Baldur's Gate 1/2 gameplay is total shit.

[DraQ]

Whats wrong with the lore?

FR?

 

[Murk]

neither are there mysterious well-designed dungeons.

Durlag's Tower was awesome, fuck you

 

[Jasede]

FR is just fine by me and Durlag's Tower is one of the greatest dungeon crawls, at least to my simple and addled mind.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I agree. Durlag's Tower was one of the few dungeon crawls that I have loved to hate.

 

[Humanophage]

That I'm largely an SF fan, and as such am accustomed to good works exploring different settings, problems and consequences of stuff - generally focusing on consistent world creation and backstory, and find lack of thought and consistency going into those elements aggravating doesn't help, nor does the profound genericness and blandness of it all,

The Medieval perception of the world as presented in mythology and folk tales does not strike me as logically consistent at all - in fact, it is a lot more absurd and self-contradictory than in any fantasy. FR actually represent it quite well in the sense that the player takes these absurdities for granted rather than as something strange, as in unfamiliar settings. As for the background information, surely you are not saying FR are lacking in that? I am particularly fond of the fact that so many authors are writing on FR - even if their talent is often questionable, this results into an excellent emulation of how mythology is created.

People keep talking about surprises from the setting itself. Why is that necessary? An extremely familiar setting is the equivalent of a historical or modern setting. Its extreme familiarity is an asset, because it's possible to use it to greater depth instead of throwing various weird facts at the player as in most SF settings. SF settings are often based on a single idea and appear contrived anyway.

so I'm afraid I can dismiss your lengthy tirade you obviously put great effort in with a wave of hand and "bah.".

Thank you for a detailed reply, nevertheless. I'd like to note I didn't put that much effort in the post though, it's just a stream of consciousness. Here are a couple of examples (1, 2) of me putting formidable effort into posts.

 

[laclongquan]

Oh yeah! Familiarity is a good thing in many games.

Romance of three Kingdoms series with 11 games tell you all about it. The setting of Sengoku in Japan also provide playground for lots, lotsa games.

If you can provide a good, familial setting, fine. If you cant and have to rely on a new setting to wow the gamers, as long as you give us a good game, we dont give a shit!

Play BG series but I really dont give a damn about its setting, universe, or lore. But play Torment and I give a damn about Sigil, the Portal City. It's all about a good game.

 

[bhlaab]

People keep talking about surprises from the setting itself. Why is that necessary? An extremely familiar setting is the equivalent of a historical or modern setting. Its extreme familiarity is an asset, because it's possible to use it to greater depth instead of throwing various weird facts at the player as in most SF settings.

I agree 100%. Familiarity in a setting makes it more effective when it is subverted or deepened. The problem is that in nobody does either of those things.

 

[DraQ]

The Medieval perception of the world as presented in mythology and folk tales does not strike me as logically consistent at all - in fact, it is a lot more absurd and self-contradictory than in any fantasy.

And inconsistent, contradictory worlds lack structure to be interesting. A player is, unfortunately, not some dimwitted medieval fuck listening to high tales with his mouth agape, a person playing RPGs is likely to be a nerd, geek or somesuch, and those are usually intelligent and more than willing to take shit apart, if some cracks show, faster than a horde of rabid baboons (though also willing to jump through many hoops defending their favourite show/game/setting from it's own inconsistency).
There are some ways dealing with that - you can make a setting that is compatible with existing medieval folklore. RL is such setting, but a logically consistent setting where mythical creatures and magic actually exist would be as well. The former allows for a historically correct, realistic game, the latter makes for an excellent ground for clever subversions, among other things, while it's internal consistency still has potential for a lot of depth.
You could also just ditch most of the usual elements, barring a few hooks to hang your universe on, and create a brand new world for players to discover.

Given that I'm fairly convinced that the fact we are only limited to seeing one planet in one reality in a paper-thin slice of time in our lives is one of the biggest tragedies to befall us as a species, should give you a hint which approach I prefer, but regardless of that, sanitized, politcorrect quasi-medieval Europe theme park, with elves, dwarves, artillery magic, resurrection magic and flail-snails just thrown in without any thought or consequence is neither interesting, consistent, nor does it allow interesting drama, characters or situations, with it's laughable paper thin-ness and one-dimensionality. It's simply shit, as well as banal and boring, and therefore it fails horribly.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

hello thread

hello cloudskimmer

 

[DraQ]

 

[CrimHead]

Emotional Vampire was a fucking quality poster.

