Vapourware RPG Codex's Best RPGs - 2019 - REVIEW THREAD!

[ebPD8PePfC]

I haven't seen Jason and the Argonauts, but I have seen plenty of movies from the early 1900's, the 1910s, the 1920s, the 30s, the 40s, the 50s... and pretty much all of them sucked with very few exceptions. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, oh yeah, I shat my pants watching that film... no, it was fucking boring and I laughed out loud at my brother saying we should watch it because it has a 100% score at Rotten Tomatoes.

Have you played Wasteland 1 and 2?
Because the first is still somehow more interesting, and I've played them both in recent years. I actually ragequit the second because it was so poorly designed. It wasn't mid combat or anything, I just felt pure anger at the mediocrity of every single aspect of the game.

 

[Sigourn]

bad meme

Nice strawmanning, but I don't watch none of that shit (minus Breaking Bad). I'm guessing you do, though.

Have you played Wasteland 1 and 2?
Because the first is still somehow more interesting, and I've played them both in recent years. I actually ragequit the second because it was so poorly designed. It wasn't mid combat or anything, I just felt pure anger at the mediocrity of every single aspect of the game.

Yes.

I stopped playing the first one because it was extremely boring. I stopped playing the second one because it felt like a Fallout rip-off (I know technically it is the other way around, but given I played Fallout first...). Then I gave it a second try and enjoyed it, though my playthrough was harmed because I dropped it somewhere along the second half of the game and then picked it up a month later.

This discussion is now over.

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

There are lots of movies from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that are great and enjoyable. (There are a few from the early 1930s that feel archaic, though.)

I don't know how anyone could dislike, for example, most of the films that Hitchcock made after he came to America, and there were plenty of similarly skilled directors working in Hollywood at the time.

 

[Sigourn]

There are lots of movies from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that are great and enjoyable. (There are a few from the early 1930s that feel archaic, though.)

I didn't say all flims made in those years sucked. I enjoyed a few, like M, White Heat, and Sunset Boulevard. M in particular I thought was very impressive and reminded me a lot of Zodiac. But make no mistake: some of those films are hailed as the best ever made. For their time, sure. Nowadays? I'll stick with Titanic and Forrest Gump, I don't need other people to validate my taste in films.

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

There are lots of movies from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that are great and enjoyable. (There are a few from the early 1930s that feel archaic, though.)

I didn't say all flims made in those years sucked. I enjoyed a few, like M, White Heat, and Sunset Boulevard. M in particular I thought was very impressive and reminded me a lot of Zodiac. But make no mistake: some of those films are hailed as the best ever made. For their time, sure. Nowadays? I'll stick with Titanic and Forrest Gump, I don't need other people to validate my taste in films.

I would recommend just exploring films made in those years rather than watching films on best of lists. M was made by Fritz Lang, so you could try to watch more of his movies (don't try his silent movies); White Heat was made by Raoul Walsh; and Sunset Boulevard by Billy Wilder. If you like more of their movies, then you could branch out to similar directors.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Sigourn
You're just lack the knowledge to get an opinion about what a good movie is, same goes for good cRPG so stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[howlingFantods]

In your opinion. There comes a point where you have to accept that "the minority opinion=/=the better opinion". I have asked myself if the people enjoying Skyrim are retards, or we are the defective human beings because we don't find enjoyment in it. Considering Skyrim appeals to the most basic of enjoyment cycles which any healthy human being should have, I'm inclining for the latter.

Ok, first of all your personal enjoyment of a game has little to do with whether the game is good or not. You can not enjoy a game personally and still admit that it was well executed in a lot of ways. Also I don’t trust your personal opinions because you have not supported them with examples; and you come off as whiny.

Second of all Skyrim appealing to more people than we have on the codex does not make it a good game. It simply means it’s accessible to a large audience. Why? Because its rpg systems have been significantly watered down in comparison to earlier elder scrolls titles. For the lowest common denominator this is great because it allows them to play the game without being overwhelmed. For us it’s terrible because it’s like slapping the fucking training wheels back on.

 

[Curratum]

It boggles the mind how the senile retards on this forum keep placing Morrowind (and Daggerfall, dear LORD GOD) far higher than Oblivion on this list.

 

[laclongquan]

2020 is a good year to redo this poll because two reasons:

FF7 remake
Cyberpunk 2077

The latter is obvious, but the former is to see how strong nostalgia is. People keep harping on FF7, but will they pay shitload of money to buy that game~

 

[Martyr]

I really need a

not sure if serious

button. most posts on this page would deserve one such rating.

