Wormerine

AND a controller support. Awesome, thank you Obs.

Outer Worlds2 is part of this month Humble Choice, together with some titles I have less interest in (Mafia Old Country, Shinobi). Hmm,, would be no brainer for me, except OW2 key is for battlenet, rather then steam. £12 for OW2 still seems very good, but with DLCs looming on the horizon I feel I would end up rebuying OW2 on steam anyway. Have a month to think this through. I dunno. Character creator definitely didn't look basic. Can't say more then that, didn't get too far into that one (not a judgement on my part either way).

I do remember thinking Numenera was a bit too wordy, I never felt like that about PoE1 - I love dialogue boxes in that game. More so then Deadfire. The only issue I had with PoE1 is when VO clashed with the written text.

Got a trailer 8 years ago, now we got another trailer with a subtitle. A gameplay teaser in 2034 years?

That's... a strange take. I would say BG3 is an incredibly ambitious RPG. More so then BG2 and definitely more then anything Bioware produced after. In a way BG3 is what I hoped Dragon Age would be - a return to a pure cRPG but with a presentation and production value of Mass Effect. Now, as I have stated before I am not the biggest BG3 fan, but it's due to me not gelling with "content" and some designs more then what the game is. One definitely can't accuse it of reducing scope and player agency, the way later Bioware games did.

Austin Wintory's (best known for his Journey OST) mockups for Mass Effect5 job.

IsThereAnyDealSolasta: Crown of the Magister - Lightbringers Edition Well, it was £3 cheaper at the beginning of the month..... 😁

So in general, I think in the past I would agree with sentiments express by yourself and Sarex. Baldur's Gate1&2 were the titles that introduced me to cRPG and captured my imagination. BG2 was the first one, and it opened my imagination to what this game could be if expanded further - more reactivity, more choices, more nuanced morality system. However, Bioware never went in the direction I wanted. Tim Cain did with Fallout and Arcanum. Obsidian did with KOTOR2, New Vegas and Pillars of Eternity. In a hindsight, I don't think Bioware strength and objective was in making complex "ambitious" RPGs. It was in taking an RPG and infusing it with an approachable, blockbuster presentation. Success of BG2 didn't lie in being the most sophisticated RPG to date - it was being flashy and approachable enough, that 14 years old me with no D&D familiarity could pick the game up and had a blast going through adventures they crafted. I think Bioware's power always lied in making cRPGs mainstream. I do think at some point they went too far - to me Mass Effect3 was the point where the choices were limited and simplified to the point where they stopped being engaging - the game moved from being RPG-lite/action hybrid to being just a mediocre action game, but again - I suspect production pressures, more than intent. Honestly, I just think at some point Bioware stopped being able to keep up in a genre they started. Narrative action RPGs in various forms became a thing outside Bioware - and something like CDPR set a new standard. I don't think Bioware could compete with something like Witcher3 or Horizon or God of War, and backpedaling and trying to reestablish themselves in a AA RPG niche just wasn't an option.

Dumbed it down in what regard and from what? Bioware games haven't been very deep since KOTOR - after BG1&2 it's been always about increasing production value and they have been gradually moving from simplified D&D to action combat. DA:O would be an exception as they clearly tried to go back to cRPG roots, but I still didn't think it was particularly "deep" game. I feel what seperates DA:I from, lets say DA:O is a ratio of narrative content vs gameplay length. I feel it's a production issue, not an ideological issue. ha! you don't like turn based you don't like action. You are very hard to please. I fear real-time with pause is and will be a rare occurance as it is a bastard child of "we want to make a turn based game, but Diablo success forces out to make it run in real time". And I think Bioware's MO was always to make approachable RPG-like experiences. Baldur's Gates success was taking D&D and turning it into faster, more blockbuster experienced. KOTOR simplified D&D mechanics to the point that there was little player input and added somewhat cheated full VO and found a way to make RPG work on console. Jade Empire already played with making combat more action-like. DA:O pretty much stands alone as a deliberate "throwback" title.

