Convince me to play...
@the_spyder's thread about our favorite RPGs outside the IE games made think about the many games I haven't played through the years. Though many were critically acclaimed and highly recommended, I just never got around to it. I always wonder if I missed out on particular games, but I'm not quite sure.
Simply put, why should I play those games? Rather than list out your favorites here, write about the ones you've never played--or gave up on--and find out why others like them so much. Don't include every one, but focus on the few that you think might actually be good. I'm hoping that I will personally get the chance to experience some great games that I might have otherwise overlooked.
As for me...
1: The Witcher
After seeing the reviews of the second game, I really do want to play through the original, but I gave up the first time I had tried. The story seemed decent, but I couldn't quite get the hang of the combat system, and the potions and magic felt overwhelming. Is it worth trying to get through it, or would it be possible to skip right to the second one?
2: Arcanum
Another game that's highly recommended, Arcanum was a miss for me. I simply couldn't get past the very first encounter. (As @jjstraka34 said in the other thread, the combat system just felt clumsy.) The blend of magic and technology does seem intriguing, but does the game play ever get better?
3: Jade Empire
I love Bioware's games, but for some reason I never ended up playing this one. The Asian theme is appealing, but it was never as highly acclaimed as its more well-known cousins. Am I missing much?
4: Temple of Elemental Evil
As someone who played the Gold Box games to death, I don't know why I never even tried this one. I've heard good and bad, and the bad always seemed to outweigh the good in my mind for some reason. Am I wrong in that?
5: Fallout
I know, I know. Somehow, by some dumb stroke of fate, I've never played any of the games in the Fallout series. I recall playing through the demo shortly after the game came out and loved it...but never actually bought the game. But at this point, I have to ask whether I should even bother anymore. Many other games are coming out that I want to try, and I always have my other classics to fall back on...
So convince me: what am I missing by not having played these games?
Simply put, why should I play those games? Rather than list out your favorites here, write about the ones you've never played--or gave up on--and find out why others like them so much. Don't include every one, but focus on the few that you think might actually be good. I'm hoping that I will personally get the chance to experience some great games that I might have otherwise overlooked.
As for me...
1: The Witcher
After seeing the reviews of the second game, I really do want to play through the original, but I gave up the first time I had tried. The story seemed decent, but I couldn't quite get the hang of the combat system, and the potions and magic felt overwhelming. Is it worth trying to get through it, or would it be possible to skip right to the second one?
2: Arcanum
Another game that's highly recommended, Arcanum was a miss for me. I simply couldn't get past the very first encounter. (As @jjstraka34 said in the other thread, the combat system just felt clumsy.) The blend of magic and technology does seem intriguing, but does the game play ever get better?
3: Jade Empire
I love Bioware's games, but for some reason I never ended up playing this one. The Asian theme is appealing, but it was never as highly acclaimed as its more well-known cousins. Am I missing much?
4: Temple of Elemental Evil
As someone who played the Gold Box games to death, I don't know why I never even tried this one. I've heard good and bad, and the bad always seemed to outweigh the good in my mind for some reason. Am I wrong in that?
5: Fallout
I know, I know. Somehow, by some dumb stroke of fate, I've never played any of the games in the Fallout series. I recall playing through the demo shortly after the game came out and loved it...but never actually bought the game. But at this point, I have to ask whether I should even bother anymore. Many other games are coming out that I want to try, and I always have my other classics to fall back on...
So convince me: what am I missing by not having played these games?
0
Comments
Some of the characters that appear in the second game also appear in the first one but most big choices regarding them don't affect the second game at all, so it's alright to go straight to the second one regarding this part.
As for story, the story of the first one is only mentioned a few times in the second game (and without much relevance), the scale of the story changes as the second one's much more dire for the game's world and politics. Regarding how your decisions transition from the first to the second.... they don't really. Only some do and it's in a small scale which doesn't affect the story that much.
The gameplay of the second one is much more fast paced and tactical, it plays more like a modern RPG with hack n' slash influences and it dropped the whole stationary "rythm game" the first one's combat was all about. The quests are more exciting and varied, while in smaller number (the first game had a lot of "go to X and kill Y monsters for ingredient Z" type side quests).
