RPGs that are/were overestimated

[Ionstormsucks]

Hello everyone,

I thought I should start a thread were you can list famous rpgs and the reason why YOU think they are/were overestimated and therefore not as good as their names. Note that this is of course purely subjective...

I'll begin...

The whole Ultima series - because of a weak story and setting. A parellel universe with a guy called Lord British? C'mon guys...

Ah well, still a good game because of everything you could do inside the gameworld, but overestimated.

[Zaleukos]

My somewhat controversial nomination for most overrated (which doesnt mean its a bad game) would go to the infinity engine games, particularly Baldurs Gate 2. These are solid games that I'd rate 4/5 stars, but a lot of people swear by them while I'm not sure I'd put them in my top 10 RPG list. I've had fun with them, particularly when playing MP with my gf (they are pretty darn good for multiplayer in spite of some minor synchronization issues, particularly Icewind Dale).

Objectively the interface is rather clunky (actually clicking on something in real time mode isnt feasible, as just clicking on a sprite might not select it). You spend a lot of time walking back and forth just to sell loot, which is annoying but not uncommon in RPGs. I also hate the mage combat in BG2, where it all boils down to taking out a mage's protection before he imprisons you, summons a demon (who promptly kills everything with some sort of area spell) or does some other stupid thing. Any boss battle ended up as a "mage can opening" fest.

Subjectively I just dont feel very immersed into the games. I even felt more immersed in the Goldbox games... I cant tell why.

[dteowner]

I guess I'd have to throw a dagger at Morrowind. Widely acclaimed for its freeform play, the world didn't change in the slightest based on your actions. You could do anything, but there was no reason to do anything. Character development was nearly identical whether you saved the world or killed a million rats outside of Seyda Neen. In the end, it was the gaming equivalent of an online travel brochure.

[txa1265]

My pick - Dungeon Siege - isn't that highly regarded here, but it was very well reviewed and is quite popular in general.

... same would go for Fable: The Lost Chapters ...

[narpet]

I have to second the opinion about Dungeon Siege. And I know that many may disagree with me, but in the same vein as the above mentioned RPG... the Diablo series absolutely stinks. I just can't stand mindless click-fest action games that dare to put the word RPG in their advertisement or description, just because the player's character has stats and gets to pick up cool magical swords from dead rats.

Dungeon Siege = Diablo 2 = Diablo = BORING

Don't get too mad at me for that evaluation... it's just my honest opinion :)

[bjon045]

The whole Ultima series - because of a weak story and setting. A parellel universe with a guy called Lord British? C'mon guys...

Ah well, still a good game because of everything you could do inside the gameworld, but overestimated.

It's not a parallel universe, it's a different world. Just as Pagan and the Serpent Isles are different worlds, they all exist in the same universe.

Weak story? Are you referring to particular version? I though most of them had rather well done stories, especially Ultima 4 and 7 part 2.

Considering the glowing reviews most of the Ultima games got (I remember 97% for Serpent Isle in PC gamers print magazine) I don't see how they are "overestimated" in general, however if you are specifically talking about 8 and 9 and Ultima Online I would agree.

[Ionstormsucks]

Considering the glowing reviews most of the Ultima games got (I remember 97% for Serpent Isle in PC gamers print magazine) I don't see how they are "overestimated" in general, however if you are specifically talking about 8 and 9 and Ultima Online I would agree.

If they had not gotten glowing reviews I couldn't really claim they were overestimated, could I? Apart from that it's really a personal thing... I found the whole idea about a world called Britannia ruled by some guy called Lord British strange. The fact that "THE AVATAR" (ouch) can't get rid of his archenemy (who looks like Hellboy... just not as cool...ya ya, I know the Guardian was first) began to go on my nerves. I also never seen a game series that features so much of the same content in every sequel. The same cities, the same dungeons, the same companions, the same enemies... etc.
As I said it's a personal taste thing. I can't say I did not enjoy playing ultima (at least some of the games), but in retrospective I feel that the game series is overrated.

Concerning Dungeon Siege - the best thing about the game is that you can play Ultima V Lazarus with is... hmmm ironic...

[Arma]

I know this is going to start another flame war, but I would go for Planescape Torment. I played it some years after release, and based on all the praise I had heard on it over time had pretty high expectations. While I still liked the game, it brought out the worst combat out of the Infinity engine - not that it was good in the first place, but still ... And in my opinion the story was left at a cliffhanger screaming for a sequel that never came.

Other games I believe to be highly overrated are Morrowind - totally agree with dte on that, it was so huge and open ended in the end it turned out really shallow and flat out boring. Dungeon Siege was just a pretty (and that is the only good thing that can be said about it - when it was released in 2002 (or 03 since I can remember very well) it was one of the most beautiful games I had seen and probably still is) screensaver that required a click every now and then.

[JemyM]

I agree with Diablo (actiongame, not a roleplaying game) Dungeon Siege (actiongame, not a roleplaying game) and Morrowind (Sandbox game, not a roleplaying game).

Dungeon Siege II was pretty good though. Still no roleplaying game.

Oblivion, for same reasons given to Morrowind.


My nominee goes to Fable.

Fable might be something for people who enjoy console gaming like Mario 64, but it's not a game for a roleplaying veteran. The game felt childish and the lack of save function empowered that feeling.

Functions like farting and burping probably fit british humor but made me feel old. The environment and story felt like a cartoon aimed at younger teens. To even call it a roleplaying game is something I am sceptical against. The game is aimed at Good and Evil and if you only feel like playing good you do not have any options left. Beyond the clichée story you get the option to be an "unmotivated psychopat with bad childhood" or "childish naive good", where picking between them feels like deciding if you want pest or cholera. The game gave me little motivation to be good or evil and left nothing inbetween.

It remains as one of the few RPG's I did not finish.

[Wulf]

Yeah, i sympathise with many here, Arma's Planescape, Oblivion, Morrowind, JemmyM's Fable was a close contender but.....

I nominate Beyond Divinity, because it would not run even with the latest patches at the time, to overcome the terrible starforce effect i built a new second pc just for gaming. Then expecting at least the same as the previous Divine Divinty or better, it turned out worse. Not counting the terrible voicing, the gameplay was not as challenging. I felt let down, i threw it in that big bottom draw to gather dust with a pile of others.....beware of sequels!...but that's a topic for another day.

[txa1265]

Beyond Divinity

When was BD rated as anything but crap?

[Hindukönig]

I found the whole idea about a world called Britannia ruled by some guy called Lord British strange.

Well, in Ultima I-III, the land is called Sosaria and isn't ruled by one leader alone. The fact the whole world and its ruler has an own story which you can actually play by yourself, is just great, IMHO.

The fact that "THE AVATAR" (ouch) can't get rid of his archenemy (who looks like Hellboy... just not as cool...ya ya, I know the Guardian was first) began to go on my nerves.

You're only talking about Ultima VII-VIII. Funny.
If you think "Avatar" is a strange name, just play Ultima IV and look was "Avatar" means in Wikipedia. It's actually pretty clever.
Comparing The Guardian to Hellboy is pretty dumb, IMHO. There's a reason why the Avatar can't get rid of him: he just doesn't get to fight against him until Ultima IX! If you think that's a bad concept, you must dislike every comic series out there, don't you?

I also never seen a game series that features so much of the same content in every sequel. The same cities, the same dungeons, the same companions, the same enemies... etc.

Which is actually pretty cool, because the cities and dungeons change in some way every game. The companions are the same, true, but why's that bad? I love Ultima precisely that it doesn't create an absolutely new world in every game, like Final Fantasy.

As I said it's a personal taste thing. I can't say I did not enjoy playing ultima (at least some of the games), but in retrospective I feel that the game series is overrated.

No, it isn't overrated, because it's a true classic. Especially if you think of Ultima IV, the first (and only?) game where you can do everything, but actually have to be a moral person to beat the game. Or Ultima VII, where racism and religion is a strong part of the plot. Or Ultima Underworld with one of the first real 3D engines.
You may not liked it, but that's no reason to say it's overrated.

[JemyM]

Planescape Torment

Blasphemy.

[magerette]

The first two games that come to my mind are Lionheart and KOTOR.

Lionheart had a large amount of positive pre-release hype and swank, then nose-dived dramatically when people started playing it. I was extremely hacked when part two turned into a mindless neverending battle of being over-matched and out-numbered with absolutely nowhere to run--totally killed it for me.

KOTOR wasn't a bad game, in fact it was a pretty good game, but to me it was the classic example of over-rated. It ran like crap on my computer of the time, it looked like crap, and the interface had console stamped all over it. It had every stale biowarean plot device, and really dumb mini-games--not to mention the typical run of irritating "uppity" female NPCs( well, except for Mission, I liked her :) ).
I really wouldn't have minded all this if hadn't been hailed as one of the all-time greats, got every GOTY award in sight, and reviews everywhere praising it to the skies. If that game had been set anywhere but the Star Wars universe, I think it would have received a different and more realistic reception. Again, I'm not saying it was a bad game, just that it failed to live up to all the hype ---for me.

Please don't throw really big rocks...

[HiddenX]

Not bad but overrated:

Baldurs Gate 1
Morrowind/Oblivion
Diablo 1/2
Dungeon Siege

[cutterjohn]

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, poor story, poor combat system, lousy AI, etc.
Dungeon Siege 2 (and this is leaps and bounds beyond 1?! Way too railroaded)
Oblivion, so many dysfunctional design decisions that nothing will ever be able to make it into an RPG.
Ultima 8 aka Super Avatar World
Ultima IX aka the incredible shrinking world that re-writes history and feels unfinished.
M&M 8 nice try, but...
M&M 9 - at least finish the game before shoving it out the door. (hmm a pattern is developing...)
Avernum series - please don't re-release old games with a new engine and then try to foist them off as new

Morrowind to a degree, although my problem with it was moving too far from the Daggerfall formula. Hand crafted sounded good, but with the addition of removal of skills like climbing, random quests, etc. It just wasn't as fun, but sure looked better... Morrowind partially made up for the shortfalls by being highly moddable, and some good mods did end up being made for it.

NWN1 gets saved from the list by being moddable with some decent stuff made for it and persistent worlds.

NWN2 same potential as 1, but the jury is still out ATM.

Diablo 1 & 2 while I didn't care for their extreme emphasis on fat loot, lack of real quests, story, etc. I did appreciate the randomly generated weapon modifiers and areas. Also, I never had much in the way of inflated(or otherwise) expectations for either of these titles.

[Zaleukos]

I'm not sure one can say that Ultima IX is overrated. To be overrated you have to be highly rated to begin with, and is there ANYONE who rates that piece of pooh highly?:-) Bad yes, but not overrated... Overrated to me is when something decent is hyped as great, or something good is being hyped as the best game of all time (which is why I brought up BG that I after all like in a way):)

[Hindukönig]

I know enough people and mags which rate(d) Ascension pretty high. I think it's overrrated, too. When I played Gothic the first time I thought: this is what Ultima IX should have been.
BTW, I'm with magarette. In KOTOR I really didn't like the quests at all. Some were pretty good, but it was that typical "collect the five star maps" or whatever you had to collect ... thing, which I didn't like. When playing the "light side" you still had to eliminate every Sith out there - no difference between being good and evil. The locations were ridicously small (especially the desert). The character's backgroundstories were pathetic.
Oh, and this mini game while traveling between the planets was just out of place.

[dteowner]

@Cutterjohn- don't know about Ultima9, but I can guarantee you that MM9 couldn't be overrated since it was universally panned. Most of us here pretend that it was never released so as not to ruin the series.

