What are you playing right now?

[Ser Jon]

I've been playing quite a bit of Final Fantasy XIV and Assassin's Creed: Valhalla.

I still don't think Valhalla has as much depth and attention to detail as Odyssey does, and am still very miffed that they listened to an asinine part of the community to dramatically reduce content "because it's much too long", but it's not a bad game so it still has my attention. I also wish they had taken far more time with being historically accurate with the Scandinavian peoples, at least in how they dressed. It's jarring to see them dressing like that and having to believe they are supposed to be "Vikings". Also, isn't it just bizarre that they release a game about Vikings but not provide any Scandinavian language as a choice? Is Ubisoft just too poor to hire a translation team in Danish or Norwegian?

I have been playing Songs of Syx. It comes with a demo that is the full game, just a few patches behind, and I enjoyed that enough that I decided to buy the game despite it being relatively pricy (at least for me, I am stingy like that).

It's typically described as a mix between Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress. I never could quite get into Dwarf Fortress myself, I can see the similarities with Rimworld, although this has a much bigger scale (eventually you can build up to having thousands of people). Some elements of it remind me of Caesar III too, although I have not seen that comparison made elsewhere so it might just be me. Development is of course nowhere close to being done and it will probably be a while longer. I am enjoying it though.

Songs of Syx is great! I used to play it back when it was on the .io site, every time there was an update to the public version. It's come such a long way and became pretty addictive. And it definitely feels like a mixture of Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress, though the emphasis is a bit more on population simulation than the others I think.

If you are curious about other games in similar scope to it, or Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress, there's also KeeperRL and Hammerting. KeepRL is most like Dwarf Fortress, but without the extensive lore, culture and world history generator. Hammerting is basically just managing a mining colony of dwarves as they descend into the mountain (though there is an overworld map). It's a bit more rusty due to EA, but it's shaping up constantly.

I actually did just this, I thoroughly enjoyed the game because when I played it I went for the “never kill anyone” achievement and it made the game 1000% more fun and original, having to avoid fights at all costs was actually memorable.

I think the hardest part of not killing anyone is, is during the mission

隐藏: spoilers

where you have to poison the group or the one after that, where you attack the camp. I try to avoid fighting but the enemy soldiers are usually intent on ignoring others to come after you. I had to run around like crazy. And then of course, there'd fighting at the end of the mission you can't ignore.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

dwarf fortress has always had a ui smh

 

[Mad Vader]

dwarf fortress has always had a ui smh

If you are into disco and mullets too, then it has an UI.
I think people defending DF basically see its lack of normal QoL things as a gatekeeping feature that keeps the casuals and the normies out.
But if you take a hard objective look at it, it's something very different. Or was, as it's firmly in the past by now, like disco and mullets, and that's a good thing.
At least from the moment Rimworld got playable, DF was made obsolete and not a moment too soon.

If you are curious about other games in similar scope to it, or Rimworld and Dwarf Fortress, there's also KeeperRL and Hammerting. KeepRL is most like Dwarf Fortress, but without the extensive lore, culture and world history generator. Hammerting is basically just managing a mining colony of dwarves as they descend into the mountain (though there is an overworld map). It's a bit more rusty due to EA, but it's shaping up constantly.

Both EA and indie and with negative reviews from people fed up by "potential". I remember playing "Timber and Stone" too before it was abandoned with some IRL dev drama. In other words, try out if you have the time and uninstall, but don't get invested, as these projects are probably going nowhere.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

i mean.. df just objectively does have a ui. lol.
it's a good game, and hopefully the "normal qol things" will indeed make it more accessible.
rimworld very obviously does not obselete df, they do very different things with the formula.

 

[Krik]

Disappointment doesn't make it a non-RPG.

No, but it has a real deficit when it comes to RPG elements. Most quests don't really have choices that affect outcomes, the character building is essentially limited to just perks and aesthetics and doesn't really affect gameplay very much, etc. The post you replied to was making the point that usually either the shooter part is half baked or the RPG part is half baked, and the RPG side of Fallout 4 is half baked to put it nicely.

 

[Mad Vader]

No, but it has a real deficit when it comes to RPG elements. Most quests don't really have choices that affect outcomes, the character building is essentially limited to just perks and aesthetics and doesn't really affect gameplay very much, etc. The post you replied to was making the point that usually either the shooter part is half baked or the RPG part is half baked, and the RPG side of Fallout 4 is half baked to put it nicely.

