What is the WORST cRPG?

[Havoc]

Neverwinter Nights 1 was good? wut?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Wasn't Diablo essentially a roguelike, except with all complexity removed, fancy graphics added and running in real time?

If you remove all complexity out of a roguelike and make it realtime, what's left? A fucking Pacman, that's what.

And that's exactly what Diablow was, Pacman with fancy graphics.

Which makes DiabloRL automatic winner of this thread.

 

[SkeleTony]

Nicely done sir...except Fallout: Tactics owns. I really cannot for the life of me understand why some people who like Fallout 1 & 2 hate Tactics?!

It barely has any relations to FO, fails as Fallout game theme- and atmosphere-wise and apart from that is generally uninteresting in terms of plot.

Gameplay and pwetty graphics don't have nearly enough pulling power to keep it afloat.

NONE of the Fallout games had interesting plots or story. Fucking Gamma World/Wasteland revisited...AGAIN!

No idea why you think Tactics fails atmosphere/theme-wise but can't really challenge subjective opinions like that.

In a lot of ways tactics is probably the best of the Fallout games IMO but I doubt my having the balls to say so will change the herd mentality about this game.

 

[DraQ]

NONE of the Fallout games had interesting plots or story. Fucking Gamma World/Wasteland revisited...AGAIN!

Fallout Tactics also didn't feature interesting ways player could influence shit happening.

No idea why you think Tactics fails atmosphere/theme-wise but can't really challenge subjective opinions like that.

For starters, FoT is not retrofuturistic, so it fails at being Fallout. It somehow fails to deliver even the generic postapocalyptic vibe, as you're just running/driving around killing stuff all the time. Sometimes you're killing pretty lulzy stuff and generally it feels ill-thought out and cartoony, with linear progression, between fighting raiders, then beastamsters, then mutants, then robots etc.

I don't know if you get to fight zombies, pirates or ninjas later on, because somewhere around robots I quit.

In a lot of ways tactics is probably the best of the Fallout games IMO but I doubt my having the balls to say so will change the herd mentality about this game.

what is it i dont even

 

[SkeleTony]

NONE of the Fallout games had interesting plots or story. Fucking Gamma World/Wasteland revisited...AGAIN!

Fallout Tactics also didn't feature interesting ways player could influence shit happening.

I guess the sticking point here is the word "interesting"....

No idea why you think Tactics fails atmosphere/theme-wise but can't really challenge subjective opinions like that.

For starters, FoT is not retrofuturistic, so it fails at being Fallout.

Not AS retrofuturistic and I for one am glad of it. This was supposed to be a squad level TACTICS game...meaning the whole point is to de-emphasize some of the other elements of straight-forward RPGs to concentrate on the tactical combat aspects more(one of the drawbacks of the earlier Fallouts). So the fact that FO:T did not hit me over the head with a sledgehammer made of a retro 1950s television set mounted onto a mannequin of Marylin Monroe, I regard as a good thing.
Besides, for the most part all of FO 1 & 2's 'retrofuturism' was constrained to cut scenes. Take those out and Tactics is equally retrofuturistic as FO 1 & 2.

It somehow fails to deliver even the generic postapocalyptic vibe, as you're just running/driving around killing stuff all the time.

That makes no sense. How does THAT = "fail to deliver on the generic post-apocalyptic vibe"?! Your point here seems akin to someone saying that Outlaws failed to deliver on the Spaghetti western vibe because all you did was run around and shoot bad guys.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

No idea why you think Tactics fails atmosphere/theme-wise but can't really challenge subjective opinions like that.

Fallout Tactics basically forgot that Fallout has a divergent timeline, so it ended up with tons of modern real life weapons (while Fallout had only Desert Eagle as a pop culture icon and favourite gun of Chris Taylor - it was not only a divergent timeline but also the development of firearms lasted several decades into 2000s FFS), firearms from the Fallout setting got removed, there are modern Hummers, modern Sci-Fi-style power armour etc.

It's basically, like they wanted to make a game set in different setting, but used Fallout for big name.
Anyway, it would be nice if they would ditch the Fallout setting after Fo1 and would create something new instead.

