Underrail: The Incline Awakens

[CHEMS]

But you're the one saying it's doable, so you should do it, not me

 

[Sratopotator]

Besides the point of bespoke enemies and encounters, which is what allows for deep tactics, AoD's system also allows for attrition.

Again and again you cherry pick shit that you like, and consider it as "real tactics", while ignoring shit that you don't necessarily like, and consider it as, what, "combat side mechanics"? Cool that you personally like turn-based games with stationary exchanges and attrition (your point about cover is basically 1:1 the same as attrition), but what does it have to do with anything?

You obviously have a very specific definition of "tactics". One that, for some reason, you don't really want to share with us. I already tried pushing it out of you, no luck, I won't try again.
Without agreeing on specific definitions of the terms we are using, this conversation is done.

No. What I mean is that DOMINATING difficulty should have been adjusted to kick your ass from beginning to end.

How do you expect this to work in games that have the whole map open and accessible for the majority of their length? (without going for a complete flat power curve, or some level scaling equivalent, right?)
Fighting a single Lunatic on DOMINATING should be as deep, tactically speaking, as fighting a dozen? Cause this is what happens in open RPGs - you can reach shit "out of order".
I'll repeat: Do you recollect any sanbox-y, open world-y RPGs that did this well?

 

[Tygrende]

Again, the whole premise is stupid since you can probably clear every area in the game (clear = kill everything) with a level 10 or level 12 character, without using cheat buttons like the toxic gas grenades.

Do DOM Naga Fight with a lvl 10~12 character

Actually should be easy, just do what I did with crowbar. You will also have access to a number of goodies I didn't have like EMPs and such.

 

[Jason Liang]

Besides the point of bespoke enemies and encounters, which is what allows for deep tactics, AoD's system also allows for attrition.

Again and again you cherry pick shit that you like, and consider it as "real tactics", while ignoring shit that you don't necessarily like, and consider it as, what, "combat side mechanics"? Cool that you personally like turn-based games with stationary exchanges and attrition (your point about cover is basically 1:1 the same as attrition), but what does it have to do with anything?

You obviously have a very specific definition of "tactics". One that, for some reason, you don't really want to share with us.

I have. I said, actual tactics is figuring out the exact order that the enemies in a specific fight need to die, when and how. Also it is figuring out precisely which space you must end your turn on each turn so you do not die. It also involves figuring out how many turns you can survive before you die, figuring out what you need to do every turn to get to that last turn while dealing enough damage to kill your enemies before you yourself die. Again this is why Underrail is even shallower than either AoD or Shadowrun since it lacks this attrition dimension. In Underrail the closest is managing your cooldowns and your PSI reserves, but even then the game never pushes you to an absolute limit of running out of resources like with AoD, Shadowrun, Battletech or Rance X.

The example I gave was: On DOMINATING difficulty if you are clearing the 2nd floor of Lunatic Mall with a level 8 character, who must die first and immediately and who do you save for last - Frost, Vanga or Firecracker?

This is not a hypothetical question. It has a precise and correct answer. You cannot talk about the actual tactics of clearing the 2nd floor of Lunatic Mall without figuring out the correct answer.

Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics. Figuring out that you must do the not obvious thing in order to win is deep tactics.

No. What I mean is that DOMINATING difficulty should have been adjusted to kick your ass from beginning to end.

How do you expect this to work in games that have the whole map open and accessible for the majority of their length? (without going for a complete flat power curve, or some level scaling equivalent, right?)
Fighting a single Lunatic on DOMINATING should be as deep, tactically speaking, as fighting a dozen? Cause this is what happens in open RPGs - you can reach shit "out of order".
I'll repeat: Do you recollect any sanbox-y, open world-y RPGs that did this well?

Well according to Vault Dweller , that's why they put bolas in AoD, so players could cheat button and skip fights that they couldn't beat. Underrail meanwhile has a shit ton of cheat buttons - the toxic gas grenades for example and I would even consider Enrage a cheat button. But one salient point: AoD has only 1 difficulty. Underrail has several. DOMINATING should have content that kicks your ass even if you are level 30, since its not meant for a first time through. But Underrail your character is absurd by level 16 already. Mid and end game content is a joke.

