What are you playing? (2023 Edition)

Thirith on 4/9/2023 at 09:44

That's very well possible, and I expect that it would be difficult to make this work in co-op - but as far as I'm concerned it would've been worth implementing, even at the cost of some other elements. There should really be triggers in conversation that, if certain variables are met, show for the entire party: Ugluk recognises the tattoo on the man's face, Frondlefluff the Wise notices that the dwarf's pupils are blown, Glynwyn intuits that the duchess is hiding something. I'd expect this in pen-and-paper RPGs as much as in any party-based game, and I'd expect it whether I'm playing alone or with friends.

Malf on 4/9/2023 at 11:40

I think it's quite a complex thing for them to "solve", as this is also still present in Baldur's Gate 3, and has garnered them a fair amount of criticism from players.

Effectively, while the game is primarily played single player, it has been designed from the ground-up to be played in co-op.
So you can't pause, and you can't select the best characters to respond to conversation choices.

I agree that it's massively frustrating, especially in those scenarios where for whatever reason, some character other than your "Face" character triggers a conversation.
The recent Wasteland, Pillars of Eternity and Pathfinder games have really spoiled me in this respect.
But those are all single-player engines that don't have to account for the fact that other party members may be doing something completely unrelated to the conversation you're currently having.

And to be honest, this is also a strength of Larian's games, that you can even take advantage of in single-player.
While one character engages the NPC in conversation, you can swap to another character to pick-pocket them or set up an ambush. And I'd hate to lose that functionality, as it opens up a huge amount of emergent gameplay, so it's a tough mechanic to work around.

Thirith on 4/9/2023 at 12:18

I see that, but honestly, for me it's not a worthwhile trade-off - also because I'm don't buy that there wouldn't be ways around it that, even if imperfect, would be preferable to what we get. For instance, Larian could put more contextual clues in conversations and let you back out of them more consistently, so that your main character might gauge that there's something to be noticed about this or that NPC but you lack the expertise or sensitivity or something. A prompt that a different character might get additional options, without giving things away too blatantly, so you can cautiously withdraw from the conversation and let someone else take the lead. Or there could be a ruleset defining when a player character is *present* (they have to be 'chained' to the other characters in single-player mode, or they have to be within a certain radius or the 'face' character, and they can't be in stealth mode), and this would count them as being available for the conversation, so you could either switch to them or they could at least add their two cents. I'm much more okay with the game not letting me switch between characters in-conversation than I am with the absence of a simple "Fane whispers to you, 'I think I might have an idea... Let me talk to her.'" (Or even "You suspect that Fane might have something to add to the conversation." Keeping the player unaware of the option is not interesting design.)

Obviously I'm not a game designer, but if those other systems are designed in a way that makes this impossible, then personally I don't think this is a worthwhile trade-off in a game that prides itself on its colourful NPCs and lets you form a party. So many of the emergent gameplay options you mention are in effect about combat, and the moment an RPG penalises social interaction over combat options it loses me. As I wrote in an earlier comment, DOS2 makes me feel like it's only party-based in combat; outside combat, I might as well just have one player character that I may be able to change at will, but without any indication when and why I should, and in conversation I can't even do that. If this is supposed to emulate the pen-and-paper experience, it's a shit p&p experience or a crap dungeon master that's being emulated. DOS2 includes a lot of non-combat content, but due to its systems and how they're implemented, much of it will be hidden in ways that never even indicate that something might be hidden here.

And as a result I distrust the game: I know that I might approach a character and end up with unavoidable combat because of who I had selected as my party lead at that time, while with a different character I might have got a non-violent option. Do I quick-save before approaching anyone and then try four different versions of each conversation, and after trying all of them I then load again, set up an ambush, and replay the conversation? Honestly, there's nothing about such stop-and-start gameplay that appeals to me, and I'm more likely to just give the game the finger and move on. Whatever Larian's strengths are, based on my experiences with their games they are crap at communicating and providing access to so much of their games' possibility space.

Malf on 4/9/2023 at 12:37

I can't speak for DoS2, as it's been a while since I played it (and I hate the gear / armour / ambushes / cursed surface systems with a passion).
But there's quite a few chances to leave conversations in BG3, whereupon you can start again with a character with the relevant skills.
It still feels like a kludge and isn't an option 100% of the time, which is why I think it might be tough for them to fix and is more an engine problem than anything else.

If it's any consolation, the amount of combat that can be avoided through good conversation choices is dramatically increased in BG3, with several bosses even being defeatable through conversation. But BG3 is also helped by having significantly more streamlined combat encounters, that are mostly designed to be over within 2-4 turns.
It also has the "Inspiration" system, where you can reroll failed conversations by expending inspiration points picked up by completing certain tasks, so even non-face characters can get through complex conversations if you've got enough points.

I won't deny however that I have reloaded a LOT to make sure I've got the right character for the right conversation.

Thirith on 6/9/2023 at 09:04

I've pulled the plug on my playthrough of Divinity Original Sin 2. In the end, I don't enjoy the things I like enough to make up for the frustration I get from the things I dislike. I might return to this in a year or so playing as a Lone Wolf character (apparently this is a feasible playstyle), since this might minimise the things that frustrate me - but honestly, it's more likely that I'll just go straight to Baldur's Gate 3, which apparently shares some of DOS2's frustrations but does a lot of things better at the same time.

