View Single Post

Default 

October 8th, 2007, 15:05
I'm one of the few it seems who thought BG/TOSC was much better than SOA/TOB. What really worked in BG for me was that it felt like a D&D pnp campaign. It was a series of adventures strung together which had a connecting thread through which the PC and his/her party began small and leveled up while discovering and learning. It felt like an adventure.

In terms of mechanics, sure it had it's flaws but all games do. The combat system was fine I thought, the hugely adjustable real time with pause feature was a fine compromise between the two styles. My greatest compaint in the mechanics was the lack of weapon combination slots, namely the inability to go from a weapon and shield to a bow. The pathfinding was horrible but as I recall it could be improved by adjusting a value somewhere, which made it a lot better.
The AD&D rules were just fine, I knew them well and the modifications to the PC game were done well enough for me.

While it's sometimes nice to read reviews on old games, I'm not sure it's a great idea to write them years after the fact as it's impossible to be objective given all the more current game experiences that have come between. One's observations will invariably be coloured in different ways and opinion overtakes critical thought (which is what reviews should largely be comprised of).

You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
Gallifrey is offline

Gallifrey

Gallifrey's Avatar
Keeper Of Traken

#18

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 658