Open world adventure / RPG games?

[Avilan the Grey]

So... What I am talking about here is not RPGs like Fallout 1 or 2, but basically games from Fallout 3 to Saints Row 3 in style.
I am itching for more, but I find most games I browse for on Steam sound rather lacking OR too over the top.

I am NOT playing GTA V, simply because I refuse to touch the game because of the torture scene that you cannot skip. On top of that neither of the three main characters seems interesting in the least NOR funny in the least (The Boss from Saints Row is not interesting on any level, but she / he is FUNNY).

[LibraryOgre]

I'm not sure what you mean... what differentiates Fallout 1&2 from Fallout 3 in your mind, for these purposes?

[danzibr]

Xenoblade Chronicles X.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm not sure what you mean... what differentiates Fallout 1&2 from Fallout 3 in your mind, for these purposes?

Fallout 1 and 2 are top down hardcore turnbased RPGs.
I am on the hunt for third or 1st person real time 3D games.


Xenoblade Chronicles X.

Not on PC. But thank you. :)

[Antonok]

Assassin's Creed Origin? The best AC game since Black Flag imo.

[Avilan the Grey]

Assassin's Creed Origin? The best AC game since Black Flag imo.

Maybe. Would be the first AC game I've ever played. :smallsmile:
Realized that Just Cause 3 was down to 11 Euros on Steam right now but the protagonist really is annoying.

[halfeye]

Fallout 4? The Witcher? Deus Ex? Halflife 2? Kotor? Dark Messiah of Might and Magic? Oblivion? Skyrim?

Some of those have been ported to consoles, but I don't know exactly which (assuming that by "not on PC" you mean you are not on a PC).

[Avilan the Grey]

Fallout 4? The Witcher? Deus Ex? Halflife 2? Kotor? Dark Messiah of Might and Magic? Oblivion? Skyrim?

Some of those have been ported to consoles, but I don't know exactly which (assuming that by "not on PC" you mean you are not on a PC).

The opposite. I can't play that game because I am on PC.

Fallout is what I am playing right now. Skyrim... I want to restart it eventually but I have something like 400 hours in it. KOTOR? Never been that much of a star wars fan. Witcher... I have I and II, never finished either because well... I has HORRRRRRRRIBLE loading times and II was just not hitting what I needed. Three is supposedly marvelous and I hope the big pack with all DLCs comes on sale for easter.
I am actually think of of getting Mad Max at some point. I've put it on my Steam wish list.

[Inarius]

Try Dragons Dogma, its got a decent sized open world and some interesting combat mechanics. Sort of like Skyrim crossed with Dark Souls crossed with Shadows of the Colossus. Its also got an interesting character creation system where how you design your character has benefits and negatives.

[Avilan the Grey]

Try Dragons Dogma, its got a decent sized open world and some interesting combat mechanics. Sort of like Skyrim crossed with Dark Souls crossed with Shadows of the Colossus. Its also got an interesting character creation system where how you design your character has benefits and negatives.

Putting it on my wish list now. Not sure I'd pay full price for it. Thank you.

[halfeye]

I just reminded myself to install Dark Messiah ... on this machine, should be a laugh, it's not as long as Oblivion or Skyrim, but it's a laugh even though it's a bit on rails.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hey, has anyone played Bully?
To me it has flown completely under the radar but I hear a lot of game people (podcasters etc) who LOOOOVE it.
My biggest problem with it is psychological, as someone who was mercilessly bulled of 8 years in school... The name makes me hesitate a lot.

[Cespenar]

Hey, has anyone played Bully?
To me it has flown completely under the radar but I hear a lot of game people (podcasters etc) who LOOOOVE it.
My biggest problem with it is psychological, as someone who was mercilessly bulled of 8 years in school... The name makes me hesitate a lot.

Bully is pretty fun, it's basically GTA: High School.

Though it's pretty less "open-world" than some of the other games mentioned here.

[Rynjin]

Hey, has anyone played Bully?
To me it has flown completely under the radar but I hear a lot of game people (podcasters etc) who LOOOOVE it.
My biggest problem with it is psychological, as someone who was mercilessly bulled of 8 years in school... The name makes me hesitate a lot.

It didn't really fly under the radar; it was HUGE deal when it came out. It's pretty fun, overall.

[Togath]

Assassin's Creed Origin? The best AC game since Black Flag imo.
Also try Black Flag if you haven't. It has pirates and surprisingly fun sea exploration!~ :D

[Minty]

Also try Black Flag if you haven't. It has pirates and surprisingly fun sea exploration!~ :D

Black Flag is easily the best AC game, mainly because you spend most of it sailing a pirate ship and doing non-AC things. And it doesn't have Desmond in. Although, you still have to do stupid trailing missions.

I'm not usually a fan of open world or sandbox games, as I have no real interest in wandering about doing random things and finding pointless collectables, and I think they lack replayability because you can only explore once (although, I may go back to Oblivion and Fallout 3 now that it's been 10 years and see if I've forgotten enough to make them interesting again).

But the absolute best open world game is Breath of the Wild, and is worth getting a Switch for by itself.

[The_Jackal]

I am actually think of of getting Mad Max at some point. I've put it on my Steam wish list.

I really enjoyed Mad Max, in fact I'm doing another play-through right now. It's certainly not too far different from the Arkham/Shadow of Mordor/Assassin's Creed formula, but it's cool and atmospheric, and the car combat offers a nice change of pace from the melee stuff. I also LOVE how they implement the fury mechanic. You get on a long-enough hit-streak, and the red haze descends, everything goes into slow motion, and your moves start getting a LOT more brutal.

Downsides, well, the Top Dog zone bosses all are kinda samey, but apart from that niggle, it's all very competently done. Solid 9/10, from me.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I'd disagree with the others on Assassins Creed; If you're just looking for a 1-off, Black Flag might be the best, but that's because it's first and foremost Pirates of the Caribbean: the Game, with the main character half-stumbling onto the Assassins. If you want a jumping-off-point into the game, I'd start with Assassins Creed II; it's still my favourite. After that my playthrough run would be AC2 Brotherhood, AC1 (honestly optional, everything important is gone over again in AC2 for background), AC Revelations, and AC3 mostly just to finish the Desmond plotline, even though I dislike the actual gameplay.

After that, the plots are all mostly unconnected, filling in small gaps, but never quite reach the heights of AC2.

[GloatingSwine]

Not on PC. But thank you. :)


Dolphin emulator and the original Xenoblade Chronicles. (XBC pushed the poor old Wii to its limits, and so throwing PC resolutions at it really pays off.)

