Baldur's Gate = Groundbreaking/Fallout = more of the same

[Morbus]

Says one of my (now ex, probably) readers. I did a review of Baldur's Gate. There, not the brightest piece of text, surely, but I think it's a entertaining read, at least. Of course the 3/5 causes a lot of ass hitching for a lot of people, that's not my problem. The review was covered in RPG Codex and Game Banshee and, of course, there were a lot of... hum... unintended readers reading it. I mean, not everyone is a codexer, and even those who are, some of them don't agree with me on this. And the usual once upon a time casual RPGamer passed by and complain about the 3/5. That's ok. Also ok was the discussion I had with a seemingly more educated (or less uneducated) reader, nicknamed Marius. Here's the whole discussion, please state your opinion about it:

Hi,

While I concede that while some of the features in Baldur’s Gate were not necessarily revolutionary it did well in combining many of the best features of games that preceded it. Regarding your comment on how the lack of quality other games does not justify the quality in your own game … Yes it does. It is easy to take something else that is good, tag on a few things and also call that good. The honest truth is that RPG’s were a dying breed when BG came out and it didn’t really have a lot to go on since it was the conventions of previous games (I’m talking about those boring Pseudo-First Person overcomplicated dungeon crawlers now) that were dragging the genre down in the first place. Thus for it to combine so many great features and present them well I think the game should be applauded. Not many games can be credited as rescuing a genre and if it does it deserves far more than 3.0. But hey I guess I should start my own blog and give the game a 9.3

While I concede that while some of the features in Baldur’s Gate were not necessarily revolutionary it did well in combining many of the best features of games that preceded it.

Did it? Baldur’s Gate is a mix between Real Time Strategy and Role-Playing. And you can’t pretend to tell me Baldur’s Gate excels at either of those aspects. Except for the mage battles, that is

Regarding your comment on how the lack of quality other games does not justify the quality in your own game … Yes it does.

So you’re saying that if everything is bad then everything becomes good? No, there has to be standards, even if those standards are never reached, there has to be. You can’t lower your standards just because no-one is ever able to reach them, that’s just backwards.

The honest truth is that RPG’s were a dying breed when BG came out

Were they? Fallout had already been released, and, if memory serves me correctly, so had Fallout 2. The genre was not dying, it was being revided, by the same company (oh, the irony). Baldur’s Gate was not even meant to be a RPG, let alone revive the genre…

Thus for it to combine so many great features and present them well I think the game should be applauded.

I know what you mean, but I don’t applaud it because it is my belief that it doesn’t excel (and did not excel, at its time) in any of its facets.

But hey I guess I should start my own blog and give the game a 9.3

You should, and you also should, no offense, like, start playing games too. Baldur’s Gate reviving the genre? If anything, Baldur’s Gate is the biggest reason the genre is like what it is today… For the good? Or for the bad? Depends on whether you think it’s healthy or dying. I personally think it’s dying, and when you have games like Fallout, Torment and Arcanum really trying to revive the genre and return to the roots of it, I can’t even begin to understand how you can think Baldur’s Gate revived the genre. No offense, but in order to review this kind of old games, you really have to know their time…

Hi,

I find it quite sad that you had to revert to insults in what was quite a good argument. I have played many games on multiple formats and also finish every single game I play so believe me I’ve put in the hours. I also do not understand where these standards of your’s come from? A game can only be judged in comparison to what came before it not by some fantasy standards that exist only in your head. I also find it quite laughable that you’ve never played a game you consider a masterpiece. What do you expect from games? (an outer body multi-orgasmic experience?) For one who has played as many games as yourself this seems strange indeed.

Firstly you state that Baldur’s Gate is and RTS/RPG type game and then use Fallout as an example of games that revived the RPG genre. That is quite ironic since from my point of view Fallout is far more an RTS/RPG than Baldur’s Gate ever was.

Secondly lets make a component based analysis of the game so that we can identify what you are so unhappy about :

- Graphics : The game had beautiful graphics with exceptional artwork especially on the terrain. If you can find RPG’s with better artwork and graphics than BG please list them so that I can play them.

- Audio : One of the best and most recognizable soundtracks in RPG’s nay gaming to date. If you can find RPG’s that predate BG please list them so that I can play them.

