Baldur's Gate Let's DISCUSS Infinity Engine combat and Baldur's Gate with random noobs

[vivec]

Sensuki
Are you all of a sudden admitting that BG's were good due to their " world design" and not due to their gameplay?

Exploration is part of the gameplay. I enjoy the low level feel of the BG1 encounters as well. The combat is pretty simple and easy once you get the hang of it, but I still enjoy it. It goes without saying that it is for the most part better in BG2 and IWD:HoW. In BG1 they got the baseline right (even if by accident), unlike Pillars of Eternity.

I am interpreting your thoughts here based on your previous opinions. So correct me (and beg pardon) if I go astray. I understand you like the RTS aspect of the gameplay, right? I liked the combat in IE games *despite* the RTS aspect. the mechanics feels awkward as it was originally implemented for the TB D&D as you obviously know. I felt that the presentation of the game, i.e. the way spells were implemented and interacted with the characters in the game, was the *real* strong-suit of the gameplay. It was definitely not the movement and thus the RT that comes along with that. Moreover, I would be hardly be opposed in saying that the game would be much much better as TB. It would have a two fold effect: a reduction in the trash in either game, as it would (again) obviously slow the pace of the game to a crawl even by the developer standards; also, the TB would confirm much better to the melee combat which in the IE games was the worst implemented part of the gameplay. Melee simply meant tanking the enemies while the archers and mages made short work of the enemies.

Personally, I never liked the 2nd edition. i don't even like the third edition, but at least it has more RP aspect that the second in the mechanics via the skills. I do not like the level system and what it implies along with its linear ugly effect of HP scaling and sticky AB. I do not like the skill progression of third edition.

However, my love for D&D is due to its monster and spell variety and what a DM can do with that.

In my opinion this is what made BG series so good. It managed to exploit the real strength of the D&D system, the spells and the monsters. This is what PoE fumbles in. Its spells are all very 'samey' and have terrible mechanics. its monsters are samey and scaled versions of each other. PoE borrows the worst aspects of D&D: the leveling, the scaling of HP and skills and drops its best aspects: the variety and uniqueness of spells and monsters. Of course then to a P&P enthusiast it feels dead inside.

Unfortunately, it comes with an added minus: its story. BG at least had a decent story that was about a bunch of good guys trying to stop the bad guy from becoming a god. Or maybe a bunch of a**holes trying to stop an even more a**hole and usurping his ambitions. It used the setting to the full effect and made sense in the context of the game.

PoE fails to make sense in its own setting. First it posits that soul power is the reason why the PC is a hero. Then everyone seems to have the same skills as the hero. So... there are a lot of people with soul power??! Then we have some strange stuff that does not fit anywhere: Guns. Why are they in the game? The make zero sense in the setting which offers no explanation for having that stuff. I could go on and on but this is neither the place or time for that rant.

The point I wanted to make is that you need to tell me why exactly do you not like PoE compared to BG. In my view, the reasons are outlined above. However, I feel that yours are not justified. I am specifically targetting you, as I seem to recall from the obsidian forums, you tend to have opinions backed not by blind fanboyism, but with clear reasons that made sense. So I would hear from you more.

 

[MilesBeyond]

Yeah, the best example of this is that Morte and Anomen are the same voice actor. Blew my mind when I learned that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - my absolute favourite example of this is Xan and Johnny Bravo having the same voice actor.

Anyway, as far as difficulty in IE games goes...

To me, you're not allowed to complain about a game being too easy unless you Ironman it. Plain and simple. If you walk into an area, get destroyed by an ambush, reload, position your characters to specifically respond to that ambush, and score a quick and decisive victory, that does not make the game "too easy." I mean there are reasonable exceptions, but generally speaking if you have to reload more than a couple of times to beat a game, you're not allowed to complain that it's too easy.