[KasperFauerby]

Well, regarding Ultima IX: At the time that game came out I was hugely into the Ultima series and I actually found U9 to be fairly enjoyable, all things considered. I mean, it seems clear that the dev team broke their necks trying to do many of the classic Ultima things in that one (they couldn't manage to get it to work in full 3d) - but at the time it came out it had the most beautiful gameworld I had ever seen. I also found some of the dungeons to be quite fun to go through. It's probably one of the worst Ultima games, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a complete pile of trash :)

I'll also cast my vote for Diablo2 as the most overrated "RPG" ever! I have nothing against hack&slash now and then (as long as I'm not expecting something else from the game) - and because of the hype I've tried to get into D2 several times.. I never get very far :)

[Icefire]

I'll also cast my vote for Diablo2 as the most overrated "RPG" ever! I have nothing against hack&slash now and then (as long as I'm not expecting something else from the game) - and because of the hype I've tried to get into D2 several times.. I never get very far :)

Diablo is not an rpg. Never was. Was never intended to be. It was and is an action game with rpg elements. I played it for a short time and was disappointed with it, but I never expected an "rpg" when I played it. You said you have nothing against hack & slash now and then as long as you're not expecting something else. What exactly were you expecting from it???

[Maylander]

The big O, not because it's bad, but because quite a few rate it as the greatest ever, and it simply.. isn't.

[JDR13]

Diablo is not an rpg. Never was. Was never intended to be. It was and is an action game with rpg elements. I played it for a short time and was disappointed with it, but I never expected an "rpg" when I played it. You said you have nothing against hack & slash now and then as long as you're not expecting something else. What exactly were you expecting from it???

You mention that you never expected an RPG when you played it, but not everyone knew that much going in.

[narpet]

Diablo is not an rpg. Never was. Was never intended to be. It was and is an action game with rpg elements.

You know... you're right. It's weird because I still have it in its original box, so I opened it up and not once is it referred to as an RPG. The box doesn't mention it, and it's not mentioned even once in the manual.

But... If you check out:

Moby Games - Diablo info and reviews (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/diablo)

You will see that most people, including "professional" online and magazine reviewers call it and action-RPG (there are links to major reviews). I think this is the reason that most people think of it as being touted as an RPG... and we all know that it is still a measuring stick by which other "action" RPGs are measured. I think that due to that fact it's pretty fair to say that the game is one of the most overrated RPGs ever (even overrated simply by being called an RPG by so many varied sources)...

[KasperFauerby]

@Icefire: "You said you have nothing against hack & slash now and then as long as you're not expecting something else. What exactly were you expecting from it???"

No, you misunderstand me. I knew exactly what to expect from Diablo2 when I tried to play it. What I meant to say was that even though I have no inherent dislike for that particular genre I still found it to be a bad game. Thus, given the fact it generally got very good reviews, I find it to be one of the most overrated RPGs :)

As for whether or not it's a RPG, well - that's a matter of personal taste and opinion I guess. I think the label "action rpg" fits it quite nicely. Another discussion would be whether or not most so-called true RPGs aren't action RPGs as well? I mean - Diablo2 is all about killing monsters, getting better gear and progressing your character .... wrapped in a pretty weak story and tons of small and simple quests. Hmm, to me this also sounds like a pretty accurate description of all the Might and Magic games, Wizardry8 etc :) No wonder really, since that's about all we can get to work properly on a computer. I know many people will disagree, but then please: name just one CRPG where you could actually make a significant difference through your actions (please also describe the actual action and consequence you have in mind, and deciding which faction/guild to join/help does not count IMO).

[Danicek]

Did anyone mention M... and O...? I didn't read the thread, but I think many others have taken care of...

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I have to second the opinion about Dungeon Siege. And I know that many may disagree with me, but in the same vein as the above mentioned RPG... the Diablo series absolutely stinks. I just can't stand mindless click-fest action games that dare to put the word RPG in their advertisement or description, just because the player's character has stats and gets to pick up cool magical swords from dead rats.

Dungeon Siege = Diablo 2 = Diablo = BORING

Don't get too mad at me for that evaluation... it's just my honest opinion :)

I played DS only a few days ago. My opinion is already quite nicely summed up by narpet.. :) Thanks, narpet. :)

For my own taste, the BG is also overestimated. But I must admit that I never played it through, and never played part II.

My view on it is that it is simply a fighting game with lots of side quests - which can only be solved through fightung.

Okay, that's probably too simple and a bit harsh, but I never saw *serious* riddles within the game.

So why is everyone so happy about such a fighting game ? I still don't get it.

A similar thing goes for Icewind Dale. Great athmosthere, great immersion - but only fighting again. Considering these two games, I'd predict Black Istle was only able to make fighting games. ;)

Role play does not consist only in fighting, imho. Maybe the strong faction of dungeon crawlers has won again.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

If you think "Avatar" is a strange name, just play Ultima IV and look was "Avatar" means in Wikipedia. It's actually pretty clever.

Yeah. Most people don't realize that. So much for education ...

[Alrik Fassbauer]

You will see that most people, including "professional" online and magazine reviewers call it and action-RPG (there are links to major reviews).

To me, "Action-RPGs" are a new sub-genre. It is so new that some people cannot accept it (like the motor industry couldn't except Tucker's cars, but or different reasons ...)

[Squeek]

IMHO, Morrowind was the RPG that was the most overestimated. Not that it was a bad game -- it definitely wasn't -- but the way Bethseda described it, the way the media reviewed it, and the way its fans praised it just didn't wash with the game itself.

My biggest gripe with Morrowind is its lack of heroism. Playing an RPG without heroism is like baking without sugar. Sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? I like sugar in my cookies, and I like heroism in my RPGs.

My other problem was the game engine. It's sluggish. After having played Gothic and KOTOR, Morrowind was like taking a step backwards that way. I found myself hurrying to level up just to try to improve my character's ability to move.

Finally, it was buggy and incomplete. In other words, Bethseda sold it before they finished making it. Like a lot of other software companies, Bethseda's in the habit of doing that. There are legitimate reasons why small software companies aim for "acceptable" quality vs. "high quality," but I think Bethseda is (and was) in a position to raise its standards.

In all fairness, Morrowind was a huge game and a huge accomplishment. Still, it was overhyped and overestimated.

[Asbjoern]

I feel I need to take Morrowind in defense. Morrowind is the best RPG, that I've played and by any standards it was a step forward.

The graphics was beautiful and ambient and that combined with the music created an atmosphere, that I haven't experienced in many other games. The architecture and surroundings were alien and innovating in that way, that it wasn't the ordinary fantasy world like Diablo 2 or Oblivion. They created something that changed my views on RPGs, so when playing RPGs my standards became much higher.

I haven't experienced one bug with my unpatched version of Morrowind except when playing with 50+ mods.

The dialogues were long and interesting making it a RPG and not an action RPG. Lore and the general setting with a long written history of Tamriel making it a complex and immersive game world like no other but being destroyed by Oblivion's lack of same.

And left is the main quest, which is a story worth of a novel. The ruins of the Dwemer and the shrines of the Daedric both with history to absorb. The religions, the different regions in landscape and culture, again the ambience, the huge scale, the view on RPGs not being dragons, knights and orcs but a more "realistic"/equal world with a story still grand.

Morrowind lacked a lot too though. But it isn't an overestimated game. Rather underestimated because Oblivion has gained a lot more succes and positive response.

My views on the most overestimated RPGs are Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights, Oblivion and KotOR. With no further reasoning though.

Morrowind is beauty.

Regards Asbjørn

[josephwatson]

It seems we've only discussed computer RPGs here, but I just wanted to mention that almost any Final Fantasy RPG (or any other game of that ilk) is highly overrated in my opinion. Yet I always fall for the advertising and have to try out the latest one. I enjoy freeform RPGs, and I think that if Morrowind and Oblivion had managed to make me care about the other people in the world, then I would have considered those games to be some of the best ones. Final fantasy, though, puts you on a set of rails and makes you follow a specific course until the very end. It just about drives me crazy. I usually get bored about halfway through and never finish the game (or I end up forcing myself to finish since I paid good money for it). And it's the same with almost any japanese style console rpg.

As a side note, I've been playing NWN2 lately -- it's a fun game, and it has one thing that I think any good rpg needs -- interactive companions. I think this comes from my ultima days, but I love the interaction and banter between companions in a party. The gothic series managed to be fun without companions, but I still think they're a great addition.

[Ionstormsucks]

Yeah. Most people don't realize that. So much for education ...
Well, I guess "Lord British" has also a hidden meaning that only the super-intellectual fanbase of the Ultima series is fully aware of...?
When I made that remark I was very well aware what Avatar means - I just have a different opinion about the fact that you are constantly referred to as "the Avatar". For me that just features a bit too much pathos, as does the whole Ultima series. The whole stylisation as your avatar being, so to speak "the ultimate hero" is one of the things that in my opinion are a potential weakness to every story.

[Fenris]

Well, you couldn't roleplay as you wanted in Ultima, you had to roleplay a Man/Woman from this world, that tries to become the ultimate Hero on Britannia... with compassion, honesty and Stuff... but this is ok for me, there are other Games were I can celebrate my dark Side :).

On Topic: The big O - a RPG entirly without the R, and it's success is a bad sign for the things to come.

[curious]

whether or not someone likes the ultima games doesn't matter. any game made years before is harder to get into anyhow. but saying the ultima games are overrated is like saying virtue is overrated...but i guess there are quite a few people in the world who feel that way.

[Sorcha Ravenlock]

The big O. I just can't get into it.

I love Diablo, Diablo2, Dungeon Siege, Morrowind, and NWN, actually I much prefer them over Fallout and Baldur's Gate 2. I would list those as 'most overrated', but in all fairness they may have been good for their time, it was a different RPG era. So I won't list those. But there was just nothing to like for me in the big O, so i will list that one instead...

[Hindukönig]

The whole stylisation as your avatar being, so to speak "the ultimate hero" is one of the things that in my opinion are a potential weakness to every story.

But in Ultima it's a pretty strong part of the story, because in Ultima IV, you actually BECOME that hero by acting really virtuous. After that part, it's more of a profession, a title. In the end, you can steal from the poor and attack the defenseless, if you really want to.

[Arma]

No one says that the titles mentioned here are not good by themselves (except a few occasions, like Morrowind). Dungeon Siege (1 for the record) was a good game in its own genre - interactive screensavers. It was just too much hyped and the likes as being an actual RPG.

As far as Morrowind bugs (unpatched version) go, Asbjoern, you must have not taken on Alchemistry. It has serious bugs like crashing to desktop and the like, and it really ruined the game for me, as it was one of the few things I found interesting in the game.

[Icefire]

The thing is it's tough to differentiate between a game you simply don't like and one that's overrated. I like action rpg's like Diablo, DS 1 and 2, Sacred (my favorite), etc. Others do not like that style. I hate party based rpg's, while others love them. It is all a matter of opinion, I guess. But it is hard for me to think of any game that I did not like that got more press than Oblivion.

[Asbjoern]

No, I didn't get into alchemy though I thought it was a great aspect of Morrowind. It added a gameplay variety to Morrowind, which I haven't experienced the likes of in other games. Or at least in such a full scale way, and not just empty words about a gameplay feature that really isn't that well implemented. There's a lot of this in the game industry.

A game is overrated if there is a general consensus, that the game is great but your opinion is the opposite. So of course it is a personal choice but it is dependant on the game being praised by some segment like the media, players etc.

Regards Asbjørn

[Alrik Fassbauer]

But in Ultima it's a pretty strong part of the story, because in Ultima IV, you actually BECOME that hero by acting really virtuous. After that part, it's more of a profession, a title. In the end, you can steal from the poor and attack the defenseless, if you really want to.

In real Mysticism, Avatars do really exist, although they are extremely rare. This is a point no-one sees, because everyone believes that this cannot happen to be.

[Relayer]

Hi all (long time reader first time posting)!

Morrowind & Oblivion top my list - these aren't BAD games but are hardly the "go anywhere, do anything" games they are often hyped as. And in Oblivion's case, all the acclaim received was undeserved. Aside from the exceptional graphics, the game is far from impressive. Actually what is very impressive is how "noobie" or casual friendly this game is - hardcore RPGers were left out in the cold.

