Best of the New Shit?

[PhantasmaNL]

I come here to defend bloodlust shadowhunter, not because it isnt a turd, but because its a fascinating turd. Its a poorly made game by a dude that cares, and you simply owe it to him to play it. Plus its not boring, not for a couple hours at least. Get it for cheap and play it if you got the time.

Seconded.

And indeed this guy cares, he even had to promise (apparently) not to update it that often after the official release. He still cant resist though, think i had 4 or 5 updates since release (down from an update every 2 days or so).

According to Steam i clocked 16 hours on it most on EA, so probably got my monies worth.

Its still good for an occasional short run, mindlessly killing assorted stuff on level 156 of a dungeon.

 

[Higher Animal]

Wasteland 2 is an enigma. Various people on here, whom I have agreed with in their opinions on various games, have either said Great! or Shit! Hence why I have kept it sitting there, wondering whether to bother buying it. This kinda sucks because I really enjoyed the original, and recently replayed it again on my C64.

The big thing that has made me wonder is; some people say it is combat after combat after combat. A steady grind in which the combat is not very fun at all. This brings visions of POR2 to mind.

SO what is the truth about Wasteland 2? Just say it how it is, don't overly defend or attack it, what is right/wrong with this game?

Stop the lies start the truths.

The truth is that Wasteland 2 is a mixed bag also-ran. Imagine your favorite cola, except warm and half-full.

If we compare WL 2's derivative, mixed bag approach to SiTS - a much more interesting game with better ideas, some of which are poorly implemented. You'll have a pretty good idea why several people are hesitant to recommend one over the other.

WL 2 is not a bad game (it's just boring a lot of the time), but SiTS is better and should be purchased first.

If Fargo's team is smart and redoes some of the skill/item imbalance, and creates a more survivalist based gameplay, then I fully believe the series is redeemable. I think he could do away with a lot of the focus on writing, player choices, and easter eggs and focus on the core gameplay systems. Note: I am not opposed to player choices or writing heavy works, but I think this emphasis distracted the team from making a good game because they were pursuing content as bulletpoint. Some of WL2's humor and atmosphere stuff is pretty good, but most of it is irrelevant noise. InXile would oftentimes create a decent backstory or setup for a quest, only to ruin it with a cliche love story with a simple "everybody wins" solution (thinking here of Rail Nomads Camp).

Wasteland 2 passes the "I put a lot of time into it" test, but not the "and I'm glad I did" test.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that whatever you decide to do with Wasteland 2, just make sure to buy Serpent in the Staglands.

 

[BobNotHerbert]

If you say Wasteland 2 is shit, you obviously haven't been trudging through modern rpgs too much. As someone longing for a future return to greatness, it is a perfect step in the right direction. Gives me the feeling of 'this is what Fallout Tactics could have been.'

Also, I will second third fourth and fucking fifth the new Shadowrun entries. Never cared about the setting or the tabletop in the past, but they have certainly made a great contribution to modern crpgs. The writing in Dragonfall is particularly engrossing.

 

[Sensuki]

I found it fucking shit early on, but maybe it gets better.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Then you havent played the Souls series i suppose. But its a good game nonetheless.

I consider Demon's/Dark Souls to have the second-best action-based combat (I found Dark Souls 2 a bit janky). But I couldn't suggest Demon's Souls because it was never released on PC, and I couldn't suggest either one because they're fundamentally action games with RPG elements.

 

[DeepOcean]

Wasteland 2 is an enigma. Various people on here, whom I have agreed with in their opinions on various games, have either said Great! or Shit! Hence why I have kept it sitting there, wondering whether to bother buying it. This kinda sucks because I really enjoyed the original, and recently replayed it again on my C64.

The big thing that has made me wonder is; some people say it is combat after combat after combat. A steady grind in which the combat is not very fun at all. This brings visions of POR2 to mind.

SO what is the truth about Wasteland 2? Just say it how it is, don't overly defend or attack it, what is right/wrong with this game?

Stop the lies start the truths.