I am, of course, aware that there are plenty of people out there who can and do Ironman the IE games. Hell, I've done it myself for BG. I'm not trying to argue that BG is actually incredibly challenging, because it really isn't (outside of the first bit of BG1 where a stray arrow can easily end you). But I am saying that if you can't make it through the game without reloading a few times, maybe it's not as easy as you think it is.

 

[ArchAngel]

Except IWD was fun.

In short playsessions, otherwise the illusion breaks and you realize the game basically plays itself.

Combat-heavy sections of PoE play very similar to IWD. FWIW, I consider them to be the more fun sections of PoE (maybe it's just because there are fewer loading screens).

How does it play itself? IWD was always harder than BG1 and using AI scripts meant lots of dying.

BG 1 wasn't hard save for a few fights.. Don't get IWD and IWD2 confused with your rose tinted glasses.. IWD can be very easy depending how you play (I'm not even including the cheese)

It was for most people in their first play. I don't care how easy it is too you in your 20th play.

No really.. I didn't find IWD hard my first time through. The difficulty curve starts very low. You are literally fighting goblins with a full group of 6 members who are likely built optimally assuming you can read character sheet descriptions.. As opposed to BG 1 where you play large chunks of the game with half a party of very sub-optimal characters (who will sometimes abandon you or fight each other resulting in you losing key roles or classes)

Did I breeze through IWD with ZERO resistance? No. There was always Gotcha's along the way but I wasn't like breaking a sweat either, outside of certain bosses and encounters IWD was not challenging..
IWD 2 was much more challenging. Almost too challenging for someone who hasn't played an IE game before I would argue..

Maybe we have a different definition of difficult. Unlike most games in last 10 years, this game was difficulty. I had zero problems in my first play with NWN1, NWN2, Kotor 1 and 2, Jade Empire, DAO or any Mass Effect Games. Only games I ever had problems in first play was BG1, IWD1 and BG2 in some battles (until you figure out what works).

 

[Sensuki]

The point I wanted to make is that you need to tell me why exactly do you not like PoE compared to BG. In my view, the reasons are outlined above. However, I feel that yours are not justified. I am specifically targetting you, as I seem to recall from the obsidian forums, you tend to have opinions backed not by blind fanboyism, but with clear reasons that made sense. So I would hear from you more.

I've made quite a few posts about why I don't like it, I'm not sure if you've seen them. It's basically because the combat is boring/rote/tedious, the content isn't great and the story sucks. It's a pretty crap game in a polished shell. The nice bits - graphics, sound, UI, polish are all the superfluous bits - the bits that the beta really helped to iron out.

I think the combat is boring and tedious compared to the Infinity Engine games (BGs/IWDs). It largely controls the same, but with worse pathfinding and the horrible engagement system. I play the IE games dynamically and tactically. I don't use pre-buff very often and I generally just go into combat and roll with it. This playstyle is punished quite badly in Pillars of Eternity, which makes you focus a lot more on pre-combat setup than actual combat (despite not allowing pre-buffing!) - stealthing into position, getting your initial moves right and then following a rote pattern in combat.

In the IE games, you are often forced to react to situations. You need to cure poison and disease. You need to heal in battle. You need to dispell stuff. None of this matters in Pillars of Eternity - you can pretty much safely ignore most things and just continue on with your execution strategy. Rinse repeat the same shit over and over again.

You mentioned the other problem - the dullness of the abilities/spells and the monster design.

Both of these things - the way the game plays, and the combat-related content is like this because of the system design. The universal rules with no exceptions. The Fallout-style armor system that doesn't really work very well with the other mechanics. The 4E style per-encounter & per-rest system. The homogeneous class and ability design. The 4E-ish Health system. The MMO style pigeonholing of tank/dps and support builds.

"Fun content" is really difficult to create under these imposing rules & restrictions that Sawyer has created. Monsters feel the same because they follow the system design rules. Kind of in the same way that 4E feels a bit samey when you play it.