[Minty]

After that my playthrough run would be AC2 Brotherhood, AC1 (honestly optional, everything important is gone over again in AC2 for background), AC Revelations, and AC3 mostly just to finish the Desmond plotline, even though I dislike the actual gameplay.

The Desmond plotline is literally the worst thing about AC. In fact, the modern interludes in general. They do nothing but interrupt gameplay and break immersion for the sake of telling a tedious and entirely unnecessary side story. I might pick up AC again if they ever cut that stuff out and make the historical setting the entirety of the game, which is what they should have done from the start.

[warty goblin]

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning?

It's a bit old, but is actually quite a good game. The combat mechanics are satisfying, the world's somewhat interesting, and, wonderfully, you don't have to pay a huge amount of attention to it. You can if you want to, but you never have to pay a huge amount of attention to giant lore dumps. The art design's a bit cartoony, but it looks good and presents a very varied and interesting environment. The main character is fully customizable, it's got vast chunks of terrain to run around, and some satisfying monsters to muderize. Definitely play it with a controller though, third person action games just work better with them.

I suppose there's also Dragon Age: Inquisition, but the combat in that is... unfortunate. It looks like an action game, it plays like total boredom.

[Avilan the Grey]

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning?

It's a bit old, but is actually quite a good game. The combat mechanics are satisfying, the world's somewhat interesting, and, wonderfully, you don't have to pay a huge amount of attention to it. You can if you want to, but you never have to pay a huge amount of attention to giant lore dumps. The art design's a bit cartoony, but it looks good and presents a very varied and interesting environment. The main character is fully customizable, it's got vast chunks of terrain to run around, and some satisfying monsters to muderize. Definitely play it with a controller though, third person action games just work better with them.

I suppose there's also Dragon Age: Inquisition, but the combat in that is... unfortunate. It looks like an action game, it plays like total boredom.


I have Inquisition but I hated the character design, so I never got past the opening tutorial.
(I bought it ONLY for being able to play a female Qunari. Too bad the female qunaris looks AWFUL and NOTHING like the concept art).

[The_Jackal]

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning?

It's a bit old, but is actually quite a good game. The combat mechanics are satisfying, the world's somewhat interesting, and, wonderfully, you don't have to pay a huge amount of attention to it. You can if you want to, but you never have to pay a huge amount of attention to giant lore dumps. The art design's a bit cartoony, but it looks good and presents a very varied and interesting environment. The main character is fully customizable, it's got vast chunks of terrain to run around, and some satisfying monsters to muderize. Definitely play it with a controller though, third person action games just work better with them.

I suppose there's also Dragon Age: Inquisition, but the combat in that is... unfortunate. It looks like an action game, it plays like total boredom.

I doubht KoA:R, and was massively disappointed with it. The combat was pretty good, I'll grant you, but the design decision to keep everything on a 2-D plane, as opposed to putting in a real 3d engine, really irritated me, and I thought the setting and story were utter rubbish. If you want what KoA:R was trying to do, put properly this time, check out Shadow of Mordor.

[warty goblin]

I doubht KoA:R, and was massively disappointed with it. The combat was pretty good, I'll grant you, but the design decision to keep everything on a 2-D plane, as opposed to putting in a real 3d engine, really irritated me, and I thought the setting and story were utter rubbish. If you want what KoA:R was trying to do, put properly this time, check out Shadow of Mordor.

I couldn't stomach more than a couple hours of Shadow of Mordor. For two large reasons.

Number 1, absolutely none of the game's systems was fun. Combat was backflippy and tedious; just press attack and dodge when prompted to kill all the dudes. Stealth was boring. The level design was blah to the extreme, and it felt like I was spending forever walking between the same Uruk camps and stabbing the same potato-headed bad guys. Some of which I was supposed to care about because they had a name and had killed me before. I never gave a crap about any of them. They were just another dude I was supposed to kill, a process that ascended to the dizzying heights of mildly frustrating since actually killing them required triggering one of the decapitation executions, and getting those seemed basically random.

The second reason was the giant dump it took all over the thematic heart of LoTR. I'll take bad lore over actively destructive lore that pretends it totally gets it, because its got some names from the Appendices in there somewhere.

[The_Jackal]

I couldn't stomach more than a couple hours of Shadow of Mordor. For two large reasons.

Number 1, absolutely none of the game's systems was fun. Combat was backflippy and tedious; just press attack and dodge when prompted to kill all the dudes. Stealth was boring. The level design was blah to the extreme, and it felt like I was spending forever walking between the same Uruk camps and stabbing the same potato-headed bad guys. Some of which I was supposed to care about because they had a name and had killed me before. I never gave a crap about any of them. They were just another dude I was supposed to kill, a process that ascended to the dizzying heights of mildly frustrating since actually killing them required triggering one of the decapitation executions, and getting those seemed basically random.

It seems like you didn't quite grasp the game mechanics. Triggering the decapitations is entirely deterministic. You simply string together a sufficiently high hit streak (8 at first, but you can eventually reduce it to 5), then hit the 'F' key, or whatever button the controller mapping uses. Dodging, while occasionally useful, is actually far from the best way to prevail, as its slow and doesn't afford you any advantage, merely allows you to re-position when you're being flanked. Rather, you're supposed to make liberal use of the block/parry mechanics, and string together a long hit-streak to power of those execution moves I'm talking about. But, to each their own. I found SoM's combat (like Arkham or Mad Max, or other games of that print) to be visceral and fun, though I'll concede that by the time you'd unlocked all your skills, you were an invincible demigod, and the game lost all semblance of challenge.


The second reason was the giant dump it took all over the thematic heart of LoTR. I'll take bad lore over actively destructive lore that pretends it totally gets it, because its got some names from the Appendices in there somewhere.

I didn't really see anything from SoM that was thematically at odds with Tolkien canon, there's plenty in the books, and especially the Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, which has parts which are quite dark and morbid. Other beings had been corrupted by the evil of Melkor and Sauron, the Uruks themselves are debased elves, so why couldn't the power of the One Ring made a tormented spirit out of Celebrimbor, after he was tortured to death by Sauron? Not all of Tolkien is stories of hobbits getting drunk and smoking weed, after all.

[Avilan the Grey]

I didn't really see anything from SoM that was thematically at odds with Tolkien canon, there's plenty in the books, and especially the Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, which has parts which are quite dark and morbid. Other beings had been corrupted by the evil of Melkor and Sauron, the Uruks themselves are debased elves, so why couldn't the power of the One Ring made a tormented spirit out of Celebrimbor, after he was tortured to death by Sauron? Not all of Tolkien is stories of hobbits getting drunk and smoking weed, after all.

