Underrail is mediocre (imo)

[donjn]

I know I will get drilled for this, but at the tender age of 52, when I play Underrail I tend to dose off and almost fall asleep. Not sure why

 

[Serus]

I know I will get drilled for this, but at the tender age of 52, when I play Underrail I tend to dose off and almost fall asleep. Not sure why

I fall asleep even when a beautiful woman gives me a blowjob, this is age. And i'm younger.

 

[Rephyrnomicon]

If Underrail is mediocre, I'm desperate for more mediocre games to be released.

 

[donjn]

Quick question, does Underrail give you that Ultima VIII underground feeling and vibes? Yes I know we all hate Ultima VIII but I loved the vibe of that game.

 

[Lim-Dûl]

All those edgelords shitting on the best RPG of the past decade should try harder if they don’t want to be exposed as the tasteless faggots that they are.

What do faggots normally taste like?

 

[Rephyrnomicon]

All those edgelords shitting on the best RPG of the past decade should try harder if they don’t want to be exposed as the tasteless faggots that they are.

What do faggots normally taste like?

Chicken.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Fallouts - challenging - with depth, and this is somehow wrong because you'd have to think on a build for a more than a few seconds? We are on very different pages here.

As to Underrail you can try to do what makes sense and not play on harder difficulties. That's what difficulties are for. Also, yes - what a terrible thing to do - read the mechanics, descriptions of stats and skills, etc... Reading is the hard for a casual player but the game wasn't meant for them anyway. Builds aren't that complicated, use your brain and what you have just read and you can make a build that will work on easy with... ease, probably on normal too. Most sensible builds work, little risk of making it unplayable. Power variance is irrelevant as long as the "low powered" builds are still viable. All that assuming you don't just go with random picks but it applies to any games with build choices the same

The "other games" use a formula that allows for relatively simpler mechanics to work. Complex systems cannot be always easily sliced up into parts with progressive complexity. And no matter how slow you make new mechanics available to the player you still need to make major build choices at the start in most rpg games because you need to choose stats, often race, etc... Which means you need to read or go blind just the same. You need those preliminary choices and you need them to matter if you want to have a crpg. The difference is the amount of reading you need to do which is incidentally the difference between a niche game and a game for casual player. There is no "fundamentally" better formula here. Just ones for different types of games.

One thing that I can think that could be done better, the author should have created a few pre-made character builds. That would alleviate some of the problems you mentioned.

Underrail builds aren't necessarily that complicated but they are extremely arbitrary, for example you don't want to max out certain skills, you want to take them up to a certain point and then stop investing in them, since you can get the rest of the way from items or equipment. Maxing out certain skills is strictly sub optimal, even if you are playing a character who is focused on that skill.

There are a number of counter intuitive aspects to character building like this. Properly building a character isn't about picking your archetype and investing in reasonable choices that fit with that archetype, it's about understanding what was programmed in an overpowered way and about understanding weird non-obvious interactions between game systems that you'd only learn about halfway through the game (when it's too late to fix your build)... or more likely from reading a forum.

This becomes more problematic because it's a long boring game with dialog and fetch quests and stuff where you are stuck with the same single character and build. I'd never, ever consider replaying it... but I also can't fix my character build on the fly. So I'm stuck with a shitty build for my one and only playthrough, unless I do tons and tons of research ahead of time. (Contrast with other games where you aren't stuck with the same build for tens of hours, but you are instead given the opportunity to try out a bunch of different builds as you play through the game, either on one character or on multiple characters.)

Games don't have to work this way. They can give you the opportunity to learn about how the mechanics work by playing the game and then use that knowledge to build your character as you progress through the game.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Ironic that OP complaines about meaningful consequences in quests while UR does conseqences right in old-school sense: desicions in the character creation and later on are actually matter.

Unfortunately, those decisions are largely arbitrary.

The first playthrough of a long game like this is by far the most important.

But on your first playthrough you aren't given enough information to make a good build and the game systems contain many newb traps and arbitrary and weird mechanics that dictate very specific builds.

Without specific knowledge from previous playthroughs your decision (guess) might seem reasonable, like deciding to max out a skill you are specialized in, but later turn out to be a bad decision because the dev arbitrarily coded the game to punish that choice.