I agree that Pillars of Eternity would be better as a turn-based game. Every dev on their design team probably wishes it was a TB game and IMO it shows in a lot of the design - the engagement system and the combat & class mechanics. I don't necessarily agree that the IE games would be better in TB though because they're really fun as is. Big battles in BG2 would take F-O-R-E-V-E-R in TB, but in RTwP they're pretty exhilarating actually (e.g., Final Seal Guardians).

I also agree that the BG/IWD series spells and monsters are fun. Why is a ghoul fun in BG? Because they can hold you and that hold lasts for ages and you should really dispel it in combat. Why is a ghoul-type unit not fun in Pillars of Eternity? Because if they can paralyze you, it will most likely only last for a few seconds, and you can just ignore it. In fact, they probably can't paralyze your tank very often.

Why is a Lightning Bolt fun in BG? Because it's a make or break spell that will fuck up anything it hits, and it has a chance of going horribly wrong for you if you mis-aim it. Why is Crackling Bolt not fun in Pillars of Eternity? It has similar mechanics but it's not a big deal if you fuck up the spell and it just does a little bit of damage.

 

[Immortal]

Yeah, the best example of this is that Morte and Anomen are the same voice actor. Blew my mind when I learned that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - my absolute favourite example of this is Xan and Johnny Bravo having the same voice actor.

Anyway, as far as difficulty in IE games goes...

To me, you're not allowed to complain about a game being too easy unless you Ironman it. Plain and simple. If you walk into an area, get destroyed by an ambush, reload, position your characters to specifically respond to that ambush, and score a quick and decisive victory, that does not make the game "too easy." I mean there are reasonable exceptions, but generally speaking if you have to reload more than a couple of times to beat a game, you're not allowed to complain that it's too easy.

I am, of course, aware that there are plenty of people out there who can and do Ironman the IE games. Hell, I've done it myself for BG. I'm not trying to argue that BG is actually incredibly challenging, because it really isn't (outside of the first bit of BG1 where a stray arrow can easily end you). But I am saying that if you can't make it through the game without reloading a few times, maybe it's not as easy as you think it is.

That's an interesting concept.

I guess my devil's advocate response is.. if 90% of the game is easy and 10% is hard (Difficult Encounters or Bosses). Does that mean the game as a whole is hard?
No IE game is without it's challenges.. But that doesn't mean I would consider the game universally hard if most of the time I can get by with little effort.. Curious on your response.

 

[Goblino]

@OP:
I play games to have fun. Complex mechanics is fun. Equations, spreadsheets and theorycrafting is fun. More fun than guns, fast, player-centric action, and/or spookies. That's precisely why I find Fear or Stalker boring as hell.
Let's not forget there is more than one way to have fun.

And I'm not saying I like BG1's mechanics. Or the story. Or the exploration... or pretty much anything. It's still much more fun than Fear.

I play X3. BG1 is not near complex enough to be praised for depth, if thats what you mean. Stalker and Fear are just an example of two similar games where one is deeper in substance and gameplay, but both are decent games. If I recall it's because this thread was excised from the SitS thread where somebody was getting railed for liking PoE and not liking SitS. I brought up those two games to point out that we're allowed to have opinions..... then I talked shit about BG1 and and .... Oh God the voices! So many people shitting in every direction!

 

[roshan]

Aside from the factors Sensuki mentioned, there is one thing that to me makes IE combat awesome, it's the low animation system, focused on abstract movement. Characters in IE games move around like pieces sliding on a board. They don't spend stupid amounts of time turning around, they don't run about like headless chickens, like in Pillars or NWN. You can also microposition them exactly where you want, successfully moving them just pixels away in any direction. It was bug free, there was no possibility of the endless bugs and quirks of POE's animations and pathfinding. Also, character circles could not overlap in the IE. Each character had their own defined space which they controlled and held, and therefore, they did not blend into a seamless clusterfuck of indiscernability as soon as combat started. Movement and positioning in POE is complete shit, a total abomination. Not only that, it feels and looks really stupid. Why do these fucking characters always run in hunchbacked position? On the other hand if it turned out everyone in your party had a spinal disorder it would explain a lot about the game.