 

[unfairlight]

I don't think it's the best idea to make polls so close to hyped up releases. Pathfinder has an insane recency bias that made it climb up way too high already, big releases need time, lots of time, to settle down. If this poll was made a year, maybe a year and a half later I imagine Pathfinder wouldn't be getting into the top 15, it would probably get a top 20 spot. If the vote was closer to D:OS2's release then I imagine that game would be top 15 as well.

 

[CaffeineConquistador]

There are lots of movies from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that are great and enjoyable. (There are a few from the early 1930s that feel archaic, though.)

I didn't say all flims made in those years sucked. I enjoyed a few, like M, White Heat, and Sunset Boulevard. M in particular I thought was very impressive and reminded me a lot of Zodiac. But make no mistake: some of those films are hailed as the best ever made. For their time, sure. Nowadays? I'll stick with Titanic and Forrest Gump, I don't need other people to validate my taste in films.

Watch and like whatever you want, but you still suck at watching movies.

 

[DalekFlay]

People in 1963 would would have shat their pants looking at the 3D effects of something like Avatar or Transformers. Guess what, Jason and the Argonauts is still a far better movie than those.

I've always found Argonauts somewhat overrated outside of effects. The plot is barebones and just ends with nothing resolved. However The Golden Voyage of Sinbad is a fucking classic and I'll cut any bitch who says otherwise.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I don't think it's the best idea to make polls so close to hyped up releases. Pathfinder has an insane recency bias that made it climb up way too high already, big releases need time, lots of time, to settle down. If this poll was made a year, maybe a year and a half later I imagine Pathfinder wouldn't be getting into the top 15, it would probably get a top 20 spot. If the vote was closer to D:OS2's release then I imagine that game would be top 15 as well.

Probably true, but impossible to avoid. You can't anticipate a lull in recent release hype, and it doesn't look like one is coming any time soon.
...which is a good thing, right?

 

[felipepepe]

I don't think it's the best idea to make polls so close to hyped up releases. Pathfinder has an insane recency bias that made it climb up way too high already, big releases need time, lots of time, to settle down. If this poll was made a year, maybe a year and a half later I imagine Pathfinder wouldn't be getting into the top 15, it would probably get a top 20 spot.

The poll was done 8 months after Pathfinder's release, that's a long fucking time.

It would be better if I had waited until now or maybe September, but 2019 has been an EXTREMELY atypical and shitty year, arguably the worst of the decade. It's July, and what are the RPGs so far? Sunless Skies, Anthem, Outward, Operencia: The Stolen Sun and... ?

 

[ebPD8PePfC]

You could exclude games that came out in the last five years, but I don't see the point in trying to remove recency bias. It's more interesting to see how games in the poll rise and fall over the years - they get to the top by hype, and recalibrate later on as players forget about them.

 

[Sigourn]

Watch and like whatever you want, but you still suck at watching movies.

no u

 

[Sigourn]

You can not enjoy a game personally and still admit that it was well executed in a lot of ways.

I understand where you are coming from. I disagree. If the purpose of a game is to be fun, then I'm literally unable to praise a game for doing something that I don't find fun.
To give you an example: it is the equivalent of the Codex, en masse, praising Skyrim. That's literally it: praising the game for doing something you don't like. It's not honest praise, it's dumb, and this particular example IMO proves it.

No one badly designs a game as successful as Skyrim (would one be so lucky...).

Also I don’t trust your personal opinions because you have not supported them with examples; and you come off as whiny.

I specifically mentioned Wasteland because I've played both it and Wasteland 2, and it is the one game that stands out as being poorly placed on that list. Call it what you will, but Wasteland's position on the list can be attribute only to two things, one which was pointed out to me by another member:

• How voting worked on the making of this list.
• How nostalgia goggles work, which is directly related to the making of this list, i.e. "I vote Wasteland because at its time it was an amazing RPG, while Wasteland 2 was just mediocre".

This is not specific to the Codex and I see this happen all the time, anywhere where games are being discussed. Again, I can accept and get behind "Fallout > Fallout: New Vegas", because the arguments to explain why is better than the other aside from "it came first and it was revolutionary!" exist: Fallout has proper combat where stats matter a lot, the game doesn't have a vastly empty wasteland, the sound design is amazing, the graphics hold up much better, the game feels finished, etc. But when it comes to Wasteland vs Wasteland 2, I really, really struggle to see why someone would genuinely think the original is superior to the sequel.

Second of all Skyrim appealing to more people than we have on the codex does not make it a good game. It simply means it’s accessible to a large audience.

