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
So far, some people talk about their work.
It is probably just not for me. At all.
I don't get role-playing games.
If anything I think for the deep and immersive storytelling of a game that literally has the word 'saga' in the name, they do a really good job of keeping character exposition and dialogue to a minimum and keeping each storyline engaging as you get introduced to this world.
"Primitive" - because all the people on the table are armed with swords, and don't seem to be very different in what they can do.
"Confusing" - exactly because you can't tell if this is it, or you are supposed to find something that makes it function.
I'm not "close-minded" about it - it's just really hard to tell what I am even supposed to be doing there.
For example, there are plenty of games that prominently feature combat - but are not "about" it. And you just have to tolerate the boring parts to get to the thing the game wants to do well.
Alternatively, there are games that don't do plot almost at all - X-COM, for example - and to enjoy them, you need to find the combat enjoyable.
This is why I asked this question (but may have phrased it negatively after a negative initial impression).