I guess I wanted to make that topic subject a little subtle.

In all honestly, I feel completely disappointed that nothing better than BG2 has come out in Seven (nearly 8) years. Seriously, if you value BG2 so much, you will never find anything else that has come out as riveting.

Since Black Isle went out, so did the Infinity Engine, the IEngine gave us some intelligent and enjoyable turn-based game play.

Do you remember waiting for NWN and being so utterly disappointed because you were such a BG fan?

I believe that the most enjoyable things in BG2 were characters, character interaction, story and addictiveness.

Seriously now, what game has developed on those values since BG2? I guess since 80% of the new RPGs are online anyway so we instantly loose that, but what about the single player RPGs? NWN2 is okay for those...but seriously...It's not as in-depth as BG2.

Do you guys think we will see a game as good as BG2 in the NEXT seven years? IMO, Probably not, the market has moved to graphics and on-the-spot enjoyment features.

Do you remember waiting for NWN and being so utterly disappointed because you were such a BG fan?Not just dissapointed, it was worse than that, it was more painfull and slower. First the character creation made you think it was an ok game, then some ridiculous looking mages with helmets came and Aribeth started over(voice)acting and you saw the conversation possibilities with her:
1)I'll do it, Paladin! And save all the good people!
2)If I get some money I might consider it.
3)Does it involve killing, because I chose an evil character and I have to "roleplay" him/her?
Only a bit after this the "Oh.. my.. god! This is horrible" smacked you in the face with a club +1 (+5 against IE fans).

BG had the most awesome story ever, BG2 gave new classes (and dragons) to continue it and ToB was, IMO, terrible. It's the only game series that I've replayed over.. well that I've replayed, I've finished BG over 30 times and it's still awesome.

And no, we won't ever be seeing anything like that again unless we get some new game makers, and the people pouring cash to their bank accounts, interested in something else than making money. Who needs heart if making better graphics pays your bills?

Not just dissapointed, it was worse than that, it was more painfull and slower. First the character creation made you think it was an ok game, then some ridiculous looking mages with helmets came and Aribeth started over(voice)acting and you saw the conversation possibilities with her...OMFG no! Mages with helmets! THIRD EDITION RULES!!!

I think you're both hoping not just for a game as good or better, but one where you feel just as comfortable as you do with BGII. You've been playing the BG series for years, lost your RP virginity to it and you know the ins and outs of every nook and cranny, you're used to the interface, you know all the menu shortcuts. You know every aspect of the story and you know how to resolve every quest the way you want.

I was exactly the same until I seriously got into NWN. After having chronic restarters syndrome for months and months, I made myself a build that I was happy with and all of the sudden the game flowed. 3e was no longer a scary unknown, and now I'm thoroughly hooked on 3e games, going back to 2e seems like the characters are shallow and boring. Fancy having no skills or feats, just stats and weapon proficiencies!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there have been a number of very good, high quality games since the BG series, but they just aren't BG, and that's what you're really holding out for. And for the record, the IE was awesome for its time, but it's now dated completely. Isometric games are gone. Forever. And they're not coming back. Look how badly ToEE sucked.

So come out of the stone gaming age and join us in the modern world of 3e and 3D games, and I'm sure you'll realise it's not as scary out here as you thought.

OMFG no! Mages with helmets! THIRD EDITION RULES!!!I meant that they look ridiculous :lol: I have nothing against the rules.

you're used to the interface, you know all the menu shortcutsIn my case that applies to Oblivion, NWN, NWN2. But still doesn't change anything.

I really like NWN2, with loads of interesting character creation options, sometimes it makes me want to go solo, but that's only because the party members have an idiotic AI. I liked Oblivion, now it makes me sleepy. Dark Messiah of M&M was playable and KotOR is... well it's Star Wars.
But *none* of them really make me want to replay them again tens of times with different choices and without the feeling like it's the same old again and again.

Well maybe there's Half Life 2, Splinter Cells and Legends of Zelda, but they aren't RPGs.

KotOR 1 is a great game, but more linear (meaning, less classes and types of playing)than Black ISle's RPGS. KotOR 2 was not nearly as great. It was barely even good.

Simplicity is a virtue. You don´t need a degree in rocket science to start up a character and go through the whole of the Bhaalspawn Saga. The rules in BGI and on into BGII+ToB were so simple to learn to control, even though they cover a wide range in magic, thieving and combat, and when you got the hang of playing the characters, the story started to get challenging.

IWD and IWDII... well, more linear, but still some of the same stuff. Even though IWDII use 3rd edition rules, the interface is still userfriendly, even though that may not be the right term. And still, maybe it is.

The reason I only played NWN through once is simply because it has pretty much none of those features that the Infinity Engine offered. Infinity games were simple and easy to learn how to control. NWN didn´t give me that feeling, it actually discouraged me pretty much from the start. And the story and dialog is horrible, and the graphics is IMO worse than the animations in BG. The whole camera-angle and perspective didn´t make it "prettier".

Games like BG and, say, Fallout had me going from the start. Good story, fun dialog and no arsed-up control-interface. Regarding NPC´s and dialog: If anyone firmly believes that the NPC´s have funny interactions in NVN, they ought to have a solid dose of reality beaten into their heads with a stick. Infinity Engine games have the replay-value that is evident in the fact that they´re still popular on the computergame market today. Hell, I got the new BG Saga 4-disc dvd-rom edition for Windows XP. And I´ll bet that it´ll be games remembered and played for a long time to come.

I certainly don´t mind the 3rd Edition Rules, I like playing IWDII, but they´re worth nothing, if the game that utilizes them is... well, crap.

Ask yourself which type of game you´d give a wanna-be CRPG-player to introduce him/her to the genre. BG-style or NVN-style? Which type of game would thrill them and which one would make them think "Jeezus, why did I quit Counter Strike?"

[ October 28, 2007, 21:40: Message edited by: Yulaw9460 ]

Which type of game would thrill them and which one would make them think "Jeezus, why did I quit Counter Strike?"Actually, Oblivion got my cousin out of CS, NWN2 out of Oblivion and BG2 out of NWN2 :lol:

Hmm...... your cousin made some mistakes in the beginning, but finally came around then? Is it like that?

your cousin made some mistakes in the beginning, but finally came around then?I'd say it's just the natural progression of things :grin:

I don't want to turn my post into an NWN bash-fest (mainly because I hated the game. HotU included), so I'd rather think of more positive stuff. No, there hasn't been anything like BG2, but there have certainly been other very good (and a few excellent) games released since. Arcanum got out around the same time, and was a fantastic game. ToEE, while buggy (not so much after patching) and flawed, is tactical turn-based heaven. KotOR, while inferior to afore-mentioned games, is still pretty good (and certainly miles better than NWN).

No, no bashing of NVN. Just elevating BG and similar games above all other games. (Where is the irony-icon when you need it?) But again, most good games are 50% (or more) story. You lose the story, what have you got?
But again, maybe this doesn´t apply to all games. But you´ll need a goddamn GREAT element of gameplayaction to pull it off, if the story is squat. Sometimes it works. Some shoot-em up games have the greatest action and a bogus storyline, which can be cool enough, I guess.

I know its an entirely different class of game, but (the patched version of) Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines maybe. Its the only game that I've completed since BG and though 'wow i wanna play that again!' (with the exception of DX1, but that was for different reasons...and I think it might have come out before BGII). VtM is the only game that I think has had the same story-telling prowess of the IE games - the dialogue and atmosphere were right up there and everything felt like it had real world impacts. (It's only $10 off steam 'til November 4th - so if you've never played it ;) )

In all honestly, I feel completely disappointed that nothing better than BG2 has come out in Seven (nearly 8) years. Seriously, if you value BG2 so much, you will never find anything else that has come out as riveting. That's a matter of opinion, but there are several reasons why there isn't a BG3 in the same style of BG2.