Baldur's Gate - Very good game when released but I'm baffled at fans who choose it over BG2 as one of the greatest RPGs of all time. The sequel was a quantum leap in terms of story, visuals, interface, quests, options.

KOTOR - Being a Star Wars fan, I enjoyed the story and characters. As an RPG fan I was dissappointed. Combat was fun but too easy, the quest was extremely linear (yes, you can visit the "planets" in any order you desired but once there it was all linear), and the game world was underwhelming - these were PLANETS you visited but each adventure took place in very small, confined areas. The sequel brought a few improvements but with it also, more of the same and with less polish.

Gold Box Games - Highly regarded...but mostly a case of viewing the past with nostalgiavision. People complain about Icewind Dale being nothing but a hack & slash fest but that's exactly what the gold box games were - without the pretty graphics, rivetting orchestral score or more hours of gameplay.

FF8 - This was one of the most overrated games of all time. It's dull, tedious, boring and overlong. FF7 had a greater sense of adventure and a better story and FF9 had a better cast, game mechanics and was just a joy to play. I've replayed most RPGs I've enjoyed at least once to "relive the magic" - this is one that I've tried to replay several times to try to "find the magic" and it's just not there.

[Corwin]

Welcome to the forums. Please post more often!! :)

[Dhruin]

Baldur's Gate - Very good game when released but I'm baffled at fans who choose it over BG2 as one of the greatest RPGs of all time. The sequel was a quantum leap in terms of story, visuals, interface, quests, options.

Some good comments, Relayer - I agree with most of your points - but let me field the one about Baldur's Gate.

There's every chance I might write in some forum thread that BG was better than BG2. The real truth is that BG2 is indeed a better game on most levels but there are a few key things about BG that I liked and I can tend to get sentimental about.

First, there's the simple fact that BG marked the first major/new D&D title in many years an immediately reminded me of all those late night PnP sessions from my youth (this is a rose-tinted glasses thing - it wasn't that good but at the time, I was hooked).

The story wasn't hugely exciting but the whole motivation for BG2 failed for me...I hated Imoen and was quite happy to have her kidnapped - good riddance. Chasing after her because the story required it was frustrating.

Chapter 2 was simply excellent but I missed the random wilderness areas in BG. Yes, from a pacing point of view it was an improvement, but wandering empty forests felt like I was adventuring whereas as BG2 was so carefully paced and orchestrated it felt less "realistic" and more "gamey".

These are all minor things but all in all, I felt a better connection to BG despite its failings and the improvements in BG2.

[Role-Player]

The story wasn't hugely exciting but the whole motivation for BG2 failed for me...I hated Imoen and was quite happy to have her kidnapped - good riddance. Chasing after her because the story required it was frustrating.

Story urgency was severely lacking in Baldur's Gate 2. You only had two possible motivations for following the main story arc, Imoen and Irenicus. Players who never cared about Imoen didn't had any reason to save her - this was especially true of players who did not play the prequel and thus, were never clued in on any particular connection to Imoen or relevance she may have had. Irenicus didn't provide for any good motivation either: there's never any real sense of the torture he may have inflicted to the PC (in fact, considering all other NPCs you meet in his dungeon, the PC is *by far* the less harmed one) and because of this revenge doesn't necessarily factor much into the PC's motivations. The only other motivation to get to Irenicus was to learn more about the power he mentioned, and this would only suit very specific types of alignment.

In Baldur's Gate 1 there was definitely more urgency, and one that impacted gameplay in several ways. For instance, there are two groups of characters that will demand you consult authorities in Nashkel concerning the iron plague, each with their own time limit. There are several enemy characters or parties which will cross paths with you in what was a clear attempt to stop you on your tracks - a far cry from BG2's stance where nothing ever happens in the gameworld that urges you to go after Irenicus. Also, many of the weapons you find throughout the gameworld will eventually break or crumble before you can find the source of the plague, which was also another great tie into the story and motivation to discover more of it.

[Fenris]

The Plot of BG 2 worked for me like a charm, because I cared much for the NPCs in Part 1 and to rescue Imoen and avenge Dynaheir and Khalid were great Goals for me. Irenicus was one of the best Villains ever :)

But then there was Throne of Bhaal ... the beginning of Biowares slow degeneration.

[ToddMcF2002]

I loved BG1 until I got to the city proper. Once I got there I was so frustrated with the quest structure I started hating it. Then I got poisoned. Anyone remember that? I slogged through the conclusion and deleted the game FOREVER. That being said I loved the first half of the game and I'll never forget fighting in those colorful woods for the first time.

[Zaleukos]

To me the city in BG1 is a perfect illustration of the crappiness of the isometric perspective. Having doors that cant be seen because they are on the northern side of buildings is more than just borderline retarded.

Btw, I played through BG again a few months ago and finally realized that the back side of the map that came with the game has a map of the city. Boy I felt dumb for having missed that... It surely sped up the city portion of the game.

[magerette]

I loved BG1 until I got to the city proper. Once I got there I was so frustrated with the quest structure I started hating it. Then I got poisoned. Anyone remember that? I slogged through the conclusion and deleted the game FOREVER. That being said I loved the first half of the game and I'll never forget fighting in those colorful woods for the first time.

Those are pretty much my only memories of BG1, too--I enjoyed the woods, the random encounters, the character creation, but once I got to the city I got so frustrated with the AI pathfinding and the ungodly load times that I never wanted to finish it. I sometimes wonder if they got the name for the Infinity engine from the infinity of time it took to load a map. :)

[Corwin]

Good thought, but actually the name came from another game they were planning called Battleground Infinity!!

[Alrik Fassbauer]

What's that ? I've never heard that name before ... :confused:

[Corwin]

The actual game was never made; it morphed into BG1!!

[Dhruin]

As Corwin alluded, it's worth remembering that BG was originally conceived as a (non-D&D) fantasy RTS called Battleground Infinity...you can see a lot of design decisions flowing from that when you look back.

Yes, I liked the woods more than the city - that's why I said my preference for BG over BG2 is at least somewhat coloured by nostalgia.

[ffbj]

Dungeon Siege. Just not interesting at all. Pretty overated I think.
Fable. I could not even play it beyond the first few levels. Completely turned me off.

[Maylander]

I love the BG series as a whole, playing through the whole thing with a single character is simply amazing: Start out making a character in BG1, go through the whole game + add-on content, then import him to BG2 and go through that + ToB. Many, many hours of solid gaming!

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Yes, the ability to import characters is one of my personal favourite features ! :)

I just loved it when I played the Realms of Arcania Trilogy ! :D

[aries100]

And the award goes to

--- wait for it ---
(you've guessed it, haven't you)

Oblivion.

Seldom have I seen a game much more hyped than this game. Sadly, all the hype turned out the air, fluff, and more air, and certain not the icing of the cake, it was the cake!

No games deserves a 98% or a 94% --- and no game is actually that good that it
deserves 90+ ratings from all over the (major) gaming sites. Personally, I think Oblivion is good game, but I don't happen to think that its the bestest game evar nor that it is an rpg. [It is more of an action/adventure/exploring game with some rpg elements thrown in, imo...].

ETA:

As for BG1 and BG2, I have to say that I liked BG1 much better than BG2, simply because of the political elements in the story arc (or narrative).
And that during the game's narrative structure you, or rather your character, dioscovers your true heritage. [Which sort of is a loaned, borrowed or stolen thing from the Greek myths like the Myth of Perseus or Heracles or Jason and the Argonauts].

BG2 is a good game, too, but the only motivation you have for going after the main villain is that he somehow has strayed from a certain race's virtues.
There is no, irrc, no real info as to why he has done this: It is, iirc, only presented as if he, and only he, is the Evil one, because his morals are wrong.

I also miss the beautifully outdoor areas in BG1 when playing BG2.

[Lucky Day]

The Gothic Series is overrated here but fairly rated every else (I know no one in RL who's heard of the series).

Planescape seemed fun but soon got bogged down. Its really the only one of the Infinity games I couldn't finish.

Fallout I. It was good but too short. Its certainly not the second coming that people make of it.

Wasteland. I hated this game when it came out. It was a bad clone of Ultima 3 and there were many of them at the time. Big deal that it was set in the future. It was clunky.

Gold Box Games. I've made repeated comments at how tedious all SSI games were. If it wasn't for the AD&D name slapped on them I don't think these would have sold very well.

Ultima Underworld and Ultima 7. I'm sorry, but these could not even be played on most systems at the time of their release or even some years after. I recall Ultima 6 even requiring a Hard Drive on some systems at a time when they were almost unheard of in home machines.

Wizardry IV. I really loved this game. But Sirotek shouldn't have enlarged the wire frame to a full screen. Even by 1985 standards the game seemed primitive. Fortunately, it makes up for it in real content.

Wizardry 5 and 6. DW Bradley tore out the heart of what made Wizardry real cool: the spell names!

Diablo.

Myst (Just Kidding). like Diablo this game was hated for its success. In particular, hard core gamers hated how it found mainstream audiences. Its largely forgotten that Myst is the killer app that sold "multimedia" (essentially the cd-rom drive and sound card with speakers)..

Dragon's Lair. How rich did you have to be to waste a $1 a game for what is essentially a guessing game.

Final Fantasy.

Zelda.

..But really, who cares what I think.

[Corwin]

OK, then what games did you like?

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The Gothic Series is overrated here but fairly rated every else (I know no one in RL who's heard of the series).

To be most cynical, maybe it's because it's a German game ? I mean, I once read in an article a quote saying that "no-one expected a (good) game from Germany".

In fact, Germany was hardly ever present internationally, until Gothic and later Far Cry. And Spellforce also.

[magerette]

Spellforce and Gothic are pretty well known here, I would say. Most gamers I tend to meet in RL are MMO players and haven't heard of anything that isn't online or jrpg. They haven't heard of Ps:T or NWN either. But all the rpg'ers I know have played Gothic. :)

[curious]

from a country that produces such fine automobiles (like the ancient one i drive) its wierd that there is a level of scepticism when it comes to their game making abilities. but i guess being a quarter german i am biased to their culture:)

[Ionstormsucks]

About Gothic... safe to say it's better in English than in German. I bought the German version and I couldn't stand it. I hated the voice acting, and the fact that some monsters had English names or descriptions. Especially the voice acting was... uahahahrgg

[Jaz]

Hm, I found voice acting in the original Gothic a *lot* better than that of the English language version. *shrugs*. I agree with you on the critters with English names, though.

[dteowner]

Since Gothic is a German product, I would be very surprised if the English localization was better than the original.

[txa1265]

Since Gothic is a German product, I would be very surprised if the English localization was better than the original.

I find the Gothic games to have a nice funky German English mix that I don't mind ... but then I learned enough German to get by when I worked for a German company ~17 years ago and knew I'd be taking trips to Karlsruhe and in conference calls as the only English speaker ...

[Moriendor]

I have never played the English version of Gothic but the original German version of Gothic had one of the best voice-overs I have ever experienced in a game. It could have used a little more variety maybe (I think they recycled Diego's and Xardas' voices for a few NPCs) but the actors all did an awesome job. Which is not too surprising actually if you consider that they are all professional (voice) actors who have (or had... the guy who spoke Diego's German voice has passed away as far as I know) a proven track record in the synchronization/localization of foreign TV series and movies. You sure it was Gothic, Ionsturmsucks, and that you really played the German version? :)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I liked the voice acting as well, but felt kind of annoyed that they used English names for creatures in an otherwise fully German-language game.

But that's a general point I don't like : In German literature, movies and games, English names are never translated - even when they are "telling names" !

Of course, names shouldn't be translated, but imagine a Star Destroyer (speaking of Star Wars) with the name "Intimidator". I'm not sure, but I think, I've read such a name for a Star Destroyer somewhere in a novel.

Well, the name has for native English spealing people a "telling meaning". I mean it actually says something. If it wouldn't have to transport some sort of message, then it could've been names something like "Brrrblbt". That would be fine, then, too.