You are wrong, Fallout 4 is a fantastic game if you know how to play.

隐藏: Proof

 

[Ser Jon]

Yea, Dwarf Fortress had a UI, it just isn't very good. The Steam version is going to bring a ton of QoL changes, like full graphical UI with mouse support, re-arranged more sensical categories etc etc. The obvious change is graphics though. lol

Both EA and indie and with negative reviews from people fed up by "potential". I remember playing "Timber and Stone" too before it was abandoned with some IRL dev drama. In other words, try out if you have the time and uninstall, but don't get invested, as these projects are probably going nowhere.

KeeperRL mostly has positive reviews though? It's been worked on consistently since .io days too and since it doesn't have DF complicated generation, it won't be a problem to finish the game for them I think. It also regularly receives updates and bug fixes, and is considerable fun for that DF like colony aspect. Hammerting however is a lot more rusty and I can understand a lot of the negative reviews from that perspective, especially about how much micro-managing is involved and how there's really no threat/urgency to do anything. However, since they do give constant enough updates and are striving to get it into better shape, I can still throw my support around it. That'll stop if the updates stop, but considering I got it $1 on HB I think it's throw a lot of entertainment at me for the price and will hopefully only get better.

I like to support EA warily though. I haven't gotten burned by one yet, well beyond Bannerlord, as I'm very careful what I put my money into. Every other EA I've played has turned into gems, like Regions of Ruin or Valheim, or Realms of Magic and Wayward. Then there are EA games that were disappointing as hell, like Colony Survival or Ylands (though it's released now). ?

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Shooter RPGs in the last decade or so you say? There are so many and I'm not playing many games.
Mass Effect games
Fallout 4
Far Cry things (okay, these may be straight shooters)
Deus Ex Stuff
The Outer Worlds
Bioshock games

Mass Effect 1 was a godawful shooter, Mass Effects 2-3 were heavily stripped-down in the RPG department, Fallout 4 needs no introduction, and the Deus Ex games are great shooters but never amazing in the actual RPG department. The Bioshock series is also massively overrated and none are even remotely an RPG.

Outer Worlds satisfies the requirements but it's a thoroughly mediocre game otherwise.

 

[Adorno]

I also wish they had taken far more time with being historically accurate with the Scandinavian peoples, at least in how they dressed. It's jarring to see them dressing like that and having to believe they are supposed to be "Vikings".

Whatever do you mean?

隐藏: 1

隐藏: 2

But seriously, I was so disappointed I couldn't have a simple chainmail armour with shield-spear combo.
All the spears are double handed weapons (no shield). What in the world...?!

Also, isn't it just bizarre that they release a game about Vikings but not provide any Scandinavian language as a choice? Is Ubisoft just too poor to hire a translation team in Danish or Norwegian?

They know The Scandi are so good at English that it's a waste of time to translate

 

[Ser Jon]

Whatever do you mean?

隐藏: 1

隐藏: 2

But seriously, I was so disappointed I couldn't have a simple chainmail armour with shield-spear combo.
All the spears are double handed weapons (no shield). What in the world...?!

They know The Scandi are so good at English that it's a waste of time to translate

Ubisoft completely threw out being even remotely historically accurate after AC2. I was also disappointed about no 1H spears + shields, because polearms are my favorite kind of weapon and it was one of the most commonly used weapons by their warriors for the time. Part of the cut content, I bet.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I still don't think Valhalla has as much depth and attention to detail as Odyssey does, and am still very miffed that they listened to an asinine part of the community to dramatically reduce content "because it's much too long"

Having watched full-game playthroughs of both games, I thought asscreed valhalla was way longer and more bloated than Odyssey. I had a lot of fun playing Odyssey until the ridiculous level grinding set in around 10 hours in, but even watching valhalla felt tedious and I experienced second-hand burnout pretty fast.

Also most of the reviews seemed to say it was more of a bloated, pointlessly long experience than any of the previous games. Are there things they removed during development?

 

[Mad Vader]

Mass Effect 1 was a godawful shooter, Mass Effects 2-3 were heavily stripped-down in the RPG department, Fallout 4 needs no introduction, and the Deus Ex games are great shooters but never amazing in the actual RPG department. The Bioshock series is also massively overrated and none are even remotely an RPG.

Outer Worlds satisfies the requirements but it's a thoroughly mediocre game otherwise.