1. BIO got sick of making games like this and fell in love with advanced graphics technology.

2. BIO didn't want to be pigeonholed as a shop that only makes traditional RPGs like BG. They are now delusional, and they mistakenly think they can make awesome RPG hybrid games, which is why we have the massive turd Jade Empire on the market. I'm not optimistic about Mass Effect (which tries to incorporate squad-based shooter gameplay) either.

3. The only other shops that could make similar games are either closed down, or not capable of creating anything that BIO hasn't already created first (Obsidian with KOTOR2, then NWN2. Troika is dead, as it should be.)

4. Games like BG2 don't sell. Halo 3 sold a zillion copies. If Halo 3 sold a zillion copies, shouldn't you, as a game publisher, try to make a Halo 3-like game so that you can at least sell half a zillion copies? That's part of the logic at work there.

BGII, the last of the truly great and epic games.

Hell i find its graphics better than some of today's over the top stuff.

why should story and chracter be sacrificed for graphics? is this what people really want? some pointless linear go nowhere game, but as totally awesome blow your mind out graphics. coz i dont.

Ir rather play BG1 than WOW.

I honestly can't stand BG1 graphics, just because I don't like my camera to be close to the NPC's, same goes for NWN2, NWN1 had good camera control, but I far prefer the RTS style BG2 took on.

The fact of the matter is that NWN and NWN2 are not RPG's, they're action adventure. The difference is a total lack of non-linear play. Of course BG2 had it's beginning to end linear-ness, but it gave you so many options to take, avoid, and miss completely that it made a perfect RPG. D&D isn't about watching your character do stuff you don't want him to do until you get to combat... it's about interacting with the environment, having someone guide you along a path to "potential" greatness (the DM) and being able to immerse yourself in the world created for you.

In this sense, the only other game I know of that's been as good an RPG is Oblivion, which lacks multiplayer (kinda sucks), but actually follows through a little better as an RPG than BG2 since you can completely ignore the main story-line. Same goes for Morrowind. I do actually like BG2 graphics and gameplay better than the entire NWN series. It's more fluid and NEVER lags... I don't have to smash my middle mouse button to move the camera (and you all know you don't move your mouse to the side of the screen to move the camera in NWN2).

A better 3e could have been made, but wasn't. Companies only care about making money regardless of how mediocre their games turn out. It sucks, but it's reality. I hear these guys say, "I'm super duper excited about how this game is turning out! Better than the last one!" and as always, it turns out to have better graphics and even less story. Honestly.. HL2 had more story than the NWN series did and umm... It took far less time to make.

As for MMO's if you're into RPing with people across the internet in a game that already has an underlying storyline... good for you, but the only game I knew that had really good RPG style play was UO where to play the game... you didn't even need to kill stuff and level to progress. Good luck trying to get a game like that out now.

Ir rather play BG1 than WOW. World of Warcraft's story and role-playing development are probably the best of any we have now. You do have to keep in mind the context in which the game exists, as well.

I appreciate everyone giving thier 2cents on my topic.

I played Oblivion and loved it, now that had some decent character development, but still not in the BG2 fashion of banter, conversation options etc.

I praise anyone that said NWN2 is an action adventure, but it is more like an action RPG.

Its true, if Halo3 sells a zillion copies and baldur's gate sells 3 million or something (I have no idea on the game sales) companies will move towards profit without a doubt, and why not?

But there are people out there with passion, as rare as it is, and I only hope we can see a game with as much depth and story.

Im just surprised no one has mentioned PS:T. That game has more story than the entire BG saga, but I personally enjoyed BG so much more.

Hmm, might as well whip out PS:T then!

PS: I'm really happy that people felt the same when NWN came out, I thought I was alone. I thought everyone set their mind in a "Wow this is 200% better than BG" zone. I guess classic gamers never die. Rock on

Well spoken Vita Morte Cardois. If you are interested in actuall roleplaying games though - I suggest you go for older games instead of new ones. I would suggest the Ultima series, especially number 7, and Betrayal at Krondor. Everything after the BG games seems to be action games with hints of rpg stuff in them. With the exception of morrowind and oblivion.

Honestly, there is so much potential nowadays for a truly grand epic RPG with a 3D world well implemented and so forth...
But as it was said before, it's all about big $$ and pleasing the masses.
It takes so much money to create a game, that you need to ensure a good return and profits, therefore you tend to evade niche markets like hardocre rpg, for the more accessible and mass audience markets of action / adventure style RPG.

I'm a HUGE BG2 style game fan, and I'm just discovering Morrowind. Honestly it's quite good, not as hardocre RPG as BG2 for the fighting, but really excellent in many other aspects.
I think it's one of the only "new age" RPG games that is somewhat RPGish, although even here we see a regression with Oblivion that tries to appeal to the masses more.

So now I ask the question: what would be the perfect computer RPG for you?
I think a mix of Morrowind and BG2 would be quite nice. The game would be 3D, you'd see your party from an angle which allows for easy controls. Cities would be huge and detailed, as the world, where you could freely roam. But the combat system would be turn / round based as in BG2 (that's the only weak point of Morrowind / Oblivion for me from a RPG standpoint the combat is too "action", I mean too much left click frenzy. )
Yup, a Morrowind/Oblivion - esque BG (with the latest D&D edtion rules of course) mix would be truly awesome ;)

Edit to Vita: Old school does rock, I'm actually one of those who possessed Dungeon Master on the Atari ST, and adored Final Fantasy on the NES... OLD OLD OLD SCHOOL

[ October 29, 2007, 20:23: Message edited by: Edmond Dantes ]

D&D has also gone the same way as crpg`s really. Its getting more and more "dumbed down" for the masses, rather than actually being a good rpg product. Just look at what wizards of the coast did to the new star wars rpg system, and what they are doing to d&d 4th edition.

Old school games do rock. Bigtime. It probably has alot to do with the graphics not being very advanced. That bit of the games was easy to make. And multiplayer wasn`t an option. So basically they had to make good games with great playability and story. Most of them are free now, I think. Just download and play for hours and hours, on dosbox. I think there should be a seperate forum at this site, for older rpg games. Alot of them follow the d&d rules anyway. Us oldtimers could give the youngsters some good tips for games to play. if they are interested of course. Just an idea.

D&D is dumbing a lot of rules to make gameplay simpler, but at the same time they're constantly introducing more varied and complex information. D&D 3e has tons and tons more detail than 2e had. D&D started out without the distinction between class and race. If you were a dwarf, you were a fighter. Elf? Wizard. 4e will expand on that and also allow you an online forum by which to play table-top D&D with real-life people that you do or do not know.

Honestly if it turns out as good as I'm hoping it does, then I won't need cRPG's anymore :) . Actually wouldn't be a bad idea if NWN offered a platform like that instead of a strictly artificial creation and slow DM response tools.

I agree, it seems BG2 is truly the last of the great RPGs released in a long time. Nothing beats a great, immersive storyline.

If I'm not wrong, the CRPG genre was going through many years of stagnation before BG1 was released; I seem to recall that a lot of people claimed that it single-handedly revived CRPGs.

In any case, history tends to repeat itself, so keep hoping :) The time should be ripe soon, for another great CPRG to rise..

i pray you are right, though with the constant stream of MMOs being released, it doesnt appear to be anytime soon. companies know MMOs bring in money, doing a single player RPG that happens to have multiplayer, (BG, IWD, Diablo to a lesser extent) might seem like too big of a risk, they'd rather play it safe it seems.

Quote: D&D is dumbing a lot of rules to make gameplay simpler, but at the same time they're constantly introducing more varied and complex information. D&D 3e has tons and tons more detail than 2e had.


I have to disagree with you on that bit. On 2ed you had, for example, a 150 page book about The Harpers, while in 3ed you get a few pages. Lots of 100 page + books about cities, organizations and so on. In 3ed you just get a brief description, compared to what 2ed had to offer. As for 4ed, it looks to be more like some playstation rpg converted into pen and paper. "Special attacks" etc, placing slots in skill trees. Stuff like that. I may be wrong of course, but thats what it looks like so far. Stuff that`s dumbed down isn`t a good thing.