But it has a second meaning in the fact that it creates some kind of image and feeling in the readers. The evil Empire is *known* to be corrupt AND it uses such names for their capital ships !

This "second meaning" is totally lost for people not knowing this language. And in almost all Star Wars novels i know of these "telling names" are NOT translated. So, with their lost "second meaning", their name is as good as "brrblt".

It's a matter of transported information.

I have the same complaint with programming languages, by the way. Someone I discussed this with insisted that the commands and keywords in programming languages are "just symbols". So, if they are just symbols, why don't they use keywords like "hggkuguktcol" or "iupzclp" instead of "println" or "malloc" or "elseif" ?
In my opinion, this gives an unfair advantage to natives of the English language, because of the information transported in these keywords - apart from their symbolic meaning !

I still don't believe why no-one makes an attempt to actually build a translated programming language like let's say c++, but with translated keywords instead ! I believe that with translated keywords, programming languages would be *much* easier to learn, because of the already embedded meaning inside of them !

When I do programming and I use English-language keywords, then I'll have to switch languages all of the time, regardless whether this keyword "is just a symbol" or not. If I have an translated keyword, the learning and knowledge of the keyword is far more intuitive than with English-language keywords. But no IT-related scientist seems to see that, because they only use their IQ, but NEVER their EQ.

[Maylander]

I do all my programming in English, even names on variables, classes and so on. I do this because it doesn't make sense to have a "Norwenglish" code, with various combinations of two languages. All in all I'd prefer to type everything in my native language though, but that is not an option.

[Ionstormsucks]

I have never played the English version of Gothic but the original German version of Gothic had one of the best voice-overs I have ever experienced in a game. It could have used a little more variety maybe (I think they recycled Diego's and Xardas' voices for a few NPCs) but the actors all did an awesome job. Which is not too surprising actually if you consider that they are all professional (voice) actors who have (or had... the guy who spoke Diego's German voice has passed away as far as I know) a proven track record in the synchronization/localization of foreign TV series and movies. You sure it was Gothic, Ionsturmsucks, and that you really played the German version? :)

I have to admit that it was a long time ago when I last played that game. But as far as I remember I didn't like the voice acting. Then again, there are not many German games where I actually like the voice acting. Maybe I should install it again, and give it another try in German. Don't think I ever finished Gothic 1 anyway.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I do this because it doesn't make sense to have a "Norwenglish" code, with various combinations of two languages.

Yes, of course it would need an totally new rebuild from the basics on.

And your remark "that's not an option" is imho part of the problem.

If there was more competition among builders of programming environments (and languages), then a native-language programming language could be an option. But so far I have the feeling as if everything in that regard comes from the USA (with few exceptions [Ruby]).

[Lucky Day]

so..its overrated in Germany too? Or have they not heard of it there either are you saying? I know plenty of people that have heard of NWN especially now that NWN2 is out. Gothic is at #3 if I recall. How is that selling?

but again..who cares what I think.

In answer to your question Corwin:

kittens and rainbows.

[Squeek]

I wasn't happy with this post and decided to change it (sorry).

Your point's valid, of course, Lucky Day, but are sales really a realiable benchmark of quality? I imagine that just about everyone's heard of McDonald's restaurants, for instance, but who honestly thinks their food is all that great (and wouldn't it be odd if they did)?

Myself, I'm not surprised or particularly disappointed that Gothic wasn't a top seller. I loved Gothic.

[Jaz]

The Gothics were top sellers here.

[Maylander]

The Gothic games were top sellers all over Europe I think, at least in Norway they topped the lists.

[titus]

Never broke a record in Belgium for all I know. Only found G1 in a bargain sale and that was the only time I saw it here, never saw G2 here, only G3 made it to the real shelfs

[Benedict]

I know this is going to start another flame war, but I would go for Planescape Torment. I played it some years after release, and based on all the praise I had heard on it over time had pretty high expectations. While I still liked the game, it brought out the worst combat out of the Infinity engine - not that it was good in the first place, but still ... And in my opinion the story was left at a cliffhanger screaming for a sequel that never came.


Surely that's a sign of a pretty powerful story? If it's screaming for a sequel then you're obviously immersed in the storyline up to a certain point, I don't see anyone finishing Diablo 2 and thinking "They finished this too early, I feel the narrative arc should have included me spending another 2 months killing randomly generated monsters to yield minor improvements to my character stats at the expense of what remained of my social life"

Actually scratch that, lots of people probably thought that, but not for the sake of the narrative arc.

Anyway, I though Planescape was great and the poor combat be damned, but then I'm after a good story over a good engine any day.

[magerette]

I don't see anyone finishing Diablo 2 and thinking "They finished this too early, I feel the narrative arc should have included me spending another 2 months killing randomly generated monsters to yield minor improvements to my character stats at the expense of what remained of my social life"

:D

You've nailed so many years of my life with that post....*sigh*

Ps:T is one of my favorites as well, but I picked it up in a bargain bin about a year after release and had never heard a word about it. I'd like to think I would have the same reaction to excellence no matter what the hype, but you do tend to expect more from a game that everyone praises to the skies. That was my own issue with KotOR, and to some extent NWN. If I'd 'discovered' these games without hearing any of the lavish PR, I might not have been so disappointed in them for not living up to the booshwah.

That said, it's rather telling to me that the high expectations people have of Planescape come mostly from the praise of other gamers, whereas with some of the other games cited in this thread, the source is purely the PR and hype machines.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

PS:T comes my "dream game" closest from all RPGs I've played so far - mostly, because I love text. ;)

But - PS:T has one great disadvantage which nearly made me NOT buying it : It is too dark, too morbide for my taste. I love lightly, colourful themes, that's why I'm in constant anger about so many PGs being "grey & grim". ;) (Or "dark & grim".)

[magerette]

Alrik, I don't know if you saw the thread on this action rpg, Depths of Peril, earlier, but I thought of your graphics dream when I saw them. It is about as opposite 'dark & grim' as you can get. :)

http://www.soldak.com/content/blogcategory/21/54/

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Ah ! , Nice ! :)

Extremely colourful ! :)

You can call me nuts, but I like this ! :) ;)

[magerette]

Who knows, the game might even be good, too. :)

[Maylander]

I'm the exact opposite, I quickly tire of bright, colourful worlds like that of Oblivion. Give me a dark world filled with convicts and orcs like the Gothic world any day.

[magerette]

I agree Maylander. Most of my favorite games have a 'dark & grim' style-the only brightish one I can think of is MM6. In MM7, though the dark returned with a vengeance if you took the evil path, with all of your characters liches.:)

[Maylander]

Indeed, one of the fun elements of Might and Magic 7 was the importance of choosing dark or light. Having a party of Warlocks, Liches, Black Knights and Assasins certainly isn't the same as Heroes, Champions, Archmages and so on.

[Corwin]

Yeah, but the light side were a bunch of wimps by comparison!! Playing Dark was MUCH easier!!

[Maylander]

Hmm, yes, but I felt assaulting the dark city Archibald ruled was easier than the city in the clouds that Gavin Magnus ruled. I never liked fighting those Archangels.

[dteowner]

Bah. The archangels weren't that bad. Getting hit by a dozen liches casting shrapnel was far more challenging. There wasn't a very good way to draw them out a few at a time at the "ampitheatre", either.

[Relayer]

Welcome to the forums. Please post more often!! :)

Thanks!

Love your sig, heh.

[Relayer]

Those are pretty much my only memories of BG1, too--I enjoyed the woods, the random encounters, the character creation, but once I got to the city I got so frustrated with the AI pathfinding and the ungodly load times that I never wanted to finish it. I sometimes wonder if they got the name for the Infinity engine from the infinity of time it took to load a map. :)

You guys nailed it: The game was very enjoyable but BIOWARE bit off more than they could chew with the city area - the engine could not handle it.

[Relayer]

The story wasn't hugely exciting but the whole motivation for BG2 failed for me...I hated Imoen and was quite happy to have her kidnapped - good riddance. Chasing after her because the story required it was frustrating.

Quite understandable - I disliked Imoen too (who didn't?), but the story required it because although you as the PLAYER hated here, you as the CHARACTER grew up with her and were friends.

I guess you could roleplay it the way you would with a real life relative, even a sibling: you may fight a lot, and hardly talk to each other as time passes but you will still be there for each other - certainly when it comes to a life and death issue, heh.

Interestingly enough, Neeshka from NWN2 reminds me of Imoen a little. But she's got an edge to her that makes things interesting with the other characters, hehe.

I have to admit I hated Irenicus - and I don't mean in a "villian you love to hate" either. He just seemed too one dimensional and the voice actor didn't sound sinister enough...sounded bored, even. Hehe.

[Role-Player]

Quite understandable - I disliked Imoen too (who didn't?), but the story required it because although you as the PLAYER hated here, you as the CHARACTER grew up with her and were friends.

Did the game ever claimed she was a friend or merely stated the PC and her grew up together? I've played it too long ago to accurately remember this but I was under the impression they were not necessarily friends - hence why the game had various sets of responses for her that implied the PC and her never got along if the PC was negative towards her (read: a jerk).

Besides, the ability to ditch her as soon as she forced herself into my party and her rather blatant lack of character and importance to the original's story really didn't do wonders for me when I continued over into BG2. Actually, I don't think I instantly recognized the character when BG2 started.

[chamr]

I don't see how any game in prior history can compete with Oblivion when it comes to most overrated. Maybe it's just because it's so recent, but I think the hype, ridiculous review ratings and strong sales contrasted with the very shallow world and severely dumbed down gameplay is the most stark example of overrated there is.

[Corwin]

Chamr, we have an entire thread devoted to discussing Oblivion, precisely to avoid mentioning it anywhere else!! :) That being said, you have a valid point!!

[Fenris]

But you can't avoid mentioning Oblivion when you are talking about overrated Games... :)

[chamr]

Chamr, we have an entire thread devoted to discussing Oblivion, precisely to avoid mentioning it anywhere else!!

are you bustin' my b***s?! jeeeezzzz... :p

But you can't avoid mentioning Oblivion when you are talking about overrated Games...
yeah! what he said! :)

[Corwin]

I know, but I have to 'try' to keep things well organised here!! :)

[Relayer]

Well the MOST overrated game of ALL TIME is probably Elder Scrolls IV.

(See, didn't use the O word :biggrin: )

[txa1265]

are you bustin' my b***s?! jeeeezzzz... :p

I think that we were getting to the point that every thread that mentioned RPG's was boiling down to a back & forth over Oblivion, so he made a 'bash Oblivion' thread.

[magerette]

Yes, see xSamhainx's signature for clarification. :)

[JDR13]

I find it astonishing that BG1&2 would be mentioned in this thread. Those games are certainly not overrated in any way, shape, or form.

I also never had any issues with AI or load time with those games, anyone experiencing those issues probably needed to look at their hardware rather than blame the software.

[Moriendor]

I find it astonishing that BG1&2 would be mentioned in this thread. Those games are certainly not overrated in any way, shape, or form.

Why not? The games got ridiculously high review scores (Gamerankings has BG at 92.5% and BG 2 at 94.2% average) and a lot of people just do not share that level of enthusiasm. Remember: This thread is not about shitty games but about games that are *overrated*. Overrated does not equal bad. It just means that a game got more praise in a person's opinion than it deserved.
BG and BG 2 are definitely on my list as well though I am one of those "impossible people" :biggrin: who would even go as far as saying that they were overrated *and* fairly bad (the latter mostly due to the Infinity engine). In my opinion, they were very mediocre and generally unexciting, unoriginal and uneventful games that just required simple point and click gameplay, mixed with the goal to basically finish/clear one map after another like in RTS games. Yawn.
The games did have good points as well, of course, but overall I found them quite disappointing.
I much prefer playing 3D games with an open game world instead of 2D isometric and (rather linear) maps. That's why I never understood what was supposed to be so special about the BGs. Thus --> overrated. It's that simple :) .

I also never had any issues with AI or load time with those games, anyone experiencing those issues probably needed to look at their hardware rather than blame the software.