Seriously?
I'm not a Tolkien fanatic or anything, but Shelob alone makes me never touch the game.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

SoM is a pretty decent open-world stealth-action fantasy game. It would have been a fantastic open-world stealth-action fantasy game if they had used a new IP, even if all they had done was re-skin everything. Fight the Orclocks in the land of Arawn to stop the rise of the Dark Lord Mesreen, etc etc etc.

[Avilan the Grey]

SoM is a pretty decent open-world stealth-action fantasy game. It would have been a fantastic open-world stealth-action fantasy game if they had used a new IP, even if all they had done was re-skin everything. Fight the Orclocks in the land of Arawn to stop the rise of the Dark Lord Mesreen, etc etc etc.

Yeah... Sexy Spider Ladies is a staple in other High Fantasy (hello, DnD!)

[The_Jackal]

Seriously?
I'm not a Tolkien fanatic or anything, but Shelob alone makes me never touch the game.

That's Shadow of War, the sequel, which I will grant you deserves the greatest amount of scorn. Seriously, I'm sorry if you paid for that, the leaked information about microtransactions and other pay-to-win BS had me opting out before launch. At any rate, I'd recommend you check out Shadow of Mordor if you see it on a Steam sale for cheap, it's bound to come around again, it's, imo, a pretty solid little game.

I think the decision to put in Shelob was to put some gender diversity into the Tolkien cast, Tolkien is many things, but he's not very progressive (what do you expect, the guy was born in 1892).

[Avilan the Grey]

That's Shadow of War, the sequel, which I will grant you deserves the greatest amount of scorn. Seriously, I'm sorry if you paid for that, the leaked information about microtransactions and other pay-to-win BS had me opting out before launch. At any rate, I'd recommend you check out Shadow of Mordor if you see it on a Steam sale for cheap, it's bound to come around again, it's, imo, a pretty solid little game.

I think the decision to put in Shelob was to put some gender diversity into the Tolkien cast, Tolkien is many things, but he's not very progressive (what do you expect, the guy was born in 1892).

He was progressive for his time.
Shelob is... hot. Very hot. But I think Tolkien is turning in his grave.

As for Shadow of Mordor... (googling here) Not being able to customize my character is a huge problem for me.
I will buy Witcher III at some point despite this, when it is on a huge sale, but otherwise my prioritoes are in order of preference:

1. Complete character customization (gender, clothes, looks)
2. Fixed FEMALE main character, customizable or not.
3. Character customization male character only (this is what SoM has, I think? Just like Witcher III)
4. Fixed male character.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I mean, Witcher 3 has customization to the extent that it has a good inventory and skill-tree, and you can get haircuts and shaves, dunno if you're wanting more than that (i.e. facial sculpting, personality input)

[The_Jackal]

He was progressive for his time.
Shelob is... hot. Very hot. But I think Tolkien is turning in his grave.

Well, let's be clear, Tolkien would have been an ardent environmentalist, he hated the pollution and effects of industrialization, so he probably would not be wild about computers and computer gaming, in any circumstance. In any case, I'm willing to overlook changes in adapting his setting, so long as they carry on the spirit of the work. It's probable that turning Shelob into a pinup girl does not. As I said, I pegged Shadow of War for a cynical cash grab early in its development, and never gave it a second look.


As for Shadow of Mordor... (googling here) Not being able to customize my character is a huge problem for me.
I will buy Witcher III at some point despite this, when it is on a huge sale, but otherwise my prioritoes are in order of preference:

1. Complete character customization (gender, clothes, looks)
2. Fixed FEMALE main character, customizable or not.
3. Character customization male character only (this is what SoM has, I think? Just like Witcher III)
4. Fixed male character.

I actually enthusiastically agree. I also treasure customization, and as a rule prefer games that let me create my own identity rather than drape someone else's over my own. That said, I will play games where there's a non-customizable protagonist, so long as the gameplay is worth it, and in the case of Shadow of Mordor, I think it is.

[The_Jackal]

I mean, Witcher 3 has customization to the extent that it has a good inventory and skill-tree, and you can get haircuts and shaves, dunno if you're wanting more than that (i.e. facial sculpting, personality input)

That's.... not enough, in my opinion. Playing Geralt of Rivia with a different haircut is still playing someone else's character, not my own.

[Rynjin]

There are certain stories you can only tell with an actual character, not a blank slate. The benefits of the fixed character in the case of the Witcher is a benefit to the series as a whole.

[Avilan the Grey]

There are certain stories you can only tell with an actual character, not a blank slate. The benefits of the fixed character in the case of the Witcher is a benefit to the series as a whole.

For me... I have less problem with a non-blank slate than for a customizable character.
Therefore I have no problems with Mass Effect, which most definitely can tell a story about.

That said, I think the limitations are less severe than a lot of people think. It's EASIER if the character has a fixed gender and a fixed profession / background story, I guess. But you can remove 2/3 of those and still have no problem writing a deep story about them.
You really have to change very few things with the story and writing to say enable Geralt to be female. A total blank slate is not very common anyway; TOS is the only totally blank slate RPG games I know of made in the last 25 years; Fallout does NOT have blank-slate characters. Neither is the Dragon Age, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect, Pillars Of Eternity etc etc.

[Rynjin]

?

Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and Dragon Age 1/3 absolutely do have blank slate characters. They may share a premise that gets them into the plot, but they have a multiple choice past AT BEST and have no established character traits to muddy things before the story begins.

The Witcher would have to change quite a bit to genderswap Geralt; mostly because the games are sequels to books where Geralt is already an established (male) character.

It'd be interesting to play a spin-off starring Ciri though, assuming that's possible after the end of Witcher 3 (I haven't quite finished it yet).

But more to the point, the story of the Witcher series works so well because Geralt is an established CHARACTER with specific traits. Changing his profession/background would dramatically change the story even more, same as with any other type of story. If you make large changes to a character they are no longer the same character, and the same stories cannot be told with them.

That's why in so many RPGs (including the ones you mention) the blank slate character is largely ancillary to the plot; the spot could have been filled by anyone just as well. It's also why the companions and side characters get the most memorable moments, because they're the ones that can have actual character traits the game can latch onto for writing stories and interactions.

[Avilan the Grey]

A blank slate character has a blank slate.
Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age, Fallout has a fixed backstory. That is the opposite of a blank slate.