- Story : May not be the most original story ever (young hero with mysterious past) but it is far better than most of its predecessors with very memorable characters and good pacing. If you disagree please state 5 RPG’s with better stories so that I can play them if I have not already.

-Gameplay (This is the important one) : The game successfully tied together many different gameplay systems regardless of what you say. All the classes were playable and fun. The pause system although not entirely new was well implemented. It had one of the best stealth/thievery systems to data. The game had day night cycles that impacted play. The items were creative and well balanced. The inventory system was far better than games that preceded it. These are just a few of the many great features that the game had.

** Once again if you disagree **
Please list 5 games that were better in some way or another.

Replay value : Had many many hours of gameplay time (up to 40 hours per play through) and was also one of the first games to offer cooperative multiplayer for RPG’s that actually worked and thus adding many more.

I know the Elder Scrolls game had more replay value but could you please list a couple of others that had as many single player hours and had good multiplayer too?

Now would you please consider all these things and make me a nice list so that I can further my education since it seems to be so lacking. Otherwise please admit that you may be a jaded hack who is tearing into a classic game and inventing excuses to rate it badly.

Firstly you state that Baldur’s Gate is and RTS/RPG type game and then use Fallout as an example of games that revived the RPG genre.

I’m sorry? I thought you were saying Baldur’s Gate (as a RPG) revived the genre… My mistake then…

That is quite ironic since from my point of view Fallout is far more an RTS/RPG than Baldur’s Gate ever was.

Excuse me? RTS? No, Fallout is a RPG/TBS hybrid. Large difference. And Fallout was meant to be a Role-Playing game (GURPS as its basis rings any bells?) from the very beginning. There’s a big difference there.

About the story, what’s more important to an RPG is the role-play. Even forgetting that. Fallout, as I said, Wasteland, its “predecessor”, Betrayal at Krondor, Darklands, Ultima 7 and 7.5 (some prefer 6, I don’t know why), Daggerfall (if you can finish it, that is)… All considering the setting and that kind of things. Baldur’s Gate is bland and cliche. Oh, and I haven’t played nearly that many games… I’m sure others would think of other titles.

As for the gameplay, it in itself is nicely done, except for the combat. It was not a successful implementation of real time with pause. It’s just way too clunky and bottlenecking. I think a turn based system would be much better, even more when AD&D has always been developed for it. And there was a whole lot of turn based games back then, and Baldur’s Gate is no match for the best of them.

Replay value: it’s always the same thing, as I said. You are free to disagree. And you had no real impact in the world, you play it once and you know most of it. You only miss (maybe) small details, nothing like Fallout, where you could have completely different playthroughs with different characters.

And I advise you to visit some RPG dedicated sites if you want to enhance your education Seriously.

Hi,

I’m sorry? I thought you were saying Baldur’s Gate (as a RPG) revived the genre… My mistake then…

What? You were the one that said that Fallout revived the genre. I said BG revived the genre. Are you still keeping up? Fallout didn’t revive anything if that were the case its current incarnation (3) wouldn’t be implementing the exact system Baldur’s Gate used. Ha ha.

Oh, and I haven’t played nearly that many games… I’m sure others would think of other titles.

Hey man thanks for admitting this. Sad though that you point to my lack of knowledge on RPG’s as a counter argument then, since I have clearly played far more than you have!

Regarding your examples : Krondor’s story is inspired by a book (nothing original about that), Darklands is set in a pseudo historic Europe (but so is Defender of the Crown) - not that unique anymore . Using Wasteland which is set in a post apocalyptic world serves no purpose because it is just a different kind of setting but still one that is frequently used and thus not very unique at all.

Furthermore you cannot tell me that any of the examples did anything more in conveying its story than BG did. It had deep background info in the manual to start with, then there is the narrative to start each chapter, then there are dialog options at least, then there is the dream mechanic that actually changes your character depending on alignment (do you see the narrative and gameplay systems interacting? I certainly do) and finally there are NPC character bios, banter and interactions based on party configuration. In conveying narrative BG is well accomplished indeed.

Regarding the battle system. You know that you can pause the game and make decisions right? Maybe that is why you are having such a tough time with the battle mechanics?

And finally : You did not answer a single one of my other questions, but I’m starting to realize why you see certain games in a negative light and others in a very positive light. You seem to have a very set notion of what a CRPG should be and if something does not fit your mold (your so called standards) you immediately react negatively. In reality RPG is a very open concept to be interpreted in a variety of ways leading to a great variety of games (thank goodness). Each one should be evaluated on its own merit and its own time. You failed to accomplish either.

