Gothic What is the most overrated cRPG on the codex?

[notpl]

I came in here to post Planescape but after skimming I have to agree with Arcanum, since Planescape is at least a feature-complete game that mostly does what it says on the tin. I love them both but I'd be embarrassed to recommend either of them to a normal person who didn't grow up eating hackneyed broken crpg bullshit by the shovelful like we all did.

 

[Konjad]

Redaxium

 

[50726f73706572]

Redaxium

You poor poor men.
I can ban your key for you if you like.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

For those who mentioned twitcher 3 and Apescape torment: Ur gay.

 

[Piotrovitz]

I'd say Arcanum - people tend to mythologize it and praise it not for what it is, but rather for what they want/wanted it to be.

No reason not to love it, but every time I try a new run I just feel a pain in my heart seeing all the lost potential.

It's not a flawed gem - it's a chipped, scratched, and cracked gem, that you have to learn to, or be in a right mindset, to enjoy.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

It's like asking "recommend me some space opera films?" and the silly cunts replying "Return of The Jedi

What the hell next you gonna say you like Ewoks or what mate?

 

[Falksi]

It's like asking "recommend me some space opera films?" and the silly cunts replying "Return of The Jedi

What the hell next you gonna say you like Ewoks or what mate?

Because they were brown, as a kid I always thought they were called "Ewogs"

 

[deuxhero]

Blobbers are not CRPGs

What's wrong with blobbers?

Almost all Blobbers are total combat/exploration dungeon crawls and lack much of what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG. They're often enjoyable, but separate genres.

 

[Sykar]

It's like asking "recommend me some space opera films?" and the silly cunts replying "Return of The Jedi

What the hell next you gonna say you like Ewoks or what mate?

Because they were brown, as a kid I always thought they were called "Ewogs"

Ewoks:

 

[octavius]

Almost all Blobbers are total combat/exploration dungeon crawls and lack much of what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG. They're often enjoyable, but separate genres.

If "what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG" is choices&consequences, then the typical Codexer would be better off playing RPGs with a human GM. Games like the Fallouts and Arcanum are rather frustrating to me; they feel so limited since any interaction with NPCs could have been made much better with a human GM. It's a bit like any romances and "tiddies" in games are no substitute for the real thing, and the story is always inferior to a good novel, and therefore computer versions don't interest me much.
More combat focused CRPGs and blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better IMO.

 

[barghwata]

Judging from the codex's top 100, i would say the most overrated ones are Age of Decadence and Morrowind. One is basically a text adventure game with a tacked on and shallow combat system, and the other is, well.......a bethesda game.......

 

[Serus]

Almost all Blobbers are total combat/exploration dungeon crawls and lack much of what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG. They're often enjoyable, but separate genres.

If "what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG" is choices&consequences, then the typical Codexer would be better off playing RPGs with a human GM. Games like the Fallouts and Arcanum are rather frustrating to me; they feel so limited since any interaction with NPCs could have been made much better with a human GM. It's a bit like any romances and "tiddies" in games are no substitute for the real thing, and the story is always inferior to a good novel, and therefore computer versions don't interest me much.
More combat focused CRPGs and blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better IMO.

I agree with you (as you probably know) but i think he meant: "bad stories and romances".

 

[barghwata]

If "what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG" is choices&consequences, then the typical Codexer would be better off playing RPGs with a human GM. Games like the Fallouts and Arcanum are rather frustrating to me; they feel so limited since any interaction with NPCs could have been made much better with a human GM. It's a bit like any romances and "tiddies" in games are no substitute for the real thing, and the story is always inferior to a good novel, and therefore computer versions don't interest me much.
More combat focused CRPGs and blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better IMO.

Can you not make the same argument for combat focused CRPGs? tabletop allows you to approach combat in any manner you want with alot of freedom as long as the GM is willing to go along with what you want to do, as opposed to CRPGs where combat systems are generally abstract and limited, plus there is also the fact that you're basically fighting against an intelligent GM as opposed to dumfuck predictable AI in a video game.

Also i have to add, "blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better" sounds really funny to me when most blobber combat systems don't even simulate things like positioning, verticality, utilising the environment to your advantage etc.... nearly as well as other kinds of crpgs.

 

[ItsChon]

Blobbers are an objectively worse design than isometric games. Something can have a worse design but still end up being a quality RPG, but that doesn't change the fact that a well done isometric RPG will prove superior to a well done blobber in almost every conceivable way.

 

[luj1]

From a technical point of view you can freely move through the world and there is no level scaling.

Underrail has levelled NPCs and loot. It's minor, but it's there.