You say Underrail is a sandbox game, and therefore its allowed to have shitty combat. Fair enough. Like I said, Underrail is an exploration game, not a combat game. But Underrail isn't a true sandbox, and the majority of the game, outside of the DLC content, follows the game's main quest line. That quest line should have some actual challenges commensurate to character level. There should also be challenging side content that kicks your ass even with a maxed out character. Frankly I don't even know what that would look like since again you are absurd by level 16, and that's just bad game design.

As far as a sandbox game goes, I guess the closest is Battletech. The only restriction you have in Battletech from taking 5 skull missions, where you are completely overwhelmed, is faction reputation. As soon as Marik likes you, go ahead and accept that suicide mission if you like. People do play like that too, play 5 skulls with a lance of lights or mediums. Sometimes it's achievable, sometimes it truly is impossible.

In fact, one of the most brilliant things about Battletech is that the heavier a mech is, the less they can move and the more useless they are tactically. If you take a lance of 4 Assault mechs, there are some missions where you are so overwhelmed that you cannot win, since your mechs are too slow to use tactically. Whereas if you had 1-2 medium mechs, you have orders of magnitude more options and the ability to win by playing better (and very, very, very carefully).

Bottom line, Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing, and it clearly doesn't.

 

[lukaszek]

true, underrail doesnt offer much in form of attrition. DC area kind of did so it became hated

Spoiler

not like it mattered if you played the way game was intended - stabby sneak

gauntlet is quite annoying and I dont think it can be treated as such. Nor security area in black sea.
Perhaps waterways where you are suddenly locked out from the exit?

 

[Tygrende]

So did i. Just one industry bot is doable, could you do RAF with a lvl 12 character? I highly doubt it...

Also probably doable with EMP grenades + grenadier + LTI and EMP traps + quick tinkering. Temporal distortion seems like a good choice here, damage should be decent-ish even at level 12. Same goes for electrokinesis and imprint, especially with tesla armor.

 

[CHEMS]

Again, the whole premise is stupid since you can probably clear every area in the game (clear = kill everything) with a level 10 or level 12 character, without using cheat buttons like the toxic gas grenades.

Do DOM Naga Fight with a lvl 10~12 character

Actually should be easy, just do what I did with crowbar. You will also have access to a number of goodies I didn't have like EMPs and such.

I followed your crowbar saga, it was really cool. But you didn't do it at level 12 though.

Also probably doable with EMP grenades + grenadier + LTI and EMP traps + quick tinkering. Temporal distortion seems like a good choice here, damage should be decent-ish even at level 12. Same goes for electrokinesis and imprint, especially with tesla armor.

At level 12 you can't specialize on those for effective usage. Way too many strong robots to deal at once.

 

[Sratopotator]

I mean, requiring attrition mechanics to call a system "deep" sounds totally nitpicky, so I'm assuming that you're using this point cause of the current context - there probably are games that you would consider tactically deep that don't have attrition, right? Whatever genre.
So, this alone seems irrelevant to the definition of "tactics". Though, sure. It adds to the depth.

Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics.

Sure, this definition nicely covers the topic in its entirety.
At the same time, it's super imprecise and based on your personal feelings, likes and experiences.
Shit is not obvious, if you haven't done it. Thrice. Or a hundred times, depends.
Sorry that you had to copy-paste all that text, but I hoped for a more precise definition this time, as it's the point of contention.

You keep bringing up games that are quite linear though. Including AoD (AoD appeared in my posts only because you started shitting on it, it's not really a good comparison to Underrail).
Dragonfall and AoD are centered around set pieces, right? There isn't a shitload of encounters, but they are meant to be thought out and balanced, or whatever the term is more fitting. Both also share the fact that content is distributed to the player in batches. And harder content is gated, for the most part. Balancing the difficulty out for you to have the desired challenge (at all times) is a lot simpler in those cases, than in Underrail's. I would argue that it's impossible to do, to the degree you require.
(Haven't played BT at all, but I assume that, because it's mission based, it has a more linear structure. Besides, I bet the power-curve there is a LOT more flat than in classical RPGs - BT has rock/paper/scissors kind of deal, no?)