 

[Azarkon]

What a lot of people don't know is that this was also the case in BG 2. For much of the BG 2 development process, it was planned that Imoen dies in Spellhold, and given that she was missing for 90% of the game before Spellhold, few dialogue interactions were actually recorded for her.

They scrapped that idea late into production, but didn't have time to add back all the lost dialogue interactions, resulting in a character that didn't talk to the rest of the party for the bulk of the game.

Imoen is, to me, one of the most fascinating characters. I mean not the NPC herself but rather the story behind her. Apparently Imoen was supposed to be a guard, but then at the very last minute someone decided that the game might be too tough for RPG beginners and so they made her an NPC so that CHARNAME has a guaranteed buddy right out of the gate. IIRC Imoen's voiceset is just things the guard would say mixed with audio files from the voice actress's audition, but I could be wrong on that point. So she's not even supposed to be there at all, she's just been awkwardly shoe-horned in.

Then fast-forward to BG2. The devs didn't like Imoen and weren't planning on including her at all, but apparently fans loved her enough that they decided to put her in. So, they went with what you said - dies in Spellhold. There's backlash against this too and later on they grudgingly decide to let her live (because for some reason all the fans love Imoen).

Apparently her whole "getting brutally tortured" thing literally came about because Bioware didn't like her.

The guard who became an NPC. The NPC who became a Bhaalspawn. The Bhaalspawn who defied a dev team.

I find it difficult to believe that Bioware didn't understand why their fans loved Imoen. Besides being a classic "Girl Next Door" trope, she's an important foil for the PC. On one hand, she reminds the PC, both directly through dialogue and implicitly through her own character changes, just how far they've come since the journey began, and how much they've changed. On the other, she is an actual mirror for the PC. As a Bhaalspawn herself, her own trials and tribulations are a direct parallel to the PC's, and the effects they have on her help the PC appreciate what is otherwise just a plot device that allows you to do cool shit.

Both of these qualities are, writing quality aside, designed to bring a character closer to the player. In fact, Imoen is the best candidate for 'closest companion to the PC' by virtue of the fact that: 1) she's the first companion the PC meets, 2) she's the PC's oldest friend, and 3) she and the PC shares an empathic bond that no other party member shares. Regardless of whether the player appreciates Imoen's personality, portrait, & voice acting, the game practically screams 'Imoen is your kindred soul'. Yes, Bioware supported "selfish" motivations for going to Spellhold, but the choice of Imoen being the other Bhaalspawn, and the one Irenicus captures, surely isn't random. They had to have thought that Imoen had a special place in players' hearts to make that decision.

But then again, this is Bioware we're talking about, the same company that thought Sera would be a great idea for a romance. At times, you have to wonder whether the few great decisions they made in past games were just because they managed to trip over them on the road to

:incloosive:

 

[razvedchiki]

What baldurs gate taught me is that we have a dark side we struggle to keep hidden.

Alas,every time i log in the codex i feel i loose the struggle...

 

[MilesBeyond]

That's an interesting concept.

I guess my devil's advocate response is.. if 90% of the game is easy and 10% is hard (Difficult Encounters or Bosses). Does that mean the game as a whole is hard?
No IE game is without it's challenges.. But that doesn't mean I would consider the game universally hard if most of the time I can get by with little effort.. Curious on your response.

No argument here. I think you're completely right on that. Difficulty is about not only challenge, but consistent challenge. Too many games - RPGs or otherwise - tend to rely on mind-numbingly easy trash mobs and then ramping up the difficulty for bosses. I don't know when or why the concept of "difficulty curve" was replaced by "difficulty rollercoaster" but that's the way it goes, I guess.