Most of the cities and organizations in 3e have 200page books on them. Including topics that are more obscure than cities and organizations, not to mention 2 books solely on good and evil (exalted/vile deeds), which explain D&D morality.

The only book that offers a "few" pages on everything is the all encompassing guidebook to Faerun. In the book they actually discuss this very topic stating that they do two things with each increasing year/edition.

#1 - they advance the Faerun timeline 2 years for every 5 real life year that passes between books (or 2 months for every 5 real months), iirc, it might 3 and 5.

#2 - They go into better detail and also - since they continue to push forward in time more information, becuase they cover the past events (everything in 2e) and current events (contained after 2e stopped print) and some future events (which will become past events in 4e).

Quote: Most of the cities and organizations in 3e have 200page books on them.


What books are those? I have certainly never seen them, and I own most of the forgotten realms 3ed books. Mostly they are about certain areas, with a few pages describing certain places. It can`t even begin to compare with the 2ed books in any way. You even had lists of the most influental families in the city, what they do, how many members they were etc, in 2ed. I have seen nothing of this in 3ed. Whjat I have seen thoug: is a ton of feats and new spells. Most of them are just a different variant of the ones in phb though. And about 60 percent of the feats makes no sense, its just a bunch of stuff you can do without any training, in real life, turned into feats. I do like playing 3ed though. Don`t get me wrong. But even wizards of the coast admitted that it was a "poor" system\product. Hence the reason why 4ed is coming up so soon after 3.5 came out.


Quote: #2 - They go into better detail and also - since they continue to push forward in time more information, becuase they cover the past events (everything in 2e) and current events (contained after 2e stopped print) and some future events (which will become past events in 4e).


The entire history of the forgotten realms were described in the book you mention. From creation of life and up untill where the game starts. And all it took was 5 pages. Not very detailed is it? The history of the world in 5 pages.
Not even close to what they had in the 2ed books.

Hmm, Black Isle/Bioware took a risk as well developing BG1 years ago, I believe the current craze then was FPS/RTS games.

While I agree that most companies will just develop MMOs nowadays; after all, why get someone to pay for a copy of your game when they can pay a monthly fee on top of that as well to play, but well.. just call me an optimist then. :)

Ok... I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and do something that could very well doom me to the title of heretic on this website.

I was wondering if any of you can tell me what is so great about BG/BG2? When I say that I don't want subjective answers like the graphics and the story. I want answers that can't be chocked up to opinion.

Now before I get branded a heretic... I just want to say that I love the BG series. Even more I love the IWD series. The thing is, I also like NWN and PoR. I agree with most of what these boards say about the games having bugs and stuff but maybe I'm just more forgiving because I still enjoy the games. I'm just trying to find out why all of you insist the BG series is the perfect RPG without resorting to subjective opinions.

.... ok now you can brand me... :)

It's hard to do that, most of the reason we all like the BG/BG2 series is because of opinion.

If you want the facts, they will include the wide variety of paths the story offers (dialogue options, content that is opened up based on class/race/alignment/choice/etc). There aren't very many games that offer as comprehensive a system of choice in a game as the BG series has for many of us on these boards. I hear a lot about other games like Fallout and PS:T, but I've never played them (nor do I ever plan on doing so for some odd reason o.o).

I don't know if you find that to be objective or not, but that's as well as I can put it.

@rawgrim

I don't know what books you own, but I go to the comic shop in my town and there are books on every Faerun Empire (Waterdeep, Neverwinter, Cormur, Thay, etc.), races (Serpents, Dragons, Underdark dwellers - Underdark Gods - Underdark etc., etc.), and so forth. It would literally cost over a grand to buy every Faerun book in 3e :-/.

I was wondering if any of you can tell me what is so great about BG/BG2? When I say that I don't want subjective answers like the graphics and the story. I want answers that can't be chocked up to opinion.I think that is impossible. Whether I like a game or not is a matter of opinion. For instance I enjoy TM's city/society builders others do not.

If you want the facts, they will include the wide variety of paths the story offers (dialogue options, content that is opened up based on class/race/alignment/choice/etc).Agreed. Also, the fact that BG I & II could be so successfully modded added to the life of the game.

First off, someone asked what would be your ideal RPG?

Something isometric, with deep characters and storypaths. I couldn't give a duff about graphics, as long as it's not horrid. Character creation is always fun. I guess 1# would be story and characters, 2# would be different paths you can take in the game. 3# And of course, fun and intelligent game play.

And now Cirrus asked what was so great about BG1/2.

Jesus I could be here all night, I'll try to summarize, and if you agree, please tell me fellow BGers.

1# Story. The games always had rich and unique story, in BG2 it became deeper, you wanted to know more about characters, you could banter with teammates, and romance female companions. What other RPG can you have a child depending on your relationship with other NPCs?

----=== Story Spoilers ===----

Now the villains of BG series are truly the best ever in RPG history (okay some will argue ff7...but serious...we got Sarevok. haha). Firstly in BG2 you have a fellow Bhaalspawn/Half Brother who single handedly nearly evokes a war along the sword coast, an intelligent and powerful Iron fisted style character.

You also have Irenicus, the Five, and Mellisan. All unique and gripping characters.

---===End of Spoilers===---

Aside from that, as soon as you finished you usually wanted to start again with another class, now that is addictive game play.

Also there are many NPCs to recruit, with their own story involvement.

Despite some people saying the graphics being bad, I love them. Clean 2d goodness. Overall, the game is addictive, fun and intelligent, a combination you don't see regularly now days.

I was wondering if any of you can tell me what is so great about BG/BG2? When I say that I don't want subjective answers like the graphics and the story. I want answers that can't be chocked up to opinion.I'm coming out of a lurking season to try and give my answer: so what makes BG2 fans so passionate about it?

Story: pratically every cRPG I've ever played (not too many, I admit, and PS:T/Ultima VII being exceptions) had, IMHO, a dull storyline. IWD? Check. IWD2? Check. I like those games, but they can't make me feel like I'm a part of that world. There's no immersion in your party at all. No conflict between radically different characters. As interesting as they are, it ends up being an exercise of tactical/munchkin playing.

BG2 has it's munchkin side, but the story was compelling. Why? Because it was a really, really well-done cliché. It's Campbell's "Hero's Journey" all over again, and we know we all love those stories. You had a quiet childhood, then you are forced into adventure, and eventually discover you are at the main part of a world-changing prophecy. You get to face your dark side and choose between good and evil.

Of course, ToB's story wasn't that great, and there are inconsistencies between BG1 and BG2, but it's far from ruining the experience. My point is, the game actually makes you *feel* like the protagonist. BG fans can be so passionate because they actually care about the story.

Characters: the problem with videogames is that well developed (or interesting) characters are very rare. The BG series gave us a dozen. Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc, Viconia, Khalid, Jan, Yoshimo, Irenicus, Bodhi, Sarevok; most gamers who got into BG 1/2 had always strong (and varied) opinions on those characters. And that's good; it means they actually come alive throughout the story, and suddenly they're more than a bunch of stats walking around with a random portrait. My BG parties are based on who I like to take along, not on the most powerful group, and I have to take my hat off to any game that can make me play like that.

Replay Value: say what you will, but I don't think there was ever an RPG that can be enjoyed so many times with so many differences between runthroughs. There's different NPCs, different quests, stronghold, equipment, outcomes, romances... I've been playing this game for years now and I haven't done half of what can be done with it.

Well, I think those are very good reasons. Sorry for the long post.

1)Oblivion sucks...BADLY. I cannot believe someone on here decried NWN/NWN2 are "not RPGs but action-adventure games" then went on to suggest Oblivion and Morrowind as good RPGs!?
If I want to move my wrist back-and-forth frantically to get pleasure, I will masturbate. What the Hell does my ability to shake a mouse back and forth and mash buttons have to do with my CHARACTER'S ability to swing a weapon?!

