Inscryption -- one of the Best Games I have ever played

[avatar! | 1,819]

I will write a short review of the game later. I actually finished Inscryption a few months ago, and I like to let a game linger for a moment, that way I can truly decide what I think of it! Yes, no doubt, Inscryption is a masterpiece. The basic premise of the game is that it's a "roguelike deck-building game" similar to Slay the Spire. I am happy to say that while it outwardly shares traits similar to Slay the Spire, it is far superior in basically every way. I have to think about what to carefully say in the review, because in my mind the greatest strength of the game is the story. It's amazing, and the journey from start to finish is beautiful.

I'm old(ish), like quite a few of you on here
So yeah, I've played games from the NES to the PS5 and very few are ones I will truly remember fondly. Inscryption is one of them. It's something to be experienced.

[SilverspoonGaming | 332]

Your words are enough for me to atleast try it out.  What platform did you play on?

[avatar! | 1,819]

2 minutes ago, SilverspoonGaming said:

Your words are enough for me to atleast try it out.  What platform did you play on?

I played it on the PS5, had no glitches or any issues. As far as I can tell it's solid on any platform. Definitely want to hear your thoughts on it! My only advice: don't look anything up, just play and enjoy the journey...

[Gloves | 11,790]

Easily one of the best games I've played in recent years, and I stay pretty up to date for the most part. It's an absolute masterpiece.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

I love deckbuilding roguelikes, and I have started it, but put it on hiatus because I had just put 30+ hours into Dicey Dungeons and figured I needed to space them out so as not to burn out.

[Brickman | 3,991]

I’ll check it out next year.

One thing I didn’t like about Slay the Spire is how random it could be. People here and in reviews commented how random it can be to beat the corrupt heart. This put me off and I never finished the game.

Is this game like that? I don’t mind a bit of RNG but not if I’m going to spend more time fighting against it.

[avatar! | 1,819]

11 hours ago, Brickman said:

I’ll check it out next year.

One thing I didn’t like about Slay the Spire is how random it could be. People here and in reviews commented how random it can be to beat the corrupt heart. This put me off and I never finished the game.

Is this game like that? I don’t mind a bit of RNG but not if I’m going to spend more time fighting against it.

Inscryption shares some game mechanics with Slay the Spire, that's really about it. I feel that in Spire you have:

1)Limited growth.
2)It's all about RNG.
3)No saves -- have to start from scratch every time -- gets incredibly BORING.
4)Artificially increase the game time by making the last stage incredibly challenging, so that's it's all about the RNG to win.
5)And lastly, is there a story or plot?

Inscryption basically bypasses all of the faults above. Again, without spoiling, let me say Inscryption wants you to win, it's the opposite of artificially increasing the difficulty. Even if you're "not so good" at deck building, you will complete the game, and what a marvelous game it is

 

[Gloves | 11,790]

5 minutes ago, avatar! said:

Inscryption basically bypasses all of the faults above. Again, without spoiling, let me say Inscryption wants you to win, it's the opposite of artificially increasing the difficulty.

*ahem*

[Brickman | 3,991]

2 hours ago, avatar! said:

Inscryption shares some game mechanics with Slay the Spire, that's really about it. I feel that in Spire you have:

1)Limited growth.
2)It's all about RNG.
3)No saves -- have to start from scratch every time -- gets incredibly BORING.
4)Artificially increase the game time by making the last stage incredibly challenging, so that's it's all about the RNG to win.
5)And lastly, is there a story or plot?

Inscryption basically bypasses all of the faults above. Again, without spoiling, let me say Inscryption wants you to win, it's the opposite of artificially increasing the difficulty. Even if you're "not so good" at deck building, you will complete the game, and what a marvelous game it is

 

Sounds great. I will check it out.

[avatar! | 1,819]

3 hours ago, Gloves said:

*ahem*

Sure you could in principle get super unlucky and get obliterated, but it's worlds apart from Slay the Spire   Also, to be clear, it's not that Inscryption doesn't have it's challenges, especially at the beginning. But, from start to finish it's about 10-15 hours and the game truly is meant to be experienced and completed. There's no artificially increasing the playtime by needlessly making enemies super challenging or always starting from scratch as in Slay the Spire --

My frustrations with Slay the Spire, 100 hours later

https://www.giantbomb.com/slay-the-spire/3030-59383/forums/my-frustrations-with-slay-the-spire-100-hours-late-1822259/

I have NEVER beaten the Awakened One...Yeah screw The Awakened One. I've beaten the games 4-5 times or something, but never won against him/that. I feel it was stupidly poorly balanced ...I really hope they change/balance the last bosses some more.