Though at the same time, it's understandable. First, games don't actually have all that long a testing period, which means it's almost inevitable that within even a year of release, die-hard fans will have a more in-depth knowledge of the game mechanics than the devs themselves do. It sounds kind of dumb, but that's the way it is - mechanics as intended and mechanics as they actually are will usually be two very different things. Second, even if you have a thorough understanding of your game, making it consistently difficult is a really difficult thing to do. First, you've got to do so in a way that's fair, reasonable, and consistent with the ruleset. I mean if you modded BG1 so that all the Gibberlings, Hobgoblins, and Bandits were replaced by Liches, Mind Flayers, and Dragons, yeah, it'd be hard as shit. It'd make Wizardry cry for its mama. But it wouldn't be a good sort of difficult. It would be a stupid sort of difficult. Designing an encounter that's both challenging and fun is actually more difficult than beating that encounter. Beyond that, you've got to consider that you've got a pretty wide array of players at your disposal. Like PnP, CRPGs tend to attract both grognards and drama queens (e.g. people who are there for the mechanics, and people who are there for the storytelling) which means that unless your game is specifically targeting grognards, you've got to account for the fact that a non-trivial portion of your playerbase isn't going to be delving deep into the mechanics and may even just see combat as a brief diversion from the meat of the game.

Finally, there's pre-order culture. Pre-orders are a massive part of the industry now, and the reality is, you can't really showcase difficulty in a trailer or screenshot. If you try, it usually just ends up looking like your marketing team sucks at playing your game, not that it's hard. Really all you can do is say "We are making our game difficult" which I mean, that and a buck fifty will get you a chocolate bar, you know?

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as I like to bitch and moan about how a lot of games are too easy, there isn't enough money in the world to persuade me to try and do a better job, you know?

 

[vivec]

Sensuki

I rearranged some of your quotes so that I could organize my replies a bit better.

I think the combat is boring and tedious compared to the Infinity Engine games (BGs/IWDs). It largely controls the same, but with worse pathfinding and the horrible engagement system. I play the IE games dynamically and tactically. I don't use pre-buff very often and I generally just go into combat and roll with it. This playstyle is punished quite badly in Pillars of Eternity, which makes you focus a lot more on pre-combat setup than actual combat (despite not allowing pre-buffing!) - stealthing into position, getting your initial moves right and then following a rote pattern in combat.

Maybe they changed the game since I last played it, but positioning was not all that essential earlier. Whatever. This little addition is not going to save PoE.

In the IE games, you are often forced to react to situations. You need to cure poison and disease. You need to heal in battle. You need to dispell stuff. None of this matters in Pillars of Eternity - you can pretty much safely ignore most things and just continue on with your execution strategy. Rinse repeat the same shit over and over again.

I also agree that the BG/IWD series spells and monsters are fun. Why is a ghoul fun in BG? Because they can hold you and that hold lasts for ages and you should really dispel it in combat. Why is a ghoul-type unit not fun in Pillars of Eternity? Because if they can paralyze you, it will most likely only last for a few seconds, and you can just ignore it. In fact, they probably can't paralyze your tank very often.

Why is a Lightning Bolt fun in BG? Because it's a make or break spell that will fuck up anything it hits, and it has a chance of going horribly wrong for you if you mis-aim it. Why is Crackling Bolt not fun in Pillars of Eternity? It has similar mechanics but it's not a big deal if you fuck up the spell and it just does a little bit of damage.

You mentioned the other problem - the dullness of the abilities/spells and the monster design.

Both of these things - the way the game plays, and the combat-related content is like this because of the system design. The universal rules with no exceptions. The Fallout-style armor system that doesn't really work very well with the other mechanics. The 4E style per-encounter & per-rest system. The homogeneous class and ability design. The 4E-ish Health system. The MMO style pigeonholing of tank/dps and support builds.

"Fun content" is really difficult to create under these imposing rules & restrictions that Sawyer has created. Monsters feel the same because they follow the system design rules. Kind of in the same way that 4E feels a bit samey when you play it.

Indeed. IE games, based on D&D, did use the status effects and 'hard counters' really well. This is what made them so atmospheric and fun.


Never tried 4E after hearing only bad things about it. Anyway, my group stopped playing D&D since 3.5.