Overall, I say you can skip the first one freely as the second is much better in all aspects. Oh and the graphics are much more realistic in the second one. The first game's graphics reminded me a bit of Fable.
This is a case where the enhanced edition really improved the gaming experience. The witcher EE has it all: the characters are very interesting, the music is a masterpiece, the lore is rich and the story is full of intrigue, twists, and meaningful consequences to your actions.
Witcher 2 EE is better in scope, more epic, more choices, better game engine and stunning graphics, still The Witcher EE is worth playing and then some, if only to get the full experience and develop attachment to the characters and know their backgrounds and roles in the saga, + the last game in the trilogy will have different outcomes depending on your witcher 1 and 2 playthroughs. CD Projekt Red doesn't alienate their fans in 15 minutes like Bioware did with Mass Effect 3 ending.
The Witcher offers a very welcome change of pace from the heroic quests of other classic RPG. The protagonist Geralt of Rivia who is anything but a hero is a charismatic witcher, a mutant and a sellsword that survives by ridding towns and villages of their monsters problems, but Geralt is a dying breed in a world were everything is a shade of gray and find himself dragged in a tremendous and complex story with politics and intrigue where men are more monstrous than beasts, trying to preserve his Witcher neutrality while searching for responses to his own personal quest.
The combat is basically a succession of timed clicks, quite easy to master and very satisfying once you reach Chapter 2 and unlock the combos (tied to the storyline, you'll understand why Geralt master the use of the sword while the story progress), and if you don't like click fests develop Igni and make your life really easier. I still prefer the combat in Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 where QTE ruined some boss fights and dodging was just rolling around.
Visit everywhere or you'll miss good parts of the story, take your time talking to the NPCs, there are no good or bad choices so follow your guts and compromise, kill, bribe, or F.. your way to revenge, and redemption if Geralt ever believed in those things.
2. Arcanum
The first couple hours are dull and fighting wolves almost naked is slow and frankly boring, but once you reach the first town, the atmosphere and steampunk mix of magic and technology is refreshing and fun.
The game have a quite steep learning curve and is unforgiven if you don't know how to develop your character. The companions are interesting and have a mind on their own, so don't expect obedient followers, and the race and gender have a real effect on the game world and the people you meet. The game offers a lot of freedom and multiple choices to solve quests. I loved the dungeon crawls, the rich narrative and the impact your choices have on the places you visit and the people you encounter, the humor was good too. I liked the bugs and the engine limitations considerably less. To get the full experience out of this game, you must install the unofficial patch, a bit like the fixpack for BG.
3. Jade Empire
Didn't like, it's just not for me. Someone who played it extensively will give you more insight.
4. Temple of Elemental Evil
Tried, didn't take. Definitely worth a playthrough if you apply community patches but it's BG with less exploration and considerably less interesting story. The combat is challenging and is the main focus of the game, but I don't play RPG for combat and I'm not fond of D&D 3.5 rule set so I just shelved the game box.
5. Fallout:
My absolutely favorite series.
Fallout: You can play it for hundred hours and still discover new things. Amazing Storyline, characters and gameplay. Install the Fallout FIXIT to improve graphics and fix a lot of bugs. Still ain't Fallout 2, so you better go straight to Fallout 2 then come back to this one if you get hooked.
Fallout 2: everything better than the first game with bigger scope, world, choices and more, way more RPG elements. The greatest Computer Role-Playing Game, in my opinion. A 2D world so alive in a wasteland, that mixes a great atmosphere with awesome stat building, story, role-playing and character design. Bought it in '99 and still playing it after 15 years. The humor, the immersion and the need to display real RPG skills coupled with one of the best leveling systems and perks make some modern games look like a piece of garbage. Add the unofficial patch and restoration project for even more fun.
Fallout Tactics: This is not a Fallout adventure but a series of missions who progress in difficulty to test the veteran Fallout players combat tactics. Fun but not worth more than a playthrough from the more avid fans (like myself). Still a better game than Skyrim.
