And a thread question to get things going: Why haven't most major/AAA studios been able to make good RPGs this gen? They have been putting out dud after dud, it's a phenomenon. Some of these games killed their respective studios, I would post more if I could fit them, if I could post 15 images I'd still have unshown examples. There have been a trove of fantastic RPGs, CRPGs especially, over the last eight or nine years and none of them have been coming from the big players. Look at Avowed, that game is fine, but it's chronically boring, it's like fantasy Far Cry with none of the interesting characters. It sold terribly, as did most of these.

>>1964896 I think a lot of gamedevs either haven't played TTRPGs or they forgot what playing one was like. If you do play D&D and play an older CRPG you immediately notice how they are one and the same. Only CRPG combat doesn't need 4 hours for a big fight. I really do think this has impacted the industry. Yes I know D&D 5th edition blew up in popularity in 2020 but a lot of your examples started development before that. We need to force gamedevs to not only play TTRPGs but also play something that isn't just D&D 5th edition. Also this is your threadly reminder that >>>/tg/ exists.

>>1964896 One may argue about cultiwar or studios growing fat and lazy off their previous successes, but I think there's a simpler answer here. Each and every one of these games was designed for a gaming landscape that no longer exists. Avowed feels like Far Cry? Yeah, it probably does - it's following early 2010s gaming trends, Avowed ironically feels more early 2010s than New Vegas. Publishers and developers are chasing that core of casual PS360 gamers that used to make up the backbone of RPG sales, a core that is no longer extant; RPG sales moved chiefly to PC over the last two generations bringing along all the expectations one would assume of CRPGs. The tastes of RPG gamers has shifted back to mechanical complexity and well-written dialogue, and Switch owners, the only console gamers who still play a lot of RPGs, are a group that (western) AAA inexplicably refuses catering towards. This new reality has not been understood or accepted by the AAA space, who continue making the same games in a different era.

>>1964860 Are there any RPG's that aren't JRPG's that still take inspiration from their Wizardry roots left these days?

>>1965028 >Are you implying all RPGs are JRPGs because Wizardy? Wizardry, especially 4 was the origin for a lot of early rpgs at the time for many gameplay conventions such as grinding. that exist today. But to make it clear I mean a D&D inspired labyrinth exploration game with turn based with the Darkest Dungeon being the closest you can get to that. Do you have any other examples? They're also not too plot heavy and focus more on exploration.

>>1964860 >of Ash and Steel >Tainted Grail I haven't played these games yet, but, I've watched some gameplay videos and I can certainly say that these games look like shit, they don't look appealing to me, they are flat with zero contrast, and all the NPCs have pubic hair glued in their scalps and faces. I rather have something with graphical fidelity of Dungeon Siege or Aarklash Legacy or Dark Messiah with actual colors and shadows and contrast.

>>1965024 Grimoire?

>>1965184 Thanks! It's what I'm looking for but the reviews in steam are mixed from what I'm looking at. Not checking at the moment but why is that?

>>1965206 The creator has some high levels of autism and argues with people in reviews, and he didn't make a manual for the game for like, 1-2 years which really pissed people off. Plus he made it really "hardcore" which automatically will filter some people out.

>excluding JRPGs Who invited RPG Codex? And on that note, holy shit have they lost the plot. I checked out their most recent "greatest RPGs of all time list" from last year, and they unironically put Disco Elysium at #19. For reference, this puts it ahead of: >Dark Souls >Every Wizardry game except 8 >System Shock 2 >Diablo 1 and 2 >Every Might and Magic game >Every Ultima game (except Underworld) >Daggerfall >Pathfinder >Dragon Age Origins >every Witcher game >Mount and Blade Warband >KOTOR 1 and 2 >BG3 >Mass Effect >Arx Fatalis

I've never played a proper RPG and New Vegas is on sale for $5. What do (You) think of it? What's the best part about the game? Should I start with 1 and work my way up instead?

>>1965288 Go for it, New Vegas is great

>>1965288 >start with 1 and work my way up instead? definitely not. Start from the one that you find interesting. New vegas is a good pick if you are interested

Is Of Ash and Steel good?

There's a fucking nigger on my board promoting a fucking kickstarter scam game. Listen here you fucking bitch of an OP: you're a dumb cunt. So Tainted Grail Fall of Avalon follows the same scummy scammy kikestarter practice of making a highly polished initial player experience, letting players play it in early access or as part of a demo, and then shipping a broken, buggy, unfinished, unpolished, complete mess of a game with a chance of "we'll fix it later" added on top. It's the same fucking strategy Larian studio pulled off with Divinity Original Sin 2 and Baldur's Gate 3: first act is amazing, second act everything falls apart, third act is barely functional. Tainted Grail follows the exact same formula, and I fell for the scam hook, line, and sinker. The game's demo is great, act 1 is pretty good, act 2 fucking blows, and act 3 is insultingly bad. Shame of you for promoting the game in the OP without pointing out that it's a fucking scam. Hell, I think the mods should ban your dumb ass and add a "Tainted Grail is a scam game, don't listen to OP" in their nice, big red text. Fuck you OP, you stupid cunt.

>>1984507 might be a little undercooked right now. >>1984640 Yeah thats why the game is at 88% overall and 93% recent, clown. We had fun with the game fuck off schizo

>>1965046 I finished Tainted Grail, and despite some heavy shortcomings, it's really enjoyable.