Warhorse is easily the one I am looking forward to seeing more off. As to Obsidian - the parallel did come to my mind as well but I don’t think it is similar at all. Obsidian, regardless of their talent, were never a calibre of the studio BioWare was - BioWare set trends, set new bars for western cRPG production value over and over again, and created few, widely beloved strong IPs. Their work in existing IPs still stand as some of their best to date. Then they got acquired by EA they growed, spread thin and release shaky game after shaky game. BioWare’s issue wasn’t that they became too mainstream - it’s was that they stopped releasing widely liked games. Obsidian has been surviving pumping out rushed sequels to other people games, with just few original IPs that became “cult classics”, and frankly they seem to me to be doing actually pretty well under Microsoft’s acquisition. They did seem to have internal discipline to keep projects focused and on track and not grow too complacent under a guaranteed pay check. Avowed was troubled, but not without merit, but other than that they have been doing good work. Now that doesn’t keep them save unfortunately - Microsoft didnt shy from slashing down studios regardless of how good their output has been (Tango, ID). And we will see what fate awaits Obsidian under new Bethesda umbrella.

Yeah, a lot of people had mainly issues with Mass Effect3 ending, but personally, I didn't think the game was good overall. Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect2 were in my view the last games where Bioware stuck the landing. Later games had their moments but overall I felt that Bioware just stopped working under EA.

Expected, but still sad to see. Bioware is being shut down by EA. Mass Effect project is no more.

Anyone else played Control: Resonant? Doing a bit of 2nd playthrough to tick of remaining achievements and had a story revelation(spoilers!!!!): Contains Control1&2 spoilers.

Finished Star Wars Zero Company and Control: Resonant. I enjoyed both games, though neither of them is likely to become an "all timer". Zero Company is an all around "pretty-ok" package. Doesn't provide excel in anything, but all it does is pretty enjoyable. Combat is a bit too shallow and repetitive for my taste. It's a quite different combat model then XCOMs, and I would like to see the team expand on this game. Be it a sequel or an expansion. It is understandable, that licensed StarWars game will be aimed to be a highly accessible experience, but even playing on expert the game stopped being engaging about halfway through. It is FiraXCOM tradition, that difficulty curve is somewhat manufactured - a bit oppressive at first, then you enter (in my opinion) best middleground where you have genuine challenge and interesting opportunities for counterplay, and the end game is victory lap where you maw through enemies without fear of hurt. ZCOM in my opinion entered third stage far, far too early. Though of course your mileage may vary. Now story of ZCOM was what disappointed me more, mostly because it was so highly spoken of. It's easily best integration of a narrative in this time of game I have seen - though it comes IMO at a heavy cost of the gameplay fun. Overall, I found the plot to be just serviceable with one strong contrivance where everyone behaves in the most irrational manner just to allow a story beat to happen. The character writing is great, though, and the game makes good use of the IP - on that front, through, I felt I was missing out by not being familiar if some of game's references. I think some of its beats would come out of nowhere if someone wasn't at least somewhat familiar with the prequels. There was one element which I found kinda daft, but it seems to be canon and not game's invention🤷. Control: Resonant - good! Storywise it builds mostly on what Control1 established, so worldbuilding isn't as consistant and plenty as it was in the original. In general, story seems more like an excuse to run around in distorted Manhattan, rather than reason for play itself. It also felt smaller - Control1, while humble in its storytelling was evocative, painting a world of unending possibilities, while this one just feels far more contained. Still, I did enjoy the story that was there with some caveats. I really liked Dylan as a protagonist - I found him to be quite a nuanced and subtle character. Combat is ok - satisfying to press buttons, but pretty simple and there is a lot of it. What I liked the most is the map design and exploration. While it looks like open world game, and older zones can feel like it once you unlock new powers, for the most part progression is far more guided and maze like then it would initially seem. Gravity mechanic is novel, and I liked sidequests and puzzles. To me it was a perfect balance, between allowing players to figure things out without being frustrating. Still, there is something that feels incomplete about the title. Perhaps, it is due to how hard it teases a potential DLC/sequel. Overall, recommendation on both, perhaps on sale, as I didn't think either of games delivers anything exceptionally well. Still, perfectly enjoyable titles.