RPG Codex - Top 50 WORST RPGs YOU'VE PLAYED vote thread

[tuluse]

Are you saying different strengths of enemies in different areas is a form of scaling now? Because that would be using the term as the opposite of how everyone else is using it and would lead to much confusion.

I'm saying having the lowlands canon fodder bandits scale to some degree isn't a bad idea. Nothing near Oblivion standards, but something like "bandits on the roads scale in level from 1-20 and equipment from iron to dwarven" while in the mountains outside Whiterun there are always sabercats that are level 10+ or whatever. I'm not going to break it down into a table. The point is to have freedom to move around you need most common areas to be relatively static in challenge, while certain "off the path" areas are varying in difficulty. If the valley is always level 5 and the swamp always level 10 and the mountains always level 15 then it leads to very linear and static exploration.

Skyrim and New Vegas did it decently, but there is still room for improvement.

I can think of much better ways to handle this. Like having a character system that doesn't overpower the player (and conversely doesn't underpower him/her at the beginning).

 

[Lhynn]

I don't think you understand

Man your rebuttals, so thick with detail. Games like Morrowind and Skyrim have tons of trash combat as you move about the world be their very design. Even Gothic has this, they just slowly remove it from the endgame via no respawn. You wanting more specifically designed encounters in the open world traversal sections is a very "linear versus non-linear" argument. To have no filler bandits on the roads Skyrim would literally have to completely change the kind of game it is.

Their options according to most are to have that filler traversal combat be scaled or not scaled. Both present specific challenges. If the swamp enemies are always level 20 then no one will do the swamp until at least level 10 or whatever, and doing the swamp past level 25 yields no challenge or reward. This has a certain appeal certainly, but it also has the downside of making the swamp a static and set location you'll probably usually do around the same time. Completely non-scaled results in the same level of challenge throughout the game, and as Oblivion showed it feels unrealistic and boring, and leads to issues like poor combat characters being outgunned by the enemies at all times. Nothing feels dangerous or unique.

However there is a secret third option people in this argument like to ignore: the almighty combination of scaled and not-scaled. What if the roads and other common paths in the swamp were scaled to a degree. You would see tougher enemies as you rise in levels, but also a mixture of lower level enemies. Then also what if there were parts of the swamp, say near the mountain or deeper in, perhaps around that witches' hut, where the enemies are always level 25? And what if there were random enemy spawns of higher level enemies, scaled to always be challenging, say "player level +5" or something. These combinations of scaled and not-scaled encounters make the world always feel dangerous, make filler combat varied and interesting, make the common areas of all "zones" accessible for exploration and still contain risky, challenging areas with higher level loot for those who can handle the challenge.

In other words: use all your tools to make the best game world possible. Scaling is a tool that can have positive functions, but you treat it as black and white. New Vegas and Skyrim both attempted to use scaling and static together to create a varied, challenging but also non-linear open world. Both succeeded and failed in different areas, and there is vast room for improvement, but the idea is sound.

Scaling is always shit and it denies the very reason we are playing an RPG, there is no possible explanation for it but lazy design.

 

[DalekFlay]

At least write a fucking counterargument with some detail for fuck's sake. This isn't IGN.

 

[Lhynn]

At least write a fucking counterargument with some detail for fuck's sake. This isn't IGN.

As i said, enemy scaling denies the very reason we play RPGs. if the reality of the world revolves around your own power level why does it need to exist in the first place? Enemy scaling undermines the sense of progression, enemy scaling artificially increases the challenge and difficulty in a way that feels forced and out of place in any setting.
I think the problem stems from giving enemies a level of power that can be measured against the players level, instead of making monsters with fixed stats that make sense and creating obstacles that can be challenging at any level.

 

[Shadenuat]

What if the roads and other common paths in the swamp were scaled to a degree. You would see tougher enemies as you rise in levels, but also a mixture of lower level enemies. Then also what if there were parts of the swamp, say near the mountain or deeper in, perhaps around that witches' hut, where the enemies are always level 25? And what if there were random enemy spawns of higher level enemies, scaled to always be challenging, say "player level +5" or something.