Don't believe me? Try looting electronic containers near the rathound dude in SGS caverns some 10 levels too late.

Try killing the group of 3 thugs near Junkyard's slums earlier and then later.

The loot is also generated from levelled lists. There's no fixed loot, except for very select cases.

that doesnt devalue underrail at all

its like saying morrowind sucks because it has level scaling (which shows only in theory not practice)

 

[Serus]

If "what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG" is choices&consequences, then the typical Codexer would be better off playing RPGs with a human GM. Games like the Fallouts and Arcanum are rather frustrating to me; they feel so limited since any interaction with NPCs could have been made much better with a human GM. It's a bit like any romances and "tiddies" in games are no substitute for the real thing, and the story is always inferior to a good novel, and therefore computer versions don't interest me much.
More combat focused CRPGs and blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better IMO.

Can you not make the same argument for combat focused CRPGs? tabltetop allows you to approach combat in any manner you want with alot of freedom as long as the GM is willing to go along with what you want to do, as opposed to CRPGs where combat systems are generally abstract and limited, plus there is also the fact that you're basically fighting against an intelligent GM as opposed to dumfuck predictable AI in a video game.

Also i have to add, "blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better" sounds really funny to me when most blobber combat systems don't even simulate things like positioning, verticality, utilising the environnement to your advantage etc.... nearly as well as other kinds of crpgs.

However combat is
a) easier to do well than interactive story/C&C. Proof, there are good combat-centric crpgs with good combat. There are very few good c&c games and even fewer because of their c&c. People are just deluded, they think some end slider that aren't even part of gameplay constitute c&c, let alone good one.
b) you can abstract combat rules more easily
c) there are some games with semi decent ai, also because b). There are not a single really good interactive story crpg.
So, you are right that computer rpg, including a combat-centric one, will always be inferior in some ways to tabletop. It just that in practice a combat one is a lot less inferior. Give me good interactive stories with REAL c&c and reactive worlds and i'll change my mind.

Sorry to hijack the conversation.

 

[Butter]

Blobbers are an objectively worse design than isometric games. Something can have a worse design but still end up being a quality RPG, but that doesn't change the fact that a well done isometric RPG will prove superior to a well done blobber in almost every conceivable way.

Isometric combat trumps blobber combat, but blobber exploration trumps isometric exploration. The Gold Box combination of both systems is best.

 

[Twiglard]

that doesnt devalue underrail at all

its like saying morrowind sucks because it has level scaling (which shows only in theory not practice)

Never said it did.

 

[ItsChon]

Blobbers are an objectively worse design than isometric games. Something can have a worse design but still end up being a quality RPG, but that doesn't change the fact that a well done isometric RPG will prove superior to a well done blobber in almost every conceivable way.

Isometric combat trumps blobber combat, but blobber exploration trumps isometric exploration. The Gold Box combination of both systems is best.

Honest to god, I don't think I've seen a blobber that doesn't look like complete shit in terms of how they portray the surroundings. Care to list some examples to prove me wrong?

EDIT: Lands of Lore, for example, has a great art style, but it really doesn't strike any sense of wonder or exploration in me. Nothing about my surroundings was particularly stimulating.

 

[barghwata]

However combat is
a) easier to do well than interactive story/C&C. Proof, there are good combat-centric crpgs with good combat. There are very few good c&c games and even fewer because of their c&c. People are just deluded, they think some end slider that aren't even part of gameplay constitute c&c, let alone good one.

Yes, C&C in video games is obviously going to be limited, in the same way that combat systems in crpgs are always going to be mere abstract imitations of the much more interactive and involving combat experiences you'll find in tabletop, that doesn't mean they're bad games or that they can't be enjoyable, just as much as those C&C games can be enjoyable as well. The fact that you think one is acceptable and the other is not is just a matter of your personal taste nothing more.

b) you can abstract combat rules more easily.

That's the problem tho, CRPG combat systems are too abstract, while in tabletop you can approach combat situations in any number of creative ways, limited only by your imagination and how nice your GM is. In computer games you're always limited to a very specific number of possible actions to take each turn defined by the game's mechanics. It's just never going to be like tabletop, and it doesn't have to, CRPGs and tabletop offer two different experiences, with different downsides and upsides.

c) there are some games with semi decent ai

for a video game..... yeah.

So, you are right that computer rpg, including a combat-centric one, will always be inferior in some ways to tabletop.