As for Witcher... I am aware of the books. Those are not the point.

[warty goblin]

A blank slate character has a blank slate.
Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age, Fallout has a fixed backstory. That is the opposite of a blank slate.

As for Witcher... I am aware of the books. Those are not the point.

They might have a fixed backstory. However they have absolutely no personality. To me at least this makes them really deeply boring as characters.

[Rynjin]

A blank slate character has a blank slate.
Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age, Fallout has a fixed backstory. That is the opposite of a blank slate.

No, not really. They have a basic starting premise but NOTHING else about the character is defined.

Literal blank slates might have their place of manufacture stamped on them, but that doesn't change that they're still blank slates except in the absolutely most nitpicky sense.

Hell, in Dragon Age you choose one of 4-6 options, so you don't even have that much.

[Avilan the Grey]

They might have a fixed backstory. However they have absolutely no personality. To me at least this makes them really deeply boring as characters.

"No personality"?
Isn't that up to you as a player?

After all, if you have dialogue options other than "yes" and "not yet" you are altering that personality anyway, don't you? Every time you give a snarky response, or a kind response or a mean response you are moving away from the predetermined personality, right?
(Edit) Maybe it's a Pen and Paper thing? I played Pen and Paper RPGs for like 10 years before I bought my first CRPG. To me, creating a character and mentally stick to the personality I have given her, is second nature (no pun intended).

Anyway, I feel the opposite. Why on earth should I have to sit in the back seat of someone else's character when I can actually play someone I have created? As I said, I am willing to give Witcher III a chance despite never finishing the first two games because of the raving reviews. After all I love Mass Effect trilogy despite having a fixed character. I am also hating the fact that Horizon: Z D isn't on PC. :smallfrown: Again, though, it might have to do with my Pen and Paper background. Pr-determined characters in Pen and Paper RPGs are usually only used if you have a quick adventure or campaign and the DM / GM and you just don't have time to actually come up with a character for you to play. This is also why to me "blank slate" means a total blank slate. A character that you haven't bothered sitting and working out the origin story for.

[The_Jackal]

There are certain stories you can only tell with an actual character, not a blank slate. The benefits of the fixed character in the case of the Witcher is a benefit to the series as a whole.

As I've waxed lyrical about before: I find plot to be secondary, or even tertiary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4heiQC6RxA) to my enjoyment of a game. A game is not a story, it's a game. A good story can improve a game, but a bad game can't be improved by a good story. Give me my gameplay, please, and we'll all get along just fine. Look, if you really want to play a game where you take on the role of Poland's famous monster-hunting gigolo, more power to you, but it's not what I showed up for, just like I'm not particular attached to playing 'A man dressed like a bat (https://xkcd.com/1004/)' in the Arkham games. If I want a story, I'll crack a book, or fire up Netflix, or something. My preference is that a game do a good job of presenting a good premise, a good setting, and good gameplay, and not really burn so much of my time watching exposition and cut-scenes so they can play reject Martin Scorsese.

[Winthur]

If I want a story, I'll crack a book, or fire up Netflix, or something.
100% agreed.

My preference is that a game do a good job of presenting a good premise, a good setting
Witcher is generally pretty good about it, in my opinion. Not sure about the gameplay, but the fact that TW1 offered you a completely different second half of the story depending on some crucial decisions was pretty neato. The premise is that you're on one hand a massive power fantasy, and on the other your unique upbringing and mysterious circumstances regarding your comeback from the dead is leaving people around you with distrust, so that's cool. The setting is generally considered at least "subversive", and the author is at least more than superficially knowledgable about myths and mythos, so that helps in embedding cool side-stories within that just work. I'd not say I ever played TW much for the plot itself.

[Togath]

The Desmond plotline is literally the worst thing about AC. In fact, the modern interludes in general. They do nothing but interrupt gameplay and break immersion for the sake of telling a tedious and entirely unnecessary side story. I might pick up AC again if they ever cut that stuff out and make the historical setting the entirety of the game, which is what they should have done from the start.

One kind of nifty part of Black Flag is that it ignores the Desmond stuff from earlier(I mean, it's plot is "you are playing an ubisoft game", but that is mostly to justify the "wander around a generic office between levels if you somehow get bored of pirate action" part iirc).
I don't necessarily mind the Desmond thing(then again, I have only seen a partial playthrough of 3, and only eve played Black Flag), but it was interesting to see them deviate from that formula.

[Avilan the Grey]

As I've waxed lyrical about before: I find plot to be secondary, or even tertiary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4heiQC6RxA) to my enjoyment of a game. A game is not a story, it's a game. A good story can improve a game, but a bad game can't be improved by a good story. Give me my gameplay, please, and we'll all get along just fine.

Indeed. I mean a lousy story is lousy, and if it is too bad, it will piss me off enough to stop playing. If I expected a good story to begin with.
An obvious example is the Mass Effect games, where ME1 by far has the best atmosphere and story, but is so awful at everything else that I tend to just create a game in a savegame editor instead of playing it these days when I "take a character thru all the games".
This, btw, is another beef I have with JRPGs (yes it is an undead horse at this point): People claim the stories are good but no; 99% of the ones I have watched has mediocre stories, which also tend to be badly voice acted and be based on 99% melodrama and 1% actual reasonable story progression.

Btw I never finished Witcher 1 because the loading times were horrible. It was based on the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine and that had already horrible loading times... But on my machine back then it took 30 - 45 seconds to load a single-room house.

[Drascin]

They might have a fixed backstory. However they have absolutely no personality. To me at least this makes them really deeply boring as characters.

I find myself agreeing.

Witcher 3's best moments always come when you are not playing Player Self Insert With No Personality. You are playing Geralt of Rivia, washed-up ex-rockstar witcher with a chip on his shoulder, left behind by the times and searching for his beloved adopted daughter. When all you options are basically "multiple things that Geralt might reasonably do, you're just being the shoulder angel nudging him at one of the things he might do". And I don't even like Geralt!

And conversely, the points at which the game lets you completely **** the entire game's thematics for no reason other than "wait, we're a WRPG, we have to let people completely run roughshod over everything" are the worst thing in it. Why can you, with a couple question answers, make Geralt, staunch antiauthoritarian with a dislike for nobility, shove his beloved daughter into the princess role she hates just because the king of Not France asks? Because WRPG conventional wisdom says player choice is above thematic coherence, narrative, characterization, and basic sense.

Basically, if you intend to have a plot, you need to have characters with a personality. You need something that people can latch on to and that you can hang emotional beats from. If you are not going to commit to that, your character is deeply boring, and therefore for the love of god don't have a bloody character plot.

