Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If I'm wrong, and this isn't a review but rather an attempt to start a debate, then you're in the right place.
-------------
Waiting for a sale is fine, and someone might do that for any game for financial reasons. The reason to hold off on purchasing this game, unlike some others, is the state of it. The game is a mess, and it will be a long time until it is actually in a state where it could be called ready for release by anyone honest. We are basically saying the same thing, but my point is that waiting for a sale isn't enough, because it could go on sale and still not be fixed.
The thing to wait for is for the game to be functional to a degree worthy of release (as opposed to a game still in development, which is as you noted is what this game currently resembles).
Once that happens the game will be worth paying full price for... though of course the usual reasons to consider waiting for a sale will still exist.
If history could answer that, the answer would be "sort of, eventually". They have provided a lot of post-release development for their other games (because they too were released prematurely), but moved on to other projects before those games were as polished (ie bug-and-design-flaw free) as I felt they should be. Unfortunately, I must assume that they will do the same with Rogue Trader.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong about that.
I know that this topic has been raised at least once because I provided feedback on it, but I don't know whether that was your thread or another one. It is true that there are some instances where the party can return to the voidship and wipe away injuries and traumas for free. It is also true that there are instances (including an entire chapter) where returning to the voidship is impossible or impractical until fighting through more encounters, and in those instances traumas are very much not trivial at all. It is more accurate to say in those instances that they can be game-ending (or at least force you to reload a save from before you received them), because if you accumulate enough of them you may reach a point where winning the last battle between you and your voidship is impossible.
I get that spikes in difficulty can be jarring, but in a sense that is the point. Imagine a horror movie that was nothing but continuous jump scares. Such a monotone feature would not be interesting or entertaining, and even if you like jump scares it would very quickly become repetitive. The thing that makes a horror movie work is changes in pacing, changes in tone, build-up broken by the sudden jump scare transitioning into a bit of humor followed by a little existential dread and a chase scene (for example).
That's true of movies in other genres, and it is true of games as well. If every fight was the same, it would feel dull and repetitive fairly quickly. This isn't the first game to feature "boss battles" that are significantly tougher than other fights, and it won't be the last, for good reason.
You say that you are seeking a challenge and then complain that you are finding it. The dissonance there is bizarre.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Owlcat hit the aesthetic dead-on, I would say. It is what keeps me playing the game even though bugs have halted my progress several times, forcing me to restart. They get top marks for their depiction of grimdark in my opinion; they could have gone grimmer or darker, but that would have made the game unpleasant to play.
BG3 was certainly more cinematic. I suspect that there may be pressure on developers to go more in that direction in the future... you yourself seem to be critical of the fact that Owlcat did not, for example. I don't really think it is fair to isomorphic games that they be held up to BG3 and automatically considered inferior simply because they are isomorphic. I could see this game or one like it presented in a cinematic format, and that could be fine. I would also argue that it works just fine as an isomorphic game too. Visuals are nice, but the story and the gameplay are more important in my opinion. The story (or what I've seen of it so far) in RT is good. The gameplay does suffer from broken systems and balance issues; hopefully that will improve over time.
Well sure, if they added more features and it wasn't broken, naturally it would be better.
I expect there to be significant improvements in 6 months, and even more at the 12-month mark. However, those improvements are unlikely to include full voice acting. There will likely be fewer bugs and combat may be better balanced, but history suggests that all of the bugs will not be gone, and considering how unbalanced the underlying game system is I doubt there will be much improvement there.
I feel confident in saying, though, that the game will definitely not feature a new game engine. That's a "making a new game" level of investment, and the developers aren't going to do that unless they become convinced that everyone who owns the game now is willing to pay them another $50 each for a version with a new engine but no new content or features. So it is probably safe to go ahead and scratch that one off of the list of things that might happen.
Greetings, and thank you for taking the time to read my post and respond. Indeed, this could be interpreted as a review. I have two reasons for this post. First, there's a somewhat naive assumption that someone from the development team might read this. Although I'm not delving deeply into potential solutions, does this post truly offer much help in the end? It's debatable. Second, since I've already written a review that I can't edit or supplement, I wanted to share here and gauge how others might respond. I'm curious if our thoughts align on various aspects or if there are significant differences.
Your point about a sale not resolving all issues is indeed valid. However, for those who are open-minded and view the game as a beta, buying it during a significant sale could somewhat rationalize the presence of bugs, to a certain extent. I'm not endorsing the current state of this game—it's far from flawless. Though not entirely unplayable, it undeniably falls short of expectations when all factors are considered.