Therefore I advise you to read a couple of books on game design to enhance your education. Seriously.

What? You were the one that said that Fallout revived the genre. I said BG revived the genre. Are you still keeping up? Fallout didn’t revive anything if that were the case its current incarnation (3) wouldn’t be implementing the exact system Baldur’s Gate used. Ha ha.

Ohoh! Are you even aware of what you’re saying? Ahah!

Seriously. NO original developer is on the team, pretty much the ENTIRE extablished fanbase is complaining about the change of design, from pen and paper emulation (point and click) to action click and kill. Fallout was developed over GURPS, so much that at late stages of development, when the GURPS license was revoked, they had no design documents on game mechanics. Fallout 3 is not a Fallout game just because it has Fallout in its name…

Regarding your examples : Krondor’s story is inspired by a book (nothing original about that), Darklands is set in a pseudo historic Europe (but so is Defender of the Crown) - not that unique anymore . Using Wasteland which is set in a post apocalyptic world serves no purpose because it is just a different kind of setting but still one that is frequently used and thus not very unique at all.

Oh, and is Baldur’s Gate any better? Nop… That was my point.

The thing is, Fallout had set the standards way too high for Baldur’s Gate to cope with. In terms of role-play and setting, of course. Not to mention the lame good/evil dichotomy or the elves and high magic that was almost a given in any RPG at that point.

Regarding the battle system. You know that you can pause the game and make decisions right? Maybe that is why you are having such a tough time with the battle mechanics?

I never said I have rought times. Its just clunky and unresponsive.

You did not answer a single one of my other questions, but I’m starting to realize why you see certain games in a negative light and others in a very positive light. You seem to have a very set notion of what a CRPG should be and if something does not fit your mold (your so called standards) you immediately react negatively.

Yes, you are correct.

In reality RPG is a very open concept to be interpreted in a variety of ways leading to a great variety of games (thank goodness).

“The ultimate genre blender” as Todd Howard said, not too long ago… Yeah, I don’t agree. Adventure is the ultimate genre blender, RPGs are a specific subgenre…

And I should read more. I’m young and green afterall.

And I think you should read the reaview again. I don’t bash the game just for the sake of it. I think the 3/5 is what’s bothering you (and what bothers most people that complain), but that’s because they are used to seeing 5/5 everywhere…

Seriously. NO original developer is on the team, pretty much the ENTIRE extablished fanbase is complaining about the change of design, from pen and paper emulation (point and click) to action click and kill. Fallout was developed over GURPS, so much that at late stages of development, when the GURPS license was revoked, they had no design documents on game mechanics. Fallout 3 is not a Fallout game just because it has Fallout in its name…

I’m sorry and you are probably going to freak about this but the system Fallout used is just not gonna fly these days. Turn based combat is dead and for a very good reason. It complete breaks all immersion that the rest of the game serves to create. It is just not feasible to have combat where one character stands still whilst the other dishes out punishment. It is an artifact of table top gaming and does not belong in next generation games. I understand that it makes strategising easier and allows for more complex combat systems but those can be implemented using other systems such as the pause system which does not kill immersion. In games where the scope is different and immersion not such a big factor such as Civilization turn based combat works wonderfully but for a fps based RPG there is just no way that turn based combat is feasible.

Oh, and is Baldur’s Gate any better? Nop… That was my point.

Do you have any type of memory whatsoever? I asked you to name games that had better stories and narrative. Now you say that BG is the same in quality in that regard and knock the game for that? If you really had a rebuttal you would’ve used the example of FF7. That game was way better in terms of story and storytelling, but you name 5 games that are equal or inferior in the regard and say that it proves your point? Please do explain.

RPG’s are not as specific as you think. In fact (IMHO) any game that allows you to either adopt, create and/or evolve a persona in a make believe world qualifies as an RPG. You adopt the role of a character and you play that role. If the game dynamic allows you to act out that role in multiple ways, it qualifies as a RPG, simple as that. Whether you are playing CJ in GTA IV, Cloud in FF7 or your Cleric/Ranger in BG each game to some or other degree allows you to play the character in a certain way. RPG’s on a psychological level is nothing more than playing with a doll. You create a persona by some means (graphical, physical, pen and paper) and you infuse it with a personal to tell a tale. Any game that allows that is an RPG regardless of the dynamic it uses to achieve this.