[Avilan the Grey]

Basically, if you intend to have a plot, you need to have characters with a personality. You need something that people can latch on to and that you can hang emotional beats from. If you are not going to commit to that, your character is deeply boring, and therefore for the love of god don't have a bloody character plot.

And I say all that is on you.
If you can't connect to a character that isn't essentially played for you, not by you, it's your problem. Maybe WRPGs just isn't for you at all? Maybe not even some JRPG's since you basically just argued that player choices are wrong.
And your basic statement is flawed as well. Or your idea of what constitutes "a plot" is different than the actual definition of the word. As for "emotional beats"... I care far more about a character I have designed, or at least have had more input on than "color of long flowing coat" and "which sword I'm carrying" than a character being pushed down my throat by someone who really should just have written a movie instead of a game.
This is why I restarted Divinity: Original Sin 2; Lohse is an amazing character, but I didn't feel like I could care 100% because at the end of the day she isn't MY character.

[warty goblin]

It's not that I'm against player choice, it's that if I'm playing a game with giant chunks of plot and story, I want those to be interesting and well written. This generally works better if the main character has an actual personality. Geralt is usually an interesting person in a conversation, he's got a particular sense of humor and viewpoint. If you side with the witch in the outskirts of Vizima in the first game, and he threatens to kill everything that can't climb a tree, it means something because you understand he's gotta be pushed into saying something like that. Commander Shepard is basically always the most boring person in the scene, because they have none of this, they just shuffle from conversation choice to conversation choice as blend of two flavors of vanilla badass.

I'm totally fine with games being gameplay first. But either the conversation bits don't count as gameplay, in which case all these games are bad because they spend forever doing fake Hollywood crap, or the conversation bits should be interesting gameplay. They're not going to be interesting in the sense of being challenging, so they should be interesting in the sense of being dramatic and engaging. I find the Witcher's model more dynamic and interesting than Bioware's.

Hmm, good summer project, replay all the Witcher games...

[Rynjin]

As I've waxed lyrical about before: I find plot to be secondary, or even tertiary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4heiQC6RxA) to my enjoyment of a game. A game is not a story, it's a game. A good story can improve a game, but a bad game can't be improved by a good story. Give me my gameplay, please, and we'll all get along just fine. Look, if you really want to play a game where you take on the role of Poland's famous monster-hunting gigolo, more power to you, but it's not what I showed up for, just like I'm not particular attached to playing 'A man dressed like a bat (https://xkcd.com/1004/)' in the Arkham games. If I want a story, I'll crack a book, or fire up Netflix, or something. My preference is that a game do a good job of presenting a good premise, a good setting, and good gameplay, and not really burn so much of my time watching exposition and cut-scenes so they can play reject Martin Scorsese.

Which really has jack and all to do with the discussion we're having, considering the Witcher series has all three of those things (with the exception, in my opinion, of Witcher 2's combat and in everyone else's BUT mine the Witcher 1's instead).

This is not a zero sum game, and one of the points of an RPG is to tell a good story. An interesting premise and a good setting are MEANINGLESS if nothing is done with those things. They're just window dressing without interesting characters and a story to engage you in what happens to this place.

It's part of the reason Fallout 4 is a terrible RPG, and why I couldn't give less of a **** about the "deep lore" of the Diablo series, or the Dark Souls games for that matter.

Good gameplay is important, but it is only one of the essential elements of an RPG. It's an IMPORTANT element (hence why Dragon Age: Inquisition sucks donkey **** because it's too dull to play for me to get through the seemingly interesting plot), but not the ONLY element.

[PopeLinus1]

Skyrim. Just Skyrim. Anyone on this thread who suggested anything else is a bad person.

[Winthur]

Skyrim. Just Skyrim. Anyone on this thread who suggested anything else is a bad person.
What an useful post to an OP who logged 400 hours on Skyrim and asked the forum to recommend him a good game for once.

[Avilan the Grey]

What an useful post to an OP who logged 400 hours on Skyrim and asked the forum to recommend him a good game for once.

"For once".:smallbiggrin:

[warty goblin]

I can't say I ever got the fuss about Skyrim. OK sure, there was a giant hunk of quite attractive terrain to explore, that's cool and I'm down with that. The problem was that none of the mechanics were actually any fun. The melee combat was just flaily and generally unpleasant, I'm not convinced it isn't a step backwards from Oblivion and it certainly isn't actually good. The stealth was passable I suppose, and the archery sort of existed. Spellcasting was a definite step backwards in my book, since they got rid of the very handy dedicated 'cast spell' button in Oblivion for some reason. The story was typical chosen one nonsense by way of somebody's Game of Thrones/Lord of the Rings crossover fanfic. But hey, at least they added crafting! It's so much fun, it makes Oblivion's Speechcraft look like actually engaging gameplay!

Maybe it'd have made a more positive impression if it hadn't dropped about the same time as Saints' Row III. You could easily convince me that SRIII is basically the perfect game, so Skyrim, as a hodgepodge of mostly mediocre games, really suffered. Would I rather spastically swing a sword at a random undead to get some pointless loot, or blow up a monster truck full of lucha libre wrestling gangsters? In what universe is this even a hard choice?

[Avilan the Grey]

Skyrim eats SR3 for breakfast.

The archery is AMAZING, which is a problem since virtually all characters I play become snipers sooner or later. It's just so much fun.
Quick question: What on earth would you need a "cast spell" button for?

[warty goblin]

Skyrim eats SR3 for breakfast.

The archery is AMAZING, which is a problem since virtually all characters I play become snipers sooner or later. It's just so much fun.
Quick question: What on earth would you need a "cast spell" button for?

Maybe I was spoiled by too much Mount & Blade. After mastering shooting dudes from the the back of a galloping horse while compensating for their movement, the horse's movement, gravity and arrow flight time, Skyrim felt distinctly eh. So did Oblivion's for that matter. Many things fail to live up to Mount & Blade.

In Oblivion I went for full armor with sword & board or two-hander pretty much full time. I could therefore park heal on the spellcasting button, and heal up after fights without having to futz with equipment at all. Skyrim did not let me do this, thereby forcing me to deal with the inventory more. Any change that requires more time spent with Bethesda interfaces is a very bad change. It also meant I could very seamlessly do a battlemage sort of thing, since I could carry a sword and shield and cast fireballs at people at the same time. It was like the one thing Oblivion did better than Dark Messiah, and they went and goofed it up in the sequel.