Obviously your RPG standards are at the level "no true RPG", which distracts from the valid points you are making.

KeeperRL mostly has positive reviews though? It's been worked on consistently since .io days too and since it doesn't have DF complicated generation, it won't be a problem to finish the game for them I think. It also regularly receives updates and bug fixes, and is considerable fun for that DF like colony aspect. Hammerting however is a lot more rusty

Okay, you know those games much better. I went with the (negative) Steam reviews which are always the first thing worth reading.
Getting to know a game is like a first date, you look for the red flags first if you've been around the block a few times.

 

[Ser Jon]

I don't think it's fair to say Mass Effect 1 was an awful shooter. For it's time, it was actually quite incredible, and LE really helped improve its mechanics considerably. In the future, we're going to look at current shooters that are hyped up and beloved, and think they are trash too.

Having watched full-game playthroughs of both games, I thought asscreed valhalla was way longer and more bloated than Odyssey. I had a lot of fun playing Odyssey until the ridiculous level grinding set in around 10 hours in, but even watching valhalla felt tedious and I experienced second-hand burnout pretty fast.

Also most of the reviews seemed to say it was more of a bloated, pointlessly long experience than any of the previous games. Are there things they removed during development?

Odyssey is definitely larger and filled with far more quests, items and small details, and the characters are all very charming and well written. The devs even stated Valhalla was considerably smaller than Odyssey because of the complaints. Now, instead of looking for upgrades like you did in Odyssey or farming or training at all, you can upgrade the very first weapon in Valhalla you get and the beginning and fly through everything with just that. There's no challenge, the world is flat and boring even if it's beautiful to look at, there's no need to get more armor or weapons except for fashion wars I guess. lol

In Odyssey, I felt compelled to explore the world, and I wanted to go look for rare weapons and equip them, or search for cute little details hidden around the world. It just felt far more alive, even if it had the issue that you needed stop and level up for a new part of the story (I liked that though).

Okay, you know those games much better. I went with the (negative) Steam reviews which are always the first thing worth reading.
Getting to know a game is like a first date, you look for the red flags first if you've been around the block a few times.

I get why a lot of people do not trust EA, I do, it's just at the same time you miss out on a lot of really good games because of the bad ones put out bad impressions of EA sadly.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

In Odyssey, I felt compelled to explore the world, and I wanted to go look for rare weapons and equip them, or search for cute little details hidden around the world. It just felt far more alive, even if it had the issue that you needed stop and level up for a new part of the story (I liked that though).

I definitely agree. But to be fair it helps that I personally think Ancient Greece is way more interesting to explore than a misshapen version of the country I already live in. But more broadly I don't think you can really do much with Viking England while also dogmatically following pop culture depictions. In Odyssey they had the stupid RRRRRAAAAGGGHHHH epic Spartans in BDSM gear like some kind of hellenistic Chippendale's, but the architecture was genuinely some of the best I've ever seen in a video game and I spent hours just riding around and sightseeing.

Meanwhile Valhalla follows the Gibbonite idea that everything between 200 AD and 1600 AD has to be caked in mud and falling apart, but with anime weapons and armour. Combined with Watchdogs Legion which also depicted England as caked in mud and falling apart, I think someone at Ubisoft has some kind of anti-english agenda.

I get why a lot of people do not trust EA, I do, it's just at the same time you miss out on a lot of really good games because of the bad ones put out bad impressions of EA sadly.

I think the best thing to do is to pretend like EA doesn't exist. Steam even has a disclaimer not to buy a game if you don't like the state it's currently in, and that's a good policy in my eyes. I feel like EA has just replaced crowdfunding for a lot of companies.

 

[Ser Jon]

I definitely agree. But to be fair it helps that I personally think Ancient Greece is way more interesting to explore than a misshapen version of the country I already live in. But more broadly I don't think you can really do much with Viking England while also dogmatically following pop culture depictions. In Odyssey they had the stupid RRRRRAAAAGGGHHHH epic Spartans in BDSM gear like some kind of hellenistic Chippendale's, but the architecture was genuinely some of the best I've ever seen in a video game and I spent hours just riding around and sightseeing.

