This guy sure loves his pointless arguments.
I'm curious which ones you feel look worse?
Are we really having an argument here about different art styles?
This game barely qualifies as having a style. It's boring and vanilla.
i personally feel this game barely qualifies as having a style. It's boring and vanilla.
Visuals are not the most important thing, and i'll still be trying this despite my personal opinion on its ugliness and lack of artistic creativity. They do matter to me though.
Yep that's how I write my opinions about games, and my preferred tastes sometimes.fixed!
I'll still be trying this despite its ugliness and lack of artistic creativity.
Does anyone truly believe the visuals hold up to other recent major CRPGs?
Or even these cheaper and less well known CRPGs?
Kingmaker looks more on par with Age of Decadence, Fallout.
My best guess.Can someone name all the RPGs in the "cheaper and less well known CRPGs?" BoboTheMighty quoted. I recognize the middle one already.
Eh? I hope you're exaggerating because that's just silly.
I will try this game despite my pre concieved judgement that it has boring and bland graphics/art directions, and degenerate D&D combat I dislike…. because you know, I'm open minded and shit!!! :lol:
Graphics aren't the point of a game like this anyway, the point is a new, real CRPG with (mostly) D&D 3.5 rules. .
I'll give every isometric CRPG a chance, but there's not much to be excited about here. Pathfinder combat is boring, the Stolen Lands are boring, the Kingmaker story is boring, and the visuals look terrible. I'll be impressed if Owlcats can make a game I enjoy out of this.
The one thing that looks mildly interesting is the kingdom building and management, but I suspect it's just going to be a gimmick like Caed Nua was in Pillars of Eternity.
The bigger question is why people still want a game based on D&D 3.5 in 2018.
Because people still like D&D 3.5 in 2018?