[Winthur]

I can't say I ever got the fuss about Skyrim.
That Harry Partridge video and excellent marketing convinced people that arcade swordswingers are RPGs.

[Avilan the Grey]

That Harry Partridge video and excellent marketing convinced people that arcade swordswingers are RPGs.

That's funny. It almost sounded like you have some outlandish idea that Bethesda games aren't RPGs.
Skyrim is definitely one of the top 3 RPGs of all time.

[Cespenar]

Now I wonder if there's a Skyrim mod which implements Mount & Blade's momentum based damage system.

Not that I think I would return, but, eh.

[GloatingSwine]

That's funny. It almost sounded like you have some outlandish idea that Bethesda games aren't RPGs.
Skyrim is definitely one of the top 3 RPGs of all time.

Some people have a different description of "RPG", which modern Bethesda games don't meet.

If the world doesn't care about the differences in your build and character approach, because quests don't have any narrative or mechanical variation based on them, then there's no more "roleplaying" present than there is in Doom. The original one.

[Avilan the Grey]

Some people have a different description of "RPG", which modern Bethesda games don't meet.

If the world doesn't care about the differences in your build and character approach, because quests don't have any narrative or mechanical variation based on them, then there's no more "roleplaying" present than there is in Doom. The original one.

Sorry, but your last paragraph is just false. In fact, it just doesn't compute.
The first one? Obviously. Some people still think that unless it's Isometric, turnbased ANDd 2D it's not an RPG. In my mind that's like arguing that unless a car is built before 1923 it's not a car.

[GloatingSwine]

Sorry, but your last paragraph is just false. In fact, it just doesn't compute.

Demonstrate the existence of a sidequest in Skyrim with as many variations in mechanical and narrative approaches as this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM1yR7WYqgM

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Bethesda just don't do that because they're pathologically terrified of the player "missing something" because their build couldn't do it.

(****'s sake you can complete the entire mages college questline in Skyrim without casting a single spell, they're that bad).

(And let's not even compare Skyrim to the Bloody Baron quest and all its permutations...)

[Winthur]

Skyrim is definitely one of the top 3 RPGs of all time.
In terms of 'copies sold', perhaps.
I admit I don't base my opinions on the post-Morrowind era of the TES games and whether they're RPGs or not on any actual terminology, and a lot of that is owed to the "feel" the series give off since Oblivion. That's because a discussion on "what is an RPG" is often a massive and ultimately really useless diatribe that leads to Diogenean conclusions where someone holds up GTA San Andreas and announces "Behold, an RPG!".

Nevertheless, since Oblivion, I firmly believe that TES is at its best when you play it as an arcade game about running around a world and swinging a sword, waving fingers, or practicing the noble art of stealth archery.
But if we were to assume it's an RPG, it'd still be a flavor-of-the-month game with little to talk about aside from how it's an excellent gateway to fantasy gaming. If Skyrim is in the "top 3 RPGs of all time", it completely ignores the legacy of games that have done exploration, character progression systems, choice & consequence implementation or meaningful combat systems much better. It then also asks you the question if Oblivion, upon which Skyrim is an (attempt at) iterative improvement is also on that top 3 list (in which case we must purport that Todd Howard is the Jesus of the RPG Genre), since it's very much up to debate on whether Oblivion has done those arcade mechanics better or worse. I kind of don't want to imagine a world where the top three RPG list includes both Oblivion *and* Skyrim. There's many better games, better legacies, more unique ideas, more of a lasting impression upon the genre.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Even where it comes to simply open-world RPGs, I think while Skyrim certainly opened up a lot of options, many games made since then have eclipsed it, mostly based on combining open-world with actually strong character- and quest-writing (Witcher 3 and Horizon: Zero Dawn are the ones that immediately spring to mind)

[Brother Oni]

Btw I never finished Witcher 1 because the loading times were horrible. It was based on the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine and that had already horrible loading times... But on my machine back then it took 30 - 45 seconds to load a single-room house.

The Witcher 1 is actually based on the NWN1 Aurora engine and required average PC specs back in 2007.

From your list of requirements, Dragon's Dogma as mentioned earlier is pretty much what you want, complete with as bare bones character you can get (you lived in a small fishing village then the game intro happens to you).


With regard to a requirement of a story, I feel that there's a sliding scale of no fixed plot, an interactive plot, and a fixed plot.
A book, movie or TV series would be a fixed one and you're just along for the ride - a large number of JRPGs fall into this category.
A 'Choose your Own Adventure' book is an interactive one and this is where the majority of 'multiple endings' games fall.
Sandbox games tend to have no fixed plot, and this is where things like Mount and Blade lie.

That's not to say some games have elements of from each category - Jade Empire had a set plot (you're always a Spirit Monk set up to take the fall by Sun Li), but you had some freedom in how you approached that plot.
The Witcher 1 has a significantly different plot depending on your choices, and although you're playing Geralt of Rivia, you have some leeway in your Geralt of Rivia's personality and motivations (Squirrels/Order/neutral) as the book Geralt would have gone for Neutrality.
From what I've seen, Ghost Recon:Wildlands is fairly open in how you tackle the objectives and the order they're taken, although I think you're limited to a male operative?

[GloatingSwine]

From what I've seen, Ghost Recon:Wildlands is fairly open in how you tackle the objectives and the order they're taken, although I think you're limited to a male operative?

You aren't.

[warty goblin]

From what I've seen, Ghost Recon:Wildlands is fairly open in how you tackle the objectives and the order they're taken, although I think you're limited to a male operative?
You can play as a female operative. When playing solo, your squad mates have fixed personalities, though that term should be used loosely. I certainly can't tell them apart.

It's not really so much an RPG as it is third-person ARMA-Lite. I mean you do have skills, and they improve, but you don't really have a character build, and winning is a fight is much more a matter of doing proper recon and shooting dudes accurately while not getting shot than it is using your upgrades. Hell, the numbers don't even really inflate, like 20 hours in the starting rifle remains totally viable; the only reason to replace it is if you want a gun that does something differently, rather than being flat out better.

[johncs]

I liked Skyrim and Oblivion (especially the Shivering Isles expansion of Oblivion which had a much more interesting story than most of the rest of the game) regardless if either are in the top three best games. But I think Morrowind beats both of them in terms of shoving you in a big fantasy world and making it feel real.

Morrowind had really high level politics, and low-level "oh god there's rats in my bedroom and they're going to mess up my pillows". It felt like the country had some kind of substance.

Since they didn't need to pay voice actors, people could also have all the dialog. It felt like characters could be quite a bit richer.