Sure it's smart design to base enemy danger on geography of the world and it's plot, but why do you need level scaling for that, exactly? It is possible with just placing enemies by hand, and then placing a few unique traveling enemies who are medium or high level to spice things up. You don't need level scaling to block newbs out of your witches hut. And if it's a "fully fledged RPG" you can have stealth and magic for people who want to get a piece of loot right from the nose of a mob that can one-shot them if it sees them.
I guess a little level scaling can help, but it is probably also possible to just make roleplaying system lethal enough to blur the difference between levels (ala Witcher). And I think it's actually a good idea for sandboxes, because they don't have the leisure of abstracting things like, say, straight D&D adventures have.

 

[DalekFlay]

LhynnShadenuat

I'm mainly only talking about common area mobs here. Hand-placed static level loot and enemies in dungeons and side areas is 100% the way to go.

When walking from Whiterun to Solitude however you're going to be battling a bunch of wilderness common area enemies. If these are all static level then either they're all easy and boring for the whole game, or certain entire areas are higher level, meaning you are forced to put those entire areas off every time you play. Solitude would always be a later-in-the-game location. Alternatively if everything is scaled the world feels boring and predictable. So why not mix shit up and keep the common walking paths interesting with a variety of enemies? Some low level that you can run through easily, some higher level to keep the hiking simulation more dangerous and fun. And all without blocking off common areas of the game until higher levels.

It's nice to be level 30 and still feel like a stone gargoyle or werewolf could be over the next hill waiting to rape you, rather than knowing the entire world is now helpless beneath your feet. That's Bethesda's goal, they just suck at it most of the time. Doing it right would be fine.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

LhynnShadenuat


It's nice to be level 30 and still feel like a stone gargoyle or werewolf could be over the next hill waiting to rape you, rather than knowing the entire world is now helpless beneath your feet. That's Bethesda's goal, they just suck at it most of the time. Doing it right would be fine.

i thought you faggots played skyturd for immersion. how is a fucking stone gargoyle spawning in the middle of plains instead of bunch of low level bandits immersive?

 

[Cadmus]

LhynnShadenuat

I'm mainly only talking about common area mobs here. Hand-placed static level loot and enemies in dungeons and side areas is 100% the way to go.

When walking from Whiterun to Solitude however you're going to be battling a bunch of wilderness common area enemies. If these are all static level then either they're all easy and boring for the whole game, or certain entire areas are higher level, meaning you are forced to put those entire areas off every time you play. Solitude would always be a later-in-the-game location. Alternatively if everything is scaled the world feels boring and predictable. So why not mix shit up and keep the common walking paths interesting with a variety of enemies? Some low level that you can run through easily, some higher level to keep the hiking simulation more dangerous and fun. And all without blocking off common areas of the game until higher levels.

It's nice to be level 30 and still feel like a stone gargoyle or werewolf could be over the next hill waiting to rape you, rather than knowing the entire world is now helpless beneath your feet. That's Bethesda's goal, they just suck at it most of the time. Doing it right would be fine.

No dudeh. You provide a way for the player to mow down the low lvl shit, like in Wizardry for example,if it wasn't scaled, a bunch of instakill spells AND you don't use a retarded respawn system so that once the player clears the area, it stays clear (like in Gothic and by the way I don't see what's so different in terms of game style from Skyrim) There's no reason for there to be shitty trash mobs. In the case that you enter an area with lower than yourself level mobs, you simply pwn them, it also ties in with having previously overcome a huge challenge thus getting a sense of satisfaction (like in Gothic) and the combat being actually fun (like in Gothic). You see, I think that a good lvling system requires a support from the rest of the game also, it's a complex thing and Skyrim fucks it up completely.

 

[NotAGolfer]

You see, I think that a good lvling system requires a support from the rest of the game also, it's a complex thing and Skyrim fucks it up completely.

 

[DalekFlay]

No dudeh. You provide a way for the player to mow down the low lvl shit, like in Wizardry for example,if it wasn't scaled, a bunch of instakill spells AND you don't use a retarded respawn system so that once the player clears the area, it stays clear (like in Gothic and by the way I don't see what's so different in terms of game style from Skyrim) There's no reason for there to be shitty trash mobs. In the case that you enter an area with lower than yourself level mobs, you simply pwn them, it also ties in with having previously overcome a huge challenge thus getting a sense of satisfaction (like in Gothic) and the combat being actually fun (like in Gothic). You see, I think that a good lvling system requires a support from the rest of the game also, it's a complex thing and Skyrim fucks it up completely.

