Bloom Is A Gorgeous Thief (Yes, Thief) Influenced ARPG

There's also probably some Shadow of the Colossus in there somewhere as well.

Bloom: Memories is something of a strange creature – less of a genre melting pot and more a genre blender set to liquefy – but I very much appreciate what it’s trying to accomplish. The action-RPG cites everything from Legend of Zelda to Thief to Harvest Moon as core influences, and – in something of a first considering ARPGs’ “click-click-click loot pinata deathsplosion” roots – it offers multiple entirely non-violent options. Or you can plow through every one of the game’s mysterious man-machine remnants of a dark past, though be warned: the world will meet violence with violence. An eye for an eye.

The almost painterly Kickstarter project offers multiple, often markedly divergent paths – from all-out action to Thief-inspired light-and-darkness stealth to silver-tongued compromise with an enemy you don’t fully understand. Developer Studio Fawn adds:

“At its core, we are creating a game that moves away from the cliche of violence and domination. In fact, you can play the entire game without harming anyone or anything if you so choose.”

And yes, you absolutely can – and probably should – talk to the monsters.

“The world is filled with strange creatures; sometimes taking a moment to talk to them can be well worth the time. Every now and then, as you consider how to kill the imposing monster standing before you. . . you might instead simply try and say hello.”

Stealth, meanwhile, will require exacting precision, while violence will reward you with additional strength – but at some other, rot-and-desolation-spreading cost. Bear in mind, however, that your older-than-your-gene-pool nemeses are hardly slouches. Kickpunchslashthwacking with reckless abandon might not always be the most practical idea, either.

The handsome hack-and-handshake-er is asking for $40,000 on Kickstarter, and it’s already nearly halfway there. There’s also a pre-alpha tech demo, if you want a very rough estimate of how the final product will look and feel.

Now for the part that’ll have some of you calling an exterminator for those excited butterflies in your stomach: Bloom won’t be out until December 2015. There’ll be a beta shortly before that, but still. That’s a lot of time. I am, of course, hopeful that it’ll be worth the wait, but you’ll probably want to go ahead and get comfortable.


  1. golem09 says:

    A thieflike one might say?

  2. Sheng-ji says:

    Oooh, Looks right up my street!

  3. Cinek says:

    40k? Isn’t it a bit… tight budget? How long is it suppose to be? 4? 5 hours?

  4. kael13 says:

    Wasn’t there a game shown a little while ago that looked something like this? Or is that this game. I seem to remember lots of green painterly backgrounds and stained glass windows.

  5. yusefsmith says:

    “Bloom May Someday Be A Gorgeous Thief (Yes, Thief) Influenced ARPG, Maybe, If You Give The Makers Of This Video Some Money, And Hope They Don’t Spend Years Messing Around Before Quitting The Project”

  6. khendrix says:

    Looking rather lovely! But the first stretch goal should have been ”finish sooner”.

    It’s an odd combination of a low funding goal and long timeframe — how do they fund 4 people for 2 years with only $40K?

    • InternetBatman says:

      It is, but this has been enough of a passion project that they’ve already been working on it for over a year without funding.

      • SillyWizard says:

        Indeed, perhaps they all work other jobs full time and only work on this when they can, and need the $40K to hire one or more specialists to do something particular.

        Or maybe they just want to get their families fancy Xmas presents this year.

  7. HansSatori says:

    I will buy it when its on steam. i cant justify spending money on a game thats 2 years away. i dont crap money so i stay away from kickstarter. but it looks rad and will be looking forward to it.

    • Drayk says:

      Agreed. And it looks like this game is gonna get funded anyway. I am slowling down a bit on kickstarter. I am still waiting for more than 10 projects to deliver.

  8. InternetBatman says:

    It’s worthwhile to point out that this is their third attempt at kickstarting Bloom. The first was for $150k a year ago. The second was for $50k six months ago. In that time they’ve shown a lot of demonstrable progress, and I think it’s pretty cool that they tell you to go look at their previous campaigns to show they’re capable of delivering progress.

    The drop is a little worrying, and I don’t understand the long wait, but I like their honesty and the work they’ve done so far.

    • mwoody says:

      It’s not that you posted what I was just about to post that bothers me; it’s that your first three sentences are verbatim what I’ve written in another window. Creepy.