2)3E rules are FAR superior to 2E, regardless of what you think about the sourcebooks for either. AD&D made no sense whatsoever as far as game mechanics went. 3E brought D&D up to date with RPGs from the early 1980s at least and 4E looks to be bringing D&D the rest of the way(getting rid of the silly "fire and forget" magic system is a good start anyway).
If you feel that a particular sourcebook for D&D 3E lacks information about a particular culture or area then so be it but this has nothing at all to do with which rules set makes more sense or is easier to use.

Rune, the reason I said Oblivion is a good RPG while NWN/NWN2 are action adventure is because Oblivion, despite the FPS mouse movement (which I really hated tbh), had a solid story, plenty of realm to explore, a world to be immersed in and well... to be honest it was a true cRPG in the same sense as the BG2 series, just with a different gameplay mode (First Person instead of 3rd Person), which has no actual bearing on whether it is an RPG or Action Adventure.

NWN/NWN2 are action adventure because the story is simply a mode by which to get to combat. The game is silly really. I mean, everything that could/should be handled by a diplomacy check, is completely blown out of proportion and turns into a three tier boss fight (World of Warcraft?? what??).

Because it was a really, really well-done cliché. I think this sentence by itself sums up exactly why we like BG so much. It is one huge cliché from beginning to end. Whether it's the story, the characters, the interface, everything in the game had already been done before. No game had quite done it that way though, or brought elements in the combination that BG did. I mean, so many of us keep praising Irenicus as one of the best bad guys in any CRPG but... let's face it, the guy is a caricature. A caricature turned into a truly monstrous and yet strangely compelling villain because of one simple little element: David Warner was hired to voice him.

It's all in the little details.

Games like PST, Arcanum, Ultima 4-7, Magic Candle, Wizardry 4, and so on, are the greatest RPGs because they do everything so differently, they consciously set out to do things "like no other game has before". Wizardry 4 has a villain as the PC, and has him summoning monsters to defeat good parties of adventurers. Arcanum starts out with as cliché a story as you can then piles up the twists. PST has all the not-usually-seen weapon types and not a single usable sword (both swords have to be turned into another weapon before they can be used).

BG did things differently. It piles up all the clichés not because it wants to break them, but because this is what the game is really made of. The villains (forget David Warner for now) are all paper-thin (seriously... how long did it take you to figure out, or at least suspect, who was pulling the strings in ToB?). The stories are one "kill foozle to save the world" after the other. SoA is one of the most munchkin games ever released, with ToB delightfully breaking that record. The games (especially SoA) give you this incredible illusion of non-linearity while they have, at heart, a straight-line plot (and not a very original one at that). I think it a testament to the serie's greatness that, in spite of this, we all keep coming back to the game and lauding it as, if not one of the greatest, then at least an excellent and hugely entertaining (not to mention highly replayable) CRPG.

BG2 was the game that made me realise my previous criteria for judging if I like a CRPG or not had to be tossed out the window.

As Cirrus points out above though, 'story' in a very subjective aside from whether a RPG is good or not. RPGs are tactical simulations at their core. Some of the greatest RPGs had little or no appreciable story.
Game mechanics is more important to RPGs than story any day of the week.
For one thing, BG's story did not impress me. It did not bother me or anything like that because I do not turn to video games for great storytelling. I read books for that. I pick up Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun if I want rich characters in an imaginative setting. Or Michael Moorck's Elric stuff or Robert Silverberg's Lord Valentine chronicles or...

You get the picture.

While BG may have more impressive storytelling than, say Doom or Nethack this is largely a moot point for me. And most of the alleged "roleplaying" elements such as party banters(save for several memorable quotes from Minsc, Viconia and others) just got on my nerves! As if my game was being interrupted by a maxi-pad commercial every so often.

Don't even get me started on the romance nonsense.

Now don't get me wrong, BG + TotSC was fun enough that I place it amongst my top ten favorite CRPGs for a variety of reasons. Same goes for BG2 + ToB(up until the point where you must leave the pocket plane and march through series of boring 'final fights' with various reincarnations of villains you have already defeated a dozen times. That is where I stop playing and call it "finished").
Even though these games were saddled with AD&D's HORRIBLE game system, the adventures and tactical situations were fun. Also RPGs are kind of like sex in that when they are good they are GREAT and when they are bad...they are still pretty good!

And not all party/RPC banter gets on my nerves. In Jagged Alliance 2(a strategy RPG that is also still going strong today thanks to the open source and modding community) the banter is great. The quotes are usually memorable and/or funny(some of the more obscure ones are absolutely brilliant!) and you could replay the game 35 times and still not experience all of the dialog/quotes. And the banter in that game was not so overdone/intrusive to ruin your gameplay experience. At no time during your march to Meduna are you halted by "Buzz" who suddenly realizes she is not over losing Lynx and that she still has an unquenchable longing for his affections...blah, blah, blah.


But Oblivion and the like are not even bad RPGs. They are not RPGs at all since they rely on the PLAYER's button-mashing/mouse-jerking skill rather than the character's weapon skills and what's more they fail to impress me as arcade/console-styled action-games.

RPG = Role Playing Game. Not sure if you knew that, but very few RPG's have the same combat system implemented. "Tactical Simulators" are RTS.

For the record - RPG's can be also be completely devoid of combat in any form whatsoever. Kind've derails the idea of an RPG being nothing more than a Tactical Simulator prettied up.

The 3ed rules are basically a tactical simulator, and nothing more. When you can tweak a character to be able to make around 20 attacks per round. Thats 20 attacks in 6 seconds.........If that`s not lame I don`t know what is. Plus you only get XP for killing stuff now (and quest XP). So you have, say a bard, who runs around killing orcs. And thats pretty much the only way he can get better at playing music. You kill something and your music skills improves...........Yeah...3ed makes sense........While in 2ed a bard got XP for playing music at inns and such. Ergo: Getting better at playing music, by playing music........Make more sense? It does to me anyway. The skills and the attack + AC system however is better in 3ed. But the rest is just lame. It seems like its made just to have some fanboys have a Drizzt clone that can`t die in the game. I mean they even removed the fumble rule, added way more HP, way more AC for the characters, and so on. Feels like "god-moding" an rts game, and not like playing a roleplaying game.

I have no idea what the official definition of RPG is but to me for a game to be a Role Playing Game I must be able to play a role. Now the role may be limited as it was in my first cRPG, Betrayal at Krondor, or you may have a variety of choices as in the BG series. Is your character a good guy out to save the world in spite of itself? Is he a selfish guy just interested in what he can get? Is he (she) evil wanting to take over the world. Is he a psychopath killing everything that moves? If the game brings these thoughts to my mind I consider it a RPG. But then I manage to do a bit of Role Playing in the city builder games. :)

In regard to BG II/ToB I agree that the dialogue, great as it was, did become intrusive but that didn't stop me from enjoying the game.

I'm waiting for that game where I can actually talk to the NPCs and tell them to "Shut up for Talos' sake we're in the middle of a battle."

@Rawgrim

I think you're mistaking the number-crunchers curse with what the game is really all about. Nakia understands - it's all about being able to choose a role or archetype for yourself and play it. The combat portion is easy to abuse... but only if you care more about fighting than playing - in which case you would never survive any of the campaigns I'm a part of, because it's easy to overwhelm anyone that's on a power-gamers streak.

Not to mention 20 attacks per round is impossible without having 12 arms, 27 dex and epic feats :p .

This ties directly with the topic too :) . The BG Series and Oblivion/Morrowind let you pick an archetype - and give you enough options to play through the game with that archetype in a unique way that is not possible in NWN/NWN2, because no matter what class/alignment/etc. you are, you have the same events take place regardless.

Yet, besides the Role-Playing part of BG2 (which is far from realistic), The whole lvl-up idea is silly. What - I am killing goblins, and then, one day, when I am sitting on the toilet dish, I suddenly "level-up" and realise I am able to cast more spells, can more accurately use a staff and have more health? Kinda stupid, if you ask me.