I don't think Skyrim would benefit from all the random combat while traveling the combat areas being low level. It would be fucking boring if it was rats the whole fucking games. Even the old classics didn't do that, Fallout 2's random combat and encounters took your level into account. I guess you could make the argument for it going the Gothic way, but the TES games are set up much more for hiking and endless return trips across the same terrain. Without respawns it would get pretty tedious. Also random combat while traveling can be interesting combat, when done well.

I don't really get your complaints at all, honestly. And I don't think I can write any more on the subject, so agree to disagree.

 

[Lhynn]

I don't think Skyrim would benefit from all the random combat while traveling the combat areas being low level. It would be fucking boring if it was rats the whole fucking games. Even the old classics didn't do that, Fallout 2's random combat and encounters took your level into account. I guess you could make the argument for it going the Gothic way, but the TES games are set up much more for hiking and endless return trips across the same terrain. Without respawns it would get pretty tedious. Also random combat while traveling can be interesting combat, when done well.

I don't really get your complaints at all, honestly. And I don't think I can write any more on the subject, so agree to disagree.

Well, now you are just talking about the means by which the player gets around, which should evolve as your character does to keep travels interesting, or at least fast enough that its not a bother.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Even the old classics didn't do that, Fallout 2's random combat and encounters took your level into account.

Only for special encounters, everything else was delevelled (but you could avoid them with outdoorman skill).

I guess you could make the argument for it going the Gothic way, but the TES games are set up much more for hiking and endless return trips across the same terrain.

It would be really great if they could stop doing that shit. I don't have enough time and patience anymore for that sort of stuff.
Imagine an open world game where there are no generic random encounters (if there are bandits they have a reason to be there, a place to live, targets they ambush etc.
The gameworld doesn't have to be colored by numbers, here's the town - read: quest hub - there's the wilderness - read: meaningless void storywise where you can fetch quest items - and there are your unique dungeons/POIs where the designers actually gave a shit. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[DraQ]

Fallout 3 was the biggest dissapointment and worst franchise/childhood rape ever happened to me.

Between Unreal 2 and Oblivion FO3 is probably the mildest one. Especially given that FO was on the receiving end for quite some time - FOT, FOBOS.

The difference between Oblivion and BG1 is that the latter was the company's first foray in making RPG's, and they improved by leaps and bounds while making the sequel.

How's that a difference?

And how much better than those is BG1?

BG1 is about as good as the rest of the classics IMO, give or take a bit.

For a sufficiently liberal definition of "a bit", perhaps.
Then again, so is Skyrim.

Give or take a bit.

Anyway, there is no need to dodge my question. I am curious and would like to know how you compare Skyrim to great classics like Fallout, Planescape, Gothic, Bloodlines, Deus Ex or Baldur's Gate 2, just to name a few.

Ideally? I wouldn't.
For similar reasons I don't compare Diablo (the first one) to them despite greatly enjoying it, although Skyrim is much closer to a proper RPG than Diablo.

I am asking because you constanly preach how awesome Skyrim is any chance you get, like it is one of the best RPGs ever made

I really do? Because that's news to me.

I merely respond to people bashing it in hopes of winning some easy Kodeks Kool Kredits, because, no, it isn't a bad game, isn't worse or comparable to Oblivion, and isn't fundamentally broken to the point where a relatively modest selection of mods couldn't turn it into a thoroughly enjoyable one.

(By the way, I find it quite amusing that you use the Todd Howard retard gif so often, even though he should actually be your game designing hero, seeing that you love Skyrim so much.)

Sure, TVTropes even has a page on him.

Thing is, if you like pretty 2d backgrounds, RTS-y combat with stats, D&D setting, decent plot and a large number of locations to visit it is likely BG will appeal to you.

Except RTS combat was effectively Lemmings: Tactical Edition, most of the locations were inexplicable (due to game skipping terrain anyway) filler with no POIs and appropriately repetitive backgrounds, and FR, especially fucking Sword Coast is generic kitchensink crap with stuff like bazillion always chaotic evil XP-fodder races somehow coexisting with playable ones and each other not really helping it feel like an actual place rather than guilt free genocide simulator (but doing a great job stuffing it with pointless filler combat).