As for why Fallout Tactics is a failure in general:
The plan for Fallout Tactics was to create a party-based Fallout. They assumed that it won't be as good tactical game as X-Com (??!!!) or JA2 but to compensate this, it's going to have all the stuff that made Fallout a good cRPG (including the speech skill).
It was supposed to have turn-based only combat. Then everything got fucked up and we ended up with FoT. Which isn't Fallout and is much worse than JA2.

I don't know if you get to fight zombies, pirates or ninjas later on, because somewhere around robots I quit.

I too. For fucks sake. Robots? It's like someone would decide to make a big part of fantasy RPG about fighting fucking golems.

 

[deuxhero]

The world ended in 2077. A different kind of 2077, but modern weapons appearing in separate ways is not odd for an alternate timeline (The existence of Russian weapons when the great war was with China and Russia gets mentioned twice is less excusable).

 

[SharkClub]

My thoughts on Fallout Tactics:

Pros:

• Nice combat, in both real-time and turn-based, very refined, good improvement over Fallout 1 and 2 (prone, crouching, big guns on the ground, etc.)
• Controlling other party members, this could be taken either way really, as Fallout 1 and 2 felt more centred around you than some of the Infinity Engine games for example, I wasn't a fan of Ian getting stuck in the fucking doorways during combat in Fallout though.
• SPECIAL and RPG mechanics are also quite improved, though most non-combat skills are of a lot more limited use. Heavier armor takes effect on your Sneak skill and such.
• Actual driving, a whole new skill to go with it, and running people over
• Party customization with different races, however retarded this may seem, I kinda liked it.
• Multiplayer (p. cool for a tactical game, always wanted to see how it would work out in Van Buren) with racial traits

Cons:

• Lore and canon-fuck in general
• Furry Deathclaws because Micro Forté are furfags
• Beastlord shit
• More lore-fuck
• Linear as fuck
• Boring-ass filler missions in-between the good ones
• Canonicity rape
• Super Mutants are fucking retarded, ALMOST as bad as Fallout 3 ones

In all: It's still far from the topic title and nowhere near "worst CRPG". Mainly because it's more of an SRPG.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The world ended in 2077. A different kind of 2077, but modern weapons appearing in separate ways is not odd for an alternate timeline (The existence of Russian weapons when the great war was with China and Russia gets mentioned twice is less excusable).

Yes, modern weapons like Colt Rangemaster, Ak-112 Assault Rifle, 5mm Minigun, Colt 6520 10mm Pistol, 14mm Pistol and DKS-501 Sniper Rifle .

 

[Thrasher]

I love POR2:RoMD. The outside areas were great. And I like huge dungeons. With the speed patch the battles were over in jiffy!

Just talking about it makes me want to play it again...

 

[Smiffy]

"The Witcher" is not THE worst RPG of all time but it is my biggest disappointment. I was so looking forward to the game, that I had read all the novels it was based upon and when I could finally play it, it turned out be not only just mediocre but also not quite true to the books. And sadly:

- Never any feeling of exploration
- Invisible barriers
- Repetitive, dull combat
- Clones everywhere
- NPC's whose vulgarity seemed forced (in german) to target the "adult audience", same with nakedness
- Geralt in the novels has a very dry sense of humour, in the game he was the hero with the attitude of an asshole
- No real character development - just raise the obvious, in the end you have it all anyway

Regarding THE worst RPG in terms of AAA-titles i go with vanilla "Oblivion" too. Heavily modded and not minding the destracting and utterly lame main story i found it ok though, even more than ok.

 

[deus101]

- No real character development

Get out.

 

[deus101]

- No real character development

Get out.

Oh wait...you were actually talking about stats, not faggy story faggotry..sorry my bad.

 

[DraQ]

- Never any feeling of exploration
- Invisible barriers

Not every RPG is Morrowind or Daggerfall, nor it should be.

- Repetitive, dull combat

Admittedly, but not terribad and at least animations were pretty cool.

- Clones everywhere

Still a common issue and largely a technological limitation that, while surmountable, would confer additional cost and effort in exchange for purely cosmetic effect.