      But yeah, there are some red flags here, but not enough to stop me from hopping on. In many ways, three (!) kickstarters for the same project shows that they’re not about to give up if things get tough down the road.

      • Hanban says:

        The M. Night Shyamalan twist is that you two are the same person.

      • InternetBatman says:

        I know, I watched you write them.

        • SanguineAngel says:

          It’s at times like this that I wish I could up-vote posts

        • frightlever says:

          Ah, that old Urban Legend that ends, “The Skype call was coming from his home IP address….”

      • Cinek says:

        I would say that there’s only one thing it shows and devs can’t see: Lack of demand.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Or perhaps their failure to market their idea effectively enough? This is the first time I have heard of it, so demand existed that wasn’t represented in their previous attempts – mine!

    • Somerled says:

      This is the second kickstarter project I’ve seen that’s reduced the funding target over multiple runs, and yet still made progress in the meantime. Again, I wonder what they need the money for if they can do so much without it. Why should we fund bedroom developers that will demonstrably produce for free?

      Of course, working from funding is better than working from nothing and I do hope they get the money.

      • madninjaskillz says:

        I’m the dev on this project. I wasn’t attached to the project when it hit the previous kickstarters. I am also a Contractor. The more funding we get, the less contracts I’m forced to take due to the fact I need to feed a family. The funding is the difference between this being a hobby and this being a full time project. It also gives us the funding we need to hire voice actors etc. We have recorded far more vocal work than is in the demo – and thrown most of it away because it was done for free by people who aren’t right for the project. The game will be the game we want it to be if we get funding. Sure we are making progress, but we will make much better progress if its my only priority.

  9. int says:

    I hope one can disable bloom.

  10. gruia says:

    this looks awesome

  11. psepho says:

    “Hack and handshake” sounds like quite the genre. Something about PR people and press perhaps?

  12. Stephen Roberts says:

    In Dishonoured, the more you killed people the more difficult the last level was. Rat swarms were up as well. It feels good to have these morality balancing systems but I think they got it the wrong way around. If you were merciful to all of the guards, surely they could post a much bigger guard force for the last level. And surely that should be the way it is – the easy way out is to kill. Killing is quicker, can be made invisible and so on. The rat swarms would make some sense with the additional corpses about so chuck them in, but think about shades of grey. Think about what being good means. It means the hard path. If there are consequences in your video games, make sure they are thematically consistent with the choice. Usually, choices aren’t all good or all bad. They are just choices. Sometimes, you don’t even know a choice has been made.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      In dishonoured, the trade off is in the earlier levels though. Wading in gun blazing and sword swinging, killing everything in sight is the easier option – but leads to the game getter progressively (slightly) harder. Taking the stealthy humane option is (slightly) harder at the time, but smooths out the end of the game.

      I guess, also, that developers have to make a trade off between giving meaningful moral decisions and being seen to encourage “evil” behaviour. If doing the right thing gives material benefit over doing the wrong thing – then it’s not a moral choice, it’s a material one. If doing the bad thing is beneficial, then you’re baiting the Daily Mail. Classic example of this was in Bioshock with the “Adam collecting” – one they chickened out of if I remember correctly,

      • InternetBatman says:

        People who often complain about difficulty spikes or a game being to easy at the end often miss this. Yes, never using potions and selling them all makes your game easier at the end when you have a ridiculous amount of gold, but it makes the middle much more difficult.

  13. Wulf says:

    Hm. A game that isn’t all about witless bloodletting, just so much stabbing, and/or shooting things. A game that even encourages communication (a rare trait in video games). I had to find the source as to why, and the lead developer is a woman. I can’t help but wonder if it’s just testosterone that leads to what I hate about video games.

    So often I see a world that might be interesting, and its worth is squandered by it being just another violence fest. I remember how bitter I’ve been over this — diplomacy is bad, but it goes deeper than that. It’s more that talking and thinking themselves are inherently bad. Why would you want to engage in discourse when you can just punk something with your latest shiny implement of torture? These are feelings I’ve been tarred and feathered with, and I can still see that the underlying bile is still there in this article. That’s a shame.

    And this is why I’m disappointed, I guess.

