GreedFall - Gold Edition - new colonial-themed action-RPG from Spiders

[DeepOcean]

So if I didnt like Technomancer should I get this?

I'm really curious as well but it seems so far it is like a higher budget Technomancer with the same jank combat but alot easier that decided to have a baby with Dragon Age Inquisition and sometimes reminds of Witcher 1 and 2 in terms of writing, edgy dark fantasy. Seems people are playing because the graphics are nice and 17th century fashion remains pretty cool.

 

[Grauken]

I've never played a Spiders game before, but on normal difficulty, combat so far means pointing my character vaguely into the direction of the enemy and mashing buttons a bit and you almost auto-aim and hit your opponents anytime, so its not exactly great right now, but maybe it gets more involved later on

 

[Danikas]

So if I didnt like Technomancer should I get this?

I'm really curious as well but it seems so far it is like a higher budget Technomancer with the same jank combat but alot easier that decided to have a baby with Dragon Age Inquisition and sometimes reminds of Witcher 1 and 2 in terms of writing, edgy dark fantasy. Seems people are playing because the graphics are nice and 17th century fashion remains pretty cool.

Yep I like the aesthetics but if combat is the same jank fest I will have to pass .

 

[Popiel]

Role-playing options in dialogue are limited

I would say that as of now (and whole Sérène part just screams it's designed to show you distilled essence of gameplay) you don’t get to roleplay at all, you only get to choose quest outcomes in some cases (and your selection is also premade) while the character itself is written for you (you can’t change his stock personality, you don’t get to choose his motives, you don’t get to decide how he feels ‘bout certain things and so on – aside from one big exception, that is you can hit any companion in first fuckin’ dialogue, but you may opt not to).

Above bein' said I guess the game can still open up narratively. I doubt that however.

pointing my character vaguely into the direction of the enemy and mashing buttons a bit and you almost auto-aim and hit your opponents anytime

Add to that occasional dodging and that's combat right there.

 

[Lyre Mors]

I've never played a Spiders game before, but on normal difficulty, combat so far means pointing my character vaguely into the direction of the enemy and mashing buttons a bit and you almost auto-aim and hit your opponents anytime, so its not exactly great right now, but maybe it gets more involved later on

Increase the difficulty. You'll never win that way on Hard and up.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

FFS, who plays action rpg combat on normal? You always play tactical on normal, to keep stats balanced, and arpgs on hardest, because you can compensate with player skill (except bethesda cause there it's just hitpoint bloat).

 

[Grauken]

To be honest, the biggest annoyance for me so far are the quest markers, it's really hard to ignore them and like usually, they stop you from really exploring and learning the environment, wish you could just disable them

FFS, who plays action rpg combat on normal? You always play tactical on normal, to keep stats balanced, and arpgs on hardest, because you can compensate with player skill (except bethesda cause there it's just hitpoint bloat).

I don't play a lot of action RPGs, so I went with normal

 

[Popiel]

To be honest, the biggest annoyance for me so far are the quest markers, it's really hard to ignore them and like usually, they stop you from really exploring and learning the environment, wish you could just disable them

While true this statement sadly misses the mark, 'cause the game isn't written or designed to provide you with info necessary to track quests without the markers (Witcher 3 case). While Sérène is small and marker's wouldn't be really necessary, I have a feelin' that after the tutorial zone game it wouldn't work.

Of course you could get rid of them still, but yeah, good luck counting on modern game devs doing such a thing.

 

[Grauken]

To be honest, the biggest annoyance for me so far are the quest markers, it's really hard to ignore them and like usually, they stop you from really exploring and learning the environment, wish you could just disable them

While true this statement sadly misses the mark, 'cause the game isn't written or designed to provide you with info necessary to track quests without the markers (Witcher 3 case). While Sérène is small and marker's wouldn't be really necessary, I have a feelin' that after the tutorial zone game it wouldn't work.