In contrast, in a game like Battle Brothers your first build will almost certainly be sub optimal, but you will be given the opportunity to make other, better builds as you progress through the game and learn which skills work for you. Notably that learning occurs through playing the game and testing out builds, not reading forums. You also aren't required to restart in order to take advantage of that knowledge.

(There are other ways to handle this without making characters as disposable as well.)

 

[Sykar]

You can finish normal with sub optimal builds. You would need to be a brainless retard to make a build so bad that you cannot finish normal.

Underrail builds aren't necessarily that complicated but they are extremely arbitrary, for example you don't want to max out certain skills, you want to take them up to a certain point and then stop investing in them, since you can get the rest of the way from items or equipment. Maxing out certain skills is strictly sub optimal, even if you are playing a character who is focused on that skill.

So what? You are aware that the same applies to Fallout 1/2 for example? There is no point going for above 100% Speech iirc. If you do not mind the occsional reload you can keep skills like lockpicking or pick pocketing at 50-100. UR is far from the only game where this type of optimization applies. I can also make the case for Arcanum where the only important skill to max is your main weapon skill.
That being said, there is no problem for most skills to be a bit low and get them up later. Most skill checks are made visible once you try to use it with too low of a skill. Only some social skill checks are hidden. Same goes for crafting. No need to crank it up to maximum from 1-30. If you pay even a little attention it will become apparent.

 

[PrK]

snip

This is funny because it is 100% wrong. Especially this quote:

Games don't have to work this way. They can give you the opportunity to learn about how the mechanics work by playing the game and then use that knowledge to build your character as you progress through the game.

Well, Underrail does exactly that.

Underrail is in fact one of the best RPGs in letting you adapt throughout the game without resorting to immersion ruining practises like respeccing.
It is never too late to "fix" a build since you have so many tools to overcome the various challenges and skills don’t have to be maxed to be useful (something that for some reason you call arbitrary and sub-optimal).
While yes, you’ll learn more about the various intricacies of the systems while playing the game, you absolutely don’t have to read a forum or do "tons of research".
My first playthrough was after only having seen some screenshots, nothing more, and my build was by all accounts atrocious - sledgehammer with not enough strength turned knife build with low dex and zero crafting - and since I never restart, I went with it and lo and behold, beat the game and had a blast doing it, using the huge variety of ways the game lets you use to "fix" your build. Grenades, traps, stealth, shields etc etc there is something for every situation.
Only caveat, needless to say, don't play on Dominating for your first playthrough.

 

[Falksi]

I think it's a tad overrated sure, for me it could do with a bit more substance to the dialogue and more dialogue itself in general, but it's still a great game.

A solid game in fact, which in today's gaming world is actually a fucking miracle.

 

[S.torch]

Critique is how we get nice things.

Not really. Most people who "criticise" something doesn't even likes that thing in the first place. Look at OP, he obviously doesn't like Underrail, yet he thinks his opinion is relevant when obviously is not. If you don't like a genre, accept it and move on.

Something has value, when the person commenting it already likes that thing from the base. Otherwise it's just a pointless conversation.

 

[agris]

So what? You are aware that the same applies to Fallout 1/2 for example? There is no point going for above 100% Speech iirc

One decision that UR makes that materially makes the player more boxed into "bad" builds is that you can't partially distribute skill points and close out the level-up screen. Keeping unspent skill points in reserve helps the player to gradually build their character to be responsive to the gameplay challenges presented. Forcing you to decide how much you want to raise LP/Hacking/Merc etc when all you want to do is pump guns or psi places a greater emphasis on meta knowledge.

 

[jackofshadows]

Unfortunately, those decisions are largely arbitrary.

The first playthrough of a long game like this is by far the most important.

But on your first playthrough you aren't given enough information to make a good build and the game systems contain many newb traps and arbitrary and weird mechanics that dictate very specific builds.

I mean, you don't have to program your build at the start up to max level. Just set atribute points which show its corellation with corresponding skills right away. Isn't picking your core skills and set primary atributes is the same as basically setting an archetype like you wanted to? Then it's your task to shape the build as the game goes on accordingly, that's the part of the fucking game. Like I said, the only unfair thing is STR requirements for certain basic weapons/armor like for tincan but that could be revealed pretty quickly, not nearly 70 hours or whatever. Besides, like it's been said above, the game provides with lots of tools not to fix but to adjust your build: gear/consumables like any proper RPG. Min-maxing, contrary to popular beleif around UR is not required even on Dominating, let alone normal. Proof to that are some insane gimmick playthroughs as crowbar run.