Fallout 3: From cRPG to aRPG, Fallout still rules. Set in a post-apocalyptic Washington, the Capital wasteland is no walk in the park. The huge variety of realistic weapons and armors mixed with the salvaged advanced technology, the wandering in the capital wasteland dodging or hunting a rich and various bestiary, the encounters were you have to pick sides and put your moral compass at test, and the unique atmosphere make for a superb adventure. Be you a gun junky or an RPG purist who interacts with every NPC and like discovering every "nuke" and cranny on the larger than life map, the game delivers. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas both have a very strong modding community providing hundreds of worthy mods for everyone tastes.
Fallout New Vegas: Take Fallout 3, expand it, add more diversity, add more interesting locations, triple the amount of factions, add a better theme, and add more immersion and you have Fallout NV. Only this is Obsidian we're talking about so you're bound to run in some bugs (which you do literally in-game:) With some key mods to correct the engine shortcomings, satisfaction is guaranteed. I have some characters with more than 150 hours in this game, not an hour felt wasted.
Based on your description of Fallout, Foggy, I will have to play through it now. Though I actually liked the graphics when I played the demo (admittedly many, many years ago), I didn't know that there was a pack that improved them even more. Did you feel that Fallout 3 stuck to the spirit of the original two games. I've heard players give arguments on both sides, and I've never even watched a gameplay video of that one.
I think Arcanum and TOEE are still iffy for me at this point. Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about Jade Empire?
...TES V: Skyrim. Thanks to my friend I was able to play on his copy for about 5 hours, just to test if the game is worth buying or not wihout rellying on illegal activities in order to test it. Ok Skyrim, good for you for allowing me to model the face of my character, but I won't be seeing it during the game anyways. Good for you for having wide open world, but such a world is pointless is nothig is driving you to explore it. Also, Dragons, which are supposed to be a attraction are joke. When you can kill a dragon but you get owned by bear, then something is not right there. Despite this, the game has suprisingly good reviews from both players and critics. So, in theory it shouldn't be as boring as I recall it to be. What's the reason for me to give that game another try?
Arcanum is best played in turn based mode. It's a really open-ended sandbox game. There is no way for you to screw up on the main quest. It has immense replay value, and has some great companions. For instance, Virgil, he's the only companion that will follow you no matter what. In fact, he even goes whatever alignment you go. So if you're evil, he'll be evil. Also, you can play as a pacifist, it's really hard, but it is possible. There's also various endings, and tons of content. So, replaying this over and over again isn't a bad idea. You can do different character concepts. You can use custom portraits, but they work a little bit differently than BG.
Jade Empire has great companions like Dawn Star and Sky, I'm not going to ruin their personalities for you. When it comes to Bioware games, this is basically the Planescape: Torment of the pre-EA era games made by Bioware, at least in my opinion. If you like Asian themes, Kung-Fu, etc.. Then, this game is for you.
Temple of Elemental Evil, if you aren't playing with the Co8 fixpack, then it isn't worth playing. As I mentioned in that same thread, Temple of Elemental Evil has its own prologue for whatever alignment you pick. I think this would give it immense re-playablity. You can also use custom portraits here too, but I haven't figured out how to use them properly, there's a thread about how to do that at the co8 site.
Fallout, I tried the first one and decided I didn't like it. So, I'm going to let someone else try to convince you on this one.
- Fallout 1 and 2 had better writing. No argument there.
- The humor and depth of Fallout 1 and especially 2 wasn't completely captured in Fallout 3, though it still is very present. The Fallout 3 DLC Point Lookout and Mothership Zeta have some great humor and Old World Blues in New Vegas is a reminder of the old Fallout feel.
- The Fallout lore was modified to suit the Capital Wasteland setting. A sin in Fallout nostalgic fan eyes, I was OK with it because while Fallout 2 played in different cities and places, Fallout 3 is set on the Capital Wasteland, one city, and neither The Enclave (the bad guys) nor The Brotherhood of Steel (good guys) chapters on DC had strong ties with their leaders. They adapt and survive, having their own problems to deal with.