- NPC's whose vulgarity seemed forced (in german) to target the "adult audience", same with nakedness

Not really with the vulgarity, it was consistent with what can you sometimes hear in Poland, and, IIRC consistent with the books. Yes for nudity - while the game shouldn't get rid of it in general, it sometimes did feel forced.

- Geralt in the novels has a very dry sense of humour, in the game he was the hero with the attitude of an asshole

Must be an issue with the translation. The problem I actually had was that they sometimes copied exchanges word for word, despite the game being a continuation, rather than adapatation. In any case, Geralt seemed pretty faithful to the original.

- No real character development - just raise the obvious, in the end you have it all anyway

I assume you mean in terms of stats? Yes, I also had problems with complete lack of relationship between stats and available c&c. While it would be stupid to, for example, expect retard dialogue, as Geralt is generally pretty well defined character, it isn't hard to conceive situations where alchemical or magical skills would pay off plot-wise.

In general I consider Witcher a very good, if flawed, experience.

NONE of the Fallout games had interesting plots or story. Fucking Gamma World/Wasteland revisited...AGAIN!

Fallout Tactics also didn't feature interesting ways player could influence shit happening.

I guess the sticking point here is the word "interesting"....

Well, as far as I remember, you can make some minor choices, but they hardly seem relevant, are very schematic and you generally seem to leave the consequences behind very quickly.

For starters, FoT is not retrofuturistic, so it fails at being Fallout.

Not AS retrofuturistic and I for one am glad of it. This was supposed to be a squad level TACTICS game...meaning the whole point is to de-emphasize some of the other elements of straight-forward RPGs to concentrate on the tactical combat aspects more(one of the drawbacks of the earlier Fallouts). So the fact that FO:T did not hit me over the head with a sledgehammer made of a retro 1950s television set mounted onto a mannequin of Marylin Monroe, I regard as a good thing.

You're speaking nonsense.

There is absolutely no relationship between retrofuturism present in lore, art design and the exact weapons filling their spots in the arsenal, and tactical combat gameplay.

Besides, for the most part all of FO 1 & 2's 'retrofuturism' was constrained to cut scenes. Take those out and Tactics is equally retrofuturistic as FO 1 & 2.

See above.

It somehow fails to deliver even the generic postapocalyptic vibe, as you're just running/driving around killing stuff all the time.

That makes no sense. How does THAT = "fail to deliver on the generic post-apocalyptic vibe"?! Your point here seems akin to someone saying that Outlaws failed to deliver on the Spaghetti western vibe because all you did was run around and shoot bad guys.

Post-apoc generally implies world having at least difficulties getting up after the end. In FoT survival stylistics got completely lost and replaced with faintly frontline stylistics. That's the same problem I had with later part of STALKER SoC, except in FoT it's present right from the start and much more evident.

*stuff*

Also this.

 

[Sceptic]

In FoT survival stylistics got completely lost and replaced with faintly frontline stylistics. That's the same problem I had with later part of STALKER SoC, except in FoT it's present right from the start and much more evident.

Genuinely interested - care to elaborate on this? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by survival vs frontline stylistics (in both FoT and SoC).

 

[DraQ]

In FoT survival stylistics got completely lost and replaced with faintly frontline stylistics. That's the same problem I had with later part of STALKER SoC, except in FoT it's present right from the start and much more evident.

Genuinely interested - care to elaborate on this? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by survival vs frontline stylistics (in both FoT and SoC).

Well, I'd consider survival stylistics to be present where the survival seems an important concern at least thematically.

In early SoC (patched) you spent a lot of time looking out for anomalies and generally in character vs environment scenarios, scavenged food, helped other stalkers survive mutant attacks, considered fighting or fleeing a lot, as good suit or weapon could be difficult to replace. There were bandits and mercs and military and stuff, but the game generally pitted you against the Zone itself, and you didn't fight to win, but to survive in overwhelmingly hostile environment.