Actually, I can see why that'd make Valhalla considerably less interesting to you. Though to be fair, I've never been and I'm hardly attached to the game, doesn't give the impression of wonderment. And I'm basically obsessed with Scandinavia and everything connected to it, so to not be attached to it is very strange to me. In every corner of Odyssey, there was life. In Valhalla, it's this long dead world with a few hamlets and villages scattered about, and lazily designed "dungeons" (delves? Tombs?), all to hide the fact that it is considerably emptier than Origins or Odyssey. I think their mistake was basing it that late into their history, and deciding to force them to go to England. There were other rich parts of their history, and exploring their older moments probably would have served the game far better.

And I agree with that. Odyssey had some of the best architecture design I've seen in a video game. The only one I consider just as good--maybe a bit better?--is Horizon: Zero Dawn.

Meanwhile Valhalla follows the Gibbonite idea that everything between 200 AD and 1600 AD has to be caked in mud and falling apart, but with anime weapons and armour. Combined with Watchdogs Legion which also depicted England as caked in mud and falling apart, I think someone at Ubisoft has some kind of anti-english agenda.

Actually, that's a pretty sound way of describing Valhalla. There's even Helix DLC you can purchase that gives you straight up anime gear, and another that gives you riot gear complete with a gun. Assassin's Creed has fallen so low.

I think the best thing to do is to pretend like EA doesn't exist. Steam even has a disclaimer not to buy a game if you don't like the state it's currently in, and that's a good policy in my eyes. I feel like EA has just replaced crowdfunding for a lot of companies.

I can't really argue with that, it probably would be better to just avoid them. I tend to like really niche or unpopular things though, which means EA usually has what I'm looking for, so I tend to cave on some of them. ?

 

[Mad Vader]

I don't think it's fair to say Mass Effect 1 was an awful shooter. For it's time, it was actually quite incredible, and LE really helped improve its mechanics considerably. In the future, we're going to look at current shooters that are hyped up and beloved, and think they are trash too.

I have finished ME1 about 10 times, and armed with that authority, I can say it was a good cover shooter. The problems with it are elsewhere: too few dungeon level designs, stupid/suicidal companion AI, unnecessarily frustrating planet exploration with all the jagged terrain. But no real problems as a RPG or a shooter (if I nitpick, the sniper rifle was useless as the maps were smaller than sniper range). All of these were fixed in ME2.

I get why a lot of people do not trust EA, I do, it's just at the same time you miss out on a lot of really good games because of the bad ones put out bad impressions of EA sadly.

I have another reason to avoid EA apart from scams - I don't find it very interesting to play games that are deemed unfinished even by their author. I don't really care about following development or that the developer is a hero with blue eyes and generous soul, and I don't think it's interesting to talk with fellow followers about incredible potential or hope that the dev sentai would notice my post.
I just want to play a game that is finished and lovingly balanced.

 

[froggyluv]

Just finished Half-Life: Alyx. (big thanks to @Orion for letting me buy his Evga queue 3080) Valve's first VR game is an absolute blast, and makes me want more AAA quality VR games. Being able to just pick **** up with your almost actual hands is freaky cool, and killing zombies and combine in for rizzle first person feels perfect.

Started playing Kingdom Come: Deliverance again, and holy **** I forgot just how terrible the combat is. It all looks so fancy and detailed with motion-capped HEMA moves, stances and combos. Too bad none of that **** matters, because actually attacking is a terrible idea thanks to the Master Strike mechanic. When an enemy melee attacks you, you can dodge, block, do a (way, waaay too easy) perfect block that prevents stamina loss, or if you block slightly before the game tells you to for a perfect block, you do a master strike instead. It's the same as a perfect block but also counter attacks, dealing significant damage, often enough to cripple or kill with that single blow. It's super easy to do, and is absolutely zero risk because unlike chambering in Warband, master striking has no punishment for failure. If you mess up the easy timing, you'll just perfect block instead. Actually attacking is the worst thing you can do because the ai will happily master strike you and you can't do a single damn thing about it. Feinting? Master strike. Switching stances? Master strike! Wanna do that cool, super deadly high level combo that takes a lot of practice to perform correctly? lol get ****ed retard, each one of those 3-5 strikes are actually just opportunities for the ai to master strike you, deleting half of your health and making you bleed! It's fascinating just how much work went into melee, but it's all so thoroughly disincentivized by master strikes that effective combat is just a game of chicken, with whoever siezes the initiative and attacks first being the loser. I hate it so goddamn much, it's a testament to how wonderful the RPG part of this game is that it's still a cool game despite the dumpster fire combat.

