- Dec 21, 2013
Some excellent rpgs came out recently, and I am still absolutely hooked in Thea 2 and replaying Kingmaker with turn based, so I won't play this patch as much. It wipes my progress anyway. But not a single change made here is bad, and half of them were quite literally critical to making this game not shit anymore. It should easily surpass Dragon Age Origins in it's current state (which is not a high bar to pass) and settle comfortably a notch below Kingmaker. An excellent space to be in for an AAA rpg.
Ouf, the heresy. But I guess one of the few things in which DA:O isn't better than P:K is in the depth of the combat system, and that's all that matters around here, eh?
Don't know. I'd say what REALLY matters around here is the amount of character builds available.
Then follows the amount of playstyles actually supported by the game (which somewhat puzzles me, considering that you should want more character builds in order to support more playstyles and not the other way around).
The depth of the combat system comes only third, judging by how discussions about combat are usually conducted (poorely).
The depth of exploration, stealth, dialogues and the other "ancillary" systems are barely considered.
Story and narrative are the less important factors. Unless they are goofy. In this case they can ruin even a masterfully designed game in the mind of the average codexian.
Fundamental principles of game design such as variety in kind and intensity, difficulty curves, gameplay loops, co-reinforcement between different game systems, etc... aren't even considered (despite being what REALLY makes the difference between a good game and a bad game with good ideas).
Of course there are lots of noticeable exceptions to this general rule. But this is the trend.
PS: And this isn't particularly surprising either. You can link the enormous success of P&P RPGS such as D&D and Pathfinder to the same basic principle. They are firstly and mostly playgrounds for powerplayers.