Leaderboard

It's a give and take. Both have attempted to be solved by timed quest and autoleveled enemies. Neither of which is good and makes for games I personally dislike. I will rather take a narrative hit and the chance that I may be overleveled for the main quest that the alternative.

And also on the smaller scale

Turn-based counts me out - well, 98% chance of that, anyway. The only Divinity I played was Divine Divinity, anyway (GoG version ages ago), and I assume new Divinity wouldn't resemble anything like that, even if it wasn't TB. 😄 I don't think I finished DD. I remember really liking the early game/early dungeons, having a grand old time. But I don't remember why I stopped. I vaguely feel like I found the enemy power curve too high or something, like jogging two screens over was occasionally akin to exploring the "wrong" way in FONV and running into deathclaws. So at some point after much optional mucking about, gear etc, I followed MQ where I promptly died in some fantastic unexpected fashion, or ran into my usual "story commits choices, ugh" and I didn't want to bother. But maybe I'm mixing up memories again, heh.

If there is an uber hard optional boss, I agree. I like having something to test the max leveled build against.

I think Expeditions: Viking managed to achieve it - the time limit was generous but present and made sense for the story. I suppose, the same could be said about the tutorial in Tyranny, but the scale there was smaller. For Larian's D&D game, if I am not mistaken, the party discovered that the illithid transformation is delayed quite early and from there it was trying to find a cure at a more leisurely pace. Then again, even if it continued to be urgent, every other NPC was promising solutions at the start, so going along with them could be in-character. Well, also looking for a high-level cleric, a pickaxe, and the True Resurrection spell, which would be travelling straight to the nearest large city.

ok, finished Silksong. 100% completion, all achievemnents unlocked, but 4 ones speedrun and ironman related. I liked it very much. I have nitpicks, though a lot of it is related to optional content so I don't know how to feel about it. Some 100% requirements I thought were unreasonably tedious or obscure, but then again, it is completely optional to do so 🤷‍♂️. I am sure someone figuring some things out, for me it was googling things out once I run out of ideas and went "how the heck was I supposed to find that?!". Not as good of a metroidvania as Hollow Knight, but much better action-platformer. Loved movement, really liked combat. Most bosses are excellent, few are tedious. Ah, I wasn't too fond of act3. The bosses that become available there are great, but overall I am not sure of the new content available there required an entire new act3. Then again, I thought Castlevania's reverse castle was a bit lame as well.

Well, maybe. If your story is "I have a ticking bomb and need to solve it ASAP", then I would say you either create a linear adventure that will support this story, or create more open adventure that still forces player to hurry and move forward. I just don't think urgency and here is massive world full of optional content mesh together. Neither is a bad choice, and I just don't those two choices go well together. And of course, various games suffer from it in various ways. That a problem is common, doesn't make it non-existent, and if you make narratively centric game, it sticks out if the experience of playing the game doesn't support said narrative - at least it does to me. If game builds up someone to be a powerful being they should be a difficult fight. If the game builds up something as urgent, at least it should provide narrative excuse as to why we might want to get distracted. I am not saying that such flawes make a game automatically terrible, but it might negatively impact the experience for some looking to get immersed in the story.

The less you know about Rivellon, the better.

ha! Yes, I forgot how annoying the itemization was in D:OS2. I didn't watch the video, so am just replaying to your post. Even back in a day when Baldur's Gate2 was in my mind the gold standard for everything that is right and good, the dissonance between main quest urgency and what I thought was the intended and enjoyable way of playing the game stand out as a flaw. By principle, I believe that game's narrative should be tied to a gameplay exerience - if the narrative requires swift forward, gameplay should at the very least encourage it as well. If you go for laidback do what you want experience - come up with the scenario that supports it. I get that devs want movie like hook propelling things forward, but at least to me, it hurts it more in the long run. It forces me as a player to ask myself a question: "is the threat presented by the game narratively real or a facade", and I just don't think it's in games best interest to have me think that. That said, I didn't think Cyberpunk2077 was a particularly bad example of that, but it did roll my eyes every time V got "worse" after progressing main story a bit. It was just a bit too obvious that his condition doesn't exist unless one does very specific quests. I didn't find C77 story very effective, but that wasn't a part that suck out to me. To me Baldur's Gate3 was a far, far, far worse offender. In C77 there might be a bit of dissonance between the game's story and players affinity for side content but in BG3 the characters didn't seem to decide if they have a ticking bomb in their heads or not.