And I think you should read the review again. I don’t bash the game just for the sake of it.

Maybe not but I’m just trying to explain something to you regarding the nature of an objective review process and the nature of RPG’s for your benefit and that of your current and future readers.

I’m sorry and you are probably going to freak about this but the system Fallout used is just not gonna fly these days.

I know where you’re coming from. I’ve made plenty of posts (here) about Fallout 3 and its mechanics. We obviously disagree over a few basic things, and I don’t see that changing. Turn Based is dead because triple-A studio developers don’t do it. Still, two of the most promissing RPGs in the visible future are turn based (i.e. Afterfall and Age of Decadence), and THE most advanced team based strategy game is turn based (Silent Storm). Fallout was never meant to be mainstream, it was meant to be played by those who loved turn based games. There are people like that today, still. A lot of them.

It is just not feasible to have combat where one character stands still whilst the other dishes out punishment.

That’s a completely different argument you’ve got there. As a matter of fact, turn based, even though it’s an abstract system, is the most inerently realistic system available. Whether you want it or not, it’s just not logical to say real time is realistic when there are so many interface limitations. Turn based makes up for that. Besides, it serves completely different design purposes. Try playing chess in real time

In games where the scope is different and immersion not such a big factor such as Civilization turn based combat works wonderfully but for a fps based RPG there is just no way that turn based combat is feasible.

The point is fallout is not FPS based. Fallout 3 is, but I never asked for Fallout 3 (as it is being developed) to be turn based.

Now you say that BG is the same in quality in that regard

I didn’t say that. I consider all of the games I said superior in terms of plot and setting. That’s possibly a very subjective thing to say, though.

If you really had a rebuttal you would’ve used the example of FF7.

Huh… Final Fantasy VII is not quite the same type of RPG Baldur’s Gate is. In fact, I don’t even consider it a RPG, but that’s me…

You adopt the role of a character and you play that role.

In Final Fantasy you don’t play the role. The game plays the roles itself. You have no say, you just watch. The same thing happens in most adventure games that would, otherwise, be considered RPGs.

Maybe not but I’m just trying to explain something to you regarding the nature of an objective review process and the nature of RPG’s for your benefit and that of your current and future readers.

I know, I know, and I thank you for being here. But just because I’m grateful someone is arguing with me over my review of Baldur’s Gate doesn’t mean I have to agree with you on what a RPG is. Or on whether Baldur’s Gate was revolutionary or not. I mean, there are, as far as I can see, so many things we disagree in, it’s kind of a miracle we’re still arguing

Back on the topic, Baldur’s Gate is about peace and good and now everything is bad and horrible and you have those very bad baddies you have to kill. There’s the predictable twist and you’re ready to go. The setting is not original, the mechanics used in that setting were not fleshed out (as I said, black/white dichotomy, constant in BioWare’s titles), the combat was real time for the sake of it when AD&D was always meant to be turn based. Inconscistent areas (easter egg NPCs), no consequences to your choices (except for some side quests, which are, then again good/evil choices). Combat at every turn, and the worst thing about it is that most of those combats are just plain uninteresting and time consuming. And powerplay, don’t forget about powerplay. This is off the top of my head. Come on, I don’t need to review the game again, I said what I had to say in the review, it’s ok if you disagree, and it’s also ok if you disagree with me when I say Ultima 6/7, Daggerfall, Betrayal at Kondror, Fallout and those have better stories/settings. At least they are interesting, and being uninteresting is my principal complain about BG’s plot.

I may not answer all your questions because in other places, and in forums I visit, I don’t even argue with people with the same arguments you use. I just read their posts and think about them, but I know (or think I know) they’ll never change their ideas because of what I may say to them.

I say turn based is more realistic than real time (even if less censorially immersive) and they disagree. Ok.
I say choices and consequences are ecential for a plot based RPG, they disagree. Ok.
I say Oblivion is bad, KotOR is mediocre, Neverwinter Nights is a hack fest, and they disagree. Then again, it’s ok.

It’s just that I have completely different opinions and ideas.