Well, since pathfinding is generally considered to be a part of AI, I think you might want to fire up BG or BG 2 again (or any Infinity engine game for that matter), select your entire party and click on a location that is a screen or two away. Then watch the comical sadness unfold :biggrin: .

Secondly, I would agree that the loading times are not a real issue as long as you do not pay any attention to them but the moment you begin to pay attention to loading screens, it's over.
Then it becomes very annoying (like in Oblivion) due to the sheer amount of times that you will be staring at loading screens (between maps, when entering buildings, when exiting buildings, when changing from one level to another inside the same building etc). The loading frenzy is/was one of the main weaknesses of the infinity engine IMHO. It gets very tedious after a while.
Basically, it's like a background noise that doesn't go on your nerves as long as you just notice it subconsciously but that drives you mad as soon as you begin to really pay attention to it.
Also, remember that when BG came out, (average) people had maybe a Pentium 2 with 16MB or 32MB RAM and 2.5GB to 4GB hard drives. Loading times were obviously quite different back then than they are now.

[JDR13]

"In my opinion, they were very mediocre and generally unexciting, unoriginal and uneventful games that just required simple point and click gameplay, mixed with the goal to basically finish/clear one map after another like in RTS games. Yawn."

Compared to what? How many games can you name from back then that were better than BG? BG single handedly kick started the CRPG genre out of a long funk. It received those scores for a good reason, reviewers hadn't seen a good CRPG in a long time.

"I much prefer playing 3D games with an open game world instead of 2D isometric "

That sums it up right there. It's just a matter of personal preference. You were obviously biased against it right from the start because you didn't like the way it was presented.

"Well, since pathfinding is generally considered to be a part of AI, I think you might want to fire up BG or BG 2 again (or any Infinity engine game for that matter), select your entire party and click on a location that is a screen or two away. Then watch the comical sadness unfold"

The pathfinding in BG was not nearly as bad as you're trying to claim. I never once saw the scenario you're describing, and I've spent hundreds of hours playing those games.

[JemyM]

BG1 is not overrated. They almost singlehandy ressurected the entire roleplaying genré and established the layout for modern RPG's. Sitting today and complaining over simple flaws 1998 is naive. Back then there was no RPG's that could even compare with BG.

No BG is right up there with games like Civilization, Doom, Ultima Online and The Sims of games that was not only a smash hit, they also changed the gaming landscape forever.

BG2 refined the experience and added a few more things that gamers today take for granted.

[Zaleukos]

BG isnt a bad game, but the pathfinding stinks.


The pathfinding in BG was not nearly as bad as you're trying to claim. I never once saw the scenario you're describing, and I've spent hundreds of hours playing those games.

Enter Beregost from the north with a party of six, select them all and have them walk to the jovial juggler or the private house just north of Thunderhammers smithy. In the jovial juggler case you will invariably see one person take a very different (and usually significantly longer or filled with dead ends) path compared to the others, in the second case you are lucky if even one character manages to reach the destination at all. Shift-clicking helps, but I am not sure that is available in BG1. Also note how you sometimes cant enter buildings with multiple characters selected because your characters block each other (this gets MUCH worse in MP).

Not that BG is the only game with crap pathfinding, but it gets rather annoying as you actually rely on the pathfinding algorithm to move your own char. Horrid pathfinding in a game such as Morrowind or Gothic is only an issue when you have followers, but in Infinity engine games it's always there unless you solo.

As for the loading times I only found those an issue in BG2 or when playing without installing the entire game to HD (back in those days HDs were typically 4 gigs or less and BG1 takes up almost 3GB IIRC). The big problem with BG as far as I'm concerned is trecking back and forth across the map, either to sell stuff or to talk to an NPC. Playing BG2 with the teleport cheat enabled (risky if you dont know where your travelling would be interrupted by important events) cut maybe 20% of the playing time for me.

[Ionstormsucks]

Well,

I guess it's all about personal preference when it comes to a game being overrated or not. When it comes to BG - my opinion is also that it is somewhat overrated. It's certainly not a bad game, but in retrospective I'd say its contribution to the rpg genre is widely overestimated.
I have to admit that my problems with BG are of a less technical nature. I don't care all too much for pathfinding AI (true it sometimes sucked, but I don't think it was thaaat bad), or loading times. But I think the story was absolutely lame and boring - too much high fantasy... it didn't drive me at all. The game is also suffering from the D&D syndrom, which means that it is basically a showcase for the D&D world. That tradition goes back a long way (it can be found in very old games like Pool of Radience, etc.) - instead of concentration on one theme of a certain setting, developers use games based on the D&D license as some kind of demonstration of the particular setting and the D&D rules. Instead of featuring one theme which focusses on... let's say vampires for example, they always come up with some kind of weak alibi-story and implement as much different themes as possible. Same really goes for the rules - these games always have to be always very exact when it comes to D&D rules, but for the most part these rules are not visible to the player anyway.
One of the major problem I have with nearly all D&D games (and thefore also with BG) is that they all (or at least the vast majority of them) is featuring already known content. There is hardly anything in BG or BG2 that will surprise someone who has been in touch with fantasy before. This is very different in games like Planescape Torement, Fallout, etc. which feature less prominent settings.

[magerette]

Baldur's Gate is hailed everywhere as the first and most important crpg that shaped the genre as we know it today. Though the claim is not totally true, it has validity and in that sense, I don't find the game over-rated. It did those things, and introduced dnd to a wider world of computer gaming.

Where I find Baldur's Gate overrated is in the content and the execution. I played it for days, so I won't say I didn't get my money's worth out of it, but a lot of my playtime was spent in suspended animation, grinding though huge maps and waiting for screens to load. Yes BG1 should not be judged by today's load times--but I wasn't playing it today, I was playing it in 1998, and I found it excruciatingly tedious...

BG2, on the other hand, I feel lives up to it's hype on all levels, even though it had an older engine to do it with. I've played it twice, and all it's sequels(though I never finished ToB) and I think it's one of those very few instances where the sequel is better than the original.

[Role-Player]

BG single handedly kick started the CRPG genre out of a long funk. It received those scores for a good reason, reviewers hadn't seen a good CRPG in a long time.

The speculation that the genre died was put to rest with the releases of Diablo and Fallout prior to Baldur's Gate. For better or worse, the medieval fantasy drappings of Diablo drew in many people from the computer role-playing scene looking for something new and Diablo had much in common with was expected from a CRPG which helped it succeed; meanwhile Fallout brought back Interplay back onto the map after their deluge of low profile AD&D titles and other games that bunked, earning much critical praise at its time. Games like Daggerfall were also particularly successful at the time. Baldur's Gate capitalized on this by moving from an RTS project (Battleground Infinity) into a CRPG. The genre had been revitalized prior to Baldur's Gate; what Bioware succeed was in putting the AD&D license back on the spotlight as a potentially commercial success.

[Role-Player]

Back then there was no RPG's that could even compare with BG.

Not true. Daggerfall (96), Fallout 1 (97) and 2 (98) could compare, compete and even outrun Baldur's Gate on a number of things. From larger gameworlds, more diverse role-playing, quests and factions to interact it, to stories that could be influenced by player actions.

[JDR13]

The speculation that the genre died was put to rest with the releases of Diablo and Fallout prior to Baldur's Gate. For better or worse, the medieval fantasy drappings of Diablo drew in many people from the computer role-playing scene looking for something new and Diablo had much in common with was expected from a CRPG which helped it succeed; meanwhile Fallout brought back Interplay back onto the map after their deluge of low profile AD&D titles and other games that bunked, earning much critical praise at its time. Games like Daggerfall were also particularly successful at the time. Baldur's Gate capitalized on this by moving from an RTS project (Battleground Infinity) into a CRPG. The genre had been revitalized prior to Baldur's Gate; what Bioware succeed was in putting the AD&D license back on the spotlight as a potentially commercial success.

Maybe you should change your screen name, because your knowledge of role-playing seems somewhat limited.

None of the games you mentioned sold anywhere close to BG with the exception of Diablo, which is a pure hack n slash with very little in the way of RPG elements.

From Wikipedia...

Baldur's Gate was released amid years-long speculation that the computer RPG genre had effectively died. Not withstanding the commercial success of the 1997 PlayStation release of Final Fantasy VII, critical consensus was that the early 1990s releases of hugely popular RPGs such as Final Fantasy IV, Ultima VII, and Betrayal at Krondor would together constitute the swan song of the RPG genre.

With the release of Baldur's Gate, BioWare convincingly put this notion to rest. Meanwhile, on the multiplayer front, Verant Interactive made history with its ground-breaking EverQuest, released shortly after the original Baldur's Gate.

[Role-Player]

Not even close to being right.

None of the games you mentioned sold anywhere close to BG

Commercial success has nothing to do with wheter the genre was in a slump or not. In fact, the genre wasn't dying: there's a big difference between a complete drought in the genre and the main RPG publisher releasing a long string of commercially unsuccessful games. If the genre was dead then there would not have been any market for Fallout, Daggerfall, and several others up until Baldur's Gate. Which, by the way, simply isn't true - in fact, RPGs were being regularly released well before Baldur's Gate and they were successful when released. Many of them were more successful than previous AD&D games, in fact.

with the exception of Diablo which is a pure hack n slash with very little in the way of RPG elements.

Diablo was released as an Action RPG which while being a subset, is still very much a part of the genre. Very little in the way of RPG elements? Do tell, how many RPGs do not use combat, statistical character development, character customization, and quests as defining elements?

From Wikipedia...

Baldur's Gate was released amid years-long speculation that the computer RPG genre had effectively died. Not withstanding the commercial success of the 1997 PlayStation release of Final Fantasy VII, critical consensus was that the early 1990s releases of hugely popular RPGs such as Final Fantasy IV, Ultima VII, and Betrayal at Krondor would together constitute the swan song of the RPG genre.

With the release of Baldur's Gate, BioWare convincingly put this notion to rest. Meanwhile, on the multiplayer front, Verant Interactive made history with its ground-breaking EverQuest, released shortly after the original Baldur's Gate.

From Wikipedia... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computer_role-playing_games#1996)

Diablo is released as an Action RPG with wide appeal, renewing interest in the CRPG genre.

Seems your own source contradicts itself.

[JDR13]

"Commercial success has nothing to do with wheter the genre was in a slump or not. In fact, the genre wasn't dying: there's a big difference between a complete drought in the genre and the main RPG publisher releasing a long string of "commercially unsuccessful games. If the genre was dead then there would not have been any market for Fallout, Daggerfall, and several others up until Baldur's Gate. Which, by the way, simply isn't true - in fact, RPGs were being regularly released well before Baldur's Gate and they were successful when released. Many of them were more successful than previous AD&D games, in fact."

Commercial success has everything to do with whether or not a genre is in a slump, what else are you going to use as a measuring stick? If crpg's aren't selling well there's a reason for it, and it's called a slump.


"Diablo was released as an Action RPG which while being a subset, is still very much a part of the genre. Very little in the way of RPG elements? Do tell, how many RPGs do not use combat, statistical character development, character customization, and quests as defining elements?"

Yes, I would call Diablo an "action RPG", but it was a hell of a lot more action then RPG. I've never met a single crpg fan fan that considered Diablo any more than that.

"Diablo is released as an Action RPG with wide appeal, renewing interest in the CRPG genre."

"Seems your own source contradicts itself."

Not at all.

No one ever said that Diablo didn't have some appeal, but if you think that Diablo had as much of an impact on the crpg genre as Baldurs Gate, then you're kidding yourself.

Wiki even has Diablo listed as "Hack and slash" where it says genre.

[Role-Player]

Commercial success has everything to do with whether or not a genre is in a slump, what else are you going to use as a measuring stick? If crpg's aren't selling well there's a reason for it, and it's called a slump.