The "Bard gaining xp for playing music" is not very realistic either. Because later, at lvl-up, he gains weapon proficiencies, spells and HP based on what? Music playing? Oh great. I have been playing music for 10 years...and I doubt that I've become better with any kind of weapon because of that.

The roleplaying games must be as realistic as possible. Unfortunately, the D&D system is far, far from realistic.

My personally favourite system of character progression is that of Betrayal at Krondor. There is no lvl-up. The additional +HP max come very slowly. Each and every skill improves only by practicing it - for instance, you cannot become better in combat by repairing armor&weapons, or sibging in a tavern, or killing an enemy with spells or missile weapons, or summons. And there is definitely no progression for one character if the other single-handedly slays a whole group of enemies.

saros:

What - I am killing goblins, and then, one day, when I am sitting on the toilet dish, I suddenly "level-up" and realise I am able to cast more spells, can more accurately use a staff and have more health? Kinda stupid, if you ask me.
Sitting on the can gives me time to reflect on recent events, and what lessons I can learn from them! :D

Quote: I think you're mistaking the number-crunchers curse with what the game is really all about. Nakia understands - it's all about being able to choose a role or archetype for yourself and play it. The combat portion is easy to abuse... but only if you care more about fighting than playing - in which case you would never survive any of the campaigns I'm a part of, because it's easy to overwhelm anyone that's on a power-gamers streak.


I was putting it bluntly to make a point. But I do agree with your response. But don`t you think that class-feats for example is forced on you? Like if you are a druid you get an animal companion, wether you like it or not. Or if you are a ranger your two-weapon fighting or your bow skills improves, even if you don`t want them too. A friend of mine played a ranger on the game we are running now adays. And he has been using a greatsword and nothing else. He got better at using a bow because of this though. And he said that it felt like it wasn`t he that had made a character. It was made by the people who wrote the phb. If you get my meaning.

Quote: Not to mention 20 attacks per round is impossible without having 12 arms, 27 dex and epic feats

This is not impossible. Its fairly easy. You need a high dex score of course. And use spiked chain. Gives you attacks of oppertunity within 5 and 10 feet. Add combat reflexes to your feat list, and great cleave. And get into a situation where there are lots of puny opponents running around. Like storming a pile of goblins in a cave or something. A friend of mine managed 22 attacks, in one round with that tactic. This won`t work unless you activly seek out a situation like that of course. But it wasn`t uncommon for him to make around 15 attacks per round in most fights against multiple opponents. At highlevel of course. Around 15-18 I belive. Anyway. It can be done.


Quote: The "Bard gaining xp for playing music" is not very realistic either. Because later, at lvl-up, he gains weapon proficiencies, spells and HP based on what? Music playing?

I agree with you there, but bards also got XP for learning and casting spells I belive. And for kills.

And I agree with you 100 percent about the Krondor system. It made sense all the way. I would have to say it was the best system I have experienced too. Too bad its not out in a pen and paper version.

Hi,

Just my two cents on this for Rawgrim
I think we see here a clear break with D&D enthusiats, and those like yourself who tend to prefer more "realistic" RPGs.

Indeed the AD&D rules make no sense, I mean when you're high levels you can get stabbed 100 times by a low level dude with and not die.
Levels makes no sense, however, if you can ignore the "unreal" part of it, I still think it's fun when transfered into video games.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of AD&D "live", I mean when you play it for real with pencils and dice and such. I've always prefered RPGs such as Stormbringer, Runequest, etc... with the % system, just more realistic: you improve slowly by using your skills (and improve ONLY those skills you use), you never reall gain HP except if you specifically gain CON or whatnot, one well placed sword strike to an unarmored dude usually kills him, etc etc...

This said, although I've always preffered a % system for my "Real" rpg play, I think that it would translate poorly to a computer game.

But I do agree the whole D&D system makes no true sense: it is FUN however I feel in a computer game, and well that's what counts ;)

Well spoken Edmond, by all means. I also play dungeons and dragons by the way. And it is fun for me as well. But my point was that its a very bad "roleplaying" system.

As for the % rules: I think Might and magic 6-8 used that system. Rolemaster based, or something similar.Don`t take my word for it though.

I agree with the count (i.e. Edmond); one point I'd like to stress however is that Fallout managed to blend levels and % quite nicely. Now improving skills as you use them is something that is really good but such a system can be abused too (besides GTA San Andreas uses such a system but it doesn't qualify as a RPG).

What's in a game? Realism is not the important factor here, IMHO what matters is whether you have fun or not.

As unrealistic and arbitrary as DnD can be, it is fun. Think about the numerous gags in the Order of the Stick comic. Rules can be a source of humour as well.

BG is a good game because it's not too linear and you have a story (it may not be the most original plot but it's not that bad and it has ramifications and side stories that link characters together, just like the Kivan/Tazok revenge plot which unfortunately wasn't implemented).
The problem is that nowadays the whole prophecy stuff has grown stale. It has been used so much in movies (Star Wars, The Matrix, etc.) and in CPRPG (BG, Fallout, Lionheart, Arcanum, Morrowind, Oblivion, KotOR, Fable, Jade Empire, etc.) that it is a big turn off.

I played KotOR for a while and enjoyed some parts of the game but some quests were just too stale. It felt like it was taken from BG and other oldies...

What does it take to make a great epic story that wouldn't revolve around a prophecy but would allow the main character to choose sides and make a difference?

Linearity is not compatible with free will. Without freedom of choice and the possibility to make decisions that affect the course of the game there is no roleplaying.

IMHO the best CPRG I know are Fallout 1 and (to a certain extent) Vampire the Masquerade. They may have some flaws, at least they give you the illusion of playing a role.

Hi Cardharas,

Thanks for catching the count reference ;)

I have not tried Fallout but might take a look at it now.

Yes % based RPGs in video games is perhaps difficult to implement because of the progression logic.
Usually in % based games, you get an experience check when you succesfully use a skill in a certain situation. For example, you succesfully hit a guy with a mace, then you get a check in attacking with the mace. But the beauty (in my mind) of the % based RPGs (at least in Pnp) is that that check dosen't automatically mean you improve. Basically, it gives you a % to improve once the aventure is over, and the higher your skill the least likely you are to improve. All this leads to very slow and balanced character progression.
Also, because your HP basically never change, combat is more about hitting and not getting hit (parries, dodge, etc) than just the capacity of absorbing massive damage because your HP is high. It is why a few succesful blows in these types of games usually end combat, which means that anybody can kill anybody: although superior combat skills will usually prevail (which makes sense), one lucky shot from an underdog could end any fight. The fact one lucky basic arrow from a much weaker opponent can kill even the most powerful character balances gameplay to be less reckless.

My dream has always been such a system would be applied for computer RPGs, but then I wonder how playable it would be. Also, it would be able to cheese by reloading etc... which would defeat most of the % based logic of skill porgression. I just have trouble visioning a game based on such a system truly being playable on computer, which is kind of encouraging since it means PnP is not dead yet ;)

Which is why level D&D based games seem to adapt best to computer RPGs from my experience, because in the end the XP level system just blends in perfectly with computer gaming in my mind.

And to conclude and get back to the topic, BG2 was great because of the fact it just seem to flow so well, it never seemed that overwhelming, and it was FUN. Just a very well conceived and very well balanced game, that allows begginers as well as veterans to enjoy it. TOB missed the spot however, I think mainly cause your CHAR was too overpowered by then, so you didn't get that progression feel any longer.

Finally, to repeat myself, am I the only one that would like to see a game a la BG2 (with improved graphics and all of course), but in a world as detailed as Morrowind for example (I love the Morrowind feel of freedom and liberty to do REALLY what you want ; I HATE its left-click frenzy combat system) ? So basically a game with turn / round based combat, but with no more "zones", since every inch of the game world would be accesible. :)

[ November 01, 2007, 18:49: Message edited by: Edmond Dantes ]

You are definatly not the only one, Count. I would love a game like that too. I haven`t played Morrowind alot though. All the running back and forth made me feel bored. But its on my list of games to play. Same with Fallout. Another gem I haven`t played yet.

saros and Rawgrim, Betrayl at Krondor! That was a true legendary game.