You’re telling me, as others have said, I’m judging Baldur’s Gate on the standards I have built over the years, am I right? That may well be possible, but I assure you I tried to be impartial. I’m reviewing Baldur’s Gate now, not back then, there’s always something that changes our opinion. But looking back I can’t see how Baldur’s Gate was any better than other RPGs already released, in some specific aspects. It was better in many aspects, but not in all of them.

I say Oblivion is bad, KotOR is mediocre, Neverwinter Nights is a hack fest, and they disagree. Then again, it’s ok.

I think this little sentence sums up all our disagreements nicely, because the way in which your rate these games more or less sums up the way in which you approach CRGP’s. You seem to be trying to fit live action or table top role playing into CRPG’s and depending on the fit you rate the game. CRPG’s are not the sames as these other forms of RPG’s due to their very nature and should not be judged as such. They are games and should be judged as games and if you cannot do that you have no place reviewing CRPG’s or any video or computer game for that matter. This will be my last post on the matter as this is getting tiresome. You seem too stubborn and stuck in some strange perception of things to argue properly with you.

And for the record Oblivion is absolutely ****ing brilliant, KOTOR was great and Neverwinter Nights is the actual game you should be bitching about because that is the one that fails as a computer game.

think this little sentence sums up all our disagreements nicely, because the way in which your rate these games more or less sums up the way in which you approach CRGP’s. You seem to be trying to fit live action or table top role playing into CRPG’s and depending on the fit you rate the game.

Exactly I’m glad we understand each other.

(…) if you cannot do that you have no place reviewing CRPG’s or any video or computer game for that matter

Now we’re even. I apparently insulted you before, and now you’re telling me what to do in my site. I think it’s obvious you are not my intended public. It’s also obvious to me Oblivion is a very flawed and inconsistent and void game too.

And you can use slang and swearing in here, it won’t hurt.

A long read, but my situation (I was all alone fighting against the enemy ) was kind of odd for me (I'm used to arguing in forums) and I'd like to know the opinion of others. Feel free to post there or here.

 

[Starseeker]

Well, he believes FPS/simulated real time types are the good games. It's not even an argument. He is an action kiddy. Anyone who use Oblivion and FF7 as a shiny example of RPG, obviously doesn't even know what RPGs are.

He is probably from the younger generation who has never role played before. The type that needs spoon feeding, and believes FO3 is the right way for FO to go.

 

[Cromlech]

I'm a big fan of the BG series (more so BG2), and I don't feel the need to bitch at your review. You see, the BG games were my first ever RPGs (be they 'action/adventure RPGs' or true cRPGs, I'll trust you on that, I'm no expert). For me they, are the standard on which I judge other RPG games. I like the RTwP combat, although I admit I never played a proper pen and paper RPG either. My experience is limited to Warhammer Quest and other GW games. As much as I too can see the cliches, and low points, I still cannot give it less that a 9/10. Part of it is the huge nostalgia factor I guess, but I really do love those games, I find them to be quite charming.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Well, he believes FPS/simulated real time types are the good games. It's not even an argument. He is an action kiddy. Anyone who use Oblivion and FF7 as a shiny example of RPG, obviously doesn't even know what RPGs are.

He is probably from the younger generation who has never role played before. The type that needs spoon feeding, and believes FO3 is the right way for FO to go.

You ever wonder if maybe the terminology has changed through adaptation?

Just how liberal and conservative mean totally different things in America than they meant 50 years ago?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

The setting is not original, the mechanics used in that setting were not fleshed out (as I said, black/white dichotomy, constant in BioWare’s titles), the combat was real time for the sake of it when AD&D was always meant to be turn based. Inconscistent areas (easter egg NPCs), no consequences to your choices (except for some side quests, which are, then again good/evil choices). Combat at every turn, and the worst thing about it is that most of those combats are just plain uninteresting and time consuming. And powerplay, don’t forget about powerplay.

I thought you were talking about BG not Mass Effect... Oh!

3/5 that's generous for BG that game has to be in my top ten of, if not number 1, most boring games I've ever played.

You forgot to mention JA3.

 

[Morbus]

I thought you were talking about BG not Mass Effect... Oh!

3/5 that's generous for BG that game has to be in my top ten of, if not number 1, most boring games I've ever played.

You forgot to mention JA3.

See? I get busted for having a dog, and busted for not having... Old Portuguese saying.

 

[PlanHex]

You ever wonder if maybe the terminology has changed through adaptation?