>>1984843 And BG3 is praised as one of the best RPGs ever made despite launching with hundreds of thousands of bugs, basically no epilogue to speak of, a bunch of tranny shit, garbage writing, garbage characters, etc, etc. You don't look at positive reviews of a product to learn if it's good or bad, you look at the negative ones. Tainted Grail's act 3 is a fucking joke, you never go to Avalon even though several characters mention meeting you there, several story points are just abandoned (including Avalon), you get the random loot from crates in the last dungeon that you did from the starter dungeon, and the game has the most disappointing last boss that I've ever had the displeasure of fighting. But ok let's look at the in-game systems instead: walk-and-talk exposition dump story segments, awful economy system, boring and bland exploration with poorly thought out world design, the least negative way to paint the combat system is by saying it's janky and that's still being generous, bullet sponge bosses, etc. The world feels game-y, the writing is modern and feels out of place with the setting, there's woke shit like pronouns, and a thousand small annoyances which add up. The only positive thing I can say about the game is that the magical gear you get is interesting and varied. It's a bad game, but the start is fantastic so cattle niggers who base their likes and dislikes off of first impression love the game and hand wave away all of the game's major and minor issues.

>>1965288 New Vegas is the best rpg I've ever played and it would be a crime not to buy it when it only costs that much

>>1965288 Also you should probably skip fallout 1 because it kind of sucks in my opinion. But give it a shot first if you have to play it. Fallout 3 isn't that good either but is definitely better than 1. Fallout 2 is pretty good however. Avoid the spinoffs like Fallout tactics because it's absolute shit

>>1986720 >you should probably skip fallout 1 because it kind of sucks in my opinion

>>1986727 Fallout 2 blew Fallout 1 out of the water but you can cope about it though

>>1986732 >Talking Deathclaws >Muh racis are le bad town Fallout 1 is great, it's focused, concise and has tons of content and choice meant for various playtroughs while keeping a consistent tone. Fallout 2 has way more content but due to a rushed development cycle and various people working in isolation with barely any management it has severe difficulty spikes and retarded tone shifts. >cope Of course it's a cuckchanner!

>>1986732 Fallout 1 was a tight game. It made good use of its moments of brevity without feeling overbearing with its pop culture references. Fallout 2 was overbearing with the silliness and all. Both are great games in their own way. FO1 is better in terms of story, presentation, and world building. FO2 is better in terms of exploration, gameplay, combat.

>>1986732 >skipping entries You are NOT a true gamer

>>1986756 I know right everyone who played Mass Effect shouldn't skip Mass Effect Andromeduh >>1986748 Fallout 1 is not far tighter than Fallout 2 simply because you can skip to the ending from the get go and the ending itself is retarded. Most of the locations have no purpose to them in 1 with shit loot to them as well

>>1986720 >Fallout 3 isn't that good either but is definitely better than 1 It's probably a better dungeon crawler, but that's about it.

>>1965046 >someone else played Aarklash I didn't give you to make this post, "me".

>>1986771 >I know right everyone who played Mass Effect shouldn't skip Mass Effect Andromeduh The point when the franchise turns into woke garbage, that’s when you should skip it. Purely out of respect for you. And maybe, to a lesser degree, if the game’s a janky mess, like, let’s say Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

>>1986748 Fallout 1 had 0 signature characters, they were all lackluster and forgettable.

>>1989143 That's just your opinion.

>>1989165 >That's of your opinion. Myron was more memorable than all of them yet he is just a side character. Same goes for the talking deathclaws. The only memorable character for me in Fallout 1 was Harold

I love pointless shitflinging by hypocrites

>>1989171 >The final boss of Fallout 1 was not memorable Again, that's just your opinion. A lot of anons here forget that there's a difference between personal preference and factual argument.

>>1989177 Never said it wasn't an opinion but there are genuine facts like being able to skip most of the game even if the games emphasis on those parts of the game being essential to get to the ending

>>1989186 You keep backpedaling. First you claimed Fallout 1 had zero memorable characters, then you admitted your examples were just your personal takes, and now you’re trying to pivot to “genuine facts” to cover for it. You can’t mix subjective claims with objective arguments and pretend they come from the same place. If your point is about how the game can be sequence-broken, then make that argument. But don’t present your personal ranking of characters as if it has factual weight. That’s exactly the confusion I called out, you're switching between preference and fact whenever it’s convenient.

>>1989203 You're the one who asked for an objective argument dipshit and you're the one using strawman

>>1989225 I didn’t ask for an “objective argument” about which characters are memorable, I pointed out that your claim (“Fallout 1 had zero memorable characters”) wasn’t objective in the first place. That’s why I said it was just your opinion. >strawman I’m tired of faggots like you screaming ‘logical fallacy!’ without actually understanding what it means.

What is a good CRPG from 2002, Anons?

>>1986771 >>1989143 >>1989171 >>1989186 >>1989225 Sign my balls bitch >>1989246 Divine Divinity

>>1986802 Aarklash was fun, and the art direction was great.

>>1989324 It was. Out of games like Tower of Time/Dark Envoy/We Are the Dwarves/etc where it was a small party in real time with slow motion gameplay based around kiting and avoiding AoEs and skillshots I think Aarklash was my favorite of the bunch.

>>1989143 Blatantly untrue.