But that wasn't my point; i like combat centric rpgs they're fine, i was just playing devil's advocate to showcase that someone can just as easily use this same argument "it's not like in tabletop therefore it's bad" to dismiss combat focused RPGs just as much as any C&C focused ones. My point is that this argument is weak, tabletop isn't some ideal that all CRPGs should be judged by, it's a different genre all together.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Honest to god, I don't think I've seen a blobber that doesn't look like complete shit in terms of how they portray the surroundings. Care to list some examples to prove me wrong?

Care to explain yourself, I'm not sure what you mean.

EDIT: Lands of Lore, for example, has a great art style, but it really doesn't strike any sense of wonder or exploration in me. Nothing about my surroundings was particularly stimulating.

I can agree to this, LoL doesn't have a compelling exploration, just the opposite, mazes-like maps with little to discover and everything looking the same, EotB picked the same formula and I dislike them equally.

Might & Magic III & IV did way better (i don't like Darkside's exploration that much due to micro locations and less interesting early overworld exploration), particularly III with a lot of secrets, hidden dungeons in every corner, hidden NPC and secrets, hidden weapon caches and of course, the different terrain types makes exploration more interesting and the overworld easier to navigate and that's before you even use the automap.

 

[octavius]

If "what the typical Codexer seeks in an RPG" is choices&consequences, then the typical Codexer would be better off playing RPGs with a human GM. Games like the Fallouts and Arcanum are rather frustrating to me; they feel so limited since any interaction with NPCs could have been made much better with a human GM. It's a bit like any romances and "tiddies" in games are no substitute for the real thing, and the story is always inferior to a good novel, and therefore computer versions don't interest me much.
More combat focused CRPGs and blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better IMO.

Can you not make the same argument for combat focused CRPGs? tabltetop allows you to approach combat in any manner you want with alot of freedom as long as the GM is willing to go along with what you want to do, as opposed to CRPGs where combat systems are generally abstract and limited, plus there is also the fact that you're basically fighting against an intelligent GM as opposed to dumfuck predictable AI in a video game.

Sure, but with combat you know beforehand the rules, and they apply to both sides.
When it comes to things like NPC and item interaction you never know beforehand what has been programmed. For example in Morrowind: Tribunal you can never call Almalexia's bullshit. Same with Melissan in Throne of Bhaal. But with a human GM you could. I think these kinds of limitations are bloody annoying. For combat focused game the limitations are more like how complex they are. And too complex is not always better.

Also i have to add, "blobbers utilizes the power of the computer medium much better" sounds really funny to me when most blobber combat systems don't even simulate things like positioning, verticality, utilising the environnement to your advantage etc.... nearly as well as other kinds of crpgs.

For real time blobbers it's because most designers after Dungeon Master's were lazy sons of bitches.
For turn based bobbers it would be hard for a human GM to keep track of the mapping challenges in games like Bard's Tale 2.

 

[Atlantico]

So, in your opinion, the gameplay of Might and Magic 1-5 is bad?

Blobbers are not CRPGs

What is a "blobber"?

 

[Butter]

Blobbers are an objectively worse design than isometric games. Something can have a worse design but still end up being a quality RPG, but that doesn't change the fact that a well done isometric RPG will prove superior to a well done blobber in almost every conceivable way.

Isometric combat trumps blobber combat, but blobber exploration trumps isometric exploration. The Gold Box combination of both systems is best.

Honest to god, I don't think I've seen a blobber that doesn't look like complete shit in terms of how they portray the surroundings. Care to list some examples to prove me wrong?

EDIT: Lands of Lore, for example, has a great art style, but it really doesn't strike any sense of wonder or exploration in me. Nothing about my surroundings was particularly stimulating.

I guess it depends how you look at exploration. The first-person perspective is more limiting than a bird's eye perspective; you can more easily get lost and it's harder to know if you've fully explored everything. You never get the IE experience of mindlessly clearing the fog of war and moving on when the rectangle is fully visible.

As far as environments that look good or are stimulating, World of Xeen might be the best for its variety. With games like Wizardry 7 or Grimoire, you're meant to fill in the blanks with imagination.

 

[Lord_Potato]

So, in your opinion, the gameplay of Might and Magic 1-5 is bad?

Blobbers are not CRPGs

What is a "blobber"?

Party based first person dungeon crawler. Why do you ask?

 

[Harthwain]

That's the problem tho, CRPG combat systems are too abstract, while in tabletop you can approach combat situations in any number of creative ways, limited only by your imagination and how nice your GM is. In computer games you're always limited to a very specific number of possible actions to take each turn defined by the game's mechanics. It's just never going to be like tabletop, and it doesn't have to, CRPGs and tabletop offer two different experiences, with different downsides and upsides.

It's the question of how much you can/want to simulate within a game. The more you simulate, the more options there are.