This game has been sitting in my backlog for a while, is it worth playing through all the way? I tried it for a bit and the artstyle looks like that of a mobile game and it's as if the dialogue was made to be as cringe inducing as possible on purpose. Does it get any better past the beginning? I have underrail, dos2, and pathfinder kingmaker up next in my lineup so I'm not sure whether I should skip this game to try those instead.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's OK. It feels like a beta version of DOS2, which I think is better. I finished it and had fun, but I'd never replay it. It does get less corny and more serious past the beginning (the goofiness is pretty front-loaded) but if you play it for a few hours and aren't having fun, it's probably not going to get any better.
>is it worth playing through all the way?
for me? no. for you? sure.
I would skip DOS1 and kingmaker. And maybe underrail.
Do you have any suggestions on what else to play?
Battlefield 3
>kingmaker. And maybe underrail.
Black person
If there is one thing I have learned it's never EVER listen to someone dumb enough to like owlcat games
Keep playing, this franchise has top tier gameplay and one of the best turnbased gameplay in the RPG genre.
i played pathfinder kingmaker, and it was a decent game, if a bit bland and inoffensive. playable, but nothing special. it also doesn't really do anything that makes the pathfinder setting unique, it just feels like more generic D&D.
if you absolutely love turn-based d&d, then play it; otherwise you can skip it.
>if you absolutely love turn-based d&d, then play it
the turn based mode in kingmaker and wotr is really, really bad and plays nothing like dnd
>t also doesn't really do anything that makes the pathfinder setting unique, it just feels like more generic D&D
Well yes, Pathfinder was one of the early modules before it started to really differentiate itself from 3.5
Depends what you go for in games. I prefer Pillars of Eternity because I feel like that game takes itself seriously and has an interesting world, with a little grime to it. Larian tends to lean into bright colours, ridiculous armour and body proportions, whimsy and farce and the plots are usually afterthoughts (DOS1) or just meh (DOS2, BG3) but they have mechanically interesting combat...basically I'd say of you want story and setting look elsewhere, if you like puzzle-combat, go for Divinity
DOS2 is still pretty whimsical
>if you like puzzle-combat, go for Divinity
I would only describe Divinity as puzzle combat due to it being deterministic, but as an actual puzzle it's not particularly complex or challenging. BG3 isn't hard either, but at least it adds some much needed probability management and freedom that elevates the combat into being entertaining.
BG3's combat is worse than OS1 or OS2's though.
No, and when you say things like this it's just going to make me shit on the games harder to make sure you understand why
Won't work. You will literally never convince me that 5E's combat is anything other than dogshit no matter how hard you try.
If you think autoattacking down the grey bar or the blue bar is better combat then there's no reason for me to convince anyone as this highlights that you're completely moronic quite well.
It's better than D:OS2.
If the whimsical tone puts you off completely then you might have a better time in DOS2 since they pivoted the other way, super srs bsns to the point of being edgy.
One playthrough is fine. The cringe is somewhat funny, at least at times. Dos2 is better in every way, except the battle mechanic.
>except the battle mechanic
The combat in dos1 isn't good either.
It's really good on hardest difficulty. Honestly can't think of a better combat system in any rpg. DOS2 made everything about it worse.
I remember absolutely nothing from DOS1 despite beating it. There were barrels, that's the whole of my recollection
I'm in the minority I think, but this game completely captured me. Sat on my backlog with 13 hours played for years, couldn't bring myself to play it. Then I started playing again and put 120 hours in like 2 weeks with 2 playthroughs. So it's a yes from me.
Per-skill cooldown being the only gating factor in combat encourages people to mix and match things and find combos. Also it doesn't have the silliness of OS2 where the optimal party was all focused on a single damage type, instead of actually adapting to enemies' weaknesses.
>Also it doesn't have the silliness of OS2 where the optimal party was all focused on a single damage type, instead of actually adapting to enemies' weaknesses.
OS2 is a lot more fun if you play with a mixed party that can flexibly use both damage types to target enemies' weaknesses efficiently. It's absolutely not necessary to focus on a single damage type, even on tactician.
I wish this game was like a rogue like battle after battle with 4 characters you make, because frick the cringe story and characters
Forgettable story but okay as a straightforward adventure; some of the lore is fine, but it's overall very generic. Companions are ok; nothing you'll be nostalgic about. Dialog is indeed cringe most of the time, with a few notable exceptions where they land it and get a laugh out of you.
Diverse settings, mobs, encounters, and ways to deal with shit. The game encourages creativity.
Good encounter design, god-tier combat (for one or two playthroughs on max diff without guides).
So, to recap, the interactive fights are the main attraction, but the game has just enough story to keep you somewhat engaged and jump from encounter a to encounter b. I had lots of fun with it and it's obviously even better if you play it with someone else.
The second one is more polished but I found the combat to be a downgrade overall.
so embarrassed that those games were made in my hometown
fricking cringey postmodern humor