And I agree with you 100 percent about the Krondor system. It made sense all the way. I would have to say it was the best system I have experienced too. Too bad its not out in a pen and paper version.Yes, I liked BaK's system better than any I've played.

BG series was fun. Just plain fun. And it had it's hilarious moments. Edwin for instance. Although I thought I was prepared for him his little episode had me :spin: My party of Saverok, Edwin, Jan and the dwarf (my brain is failing can't remember his name) was the greatest and more fun than a clan of monkeys.

Off-topic:
To the people who haven´t played Fallout: Fallout is definitely recommendable. I learned about it in here. It has some cool features concerning creating and leveling your character up.

First of all, there is no character class. You allocate your primary stats yourself, so you either get a smart, strong, agile, charismatic, fast character, or a mix of the ones mentioned. You decide how many hitpoints, AC, reaction, carryweight and so on your character gets, depending on how you build the primary stats. You then pick 3 secondary skills that your character can boost quicker than other skills at lvl-up. And so on. There is more in the creation process I don´t want to get into. Play the game.

The secondary skill system is cool, similar to the skillpoints at lvl-up for characters in IWDII, however, you have to allocate points to pretty much everything. You want a "priest" type? Doctor and first aid skill. Sniper? Small weapons skill. Ranger type character? Outdoorsman. Techsmart character or scientist? Science and Repair. Thief? Sneak, Lockpick, Steal. Diplomat? Speech. And so on and so on. You can design your character much to your own liking. What you choose as skills determines what class your character becomes, so to speak. You can get more secondary skills to allocate by maxing your Intelligence in the creation process. Did I mention that you also gain Feats at regular intervals when you lvl-up?

It has bugs like other games, but all in all, it is a cool game, and the best thing is you are able to make enemies die in the most horrible ways. Critical headshot? Head explodes along with 50% of the upper torso, followed by the body keeling over like a treetrunk. Not like in BG, where chunks fly and that´s is.

This (http://www.nma-fallout.com) is probably the page to go to, if you need bugfixes, information etc., if you choose to play the game. I´ll bet that if you like games like BG, you´ll like Fallout.

HP is not taking a million hits dead on and dieing, it's more like a system of determining how well you can take a hit - IE: rolling with a punch.

As far as feats go for the game and class features being forced on you - it's just not true. In the core book, yes you're limited in your choices, but if you look into the other books, you get so many more options for core classes (at least 20-30 options for non-prestiege plenty of which are like bards and almost completely combat ineffective). Adaptations and Rule changes for these classes exist as well, that remove the druids animal companion or even it's wild shape, or a rangers spells for other abilities. (btw the idea of a ranger is that of a woodlands defender, which would be rather pointless if it couldn't defend anything, ie: need for bow/weapon skills). [As adendum, it is possible to ask the DM to let you change out abilities :p . Nothing in the game is set in stone in such a way that the DM can't modify a rule/class/skill/feat/etc.].

That's why classes like rogue and bard exist that are primarily skill based classes based on the assumption you're going to play the skill game and the combat game (although sometimes stabbing stuff is rather enjoyable).

When looking at things like levels as some people pointed out, you can't see it as a literal in-game understanding of "Oh I just happen to learn how to use this for no reason". The idea is that while you're going from level 4-5 wizard you're studying and practicing spell casting on your off-time so that when you've gained enough XP to level and you've gone to rest you have enough confidence and ability to now cast fireballs. It's just a literal implementation of an abstract idea.

Of course the idea behind these comments is that the RPG persists outside of one element it's composed of and rather encompasses all of them. While you can play an RPG without ever having combat as an option, who wants to do that? Besides rogues I mean...

Oh and the cheesiness of the spiked chain combat reflexes... It takes some real number-crunching and power/meta-gaming to pull that kind of stuff off - ie: if you go to some D&D boards they propose class builds of level 20 that can do 20k (yes, 20,000) damage in 1 turn, that's not something you actually see in a D&D campaign though, I garuantee it :p .

Oh well, last of a legend... I didn't knew anything about RPG's back then when my friend showed me a new game he has just bought, BG. Nearly ten years ago. It wasn't love at first sight, but somehow athmosphere of the game got me hooked. I didn't knew the rules and didn't even wanted to. I just wanted to play.

There is some quality in this game that no other game has, for me at last, I've never played through any other rpg's than BG's and IWD's, I've tried NWN, PoR, ToEE, Fallout, Oblivion but... I just got bored. I don't give f**k about rules, 2ed or 3ed, if game is good enough I'll play it through.

Maybe I'm IE junkie, I don't know but there isn't going to be any game as good as BG's for me. Never.

You might like Betrayal at Krondor. If you can stand some rather poorish graphics. Its from 92 I think, and its still on my top 5 rpg list. Along with the baldur`s gate games.

The BG games ar those at witch I return after each new dessapoiment : NWN 1/2 , Oblivion , Ghotic 3 (1,2 wore actualy plesant) etc.
There is always a nice felling when you hear : "Oh, the child of Bhall has awaken" :) ... For me it is like gooing back home ... to my old room ... you know the feeling :p ...
I to don't think a game like those will ever be made ... but now i discover : The Witcher ... nice .. relly nice .. this is the only game (beaside BG) that make me wanna call in sick and stay home to play like in the good old time :p
Cheers

RPG = Role Playing Game. Not sure if you knew that, but very few RPG's have the same combat system implemented.


Don't get cute kiddo. What does the fact that "RPG" stands for "Role-Playing Game" have to do with anything I said?

What does your irrelevant conclusion that "very few RPGs have the same combat system" have to do with anything we are discussing here?


"Tactical Simulators" are RTS.ROTFLMAO!! You could not have been more wrong here if you calimed that Asteroids was a turn-based dating simulator!

RTS = "REAL TIME Strategy". RTS games notoriously LACK tactics. RPGs, from the earliest(D&D) have always been tactical simulations. "Tactics" does NOT necessarily refer to COMBAT by the way kid.(Though 99.999% of RPGs DO feature or are rooted in tactical combat). ANY game in which you play a statistically quantified representation of a character and pit HIS attributes/skills/abilities(re: his CHARACTER) against a series of adversarial/opposed forces is a tactical simulation.

For the record - RPG's can be also be completely devoid of combat in any form whatsoever.
Sure they can. What is your point? What does this have to do with what is being discussed here?


Kind've derails the idea of an RPG being nothing more than a Tactical Simulator prettied up.False and that straw man you are beating the stuffing out of is not mine. I don't have any dog named "Prettied up" in this fight. Nice try though...

The 3ed rules are basically a tactical simulator, and nothing more.


ALL rpgs are tactical simulators and nothing more,a t their core. That the genre of gaming is conducive to things like storytelling/amateur drama/acting and such is irrelevant.


When you can tweak a character to be able to make around 20 attacks per round. Thats 20 attacks in 6 seconds.........If that`s not lame I don`t know what is.I am no fan of ANY edition of D&D in general but are you claiming that 3rd Ed. characters(and ONLY them) can be tweaked to make "20 attacks per round"?! I think you should read the third edition rules first.

Also this is no more unrealistic than casting spells, hit points(especially AD&D's take!), saving throws(especially AD&D's version), etc. Are you seriously contesting the idea of a heroic FANTASY character making multiple attacks in 6 seconds while ignoring the idea that, not only can certain arbitrarily chosen vocations allow one to violate all physical laws in absurd ways by incantation and gesture, but also that they are limited to individual memorizations of spells per day which mysteriously disappear from memory when recited?!

That is like someone coming to the microphone at a poetry reading and saying "Sorry...I was going to do some Frost or Milton but a lady on the bus asked me to recite a William Carlos Williams poem and that shot my 6th level poems for the day so I can only give you two readings of Shel Silverstein for now..."