Fallout also had strong survival themes, even though it had weak survival gameplay, your main goal was motivated by survival (albeit not your own), the goals of NPCs were similar. In settlements, you weren't external cavalry saving them from external threat, but just a newcomer to the balance of power. The game also had survival-themed events, even if they were pretty insignificant (lololol 2HP of dehydration damage).

Compare late SoC and FoT:

In late SoC, you're generally pressing against monolithians, strike that, wading in the corpses of monolithians. Your main enemy is no longer the Zone, your main goal is no longer survival and is no longer personal, at least for quite some time. The atmosphere degrades considerably.

In FoT, you're driving around battling baddies of the week, saving settlements from oppresive fucktards and generally waging a war. The atmosphere doesn't degrade - it simply never manifests.
If FoT concentrated on survival, scavenging supplies for some isolated outpost, possibly even fighting other groups that are not good or evil, but have the resources you need badly to not die, it would have been an infnitely better game.

Frontline:
-strong, monolithic opposition at any time
-thematic focus on combat
-player VS enemy
-large enemy density
-objectives as primary goal, survival as means to an end

Survival:
-infighting, weak factions
-thematic focus on survival
-player VS environment
-low enemy density
-survival as primary goal, objectives as means to an end

Edit: Also, scratch 'faintly' from previous post, the interpersonally communicable version of the idea was still forming when I wrote it.

 

[bgillisp]

If pressed, I'd say Heroes of the Lance is probably the worst of the bunch, if only for its indescribably awkward control scheme.

Oh wow...I totally forgot about that dung heap. Got bad memories of my childhood from that piece of garbage. Sad thing is, I actually managed to get to the final boss in that game too. Guess I was a lot more patient with bad games when I was 10

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Heroes of the Lance was an NES sidescroller. It does not fit the criteria.

 

[StrangeCase]

The world ended in 2077. A different kind of 2077, but modern weapons appearing in separate ways is not odd for an alternate timeline (The existence of Russian weapons when the great war was with China and Russia gets mentioned twice is less excusable).

Yes, modern weapons like Colt Rangemaster, Ak-112 Assault Rifle, 5mm Minigun, Colt 6520 10mm Pistol, 14mm Pistol and DKS-501 Sniper Rifle .

I was thinking about the FN FAL assault rifles and a few SMGs, namely the Thompson, the P-90, and the M3A1. IIRC they had some real-life prototype shotguns as actual weapons, too. The Jackhammer was one of them, I think the other was an HK something or other.

 

[Destroid]

I avoid horrible creatures whenever I can but this one is probably a tie between Lionheart and Oblivion for me, I think I gave each about an hour before I uninstalled.

 

[Stig]

Heroes of the Lance was an NES sidescroller. It does not fit the criteria.

Well, given the terrible, almost vs-fighter-style combat and the lack of character development, it's certainly debatable what the game actually was in terms of gameplay mechanics, but the NES version you're referring to was only one of many, many ports of the game. As I said, I suffered through the DOS version.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The world ended in 2077. A different kind of 2077, but modern weapons appearing in separate ways is not odd for an alternate timeline (The existence of Russian weapons when the great war was with China and Russia gets mentioned twice is less excusable).

Yes, modern weapons like Colt Rangemaster, Ak-112 Assault Rifle, 5mm Minigun, Colt 6520 10mm Pistol, 14mm Pistol and DKS-501 Sniper Rifle .

I was thinking about the FN FAL assault rifles and a few SMGs, namely the Thompson, the P-90, and the M3A1. IIRC they had some real-life prototype shotguns as actual weapons, too. The Jackhammer was one of them, I think the other was an HK something or other.

That's Fallout 2. Weapons in Fallout 1 were designed by Chris Taylor. Adding RL firearms instead of new fictional ones or leaving the weapons alone was the result of someone else doing it. Chris Taylor only wrote the manual for Fallout 2.