    Yes, violence is fantasy. That I’ve always gotten. I’ve just been one of the few who seem to be self aware enough to step back and look at the bigger picture. So much of our entertainment revolves around murder, torture even, where numerous other solutions could h ave been presented. And we enjoy that as a past time, it’s our escapism. I want people to think about what that says about us.

    If it’s strange. Kill it.

    Have I ever been on the receiving end of that sentiment.

    And “strange” can simply be something that isn’t in complete agreement with a consensus. In violent games, our companions are often sycophantic yes-men who promote our ideas and our personage as pure and beautiful, like a delicate flower, a being that could do no wrong. At the same time, that beautiful character is committing mass murder without giving it a second thought. It’s like the dichotomy of the Pyro’s insanity.

    Yes, there are games of different genres, but the games that receive the most money are almost invariably the most violent. In fact, the games that have the most money spent upon them, the games that have the most profit coming in, are the most violent. Grand Theft Auto is a lovely example of this. The money to develop the most intricate worlds, to craft the most intoxicating and believable experiences always has a direct correlation with how much mutilation is involved.

    We don’t exactly get many big budget games about anything else, do we? I don’t see Activision releasing a game about a telepathic pacifist who deals with his foes by rendering them unconscious — possibly going that step further sometimes to see if they could even fix what’s wrong with their assailant, seeing if they could heal them by getting to the root of their aggression. Could you see that occupying shelf space, with TV adverts, posters, et cetera?

    That happens with films and certain other forms of media, but never with video games, and no one ever really seems to question why. I’ve questioned why, and I’ve become the butt of a joke for it, for wanting to see more diplomacy in games. In other words, for wanting to see games encourage diplomacy, I’ve been met with an almost sociopathic ire. I don’t know. It’s weird. It’s just hard for me to look at all this and say that gaming doesn’t effect people in a negative way, going by what gamers favour.

    And honestly, if this Kickstarter fails, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    I can’t help thinking about it, about how many non-violent films get so much attention and advertising, whereas every big budget video game is all about how many different ways in which we can murder someone. And what ridiculous exercise of apologism we can use for a story to explain as to why this supposed paragon of virtue is a serial killer.

    And this is who you play. This is who you are. You never ask for anything else.

    So maybe I do want an open world game with an epic scale, telling the story of a telepathic pacifist who solves problems with diplomacy, tact, and cleverness, without ever spilling a drop of blood. Maybe I want that just to offset the oceans of violence out there, of neverending violence. Yes. Maybe I do want to talk. I think that enjoyment of seeing people talk wouldn’t be so strange to a film-going audience, would it?

    It’s just something to think on. I know you won’t, because you don’t want to ask questions like that, they make you uncomfortable. Easier to make fun of someone. But still, the invitation is there. Why are you so different from other forms of media, gaming? What is it that makes you so hate-filled, angry, and murderous? And, as a thing, what makes you so attractive to gamers?

    I want a paradigm shift.

    Feather and tar away.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      You should play D&D (and other roleplaying games) with me, I’ve run whole campaigns with not a single battle and kept my players thoroughly engaged throughout. I’ve created many characters with no combat skills at all and worn no armour, held no weapons and played them not as some kind of pacifist but a regular person who solves problems without violence. I just get bored of “You walk into the room, there are three orcs here, they attack.” It’s dumb, I grew out of it when I was 8 and I asked why the orcs were just standing around fully armoured.

      I don’t think it follows that people who play games with killing in them are blood crazed, hate filled, angry murderers, that’s quite the stretch, I just think it demonstrates how influential Tolkien was – his world, with it’s angry, hate filled, murderous folk became THE fantasy trope.

      • Premium User Badge

        Velorien says:

        How do you do it? It sounds fascinating, but I have no idea where I’d begin with my group (who break half of everything they touch).

        • Sheng-ji says:

          God, where do I begin… Start by writing a compelling story where violence would be inappropriate – don’t try to write what the players will do but give them a playground. As part of this playground, you need fences, constraints that keep them in – local constabulary in most games. Make the police clever, demonstrate this early and hard so the players understand that committing murder will likely end in rerolling a character due to incarceration, and never give them easy outs from the consequences of their actions. Use enemies who can never be pinned down – if the adventurers can’t reach the enemy, they can’t kill it and will be forced to rethink how to tackle it.