Plus you only get XP for killing stuff now (and quest XP).
False.


So you have, say a bard, who runs around killing orcs. And thats pretty much the only way he can get better at playing music. You kill something and your music skills improves...........Yeah...3ed makes sense........While in 2ed a bard got XP for playing music at inns and such.
You are wrong here or you have the two editions mixed up.


Ergo: Getting better at playing music, by playing music........Make more sense? It does to me anyway. The skills and the attack + AC system however is better in 3ed. But the rest is just lame. It seems like its made just to have some fanboys have a Drizzt clone that can`t die in the game. I mean they even removed the fumble rule, added way more HP, way more AC for the characters, and so on. Feels like "god-moding" an rts game, and not like playing a roleplaying game.
There are still flaws to be sure(most of which are carried over from AD&D) and these are largely being dealt with in the upcoming 4th edition but your characterizations are bizarre to say the least. I am wondering where you are getting your information about 3e/3.5e?

AD&D/OD&D had some game-breaking design flaws just with the hit points alone. In AD&D HP are defined as an absurd combination of 'luck, physical toughness, veteran wile, and evasive maneuver capability'. This begs the question: What does "Cure Light Wounds" spell DO? Does it replenish your "luck" that went missing when someone swung a saber at you and connected? If so can a cleric cast "Cure Light Wounds" at a gambling table to influence your ability to win at cards?

It is nonsense and I could spend 6 pages pointing out even sillier flaws for what it is worth. 3Rd edition at least attempted to bring D&D into the late 20th century by fixing a lot of this mess.

I have no idea what the official definition of RPG is but to me for a game to be a Role Playing Game I must be able to play a role.


There is no "official definition" for ANY word. Words shift meaning with context and usage, speaker and audience. But in the context of GAMING, "roleplaying game" has a pretty specific meaning that only varies subjectively from person to person by cosmetic preferences.

The "RolePlaying Game = Playing a role" thing is a bit like saying "Politics = "many small bloodsucking insects" because it comes from the Greek 'poly', meaning "many" and "ticks" meaning small, bloodsucking arachnids".

Makes for a good joke but is a poor way to try and understand terms for what they really are.


Now the role may be limited as it was in my first cRPG, Betrayal at Krondor, or you may have a variety of choices as in the BG series. Is your character a good guy out to save the world in spite of itself? Is he a selfish guy just interested in what he can get? Is he (she) evil wanting to take over the world. Is he a psychopath killing everything that moves? If the game brings these thoughts to my mind I consider it a RPG. But then I manage to do a bit of Role Playing in the city builder games. :)

And therein lies the rub. By YOUR definition, DOOM, Super Mario Bros., Asteroids and Pinball are all "roleplaying games" and the term has no meaning at all.

In regard to BG II/ToB I agree that the dialogue, great as it was, did become intrusive but that didn't stop me from enjoying the game.

I'm waiting for that game where I can actually talk to the NPCs and tell them to "Shut up for Talos' sake we're in the middle of a battle."


Yeah, that will be interesting. I think it is a ways off though.

an aside - CRPGs which have used a system where you only improve skills by using them(besides Betrayal At Krondor which was already mentioned):

Nahlakh - 1994 shareware CRPG. Very oldshcool(Ultima 4/5 era graphics) with one of the more advanced combat systems seen in crpgs. Using your two-handed sword in combat was the only way to raise two-handed sword skill. Casting magic spells was the only way to raise magic skill. Etc.

Jagged Alliance 2 - 1999/200(?) strategy/RPG. Had much better character interaction/banter than even BG/BG2(lots more dialog and very well written for the most part) and a combat system and experience system much in line with nahlakh above(much better isometric graphics though). Had to be training/practicing or otherwise actually SHOOTING your guns to raise those skills or lugging around encumbering loads to raise Strength etc.

I know there are a few more that I am forgetting...

If you go for pnp, I always thought Runequest was much better than D&D / ADnD.

There is no such thing as "realism" in RPGs or CRPGs. What is required is a large amount of willing suspension of disbelief.

This ties directly with the topic too . The BG Series and Oblivion/Morrowind let you pick an archetype - and give you enough options to play through the game with that archetype in a unique way that is not possible in NWN/NWN2, because no matter what class/alignment/etc. you are, you have the same events take place regardless.

That's how it ties in - read all my posts please :).

You're take on the RPG genre is that they're tactical simulators and it's wrong. "Tactical simulation"... combat in other words... is nothing more than an ELEMENT of the game. But at the core an RPG is a game, as described above, that allows you to take on a different persona.

RPG (as defined by wiki):
A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

I bet I can go look for 100 definitions and probably 2 will have combat as a core element of an RPG listed (and they'll probably list diablo and dungeon siege as RPG's). By that definition Oblivion/Morrowind are also 100x better RPG's than NWN/NWN2. Ignore the combat system and focus on the role-play opportunities.

Also I'm not sure where you got the idea that role-play comes from greek. I'm pretty sure it comes from the english word:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
role-play /ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rohl-pley] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

which... is formed by role and play. Which when put together mean that anyway... + game = game that you play to assume the role of something else.

As far as the FPS genre goes, there are definately elements of an RPG in there, but they're main focus in the 1 vs. many combat aspect, not the actual role you're playing. As they are progressing the story is becomming more and more important though. This is why I'm pointing out that NWN and NWN2 aren't RPG's, because they're clearly more focused on Combat over RP as opposed to how a tradition cRPG is. Oblivion is somewhat of a hybrid, but you can avoid combat the entire game, so it's definately not an FPS, but rather a FPcRPG.

Also as for the description of the spell system, not sure where you heard/read that the spells leave memory. Of course there is that whole thing where a wizard has too many spells to just plain memorize out of his spellbook (at least at the beginning), but the fact of it is, the spell doesn't leave your memory, you just lose the ability to cast it after a while. This is the result of loss of prepared elements - spell components, clerity of mind, not forgetting the words to recite. If that's all it was then they'd be able to read off their book an infinate # of incantations.

All I'm trying to point out here of course is that you've been sorta-flaming people for their opinions on the matter without any actual facts behind your flames :(. The use of wikipedia, dictionary.com and the Players Handbook (v3.0 and 3.5) are good resources you can look at for free to get the facts on the topics being discussed.

In summation:

RPG is not a tactical simulator as defined by 3 sources (wiki's is the definition listed above, but it's agreed upon by dictionary.com and the PHB)

RTS is a tactical simulator (pretty much by definition of the title alone - but also by the facts of the intended gameplay).

FPS are not RPG's because while they maintian RPG elements they focus on combat over role playing.

About "tactics" have you heard of TSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR%2C_Inc.)
and Chainmail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_%28game%29)?

I don't mean to flame but resorting to wikipedia's definition you should check some of its entries...

Do you really think that there is much roleplay in CRPGs? You can make up for it by using your own imagination (like Nakia posted) but in the end a CPRG doesn't offer enough freedom to qualify as a true RPing game. All in all CPRGs are tactical simulations with a few RPG elements thrown in.

Also I'm not sure where you got the idea that role-play comes from greek. I'm pretty sure it comes from the english word:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
role-play /ˈroʊlˌpleɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rohl-pley] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another), esp. in a make-believe situation in an effort to understand a differing point of view or social interaction: Management trainees were given a chance to role-play labor negotiators.
2. to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role: trainees role-playing management positions.

which... is formed by role and play. Which when put together mean that anyway... + game = game that you play to assume the role of something else.

Actually, he never claimed that "role-play" came from Greek. :p

Ahh you're right, I missread it. And yea, wiki isn't 100%, but it is still a very good source for good information.

The "RolePlaying Game = Playing a role" thing is a bit like saying "Politics = "many small bloodsucking insects" because it comes from the Greek 'poly', meaning "many" and "ticks" meaning small, bloodsucking arachnids".