On the other hand, the existing Forgotten Realms worldbuilding can get in the way of immersion as well. I did not find the existence of the Act 2 area being left cursed for the past 100 years to believable for example, in a similar way perhaps to how Bethesda Fallout games would have you believe people still live in bombed out ruins full of debris 200 years after the war. And that's to say nothing of how the story interacts with access to restorative and resurrection magic in the setting. But yeah, mechanically the D:OS games were weird with the extremely steep level scaling essentially funneling the player into a fixed path through the zones. BG3 didn't have that issue at all, but in some ways had the opposite problem inherent to modern D&D which unbelievably still has things like empty level-ups where you don't do anything but click the confirm button, and the continuing insanity of only every second stat point increase doing anything (seriously, a quarter of a century of this nonsense). Thankfully Cyberpunk did not level/stat/perk-gate silent takedowns so I could still merrily ignore every single mechanic complained about by that YouTuber. Healing? Grenades? Stamina? Never heard of 'em.

More on Divinity .... In another recent interview, Swen makes it a point to say that in this game they're putting in a lot of work to build out the setting/universe, because they learned from making BG3 how important it is to have a strong, well-developed and detailed universe where everything fits together and makes sense, which he admits has never been the case with their setting in past Divinity games. This matters hugely for me, because the #1 criticism I've had of the D:OS games, by far, is how utterly pathetic and trite the setting is in those games. Swen even specifically says that "world building" was never Larian's thing in the past, and that is a courageous and welcome Larian mea culpa. For me, world building is the foundation for a good RPG. So, if this indeed happens with Divinity, and I have no reason to believe it won't happen, then that goes a very long way to making me excited for this game. TB combat systems always suck, but I can hold my nose and live with that. It's these other essentials for a good RPG that matter most to me. https://www.ign.com/articles/if-you-like-baldurs-gate-3-this-is-gonna-be-great-larian-boss-swen-vincke-reveals-what-to-expect-from-divinity-in-first-interview-since-the-game-awards-announcement And in another separate interview, Swen also says that the rules/mechanics they will use in Divinity will NOT be the same as in the D:OS games, and will be something new that they create from everything they've learned from their past games. That's another huge YAY from me.

I watched a bit of Josh Strife Hayes' new video on Cyberpunk 2077, and once again I am reminded how different experiences can be. All of the problems with the game he talks about are there and valid criticism, but for me, they just don't matter that much. Like the problem that so many games with side content have. V has only a few weeks left to live, but you have all the time in the world for side content. A problem that Baldur's Gate 2 already had with having to chase after Imoen. Or not. It makes no difference - plot wise, at least, and I am completely indifferent to the dissonance it introduces. Being able to fully experience all of a game is much, much more important than having the added stress of having to complete something within a certain timeframe. This is a very big reason why the only achievements I have left to do in Hollow Knight and Silksong are the speedrun ones. That's just not how I (want to) play games. Enough so that I actually don't bother doing them in spite of it driving me crazy to have the achievement completion percentage not at 100. Anyway, there's one thing I want to talk about that I found interesting: Josh's reaction to various game elements that were introduced bit by bit and changed in various updates along the way, with the big overhaul of Phantom Liberty bringing the greatest changes. Many of the things he criticizes were, funnily enough, quality of life changes that were introduced in various patches and updates. Like grenades and health items not being limited, but auto-regenerating. They used to be limited, and you as the player spent a non-trivial time in the crafting menu building more of them. The change to auto-regenerating with perks to increase regen-speed or effectiveness of the items was an incredibly good change to the flow of the gameplay, but as a new player, you can't know that, having never experienced the game as it was before. It is not unreasonable to say that limited consumables would have been nice because you'd have to prepare for fights more than you do now, and yes, on the surface level that is correct. It is correct for many games. It just isn't for the flow of combat in the game. There are a hundred tutorial popups that were added for different mechanics or systems that the game didn't launch with. Yeah, the auto-fixer wasn't introduced in a tutorial mission because buying cars was this nightmare of having to drive around the city and buying them directly from garages and parking lots after getting a text message from someone (mostly fixers after completing side quests for them). He complains about the more or less unenecessary stamina bar, but there was a time in the game when out of combat sprinting was linked to stamina and to improve the athletics skill you basically had to sprint-bunny-hop through Night City. The stamina bar of Cyberpunk 2077 2.x is a holdover that was turned into something affecting shooting and melee and you pick perks that make it matter less and less. Again, not a bad change from what it used to be, but from a fresh perspective it is really weirdly implemented. My point is, here, that being part of the development of mechanics changes one's perspective. It's not always for the better, like when the constant balancing of Pillars of Eternity made the game expierence worse for me because all the combinations and mechanics I used to progress more easily through the troves of pointless combat encounters of the game constantly got weakened. For someone new to the game, having the product now as it is - that might not make a difference.