Again, I'm not saying that Underrail couldn't be harder, or have more refined set pieces.
I'm arguing that you clearly have unrealistic expectations here.
You cannot have everything, and some game design choices (which a lot of people appreciate), cause other choices to be incompatible.

Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing

Agreed, I'm not contending that. My point was about challenge being evenly distributed.

 

[Jason Liang]

I mean, requiring attrition mechanics to call a system "deep" sounds totally nitpicky, so I'm assuming that you're using this point cause of the current context - there probably are games that you would consider tactically deep that don't have attrition, right? Whatever genre.
So, this alone seems irrelevant to the definition of "tactics". Though, sure. It adds to the depth.

These screen pics from Rance X are NSFW so be warned ~

You have no idea how close this Kayblis fight was. Kayblis (this version) hits you harder than you can heal. This was a 42 round race to death. I could not have survived another attack. Every action, every AP, practically every last HP mattered to win this boss fight. Just like how I ended the Barbari fight with 3 hp.

Although, to your point, THE hardest, most tactically challenging fight in Rance X is not an attrition fight. Rather it is a timed fight winnable only by playing 8 perfect rounds.

And this was actually an incredibly great outcome for an 18 round complete grinder of a mission, 8 (4 controlled by the AI) v 16 mechs. Again, attrition added an entire dimension to tactics. Losing an arm or a leg is inevitable but you don't want to lose an irreplaceable laser or double heat sink. Very, very easy to fuck up on missions like this. You have to play with great discipline, be conservative, and grind it out.

But tactics is not PRS in Battletech. Its more like you are vastly outnumbered (4 v 8 or sometimes 4 v 12, plus turrets, vehicles, etc...). Which enemy lance do you engage first (after which the other enemy lances quickly converge on you), where on the map do you retreat to to make your stand and most importantly how do you split your lance up (3/1, 2/2) to draw off enough fire to not die. What's your strategy if one or more of the enemy lances is a fire support lance that's going to destroy you with LRMs off screen every turn? How do you adjust when one of your mechs gets their leg blown off or get their torso shredded by a PPC or an AC/10? What happens when you are about to run out of ammo? How much do you risk overheat shutdown (which is pretty much death)? Every turn, do you eject your pilots or risk their mechs getting cored (permanently trashed, dead pilot)? Can you manage to complete the mission, settle for a partial objective and then withdraw, or just get the fuck out at your own expense and no pay, just so your mechs don't get anymore fucked up?

Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics.

Sure, this definition nicely covers the topic in its entirety.
At the same time, it's super imprecise and based on your personal feelings, likes and experiences.
Shit is not obvious, if you haven't done it. Thrice. Or a hundred times, depends.
Sorry that you had to copy-paste all that text, but I hoped for a more precise definition this time, as it's the point of contention.

I mean for example, in AoD, using barbed ammo when you are shooting someone where they are unarmored, using regular ammo when shooting someone with a shield, not using AP ammo at all (since AP is godawful) - all that is obvious, no? Like using EMP traps vs robots in UR. Its just basic common sense stuff - shallow tactics.

You keep bringing up games that are quite linear though. Including AoD (AoD appeared in my posts only because you started shitting on it).
Dragonfall and AoD are centered around set pieces, right? There isn't a shitload of encounters, but they are meant to be thought out and balanced, or whatever the term is more fitting. Both also share the fact that content is distributed to the player in batches. And harder content is gated, for the most part.

Balancing the difficulty out for you to have the desired challenge (at all times) is a lot simpler in those cases, than in Underrail's.
(Haven't played BT at all, but I assume that, because it's mission based, it has a more linear structure. Besides, I bet the power-curve there is a LOT more flat than in classical RPGs - BT has rock/paper/scissor kind of deal, no?)

Sure. The base game limits you to 1 lance (4 mechs), BEX lets you add a 2nd lance, and that limits how much fire power you can bring on any mission, in addition to missions that limit you to 1-2 mechs (duels and duo duels) or weight class. I also play with 0 character growth/ minimum skill (3/3/1/3) pilots so that flattens power too.

Again, I'm not saying that Underrail couldn't be harder, or have more refined set pieces.
I'm arguing that you clearly have unrealistic expectations here.

Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing

Agreed, I'm not contending that. My point was about challenge being evenly distributed.

Again, why does DOMINATING need to be anywhere near "fair"?
After I cleared Lunatic Mall, I was *so* excited about Underrail. I thought, "Oh! This is why everyone is praising the game! That was so fun and hardcore!" The rest of the game never came close to replicating that feeling. Looking back, Enrage (which I see you get at level 10) was probably what broke the camel's back.

And what's wrong with scaling? Rance X does scaling beautifully. That's why no matter how good you are, Kayblis, the final boss, is an amazing fight. The game has spent the whole game calibrating itself to your skill level, and you end up fighting a Kayblis just a little too hard for you to beat without getting better.



This is a Kayblis fight played by someone far lower in skill than me, and not even the hard version of Kayblis (he has a cheat character, Shariela, that refreshes AP every turn, so its the easy version Alicesoft put in so anyone can get an ending). Even then, Kayblis is just difficult enough to push him to his limit. Search Kayblis fights on Youtube, they are almost always down to the last action. That's brilliance.

 

[CHEMS]

I mean, requiring attrition mechanics to call a system "deep" sounds totally nitpicky, so I'm assuming that you're using this point cause of the current context - there probably are games that you would consider tactically deep that don't have attrition, right? Whatever genre.
So, this alone seems irrelevant to the definition of "tactics". Though, sure. It adds to the depth.

These screen pics from Rance X are NSFW so be warned ~

You have no idea how close this Kayblis fight was. Kayblis (this version) hits you harder than you can heal. This was a 42 round race to death. I could not have survived another attack. Every action, every AP, practically every last HP mattered to win this boss fight. Just like how I ended the Barbari fight with 3 hp.

Although, to your point, THE hardest, most tactically challenging fight in Rance X is not an attrition fight. Rather it is a timed fight winnable only by playing 8 perfect rounds.

And this was actually an incredibly great outcome for an 18 round complete grinder of a mission, 8 (4 controlled by the AI) v 16 mechs. Again, attrition added an entire dimension to tactics. Losing an arm or a leg is inevitable but you don't want to lose an irreplaceable laser or double heat sink. Very, very easy to fuck up on missions like this. You have to play with great discipline, be conservative, and grind it out.

But tactics is not PRS in Battletech. Its more like you are vastly outnumbered (4 v 8 or sometimes 4 v 12, plus turrets, vehicles, etc...). Which enemy lance do you engage first (after which the other enemy lances quickly converge on you), where on the map do you retreat to to make your stand and most importantly how do you split your lance up (3/1, 2/2) to draw off enough fire to not die. What's your strategy if one or more of the enemy lances is a fire support lance that's going to destroy you with LRMs off screen every turn? How do you adjust when one of your mechs gets their leg blown off or get their torso shredded by a PPC or an AC/10? What happens when you are about to run out of ammo? How much do you risk overheat shutdown (which is pretty much death)? Every turn, do you eject your pilots or risk their mechs getting cored (permanently trashed, dead pilot)? Can you manage to complete the mission, settle for a partial objective and then withdraw, or just get the fuck out at your own expense and no pay, just so your mechs don't get anymore fucked up?

Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics.

Sure, this definition nicely covers the topic in its entirety.
At the same time, it's super imprecise and based on your personal feelings, likes and experiences.
Shit is not obvious, if you haven't done it. Thrice. Or a hundred times, depends.
Sorry that you had to copy-paste all that text, but I hoped for a more precise definition this time, as it's the point of contention.

I mean for example, in AoD, using barbed ammo when you are shooting someone where they are unarmored, using regular ammo when shooting someone with a shield, not using AP ammo at all (since AP is godawful) - all that is obvious, no? Like using EMP traps vs robots in UR. Its just basic common sense stuff - shallow tactics.

You keep bringing up games that are quite linear though. Including AoD (AoD appeared in my posts only because you started shitting on it).
Dragonfall and AoD are centered around set pieces, right? There isn't a shitload of encounters, but they are meant to be thought out and balanced, or whatever the term is more fitting. Both also share the fact that content is distributed to the player in batches. And harder content is gated, for the most part.