It's called a slump if games sales are incredibly low when compared to the genre's average sales, and there is no demand for titles in the genre - and this didn't happen. RPGs were still selling well before Baldur's Gate. Maybe you can show me the sales figures for CRPGs being released between, say, '95 and '97 so we can compare? While you're looking for those, here's something to consider - Baldur's Gate was an exception to the rule; a high commercial success in a genre which had moderate to low sales. It's an exception, not the rule. The same applies today - there are scores of RPGs that sell poorly, many that sell well, and a couple that sell thousands of copies. And there's no slump today, either.

Yes, I would call Diablo an "action RPG", but it was a hell of a lot more action then RPG. I've never met a single crpg fan fan that considered Diablo any more than that.

Good for them, but the opinions of the fans you know is not what's being discussed; your claim that Diablo has very little in the way of RPG elements is. Thought of any examples yet?

Not at all.

So if you claim the article isn't wrong, then are we to assume that both Diablo and Baldur's Gate single-handedly revitalized the genre? If that is the case, what does that say abour your previous statement that Diablo didn't had anything to do with it?

No one ever said that Diablo didn't have some appeal, but if you think that Diablo had as much of an impact on the genre than BG, then you're kidding yourself.

It doesn't matter what I think. What it matters is that you used a source that claims two different things about the genre's revitalization, and can't seem to understand it.

Wiki even has Diablo listed as "Hack and slash" where it says genre.

That's weird, the same Wiki claims Blizzard's Diablo is an action-oriented computer roleplaying game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_Entertainment#Titles).

Do I have to give further examples of how your source isn't reliable?

[JDR13]

Role-Player,

I'm not going to go back and forth with you over Diablo vs Baldurs Gate. There's a reason why so many reviews and articles refer to BG in that way, and those are written by people who work in the industry, or who's job it is to cover it. Do you have greater credentials than they?

Forgive me if I take their word over yours.

[Role-Player]

You can do whatever you want. I don't need you to take my word, nor do I really care that you take someone else's word over mine. Feel free to embrace the word of people who are self-appointed authorities on a subject matter, or whose credentials constitute being paid to do what I do for free. Besides, what are the odds that video game journalism is prone to errors?

[JDR13]

"Prone" to errors? I've never known video game journalism to be any more likely to make errors than any other type of journalism.

I guess you would like to believe that is true, since most of the journalism on this subject seems to go against your opinion.

[Role-Player]

"Prone" to errors? I've never known video game journalism to be any more likely to make errors than any other type of journalism.

Saying journalism is fallible is not the same as saying it is more likely to make more errors than other types of journalism.

I guess you would like to believe that is true

See above.

since most of the journalism on this subject seems to go against your opinion.

Because gaming journalism is exclusively made of facts, it can never be based on rumors, opinions or established beliefs, right?

[JDR13]

Saying journalism is fallible is not the same as saying it is more likely to make more errors than other types of journalism.
?[/I]

You said "prone", not fallible. Maybe you should look up the definition of that word.


Because gaming journalism is exclusively made of facts, it can never be based on rumors, opinions or established beliefs, right?"

Yes, but when there's that many different sources saying almost the exact same thing, most rational people would tend to think that there might be a valid point there.

[Role-Player]

Are you familiar with the concept of synonyms? They're all the new rage.

[Role-Player]

Yes, but when there's that many different sources saying almost the exact same thing, most rational people would tend to think that there might be a valid point there.

Most rational people wouldn't just take their word for it like sheep. Preconceived notions, such as stereotypes are often repeated quite often by many people. Are these a valid point because many people say them?

I'm not claiming videogame journalists are right or wrong on this matter. I'm pointing out that they have, at large, not provided any kind of support to back up this claim.

[JDR13]

LOL! Now you're just starting to sound ridiculous. So now journalist have to back up writing about what was, at the time, the biggest game to hit the crpg genre in a long time? It sounds like you're just rambling on because you refuse to let go of your inane argument!

Baldurs Gate was huge for crpg's. Even if you didn't like it, you would have to be a complete and utter moron to not want to admit that it had a huge impact on the genre at the time.

No, it wasn't the greatest game ever, and no not everyone liked it, but it helped make crpgs popular again and sold more copies than any other crpg had to that point in history.

In fact, only 3 other single player crpg's have sold more copies than Baldurs Gate in PC history.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-best-selling-computer-and-video-games

No opinions there, just facts!

So now I'm sure you'll fire back now about how selling 2 million copies doesn't prove anything right?
I'm hitting the sack before I fall asleep on my keyboard:)

[Ionstormsucks]

Safe to say that Wikipedia is not a creditable source, and taking it as proof for something is becoming a fairly bad habit. If I wanted it I could just log in and change everything that was quoted from Wikipedia in this thread. Very often articles on Wikipedia represent the view of one person...

When it comes to sales numbers you have to be careful. They just proof that a lot of people bought a particular game, everything else is interpretation. High sales numbers do not automatically prove either quality, innovation, or impact.

No doubt BG had an impact on the RPG genre, but that does not necessarily mean it was not overrated. After all, if BG were not that famous, we could hardly claim it's overrated.

You also have to keep in mind that we're discussing in such a wide framework here that there can be no definete right or wrong. We did for example never define what exactely "overrated" or "impact" means.
Therefore it all comes down to personal opinion.

[KazikluBey]

JDR13: Your whole argument seems to be that the BG series cannot be overrated because they happened to sell well - when that is generally one of the prerequisites for a game to be considered overrated, as it got more attention than more deserving titles.

[Role-Player]

So now journalist have to back up writing about what was, at the time, the biggest game to hit the crpg genre in a long time?

Are journalists above providing credible sources to back up their claims?

It sounds like you're just rambling on because you refuse to let go of your inane argument!

The one you kept stumbling to disprove and still haven't done so? The one you're attacking without anything concrete, other than moving on to personal attacks?

Baldurs Gate was huge for crpg's. Even if you didn't like it, you would have to be a complete and utter moron to not want to admit that it had a huge impact on the genre at the time.

Point to one single sentence of what I've been writing so far that denies the impact it had on the genre. What's being discussed is wheter it revitalized the genre or not, and wheter the genre was actually dying as some claim - not the impact the game had. Different things which you seem to have a problem understanding.

No, it wasn't the greatest game ever, and no not everyone liked it, but it helped make crpgs popular again and sold more copies than any other crpg had to that point in history.

In fact, only 3 other single player crpg's have sold more copies than Baldurs Gate in PC history.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-best-selling-computer-and-video-games

No opinions there, just facts!

So now I'm sure you'll fire back now about how selling 2 million copies doesn't prove anything right?

No, I'll really just point out to a previous post of mine in order to point out who is the one pulling off inane arguments.

(* (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22980&postcount=113))

It's called a slump if games sales are incredibly low when compared to the genre's average sales, and there is no demand for titles in the genre - and this didn't happen. RPGs were still selling well before Baldur's Gate. Maybe you can show me the sales figures for CRPGs being released between, say, '95 and '97 so we can compare? While you're looking for those, here's something to consider - Baldur's Gate was an exception to the rule; a high commercial success in a genre which had moderate to low sales. It's an exception, not the rule. The same applies today - there are scores of RPGs that sell poorly, many that sell well, and a couple that sell thousands of copies. And there's no slump today, either.

All you're saying is that Baldur's Gate sold millions. Everyone knows this. No one is denying this. In other words your conclusion is irrelevant and in no way relates or disproves my point.

Now, am I to expect something actually substantial and that relates to the argument or are you going to keep hiding behind appeal to authority fallacies and going about claiming "i r teh win"?

[JemyM]

Not true. Daggerfall (96), Fallout 1 (97) and 2 (98) could compare, compete and even outrun Baldur's Gate on a number of things. From larger gameworlds, more diverse role-playing, quests and factions to interact it, to stories that could be influenced by player actions.

They didnt. Traditional western RPG's were announced dead and was treated close to the adventuregenré. The mentioned did not sell well either. BG remains as one of the titles with greatest impact on gaming of all time.

I have to side with JDR13 here. I think people just forgot their history after 9 years.

Also it might be good for you to separate Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Fallout 1 wasnt groundbreaking on the features you mention. Fallout 2 was though.

[Role-Player]

Traditional western RPG's were announced dead and was treated close to the adventuregenré.

And who proclaimed it dead? Based on what? Where can I find evidence that the entire genre was dying, and not just on a low point despite several titles being successful enough?

The mentioned did not sell well either.

Compared to what? The average sales in the genre? Against the exceptions in the genre? Two african swallows carrying a coconut by a thread?

Again, Baldur's Gate was an exception. The best selling CRPGs nowadays - Baldur's Gate 2, KotOR, Oblivion - are all still exceptions in a market where only a few garner such commercial success. Most sell well or rather, enough. Same as before. This isn't indicative of a genre's death, only that some are high commercial success. Morrowind sold 5 million units - that doesn't mean that the genre was dead between Baldur's Gate and its release. It's a statistical freak and not indicative of anything other than the game sold better than all others - it doesn't tell you that all others were failing to sell.

Also it might be good for you to separate Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Fallout 1 wasnt groundbreaking on the features you mention. Fallout 2 was though.

I did separate them I didn't claim they all had those features over Baldur's Gate. I said they had some features over Baldur's Gate and mentioned which. Maybe I should have phrased it more correctly. Regardless, Fallout 1 was superior to Baldur's in role-playing by virtue of letting the player influence the gameworld, and in role-playing: quest solving wasn't as one-dimensional as in Baldur's Gate and the character could use many skills when interacting with the gameworld. By comparison Baldur's Gate had much less amounts of skill checks.

[Squeek]

I remember getting into Baldur's Gate late, after the ToSC expansion came out, because I refused to stop playing Daggerfall (hehe). I finally decided to give Baldur's Gate a try after I read a review about it. The only thing I remember about the review was that it said Baldur's Gate was a lot of fun, and it said that over and over.

Then I checked out a game forum, and folks had referred to it as the one they'd all been waiting for, the one that was finally going to do D&D on the computer right.

Based on that, I'd have to say Baldur's Gate wasn't overestimated at all. I sure enjoyed it (and so did a lot of other people, apparently), and it sure reminded me of when I used to play pen-and-paper D&D.

[Moriendor]

Compared to what? The average sales in the genre? Against the exceptions in the genre? Two african swallows carrying a coconut by a thread?

I fully agree with Role-Player. Baldur's Gate reviving the RPG genre is probably one of the greatest myths in gaming history. The RPG genre was not dead. Aside from the examples that have already been mentioned, I'd like to add Might & Magic VI (1998) and Might & Magic VII (1999), both IMHO superb RPGs, to the mix.
It might well be that 1997 and the months before BG's release in 1998 were fairly "RPG-free" but that must've been pretty much a coincidence just like there are sometimes times when a lot of RPGs get released all in the same year (like 2002 when Morrowind, NWN, Dungeon Siege and Divine Divinity came out within just a few months of each other).
Anyway, all other RPGs that were released in 1998/1999 (and later) were already in development in parallel to BG. They didn't just fall from the sky. The development of Gothic, for example, was started in 1998, completely irregardless of BG. I would bet that the BS rumor that the RPG genre is "dead" was started by someone like PC Gamer or GameSpot and then everyone else just picked it up.

Also, I still think that some people here are giving BG way too much credit. How exactly did BG "change RPGs forever"? There's absolutely nothing in either of the BGs that had not been done in other RPGs before. The only thing that BG accomplished was to make RPGs more accessible and more mainstream compatible (as evidenced by the large number of sales). BG managed to bring a genre (RPG) and a setting (AD&D) that were both widely regarded as "geek-exclusive" territory before to the casual gamer due to a rather polished and cleaned up presentation of the whole stuff. That's all. Otherwise I really don't see any overwhelming influence of BG on the genre. Most of the influence that BG had was a pure inbred matter between Interplay, BioWare and Black Isle who milked the Infinity engine and several AD&D settings to the last drop.