Of course the fact is that RPG did in fact come from the understanding of playing a role because it's a literal title to what the game is like. I'm also pretty sure that FPS (First Person Shooter) refers to a game where you run around in First Person and Shoot things/people/etc.

Also
Do you really think that there is much roleplay in CRPGs? You can make up for it by using your own imagination (like Nakia posted) but in the end a CPRG doesn't offer enough freedom to qualify as a true RPing game. All in all CPRGs are tactical simulations with a few RPG elements thrown in.

I think there's tons. Not as much as in a tabletop RPG to be sure. But I think the fact is and point of my posts, is that I agree with the original poster. Since BG2 the only good RPG's we've really seen have been very limited and only recently with the elder scrolls series have we been able to enjoy a game that has a lot to explore as a role-player. I mean... I've been in far more constrictive and worse campaigns (Rifts or D&D) on table-top than a game like Oblivion, but I've always had more choice in my decisions that I do in games like NWN and NWN2 though. Especially NWN2 which forced companions on me for the whole first chapter of the game.

If you've played pnp RPGs that were worse than the elder scrolls series, I'm really sorry but you should politely ask your gamemaster to retire. IMHO roleplaying is not just roaming around in pretty settings watching the rain fall and the sun set.

I haven't played Oblivion (but I've seen it at a friend's and it's very pretty) but I've played Morrowind and I must say that RPwise you're very limited. You have to have a very fertile imagination to make up for the fact that you can't change sides. Once you've agreed to do a quest you can't just go to the other fellow and negotiate a better pay (something that could be done in good old Fallout). And don't get me started on the terrific dialogue options in Morrowind. NPCs telling me some useless information in a generic (to put it mildly) way bored me to death.

A plot is all about a good story and good characters. Although immersive and addictive (in all fairness at least for a while) Morrowind is not what I'd call a good RPG. I even had more fun playing NWN for all the combos and mixing of classes whereas in Morrowind (despite a wonderful experience system) whatever skills you choose at the start you could still get an uber level in every skill under the sun in the end. By the way these shall we say technical aspects are not what matters in a real RPG, all you need is a good GM and players who are keen on playing together for hours on end.

This may sound like I'm ranting but you should revise your standards if you really mean to define what a RPG is. Instead of throwing out definitions around you should consider getting some friends together and play a good pnp game. That time however pick a good DM (not one who relies on railroad plots).

Good God, RuneQuester, PLEASE don't do that again! Just because we haven't disabled it yet doesn't mean that it's ok to post 4 times in a row here. Please post once and edit, like on the old boards.

Actually, I'll try some new merge magic on those posts... :evil:

Edit: There, from 4 to 2. I didn't do it all into one because you've really posted a lot, but don't let that be an excuse the next time. ;)

The point was that the DM's were new - and didn't really understand how to do a good job. With NWN/NWN2 it's the same thing. They're not RPG's just because you get to pick your character class and race.

Elder Scroll series aren't as good as fallout or BG for sure - but again that's not the point. They're still as close to RPG's as we've gotten since the BG Series. Every RP problem you described with them is 10x worse with NWN2. More restricted in almost every aspect. (Sometimes the restrictions are better though I guess- ie: skills/abilities).

As far as my standards for an RPG... is a non-computer role playing game for good reason. cRPG's are anything that come close (BG/Fallout/PS:T/etc.), and there's an entirely different genre for games like NWN, Action Adventure (Diablo2, Dungeon Siege). They're more advanced versions, but the idea is the same - follow the thin story until you've killed every bad guy and collected the neat-o gear.

With Oblivion and Morrowind on the otherhand... you can spend the entire game experience running a potion business collecting herbs, making potions, selling them to shops, or buying and trading between shops. Very few if any games give you that as an option - however unlikely or un-fun as it may sound to you :). (Fable actually does that to a smallish extend).

They're not RPG's just because you get to pick your character class and race.


I agree on that point. In Fable a half demon character can quietly go fishing, that doesn't make a good RPG out of it (although it's a fun action game IMO). Anyway, I sure will avoid NWN2, I heard so many bad things about it, your post confirms that.

Yea - unless you take grand enjoyment from creating characters or want to spend a few hours downloading modules from hard-to-find websites, it's probably not worth buying 'til it's cheap.

Most of the cities and organizations in 3e have 200page books on them. Including topics that are more obscure than cities and organizations, not to mention 2 books solely on good and evil (exalted/vile deeds), which explain D&D morality.

Not quite true. 3.0 and 3.5 setting books, at least for FR, seem to have more mechanics and less information than 2.0 ones. I just downloaded a little from the free 2nd edition materials, and let me tell you, Volo's Guide to the Dales blows away any 3.x regional book I've come across in terms of campaign information. As for the BoED/BoVD, they are a good secondary resource, but they provide alignment extremes, a way to play alignment to the maximum. In this, they conflict the PHB which sets alignment as a loose guideline, and can thus be very, very troubling.

@Caradhras: For all its troubles, NWN isn't a bad game imo. I've played it a bit, and while the interface takes some warming up to, it's quite tolerable. MotB looks like it won't disappoint, either. However, the true use of NWN 2 will be as a platform for mods. NWN 1 had many modules that rivaled or outdid the original campaigns, and with time and a decent modmaking tool NWN 2 will have its share of great campaigns as well.

NWN is not bad, it just doesn't fulfill its potential.

If you're interested in pnp or the forgotten realms in general check this link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads) (I'm sure that's what the Shaman is referring to).

They're not RPG's just because you get to pick your character class and race.
I agree on that point. In Fable a half demon character can quietly go fishing, that doesn't make a good RPG out of it (although it's a fun action game IMO). Anyway, I sure will avoid NWN2, I heard so many bad things about it, your post confirms that.

yeh Fable, in that game like a lot of "RPG" games, it was too easy to be good, and kinda hard to be evil, hardly any evil quests, and killing demons got you good points. I had to go to bowerstone and start pounding little kids into the dirt to get evil, that and sacrificing good mercenaries at the temple of Skorm.


Hmm NWN2 isnt that great a game? i shall have to avoid it then.



and yeh when has a game that was as well planned, well thought out, or had as much story and character development, both for the PC and NPCs as BGII did come out in recent years.

new games all seem to be these no story, barely any point to them, pay to play MMOs, is that what people want these days?

i much prefer a good old, single player RPG, with interesting characters and sub plots, great voice acting, crazed sewer dwelling cultists, treasure seeking psycotic dwarves, nature loving druids, trolls besieged keeps, hardcore ***** female drows, revenge seeking dragons, evil soul stealing mages, sneaky theives noble Paladins heroic Rangers and Boo, i forgot Boo. and if i can play this game online with friends well hell thats even better.


last of legend indeed.

In Fable you can always slaughter travellers and guards to get evil points (and XP). That's actually easier than behaving like a goody shiny pally.

i much prefer a good old, single player RPG, with interesting characters and sub plots, great voice acting, crazed sewer dwelling cultists, treasure seeking psycotic dwarves, nature loving druids, trolls besieged keeps, hardcore ***** female drows, revenge seeking dragons, evil soul stealing mages, sneaky theives noble Paladins heroic Rangers and Boo, i forgot Boo. and if i can play this game online with friends well hell thats even better.

You summed it up very nicely, it may look clichéd but that's what made BG2 so good. ;)

I'd like to see a pnp game with multiple sorcerers place members... I can only imagine how hardcore it might be :book: (pretend it's a dungeon master screen, haha).

You summed it up very nicely, it may look clichéd but that's what made BG2 so good.

exactly. but prehaps back then compnaies worked on story and character, as graphics were limited.

nowadays games seem to be these flashy graphical, no point to them games. run around kill a few baddies and try get godly gears, that sounds sooo fun. id rather be out slaying a dragon with a grudge against my foster father, or investigating a series of murders/dissappearances somewhere, summoning demons with dragon eggs, or finding a talking sword in the sewers.

[Entire post removed, warning pending, too many rules violations to count - /dmc]