It also had levitation and it was a part of the game that you needed to use since some wizards lived in towers without stairs. And who doesn't wanna fly? Why would Bethesda take that away from us 😭.

[warty goblin]

I liked Skyrim and Oblivion (especially the Shivering Isles expansion of Oblivion which had a much more interesting story than most of the rest of the game) regardless if either are in the top three best games. But I think Morrowind beats both of them in terms of shoving you in a big fantasy world and making it feel real.



Ooh I liked Shivering Isles. I distinctly recall getting stuck in some sort of weirdoid dungeon that was draining my stamina, and having to abandon my pants.

[Avilan the Grey]

Demonstrate the existence of a sidequest in Skyrim with as many variations in mechanical and narrative approaches as this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM1yR7WYqgM

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Bethesda just don't do that because they're pathologically terrified of the player "missing something" because their build couldn't do it.

(****'s sake you can complete the entire mages college questline in Skyrim without casting a single spell, they're that bad).

(And let's not even compare Skyrim to the Bloody Baron quest and all its permutations...)

That still doesn't make the statement you made true.

Edit: as for discussions about what constitutes an RPG:
1. Some people in this thread claims RPGs must have things that disqualifies virtually all old-school RPGs.
2. Some people in this thread claims RPGs must LACK things that disqualifies virtually all new RPGs.

Part of it, of course, is that just like with music, genres are basically useless these days. The scale between RPGs, FPS / TPS, Adventure and Strategy are EXTREMELY fluid. Is Shadow Run: Dragonfall an RPG? or a Turn-Based strategy game with a light RPG overlay? Is Baldur's Gate II an RPG or a stategy game for the same reasons? Is Final Fantasy a series of RPGs, or visual novels with RPG influences? Etc. There are no clear genres anymore.
Again, just like with music. Is a certain artist Country? Or Rock? Or Blues? How many variants of "Metal" are there these days?
Back in my day (yes, I'm playing up my age for laughs) it was easy: Everything with a guitar was rock, everything else sucked.

[The_Jackal]

In terms of 'copies sold', perhaps.

Let's just dispense with this commonly trotted out piece of faulty rhetoric, shall we? Look, if you don't like a particular popular product, that's entirely your right, but there is no objective metric of the quality and success of any product other than commercial results. Any implication otherwise is just snobbery. I may not like American Idol, but I wouldn't deny that it's a good television show, since millions of viewers have chosen to tune in and watch it. Likewise, you might not like what Skyrim does in the Open-world RPG space, but there's no denying that it's a runaway, breakout hit in that genre of game. Otherwise, it wouldn't be continuing to break sales records. It's not as if the people buying the game have been duped by pre-order hype or something. By any objective assessment, Skryim is the gold-standard of open-world RPGs, the bar against which other games in the space will be measured. Does that mean it's flawless? Of course not. But using its flaws to somehow throw it beneath a crowd of demonstrably less successful games is very, very suspect.

[The_Jackal]

Demonstrate the existence of a sidequest in Skyrim with as many variations in mechanical and narrative approaches as this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM1yR7WYqgM

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Bethesda just don't do that because they're pathologically terrified of the player "missing something" because their build couldn't do it.

Yes, it turns out that Bethesda chose to invest their resources into features and content that would appeal to a wider audience than the boutique RPG market that Obsidian caters to. I don't think I'd describe them 'pathologically terrified' of anything, however. They've got the money to do more or less whatever they want to, when it comes to the creation of their content. If, tomorrow, Todd Howard said he wanted to publish a indie-style, story-based, text-only RPG, he could almost certainly get money to produce and publish it. But what Bethesda is doing is making expansive, high production value sandbox RPGs, and there's no question that their approach has been wildly, incredibly successful.

[Winthur]

Let's just dispense with this commonly trotted out piece of faulty rhetoric, shall we? Look, if you don't like a particular popular product, that's entirely your right, but there is no objective metric of the quality and success of any product other than commercial results. Any implication otherwise is just snobbery.
Okay, but I never denied that Skyrim *did* exactly that - had great sales. So congratulations, you just stated the obvious and basically declared that we should not debate anything ever again. Let's just have a thread called "Open Skyrim adventure / Skyrim games that are like Skyrim?" and copy-paste the post that goes "Just Skyrim, everything else is wrong." Instead, all I said in that post is that yes, it was very successful. I also mentioned that I think it's futile to engage in debates of the "what exactly is an RPG" nature, and that my post is subjective. I still also believe that TES is properly enjoyed as an arcade spellsling game, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to fans of games like original Fallouts or Baldur's Gate. I'm also quite miffed with the appropriating of the term "roguelike" by games that don't resemble original roguelikes at all.

If Skyrim is the best thing ever period, we can't have a rational discussion on how its mechanics work better or worse than other recent games, like TW3, KC:D, DA:I or even blatant copycats like Two Worlds, or games like ELEX, or previous games in its franchise. We should just be able to say "Neener neener, Skyrim sold more, your opinion is worthless". Bestselling lists do not even account for things like the platforms that the game was sold on or the overall cost-to-sold-copies ratio. Hitman Absolution was the best-selling Hitman in the franchise, and it still broke even for Square Enix with little profit (given the marketing + new engine built for it), and general consensus was that it's a weaker game than its precedessors.

Hell, according to Wikipedia's list of bestselling games, Skyrim sold more than The Witcher 3, so they shouldn't even be in the same discussion by this myopic metric.

I just don't like it and I'm willing to talk about why I don't like it. If you want to call me a snob over that, I can call you a simpleton consumerist. But I'd rather not do that, because that's not the point.

[The_Jackal]

Okay, but I never denied that Skyrim *did* exactly that - had great sales. So congratulations, you just stated the obvious and basically declared that we should not debate anything ever again. Let's just have a thread called "Open Skyrim adventure / Skyrim games that are like Skyrim?" and copy-paste the post that goes "Just Skyrim, everything else is wrong." Instead, all I said in that post is that yes, it was very successful. I also mentioned that I think it's futile to engage in debates of the "what exactly is an RPG" nature, and that my post is subjective. I still also believe that TES is properly enjoyed as an arcade spellsling game, and I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to fans of games like original Fallouts or Baldur's Gate. I'm also quite miffed with the appropriating of the term "roguelike" by games that don't resemble original roguelikes at all.

No, you didn't try to refute patently obvious facts. That's not the weak rhetoric I'm taking issue with. This is:



That's funny. It almost sounded like you have some outlandish idea that Bethesda games aren't RPGs.
Skyrim is definitely one of the top 3 RPGs of all time.In terms of 'copies sold', perhaps.