I'm thinking that I'll look for something fun and quick and light as a palate cleanser. Not sure yet what it'll be.

Malf on 6/9/2023 at 10:50

To be honest, while you might like Bg3, I think you'd be better off trying something like Pillars of Eternity 2 or one of the Pathfinder games before BG3 (both are great, but Wrath of the Righteous is a more polished, epic experience over Kingmaker. Kingmaker also has an irritating hidden late-game quest that can lose you the game if you don't complete it in a timely manner).

I'm not sure that BG3 is different enough to DoS2 for it to appeal to you. And while it's delivered very well, the narrative and the systems supporting that narrative are nowhere near as accomplished as those in those other games.
At the moment, there's gaps all over the place, and their conversation system is much more binary than it would first appear.
Conversation results are usually good or bad with no in-between.

I get the feeling that Disco Elysium may have spoiled you, and what you're really after is something similar to that, with its focus more on dialogue than combat.

None of these big RPGs will offer you the same narrative heft or depth as Disco Elysium. I think for that, you'd be better off playing more traditional point-and-click adventures.

But if you do still want to play a big CRPG, here's my thoughts on Deadfire and Wrath of the Righteous.

Deadfire has a great narrative (although the urgency of the situation is diminished somewhat, and always sticks out like a sore thumb). It's a little self-serious, although nowhere near as doom-and-gloom as the first game.
It's character systems and combat however, despite being a valiant effort on Obsidian's behalf, are a bit shallow and under-developed, especially when compared to WotR.
A lot of your ability to enjoy the game will also come down to your tolerance of all things piratical. I mean, I'm in my element with it, and absolutely ADORE the setting. But hey, you might have something wrong with you that prevents you from enjoying a good pirate story. I tend to think that Obsidian's world-building is better than Owlcat's, with meatier subject matter to get your teeth into.

Wrath of the Righteous has a better established character and combat system, being ultimately based on D&D3.5e and a well-established tabletop ruleset. The character creation and progression is HUGELY fun, and you can spend hours in character creation alone. This also has huge impact on how your individual story plays out. Mythical paths in particular will massively colour your story, and in all likelihood, your experience will be completely different to mine (where I somehow managed to persuade everyone the local drunk was actually the true king). BUT, the combat can get a bit too nerdy, and on difficulties of Normal or higher, pre-buffing all your party members pretty much becomes a necessity after a while. Everything is immune to everything at a certain point, so you have to undestand how to strip immunities, and to be honest, it all gets a bit tedious (when played on Normal or above that is).

Both have fantastic companion characters that are written incredibly well. Seriously, I rank Owlcat up there with Obsidian and Bioware for good companion writing, and that's something that I feel they don't get enough credit for.

Where both pale when compared to BG3 is in the density and interactivity of the explorable maps. BG3 has a lot more emergent gameplay opportunities, something simply not possible from the more traditional Deadfire or WotR.

They're both also very long, so they can be daunting prospects when you consider that each offers significantly more than 40 hours of gameplay.

Overall, I think Deadfire is more self-contained and delivers a tighter experience, but WotR drowns it when it comes to story & character variety and replay potential.

Thirith on 6/9/2023 at 15:26

I can definitely agree with that: Disco Elysium has spoiled me. :) For me, an RPG still feels distinctly different from a P&C adventure, mind you; I like the various options and the ways of shaping your character(s). My Harry Du Bois at the end of the game was distinctly different from who he was at the beginning, and I even ended up with a surprising amount of variation when I replayed the game after the Final Cut came out.

In terms of RPGs that have a lot of party interaction, Planescape Torment is still my gold standard, and really, that's what I generally hope to recapture when playing RPGs.

Deadfire is definitely on my list and I supported it via crowdfunding (as I did with DOS2), but after bouncing off of DOS2 I think I'll wait a bit before I try an epic RPG again. Obsidian at its best is definitely a developer I look out for; after Disco Elysium and Planescape Torment, I'd say that Fallout New Vegas comes next on my list of favourite RPGs.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the recommendations!

Malf on 6/9/2023 at 15:37

No worries; I feel Owlcat get overlooked by a lot of people, but seriously, their games are right up there with Obsidian and Bioware's best.
I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with WH40K Rogue Trader.

Thirith on 6/9/2023 at 15:42

I have to admit that the recent post on RPS ((https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/crpgs-need-to-be-vast-for-your-choices-to-matter-says-warhammer-40k-rogue-trader-dev) "CRPGs need to be vast for your choices to matter, says Warhammer 40K: Rogue Trader dev") has biased me slightly against them, for one thing because I am tired of 100+ hour games (there are very few where I don't think that they would've been improved by editing them down to half their length), for another because the game in which I felt my choices mattered most was the ca. 30-hour Disco Elysium.

Tomi on 6/9/2023 at 16:22

I played through A Plague Tale: Requiem on the Xbox. I think that it's an improvement over the first game, it's better in almost every way. I love all the different locations and the characters, and even the gameplay is more varied, but I was still more impressed by Innocence. This is just more of the same with a different setting and some new toys. And that's not a bad thing, considering how much I loved the first game. My main gripe with Requiem is probably the ending of the game. I know, not every game has to have a happy ending, but this wasn't only sort of depressing, it also made the whole adventure feel a bit pointless.

I also finished Ori and the Will of the Wisps! Great game. Almost everything that I wrote about A Plague Tale above sort of applies here too. :)