[Arhu]

To throw my two cents into the discussion, back when Diablo was out, I was playing lots of multiplayer games over LAN with some friends. We were playing Diablo excessively (really) and enjoying it so much, still taking it for what it was: a rogue-like, hack&slash action RPG. When we saw the first preview of Baldur's Gate in a games magazine, we were drooling over it: Multiplayer capable like Diablo, but a real RPG with a real story and so on? Couldn't wait! And enjoyed it a lot too, even though multiplayer was icky and didn't work too well compared to NWN2 nowadays. In a sense of course BG was riding the wave of success of Diablo, at least as far as me and my friends were concerned.

But even so, I do believe the praise was well deserved. There was a drought of RPGs at the time and Baldur's Gate was the "savior", so to speak. Even if the engine was bad (I hate the Infinity engine) or if in retrospect the game wasn't that good after all - it was the first, well made multiplayer-capable classic CRPG, and that's something.

[Maylander]

A genre doesn't live on because good games are made, it lives on because games in that genre sell. It's as simple as that. The Might & Magic games did not sell all that well, even if they were good games, and they would definetly not be enough for future companies to keep investing in RPGs. Noone with money to spend, wants to invest it in a "good" game, they invest it in a game that will make them money.

In that regard, we should be glad BG2 came. No, it was far from the only good game at the time, but it was one of the few that gave investors a reason to keep investing - it proved that making a lot of money was possible even with big budjet RPGs.

Remember, investors, not developers, decide what games will get funded and what games will not.

[JDR13]

JDR13: Your whole argument seems to be that the BG series cannot be overrated because they happened to sell well - when that is generally one of the prerequisites for a game to be considered overrated, as it got more attention than more deserving titles.


KazikluBey,

I'm not arguing whether or not BG was overrated, that's simply a matter of opinion.

I'm arguing that BG had a large impact on the genre when it was released, and that crpg sales in general had been experiencing a slump prior to that.

[JDR13]

Roleplayer,

No one is attacking here, where did I use personal insults? Even though you've given me the opportunity to embarrass you(fallible and prone, synonyms?!?) I have refrained from doing so.

So you want something substantial that relates to the argument?


By Gamespot,

"Not only is Baldur's Gate easily the best computer adaptation of AD&D ever, it also convincingly returns role-playing games to the forefront of computer gaming."


By IGN,

"Any CRPG player will tell you that there are a few games over the years that have distinguished themselves more than any others. Developed by Bioware, Baldur's Gate managed to revive a dying breed of game genre and breathe a deep breath of fresh air into its lungs. With deep character creation and a gigantic story with more side quests than you could shake a very big stick at, this one has already secured a place in the annals of computer role playing game history."


By RPGvault,

"In a time when many games fail to live up to their pre-release hype, this is one which does not disappoint. Baldur's Gate is an outstanding title which has deservedly garnered virtually unanimous critical acclaim and at least one nod as 1998 Game of the Year. Huge, beautiful and highly replayable, it is a "must-have" for any serious or even casual RPG fan. It is also, at least in its first six weeks of release, a huge sales success, indicating that it does have strong appeal to non-RPG fans. If this pace continues, Baldur's Gate will be the game to return serious role-playing games to their rightful place at the center of the computer gaming universe."

By Gamespy,

"Baldur's Gate was the game that introduced the now-famous Infinity engine, and almost single-handedly revitalized the computer RPG genre."

I'm sure I could keep digging up more examples but I'm not going to sit here all day and try to show you something that you refuse to acknowledge.
I guess you're right, Baldurs Gate had nothing to do with bringing the genre out of a slump.(That didn't exist.)

*EDIT* Can't forget to include links:)

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/baldursgate/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

http://pc.ign.com/objects/009/009942.html

http://rpgvaultarchive.ign.com/features/reviews/bg3.shtml

http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/october00/bg2/

[JDR13]

Here's an interview(2000) with Jon Kromrey, a former game producer from SSI that worked on many of their rpg's. He talks about the late 90's rpg slump, the one you claim never happened.

" A game like PoR:RoMD has been something SSI has wanted to do for several years, but the slump of the RPG market from 1996 had taken its toll it wasn't until late 1998 that we were approached by Wizards of the Coast and able to get the green light. PoR:RoMD was originally an attempt to bring back the time honored tradition at SSI for role-playing games, but to do so in a new way that would give the Forgotten Realms a visual facelift. The success of games like Baldur's Gate only fueled that fire for us to place our product on the shelves and give customers a great game to play."

http://pc.ign.com/articles/081/081071p1.html

[Moriendor]

Aaahh quoting games... good fun! :biggrin:

IGN - Might & Magic VI review - Score: 9.0/10 - Link (http://pc.ign.com/articles/153/153546p1.html) - Date: August 12, 1998 (Approximately three months before BG came out, the game that according to the same IGN "revived" the RPG genre - So... that must've been a major deja vu moment for IGN when BG came out a few months after this...)
One of the genre's oldest names returns to give roleplaying games a much needed shot in the arm
...
One of the greatest movements currently taking place in the PC games market is the return of the classic RPG. For years, only a handful of titles from the genre that used to drive computer game sales have managed to make it to market, and of those only a small percentage were actually true RPGs. Games like Diablo, Daggerfall, and Deathtrap Dungeon all claimed to offer RPG gameplay when they were in fact hybrids combining the play of an action or strategy game with a fantasy setting, hoping to embrace a starving RPG community with the result. At first glance New World Computing's latest release, Might & Magic VI, appears to be the cut from the same cloth. The developers of this venerable series abandoned their old-school turn based engine in favor of a new first-person, real-time engine that looks at first glance a lot more like a Doom than it does a Wizardry. Even so, after a few hours of play, it should become evident to any RPG fan that Might & Magic VI is the title that they've been waiting for.
...
Any fan of role-playing games should already own this game. Although it's not without flaws (there are still a few bugs floating around it the game, and it's really easy to get your characters stuck), the game satisfies on a level that no RPG has in years.

GameSpot - Might & Magic VI review by Desslock - Score: 9.1/10 - Link (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/mightandmagic6themoh/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review) - Date: April 30, 1998 (Approximately seven months before BG came out, the game that according to the same GameSpot "convincingly returned RPGs to the forefront of computer gaming" - So... a game worthy of a score of 9.1/10 was not "convincing" enough apparently or what?)
New World Computing's classic Might and Magic games helped to define the subgenre that grizzled old RPG grognards now affectionately refer to as "traditional style" role-playing games. All of the previous Might and Magic role-playing games were set in expansive gaming worlds, filled with exotic locations, tomes of spells, armies of enemy types, and hoards of magic items. But during the past couple of years, such traditional role-playing games have been rarer than orcs in Denver. While other gaming companies have shied away from such classic game design, New World Computing has rebelled against this recent trend by creating a truly addictive role-playing game that is both faithful to the spirit of the venerable series and innovative in its own right.
...
But make no mistake, Might and Magic VI is at its heart very much a turn-based tactical role-playing game and not an action game.
...
Overall, Might and Magic VI is a remarkably stable game - one of the most bug-free role-playing games in years. Even more importantly, it's tremendously addictive. There always seems to be one more quest you just have to complete, one more skill you have to elevate to mastery, one more region to explore... one more night to forget to sleep before dragging yourself to work. It's been a long time since a Might and Magic role-playing game was released, and many gamers questioned whether or not New World Computing could recapture the magic of past games in the series. We shouldn't have worried. Might and Magic VI is a classically designed role-playing game that features both a huge gaming world and lots of attention to detail. It's a standout game in what should be a great year for role-playing game fans. Might and Magic is back, and it's better than ever.

RPG Vault - Might & Magic VI review - No score as usual for this site - Date: June 20, 1998 (Approximately five months before BG came out, the game that according to the same RPG Vault "returned serious role-playing games to their rightful place at the center of the computer gaming universe" - Just like for IGN, another major deja vu moment was waiting to pounce on the folks from RPG Vault just a few months later...)
In summary, Mandate of Heaven certainly won't redefine the genre in any way, shape, or form, but it does provide an extremely polished, solid role-playing game that is one of the best released in years. It also proves that it is still possible to create a exceptional RPG in these days of countless 3D shooters and real-time strategy clones, and that the genre is far from dead.

I guess you're right, Jesus "Baldur's Gate" Superstar Christ and His Second Coming had everything to do with bringing the genre out of a deeeeeeeppppp looooong slump (of almost half a year! OMG!!!) that existed without a doubt :biggrin: .

[Role-Player]

Roleplayer,

No one is attacking here, where did I use personal insults? (...)I have refrained from doing so.

Then I guess your post retroactively edited itself (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22974&postcount=110) to try and make some half-assed and baseless remark about me, despite the fact there is no correlation between both. Unless, of course, you want to accuse me of having made up the quotes I used in order to reply to you? Either scenario speaks volumes of your moral bankrupcy in denying attacks.

Even though you've given me the opportunity to embarrass you

Amusing how you project your own failings onto others, considering you were the one repeatedly using Wikipedia as a source for your claims when it was repeatedly proven to be unreliable by me, claimed Diablo had very little in the way of RPG elements and then failed to present any sound argumentation to back this up, have claimed my argument to be inane only to embarassingly provide answers that clearly showed you had no idea of what my argument was (more on this below), and are proudly riding a logical fallacy as if it were a solid argument.

No, thank you. You make it all too easy.

(fallible and prone, synonyms?!?)

Context.

So you want something substantial that relates to the argument?

By Gamespot,

"Not only is Baldur's Gate easily the best computer adaptation of AD&D ever, it also convincingly returns role-playing games to the forefront of computer gaming."

By Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo/review.html?q=diablo):

The past several years haven't exactly been kind to role-playing game fans. Very few role-playing games have been released since 1993, and those that have made it to retail shelves have largely been unsuccessful at combining playability and originality with the complexity that role-playing game fans love. The release of Blizzard Entertainment's action/role-playing game hybrid Diablo in early 1997 only increased role-playing gamers' anticipation for an equally playable game in a more elaborate, detailed world. After a four-year drought, the wait is over. Fallout is one of the best role-playing games to be released in several years and it succeeds in entertaining gamers by providing a fresh and compelling storyline, good graphics and sound, and attention to those little details that can transform a good game into a great one. (...)

Put simply, Fallout may be the best role-playing game to be released in years."

-For the thickies amongst us: the ZOMGVIDEOGAMEJOURNALIST is saying the drought is over thanks to Diablo and Fallout.

By IGN,

"Any CRPG player will tell you that there are a few games over the years that have distinguished themselves more than any others. Developed by Bioware, Baldur's Gate managed to revive a dying breed of game genre and breathe a deep breath of fresh air into its lungs. With deep character creation and a gigantic story with more side quests than you could shake a very big stick at, this one has already secured a place in the annals of computer role playing game history."

From IGN's review of Fallout 2, since they do not have a review for the first title (http://pc.ign.com/articles/153/153783p1.html):

When the original Fallout shipped, it was hailed by many to be the savoir of computer RPGs.

-For the thickies amongst us... Damn, that can't get any clearer.

By Gamespy,

"Baldur's Gate was the game that introduced the now-famous Infinity engine, and almost single-handedly revitalized the computer RPG genre."

Keyword: "almost".

What's this, then? ZOMGVIDEOGAMEJOURNALISTS making the same claim about Fallout that they did about Baldur's Gate, while others claim Baldur's Gate didn't do the job alone? Kindly move away from me as your head explodes at the implications of having your argument challenged and ultimately shot down.

He talks about the late 90's rpg slump, the one you claim never happened.

Refrain from putting your words in my mouth as I never said the slump did not exist. I questioned the notion that the slump had been singlehandedly solved by Baldur's Gate. Do us the favor of having a basic grasp of what's being discussed instead of polluting the board with your ignorance and your misinterpretation of other's posts.

I'm done with you.

[magerette]

Things dull over at the Codex these days, RP? ;)

I think while the horse is being beating to a sad death here, a major point is being overlooked. That is the obvious fact that those who review, preview, and otherwise rate computer games for their daily bread tend to soar off into the stratosphere of hyperbole at the slightest notice.

