Finding a good new RPG is impossible

[p0mpous]

They either arent RPG's like the Witcher, amall scale CRPGs like Baldurs Gate or they are about 20 years old.

[p0mpous]

niralamart000님이 먼저 게시:

we don't need anymore rpgs, the genre has stagnated and it's just filler at this point. just play the thousands you never played

Issue is more of them arent RPGs or are just flat out bad.

[Zero]

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

Not really. We had 2D games because we couldn't do 3D, we have been in the era of 3D now for about 30 years. 2D environments just aren't engaging, inmersive or interesting.

Ok, but most 3D games are shovelware and yearly releases with poorly written stories (if any) and/or full of cliche. The 2D RPGs still reign supreme, even to this day.

[Rin]

Every year there's like 20 playable JRPGs if you look hard enough. However, if you (only) want to play an action game with "RPG mechanics" then your list goes down to maybe 1 or 2 each year.

Remnant II comes to mind although that's just another loot shooter in my book.

[p0mpous]

Zero님이 먼저 게시:

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

Not really. We had 2D games because we couldn't do 3D, we have been in the era of 3D now for about 30 years. 2D environments just aren't engaging, inmersive or interesting.

Ok, but most 3D games are shovelware and yearly releases with poorly written stories (if any) and/or full of cliche. The 2D RPGs still reign supreme, even to this day.

No they don't. People make games in 2D because they lack the skill or resources for 3D.

[Kargor]

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

People make games in 2D because they lack the skill or resources for 3D.

I prefer a good 2D game over a bad 3D any day.

There's also the interesting situation of Trine 3. Trine has always had a gorgeous look, in 2D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bx76Oj54mM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTkIp6h9r5k

with Trine 3, they ventured into the 3D realm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEnsYhBJ4Xo

It still looked gorgeous, but as a player, it was sometimes difficult to line up skills properly in 3D. And that's despite them reducing the skill sets of the characters down to a "bare minimum" already, eliminating most of the variety of previous games.
How much that hurt them (Trine 3 has the worst review score in the franchise), and how much of it has to be attributed to the lack of an ending to the story -- I don't know. I complained about both aspects.

Trine 4 went back to 2D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuLb1XTHg-Y

Haven't played Trine 5 yet.

[p0mpous]

Kargor님이 먼저 게시:

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

People make games in 2D because they lack the skill or resources for 3D.

I prefer a good 2D game over a bad 3D any day.

There's also the interesting situation of Trine 3. Trine has always had a gorgeous look, in 2D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bx76Oj54mM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTkIp6h9r5k

with Trine 3, they ventured into the 3D realm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEnsYhBJ4Xo

It still looked gorgeous, but as a player, it was sometimes difficult to line up skills properly in 3D. And that's despite them reducing the skill sets of the characters down to a "bare minimum" already, eliminating most of the variety of previous games.
How much that hurt them (Trine 3 has the worst review score in the franchise), and how much of it has to be attributed to the lack of an ending to the story -- I don't know. I complained about both aspects.

Trine 4 went back to 2D:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuLb1XTHg-Y

Haven't played Trine 5 yet.

Sure but a good 3D game is always better.

[The nameless Gamer]

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

Sure but a good 3D game is always better.

That's entirely subjective and a matter of preference.

[CRCGamer]

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

Sure but a good 3D game is always better.

False. Matter of opinion for a quite a few things. But very objectively false when dealing with certain art styles or thematic direction. There are things you can get away with in 2D far more readily without falling victim to uncanny valley.

Also there can be absolutely spectacular 2D done with system requirements that would choke on a half-baked 3D setup. I'll direct your attention to an oldie known as Odin Sphere that was released for the Playstation 2.

And lets just say that good high quality spritework is more expensive than discounted asset flip 3D stuff. But it holds up over time so much longer because stylized sprites are far more timeless than a modern 3D model that in a decade looks absolutely quaint compared to whatever the current standard will be.

[The nameless Gamer]

Hand-drawn over 3D ANY DAY. Hand-drawn visual style has personality and style, 3D games rarely have that. Hand-drawn 2D games have style which ages well, 3D graphics age poorly almost without exception. The above mentioned Odin Sphere and similar games looked great when made, look great today and will look great for years to come. Can you say the same for Tomb Raider I-IV? Sprite work is also pretty timeless. Street Fighter III looks great after 20+ years. Compare that to Virtua Fighter III and Tekken 3.

Hell, even Tyrian 2000, which is from the MS-DOS era looks VERY good. 2D ages like fine wine.

Granted, most of the games I listed are not RPGs, but RPG games are not exempt. Harebrained Schemes' Shadowrun Games and Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity look good and will keep looking good.

[Nightlight]

CRCGamer님이 먼저 게시:

I'll direct your attention to an oldie known as Odin Sphere that was released for the Playstation 2.

Speaking of Vanillaware games, I'm really looking forward to Unicorn Overlord. It looks stunning, as one would expect of a Vanillaware game. Hopefully it turns out to be good.

[The nameless Gamer]

Nightlight님이 먼저 게시:

CRCGamer님이 먼저 게시:

I'll direct your attention to an oldie known as Odin Sphere that was released for the Playstation 2.

Speaking of Vanillaware games, I'm really looking forward to Unicorn Overlord. It looks stunning, as one would expect of a Vanillaware game. Hopefully it turns out to be good.

Too bad Vanillaware seem to have something against PC players.

[Nightlight]

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

Too bad Vanillaware seem to have something against PC players.

I have a Switch, so as long as it doesn't run poorly on it (which is definitely a possibility, haha) I'm good. But, yeah, it sucks for purely PC players. It's a real shame, it'd be so cool to see their games on PC, and it would allow me to start nagging people to play Odin Sphere .

[The nameless Gamer]

Nightlight님이 먼저 게시:

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

Too bad Vanillaware seem to have something against PC players.

I have a Switch, so as long as it doesn't run poorly on it (which is definitely a possibility, haha) I'm good. But, yeah, it sucks for purely PC players. It's a real shame, it'd be so cool to see their games on PC, and it would allow me to start nagging people to play Odin Sphere :lunar2019laughingpig:.

Eh, others have it covered. O.T.K. games are a developer sporting similar art style and while they take a while to cook up something, they deliver. Also, I found a game named "Helvetii" to scratch my "Muramasa - the demon blade" itch without having to buy a console for 2-3 games. Wouldn't need to nag me if those ever made it to PC. Odin Sphere and Muramasa look like something I would love. Dragon's Crown seems to be more about co-op so... regrettably not my cuppa.

[Nightlight]

The nameless Commander님이 먼저 게시:

Eh, others have it covered. O.T.K. games are a developer sporting similar art style and while they take a while to cook up something, they deliver.

Ah, yeah, they're the ones that made The Vagrant. I have it, but didn't get very far in it because my computer at the time couldn't run it very well. I have a new computer now, so hopefully I'll be able to play through it.

Detained: Too Good for School is what they're currently working on. It seems interesting.

[Zero]

p0mpous님이 먼저 게시:

Zero님이 먼저 게시:

Ok, but most 3D games are shovelware and yearly releases with poorly written stories (if any) and/or full of cliche. The 2D RPGs still reign supreme, even to this day.

No they don't. People make games in 2D because they lack the skill or resources for 3D.

You're objectively incorrect.