I agree that Pillars of Eternity would be better as a turn-based game. Every dev on their design team probably wishes it was a TB game and IMO it shows in a lot of the design - the engagement system and the combat & class mechanics. I don't necessarily agree that the IE games would be better in TB though because they're really fun as is. Big battles in BG2 would take F-O-R-E-V-E-R in TB, but in RTwP they're pretty exhilarating actually (e.g., Final Seal Guardians).

I think this is the only point we might have some differences. I genuinely feel that the mechanics of the game affects the pacing and the encounters. A real time game, cannot but have short encounters to compensate for the player input restrictions. This is a *limitation* in my eyes. A turn based game certainly can afford to have encounters that can last *forever* as long as the encounter is designed to be a multi-solution puzzle. Additionally, TB AI is easier to adjust to changes in the combat situation. Thus, when a game is as resource-full as D&D, you can have so many exciting and unexpected twists and turn in a single encounter that the length of it does not bother you. Don't you experience this in a P&P game? Finally, I would claim that the TB game can then also not need Trash Mobs. Its few encounters can be made engrossing enough to compensate for the lack of combat content. Instead, it can turn its resources to the role playing aspects of the game concerning the story.

IE games with TB as I see them, would play like TOEE I suspect. Darn shame that TOEE did not get rid of the frogs and skellies random encounters and the generic massacre simulator feel.

PS.

I do not think PoE would be a good game even if it had TB mechanics. Would it be a better game with TB? Dunno. I see that game as rotten at the core. So can't really say.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't think it would be a good game if it was TB either, but I think the combat would be better.

Will edit the post with a proper reply later.

 

[ArchAngel]

I don't think it would be a good game if it was TB either, but I think the combat would be better.

Will edit the post with a proper reply later.

There is way too much combat in PoE for TB system. They would have to remove at least half encounters and replace them with something interesting that is not combat or reduce the scope of whole game.

 

[Rake]

I don't think it would be a good game if it was TB either, but I think the combat would be better.

Will edit the post with a proper reply later.

They would have to remove at least half encounters and replace them with something interesting that is not combat or reduce the scope of whole game.

That alone would improve PoE massively, regardless of the combat system

 

[Ausdoerrt]

No really.. I didn't find IWD hard my first time through. The difficulty curve starts very low. You are literally fighting goblins with a full group of 6 members who are likely built optimally assuming you can read character sheet descriptions.. As opposed to BG 1 where you play large chunks of the game with half a party of very sub-optimal characters (who will sometimes abandon you or fight each other resulting in you losing key roles or classes)

Did I breeze through IWD with ZERO resistance? No. There was always Gotcha's along the way but I wasn't like breaking a sweat either, outside of certain bosses and encounters IWD was not challenging..
IWD 2 was much more challenging. Almost too challenging for someone who hasn't played an IE game before I would argue..

Thanks much for detailing exactly what I meant to say. IWD1 is a good, beautiful game, but at times it does feel like a monster mop-up simulator.

Perhaps my perspective is somewhat skewed on this, though, because I played IWD2 before I tried IWD1, and that game likes to bite you in the ass every chance it gets.

IE games with TB as I see them, would play like TOEE I suspect. Darn shame that TOEE did not get rid of the frogs and skellies random encounters and the generic massacre simulator feel.

A man can dream...

In TOEE, investing into Survival pretty much solves the problem with boring random encounters. Co8 also did spice them up, to an extent.

 

[Immortal]

I guess what I'm saying is that as much as I like to bitch and moan about how a lot of games are too easy, there isn't enough money in the world to persuade me to try and do a better job, you know?

I agree with most of what you said.. except this.

Your personal skill for making something is irrelevant when critiquing a game / movie / work of art. I mean you can still appreciate the effort that went in but don't hold back criticism just because you don't have the experience or team of developers at your side that would enable you to "make something better" - It's not your job to make something better. You already have a job.