          Don’t allow your characters to be ultimate powers, Sure, a level 10 character is supposed to be godlike, but change that for your world, make it so that most NPC’s range from L1-5, guards L4-8 and important characters L 7-12. Employ tactics to make combat deadly, orcs are deadly warriors and in their homes they should be able to easily deal with a bunch of intruders without ever having to front up to them personally. Use powerful weapons – even in the hands of a kobold, a vial of contact poison is deadly – it can be thrown, poured onto the floor, dripped from above, used to coat plants they have to brush through etc etc. Don’t let the warrior in full plate carry a backpack, force him to take his armour off or suffer serious penalties. Don’t let him ride anything other than a fully trained knightly warhorse and when he’s not wearing it, how is he transporting it. A caravan is a weakness that can be exploited, the orc warband seeking justice for their dead comrades may not attack the party directly but burn their supplies. A week in the wilderness with nothing to eat will make them easy prey. Clerics are formidable warriors, but what if their good god won’t let them have healing spells for a month every time they take a life. Or their Evil god won’t let them have healing spells at all.

          This is all stick stuff – punishing the players for violence. It is crucial to combine this with the carrot – reward the players for careful, thoughtful investigative play. Maybe the players don’t kill the assassin but take him to face justice. This impresses someone important and gets them introductions to influential people. Clearly reward players for working within the system with access to power. Shut them out if they are a disruption but make it so that being a part of the system leads to great opportunities.

          more coming a bit later, have stuff to do!

          • thecommoncold says:

            This 100%, but just to add my 2 cents: communication is key. You need to make the expectations for the setting clear to all players (exactly how you do this is up to you).

            Some of the “stick” approaches might leave your players feeling like you pulled the rug out from them if they aren’t expecting to be punished for resorting to what you have deemed the “wrong” methods, and that’s no fun for anybody.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Couldn’t agree with TheCommonCold more – set aside a good chunk of the first session to introduce the players to the world and the characters to each other. I normally have them roll their characters in this setting too, and think up their backgrounds together. Use props to reinforce your setting, if you have a sherlock holmes adventure planned, give them all their documents in a paper folder bound with string, use a typewriter style font. Use music, smell, taste and touch where-ever possible and within your economics. Anything to spell out to the players, this is not your average dungeon crawl.

            Use secret messages, one adventure I was running was a vampire hunt across a medieval Europe. I made the spell caster tell me his spells everyday in secret. This led to a showdown between the players that lasted 4 hours because they, with no prompting from me, accused the mage of being the vampire. Those four hours were some of the most intense, thrilling, heartbreaking hours I have ever witnessed, and not one violent action was taken, not one character left the room even once. Pure dialogue, 4 players who had forgotten that they were players fencing each other with logic and their wit, deciding whether killing the mage was murder or their job. I only had to step in once when a player forgot his character probably wasn’t bright enough to make the deductions he was making – again by secret message so as not to ruin the tension for the others. By the time they had released him, not one of them had remained dry eyed through the session and not one of them has ever forgotten the experience!

            So, I would say:

            1) Introduce your players to the world, spend plenty of time discussing the new campaign and their new characters before you begin. Reinforce this early in play by getting them to see the other side of things.

            2) Reward your players well but make sure they understand that your world doesn’t give them any special consideration.

            3) Encourage your players to rollplay with each other – have them only converse in character with each other, keep some dialogue only between yourself and each player, this should include the details of their character sheet.

            4) If it’s not working, gently move back to what the group finds fun.

          • Premium User Badge

            Velorien says:

            Hmm, not sure if this reply button connects to the right post, but anyway, thanks for the tips on non-violent role-playing.

            Probably too late for my current campaign, though, given the latest session:

            One scientist in a town was busy trying to modify what was effectively a cyborg zombie virus to instead make it turn people into immortal, pain-free, physically superior cyborgs without it affecting their minds. After which he intended to unleash it on the rest of the world in order to cure death and disability. He was close to success.

            The other scientist was maintaining a 100% lockdown on the town to prevent this from happening.

            The players had two basic directions they could take the game in once all relevant facts had been discovered.

            A) Preserve the status quo by stopping the first scientist (through persuasion or violence), and then working with the second scientist to find a way to leave the lockdown without letting the virus loose.

            B) Create a transhumanist world by siding with the first scientist to create the beneficial version of the virus, and then dealing with the second scientist (through persuasion or violence) in order to end the lockdown and leave.

