[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-17-01 AT 11:49PM (GMT)[p]> lol, This is what I
>mean. I haven't even defended
>Bg yet; and you all
>are attacking it's weaknesses. Hehe!
>Anyway, I don't feel like
>starting a flame war since
>I just registered - and
>I've been in a few
>of those myself.
More like a comparative exampling, and you do back up your facts and do present them rationally. It's a refreshing and welcome change to some ill winds we've had breeze through here.
> Anyways, here is my take
>on both games:
>
> Fallout, role-playing wise, is no
>doubt deeper than BG simply
>because of the fact there
>are many ways to play
>it. In BG, there are
>basically 3 ways to finish
>the game. FO's biggest weakness,
>imo, are the npcs as
>they lack any sort of
>depth (though they can be
>entertaining at times in FO2),
>and the multitude of bugs.
The bugs are indeed a good point, as the game has a LOT to deal with. There might not have been so many bugs if BIS had kept a lot of those cliche and lame easter eggs out of the game and put the effort into completing the game. Of course, it didn't help when it takes Feargus 3 years to admit that "perhaps" Fallout 2 wasn't completely patched. Fallout 1 only had a couple of unfinished quests, and originally the radiation bug.
Then again, the Infinity Engine is pretty much a plot and place scripting on a bitmap with a system laid overtop of it. How hard is it to muck THAT up? Not hard at all, really. One thing I did like about Arcanum, since it is a clear progression in game mechanics from Fallout, is that the NPCs have a bit more depth to them. In Fallout 1 and 2, I do admit that there's more to the NPCs before they join - but there's still a good deal to talk with them on. On the other hand, you have Baldur's Gate II's dialog, which you get nailed with at random while trying to finish some quest to wade through some simpering dialog that is in dire need of an overdose of Prozac, Lithium, a sturdy ceiling beam, chair, and stout rope. It would have been nice if there was more options than:
1. Richard Simmons-type cry session.
2. Fuck you and die.
>Don't forget, the FO games
>can be pretty monti-haul themselves.
Ah, but only if you wish to be. I think Fallout 1 did a good job (but not excellent, however) of catering to a number of player-types. There was quite a bit more than kill, loot, kill again. One of the most enjoyable aspects I had was going through and ransacking everyone's place. ;P
> BG, on the other hand,
>definitely has a lot of
>combat which I would prefer
>it didn't have. However, it
>uses the dnd rules (mostly
>- I wish they had
>put in nwp) which is
>my favorite gaming system; though
>SPECIAL is pretty damn good
>too.
I like the ACE LIPS system as well, because it's an entirely new one crafted and it does a good job in many aspects. BG doesn't take into account character's stats most of the time, when dealing outside of combat. That I percieve as it's biggest flaw. You could have a dumb fighter or a charismatic paladin, and yet the speech dialog was the same. Have you played an Int 1 char in Fallout? It's a challenge and a laugh! If you played an Int 3 Cha 3 character in a lot of P&P AD&D sessions as you would a genius wizard, you'd likely not be invited back again. Then again, I'm slightly biased as I've often found some aspects of AD&D quite fun, particularly playing into the character a bit. My piece de resistance happens to be a slight murder-mystery in a recently-departed lord's castle I GM'd at a tournament, all from my head. The wizard's loft was something I was rather pleased with, along with other places in giving them each life and atmosphere. There was some combat, I didn't rely on anything but dice and judgement, but kept it to feeling like someone was playing a character instead of a combat drone.
I think that is what I truly miss from BG.
>My favorite part of
>BG, and its biggest strength
>as compared to FO are
>the npcs. They are deeper,
>more entertaining, and more useful
>overall.
Those in BG 1 I did like a good deal. They were funny at times. Those in BG2 seemed to be needing a good deal of therapy. Of course, the storyline is a bit dire and there are sad events, but when it's constantly downtrodding - then it's not to a good effect. You need bright moments and then ditch them down again. Otherwise, when they auto-initiate speech, I've shared thoughts of "What are they going to whine about THIS time?".
>Heck, if they combined
>the AI controlled way that
>FO has, and the characterization
>of BG npcs; those would
>be perfect npcs, by far.
I do agree, that Fallout's NPCs could use a tweak or three. The interaction between them wasn't the greatest aside from the occasional comment - but then again, you're not going to be bitching about someone like J and Aerie do when you're relying on them to cover your own ass in combat. In Fallout, you're mostly trying to save your own ass and that of your vault/village/holy grapefruit and not setting down for tea.
> As you can see, I
>feel both series are pretty
>much equal. I love FO
>for it's freedom of choice,
>and character depth. I love
>BG for its npcs, and
>dnd rules. Their stories are
>both very good, and combat
>(though one is turn-based, and
>the other pause and play)
>are evenly fun in my
>eyes.
Both have their merits, and I do like their strengths. However, from a LONG history of playing P&P games, and a good number of years playing AD&D, Baldur's Gate is a let-down beyond belief. Planescape: Torment was a great game in terms of story, but the combat seemed a bit monotonous. Gold Box and Silver Box weren't that much of a roleplaying considering the technology and the time, but then again TSR was a strategy company first and foremost. It actually felt like you were going into combat in AD&D rather than staring glassy-eyed as you assign people things to do and watch it go along numbingly. The sequencing in GB, SB, and UA were quite well done.
In fact, I'd try Unlimited Adventures if you can find it. It's been something I've toyed around with for a long time. As for the development progression of Fallout, Arcanum has perhaps one of the best editors and environment branching I've seen. The charactr system is a touch imbalanced, but the options on how to play the game are varied. Thief, diplomat, fighter of various types, etc. In fact, once I get some of the work done here at NMA, I'm going to be toying around with the editor a bit more and finish some of the widgets I've been cooking up, to put into a couple of quests I've been thinking of.
) That was until Fallout, before Arcanum, before Railroad Tycoon and before Need for Speed even existed. Now, I'm either working on my Arcanum mod or playing the Outlaws Demo for a quick shoot 'em up fix by trying to finish the demo, kill everyone and do it without even saving once.