The problem is that Wasteland 2 feels like InXile made a very bare bones game. The combat is bare bones, the story is bare bones, the rule system is bare bones, the setting is bare bones. Wasteland felt like some shallow mixture of Wasteland 1 and Fallout where everything that is good on it was already on Wasteland 1 or better on Fallout 1. It is a game that won't satisfy Fallout fans or surprise any seasoned RPG player. By halfway through, I had my fill and couldn't stomach it anymore. Some use a very bureaucratic argument to defend it, claiming it delivered exactly what was promised on the kickstarter, a sequel of Wasteland 1, but I don't remember Wasteland 1 having Fallout 1 aesthetic, fallout 1 combat and etc.

The major flaw of the game is that it has no identity, it isn't a sequel to Wasteland 1, it is an attempt on banking on the Fallout franchise popularity with another name. Everything good on it won't surprise you and were better on other games and everything that was bad at Wasteland 1 and Fallout 1 are implemented even worse by InXile lack of experience.

 

[butchy]

The problem is that Wasteland 2 feels like InXile made a very bare bones game. The combat is bare bones, the story is bare bones, the rule system is bare bones, the setting is bare bones. Wasteland felt like some shallow mixture of Wasteland 1 and Fallout where everything that is good on it was already on Wasteland 1 or better on Fallout 1. It is a game that won't satisfy Fallout fans or surprise any seasoned RPG player. By halfway through, I had my fill and couldn't stomach it anymore. Some use a very bureaucratic argument to defend it, claiming it delivered exactly what was promised on the kickstarter, a sequel of Wasteland 1, but I don't remember Wasteland 1 having Fallout 1 aesthetic, fallout 1 combat and etc.

The major flaw of the game is that it has no identity, it isn't a sequel to Wasteland 1, it is an attempt on banking on the Fallout franchise popularity with another name. Everything good on it won't surprise you and were better on other games and everything that was bad at Wasteland 1 and Fallout 1 are implemented even worse by InXile lack of experience.

Have you played the Director's Cut? The combat is way far superior to any Fall Out. WL2 is hands down one of the best crpgs ever made in every possible category. It is one of the few crpgs that got the mechanics right.

I've been playing crpgs since most of you were in your daddy's nuts or sucking on your mommy's dick. Saying WL2 had a barebones story, rule system, or setting is just pure nuts. It is hands-down one of the most mechanics rich games this century. Period.



I'm really getting sick and tired of people promoting contentless games over actual crpgs. Morons and their Legends of Grimrock over MMX, or their ridiculously content deprived pseudo-rpg nonsense.

People can bleat their monkey talk about the IE games having such good combat but it absolutely sucked. You clicked on a bad guy and watched. Sometimes you would cast a spell or direct one of your people just standing around like a dickhead to continue mindlessly attacking the endless hordes of enemies. No one can actually tell me how or why the IE combat was good, or tactical, or required a strategy. PoE may not have had the best combat, since only Aarklash legacy has RTwP combat that is actually good, requires tactics and a strategy, especially for bosses. But PoE at least had tolerable combat that had things to do if you wanted to pretend combat is interactive in these RTwP games that always have sophomoric combat.

I was not a fan of any of the IE games due to the craptastic combat, but everyone that sucks the nuts of these games has to fucking wake up. If you want more games like BG guess how to get them? Make the games like it profitable. Don't ever buy console games or PC games with console UIs or that are rpg-lite. Support crpg games and attack the real enemy - console and big budget games aimed at savage monkeys.

I'm not a band wagon jumper. I like what I like and I will almost never criticize an independently developed game that really tried and was made to be a heavy crpg game, like Legends of Dawn. I liked Knights of the Chalice, but it was skimpy on what I liked about 3.5, such as multiclassing, skills, class selection, race selection, which should have all been significant. It was still a great game, but did this game deserve a pedestal just because your betters said so and it had the whole bandwagon thing, while games like Antharion and Bloodlust get completely ignored or bashed? All crpgs made by a small team are going to have faults. If you are truly a crpg fan you support them because you want more of them, and faults or no I'll take Antharion or Avernum Crystal Whatever the last one was called over Fall out 4 any day of the fucking week.

 

[roshan]

butchy it just sounds like you have no standards.

 

[Black]

butchy it just sounds like you have no standards.

 

[butchy]

My standards are anything that advances the creation of more heavy crpgs with content. Not pseudo-rpgs without content like tower defense games, rogue-likes, dungeon master clones, or console romance simulators.