Additionally the game features no C&C to speak of, retarded morality system, arbitrary switching between open world and railroaded story approaches (that sucks in terms of both), mostly one dimensional and boring companions, and horrid pacing to its story (it's not that it takes forever to start rolling, it's that before it starts rolling it doesn't really give you enough information - unlike, say, Morrowind - to keep you interested and occupied).

Sure I can see your point, Witcher 2 is too strong in those two areas for it to be considered outright bad and put on such a list, problem is those aspects of the game matter very little to some players and thus they see it as a bad game/experience.

Then why the fuck do they play it?

You don't play PS:T to complain about shitty combat or Wizardry to be dismayed by its campy universe and insufficient romance options.

Personally, while I certainly like the game (I played through it several times) I still have several gripes with it:

-Geralt is supposed to be one of the best fencers around, the game just failed in conveying that as far as I'm concerned. Parrying/blocking drains your vigour while even lowlife bums can parry all day long, Geralt has to learn riposte (counterattack), certain enemies parry, deflect and counterattack his attacks way too easily etc. It's a big part of him as a character and the game needed to do more justice to it IMO.

-Alchemy system and overall UI are much, much worse than the previous game, a sequel should keep what's good about the first game and fix the negative stuff, not fuck up some of the best aspects of the first game.

-Could be considered a personal preference but I found the game has way too much loot. I vastly prefer the way first game approached that, instead of throwing dozens of swords and armor/clothing at you, equipment upgrades were rare, expensive but substantial.

-Sidestepping, dodging would be more preferable to rolling around (doesn't mesh well with the game's grim dark, serious pretense). If not that, at the very least rolling should have drained your vigour and arguably as fast or faster than parrying which in addition to giving parrying 100% damage reduction might have given the game two viable different styles of defense instead of rolling being outright superior in every regard (it's free, avoids all damage, gets you into perfect position to backstab an enemy).

-Boss fights, aside from Letho they're just terrible (too arcadey, gimmicky, some are full of QTEs etc.). Kayran boss is the worst offender (not because I consider it hard or anything, I beat it on the first try), in the world of Witcher going against a dangerous monster without study, preparation and planning should get you killed, you're not supposed to wing it and succeed on blind luck (slice few tentacles then ride one of the remaining ones until the monster topples the architecture around it forming a natural stairway to its head so you can drop the bomb on it).

-Personal preference again but I believe that in some ways Witcher 2 would have benefited from ditching RPG pretense and being a full blown action/adventure game. Being forced to play as Geralt just doesn't lend itself to your usual "from zero to hero" RPG model especially considering that he regained most of his skills in the first game (and became a walking death machine by the end).

I fully agree with those.

Fair enough, I'm guessing Fallout and PST (in addition to Morrowind)?

Correct.

Oh, and BTW - guys, observe:

Probably Morrowind. Everything in this game is just so lifeless. The NPCs are standing around doing jack shit, the dialoguetree looks like a vendingmachine that spews out information and the NPCs don't even have a voice. There is no redemption in the gameplay either, because the combat sucks major dick. Maybe it's fun if you get into the game more and read up on the lore and make some interesting questlines but the game does jack shit to interest you in what it has to offer. That's why I only ever played it for 2h or so and then ended it in boredom. Oblivion and Skyrim I could at least play like 20h before deciding that they were kinda crappy. Maybe I woud've like Morrowind if I didn't play the Gothics before and had no expectations of how a living, breathing world should look like.

Oh man, where to start.

Who am I kidding, the answer is obvious. Planescape. Flush that turd already.

 

[harhar!]

Oh, and BTW - guys, observe:

Probably Morrowind. Everything in this game is just so lifeless. The NPCs are standing around doing jack shit, the dialoguetree looks like a vendingmachine that spews out information and the NPCs don't even have a voice. There is no redemption in the gameplay either, because the combat sucks major dick. Maybe it's fun if you get into the game more and read up on the lore and make some interesting questlines but the game does jack shit to interest you in what it has to offer. That's why I only ever played it for 2h or so and then ended it in boredom. Oblivion and Skyrim I could at least play like 20h before deciding that they were kinda crappy. Maybe I woud've like Morrowind if I didn't play the Gothics before and had no expectations of how a living, breathing world should look like.

