BG2 a cRPG?

[Brother None]

Arcanum I can kind of see it, since the ending decision can be made at the last moment. Still, again, many decisions and consequences in between, many more important and consequential choices than in BG2.

Arcanum, maybe. PS:T has many qualities, but choice and consequence is not one of them, though there are a lot of choices that affect the Nameless One, and only him. Other than that?

 

[Sander]

Arcanum, maybe. PS:T has many qualities, but choice and consequence is not one of them, though there are a lot of choices that affect the Nameless One, and only him. Other than that?

More than that, though. Several things that continue to come up later in the game, Adahn being one of them, the demon in the box another one, pissing off the Lady of Pain, the demon book and of course all of the companion stuff.
It does get more streamlined later in the game, but there are quite a few consequences and choices there. Moreso than in BG2 at least.

 

[Per]

BG2 is actually much closer in nature to Arcanum and Torment than either of those is to Fallout.

...
Explain, please.

Briefly, similarities:

* Inescapable plot points.
* Forced or inconsequential character actions.
* Clear division between main quest and side quests.
* Stage by stage unlocking of locations.
* NPC focus and subquests.

Significant difference to Fallout:

* In-your-face plot exposition and progression.

One of the major defining traits of Fallout - and Fallout 2, other issues aside - perhaps the defining trait, is how it is set up - very deliberately - to mimic a PnP role-playing experience. There's no real plot, no railroading, but rather a premise: the story of Fallout is the process of the Vault Dweller going forth into the world, influencing it and being influenced by it. You do what you do, find out what you find out. One other game that pretty much did this, though more primitively? Wasteland, Fallout's spiritual predecessor. I'm sure Rosh can name more games of this kind. You're right that Arcanum is closer than the others, but it still deviates noticeably from this philosophy.

But Bethesda is naturally on top of this and will hold true to the basic spirit of Fallout when making Fallout 3!

 

[Sander]

Briefly, similarities:

* Inescapable plot points.

True, though I don't Arcanum had this much more than Fallout did.

* Forced or inconsequential character actions.

In Arcanum? Where? You could just give the medallion away in the beginning when you get threatened, for instance. I don't think anything there was forced ('cept maybe the very end game, since I can't remember what happened if you killed the Elven mage).

In Planescape, yeah. Especially with the bronze sphere deal.

* Clear division between main quest and side quests.

Fallout had this as much as the Arcanum, perhaps less so than Planescape, though.

* Stage by stage unlocking of locations.

True, though less so for Arcanum.

* NPC focus and subquests.

Subquests? You mean Fallout didn't have those, or that Arcanum and Planescape didn't have those? Because I don't see either one of those scenarios.

Significant difference to Fallout:

* In-your-face plot exposition and progression.

One of the major defining traits of Fallout - and Fallout 2, other issues aside - perhaps the defining trait, is how it is set up - very deliberately - to mimic a PnP role-playing experience. There's no real plot, no railroading, but rather a premise: the story of Fallout is the process of the Vault Dweller going forth into the world and influencing it. You do what you do, find out what you find out. One other game that pretty much did this, though more primitively? Wasteland, Fallout's spiritual predecessor. I'm sure Rosh can name more games of this kind. You're right that Arcanum is closer than the others, but it still deviates noticeably from this philosophy.

Planescape and especially Arcanum do this as well, though to a limit.

 

[Per]

* Clear division between main quest and side quests.

Fallout had this as much as the Arcanum, perhaps less so than Planescape, though.

In Fallout and Wasteland, you can win the game and not know that's what you were actually doing. There aren't people that go, "I can help you accomplish this next objective, but in order for this to happen you must..." The closest you get to that is if you return to the Overseer to ask why the game isn't over yet. In Torment, you have to sit through long dialogues on poor fucking Ravel or whatever. I don't remember Arcanum all too well, but you are probably right it's much closer to Fallout. You can go directly to the Void by attacking Nasrudin instead of sitting through his cutscene, though you have to jump through a fair number of hoops to get there in the first place (find Bates, go to the Isle of Despair, straighten out the dwarven king, ally with one of the elf tribes, find that tomb, etc.), and also if you do that you can't also visit Vendigroth, can you? I don't remember - can you assault Tulla and just kill everyone there instead of talking to any of them?