Your assessment of a refined Rogue Trader seems somewhat discouraging, largely drawn from your past encounters with Owlcat games. However, there remains a possibility that their upcoming DLC might motivate them to finally steer the game consistently towards its intended direction. This, after all, isn't merely any intellectual property (IP). However, on the flip side, I might be overestimating the appeal of Games Workshop's (GW) games in comparison to those of Wizards of the Coast (WotC), even though Pathfinder was primarily inspired by the 3rd edition of Dungeons & Dragons and as such technically isn't their IP.
Are you referring to Act 3 in a particular city where the removal of traumas might not be possible? There's a certain individual—let's dub him a "doctor"—who can provide items that remove traumas. I progressed to Act 4, after which I felt a compulsive need to restart the game. Consequently, I can't speak to what lies beyond that might diminish the significance of traumas.
When I mention spikes, I'm not implying that they're jarring; it's the high inconsistency that's the issue. I've chosen the Unfair difficulty to savor a genuine challenge, but I'm faced with combat scenarios that can be effortlessly steamrolled. Surprisingly, even the bosses present no real threat if you're familiar with the mechanics, or rather, if you exploit overpowered builds. Ironically, I didn't even make a deliberate effort to acquire these advantages; they seem to naturally lead to becoming overpowered. I would greatly prefer combat that doesn't result in an almost effortless victory, but rather a well balanced consistent struggle to survive.
In essence, I don't particularly take issue with the visual aesthetic. However, in this subjective review of the game, I firmly believe that the graphical presentation featured in Baldur's Gate 3 would equally have better aligned with the grim and dark ambiance of the 40k universe as well. Currently, it tends more toward a cute or cartoonish representation, a contrast noticeable even in the painting scenes. People seem to either appreciate this style akin to the official GW Eavy Metal painters or favor a more somber and gritty approach—the latter resonating more with me personally and, in my view, better suited to the overarching 40k narrative.
What do you believe are the chances that mods would end up rectifying what they themselves could/would not? I'm mainly talking bugs and combat balance, assuming of course, there are even modders out there that want to touch Rogue Trader. BG3 seemed much more popular for modders than Rogue Trader, but I'm guessing that lies solely with the accessibility for modders than anything else.
Regarding the potential introduction of a new engine, my mention was merely a thought without any actual anticipation of them porting the current game to a new remake of the same. I speculated, unclearly I might add, that the success of this game might have brought in sufficient funds to justify adopting a new system. Personally, and I believe many others share this sentiment, I would appreciate a less comical interpretation of the Warhammer 40k universe.
Nonetheless, thank you once more for responding!
Still, there are many other instances of situations when there is no way to trivially remove traumas, throughout the game.
Those sorts of problem are pretty easy for developers to fix too, so I would imagine most of them would get cleaned up eventually. If any did make it to the end, though, then a mod would fix it right up.
Game balance is in a similar situation, in terms of whether a mod can redress it. Problems with balance are subjective, though, so it is very easy to imagine that the developers could get the game in a state of balance that they are happy with while a significant minority of the players might feel differently. That's really a situation where mods shine, because then everyone gets to have their way (so to speak).
Game balance mods are bigger than just a few database tweaks, and that takes time and effort, as well as passion for the game. I have no idea whether RT will draw that kind of devotion, but my guess would be that it will.
Some of the harder-to-fix bugs, and possibly some instances of game imbalance, may be beyond the scope of what a modder can do, however. For those we have to hope that Owlcat can and does address them while they are still working on this game.
Rykad Minoris and Act 3 presented instances that prevented returning and highlighted the impact of trauma. I genuinely appreciated this aspect, which intensified my desire to encounter similar restrictions in every situation.
Speaking of modders, in a hypothetical scenario, they could potentially possess the ability to eliminate post-combat healing and automatic ship trauma removal. In fact, I would even suggest that modders might be able to introduce chance-based trauma removal into the standard Medikits as a compensatory measure.
I hope the developers take this perspective into account. A game that offers multiple difficulty settings should ideally cater to everyone's preferences, enabling them to discover their preferred balance between challenge and enjoyment. From my standpoint, it's crucial for the most challenging difficulty to strike a delicate balance where either you or your opponent finishes with roughly 10-15% health, resulting in an almost draw. This closely contested outcome, regardless of whether the player or the computer emerges victorious, signifies true equilibrium.
Consequently, the difficulty sliders could be adjusted to preset settings. For example, the "Unfair" level mirrors the aforementioned balance, while "Hard" allows players to succeed with an average of 33% health remaining. "Daring" presents victory with 50% health, "Normal" with 66%, and "Story" mode with approximately 83% health left.
In my humble opinion, that should be the guideline they aim for.
Thank you again for your response!
Let me give you an example to illustrate the problems that I see with it. Consider Chess; now, imagine that someone tasks you with re-balancing the game to ensure that every time it is played, the game will end with each side having no more than 10-15% of their starting pieces left. This would be (1) effectively impossible, because the designer cannot control (2) the decisions or (3) skill levels of the players who are playing the game.