Balancing the difficulty out for you to have the desired challenge (at all times) is a lot simpler in those cases, than in Underrail's.
(Haven't played BT at all, but I assume that, because it's mission based, it has a more linear structure. Besides, I bet the power-curve there is a LOT more flat than in classical RPGs - BT has rock/paper/scissor kind of deal, no?)

Sure. The base game limits you to 1 lance (4 mechs), BEX lets you add a 2nd lance, and that limits how much fire power you can bring on any mission, in addition to missions that limit you to 1-2 mechs (duels and duo duels) or weight class. I also play with 0 character growth/ minimum skill (3/3/1/3) pilots so that flattens power too.

Again, I'm not saying that Underrail couldn't be harder, or have more refined set pieces.
I'm arguing that you clearly have unrealistic expectations here.

Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing

Agreed, I'm not contending that. My point was about challenge being evenly distributed.

Again, why does DOMINATING need to be anywhere near "fair"?
After I cleared Lunatic Mall, I was *so* excited about Underrail. I thought, "Oh! This is why everyone is praising the game! That was so fun and hardcore!" The rest of the game never came close to replicating that feeling. Looking back, Enrage (which I see you get at level 10) was probably what broke the camel's back.

And what's wrong with scaling? Rance X does scaling beautifully. That's why no matter how good you are, Kayblis, the final boss, is an amazing fight. The game has spent the whole game calibrating itself to your skill level, and you end up fighting a Kayblis just a little too hard for you to beat without getting better.



This is a Kayblis fight played by someone far lower in skill than me, and not even the hard version of Kayblis (he has a cheat character, Shariela, that refreshes AP every turn, so its the easy version Alicesoft put in so anyone can get an ending). Even then, Kayblis is just difficult enough to push him to his limit. Search Kayblis fights on Youtube, they are almost always down to the last action. That's brilliance.

This game looks fun.

 

[Zeem]

And what's wrong with scaling?

The fact that it invalidates leveling, for one.
Seems like you want to just play a tactics game where strategic choices are not present, irrelevant or have to be made perfectly to give you even a tiniest chance of succeeding in the tactical layer.

 

[Jason Liang]

And what's wrong with scaling?

The fact that it invalidates leveling, for one.
Seems like you want to just play a tactics game where strategic choices are not present, irrelevant or have to be made perfectly to give you even a tiniest chance of succeeding in the tactical layer.

Well, no. I want a game that becomes progressively more difficult as the game progresses. My character becoming more powerful is great, but that shouldn't make the game easier and easier. It should mean I have more ability to take on more and more difficult challenges. The problem with Underrail is that past level 10, your character growth far outstrips the challenging content remaining in the game. Underrail's first 6 levels of character progression matches fine with the increase in challenging content up to Depot A. It's after Depot A, when your character abruptly leaps in power from level 6 to level 10, that the game's challenge falls right off a cliff. Lunatic Mall is the correct challenge level that I find fun for a level 8 character.

Age of Decadence's character system invalidates itself. There is no character level progression. There is only skills progression. But the problem is that combat skills in Age of Decadence don't matter at all if you understand the game's combat mechanics. The only real effect of combat skill is to increase your hit accuracy. But your gear also increases your hit accuracy. Not only that, you have 100% accuracy vs. prone and choking enemies, so the best strategy of all in combat doesn't even care about how you've "built" your character.

Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail. In fact the game has an early boss fight that if its your first time playing, you think the fight is a scripted impossible fight. But if you are already good at the game, you can figure out how to defeat the boss and now you play the rest of the game at +1 difficulty. What's the benefit? Well, the enemies are stronger at higher difficulties but they also give more experience, so you become powerful faster, and unlock the best abilities earlier (in the form of more advanced characters for your army/ party) but the game will always be more challenging at a higher difficulty. So you will eventually hit a difficulty where your current play skill and "strategic planning" does not allow you to succeed the more difficult objectives each mission. The point is that the scaling means the game, especially the awesome boss fights, always maintains its challenge.