I will buy crpgs because I like crpgs and want more to be made - good, bad, and ugly. The more that are made the more diamonds in the rough there will be. I honestly went into PoE thinking I was going to despise it, but I was pleasantly surprised. That's a diamond in the rough for me. Make it and I will come.

 

[Sensuki]

butchy it just sounds like you have no standards.

Indeed, and boss fights in Aarklash are the worst, every boss fight quite literally follows this formula - spam damage, mini-disables and heals as fast as they come off cooldown in a race against the boss' regeneration, kite boss around for 10 minutes because of HP bloat - the end. Not much thinking involved at all. Use of active abilities =/= tactical combat.

edit: There is one good thing about them and that is that they require aggro switching, which I think is a good thing and makes the encounters feel more like a boss fight in the sense of "this boss is too tough for my one character, it requires a team effort to be taken down" kind of like the Cave Troll fight in The Fellowship of the Ring.

The non-boss fight setpiece encounters in confined spaces is where the game shines.

 

[Jimmious]

Apart from all the edginess, WL2, D:OS and PoE are the signs of incline in our times and anyone who likes RPGs should play them and support just for that.

Now, except the 3 big guys, I really enjoyed Blackguards and I'm sure AoD will be sweet, and also Underrail and Battle Brothers....when they release.

Shadowruns are also very good for what they are but they do need you to enjoy the setting.

Also the Codex enjoyed SitS a lot but I haven't tried it(and I'm reluctant because I'm no fan of RTwP) and Telepath Tactics is also cool but not exactly an RPG.

 

[AwesomeButton]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the maths or the interface, it's all about the actions taken as the player which essentially boils down to following the same routine every encounter, with a lot of clicking involved due to the amount of active abilities in the game, and the shitty movement mechanics which make it fairly static on the movement side. Most of the decision making regarding combat is done before combat begins, you use stealth to set up/get into position, use a string of opening abilities and then follow the motions of spamming per-encounters.

You're going to enjoy talking to this guy:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/82752-finished-the-game-my-feedback/#entry1743517

In regards to combat,

Before commenting on the combat of PoE, the reviewer should note their background playing this specific genre of RPG. PoE is on par with Baldurs Gate, IceWind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights. And all of this started primarily with Planescape: Torment. This review doesn't seem to take any of that in to account which I think is important; context is everything.

Combat has never been turn-based in this genre and shouldn't start now. Furthermore, if anyone has played through IceWind Dale or Neverwinter Nights in their entirety, then chances are you'll find the combat system in PoE to be a breath of fresh air. Personally, I always loved IceWind Dale over any of the other games. In fact, the only way I was able to commit to all of Neverwinter Nights was with a power build and referencing a full walkthrough. IceWind Dale, on the other hand, captivated my heart, and I gladly played through the game multiple times with multiple parties without ever using a detailed walkthrough.

PoE brings a great new element to the Combat system through the use of true Crowd Control, Buffs/Debuffs, and multi-fashioned AoE. The combat experience can be quick & bloody, slow & strategic, or anything in between. I love the way PoE took the combat maechanics we all know and love from the previous titles and enhanced it on multiple fronts... all without destroying the classic "dice roll" D&D experience.

 

[Sensuki]

Don't get me wrong - crowd control, buffing and debuffing and well-placed AoEs can definitely be a great aspect of real-time gameplay but Pillars of Eternity is a really really bad example. DotA 2 is a great example, although not so much on the counter-spelling side (even though there is limited hard countering).

 

[butchy]

Indeed, and boss fights in Aarklash are the worst, every boss fight quite literally follows this formula - spam damage, mini-disables and heals as fast as they come off cooldown in a race against the boss' regeneration, kite boss around for 10 minutes because of HP bloat - the end. Not much thinking involved at all. Use of active abilities =/= tactical combat.

edit: There is one good thing about them and that is that they require aggro switching, which I think is a good thing and makes the encounters feel more like a boss fight in the sense of "this boss is too tough for my one character, it requires a team effort to be taken down" kind of like the Cave Troll fight in The Fellowship of the Ring.