Just how liberal and conservative mean totally different things in America than they meant 50 years ago?

I think about that every damn time I hear some fucking American shit-for-brains calling socialists liberal.
Karl Marx != Liberal.
John Locke != Conservative.
I hate it and I want it to die horribly in a fiery inferno and be sent to eternal torment in a very special circle of Hell reserved for childmolesters and people who talk in the theatre.
Even more-so than those "people" who say that RPGs are 'just games where you play a role' (wtf does that mean anyway?!).
Sorry, but this really pisses me off.
It's somehow evolved beyond 'pet peeve' into 'bane of my existence'.
/rant

3/5 that's generous for BG that game has to be in my top ten of, if not number 1, most boring games I've ever played.

Thank you!
I really thought I was the only one who thought this game was boring as hell.
Then again I've never managed to finish the damn thing, never bothered to play further when I got to Baldur's Gate.
Anyone want to enlighten me on whether it get's better from there? I think I still have my old savegame somewhere...

 

[HoKa]

It was an interesting discussion until his brain collapsed and he started spouting mainstream-fed bullshit.

That is, it was interesting up to his third response.

Baldur's Gate was utter crap. The story was dull (doppelganger Candlekeep!), the gameplay was unexciting, though not as linear as some may think, and the NPCs were downright annoying. Sarevok was the only character with some potential, but his morally unambiguous agenda killed any chance of it.

Plus it was based on AD&D, the crappiest RPG rule system known to man. Thank god 3rd edition wasn't out by then.

 

[xdarkyrex]

You ever wonder if maybe the terminology has changed through adaptation?

Just how liberal and conservative mean totally different things in America than they meant 50 years ago?

I think about that every damn time I hear some fucking American shit-for-brains calling socialists liberal.
Karl Marx != Liberal.
John Locke != Conservative.
I hate it and I want it to die horribly in a fiery inferno and be sent to eternal torment in a very special circle of Hell reserved for childmolesters and people who talk in the theatre.
Even more-so than those "people" who say that RPGs are 'just games where you play a role' (wtf does that mean anyway?!).
Sorry, but this really pisses me off.
It's somehow evolved beyond 'pet peeve' into 'bane of my existence'.
/rant

In American politics, though, the left wing liberals are actually socialists (technically they are social liberals), and the right wing conservatives are usually the religious institution (moral majority). It's terribly twisted. Then there are the other groups that are never addressed, classical liberals (libertarian/conservatives), amd whatnot. Also, Republican and conservative in the modern sense go hand in hand, as well as Democrat and liberal.

We are a nation of two halves and no minorities.

Now anyways, that is very similar to the evolution of the term RPG, which now means "A game with a story revolving around the development of a character(s) that has some way to progress and grow as an entity(s) with some modicum of control from the player." (through statistics or leveling or something else of that nature)

Therefor, anything where your character has more abilities/skills than he did at the beginning of the game is essentially an RPG.


Very loosely used, but not alltogether wrong. Language conservatism is a waste of time in the English language, so claiming "thats not what it originally meant" is essentially idiocy, as English is a rapidly evolving language that constantly rotates meanings.

Just as in many good dictionaries, it's only fair to say that the modern usage and the pre-modern usage are far from the same, and the cultural identity of the term, despite its roots, essentially define what is and isn't correct (when it comes to arbitrary descriptors, anyways).

 

[Wooz]

Politics aside, one thing I could say in favor of one of the games. Baldur's Gate was indeed a bit bland, but not the worst I've played. I liked the area-to-area travel, which gave the player a pretty big space to play in. At that time, it was pretty cool.

BG2 did have its moments, notably the whole Drow branch of the story.

The other feature I liked in the game was the design of simple things such as the inventory and item descriptions. They added a lot to the setting; you don't see much RPG's with a fairly detailed view of every object in them.

All in all, I loved most of BG2's design. Regardless of all the crap in the game, parts of it still hold a pretty solid place in my personal ranking of games' setting and feel.

A shame the whole wasn't as solid as said parts.

 

[PlanHex]

Language conservatism is a waste of time in the English language, so claiming "thats not what it originally meant" is essentially idiocy, as English is a rapidly evolving language that constantly rotates meanings.