I respect the work that game developers put in to make games happen (Early Access Garbage Excluded) even if I personally dislike or even hate the final product. The argument levied by Fanboys however - where they say "I'd like to see you try" is a straw man attack for valid points you might be raising and they hold zero water for me.

 

[MilesBeyond]

I agree with most of what you said.. except this.

Your personal skill for making something is irrelevant when critiquing a game / movie / work of art. I mean you can still appreciate the effort that went in but don't hold back criticism just because you don't have the experience or team of developers at your side that would enable you to "make something better" - It's not your job to make something better. You already have a job.

I respect the work that game developers put in to make games happen (Early Access Garbage Excluded) even if I personally dislike or even hate the final product. The argument levied by Fanboys however - where they say "I'd like to see you try" is a straw man attack for valid points you might be raising and they hold zero water for me.

I actually agree with you on that. I think that the mentality that "You should only be allowed to criticize if you can do better" is completely bunk and, moreover, entirely misses the point of criticism.

That last sentence of mine was more to indicate that as much as I like to piss on the devs, I'm not entirely without sympathy for them. They're doing a hard frigging job, and I like to think that any criticism is, in some way, helping games to improve rather than discouraging people from making them.

 

[Snufkin]

I remember playing all infinity games and came to conclusion that BG/BG2 are inferiors. Planetscape has great story and characters. IWD have great music and atmosphere. IWD2 even with dificult locations and strange puzzles is still good game. But seems that both BG's lack real strenghts.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Well the exploration and more open world design of BG1 and the fact the BG series has more NPC bantering and quest depth than IWD is what now makes me decide of the 4 games (Bg1/Bg2/Iwd1/Iwd2) I'm goign to get Bg1. There's a sale on GoG right now for the. When I first started, I thought for sure I'd get IWD1 or IWD2, but these things and because Bg1 started it all compels me to get it instead.

One thing I look forward to is whether or not my gut feeling about exploration and open world will pan out. My gut feelings don't always work out. For example, I didn't enjoy Fallout very much, even though I always had gut feelings I would. Playing is different than theorizing. Being that I don't have the games, it's easy to overexamine them. I have to play.

Wish I had $8 on my paypal, I might get Bg1 AND Iwd1. It takes almost week to move funds. But I guess it don't matter. I'm a very light spender when it comes to gaming.

I'll be sure to post here or slewhere about my impression of it after playing. Hope it's not buggy or unstable. HOpe the UI isn't too bad. Good thing it's just $4, although that's 4$ for a 16 year old game!

EDIT: No offense to Bg2. It gets higher scores on metacric than any of the others. It's one of the best games ever made according to review sites. I have utmost respect forit and anyone who likes it.

 

[Goblino]

I hate to spoil it, but it's shit.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I hate to spoil it, but it's shit.

Believe me, I got my fingers crossed. I also have hte impulse to say f*** it and get ToEE instead.

EDIT: Wow, just noticed ToEE is now sale for $2 something. The reason I mention ToEE is because it's based on D&D rulsets too. Some people say it's better than BG/IWD series but they all play somewhat different.

EDIT: Got them both. $6 something. I have like 4 cents in my paypal. Don't regret. If I ever get the motivation, I've got 2 games I've always wanted to play and still got Darklands/Risen/Fallout 2 in my bookcase if I want to play more deeply.

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

Believe me, I got my fingers crossed. I also have hte impulse to say f*** it and get ToEE instead.

EDIT: Wow, just noticed ToEE is now sale for $2 something. The reason I mention ToEE is because it's based on D&D rulsets too. Some people say it's better than BG/IWD series but they all play somewhat different.

EDIT: Got them both. $6 something. I have like 4 cents in my paypal. Don't regret. If I ever get the motivation, I've got 2 games I've always wanted to play and still got Darklands/Risen/Fallout 2 in my bookcase if I want to play more deeply.

It's not shit. Hope you enjoy the games. Maybe you'll even create a new thread discussing what you don't like about the game

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

Appealing to everyone is the surest way to water down everything.