The non-boss fight setpiece encounters in confined spaces is where the game shines.

It still required doing things unlike most RTwP systems that literally you just click on the boss and watch your party fight him or her.

 

[Infinitron]

It still required doing things unlike most RTwP systems that literally you just click on the boss and watch your party fight him or her.

Here's part of a conversation I had about this topic with Delterius on Shoutbox last month:

Sep 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM - Infinitron: A few weeks ago, I was making some savegames to send to PoE tech support guys, help them nail some bugs
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM - Infinitron: So I tried to kind of wing my way through the fights, in a way that usually DOES work in the IE games
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM - Infinitron: select all, attack
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:44 PM - Infinitron: got my ass raped
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:45 PM - Delterius: did you try select all attack in those fabled mage batles?
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:45 PM - Infinitron: Delterius: IE games have some hard countery battles, but your average battle I think usually required less care
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:46 PM - Infinitron: Only hardcore RPG players don't notice, because the care isn't the kind of care that they like
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:46 PM - Infinitron: per-encounter abilities and such
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:47 PM - Infinitron: I think you can divide battles in any RPG of this type into several tiers
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:47 PM - Infinitron: The easiest tier being "Just send your guys forward and kind of slug it out", the hardest tier being "You must use the right spells and lots of them to survive"
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:48 PM - Infinitron: and in the middle is "You have to use some low-tier abilities and coordinate a little or you'll get beat"
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:48 PM - Infinitron: I think the IE games have a lot of the easiest tier and some of the hardest tier
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:49 PM - Infinitron: PoE on PotD at least has remarkably little of the easiest tier, but a lot of that middle one
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM - Delterius: in my opinion, any PoE encounter which requires only per encounter abilities are mediocre,
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM - Infinitron: I could actually subdivide things into further tiers
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM - Infinitron: You have the "You have to use some per-rest spells" tier, and the "You have to use LOTS of per-rest spells" tier
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:50 PM - Infinitron: and the highest of all "You have to use CERTAIN per-rest spells" tier
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:51 PM - Infinitron: the highest one, yeah, maybe that's rare
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:51 PM - Infinitron: meanwhile, the "some per-rest" tier shrinks prodigiously after your guys start getting per-encounter spell levels
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:52 PM - Infinitron: which again makes some people mad who don't consider fights to be truly challenging if they're not expending per-rest resources
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:52 PM - Delterius: in my experience, the vast majority of PoE's encounters versus 'intended level' is on the mediocre -- use your per encounter abilities, that makes them on par with all encounters in the IE which can be beaten with select all: attack since there's no risk in using Per Encounters, no expenditure
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:53 PM - Infinitron: I get that, I really do, but I think if you look at the actual gameplay experience it's not true that they're "on par", because the PoE fights DO require a lot more care

If you think about it, it's kind of like the gameplay loop advanced players can find themselves in when playing stealth games such as Thief. You eventually find that with a perfect, methodical gameplay approach you can always take out every guard in an area without getting spotted and with no real risk to yourself (just load a save if you screw something up and get caught). Yet, few would argue that Thief doesn't require a lot of thought in its gameplay.

If a game lets you either do things very comprehensively and methodically for a battle and have a comparatively easy time, or just rush in and "fly by the seat of your pants" for a more dynamic experience, would it be a more intelligent, more demanding game if it took away your option to be methodical?

 

[Sensuki]

The IE games provide both options, you can prepare the shit out of a semi-decent to decent encounter or you can wing it on the fly with limited to no pre-buffing. Both gameplay styles work pretty much exactly as well as each other. There is technically supposed to be a downside for over-preparing for encounters but it seems quite a number of players choose the "prepare for encounter to trivialize it and then rest spam to get those spells back" option.

In Pillars of Eternity both options or styles of play have vastly different outcomes. There is a really, really big difference to the point where ad hoc/winging of encounters is always inferior to strategically preparing for an encounter. There's not really any cost to preparing for an encounter because of the per-encounter system and it's just as easy to rest frequently if you don't mind sometimes backtracking a map to pick up a camping supply.