So I'm not sure what's the exact problem here apart from the fact of playing with sub-optimal build. Personally I did that too like all who finished the game on release because there was no guides, wiki let alone ready to go optimized and tested builds.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Keeping unspent skill points in reserve

....Feels gamey as shit.

 

[Rephyrnomicon]

So what? You are aware that the same applies to Fallout 1/2 for example? There is no point going for above 100% Speech iirc

One decision that UR makes that materially makes the player more boxed into "bad" builds is that you can't partially distribute skill points and close out the level-up screen. Keeping unspent skill points in reserve helps the player to gradually build their character to be responsive to the gameplay challenges presented. Forcing you to decide how much you want to raise LP/Hacking/Merc etc when all you want to do is pump guns or psi places a greater emphasis on meta knowledge.

There are no bad builds in Underrail, unless you're a retarded autist who thinks they're going to talk their way through a post apocalyptic underground railway system, and didn't add any combat skills.

 

[Stavrophore]

See, in a traditional RPG like Fallout, you can create characters fully developed in speech skills without putting points in combat but in Underrail you can't.
This post explains it in details:

Where did the developers promised that the game allows you a truly pacifist build? The speech skills helps you to make your combat easier, not remove it completely. And i'm fine with that, the underrail is dangerous place and allowing you to finish game without firing a shot would be a complete farce.

 

[Rephyrnomicon]

See, in a traditional RPG like Fallout, you can create characters fully developed in speech skills without putting points in combat but in Underrail you can't.
This post explains it in details:

Where did the developers promised that the game allows you a truly pacifist build? The speech skills helps you to make your combat easier, not remove it completely. And i'm fine with that, the underrail is dangerous place and allowing you to finish game without firing a shot would be a complete farce.

Fucking seriously. If I could brofist, I would.

 

[Serus]

Fallouts - challenging - with depth, and this is somehow wrong because you'd have to think on a build for a more than a few seconds? We are on very different pages here.

As to Underrail you can try to do what makes sense and not play on harder difficulties. That's what difficulties are for. Also, yes - what a terrible thing to do - read the mechanics, descriptions of stats and skills, etc... Reading is the hard for a casual player but the game wasn't meant for them anyway. Builds aren't that complicated, use your brain and what you have just read and you can make a build that will work on easy with... ease, probably on normal too. Most sensible builds work, little risk of making it unplayable. Power variance is irrelevant as long as the "low powered" builds are still viable. All that assuming you don't just go with random picks but it applies to any games with build choices the same

The "other games" use a formula that allows for relatively simpler mechanics to work. Complex systems cannot be always easily sliced up into parts with progressive complexity. And no matter how slow you make new mechanics available to the player you still need to make major build choices at the start in most rpg games because you need to choose stats, often race, etc... Which means you need to read or go blind just the same. You need those preliminary choices and you need them to matter if you want to have a crpg. The difference is the amount of reading you need to do which is incidentally the difference between a niche game and a game for casual player. There is no "fundamentally" better formula here. Just ones for different types of games.

One thing that I can think that could be done better, the author should have created a few pre-made character builds. That would alleviate some of the problems you mentioned.

Underrail builds aren't necessarily that complicated but they are extremely arbitrary, for example you don't want to max out certain skills, you want to take them up to a certain point and then stop investing in them, since you can get the rest of the way from items or equipment. Maxing out certain skills is strictly sub optimal, even if you are playing a character who is focused on that skill.

There are a number of counter intuitive aspects to character building like this. Properly building a character isn't about picking your archetype and investing in reasonable choices that fit with that archetype, it's about understanding what was programmed in an overpowered way and about understanding weird non-obvious interactions between game systems that you'd only learn about halfway through the game (when it's too late to fix your build)... or more likely from reading a forum.

This becomes more problematic because it's a long boring game with dialog and fetch quests and stuff where you are stuck with the same single character and build. I'd never, ever consider replaying it... but I also can't fix my character build on the fly. So I'm stuck with a shitty build for my one and only playthrough, unless I do tons and tons of research ahead of time. (Contrast with other games where you aren't stuck with the same build for tens of hours, but you are instead given the opportunity to try out a bunch of different builds as you play through the game, either on one character or on multiple characters.)