* NPC focus and subquests.

Subquests? You mean Fallout didn't have those, or that Arcanum and Planescape didn't have those? Because I don't see either one of those scenarios.

This is the least important point, but anyway, in Torment you have a shared background with several of the NPCs, they have long stories they like to tell you, some things you do piss them off, Morte gets kidnapped, and so on. There's probably much less of this in Arcanum, though I seem to remember my brother had problems keeping that dwarf who's looking for his ancestors in the party. And there's über-annoyance Virgil, although you don't have to take him. In Fallout NPCs were a late addition so it's not surprising they don't say or do much, but it was pretty much the same in Fallout 2. They blend into the background because it's not supposed to be about them. (Although NPC detail and interaction is not bad in itself, but it can be annoying when forced upon you, as in, I don't know, KotOR 2.)

Planescape and especially Arcanum do this as well, though to a limit.

They're more like a game where the GM has prepared a story, this is what we're going to play, this is what's going to happen (even if the player(s) don't necessarily know the extent to which they're being herded, which may or may not matter to them in the end), while Fallout is more like a game where the GM has a list of defining themes and key points but then it can take any shape within those parameters.

 

[Sander]

In Fallout and Wasteland, you can win the game and not know that's what you were actually doing. There aren't people that go, "I can help you accomplish this next objective, but in order for this to happen you must..." The closest you get to that is if you return to the Overseer to ask why the game isn't over yet. In Torment, you have to sit through long dialogues on poor fucking Ravel or whatever. I don't remember Arcanum all too well, but you are probably right it's much closer to Fallout. You can go directly to the Void by attacking Nasrudin instead of sitting through his cutscene, though you have to jump through a fair number of hoops to get there in the first place (find Bates, go to the Isle of Despair, straighten out the dwarven king, ally with one of the elf tribes, find that tomb, etc.), and also if you do that you can't also visit Vendigroth, can you? I don't remember - can you assault Tulla and just kill everyone there instead of talking to any of them?

I think so, yes. I don't really see why you couldn't in any case.

In any case, Arcanum for a long while doesn't steer you onto a main quest/side-quest deal. The Bates quest is, for instance, is a part of the main quest, but you don't actually know that. And this goes for most quests, if I recall correctly.

This is the least important point, but anyway, in Torment you have a shared background with several of the NPCs, they have long stories they like to tell you, some things you do piss them off, Morte gets kidnapped, and so on. There's probably much less of this in Arcanum, though I seem to remember my brother had problems keeping that dwarf who's looking for his ancestors in the party. And there's über-annoyance Virgil, although you don't have to take him. In Fallout NPCs were a late addition so it's not surprising they don't say or do much, but it was pretty much the same in Fallout 2. They blend into the background because it's not supposed to be about them. (Although NPC detail and interaction is not bad in itself, but it can be annoying when forced upon you, as in, I don't know, KotOR 2.)

Playing KotOR2 now. Fucking annoying. Getting a bit tired of it, really. Especially because most of it isn't anywhere near as well-written or involving as Planescape was.

Anyway, yes this is true, although for Arcanum (again) this is only a very minor point. Companions aren't necessary in any way, and their background only comes into play a few times. It's closer to Fallout than Planescape: Torment, really.

They're more like a game where the GM has prepared a story, this is what we're going to play, this is what's going to happen (even if the player(s) don't necessarily know the extent to which they're being herded, which may or may not matter to them in the end), while Fallout is more like a game where the GM has a list of defining themes and key points but then it can take any shape within those parameters.

True, two different approaches to PnP gameplay. The approach that Fallout took (or at the least the illusion of that approach) is a relatively unique on in any case.