(1) You could introduce special rules that prevent the game from ending before that point, such as the King being inviolable until both sides had reached the desired casualty threshold. While that would technically satisfy the requirements, it would also change the game so fundamentally that it would not just be a re-balance of the same game but rather a completely different game that played in a way that was dramatically unlike what the original is intended to simulate.
(2) Anyone can make a mistake, and in most games worth playing a mistake has consequences. Those consequences typically lead to lop-sided results, such as one side significantly out-performing the other, especially if they happen early.
(3) Most games worth playing are games of skill, where greater skill translates to a greater chance of victory. If two players with different skill levels face off, it is expected and intended that the more skillful will win more often, and often by a greater margin than if both opponents were equally skilled.
Now imagine that you introduced dice rolls into the "combat" mechanic, such that when a piece would normally capture another piece, instead a die roll would be used to determine the outcome of the confrontation. Now you also have a random factor, where even equally-skilled players can experience very different outcomes resulting in a one-sided victory by virtue of the dice alone.
The situation with Rogue Trader isn't exactly the same, but it is very similar. You have random results of actions that are taken in combat, you have a human player whose skill level and decisions are beyond the control of the developers of the game, you can't ensure that a player is playing on a difficulty setting on par with their skill level, and you have a need to try to simulate realistic combat (within the confines of the setting).
Some extreme way of enforcing the 10-15% health remaining goal, like preventing any friendlies from dying while the average health was higher than the target range, and preventing the last enemy from dying until the average health was at or below the target range, would be so jarring to the sense of realism as to ruin the experience of anyone playing the game.
Anything less extreme than forcing that requirement opens up the likelihood that other factors will drive the end state of combat out of that target range. The way Rogue Trader is designed rewards early success and punishes early failure. This makes the outcome of battles even more swingy than in similar games, because the difference between (a) killing that one guy, resulting in enough momentum to trigger a heroic act, and then capitalizing on that to kill three more guys all in one turn, and (b) not killing that guy, ending your turn, and then having those four guys kill one of your guys, is quite dramatic.
This is chaos theory - not Chaos, but mathematical chaos - at work. A small change in events can result in a huge difference in the end state of a system, and trying to control that can be difficult or impossible.
There is one way that I can see that all of these factors could be overcome. If the game were to dynamically adjust the outcome of actions to continually re-balance the current states of the battle, with the goal being to guide the outcome to the target range, then it would be possible to guarantee results as you want. The problem is that there's another, simpler, word for that: cheating. Are you about to hit a shot that will end the battle too soon? Game fudges the roll and you miss. Did that enemy hit you a bit too hard? Fudge the damage and now you're okay. Did you leave three of your characters in a line outside of cover? The AI decides not to capitalize on your mistake and instead shoots at the guy in cover on the other side of the map.
There might be some people who want that, or who think that they want that, but very quickly it would become entirely unsatisfying. If, no matter what you do, you are going to win every battle with 10-15% of your health left, then it no longer matters what you do and skill becomes irrelevant. Most players aren't going to have any interest in playing a game like that, much less paying for it.
What I propose might seem improbable at present, yet not entirely unattainable. However, given that the solution relies on advanced AI, it leans toward the border of impossibility, primarily considering the extensive time investment it would require.
Initially, training the AI involves familiarizing it with the concept of strategic gameplay, encompassing perspectives from both player and adversary. Subsequently, it would necessitate engaging the AI in matches with every conceivable combination of six-character parties. This undertaking, though time-consuming, culminates in the creation of a computer that comprehensively masters playing from both ends.
Consequently, this would facilitate fine-tuning the damage output until both sides consistently arrive at the aforementioned stalemate. Given that this equilibrium represents the "unfair" difficulty, it stands as an acceptable benchmark. Thereafter, adjustments to damage, evasion rates, and health per difficulty level could be made, showcasing that the AI can demonstrate a winnable scenario for the player, with an average of "x" remaining based on the chosen difficulty.
Once more, I want to emphasize my belief in the possibility of this concept. Nonetheless, considering our current stage in AI development, it aligns closer to the impossible end of the spectrum than the improbable. Realistically, it might take several years, and even my optimism might border on naivety.
Alternatively, this task could be accomplished manually by employing highly skilled players. One side would control the computer/enemy, while the other represents the actual player. Repeatedly conducting matches based on all combat encounters, with the most common combinations of parties, likely consisting of one secondary archetype each, could provide insights into the potential power balance of certain builds—identifying tendencies toward overpowered or underpowered configurations.
However, a persistent issue lies in Owlcat's apparent neglect of this aspect in favor of their publishers' profit-driven decisions.
And just like before, I appreciate your, this time very extensive, reply!