Of course you could get rid of them still, but yeah, good luck counting on modern game devs doing such a thing.

Well, its not open world so I assume even later the area size wouldn't overwhelm you, and with the markers it feels like playing the game on retarded level

I still make notes like in the old days, so don't fear of getting lost and not knowing what to do

 

[Popiel]

with the markers it feels like playing the game on retarded level

Welcome to the current year gaming

One more thing I liked. Investing in persuasion isn't a win button but gives player character a % chance of success. I like that. Sadly it seems like other attributes affecting dialogue options are win buttons.

 

[Lyre Mors]

I feel I've been given enough contextual information to find quest destinations without markers so far in Sérène anyway. I hope it keeps up.

 

[Popiel]

'Cause it's a really small location (I remember getting only one direction - De Fontaine's house east to the port). We'll see if it keeps up. As I've said, I presume game can open up narratively and worldbuilding can become better, but I doubt it'll happen.

I wonder how they'll tackle the natives and muh bad colonisers. All shit thrown and said Dumpsterfire did more a decent job in that area than I predicted. I doubt it'll be Pocahontas here as well.

 

[Roguey]

Investing in persuasion isn't a win button but gives player character a % chance of success.

Win button with a random chance of failure is worse than a win button.

 

[Popiel]

Win button with a random chance of failure is worse than a win button.

Isn't it by definition not a win button if it has the latter component to it's mechanics ?

 

[Roguey]

Isn't it by definition not a win button if it has the latter component to it's mechanics ?

Same outcome only with the possibility that all your investment in the skill didn't matter, in which case one reloads if possible.

 

[Popiel]

Same outcome only with the possibility that all your investment in the skill didn't matter, in which case one reloads if possible.

How is that the same outcome if the design is different? Win buttons provide player with... win buttons. Where you are enabled to click a button and win. This here isn't this design choice, it gives you a chance to win in circumstances in which otherwise you wouldn't even have this chance 'cause you wouldn't see an option in dialogue choices. Reloading in this case should be frown upon 'cause typically such designs don't have a you loose the game effect (ergo you need to reload or exit the game), which lost battles usually effects in when lost, failure punishes you in other ways instead, with necessity to win not through this option provided through the skill in this case.

It's like a classical tabletop skill check dice roll. You can win... or loose. Higher you skill higher your chances, yet you can still fail.

 

[Wunderbar]

Investing in persuasion isn't a win button but gives player character a % chance of success.

like in Fallout 3? ugh.

 

[Carls Barkley]

Elex failed to live up to expectations. Outward failed to live up to expectations. Greedfall failed to live up to expectations.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Pathologic 2 are the only eurojanks that I would consider modern classics.

 

[Roguey]

How is that the same outcome if the design is different? Win buttons provide player with... win buttons. Where you are enabled to click a button and win. This here isn't this design choice, it gives you a chance to win in circumstances in which otherwise you wouldn't even have this chance 'cause you wouldn't see an option in dialogue choices. Reloading in this case should be frown upon 'cause typically such designs don't have a you loose the game effect (ergo you need to reload or exit the game), which lost battles usually effects in when lost, failure punishes you in other ways instead, with necessity to win not through this option provided through the skill in this case.

When you fail a dialogue check because of random chance, it's as if you didn't spend the points in the skill at all except worse because you did spend those points on the dialogue skill instead of anything else that would actually reliably benefit you.

 

[Popiel]

When you fail a dialogue check because of random chance, it's as if you didn't spend the points in the skill at all except worse because you did spend those points on the dialogue skill instead of anything else that would actually reliably benefit you.