Oh man, where to start.

Who am I kidding, the answer is obvious. Planescape. Flush that turd already.

Every thing I said is the truth. The fact that nobody could respond just shows that everyone agrees that the NPCs are complete garbage in Morrowind.

 

[DaveO]

Can somebody please get back to adding your list of games? I've seen a LOT of debating in the last two pages and little added to the voting since I finished.

 

[DraQ]

Every thing I said is the truth. The fact that nobody could respond just shows that everyone agrees that the NPCs are complete garbage in Morrowind.

Yeah, so? Show me one game I couldn't shit all over by simply focusing on its actual negatives.

The fact that you could play Oblivion for 20h *before* obvious conclusion only shows that you're easily swayed by superficial crap like fullly voiced dialogue, even if it is detrimental to the game in question, for example because it's only used for spewing painfully inane garbage at you when you pass by.

So you shouldn't pat yourself on the back because no one really disputed your claims - arguing with someone who clearly lack's the intellectual capacity to recognize that they've lost is pretty futile, and you have just exposed yourself as a tasteless moron.

 

[harhar!]

Every thing I said is the truth. The fact that nobody could respond just shows that everyone agrees that the NPCs are complete garbage in Morrowind.

Yeah, so? Show me one game I couldn't shit all over by simply focusing on its actual negatives.

The fact that you could play Oblivion for 20h *before* obvious conclusion only shows that you're easily swayed by superficial crap like fullly voiced dialogue, even if it is detrimental to the game in question, for example because it's only used for spewing painfully inane garbage at you when you pass by.

It's not just nitpicking though. Those are some substantial flaws that make the game shitty. Do you have to dislike every single aspect of a game to call it shit?

No shit bro, superficial crap makes the early game more bearable. At least the fighting isn't completely broken, the game has VO and the NPCs don't all have the same shit to say. You want to dismiss my opinion, because I played a shitty game too long before stopping? What a joke. In the end every game Bethesda has ever made is bad.

So you shouldn't pat yourself on the back because no one really disputed your claims - arguing with someone who clearly lack's the intellectual capacity to recognize that they've lost is pretty futile, and you have just exposed yourself as a tasteless moron.

"to recognize that they've lost". Lost to what? There wasn't even an argument. Morrowind is an unbearable shitstain of a game for anyone with a hint of good taste. You can either accept that or go kill yourself.

 

[Broseph]

In the end every game Bethesda has ever made is bad.

 

[harhar!]

In the end every game Bethesda has ever made is bad.

Better being edgy than being wrong.

 

[imweasel]

In the end every game Bethesda has ever made is bad.

I like you and your opinon, Newfag. You deserve a brofist for this.

Welcome to the Codex.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

He's trying too hard. He should only get brofists for daring to go against the hivemind. There are plenty of people here who despise Bethesda and all their works.

 

[octavius]

He's trying too hard. He should only get brofists for daring to go against the hivemind. There are plenty of people here who despise Bethesda and all their works.

I despise their forums more than I despise their games. Not sure if that is edgy, though.

 

[Kalasanty11]

I despise their forums more than I despise their games. Not sure if that is edgy, though.

Yeah, I rage quit their forums after I got suspended for calling someone a troll. Dude said that Fallout 3 has good c&c and writing. And that it is Bethesda game because you can hunt geckos and deliver packages (with mods).
Also, F3 gives you more role play possibilities.

 

[commie]

Arcania Fall of Setariff(worse than the base game if that's possible. Luckily it was just 3 hrs long)
Arcania
Any RPG maker pixel crap(Barkley excepted)
Maybe Mass Effect 2 and 3 more for the disappointment of getting rid of the few bits in ME that made it like a KOTOR style 'my first ARPG'

Otherwise I tend not to play shitty games long enough for them to have an impression. Most of the 'crap' I play for a while I tend to find some redeeming qualities with and by persevering I actually show that I enjoyed them more or less.

The only exception was Arcania...I just had to go through it to the end just to see how shitty a game can be.

 

[markec]

It just baffles me how some people on Codex think that Mass Effect 1 is anything but a piece of shit game.