Games don't have to work this way. They can give you the opportunity to learn about how the mechanics work by playing the game and then use that knowledge to build your character as you progress through the game.

That's just nonsense. No one has to "not max" certain skills. This is meta knowledge that is useful for people who either a) are autistic and want to make "perfect build" or b) play on highest difficulty (perhaps ironman) ) where that might (or not) make a real difference. For a first playthrough on easy/normal this is completely, totally unnecessary and i would say, even discouraged. You must be the autistic type. This is well known that - although many people like that play games - they are not optimized for them. I know because sometimes I also can't stop myself.
Same with the "counter intuitive aspects". You don't need to know every singe obscure interactions to succeed and the basics you need to know are, contrary to what you say, simple enough and either obvious or can be learnt from in-game description about stats, skills and feats. Which is not different from other games that have complex systems and offer a lot of options in building you character. What is certainly NOT necessary is going to a forum and copying a build. It's bullshit as is most of you post. I'm sorry Porka but that how it is.

 

[Stavrophore]

Can you go to complete different locations in different orders? That’s one of my favorite parts of Fallout.

You can't, you just have a base at first and then you can explore the caves/ bunkers similar to Diablo 1.
Expect many backtracking to the base that will waste your time because unlike Diablo 1 there is no recall spell.

Ok, OP is confirmed retard, close thread.

But he is right. You can only travel around after clearing tunnels, meaning after depot A which is objectively pretty hard part of the game for beginners.

 

[Serus]

Can you go to complete different locations in different orders? That’s one of my favorite parts of Fallout.

You can't, you just have a base at first and then you can explore the caves/ bunkers similar to Diablo 1.
Expect many backtracking to the base that will waste your time because unlike Diablo 1 there is no recall spell.

Ok, OP is confirmed retard, close thread.

But he is right. You can only travel around after clearing tunnels, meaning after depot A which is objectively pretty hard part of the game for beginners.

That's a small portion of the game. He would have a point in saying that the game only really opens after certain moment and that it gets too long before you have a more open access to the gameworld. But that is not what he claimed. He probably never played past early game.
As to backtracking, fortunately there is instant transport available in game so not much of long backtracking but there is some.

 

[Agesilaus]

Good luck explaining how Tchort is some inherently evil monster. Tchort is a good boy, he dindu nuffin, he just hangs out in the underground lab and helps the Tchortists with their science projects.

That one unique named tchortling got dialogue added in one of the recent updates. He doesn't seem very happy about being a tchortling. Bit rude of Tchort to do that to him.

I haven't seen that updated dialogue, but if Tchort did something bad to him then he probably deserved it. Also, no Tchort is beyond redemption, I'm not going to attack Tchort for hurting one man when I'm supposed to forgive the faceless mutants for rampaging across the entire map.

And i am not going against a queen of some Latin America country who wanted to make it strong and truly independent and who's husband, clearly on CIA payroll, hired me to kill her. I want to go against the agency.

Ok, putting aside the ridiculousness of comparing Tchort to some Latin American tyrant, why'd you take the contract and accept money to kill her? The game would be better if you could make a decision about which side to back, but the reality is that the game puts you on a side from very the beginning. It is then made obvious that the crazy lady just wants you dead. There's no decision to be made; the game isn't forcing you away from a path that you've invested in.

Underrail is not like that. You don't even know about Tchort in the beginning, but later you learn more and can become a Tchortist. Eventually, you might terraform the planet and live happily ever after on the surface. However, the game suddenly railroads you into betraying your principles and comrades in favour of loathsome blood-thirsty mutants who have the power of infinite respawns.

 

[Serus]

Good luck explaining how Tchort is some inherently evil monster. Tchort is a good boy, he dindu nuffin, he just hangs out in the underground lab and helps the Tchortists with their science projects.

That one unique named tchortling got dialogue added in one of the recent updates. He doesn't seem very happy about being a tchortling. Bit rude of Tchort to do that to him.

I haven't seen that updated dialogue, but if Tchort did something bad to him then he probably deserved it. Also, no Tchort is beyond redemption, I'm not going to attack Tchort for hurting one man when I'm supposed to forgive the faceless mutants for rampaging across the entire map.

And i am not going against a queen of some Latin America country who wanted to make it strong and truly independent and who's husband, clearly on CIA payroll, hired me to kill her. I want to go against the agency.

