I've played many games that had flawed gameplay but the story still carried it. This is not one of them. THE VISUALS: surprisingly good, even though this is a full 3d game. Weapons, armor, character models don't look horrible. THE GAMEPLAY: baffling. Confusing UI - with a ruleset as complex as Pathfinder 1.0 perhaps a lot more thought could go into the UI. There's too much happening and too many time-dependent events, too many mind-affecting spells, and a terrible implementation of RTwP. I don't know if a companion AI editor exists - it was a feature in Infinity Engine/Obsidian games, but apparently the default caster build in this game is with a crossbow so they don't run into an army of enemies with their staves and wands and get themselves killed. Seems like the developers tried to cram as many features as they could into the game without taking the time to streamline them. This is a game that would benefit from turn-based combat and better designed encounters. THE STORY: without going into spoilers, this is fanfic level stuff, characters having tantrums in the middle of a war council, the pacing of mythic choices being all over the place, and the overall plot is the quality of an average homemade tabletop campaign. I understand it is hard to retain focus with a game of this scale, but maybe scaling the game back a little would be a better idea. THE BOTTOM LINE: Wrath of the Righteous is a game where the ambitions of the developers far exceeded their skill at making a game. I genuinely tried to like this game, but by the end of Act 2 I was essentially sleepwalking from one objective to the other and knew it was time to stop and let go of it, rather than waste more hours at something I clearly was not enjoying.
I'm not a fan of the Sapkowsky Witcher books. I started with the old Polish mini-series and enjoyed it. Then I tried to read the books. The first three were fine, even if they shamelessly plagiarized Michael Moorcock, but I was fine with a vulgar slavic Elric wannabe. Then Sapkowsky set into a formula with his novels: explosive beginning, boring middle, intriguing cliffhanger. The final novel was unbelievably bad, so I gave up on the series. Then the first Witcher game came out, and I liked the fact that they took the world and characters of the books, but not much of the story. The game had its problems, like the illusion of choice, but overall wasn't too bad for its time. I skipped the second Witcher game - my sister played it - guess I just didn't care enough to try it. Then the third game came out and everyone tried to convince me I should play it and that it was the best RPG of all time. I suffered through a few dozen hours of the game trying my best to like it, but from the beginning it was clear the quest designer got so enamored with the trolley problem that almost every memorable quest had to be some variation of it, and the worst part is - you were limited by two terrible choices not by the narrative, but by the dialogue system. I can suffer through outdated graphics and janky gameplay for a good story and good roleplaying. But the cookie-cutter graphics and repetitive gameplay of Witcher 3 were not enough to justify its horrible writing. It's just a continuous stream of misery, and I don't care for it at all.
I know about this game's troubled development, and how it wasn't given a fair chance. I played it when it was released, about 15 years ago. The bottom line is, it's a fascinating game and one of the better RPGs - they rarely make games this unique these days. Sadly, the current state of the game, even with the patches, isn't too good. I wish they had finally ported it to a more complete and modern version of the Source engine, so the modding community could finally fix the game. It's buggy. Especially the later portions of the game. Some bugs are just unpleasant, like random models being swapped with giant armchairs. Some just make it more tedious, like the elevator buttons being a lot harder to select. Some are game-breaking. Though thankfully there's less of those than at release. As a result, the game is not as impressive as it was supposed to be by design - the bouts of frustration and door handles being turned into vases kill the mood. And here's a free piece of advice: don't open it. You'll get it when you reach that point in the game.
Starting a new game world is a risk. You might end up with players just not being emotionally invested or interested in it. POE brings back the glory days of Infinity Engine RPGs and then refines the formula further. And then The White March happened, pushing the writing even further. The choice you were given in Ondra's temple. It's something that stays with you. What you had to do. Won't spoil it - see for yourself.
Neverwinter Nights 1 was a failure to me - a technological nightmare with boring story, after games like Planescape: Torment, BG1&2, Icewind Dale etc. Its expansions were good though. Let's say post-Interplay Bioware didn't exactly have my confidence. So I was relieved, back in the day, to learn that this one was made by former Black Isle people in Obsidian Entertainment and not Bioware. As a result, we got an adventuring party with amazing NPC companions, a deep and engaging story and overall a good game. Then they released Mask of the Betrayer, which was even better than the base game. And the game still plays well, there's hardly anything that has aged badly. Sure the visuals are "back then", but the art direction and style are good and inspired.
I had a fever, and the cure was something like Diablo 2. I played Diablo 1 when it came out - still got the Prima guide to it. Then I spent countless hours in Diablo 2. Diablo 3 was... underwhelming. So how does Grim Dawn stand out as a Diablo-style ARPG? 1. The presentation The environments are beautiful. The character models and the gear are not. Not jarringly ugly, but Diablo 2's art direction this is not. 2. The sound The sound design is horrible. In Diablo and Diablo 2 you could understand a lot about the world just by listening to it. Each kind of loot made a distinct sound when dropped. Monsters would have unique sounds. In Grim Dawn you can't rely on it. At all. 3. The gameplay It's bad. Like the bastard child of Diablo and World of Warcraft. Bitter, estranged bastard child. Humans and ghosts and undeath only look different - they may also inflict different kinds of damage - but are not as distinct as in BG or even Diablo. The bosses are extremely cheap. Not hard; cheap. After 30 hours here's how the bosses play out: most spawn minions endlessly, some don't. You kite them and once in a while throw a ranged attack or skill at them. Take forever to kill. The loot... isn't worth it. But often are required to progress the game. Too many magical items and rare items and epic items. Too many item effects to realistically manage. Opaque and confusing character progression. At some point in the game there was an acid floor. Did it act as an obstacle in front of a secret? Was it to force the player to find an alternate root? No, it was just there to punish the player for whatever. The developer thought it would be cool to have an acid room. 4. The verdict It's not all bad. Except all the good ideas are carried over from Diablo. Most of the rest... speaks of lack of ability on the developers' part. They seem competent, just not that good at it.
Let me be clear from the very beginning; this isn't Planescape: Torment 2.0. And neither it should be. Torment: Tides of Numenera... it's mesmerizing. A true role-playing achievment I haven't had for ages. Actually, it feels more like the second Baldur's Gate than anything. Perhaps people came in with different expectations, hence the low rating. I came in with an open mind. And Numenera delivered. It is deliciously written. It isn't Dragon Age-like - doesn't feel linear at all. I feel like being my character. And best of all, it is different in all the right places. Recently tried Witcher 3, an unpleasant experience with an early quest (the arsonist) made me quit it for good. I was forced into two unpleasant choices. And it's not like the narrative forced me into them; it was the mechanics. Same thing, to a lesser extent, with Skyrim's Civil War storyline. Torment: Tides of Numenera has none of it. You have the option to disagree, even if it is inconsequential in the end. Your choices are your own; other characters have their own choices to make. Which makes them feel oh so alive. Do not view this game as a product. View it as art. Because it is art, and it is unique and it has a journey you want to take. Like the RPGs of old did.