Anyway, modern real life weapons like Jackhammer, G11, P-90, CAWS etc. popping up just before the war doesn't make sense. They were a product of their own world and times. Especially that Fallout's world has it's own weapons - it already has a Winchester combat shotgun, a micro-calibre assault rifle, etc.
Both FN FAL and M3A1 are justified because they are pre-divergence weapons. Still, the Assault Rifle is already an old weapon that was out of use around the time of war. Finding large amounts of FN-FALs doesn't make much sense.
Still, one thing that could be neat would be re-emergence of old designs - for example people like Gunrunners could make WWII/50s era guns just because they don't have technology to make more advanced ones. Sadly, the opportunity was missed and they were making super advanced weapons in a workshop that didn't even have a power source (fucking Feargus Urquhart )

The time just before the war was a time of energy weapons. Assault Rifles were already out of use. Anyway, if they wanted to add new firearms there is some space, but not for the modern RL guns.
For example, Assault Rifle still is made of wood and metal. It seems to be a very old design, probably from the XX century or the beginning of the XXI century. There could be another assault rifle designed before the Energy Weapons era that could be a companion to the Combat Armor and Combat Shotgun. It could be bullpup and named Combat Rifle, or something like that. But they didn't bother to do design and speculation, they just inserted RL guns.

One thing that I find amusing is that the expectation for fictional guns from the sequel was so strong that I thought that all the stuff like FN-FALs, G11s, etc. is fictional just like the Vindicator Minigun and Gauss Rifle. I was very surprised to learn that these are real guns.

 

[ZbojLamignat]

Fallout Tactics certainly isn't the worst game ever, but it's very average and simply doesn't do anything well.

It was supposed to be a tactical squad-based game in Fallout universe which sounds pretty awesome, but... The game isn't a good Fallout (as portrayed above), it's obviously not a good crpg, but its biggest failure is the fact that it's also not a very good tactical game.

I mean, they took the combat system from F1/2 and made a "tactical" game with it. Seriously, guys, the fact that a character can swallow two bursts from an automatic rifle and a grenade explosion and still frolic around the map might be ok in a crpg game, but not in a tactical squad game ffs. They added what exactly? Ability to go prone? Also, many of the maps (there are exceptions) do not require tactical thinking or squad cooperation at all, you can just run from point to point and shoot the living fuck out of anything that's moving.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Out of the games I've played, it's probably Oblivion. Though the Ass Effects come close since I didn't finish either one. Or DA for that matter.

Luckily I heard how shitty PoR2D was so I skipped it, ditto with Descent to Undermountain.

 

[epikitscheesy]

"The Witcher" is not THE worst RPG of all time but it is my biggest disappointment. I was so looking forward to the game, that I had read all the novels it was based upon and when I could finally play it, it turned out be not only just mediocre but also not quite true to the books.

I sympathize with you on that.

- Never any feeling of exploration
- Invisible barriers

Not every RPG is Morrowind or Daggerfall, nor it should be. So? What about Gothic 1? Anyway, yeah, there should be linear oldskool fodder, too

- Repetitive, dull combat

Admittedly, but not terribad and at least animations were pretty cool. No, they weren't. I had high hopes about the mo-cap thing, because I knew there's a lively medieval combat culture in poland. But in the end, animations were the typical fantasy wiggle-waggle-waving about. Pretty uncool to people who have some insight - so that might just be me. o°/)

- Clones everywhere

Still a common issue and largely a technological limitation that, while surmountable, would confer additional cost and effort in exchange for purely cosmetic effect. There was improvement in the EE of the game. From all graphical features, elaborating characters is the least solely cosmetic fmpov!

- NPC's whose vulgarity seemed forced (in german) to target the "adult audience", same with nakedness

Not really with the vulgarity, it was consistent with what can you sometimes hear in Poland, and, IIRC consistent with the books. Yes for nudity - while the game shouldn't get rid of it in general, it sometimes did feel forced.

- Geralt in the novels has a very dry sense of humour, in the game he was the hero with the attitude of an asshole

Must be an issue with the translation. The problem I actually had was that they sometimes copied exchanges word for word, despite the game being a continuation, rather than adapatation. In any case, Geralt seemed pretty faithful to the original.
The german translation and voice acting was just overall bad, ironically in the EE as well. Next time, they should engage a badass storywriter who is able to adapt the poetic dimension around the bare data.