            There are all kinds of things they could have tried to do in the process, like looking for a cure (or a way to eliminate everyone carrying the virus), getting the uninfected townspeople on their side, searching for a way to avoid the whole mess and escape the lockdown unaided… instead they took a third option.

            They killed the first scientist as soon as he told them his intentions. Then they destroyed the building to cover their tracks, releasing his small stock of zombies in the process. Then they gathered the unsuspecting townspeople and lured them into the arms of said zombies, still with the aim of covering their tracks, thereby creating a huge zombie horde. Then they went to the second scientist and killed him as soon as he refused to lift the lockdown. Then they lifted the lockdown and rode off into the sunset, leaving a huge zombie horde to spread out across the countryside behind them.

            In some ways it was a good session, emotional and memorable. One player was prepared to sacrifice everything he had to achieve the above, including unique artefacts and XP. There was shouting, attempted intra-party murder, and tears. So it definitely resonated with people.

            On the other hand, there was a completely preventable (and frankly unexpected) zombie apocalypse. The players were directly and intentionally responsible for the deaths of everyone in the town, when pretty much every single person they’d spoken to had gone out of their way to be friendly and helpful (including the people they personally murdered). Oh, and they killed the man who knew the things they needed in order to proceed with the main campaign plot, and blew up his notes and then left what remained of his base to be swarmed by zombies. So there’s that too.

            It would be great to try out non-violent role-playing, but you can see why I’m not confident in my ability to introduce it with this as a starting point.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Hehe, sounds like you all had fun though!!

            I guess I would keep ensuring that the consequences of their actions keep returning to bite them in the ass – it’s the classic dark side vs light side battle. They took an early advantage by taking the quickest, easiest but morally bankrupt route, now make them pay the price for taking that route! Don’t force it on them, don’t contrive it, just let it happen naturally through the game!

            Have you ever watched Rollplay on youtube? link to
            The DM here has a group like yours to deal with… he lets them get away with a lot because some of the players are new but there are times when you see him unleash the consequences of their action and you can genuinely see the players struggling with their decisions!

          • Premium User Badge

            Velorien says:

            Three out of four of us did have fun. The remaining player, though, ended up in tears because she felt powerless to stop the cavalcade of destruction that the other two were on.

            As for enforcing consequences, oh, I fully intend to. Shouldn’t be too hard when what the players did was unleash a *zombie apocalypse*. Did I mention that, this being Numenera, those are actually nigh-unkillable, super-strong regenerating cyborg zombies, and that every time they regenerate, they draw a little closer to a new and vastly more powerful form? And that the PCs knew all this before they started their rampage? This is by no means a can of worms that’s going to just close itself.

            Thanks for the Rollplay link; I’ll check it out.

      • thecommoncold says:

        I agree with the “other roleplaying games” part of your comment, but I think D&D is a bad example here, considering it feels like 90% of the character sheets/power cards (depending on the edition, but they all have this same problem) is how effective you are at killing / not getting killed by things. You CAN do non-violent campaigns in D&D, but it’s a bit of square peg in a round hole problem. Better are FATE and The Burning Wheel families of systems, as their skill and character aspect systems don’t (necessarily) come with implied violence like D&D’s systems.

        In my own group’s FATE campaigns, I can recall sessions where the goals were things like schmoozing at a ball, computer hacking, undercover photojournalism, and a heist at an art exhibit. A lot of the inspiration for these came from non-violent plays of Deus Ex and Thief games. My D&D experience has been “explore world, find dungeon, explore dungeon, kill the monster/bad guy” with different coats of paint. It’s fun when you are in the mood for that sort of thing, but not entirely fresh.

      • aliksy says:

        If you don’t want a violent game you should really use something other than D&D. D&D pretty much defines your character by how you kill things. You can totally do a diplomacy game with it, but there are better systems.

        Some of them have mechanical rules for how to handle doing bad things. Unknown Armies has stress meters- make a check when you do or encounter something more horrible than you can cope with. World of Darkness has morality checks or integrity checks that serve a similar purpose.

        nWoD and UA are traditional enough that people who have only played D&D can probably get them pretty easily. Just make sure you give them a stern look when they inevitably come to you with a combat monster of a character for your social game.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          I house rule D&D considerably, but this has been 20 years of the same group playing together so it probably is, at this point not D&D any more – it’s certainly not roll20 any more!