I am not against build. But build should matter more than choosing different cheat buttons. A build is a set of tools - tools that you learn to use better as you grow as a player. My build when I played Underrail was a PSI dex melee character with Versatility. I had TK Punch, Force Field and Eletrokinesis from almost the beginning all the way through Depot A. I used them, but I didn't use them well because the game wasn't challenging me to. To clear Lunatic Mall, I was forced by the difficulty to learn to use each of those abilities, as well as Imprint, to their absolute maximum potential. I *mastered* the use of Elektrokinesis and Force Field, in conjunction with knife, pistol and machine gun. That's how builds should be - a different build should be about mastering different gear and abilities, discovering new things about them and ways to use them, up until the endgame. But Underrail doesn't have the challenging content to sustain that. Too many abilities and gear are absurd cheat buttons. Tactics is 20% "how do I kill the enemy?" and 80% "How do I not die?" Underrail fails to have deep tactics because it only asks the first question. Past level 8, enemies don't have the ability to overcome your defensive preparations and kill you unless you fuck up. Defensive preparation is shallow, not deep. Deep tactics exist during a fight, not before.

 

[Zeem]

Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.

So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.

Tactics is 20% "how do I kill the enemy?" and 80% "How do I not die?" Underrail fails to have deep tactics because it only asks the first question.

That's because you were playing a glass cannon and taking on the exact enemies that exist to counter tanks with damage that completely bypasses armor.

 

[CHEMS]

And what's wrong with scaling?

The fact that it invalidates leveling, for one.
Seems like you want to just play a tactics game where strategic choices are not present, irrelevant or have to be made perfectly to give you even a tiniest chance of succeeding in the tactical layer.

Level scaling if well done does not invalidates leveling. Getting too overpowered mid game makes me lose interest in the game. If i was a game developer, i'd make my game scale with your level BUT, with a small variance. Let's say you're level 10: the mobs you'd face will be level 8~11.

 

[Jason Liang]

Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.

So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.

... there are serious consequences for failure.

You know it's an eroge, yes?

NSFW

Spoiler

43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.

It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge and better less awful endings.

 

[NooneHere]

After a messy fight, slaughtered Tchort and his tentacles, skipped the mutagen puzzle but blew up the tanks with tnt stealth...except the last one which I had to fist and kill some tentacles too. Leper poison on the ripper, taste for blood, and vile weapon and a lot of pneumatic fisting did in the eye.

Also drugs

Glorious

EDIT: Dominating run over with, I'm donezo with the game properly now. So much fucking stealthing around in DC, pain. Just didn't have the drive to spend more time skulking about for the puzzle, fuck it, just went for full difficulty boss fight.

 

[CHEMS]

Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.

So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.

... there are serious consequences for failure.

You know it's an eroge, yes?

NSFW

Spoiler

43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.

It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge and better less awful endings.

Noooo Underrail is a cozy game that does not even have swearing, don't post coomer stuff here, this is a christian forum

 

[Jason Liang]

Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.

So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.

... there are serious consequences for failure.

You know it's an eroge, yes?

NSFW

Spoiler

43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.

It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge and better less awful endings.

Noooo Underrail is a cozy game that does not even have swearing, don't post coomer stuff here, this is a christian forum

kekekekeke

 

[CHEMS]

6:19:38

Bro...

 

[Sykar]

Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.

So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.

... there are serious consequences for failure.

You know it's an eroge, yes?

NSFW

Spoiler

43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.

It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge and better less awful endings.

Noooo Underrail is a cozy game that does not even have swearing, don't post coomer stuff here, this is a christian forum

wants a word with you.

 

[CHEMS]

I hate Gorsky so much its unreal

 

[notpl]

I hate Gorsky so much its unreal

Same, and yet I love Dan. It's puzzling.

 

[Jason Liang]

6:19:38

Bro...

It's actually closer to 40 hours (there's 8 parts) but for anyone that's played Sengoku Rance, it's 40 hours of pure comedic gold.

 

[Sykar]

I hate Gorsky so much its unreal

Same, and yet I love Dan. It's puzzling.

I love both!

 

[roshan]

Hi guys - what's the best enhancement for an energy shield for a stealth, dodge/evasion knifer? I plan to make a dual low energy shield and a dual high one. I have circular wave amplifier, high efficiency energy converter and shield capacitor.