What other metric do you propose to gauge what should qualify a game for 'Top 3 RPGs of all time'? Because, news flash, it's also on Metacritic's top 10 PC game releases (http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/pc?sort=desc) by score (#8), and there is only one RPG above it, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. So, by your lights, not only are the game-buying public idiots, but also the majority of game reviewers? What I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, it might not be everyone else that's crazy. That's not to say that Witcher 3 isn't also a great game (another highly successful, highly rated game), but just because Witcher 3 tickles your personal predilictions more than Skyrim might doesn't make Skyrim not a great game.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: The discussion of whether Skyrim is a Good RPG or, indeed, even an RPG, is tangential and getting a bit heated. Take it to another thread and with a bit less heat, please.

[danzibr]

Edit: as for discussions about what constitutes an RPG:
1. Some people in this thread claims RPGs must have things that disqualifies virtually all old-school RPGs.
2. Some people in this thread claims RPGs must LACK things that disqualifies virtually all new RPGs.
In my mind, there's a distinction between RPG, ARPG, SRPG, and so on.

When I hear RPG, I think the old, turn-based games where, as one of my students put it, your people line up on one side of the screen and you take turns hitting each other.

I don't think Morrowind or Skyrim or whatever.

However... nor does Final Fantasy XV come to mind. C'mon, a final fantasy.

If pressed, yeah, I'd say they're RPGs, but I think ARPG is a more fitting label.

[Avilan the Grey]

In my mind, there's a distinction between RPG, ARPG, SRPG, and so on.

When I hear RPG, I think the old, turn-based games where, as one of my students put it, your people line up on one side of the screen and you take turns hitting each other.

I don't think Morrowind or Skyrim or whatever.

However... nor does Final Fantasy XV come to mind. C'mon, a final fantasy.

If pressed, yeah, I'd say they're RPGs, but I think ARPG is a more fitting label.

See, that's a very VERY old definiton of turn-based, at that.
When I hear "turn based" I don't think Might And Magic (or JRPG) style. I think XCOM / Shadow Run / Laser Squad / Blood Bowl. A much more advanced version.
I mean yes, what you are talking about is also turn based, but a truly archaic system.

Also, even truly old CRPGs have real time combat. Ultima Underworld: Stygian Abyss (1992), Eye of the Beholder (1991), Dungeon Master (1987).
Again, also, please note that none of those games would qualify as RPGs according to the standard above that "special builds must impact the game somehow or it's not an RPG".

[GungHo]

See, that's a very VERY old definiton of turn-based, at that.
When I hear "turn based" I don't think Might And Magic (or JRPG) style. I think XCOM / Shadow Run / Laser Squad / Blood Bowl. A much more advanced version.
I mean yes, what you are talking about is also turn based, but a truly archaic system.

Also, even truly old CRPGs have real time combat. Ultima Underworld: Stygian Abyss (1992), Eye of the Beholder (1991), Dungeon Master (1987).
Again, also, please note that none of those games would qualify as RPGs according to the standard above that "special builds must impact the game somehow or it's not an RPG".

I don't like posts that are just +1, so I am writing more to agree with you. I also think of XCOM, Shadowrun, Divinity Original Sin (1 & 2) when I think of turn based, along with things like the Gold Box games, Final Fantasy up to a certain point (including Tactics), etc. Sometimes it's things lining up, but it's just as often with "positional paper dolls" where there's a tactical dimension to "whar yah put yah mans". And, I also agree that there are plenty of CRPGs that go into real time stuff, and sometimes I think it's to their detriment and sometimes I don't. There are also "hybrid" attempts like in the Infinity games and Dragon Age where things are real time, but they put in the ability to pause into a tactical layer, though it's honestly klugey.

TL;DR +1

[The_Jackal]

TL;DR +1

Agreed, and out of respect for Mark's refereeing, I'm not sure if debating the lexicography of roleplaying games subtypes has a lot of benefit underneath it. This is Avilan's thread, and he's already described the range of games and niche he's looking for, and we all have the wherewithal to identify games that fall within that range.

In that vein, and since I haven't seen it mentioned prior, have you look at the Yakuza series of games? It's pretty obviously working the same seam as GTA in the Japanese market, but it's got some unique character, and the protagonist is more sympathetic than Rockstar's series of Tony Montana clones. Take Yakuza 6's plot synopsis:


While recovering from his injuries from the previous game, a hospitalized Kazuma Kiryu is approached by the police, who plan to arrest him for his past crimes. Kiryu chooses not to resist the arrest and willingly spends three years in prison in order to live peacefully with the children he had fostered. Upon being released, Kiryu discovers that Haruka has seemingly gone missing. Kiryu returns to Kamurocho to search for Haruka, only to find out that she has been left in a coma after a hit and run incident, and that she has a newborn son, Haruto. Unsure whether Haruka will recover from her injuries, Kiryu travels with the baby to Onomichi Jingaicho in Hiroshima to uncover the mystery of what happened to Haruka during his three-year absence.

It is a platform exclusive (which sucks, and I disapprove), but I don't know what platforms you own.

[Brother Oni]

In that vein, and since I haven't seen it mentioned prior, have you look at the Yakuza series of games?

I think a major sticking point for Avilan is that the game is closer to the non-interactive fiction end of the scale. The main protagonist, Kiryu Kazuma, is an established character, with his own personality and motivations and while there's some leeway in the game choices (at least as far as I've played in Yakuza Zero), he is very much a yakuza with all that entails.


That said, if the Yakuza series is acceptable, there's Sleeping Dogs, which is essentially the same, only with the Triad and pretty much the most accurate depiction of Hong Kong that I've seen in a game - I've had to stop and take a second look in certain places as I'm thinking 'hang on, I think I've been there'.

[Ardentex]

If you like GTA-style games, maybe you'd like Sleeping Dogs. It's fairly cheap due to it being a few years old, but it kept my attention for a good while. The main storyline, although not anything we haven't seen before, is pulling, while the side-missions can get tedious. That said, the side events of the game don't affect the main storyline at all and can be skipped without any repercussions. The game has 3 DLC storylines that feature the main characters life after the main game (all of them included in the Definitive Edition), but they're more light-hearted and combat focused, and not to mention, aren't long at all. All in all, I liked the game enough to bother myself with getting all it's achievements. I'd give it a go if I were you.

[Avilan the Grey]

I DO have sleeping dogs. I have a hell of a time with key mappings for the fights (never beat the first boss fight).