The games systems actively prevent or discourage use of on the fly reactive tactics (which is the element of combat that I think brings the most enjoyment/satisfaction in games). This is especially ironic considering the removal of pre-buffing with active abilities. Take the movement recovery penalty for instance. If you are not perfectly in range to cast a spell on an ally after your initial non-movement action, you are penalized for it. Hence, it is always better to make sure you've got it right before engaging in combat. The recovery penalty as stated by the devs does not exist for this purpose, it was implemented to prevent kiting (which it actively fails to do).

It is an unintended consequence of the design and not one that the developers care about because none of them seem to consider things like this.

I recall Josh saying that because he thinks that the majority of players rest-spam and overprepare for encounters (paraphrased) at least some of the game's systems were designed with these players in mind ... and if so it's no wonder that at least some of those people, such as your Sheveks and the like enjoy the combat in the game because there is a complete lack of strategical cost to decision making and they are somewhat prevented from being their own worst enemy - strategical preparation is *required* to perform well, but they cannot overtrivialize combat through pre-buffing.

It's also not that I don't like strategical preparation, but ideally I prefer a better mixture of use of strategy/preparation and tactics/reactivity in combat. Combat in Pillars of Eternity, to me, is monotony. I don't necessarily agree that combat encounters on average require more care than in the IE games, I think it's about the same but the type of care is different.

Pillars of Eternity's systems force you to be more careful at the beginning of an encounter, your opening positioning and actions have very large consequences. Mage at the front? Gets engaged? That's bad. In the IE games it can be bad, but you also have room to identify the problem and correct it on the fly and are not punished by the game's systems for doing so.

The player is punished for not identifying problems before they happen, whereas in the IE games the player has room to identify problems as they occur and come up with a solution to them without being penalized by the game's systems for doing so. Personally I think the player should be rewarded for identifying problems and coming up with working solutions to problems before and during combat, not solely before combat begins. Usually it takes more player skill to identify problems in combat than it does beforehand [especially when metagaming is involved].

If you just select all and left-click in BG1 without paying too much attention to what's going on, you can get fucked up pretty bad. Obviously a group of Xvarts or Gibberlings may not be much trouble, but a Kobold Commander with Fire arrows may one shot your Mage if he goes in first, a Hobgoblin Elite may cause poison damage on you with his poison arrows. A ghoul may hold a low HP character and you have no way of preventing it if you did not actively prepare for it, etc etc - there are lots of things you have to pay attention to in BG1 as a low level character, and you have to pay attention to things in Pillars of Eternity as well. Perhaps such things in BG1 are more second nature to people because they're kinda common sense from D&D and people have been playing the game for up to 17 years now.

 

[roshan]

My standards are anything that advances the creation of more heavy crpgs with content. Not pseudo-rpgs without content like tower defense games, rogue-likes, dungeon master clones, or console romance simulators.

I will buy crpgs because I like crpgs and want more to be made - good, bad, and ugly. The more that are made the more diamonds in the rough there will be. I honestly went into PoE thinking I was going to despise it, but I was pleasantly surprised. That's a diamond in the rough for me. Make it and I will come.

There is no point in an RPG with lots of content if most of it is of mediocre or bad quality. I'd rather support inspired, fun and interesting indie games like SITS, Antharion, LOX and Telepath Tactics, as well as upcoming indies like Underrail and Battle Brothers, rather than dumbed down, mass market products with uninteresting gameplay and a lack of good ideas. I don't think something like Pillars of Eternity was ever built as a game, and by that I mean something that would be fun and entertaining, a challenge to players. Rather it was built not to entertain but specifically not to offend or upset certain gaming demographics, it's not a game but a product, and feels sterile and boring all the way through.

I haven't played Wasteland 2, but judging from the threads here, it probably suffers from similar issues, but nowhere to the level of POE.