I know, but it still pisses me off and as far as I know the only place where liberal = socialist is in the US.
I guess that's part of why I am so annoyed with it, because it comes up so often when you consume American tv, games, movies, books and comics on a regular basis, like I do.

It's kinda like when I visit GameFAQS and see one of the users' Top 10 RPGs lists and still clench my teeth when it consists entirely of Square-Enix games even though it's to be expected (it is GameFAQs after all).

The other feature I liked in the game was the design of simple things such as the inventory and item descriptions. They added a lot to the setting; you don't see much RPG's with a fairly detailed view of every object in them.

I really liked the little stories that went along with magic items and some of the books. It was a very nice touch, but it felt kinda weird that you had to look for the little things to find something worth your interests...

P.S. (forgot to say this earlier)
Good job, Morbus! Defending some apparently very unpopular standards all alone against the overwhelming force of the hive-mind like that deserves a little praise.

 

[Morbus]

P.S. (forgot to say this earlier)
Good job, Morbus! Defending some apparently very unpopular standards all alone against the overwhelming force of the hive-mind like that deserves a little praise.

Thanks

 

[Starseeker]

Yes, Morbus, we need more like you.

Btw, I HAVE played BG before. I believed I even bought the hype for it. I played it once or twice, but even after all the mods I've put on it later for the second run, it gets incredibly boring.

I don't own it anymore, since my brother stole it to pay his debt. It was no great lost.

Still, is it an older digital generation against a younger digital generation debate?

There is an entire generation of kiddies who believes FF7 is the ultimate standard. Tod probably got his idea for level scaling in oblivion after playing FF8.

I believe Square is a victim of its own success. After FF7, they are afraid to mess with the formula. Comparing FF12 to some of their earlier, and more original work is like comparing FO3 to FO 2.

Anyway, the point is, there just aren't a lot of interesting games to be played these days.

 

[Mord_Sith]

*twitch*
[bigrant]
[rant]
Why did it have to be 7, for the love of pete WHY...

at least say 3/6, hell 5 was better than 7, GAH

9 showed some early promise but then reverted back to it's ff7-esque roots
[/rant]

For those lost about what the prior segment was about, it's the mention of Final Fantasy 7 as being anything more than fodder for gaming fashion mags, may cloud burn in electronic heel as the only character that wasn't a whiny, self absorbed sycophant was Cid in that game and all the others were either codependent, suicidal, or manic depressive...
[/bigrant]

 

[xdarkyrex]

I enjoyed 6 the best, followed by 8, then 7, then 10, then 5, then 1. The rest I did not enjoy.

 

[Per]

Review:

tl; dr

Ensuing discussion:

tl; dr

I think you have to keep in mind that Baldur's Gate was the continuation of the Gold Box line of games and its 90s successors like Shattered Lands, and as such was indeed a big leap forward. There are really only a few games that aspire to the RPGiness of Fallout (and even Fallout pales in comparison to Fallout 2 once you look under the hood, it's a lot less complex than many people would like to believe), so I don't think it can be berated as a "bad RPG" on that account. Both games were groundbreaking in different ways. I would give them both 5/5, but then I don't play a lot of games.

 

[Morbus]

Review:

tl; dr

Ensuing discussion:

tl; dr

I think you have to keep in mind that Baldur's Gate was the continuation of the Gold Box line of games and its 90s successors like Shattered Lands, and as such was indeed a big leap forward. There are really only a few games that aspire to the RPGiness of Fallout (and even Fallout pales in comparison to Fallout 2 once you look under the hood, it's a lot less complex than many people would like to believe), so I don't think it can be berated as a "bad RPG" on that account. Both games were groundbreaking in different ways. I would give them both 5/5, but then I don't play a lot of games.

5/5? No way! Fallout goes with 4.5/5 and Fallout 2 4/5, from MY perspective. Anyway, Baldur's Gate may have been groundbreaking, but that doesn't mean it's not boring and cliche and whatnot...

 

[Starseeker]

If you missed my point, I didn't like FF7 that much. I just said FF7 was successful in sales.

 

[HoKa]

All this FF7 talk is making me want to try it out. I never bothered with it, perhaps now is the time.

 

[xdarkyrex]

All this FF7 talk is making me want to try it out. I never bothered with it, perhaps now is the time.

If you enjoy or can stomach japanese rpgs, I suggest it. It's fun and adventurous, and when it was new it was a very artistically influenced game.