According to IGN, Gamespot and RPGVault ALL these games( MM7, FO, BG, and Diablo) were the shiznits that saved crpg gaming because they have a vested need to say something more dramatic and compelling than : " (insert titlte) is a damn good game. " These same sources are now saying that the big O has done the same thing.

I'd rather trust in everyone's personal feelings than in PR hype and game reviewer's BS--JDR13 thinks Baldur's Gate was a groundbreaking game and for him it was. Fallout also evokes those feelings. I personally throw my money on Diablo. It's a question of which flavor assaults your neural centers and compells your attention--if you love a game, hearing it praised does not equal overrated.

[Role-Player]

Things dull over at the Codex these days, RP? ;)

A bit :lol: I haven't spent much time there to be frank, in the sense that I've been busy coming up with content for the site and haven't checked back. I'm here at the Watch because I believe small, independent news sites should foster good relationships between themselves and I'm somewhat playing the good will emissay; and I also visit here because I not only like the staff members but also enjoy reading their comments and features. I can't say much of the forumites yet because I've been visiting for a relatively small time and haven't been able to get a feel of how the community is, but the bevy of friendly posters is a good hint I'll like it enough to visit more often :)

I think while the horse is being beating to a sad death here, a major point is being overlooked. That is the obvious fact that those who review, preview, and otherwise rate computer games for their daily bread tend to soar off into the stratosphere of hyperbole at the slightest notice.

According to IGN, Gamespot and RPGVault ALL these games( MM7, FO, BG, and Diablo) were the shiznits that saved crpg gaming because they have a vested need to say something more dramatic and compelling than : " (insert titlte) is a damn good game. " These same sources are now saying that the big O has done the same thing.

How dare you defile the holy word of ZOMGVIDEOGAMEJOURNALISTS?

Just kidding ;) I know what you mean and do agree with you. I should note that the journalist quotes I provided were not to make any point other than showing the unreliable nature of some sources. I do not presume to say videogame journalists are liars; simply, that they're no less biased or misinformed than the common mortal.

[JDR13]

I guess you're right, Jesus "Baldur's Gate" Superstar Christ and His Second Coming had everything to do with bringing the genre out of a deeeeeeeppppp looooong slump (of almost half a year! OMG!!!) that existed without a doubt :biggrin: .

Not sure what brought you out of the shadows, but M&M 6 is a piss poor example to use for comparison. How many copies did that game sell?

[Corwin]

Actually, while it did not sell as many as BG, it did sell extremely well leading to M&M's 7,8 and unfortunately 9!! Why did none of you quote reviews from either the Dot or the Codex??!! :biggrin:

PS I've played M&M 6-8 at least twice. BG (which I really enjoyed), only once.

[JDR13]

Then I guess your post retroactively edited itself (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22974&postcount=110) to try and make some half-assed and baseless remark about me, despite the fact there is no correlation between both. Unless, of course, you want to accuse me of having made up the quotes I used in order to reply to you? Either scenario speaks volumes of your moral bankrupcy in denying attacks.

That's pretty sad. So now you're going to resort to just flat out lying? I never made any personal insults against you. If I did then what were they? Repeat what I said, or did you forget the words already?




What's this, then? ZOMGVIDEOGAMEJOURNALISTS making the same claim about Fallout that they did about Baldur's Gate, while others claim Baldur's Gate didn't do the job alone? Kindly move away from me as your head explodes at the implications of having your argument challenged and ultimately shot down

No need to. By using Diablo and Fallout as your only ammunition you're making a bigger fool out of yourself with each post. I already gave you a link that showed the sales figures for the highest selling games of all time. BG was there, those other games weren't. The games you mention were great game in their own right, BUT, they WERE NOT the huge commercial success that Baldurs Gate was, and so couldn't possibly have had as much of an effect on the crpg genre's sales as Baldurs Gate did.



Refrain from putting your words in my mouth as I never said the slump did not exist. I questioned the notion that the slump had been singlehandedly solved by Baldur's Gate. Do us the favor of having a basic grasp of what's being discussed instead of polluting the board with your ignorance and your misinterpretation of other's posts.

I'm done with you.


Thanks for putting your foot in your mouth for me yet again.

*QUOTE* [Role-Player]
"It's called a slump if games sales are incredibly low when compared to the genre's average sales, and there is no demand for titles in the genre - and this didn't happen." *END QUOTE*

mmmm...... Is there a misinterpretation of other's post there?

[JDR13]

Hi Corwin, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about M&M. I quite enjoyed M&M 8 myself:) It just doesn't compare to BG in terms of sales or industry impact.

[Role-Player]

My argument has never been that Baldur's Gate did not have an impact on the genre or the industry. I also never claimed it didn't sell millions. This has been a clear misconception on your part when you kept embarassing yourself linking to lists of best-selling games when at no point did I claim it didn't sell. I repeat, for the sake of those with the attention span of a gnat, my argument was that Baldur's Gate did not revitalize the genre *singlehandedly*, and that its success was considerably helped by the releases of Diablo and Fallout.

You have suggested time and again that videogame journalists are an authority in videogame information and that their word is beyond reproach. Wheter I believe in this or not is irrelevant - that was your logic, so I played under your rules: I presented videogame journalist statements (from sources you used yourself) to point out that some of them claimed that Fallout ended the drought in the CRPG genre and was hailed as the savior of the genre. By your own logic - that of the word of videogame journalists being unquestionable - my point is made wheter I'm pointing discrepancies in the status quo, or wheter I'm pointing out that Baldur's Gate was not alone in revitalizing the genre. By your own logic, the word of videogame journalists made my entire point. By your own logic, videogame journalists agree with me, no matter how much you bleat and foam at the mouth.

Once again, your own sources backfired. I don't care wheter you acknowledge this or not. Insisting otherwise is your prerogative, but at this point it's been made abundantly clear you can't debate your way out of a paper bag. Actually, this is not entirely true since we're still missing the final example of how tax money spent on education just isn't cutting it:

Thanks for putting your foot in your mouth for me yet again.

*QUOTE* [Role-Player]
"It's called a slump if games sales are incredibly low when compared to the genre's average sales, and there is no demand for titles in the genre - and this didn't happen." *END QUOTE*

mmmm...... Is there a misinterpretation of other's post there?

Nowhere in that quote am I saying there wasn't a slump. I'm saying that it is considered a slump if there is no demand for titles in the genre - but there was demand for titles in the genre. I'm not saying the slump didn't happen; I'm saying that a lack of demand for CRPGs didn't happen. Once again, different things. The Gamespot quote I provided mentions exactly the same:

Very few role-playing games have been released since 1993, and those that have made it to retail shelves have largely been unsuccessful at combining playability and originality with the complexity that role-playing game fans love. The release of Blizzard Entertainment's action/role-playing game hybrid Diablo in early 1997 only increased role-playing gamers' anticipation for an equally playable game in a more elaborate, detailed world.

There was a definite demand for CRPGs, but very few - aside Diablo, Fallout and Baldur's Gate - met such demands.


QED, ignatz.

[JDR13]

This argument is growing old real quick. While I'll admit that Diablo and Fallout also did their parts to light a fire under the genre, they didn't do as much as Baldurs Gate did. While Diablo sold well, it can't hold a candle to BG, and Fallout was only a modest hit commercially.

As far as the slump is concerned, I like how you're trying to bend words now to make it seem like you never said that.

"It's called a slump if games sales are incredibly low when compared to the genre's average sales, and there is no demand for titles in the genre - and this didn't happen."

In the first part of the quote you talk about sales, in the second part of the quote you talk about demand. You were dead wrong about the first part and that's why you didn't address it in your last post. Instead you only focused on the second part of your quote because it was the only part you could defend.

The fact of the matter is that sales were very low for a period of time, which is exactly why people in the industry refered to it as "a slump". Baldurs Gate did more than any other game did towards breaking that slump.

[JDR13]

[QUOTE=Role-Player;23094
Once again, your own sources backfired. I don't care wheter you acknowledge this or not. Insisting otherwise is your prerogative, but at this point it's been made abundantly clear you can't debate your way out of a paper bag. Actually, this is not entirely true since we're still missing the final example of how tax money spent on education just isn't cutting it:
QED, ignatz.[/QUOTE]

Interesting how in previous post, you accused me of using insults in this debate. Now it's quite obvious who is getting frustrated here.

If you want to talk about education, maybe you should start using more synonyms in your debate.:)

[Role-Player]

As far as the slump is concerned, I like how you're trying to bend words now to make it seem like you never said that.

Questioning the severity of the slump != saying there wasn't any. Of course I didn't bother to "defend" the first part of the sentence because it was meant to be taken as a whole, not suffer through your piss poor attempt at trying to stay relevant by separating it into two distinct arguments. I questioned the severity of the slump since, although sales were apparently poor, demand for games of the genre was still in place. As evidenced by your videogame journalist friends, even. The argument was not that a slump never happened, the argument was (is) that poor sales were not accompanied by a lack of demand for games. That's what didn't happen. I've questioned this since the beginning, which is yet further proof you went on through the thread with no idea of what was being discussed and tried to build an argument based on your own misinterpretation of my posts. Yet another argument you failed to understand - good job!

Interesting how in previous post, you accused me of using insults in this debate.

A point I still stand by despite your unwillingness to acknowledge you edited your post. Then again, as before, you don't have to own up to your mistakes - everyone else has pretty much caught on to them and your post is still right there for all to see that you were the first to instigate but then cried "fowl" when I did the same.

Now it's quite obvious who is getting frustrated here.

Yes, and it's the dolt who's trying to claw his way out of all the mess he's been making of himself by taking other people's quotes out of context in a pathetic display of denial. Any more amusement you'd like to grace us with?

[txa1265]

Is this really all worth it?

I mean, you could easily data mine hundreds of 'PC gaming is dead' articles, probably going back to the NES days! And certainly ever since the PSOne release, and absolutely since 2001 and the XBOX. What does that 'prove'? Does citing million sellers refute death? Does showing buggy messes support death? Who knows ...

[JDR13]

Originally Posted by Role-Player
Questioning the severity of the slump != saying there wasn't any. Of course I didn't bother to "defend" the first part of the sentence because it was meant to be taken as a whole, not suffer through your piss poor attempt at trying to stay relevant by separating it into two distinct arguments. I questioned the severity of the slump since, although sales were apparently poor, demand for games of the genre was still in place. As evidenced by your videogame journalist friends, even. The argument was not that a slump never happened, the argument was (is) that poor sales were not accompanied by a lack of demand for games. That's what didn't happen. I've questioned this since the beginning, which is yet further proof you went on through the thread with no idea of what was being discussed and tried to build an argument based on your own misinterpretation of my posts. Yet another argument you failed to understand - good job!

Wrong. What part of "this didn't happen" are people misunderstanding. There was no questioning of severity, you simply said there wasn't one. Now you're trying to twist and squirm your way out of it by saying you meant something else.



A point I still stand by despite your unwillingness to acknowledge you edited your post. Then again, as before, you don't have to own up to your mistakes - everyone else has pretty much caught on to them and your post is still right there for all to see that you were the first to instigate but then cried "fowl" when I did the same.

LMAO, any editing of a post has the time and date of such editing listed right there for everyone to see. The only editing I do is for spelling, if I had done any later it would be quite apparent. Why don't you tell some more lies and make an even bigger fool out of yourself? And who is everyone else? I've seen a total of 1 poster agree with what you're saying, while the majority of the post pretty much echo my own opinion of what BG did for the genre.



Yes, and it's the dolt who's trying to claw his way out of all the mess he's been making of himself by taking other people's quotes out of context in a pathetic display of denial. Any more amusement you'd like to grace us with?

How nice, now it appears that you've lowered yourself to flat out name calling.

[txa1265]

Um ... mods ... lock, please?

[Jaz]

:deal: Locked for now.
I'll leave it to Corwin to unlock it once everybody has calmed down and remembers how to behave.