Falllout appealing to fewer people than the Skyrim audience does not make it a good game. It simply means it's liked by a niche audience. It's all about perspective. You are not judging Skyrim as a game, you are judging it as an RPG. But that's hardly it: you are comparing it to other RPGs you like, and want a similar experience out of it. Imagine a Skyrim player wanting the "Skyrim experience" out of Fallout, and saying Fallout is the worst game ever made because it doesn't deliver. This is what the Codex does. You are mistaking "good design" with "what I personally enjoy". That's not good design, that's personal preference.

Genuine "good game design" is trying to appeal to an audience and succeeding. Where most RPG developers have failed, Bethesda succeeded: they set out to appease a particular audience, and succeeded. The Codex cannot appeal to the "Bethesda audience" because it doesn't have the money. But a few developers and Codexers have made games for the Codex. The result? "This game is mediocre", "This game is garbage", "Forgettable", with very few games actually being popular to make it to this poll, but not THAT popular as to dethrone the "all time greats". I'm talking about:

• #11 The Age of Decadence
• #16 Underrail
• #22 Grimoire: this game is undeniably awful in everything that doesn't concern gameplay exclusively
  
• #44 ATOM RPG: I can only hope it ranks much higher in future polls
  
• #49 Battle Brothers

 

[Lady_Error]

#22 Grimoire: this game is undeniably awful in everything that doesn't concern gameplay exclusively

You do not even understand this kind of game. Old school blobbers required using your imagination to fill in the blanks, which created a dream-like experiences you won't find in newer large-budget games with their photorealistic graphics.

 

[Sigourn]

You do not even understand this kind of game. Old school blobbers required using your imagination to fill in the blanks, which created a dream-like experiences you won't find in newer large-budget games with their photorealistic graphics.

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is "this game looks like dogshit and is firmly ingrained in outdated interface design because muh nostalgia". felipepepe acknowledges this in his own way:

I suppose I should also address the graphical side - it doesn't bother me, but some people will care. Grimoire's artwork uses mostly an almost-cute hand-drawn style that looks cool and has a heavily 90s feel. There are only a couple of tilesets, which grows repetitive as the game advances, but the few that exist look distinct enough. However, somewhere along the way compromises were made, leading to several different styles appearing - from digital painting to Japanese-style characters and even some portraits done in bad 3D art.

I don't care about a game looking poor, but I expect consistency in its poorness. Cleve couldn't even bother with that. It would have been better for him to handdraw each and every single enemy, at least it would have made the art stand out some more. This is the very definition of "objectively bad design" but somehow here it translates to "compromises were made"*. If you don't put effort in your game, why would I put effort into playing it?

*hell I'm sure in the time it took Cleve to make this game he could have easily taken some drawing and colouring lessons, or source out the work to his offspring (if any). Artwork made by 5-year olds would be something to behold.

U-8D8 Omae wa mou shindeiru

 

[DalekFlay]

Most people can't get into shit from before their time. There are exceptions, I'm sure people are itching to reply to me to say they were born in 1999 and Betrayal at Krondor is their favorite game or whatever, but in a general sense most people don't go back further than their own experience by very much. I started PC RPGing with Lands of Lore and I'll admit it's hard for me to go back earlier than that, though I have here and there. With movies I'm far more willing to go back before my time for whatever reason, but even there I sometimes struggle with the very stage play feel of most 50s and earlier films. I don't think you're weird for feeling that way, but you should probably stop acting like those games/movies are bad. They're not bad, they just have styles and limitations you can't get along with.

 

[ebPD8PePfC]

Genuine "good game design" is trying to appeal to an audience and succeeding.

No, it's not. That's your definition, extrapolated from the market's definition.

I was going to explain why you're wrong, but at the end of the day it's pointless to argue over it when the list aggregates the tastes of hundreds of people, and the bottom 70 is poorly ordered due to the top heavy voting system used. Wasteland got 17 point, 9 point and less were out of the list.
It only took two people at this point to decide if Wasteland was in or out, so it's not like the majority of people think it's is one of the greatest games ever made.

 

[Sigourn]

Most people can't get into shit from before their time. There are exceptions, I'm sure people are itching to reply to me to say they were born in 1999 and Betrayal at Krondor is their favorite game or whatever, but in a general sense most people don't go back further than their own experience by very much. I started PC RPGing with Lands of Lore and I'll admit it's hard for me to go back earlier than that, though I have here and there. With movies I'm far more willing to go back before my time for whatever reason, but even there I sometimes struggle with the very stage play feel of most 50s and earlier films. I don't think you're weird for feeling that way, but you should probably stop acting like those games/movies are bad. They're not bad, they just have styles and limitations you can't get along with.