 

[SCO]

If you miss him so much you can find him on ttlg

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

ttlg?

 

[DraQ]

ttlg?

ttlg.

 

[aleph]

The Medieval perception of the world as presented in mythology and folk tales does not strike me as logically consistent at all - in fact, it is a lot more absurd and self-contradictory than in any fantasy.

And inconsistent, contradictory worlds lack structure to be interesting. A player is, unfortunately, not some dimwitted medieval fuck listening to high tales with his mouth agape, a person playing RPGs is likely to be a nerd, geek or somesuch, and those are usually intelligent and more than willing to take shit apart, if some cracks show, faster than a horde of rabid baboons (though also willing to jump through many hoops defending their favourite show/game/setting from it's own inconsistency).
There are some ways dealing with that - you can make a setting that is compatible with existing medieval folklore. RL is such setting, but a logically consistent setting where mythical creatures and magic actually exist would be as well. The former allows for a historically correct, realistic game, the latter makes for an excellent ground for clever subversions, among other things, while it's internal consistency still has potential for a lot of depth.
You could also just ditch most of the usual elements, barring a few hooks to hang your universe on, and create a brand new world for players to discover.

Given that I'm fairly convinced that the fact we are only limited to seeing one planet in one reality in a paper-thin slice of time in our lives is one of the biggest tragedies to befall us as a species, should give you a hint which approach I prefer, but regardless of that, sanitized, politcorrect quasi-medieval Europe theme park, with elves, dwarves, artillery magic, resurrection magic and flail-snails just thrown in without any thought or consequence is neither interesting, consistent, nor does it allow interesting drama, characters or situations, with it's laughable paper thin-ness and one-dimensionality. It's simply shit, as well as banal and boring, and therefore it fails horribly.

But who cares, as long as the gameplay/rule system is good...

 

[L'ennui]

I care.

Honestly, a good game in a banal shit boring setting will usually see me quitting soon after I started playing, whereas a stimulating world, even presented in a flawed game, will hold my interest much longer.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Emotional Vampire was a fucking quality poster.

Yes, you'd agree with that, wouldn't you

:turns around and walks away , a knowing smile forever fixated on his face:

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

as long as the gameplay/rule system is good...

We're talking about cRPGs here.

 

[aleph]

as long as the gameplay/rule system is good...

We're talking about cRPGs here.

Your point?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It just doesn't happen.

 

[DraQ]

I care.

Honestly, a good game in a banal shit boring setting will usually see me quitting soon after I started playing, whereas a stimulating world, even presented in a flawed game, will hold my interest much longer.

This.

 

[aleph]

But then the gameplay of arcanum kinda sucked, didn't it?


Furthermore, the Wizardries are bad, because the setting was rather nonsensical, right? Right?!

 

[oneself]

First one has more grind than I would've liked out of an RPG.
Mostly because;

GOD the level scaling.
Leveling up in DnD can very unsatisfying
Bad loots(MY GOD a dagger +1! How could I live without it)

Interesting story, but now that I know...
I would not touch it again.

 

[Azrael the cat]

First one has more grind than I would've liked out of an RPG.
Mostly because;

GOD the level scaling.
Leveling up in DnD can very unsatisfying(10 HP roll!)
Bad loots(MY GOD a dagger +1! How could I live without it)

Actually the loot is one thing that I thought was really well done in its minimalism. It's like there's some unwritten rule that all crpgs these days have to be monty haul campaigns. It's refreshing to have a campaign occasionally where good gear is rare and you have to search far and wide for marginally better weapons/armour.

It's one thing that BG1 actually has in common with the old greats. Magic weapons/armour in the Wizardry series isn't diablo-esque, same with the Ultimas.

 

[oneself]

Actually the loot is one thing that I thought was really well done in its minimalism. It's like there's some unwritten rule that all crpgs these days have to be monty haul campaigns. It's refreshing to have a campaign occasionally where good gear is rare and you have to search far and wide for marginally better weapons/armour.

It's one thing that BG1 actually has in common with the old greats. Magic weapons/armour in the Wizardry series isn't diablo-esque, same with the Ultimas.

Marginally better weapon/armor, I can live without.

Baldur's Gate 2, in my opinion, has done a better job with weapons, while keeping the formula relatively intact. In BG1, most weapons, differs only by their names and enhancement levels.

I would probably not complain at the minimalistic approach if other things did a better job to shift my attention from the boring looting.