Hah good man for getting you that EVGA queue - literally the day i got my Quest 2 last week my video card died and I had no IDEA what had happened to the video card market. Gone are the days of a trip to Microcenter and walking out with any card you want....

Anyways got a 3060 and all good and man -im shocked how immersive the Quest is! Tales of Glory is like Mount and Blade VR and though i havent gone deeply into it yet - was pretty fricken Time bandit like the first time I got into combat and got charged by a Knight with a Lance couched at me -literally hit the floor. Zero Caliber VR next up -someone gifted it to me on steam and so far really digging the gunplay

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Obviously your RPG standards are at the level "no true RPG", which distracts from the valid points you are making.

Absolutely untrue, my issue is not that these games are not "RPG enough" but rather that these elements are mixed in either as an attempt to pander to prevailing industry trends or as an ill-conceived design.

The issue is not the amount of "RPG" but the game's design as a whole.

I don't think it's fair to say Mass Effect 1 was an awful shooter. For it's time, it was actually quite incredible, and LE really helped improve its mechanics considerably. In the future, we're going to look at current shooters that are hyped up and beloved, and think they are trash too.

I thought it was an awful shooter when it came out and nothing has really revised my opinion, and if I think a game is good or trash now (after playing it of course) it's rare that I'll revise my opinion. It came out a mere year after Gears of War, an infinitely superior cover shooter when it comes to actual gameplay due to the designers of Gears knowing exactly what kind of game they were making.

Mass Effect 1 is actually a pretty perfect example of a game with very vague design goals when it comes to actually playing it. There are vestigial elements of contemporary shooter conventions thrown in (limited grenade pickups stand out) which clash completely or are rendered irrelevant by the RPG aspects. I have horrible memories of combat in that game being an absolute mess due to bargain-bin enemy AI, general jankiness in movement, cover and shooting (the main things you're doing in the game) and the class abilities generally being cooldown-timed buttons to avoid having to deal with the above. I never played it again after I finished my first runthrough when I realized I was playing a choose-your-own-adventure book with an absolute chore punctuating the story.

 

[Mad Vader]

Absolutely untrue, my issue is not that these games are not "RPG enough" but rather that these elements are mixed in either as an attempt to pander to prevailing industry trends or as an ill-conceived design.

The issue is not the amount of "RPG" but the game's design as a whole.

I'm mystified what is "not RPG enough" in shooter RPGs, which is a fairly established genre with a well-defined formula. You shoot through levels to progress a story, get loot, upgrade your character and talk to people, sometimes making decisions. Besides classic shooting in combat, you also have combat "magic" to make combat more interesting, whether it's called tech, implants, biotics or whatever.
The difference from straight shooters is the importance of the story, interactions with NPCs and companions, character progression, exploration and other RPG elements. Combat is secondary.

I thought it was an awful shooter when it came out and nothing has really revised my opinion, and if I think a game is good or trash now (after playing it of course) it's rare that I'll revise my opinion. It came out a mere year after Gears of War, an infinitely superior cover shooter when it comes to actual gameplay due to the designers of Gears knowing exactly what kind of game they were making.

This is telling, you seem to be in love with your opinions more than it's healthy.
Also straight shooters need to be great shooters, or there's no point to them. RPG shooters merely need to be decent shooters, but the story and other RPG elements must be great. So saying that a straight shooter was better than a RPG shooter as a shooter is missing the point of RPG shooters. Same as saying Mass Effect has a better story than Gears of War, so Gears of War is ****.

Unrelated, but "Final Fantasy" is Engrish for "Ultimate Fantasy". You know it.

 

[TheLordOfTheDiamond]

The combat in Kingdom Come: Deliverance is atrocious. It is complicated, sure, but it is unfortunate how they went about it. I thoroughly enjoyed everything else about the game except for it. To the point that I actually just avoided it altogether when I could and when I had to pick up a sword, I cheated. A mechanic should not make me want to cheat to get around it, that's just bad design in my opinion. An incredible game marred by one giant, festering boil.

It is also one of the things people appreciated the most. I played Witcher 3 after KCD because everyone was saying how great the same is. Wow! I uninstalled shorty after because of the combat system. KCD is one of the best games I have ever played. Right now the value of KCD is a lot higher than Bannerlord in terms of everything but the fact that you can't really command an army. But you get the dog, though. Can't wait for #2.