Good games you can enjoy without mods

[Mustawd]

You need mods to play System Shock

Not anymore you don't. https://af.gog.com/game/system_shock_enhanced_edition?as=1649904300 I finished the game and it is really well done.

There are really a ton of games that can be enjoyed without mods. I'll list a few by genre.

ARPG:
Grim Dawn
Titan Quest

You forgot Diablo 1, Diablo II, and Torchlight 1 & 2. Also, fucking Titan Quest? Serious? I'v been playing vanilla for 32 hours, and the first 5 were the same as the other 27. At this point I'm just trying to finish it because I'm a completionist. But that game seriously needs an AI or rebalancing mod. It's waaaay too banal as is. IIRC there was a huge modding community, so it'd be fairly easy to find good mods for it. But in vanilla it definitely needs some overhauling.

 

[Doktor Best]

I would also add The witcher series to the list , although I don't recommend to play the third one .

So you dont recommend playing the best entry of the series?


@TE:

AOD
Dark Souls series
Spiderweb games (Escape from the pit is a good start)
Underrail

 

[kwanzabot]

i never use mods except darthmod for some of the total war games

 

[Sjukob]

So you dont recommend playing another mass oriented open world pseudo-RPG AAA title with extremly annoying characters , cliche story and female Mary Sue "protagonist" ?

Yes .

 

[Doktor Best]

So you dont recommend playing another mass oriented open world pseudo-RPG AAA title with extremly annoying characters , cliche story and female Mary Sue "protagonist" ?

Yes .

1)what fantasy story is not "cliche"? Who cares if a narrative plays with cliches if its done well? Tarantino built a career out of this.
2)"annoying characters" is a very subjective point of criticism, but okay. There were a few in my opinion, some of them intentionally by the way, but all in all the depth in which those characters are portrayed is leagues beyond 95% of all titles on the top50 crpg list. Not that it makes the game superior to those to be clear.
3)why the fuck keeps everyone complaining about an open world that is completely optional?
4)are there also male Mary Sue "protagonists"? Playing Ciri for 5% of your playtime must have been very charring for you, she is not a protagonist though.
5)what makes witcher 1 and 2 better in your regard? Characters are portrayed exactly in the same way, most of them even appeared in the first two games. Character development or combat was never a strong point of the series, id even argue that witcher 1 and 2 have a vastly inferior combat system.

 

[Sjukob]

1)what fantasy story is not "cliche"? Who cares if a narrative plays with cliches if its done well? Tarantino built a career out of this.

Storylines of previous games are not as banal . They are not about saving the world , not about chosen one ( Ciri ) and they are more mature ( social/political influenced ) , TW3 still has it , but your ultimate goal is saving Ciri and the world , and you are constantly reminded of that.

2)"annoying characters" is a very subjective point of criticism, but okay. There were a few in my opinion, some of them intentionally by the way, but all in all the depth in which those characters are portrayed is leagues beyond 95% of all titles on the top50 crpg list. Not that it makes the game superior to those to be clear.

Being unable to cut connections with annoying characters is not good , I don't care how well developed they are , fuck developers if they think I am going to tolerate or even love them . I will blame every game for such misconception . It's alright for villain to be annoying , if villain can piss you off , it's a really good one . But if you hate your "companions" more than antagonist and you can't do anything about it , that's really fucking bad .

3)why the fuck keeps everyone complaining about an open world that is completely optional?

Instead of spending time on polishing the game , developers made it open world . The world is alright , but the thing is , The witcher doesn't need it . It was completely fine to have small amount of space for navigation , but CD Project wanted to attract more people to the game , since everybody today wants a huge world to explore . In the end I would still prefer smaller , more polished locations , the huge world wasn't memorable or interesting .

4)are there also male Mary Sue "protagonists"? Playing Ciri for 5% of your playtime must have been very charring for you, she is not a protagonist though.

I've put inverted commas there for a reason . And yes , I didn't like playing Ciri one bit . I also didn't like how the character that I absolutely don't care about takes such important role in the story .

Character development was never a strong point of the series

but all in all the depth in which those characters are portrayed is leagues beyond 95% of all titles on the top50 crpg list

The fuck ?!

combat was never a strong point of the series, id even argue that witcher 1 and 2 have a vastly inferior combat system.

The combat is bad in all Witcher games . But I liked TW1 for having a lot of fancy animations with sword .

what makes witcher 1 and 2 better in your regard?

There is one thing . I always wanted The Witcher to be a fantasy series about social problems and political conflicts , TW and TW2 focused on this and were sucessful at that , I admire them for it . TW3 just murdered what I liked and the alternative it provides is not great . Also there were no Ciri or Yennefer , or Philippa , "allies" that constantly remind me of how bad they are . Actually there was Saskia in TW2 , you know Jools once mentioned Ciri being an erotic fantasy of Sapkowski , I took it as joke , but seeing how each following game had an increased amount of "super females" in it , I understand that he was serious .