 

[Lhynn]

sterile and boring

P. Much this.

 

[roshan]

Sep 28, 2015 at 11:52 PM - Delterius: in my experience, the vast majority of PoE's encounters versus 'intended level' is on the mediocre -- use your per encounter abilities, that makes them on par with all encounters in the IE which can be beaten with select all: attack since there's no risk in using Per Encounters, no expenditure
Sep 28, 2015 at 11:53 PM - Infinitron: I get that, I really do, but I think if you look at the actual gameplay experience it's not true that they're "on par", because the PoE fights DO require a lot more care

I think there's a big difference between requiring more care, and requiring the performance of rote actions without even having to factor in any resource management or having to make use of any higher thought processes. I felt kind of the same way with Dragonfall/Shadowrun and it's cooldown abilities. Rather than having to think about whether to use them or not, I'd instead find myself waiting for the cooldowns to end, and using them right away, so I could take maximum advantage of them and thus maximize damage output. Similarly in POE, I would find myself spamming knockdown and other abilities during fights, and that's all it was, spamming, because it was the obvious thing to do and there was no incentive to play otherwise.

Both combat systems make for gameplay that is fundamentally not about thinking/adapting/reacting to challenge, but about performance of rote actions, which ends up just being a waste of time. It's not really gameplay, just busywork.

 

[Zetor]

Regarding the OP, I'd go with DivOS, SR Dragonfall and Telepath Tactics, roughly in this order. Wasteland 2 may be up there with the DC -- waiting for it to get stable first. Paper Sorcerer is pretty fun and only like $2 (or even less in bundles). PoE... eh, Good For What It Is. I heard a lot of good things about Underrail, Battle Brothers and Invisible Inc, but haven't played them yet (I own Underrail, just waiting for release).

As for Labyrinth of Touhou 2: I... I just don't even. The game mechanics and combat are great, but the art style / 'writing' / etc make me stabby. One day, though, I will defeat my inner 1eyedking and play through it to the end! /desu

 

[Cadmus]

My standards are anything that advances the creation of more heavy crpgs with content. Not pseudo-rpgs without content like tower defense games, rogue-likes, dungeon master clones, or console romance simulators.

I will buy crpgs because I like crpgs and want more to be made - good, bad, and ugly. The more that are made the more diamonds in the rough there will be. I honestly went into PoE thinking I was going to despise it, but I was pleasantly surprised. That's a diamond in the rough for me. Make it and I will come.

lol another one of those people who buy useless shit even if it's useless just to feel like they have an influence on a multi-million corporation and feel like they are contributing
I'll leave the contributions to you and only play the good stuff. Thanks.

 

[Sensuki]

It's not really gameplay, just busywork.

Yeah, I kinda agree although you do have to pay attention to positioning in Pillars, and also make sure that your characters only move when they need to. In Pillars you're literally expected to use stealth to abuse the bullshit line of sight that it gives you to be able to see enemy composition and then set up your party in the perfect positions to engage the encounter - that is quite literally what the Stealth system is designed to do. "In" combat, anyway. Unfortunately it adds to the monotony of the gameplay.

In the IE games you can certainly do this but it's more difficult and you have to be a Thief or Ranger unless you have a limited resource such as an invis spell or potion and you're generally not expected to not know what's up ahead. When you do find out you're given the room to set up properly at the beginning of the encounter, especially considering there is definitely not as much focus on alpha striking or initial positioning. Thus, stealthing into position to see enemy composition every time is not necessary.

The spamming of per-encounters is busy work though and every single character has them, so every single time you're cycling through all six characters and spamming the same abilities, usually at the same intervals over and over.

Regarding the cooldowns in Shadowrun they've got cooldowns for balancing reasons I believe, not to impose a cost of use. Cooldowns are generally used to balance the frequency of an ability, but not very often are they implemented in such a way that when they are used is a consideration. Unfortunately pretty much all RPGs tend to have this pitfall, often because cooldowns are not long enough. At least in DotA, long cooldowns on abilities particularly in the early game require cost-benefit analysis. If you use an Enigma Black Hole, you have to wait 3 minutes for it to come back, so it's super important not to blow the ability when you don't need to. This is a hard situation to reproduce in an RPG whether for a single encounter or over an 'adventuring day' because the player generally has control of when or not they are in combat, unlike DotA. I'm sure there are ways of replicating it somewhat, someone just has to think of them within the context of their game.

 

[Silva]

Great stuff:
Dark Souls 1 & 2
Insivible Inc.
NEO Scaveger
Stalker: Autumn Aurora & Misery 1

So-so:
Wasteland 2
Underrail
Dustbowl

Crap:
Shadowrun (Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong)

 

[Arthandas]

Final Fantasy XIII
<drops the mic>