Ok, putting aside the ridiculousness of comparing Tchort to some Latin American tyrant, why'd you take the contract and accept money to kill her? The game would be better if you could make a decision about which side to back, but the reality is that the game puts you on a side from very the beginning. It is then made obvious that the crazy lady just wants you dead. There's no decision to be made; the game isn't forcing you away from a path that you've invested in.

Underrail is not like that. You don't even know about Tchort in the beginning, but later you learn more and can become a Tchortist. Eventually, you might terraform the planet and live happily ever after on the surface. However, the game suddenly railroads you into betraying your principles and comrades in favour of loathsome blood-thirsty mutants who have the power of infinite respawns.

There is nothing ridiculous about comparing them. Both are "bad guys" of computer game of the genre rpg. I agree it would nice to have two campaigns, one against Deidranna and one fighting the insurrection on her side. Would be fun. As would be having more options in Underrail, being able to choose the preferred bad guy for yourself. My point however is that it is ridiculous claiming that a bad guy in a game isn't one. He is that by definition, that is his role in the game. The reason behind his/her/their action might be more or less sensible, might be more or less nuanced but it doesn't change its function. It is to be the "bad guy" and be defeated at the end by the player. "Bad" in "bad guy" doesn't have to mean "evil" at all. It just means "the final boss or goal of the game". I'm not sure if i'm clear, i'm sorry for that.

 

[Agesilaus]

Good luck explaining how Tchort is some inherently evil monster. Tchort is a good boy, he dindu nuffin, he just hangs out in the underground lab and helps the Tchortists with their science projects.

That one unique named tchortling got dialogue added in one of the recent updates. He doesn't seem very happy about being a tchortling. Bit rude of Tchort to do that to him.

I haven't seen that updated dialogue, but if Tchort did something bad to him then he probably deserved it. Also, no Tchort is beyond redemption, I'm not going to attack Tchort for hurting one man when I'm supposed to forgive the faceless mutants for rampaging across the entire map.

And i am not going against a queen of some Latin America country who wanted to make it strong and truly independent and who's husband, clearly on CIA payroll, hired me to kill her. I want to go against the agency.

Ok, putting aside the ridiculousness of comparing Tchort to some Latin American tyrant, why'd you take the contract and accept money to kill her? The game would be better if you could make a decision about which side to back, but the reality is that the game puts you on a side from very the beginning. It is then made obvious that the crazy lady just wants you dead. There's no decision to be made; the game isn't forcing you away from a path that you've invested in.

Underrail is not like that. You don't even know about Tchort in the beginning, but later you learn more and can become a Tchortist. Eventually, you might terraform the planet and live happily ever after on the surface. However, the game suddenly railroads you into betraying your principles and comrades in favour of loathsome blood-thirsty mutants who have the power of infinite respawns.

There is nothing ridiculous about comparing them. Both are "bad guys" of computer game of the genre rpg. I agree it would nice to have two campaigns, one against Deidranna and one fighting the insurrection on her side. Would be fun. As would be having more options in Underrail, being able to choose the preferred bad guy for yourself. My point however is that it is ridiculous claiming that a bad guy in a game isn't one. He is that by definition, that is his role in the game. The reason behind his/her/their action might be more or less sensible, might be more or less nuanced but it doesn't change its function. It is to be the "bad guy" and be defeated at the end by the player. "Bad" in "bad guy" doesn't have to mean "evil" at all. It just means "the final boss or goal of the game". I'm not sure if i'm clear, i'm sorry for that.

I see the issue: you are an NPC with no appreciation for the broader story, no sense of morality or personal desire, no particular place beyond wherever some game dev places you. My mistake, I thought you understood that "bad guy" should mean more than just "guy game dev told you to attack". Carry on.

 

[Stavrophore]

Tchortism is kinda like an unholy child of synthesis of Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari ideas with biotranshumanism, lack of will, and one AI[psychic] driven organism guided by tchortists/biocorp. The only enticing thing is their promise[probably false] about guiding evolution to make humans enhanced to whitstand living condition on surface[which no one has seen for years, so everything they presume might be false]. From RP perspective, sure that Underrail should allow us to side with tchort. But then how would styg end the whole mystery cube quest, with tanner teleporting to deep caverns and fighting us there? Idk.