Hopefully the level systems for items and gear won't come back. That was certainly an improvement, but it was down to D&D not dealing in such. It's a part of what made Original Sin play out like a thinly veild combat parcours: If a sword level 3 does like twice the damage of a level 1 sword, not only does that mean you constantly have to trash weapons. It also means that you shouldn't even try beating enemies above your level. Thus every area on every map in DOS had a clear level assignment. Mind you, Original Sin had much more of a combat focus than BG3 in general. I haven't played a major RPG with as little mandatory combat as BG3 in forever, especially the 1st map. Ok, maybe Kingdom Come in a lot of parts. One of Warhorse's biggest prides was showing that you can reach a crowd without every single quest boiling down to bloodshed. The quest design in KCD1+2 is oft deeply rooted in the "mundane" in general. Like picking flowers with the missus. Or looking for a corpse in a pile of sh*t behind the Bylany tavern at 6 AM (and getting a stinky debuff thereafter, with every other NPC reacting badly to it). 😄

The game tailormade for the memory crisis: Foolish Mortals. 90 rating on Metacritic, 97% user recommendation on Steam, 20 bucks price tag, 2GB RAM required, 8GB disk space and more heart put into it than you could possibly count. Initially, I wanted to relive Christmas 1998. Spent that on solving Grim Fandango three days straight. However, after this introduction, I wasn't able to wait any longer. 😲 They said there was a treasure on the island, its location known only to the dead. I could see it in my dreams. How was I supposed to know that in order to find it... I'd have to die too.

Rings of Power S2. 5? episodes in. Since it's free here for the time being, doubt I'd have paid for prime to watch it after S1. It's an absolutely massive improvement over S1, which lifts it to being ok, more or less, and I'm not regretting the time spent watching it which I- more or less- did for S1. I'm still going to complain a lot of course, but they are far more minor complaints at least and moderated a lot by the improvement shown. So it's still got the flaws of S1, but they're less prominent and mostly more... excusable, I guess. Many conversations still sound oddly circuitous but not bafflingly obtuse, there's still some feeling that everyone is a stage actor declaiming to the audience in front of static backdrops rather than being in a 'real' world but a lot less pronounced and less frequent (ie, the world feels a lot more lived in*), there's a load of slightly illogical minor drama for drama's sake** rather than it being basically all there was and you still find it difficult to credit the elves as being thousands of years old when Elrond and Galadriel act like they're teenage siblings half the time. The pacing is also still off a bit too due to too many threads- Eregion, Khazad-dum, Lindon, Numenor, Pelargir, (Adar/orcs); and the still not very good at all and extremely pointless seeming Gandalf and hobbits odyssey. Despite the number of threads a lot of things feel like they're happening far too quickly because there's too little time for things to develop. But it is, at least, reasonably engaging. Overall, if it continues the trajectory from S1-->S2 then S3 should be really rather good. *though it is still quite bad, which it really ought not to be. Spend millions on CGI, don't spend a relative pittance on extras to make the world feel like it has actual people in it is a baffling decision. **big exclusion: Celebrimbor acting like he got pithed between scenes specifically to up the drama..