I did beat the Awakened One, it was tough, but I got lucky. And therein is the major problem with Slay the Spire, even if you play it for hundreds of hours, at the end, it comes to luck. While you can grind in Inscryption, there's really no point. Slay the Spire on the other hand SHOULD have a mechanism to strengthen your deck or at least re-balance the bosses so that it's not entirely RNG dependent -- as it stands, that's exactly what it is, RNG dependent.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

I feel like this thread is a veiled excuse for @avatar! to vent his Slay the Spire frustrations yet again 

[avatar! | 1,819]

1 minute ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I feel like this thread is a veiled excuse for @avatar! to vent his Slay the Spire frustrations yet again 

I mean, to be fair, how can you review one without the other

[Gloves | 11,790]

2 hours ago, avatar! said:

Sure you could in principle get super unlucky and get obliterated, but it's worlds apart from Slay the Spire   Also, to be clear, it's not that Inscryption doesn't have it's challenges, especially at the beginning. But, from start to finish it's about 10-15 hours and the game truly is meant to be experienced and completed. There's no artificially increasing the playtime by needlessly making enemies super challenging or always starting from scratch as in Slay the Spire --

My frustrations with Slay the Spire, 100 hours later

https://www.giantbomb.com/slay-the-spire/3030-59383/forums/my-frustrations-with-slay-the-spire-100-hours-late-1822259/

I have NEVER beaten the Awakened One...Yeah screw The Awakened One. I've beaten the games 4-5 times or something, but never won against him/that. I feel it was stupidly poorly balanced ...I really hope they change/balance the last bosses some more.

I did beat the Awakened One, it was tough, but I got lucky. And therein is the major problem with Slay the Spire, even if you play it for hundreds of hours, at the end, it comes to luck. While you can grind in Inscryption, there's really no point. Slay the Spire on the other hand SHOULD have a mechanism to strengthen your deck or at least re-balance the bosses so that it's not entirely RNG dependent -- as it stands, that's exactly what it is, RNG dependent.

The point of the screenshot is, and you may have forgotten this, but on your first playthrough Leshi just up and decides you're doing too well and pulls a full table of Grizzly Bears with boosts that make it near impossible to pass.

[Sumez | 2,963]

I guess I need to bump this one up my backlog. Got a physical copy sitting around

[RH | 4,908]

4 hours ago, Sumez said:

I guess I need to bump this one up my backlog. Got a physical copy sitting around

Physical you say... well my interests has piqued a bit!  I don't buy much DLC, unless it's an old game that you can find anywhere for a few bucks.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

2 minutes ago, RH said:

Physical you say... well my interests has piqued a bit!  I don't buy much DLC, unless it's an old game that you can find anywhere for a few bucks.

Good luck getting the physical

[Khromak | 768]

Ehhh.. I'd argue against the slay the spire/luck angle. I think people who claim that STS is luck-based are just rushing too much and/or too inexperienced to play properly. If you've watched a video of high level STS players, they win like 99% of their games because they have insane levels of knowledge and go DEEP into the strategy.

I say this as someone who tends to just blitz my STS runs and who dies...a lot...but that's just my play style, that's not a flaw in the game. If I slowed down and thought about every turn, every decision on the map, every relic, card decision, and shop decision, I'd be much better. I'm just impatient, and oftentimes I try to force deck ideas that I'm not getting the cards/relics for. You really need to be flexible with your deck idea and adjust as you go.

I agree though, it's definitely a game where a lot is expected of you if you're going to win, especially if you're on higher Ascension levels.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

2 hours ago, Khromak said:

Ehhh.. I'd argue against the slay the spire/luck angle. I think people who claim that STS is luck-based are just rushing too much and/or too inexperienced to play properly. If you've watched a video of high level STS players, they win like 99% of their games because they have insane levels of knowledge and go DEEP into the strategy.

Pretty much.  The good players rock the full 20-deep Ascension.  Getting through the base game means being able to synergize any hand you're dealt, which can be done.

edit: Not to undersell the difficulty, which is substantial

[avatar! | 1,819]

23 hours ago, Gloves said:

The point of the screenshot is, and you may have forgotten this, but on your first playthrough Leshi just up and decides you're doing too well and pulls a full table of Grizzly Bears with boosts that make it near impossible to pass.