    • drewski says:

      So…did you back it?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Whilst I’d agree with your desire for more games that didn’t resolve around killing/exploding everything in sight, I think you’re conflating a whole load of other stuff in there without much in the way of evidence, and also overlooking one simple point – it’s a hell of a lot easier to write a game about killing things than it is to write a game about diplomacy and talking. Killing is binary, the thing is alive or dead. Writing interesting and meaning ful dialogue is a hell of a lot harder – as can be seen from the tripe we currently get in games (and that’s in cut-scenes, before we’ve started adding interactivity and choice!).

      Also, maybe people would take your posts more seriously if you didn’t spend half of them explaining how you’re better than everyone else. Maybe you could spend a little less time immersed in a fantasy of exceptionalism and a little more time taking your own advice and trying to understand why it is others like the things they do.

      EDIT: removed last sentence, it was a bit harsh. Sorry.

    • eQuality_Ninja says:

      I’m on board with Wulf. After whiling away my time killing things to switch off my brain (which I a strange thing to type), I discovered, through the inimitable John Walker, the pleasure of games that made me cry (another weird thing to admit).

      To the Moon, a Tale of Two Brothers and The Walking Dead changed my outlook on the industry and on what is possible for this art form to achieve. The third game does involve some killing, but not without seeing the consequences in a child’s huge, frightened eyes. I’ve never felt that before in this medium before.

      Which other (non violent) games do you enjoy?

      • aliksy says:

        I posted on an older article (and got mocked by people who didn’t get it) that The Walking Dead is the best rpg I’ve ever played. I don’t think any other game I’ve played has done that good a job with writing and decision making.

        • colossalstrikepackage says:

          Agreed. While the game certainly wasn’t perfect on the gameplay front (some of those QTEs!!!), the writing was sublime. And Clem is the coolest character in any video game.

    • SillyWizard says:

      The feathering won’t accomplish much unless the tar is there first.

      You never ask for anything else.

      This is a silly assumption. For many of us, wanting new things doesn’t preclude enjoying (or at least experiencing) things we have.

      Anyway, it’s nobody else’s responsibility to create entertainment which you deem worthy. If you’re dissatisfied, make some contributions. Then, when nobody plays your game, you can be the butthurt art-martyr, and call us all philistines with a little more credibility.

    • MichaelGC says:

      You may find this Tasteful Understated Nerdrage vid interesting – inter alia, he talks about some of the practical reasons why violent games are so common.

    • Patches the Hyena says:

      Wulf is back! Oh frabjous day

  14. aliksy says:

    Sounds like something I’d like. I’m always on about how games should offer non-violent paths that have the same amount of complexity as fighting. No more of the “fighting uses 5 skills and other character widgets many times over several minutes, talking uses one skill, once, immediately”, please.

    And as usual, I’ll bring up the sadly defunct roguelike Incursion, that had a diplomacy system so you could make peace with enemies. If you succeeded you could enlist them into your party (which made future diplomacy checks easier, since people are more likely to surrender to a group of people than one lone schmuck).

  15. drewski says:

    I wish them the best of luck.

  16. waaaaaaaals says:

    The big question is: Will it have taffers, taffing about and bear pits?

    • Jekhar says:

      Ah, forget about the pits. They just don’t make bears like they used to.

  17. thecommoncold says:

    Looks interesting. Exploding loot pinatas are awfully compelling, though… I’ll be hoping they can make the other approaches equally so.

  18. CookPassBabtridge says:

    Anyone manage to get the demo working? I seem to be stuck in an interminable loading screen

  19. womp says:

    My favorite thing about playing diplomatic and stealthy characters in games is playing them in game worlds where violence is also an option. Because then that same choice of violence which I’m opting out of my own modus operandi can be used to tangibly threaten me. Like, not as a game over screen, but as a real thing that is happening which I have to deal with. Love it.

    So I hope Bloom scratches that itch for me.

  20. Philotic Symmetrist says:

    This game is actually closer to the roots of ARPGs than any Diab-like click-a-thon since it recommends using a gamepad and the first ARPGs were on consoles.

  21. racccoon says:

    Hmm nice art, not really sure what to make of it at moment though.