Medromeda

Well, but it's not just that they only compare it to Skyrim, they do so in a way that takes the least important features of Skyrim and claims Avowed doesn't have that, which makes it then a bad game. But yes, I also thought: most other RPGs don't have more simulated NPCs, especially CRPGs. So you're not only talking about features, which you claim as missing, which are seemingly unimportant to the game as a whole, but also make comparisons in ways which seem very negative for the sake of being negative. There must be a name for that kind of thing, some kind of fallacy, isn't it?

Thank you for your input, dear Sir. I actually think that Avowed does combat better than Fromsoft games, but I can see that a lot of people would probably disagree with me, because those games have a very hardcore fanbase. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic and Dishonored and Prey seem good examples, which Avowed probably has a lot of similarities to. I honestly don't know how they could've made the combat, given the premise of having tactical CRPG combat merged with action-oriented first-person gameplay, any better. Positioning, line of sight, crowd control abilities, all of this plays a role in combat and I think they really made the right choices in balancing as well, which is the most important part (giving the right weight to all of your actions). I am not understanding the criticism of the progression system being not compelling. I feel like it serves the combat system as it is and does so very well. Like I mentioned before, because it is designed as an RPG, it needs to have a progression, which means higher difficulty mobs, which means you need to be able to upgrade your gear. And how you upgrade your gear was directly linked to the exploration and parkour system, which I like. I tend to compare the game with Skyrim, because Obsidian said multiple times that this was intended to be a Skyrim-like game. And if you do so, all these things I just mentioned, Avowed does better than Skyrim. I feel that the upgrade system is also just complex enough so you wouldn't be bothered by it too much. No skill grinding, as you had in Skyrim, for example. I think Avowed is very streamlined and so is the upgrade system. Maybe this is a new kind of gamedesign philosophy, or maybe it's an old one, but it feels like they made the right choices here, atleast to me.

I feel that both genres have their validation. Avowed is definitely more focused on you, as the player. Your companions are good tools, but they are not nearly as strong nor valuable as you are. In a classical isometric CRPG you have a group of roughly equivalent people. The difference in perspective also offers different options regarding mechanics and tactics. I'd love to see more games like Avowed, but also more games like Pillars.

Writing isn't bad. There were times when I had good interactions. But other times... well I mentioned it already in a previous post. Calling it uneven is probably a good choice of words. The combat is a definitive evolution to what Skyrim and modded Skyrim after that tried to achieve. It worked on all the problems that game had and added some extra flavour to it. I'd say the combat is the main attraction of the game. To be honest, I think it's the best combat I've seen in any RPG to date. Saying it loses it's luster after a while is understandable to a point. But I like to make the comparison to non-videogames in that matter. Take soccer for example. It's always the same and it doesn't become boring (if you like it). With videogames people somehow have the expectation that it needs to change over the course of the playthrough or it will become boring. Maybe that's the wrong way of approaching videogames. I am having a lot of fun with the combat and trying different builds. I see it as a nice pasttime. I made a first playthrough and got stuck in the last bit of the game and started a new character now on hard difficulty. I am really enjoying it. Now I am playing the game as it is supposed to be played, I think, with exploring the whole map, upgrading my gear to be able to fight monsters appropriately. I feel like I can see why Obsidian made certain design choices. I like the item upgrade system, as it always seems to leave something you can work towards, even until the very end of the game. Also it feels as if exploration and finding chests is typical RPG design and feels very well done in this game. It kind of all fits together. Mobs make you want to upgrade your gear -> makes you want to find materials -> makes you want to explore to find chests -> makes you use the parkour system. I feel like Obsidian made a lot of really good design choices with this game. If you think the combat becomes boring I feel as if no game can really satisfy you in that regard, because the combat really is the best I have ever seen in an RPG. Seeing Avowed as an action adventure focusing on combat and exploration actually seems like it is not such a bad idea. I often find the dialogue, spoken by your companions, to be a good method to pass empty stretches of traveling meaningfully or to give flavour to the game and your environment. I have a problem with people saying Avowed is just "fine". I mean, I don't have a problem with the people, but with the statement. Avowed makes a lot of good design choices. The combat is the best I have seen in any RPG, specifically first person, the writing is a mixed bag but it's good at times, parkour elements and exploration seem like natural evolution to Skyrim, the spell, character and item system are also full of good design choices, imo, although the upgrade system seems to become a little too nested in the end.

I agree with that notion. It often times feels as if I was attending psychotherapy instead or playing an RPG. Often times I feel that the dialogue options with when you talk to the voice (no spoilers) are similar to questionaires you get from a psychotherapist. Often times your companions seems to act as if to give an example, presenting values which can be found in what I will call psychotherapy culture. I have my suspicions that this is the reason the dialogue feels downgraded.

"Avowed was originally going to have multiplayer components, similar to that of Destiny where players could walk around in a massive world. In an interview with Bloomberg, director Carrie Patel said that Obsidian Entertainment pitched Avowed as a cross between Destiny and Skyrim to prospective buyers, which ended with Microsoft purchasing the studio. Avowed's development started in 2018 but went through two reboots, which led Obsidian to scrap its multiplayer component."

Have you seen some of the mud that this game is being dragged into by some of the people on YouTube? It always seems to be the same criticisms, as if, and that is my suspicion, they copy each others words. It's Avowed is fine, but not great. Obsidian should do better, considering how great they once were. The world is too static. The writing is bad. They don't seem to mention or do so in a way that downplays the features value, that Avowed probably has the best mechanics regarding combat, hero and item management in any RPG to date, nor that it probably has awesome graphics and level design. To be fair, I also think Avowed writing could be better. Sometimes I am unsure of whether I am playing an RPG or attending a psychotherapist. "Talk to Marius, but be understanding." I think there is a lot of political correctness hidden in the writing, which I guess fits in a colorful fantasy theme like this. The game also seems to get better the further you get into it. Sometimes it even felt as if the "bad" writing was a hurdle between me and the good content. But the criticism of the world being too static I can't understand. The focus is on combat, dialogue, management and exploration/parkour. Not every game needs to be a simulation. Maybe more simulated aspects like moving NPCs would distract you and create a less streamlined experience which I think is what Obsidian was going for. I don't think more simulation would be bad, I just don't think it's a valid criticism. All in all I think this game is what modded Skyrim always wanted to be and it does so amazingly. And I can say this, even though I have a fair share of criticism to offer for this game. I don't know what these YouTube critics want to achieve. It seems many of them focus on a few aspects that they present as bad, which don't really seem that important and try to convince the viewer that because of this, the game is not that good. I even heard one reviewer say something along the lines of: Avowed tries to create a lifelike simulated world, but it fails to do so, because the world is too static. I doubt those people understand what Avowed tries to be. I just have to say, good job Obsidian. Thank you for making a great product which I can enjoy.