I vaguely remember that -- I think that's when the "Stout" even tells you he's cheating

[avatar! | 1,819]

5 hours ago, Khromak said:

Ehhh.. I'd argue against the slay the spire/luck angle. I think people who claim that STS is luck-based are just rushing too much and/or too inexperienced to play properly. If you've watched a video of high level STS players, they win like 99% of their games because they have insane levels of knowledge and go DEEP into the strategy.

Okay, I see what you're saying but I don't feel it's a fair comparison and I'll explain why. It's like saying "You think Dark Souls is hard? Watch this player finish the whole game without dying even once! See, it can totally be done!" -- yes, people have beaten Dark Souls I,II,III without even dying once, but after spending who knows how many hours upon hours upon hours. So sure, someone with as you say "insane levels of knowledge" knows exactly how this card will work with that card, and if they only manage to grab that other card they will easily be able to do x,y,z provided that... etc etc.

HOWEVER, most people don't devote that much time to any one game. For most people, whether you complete the game will come down to LUCK. I loved Slay the Spire at the start, but after spending what I would say is "a lot of time" in the game and completing it finally, I absolutely vouch that it comes down to RNG at the very end. A normal player will be able to use their skill to get to the boss of Act 3. That boss, and the final Act 4, absolutely come down to RNG.

[Khromak | 768]

2 hours ago, avatar! said:

HOWEVER, most people don't devote that much time to any one game. For most people, whether you complete the game will come down to LUCK. I loved Slay the Spire at the start, but after spending what I would say is "a lot of time" in the game and completing it finally, I absolutely vouch that it comes down to RNG at the very end. A normal player will be able to use their skill to get to the boss of Act 3. That boss, and the final Act 4, absolutely come down to RNG.

The problem I have with these and the other statements about luck and RNG are just that...if an expert player can win 50 times in a row, it's not a matter of luck. He's not getting luckier, he's just more skilled.

You can argue all day that WITHOUT PROPER PLAY, you need to get lucky to win, but that's just saying "this game is hard and most people don't have the patience to play it ideally" which is different from "Beating this game is luck" IMO.

Kinda splitting hairs, but I don't think it's fair to say luck is required.

[Sumez | 2,963]

Yeah, I don't think people beating Dark Souls without getting hit would ever be valid as an argument that the game isn't hard. Rather, the fact that it took so much practice is proof that the game is hard.

Likewise, all you're saying about Slay the Spire is that it's a challenging game with a lot to learn and improve at. Saying the game is about luck makes no sense at all given these arguments sorry.  As someone who only played through each class once or twice, and then a couple more runs to have some stabs at the heart, it was extremely clear to me that the game wasn't about luck - you don't need insane dedication to see that, IMO. That said, that level of dedication wasn't for me either.

[avatar! | 1,819]

14 hours ago, Sumez said:

Yeah, I don't think people beating Dark Souls without getting hit would ever be valid as an argument that the game isn't hard. Rather, the fact that it took so much practice is proof that the game is hard.

Likewise, all you're saying about Slay the Spire is that it's a challenging game with a lot to learn and improve at. Saying the game is about luck makes no sense at all given these arguments sorry.  As someone who only played through each class once or twice, and then a couple more runs to have some stabs at the heart, it was extremely clear to me that the game wasn't about luck - you don't need insane dedication to see that, IMO. That said, that level of dedication wasn't for me either.

While there's luck involved in most everything, I view Dark Souls as a very challenging game that requires the player to learn a lot of skills in order to complete the game. I view Slay the Spire as a game where you need some skill, and a good amount of luck. I don't see how you can argue in a game where you could have built a fabulous deck, then when you get to the boss, you get NO attack cards when you need it, and when the boss is about to attack you for major damage you get ZERO defense cards -- yup, happened to me. That really convinced me this game is RNG dependent. If people feel otherwise, more power to you. Again, I completed Slay the Spire and I stand by what I said, it's way too dependent on RNG. 

By the way, did you defeat the corrupt heart? Again, it's especially in Act 4 that the randomness of the draw really means life or death, and I just don't find that enjoyable.

[Sumez | 2,963]

RNG and luck aren't the same thing. You can prepare for bad RNG.
That's like saying Tetris is luck based. And I feel like I've made that exact comparison before in a different thread.

Edited April 5 by Sumez

[avatar! | 1,819]

12 hours ago, Sumez said:

RNG and luck aren't the same thing. You can prepare for bad RNG.
That's like saying Tetris is luck based. And I feel like I've made that exact comparison before in a different thread.

Yes, you're technically correct of course. However, to most players, it is essentially the same thing. You can't manipulate RNG, unless it's flawed. I would agree that Tetris also has a high degree of luck involved.