions. I had been leaning towards getting Age of Decadence.
Be aware though that it's not your typical crpg, many people find its systems too harsh (though it's overstated imo, you can create characters who become very powerful even without excessive min-maxing, just don't spread your skill points too thinly). It's also a comparatively short game, because it was designed for being replayed several times with different characters, so if you're looking for an epic 50-hour experience, it's not that type of game.
But it's a very interesting experience, and for the price it's on sale right now very much worth it.


avatar
falloutttt: In the end of the day, nothing is better than the old "Fallout 1" and 2, and the magical "Arcanum".
Arcanum is a good game for its world-building, story and often pretty nice quest design, but its combat system is just horrible imo.
Post edited December 24, 2020 by morolf
avatar
MysterD: Severely underrated title.
avatar
HunchBluntley: Oh, yes. Even though RPG lovers always bring it up in discussions such as this, and despite the fact that it's currently sitting at #14 on GOG's list of "all-time" bestsellers, right between those other obscure gems, Diablo and Dungeon Keeper. Totally underrated. =)
Well, time has been much kinder to it and all.

But back when I played it...
...yeah, reviews slapped the heck out of it for tons of bugs, performance issues, not being 3D (since full 3D was the rage back then), and other stuff.
I enjoyed DAO quite a bit and Torment was very awesome!

If you don't mind ARPGs, go for the Mass Effect series.
avatar
AFnord: (Oh, and thanks for reminding me about Pathfinder Kingmaker, I really should make some time for that one)
If you love old school RPG mechanics and character building then it's a great game. The kingdom management stuff is tedious but you can supposedly turn it off, I hesitated to do so. I wish it had more of the "other" things RPGs excel at though, like story, choices, exploration. It had those of course, but was weaker in that regard compared to other modern CRPGs. It definitely focused on combat mechanics and character building.

I put 150 hours into it though, so obviously I enjoyed it. The acts are relatively self contained though, and the last two or three are worse than the early ones, so don't feel bad about quitting after act 4 or 5 if you feel like you're getting bored.
avatar
dtgreene: Doesn't that mean you can just reload if someone dies? (This is unlike Wizardry, where it's not as simple to do so. (But note that I always use save states or similar when playing Wizardry, unless I'm just playing around with the identify glitch.))
avatar
Jorev: You can reload from your last save but you have to save prior to combat and there are many ambushes that you don't see coming, so save often.
I've played enough games that I know to save early and often.
avatar
AFnord: I'll have to disagree with you on the encounter design in DA:O, I think that's one of the games big weaknesses. There are good encounters, but so many of them feel repetitive, and that's in large due to how many enemies are functionally very similar. There's not a big difference between a darkspawn or a human.

When it comes to being an introduction to that general style if RPGs, I think Pillars of Eternity is more inspired. There's more variety between the enemies and the encounters, and the balance is better. Pillars is not as friendly to newcomers as DA:O, but ultimately I think it's a better game.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I think all RPGs of this type are filled with trash encounters to some degree, and I find a lot of DA:O's encounters to be much better than average. Like you'll go through a mini-dungeon and fight a few trash mobs before arriving at a final fight that is very well thought out and structured. There's a lot of youtube videos of people doing these fights in interesting ways. I think it stands out among RtwP games, which usually are 99% trash mobs, but agree to disagree.

Pillars of Eternity is a weird one. I loved it, it took that Baldur's Gate style and mixed it with the storytelling and quest design focus of a Fallout or whatever, but so many consider it boring and bland. I'd guess those are people looking for more tactical or character design depth, considering they're the same people who tend to praise Pathfinder Kingmaker. I side more with Pillars.

Which gets to a good question for the OP: what is your RPG priority? Story and quest design, combat and character building, or exploration? It's rare a game excels at all these things, you usually have to say something like "I'm in the mood for exploration, so I'll play X" to get the right game for your current mood.
This is a great question. For my current gaming itch I would say...
Combat and Character building is top priority.
Followed by exploration.
And lastly story and quest design. I can usually deal with a mediocre story as long as the combat and character
building is fun.


Thanks again to everyone. I'm currently watching gameplay for over a dozen games to help me decide.

Wizardry 8 looks interesting.
I look at some gameplay for Arcanum but the combat seems mediocre.
Atom RPG is one that I've never heard of before but I like the look of it from screenshots. Haven't watched any gameplay yet.
avatar
IfYouHave2Ask: This is a great question. For my current gaming itch I would say...
Combat and Character building is top priority.
Followed by exploration.
And lastly story and quest design. I can usually deal with a mediocre story as long as the combat and character
building is fun.
Play Pathfinder: Kingmaker.
Not sure your definition of RPG but Disco Elysium seems real good.

I own Wizardry 8. The best part of it is character creation. It's skill system is pretty good too. But the rest is rather barren not much plot, nor many interactive NPC. Graphics are certainly dated chunky 3d.

Mount & Blade: Warband looks interesting, but maybe too much like elder scroll games?
Post edited December 24, 2020 by myconv
Some recommended Expeditions: Conquistadors. I want to do the opposite:
The game contains a mechanic, that made me ragequit the game.
Let`s say, your character is surrounded by enemies, wounded and you want to move him away from danger to save his life. In other RPGs that works, but not in C:E! Here there is a mechanic, that allows every surrounding enemy to hit you for free (meaning: not in their turn, but in YOUR turn) and you can`t parry those attacks. Also, those attacks do quite good damage. If you`re attacked by two or more enemies, fleeing means sure death under this circumstances. So your only choice is to leave the character where he is and hope that he survives, which he normally doesn`t.
So I can`t recommend this game, stay away from it!
avatar
Maxvorstadt: you want to move him away from danger to save his life. In other RPGs that works, but not in C:E! Here there is a mechanic, that allows every surrounding enemy to hit you for free
Zone of Control and Attack of Opportunity are quite common mechanics in RPGs. AD&D, for example.
avatar
Maxvorstadt: you want to move him away from danger to save his life. In other RPGs that works, but not in C:E! Here there is a mechanic, that allows every surrounding enemy to hit you for free
avatar
Kerebron: Zone of Control and Attack of Opportunity are quite common mechanics in RPGs. AD&D, for example.
Maybe, but I never encountered it in such a brutal and unfair way!
avatar
Maxvorstadt: Maybe, but I never encountered it in such a brutal and unfair way!
Well, life is brutal and full of surprises. :P

In fact, very few games implement some kind of penalty for having low health. Usually, character with 1HP can fight as good as one with full health. Most games have some crippling statuses like fatigue, sickness, injuries, low morale, etc., but being on the brink of death alone should be a critical situation, which gives you only a slight chance of survival in combat.
avatar
Maxvorstadt: Maybe, but I never encountered it in such a brutal and unfair way!
avatar
Kerebron: Well, life is brutal and full of surprises. :P

In fact, very few games implement some kind of penalty for having low health. Usually, character with 1HP can fight as good as one with full health. Most games have some crippling statuses like fatigue, sickness, injuries, low morale, etc., but being on the brink of death alone should be a critical situation, which gives you only a slight chance of survival in combat.
Well, I want to have fun in a game, and such a mechanic is no fun, just annoying.
avatar
Maxvorstadt: Well, I want to have fun in a game, and such a mechanic is no fun, just annoying.
I can understand that. I certainly prefer overcoming difficulties, not annoyances.
It's almost funny that when it comes to "more realism in games", it usually means only these things that make life harder or annoying, not these that make it easier. :>