- Fallout 1, 2 and 3 are survival games while New Vegas seemed less brutal and more tactic. My favorite setting is Fallout 3 because it's a war of attrition in an urban setting were you feel isolated and constantly tested by every faction or clan, everybody needs something from you while your character may help them or slaughter them all for 95% of the game. In Fallout 1 & 2 your quest is set, how you tackle it is what changes every aspect of the game, in Fallout 3 you do what you want and can disregard the principal quest entirely til you you feel like making for one of 2 specific places where an encounter will make things real personal. FNV primary quest seems simplistic, but it's the road that is important and not the destination.
- In Fallout 3 and FNV you have to kill someone. Entirely avoidable in both first games where you can talk your way out of anything. Matters if you like that kind of characters.
So yes, Fallout 3 is a Fallout game that capture the spirit of the series, it just takes flack for 2 reasons:
- preference for isometric view RPG over Open World Space ones. And for turn based combat over real time one.
- Fallout 1 and 2 had no other titles to compare to at a time were Black Isle reigned supreme over RPGs. Come to think of it, if not for nostalgia reasons and for the superior writing of Fallout 2, I'd say Fallout 3 is the superior game in setting and gameplay, Fallout New Vegas having done everything right expect for a bias toward the "good" and high morals of the NCR faction which goes against Fallout spirit in a way.
As for Jade Empire, whatever it did, KOTOR did it better. I didn't like the short campaign (20 something hours). I found the characters forgettable except Dawn Star, and the music average at best. The I.A. is also very easy to exploit by mastering a couple styles. The absence of customization options, wonky camera, clunky combat and the fact I'm no fan of Asian themed games made it that I couldn't warm to the game and found no reason to. If you like the setting give it a try, it's dirt cheap on GoG.
Edit: true what Sapphirelce said, the game is broken on Steam, avoid the Special Edition and get the GoG version.
More on the Witcher 2, the game is excellent but imperfect, developed for consoles as well as PC, it suffered in some aspects, I already mentioned the QTE and the combat, add to that lack of storage, drinking potions in meditation which made alchemy quite pointless, lack of a highlighting key (loot is serious business in RPG), clunky inventory and journal, and no possibility to see the diagrams and ingredients use unless going through them one by one on inventory. All these problem are specific to the consolitis that hit the Witcher 2 and were not present in the first game.
As for the story and style of play, what helped me was looking at it as a unique opportunity to build an entire persona for my character. In most RPGs you're somewhat limited in the sense that much of your story is predefined. (I.e., you are inevitably a Bhaalspawn, you're the Avatar, etc.) The Elder Scrolls games allow me to fill in all the gaps with my imagination.
In my last play through, I thought of myself as an embittered Nord returning to his homeland from war, antagonistic toward the Empire and disillusioned. I avoided the main quest and instead imagined that someone in that frame of mind would look for companionship and something to believe in, so I joined the Companions. Fast forward: after soul searching, being transformed into a werewolf and fighting a vampire clan (natural enemies due to his state), he realized what he was becoming and set out to restore his homeland by joining the rebels.
Yes, it's not for everyone, but if you find yourself in the mood for something that's not framing your character and instead allowing you to come up with your own rationale for your actions, it becomes surprisingly rewarding.
I will also say that it does start slowly, but the areas you start to discover later are often among the most impressive I've ever seen in a game. At times I felt like I was in the Underdark, in Moria and other incredible places. The first time I stumbled on a massive, lost dwarven city in a seemingly endless cavern, I was astounded at the sheer scale of it.
No, Skyrim is not Baldur's Gate, but it was never trying to be. It really does put you directly into the shoes of the character, and makes you see things through their eyes. And yes, mods do help a lot in filling in the gaps that do exist, particularly in fleshing out the massive civil war that should be happening.
The way I see @Foggy describing Fallout definitely makes me want to try them. It seems like each game in the series actually is quite good, but different in strengths. Now I just need to find the time...