I'm not saying certain films/games are not to be enjoyed. I'm simply saying I don't enjoy them, and that does not make me a retard anymore than someone is a retard for not liking Skyrim, for instance. Elitism has existed since forever. There used to be a time when people said "films are for retards", until films started being appreciated. What I never expected was for people to say "certain games are for retards", as if videogames were anything but mindless entertainment.

Imagine if this was GameFaqs, e.g.

Fallout is the best RPG ever made.

*gets rated retarded by people who say Chrono Trigger is*

 

[howlingFantods]

I understand where you are coming from. I disagree. If the purpose of a game is to be fun, then I'm literally unable to praise a game for doing something that I don't find fun.
To give you an example: it is the equivalent of the Codex, en masse, praising Skyrim. That's literally it: praising the game for doing something you don't like. It's not honest praise, it's dumb, and this particular example IMO proves it.

No one badly designs a game as successful as Skyrim (would one be so lucky...).



I specifically mentioned Wasteland because I've played both it and Wasteland 2, and it is the one game that stands out as being poorly placed on that list. Call it what you will, but Wasteland's position on the list can be attribute only to two things, one which was pointed out to me by another member:

• How voting worked on the making of this list.
• How nostalgia goggles work, which is directly related to the making of this list, i.e. "I vote Wasteland because at its time it was an amazing RPG, while Wasteland 2 was just mediocre".

This is not specific to the Codex and I see this happen all the time, anywhere where games are being discussed. Again, I can accept and get behind "Fallout > Fallout: New Vegas", because the arguments to explain why is better than the other aside from "it came first and it was revolutionary!" exist: Fallout has proper combat where stats matter a lot, the game doesn't have a vastly empty wasteland, the sound design is amazing, the graphics hold up much better, the game feels finished, etc. But when it comes to Wasteland vs Wasteland 2, I really, really struggle to see why someone would genuinely think the original is superior to the sequel.



Falllout appealing to fewer people than the Skyrim audience does not make it a good game. It simply means it's liked by a niche audience. It's all about perspective. You are not judging Skyrim as a game, you are judging it as an RPG. But that's hardly it: you are comparing it to other RPGs you like, and want a similar experience out of it. Imagine a Skyrim player wanting the "Skyrim experience" out of Fallout, and saying Fallout is the worst game ever made because it doesn't deliver. This is what the Codex does. You are mistaking "good design" with "what I personally enjoy". That's not good design, that's personal preference.

Genuine "good game design" is trying to appeal to an audience and succeeding. Where most RPG developers have failed, Bethesda succeeded: they set out to appease a particular audience, and succeeded. The Codex cannot appeal to the "Bethesda audience" because it doesn't have the money. But a few developers and Codexers have made games for the Codex. The result? "This game is mediocre", "This game is garbage", "Forgettable", with very few games actually being popular to make it to this poll, but not THAT popular as to dethrone the "all time greats". I'm talking about:

• #11 The Age of Decadence
• #16 Underrail
• #22 Grimoire: this game is undeniably awful in everything that doesn't concern gameplay exclusively
  
• #44 ATOM RPG: I can only hope it ranks much higher in future polls
  
• #49 Battle Brothers

There’s a large audience that enjoys the Minions movie but that doesn’t make it better than Citizen Kane. I’ll tell you how to recognize a game as a good game without personally enjoying it: ask yourself why you’re not enjoying it. If you’re not enjoying it because it’s too hard or too easy but recognize that it’s still doing cool stuff then you can see how it might be good despite your inability to enjoy it. If you see that a game has deep, interesting systems that take a while to learn, but you personally don’t have the patience for it, then you can see how your enjoyment doesn’t necessarily correlate with how good it is.
I find it funny that you say I’m mistaking good design with what I personally enjoy; you are literally the one saying that you can’t see how to judge a game as good if you don’t enjoy it.
Do you just trust that something is better than something else based on which one has MORE people who like it? That’s the most normie thing I’ve ever heard. I guess Frozen is one of the best movies of all time and that McDonalds should be a 3 Star restaurant.
One final thing, you’ll probably say I should judge Skyrim as good because I should recognize it’s too easy for me but it’s an otherwise good game. I’d agree with that but it’s not an otherwise good game. Why do people enjoy it then you ask?
1) It’s their first time with an RPG like game
2)it’s popular and they (like you) value popular things
3)they haven’t played anything better yet so they assume this is as good as it gets

In actuality though the writing is bland. The dungeon design is linear and repetitive. The quest design is linear and boring. The level scaling is bad because it undermines the feeling of getting more powerful and makes the world seem more artificial.
What’s your argument to that? They still appealed to an audience so it’s good? You sound like a marketing consultant.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

) It’s their first time with an RPG like like like like like like like like like like game

Fixed that for you!