This is flawed logic. You did spend this skill points and they did give you new options, as they should 'cause that's better game design than buying win buttons. You expanded your effective gameplay options through resource investment. What does reliable mean in this context? Reliable = 100% effective? That’s not a good way to design your game, do you imagine combat designed like this? Like, whole of it, not just parts (like in BG2’s case for example in which such reliable solutions were present)? Skill points are a resource and spending it on a skill which gives you rising percentage chance of success benefits you as a player ‘cause it enables you to do more, not guarantees to you that you’ll always succeed at doing it. Perhaps that’s just too much tabletop talkin’, but I consider this design, when implemented properly, as better than giving you win buttons. That cRPG players have their typical OCD and have to win in an optimate/best way, i.e. they typically reload failed conversation checks, is another subject.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

. This here isn't this design choice, it gives you a chance to win in circumstances in which otherwise you wouldn't even have this chance 'cause you wouldn't see an option in dialogue choices

That’s not how it works. You have the option regardless. I’m finally playing and just did the first side quest for Kurt. I have 0 points in charisma, but I still got a charisma check with 50% odds. This was how Spiders did speech checks in the Technomancer, too.

 

[Drowed]

So far, looking at the videos on the internet and seeing the analysis of ppl who played the game, we see that:

1. It has horrible textures of very low resolution in random places. Why the hell?
2. It has animations made in 2009. The running animation, and the cutscenes, wow.
3. It has a terrible combat full of sploits. No surprise here to be honest.
4. Its stealth gameplay makes Skyrim look like a new (good) Thief game.
5. Enemies are literally standing still looking at the horizon (or even at walls). Because that's how living beings act.
   
6. Bugs everywhere.

Well, that's Spiders for you I guess?

 

[Popiel]

That’s not how it works. You have the option regardless. I’m finally playing and just did the first side quest for Kurt. I have 0 points in charisma, but I still got a charisma check with 50% odds. This was how Spiders did speech checks in the Technomancer, too.

Didn't know that, I rolled a character with Charisma as I always do and didn't have time to roll something else yet. That certainly changes the perspective, yet I would still argue that's better than giving player win buttons. Sadly that's theoretical 'cause game definitely gives out said buttons, just not through Charisma, at least I think that's the case.

 

[Roguey]

This is flawed logic. You did spend this skill points and they did give you new options, as they should 'cause that's better game design than buying win buttons. You expanded your effective gameplay options through resource investment. What does reliable mean in this context? Reliable = 100% effective? That’s not a good way to design your game, do you imagine combat designed like this? Like, whole of it, not just parts (like in BG2’s case for example in which such reliable solutions were present)? Skill points are a resource and spending it on a skill which gives you rising percentage chance of success benefits you as a player ‘cause it enables you to do more, not guarantees to you that you’ll always succeed at doing it. Perhaps that’s just too much tabletop talkin’, but I consider this design, when implemented properly, as better than giving you win buttons. That cRPG players have their typical OCD and have to win in an optimate/best way, i.e. they typically reload failed conversation checks, is another subject.

If failing the check resulted in a different not-necessarily-worse outcome, that would be different, but I imagine it's the same as if the option to try never existed in the first place.

Skills in this game that you can take that aren't charisma

Vigor - allows you to go through some obstacles and climb up some rocky shelves. It also increases the maximum level of ammunition and accelerates the regeneration rate of health/mana outside combat.
Science - allows you to create potions and blow up weak walls.
Lockpicking - allows you to open locks that require 1 level of lockpicking. Also, it is easier for you to detect enemy traps.
Intuition - sometimes unlocks additional dialog options during conversations and makes it easier to detect rocks, plants and other gatherable.
Craftsmanship - unlocks crafting so you can craft weapons and armor.

All of those sound like they'll help you more than "maybe you'll pass the check, maybe you won't."

 

[Popiel]

All of those sound like they'll help you more than "maybe you'll pass the check, maybe you won't."

Perhaps, perhaps not, on that I'll hold my opinion 'til I play more of the game (i.e. to judge how talky the design is, I have a feeling that it can be quite handy to have Charisma as high as possible - by the way, if each point in Charisma gives you additional 25% success chance, then by simple math there should be some dialogues in game which should be literally impossible to pass without Charisma, unless the success chance doesn't rise evenly).