Are BGII, Fallout 2, and Planescape Torment really that good? I don't think so.

This is my opinion of these three borefest games:

Baldurs Gate II - Way too much micromanagement. You have to keep pausing the game during combat to micromanage your team. Way too much dialogue/reading (I want to play a game, not read a novel). And far too many options and far too complex.

Fallout 2 - Again, too many options and too complex, and too much dialogue/reading. Very boring turn-based gameplay. Dull outdated graphics.

Planescape Torment - Cool setting but way way too much dialogue/reading (story seems decent though, but again I want to play a game, not read a novel). Combat is dull. Too many options and too complex.

Now compare those games to really good RPGs like the following:

Oblivion - Great gameplay, combat is very fun. Still a decent amount of dialogue but not too much and you can actually HEAR it (voice-acting) which makes it a LOT better. Very cool missions. Fantastic graphics. Very good story. And not overly complex.

Diablo 2 - Great hack and slash RPG with excellent online multiplayer on BNET. Excellent combat and very cool skills to pick from. Just a whole lot of fun to play. Again you can HEAR the dialogue (voice-acting).

Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance - Another very well made hack and slash RPG for consoles. Excellent combat, good story, and just all around fun to play. And very good graphics for it's time. And again you can HEAR the dialogue (voice-acting).

Opinions?

Comparing Oblivion to Fallout 2 is like comparing bicycles to motorcycles, they are similiar in some ways, and you cant knock bicycles for using older technology, because they are still fun. So Fallout 2 might use older technology (no voice acting and outdated graphics) but most people find it to be one of the best RPG's of all time.

And you dont seem like the RPG kind of guy if you dont like reading dialogue.

I really am annoyed with this generations inability or refusal to read something for once. I mean yea it is a game not a book but what other medium do you use for such great story telling? Certainly games with voice acting turn out great but I find it does detract from the story overall except for a few occasions. RPG's are about story and the best way to tell a story is with written word.

The three "RPG's" you said were good aren't RPG's at all. That argument I'll leave for someone else to pick up and provided detail for.

I really am annoyed with this generations inability or refusal to read something for once. I mean yea it is a game not a book but what other medium do you use for such great story telling? Certainly games with voice acting turn out great but I find it does detract from the story overall except for a few occasions. RPG's are about story and the best way to tell a story is with written word.

The three "RPG's" you said were good aren't RPG's at all. That argument I'll leave for someone else to pick up and provided detail for.

Grim_Wolf88

Exactly, I don't mind reading, and sometimes, it adds to the personality of the characters because the writers could put more depth in more thought out dialogue. The ONLY game which I thought the voice acting didn't detract from the game itself was KOTOR 1.

Comparing Oblivion to Fallout 2 is like comparing bicycles to motorcycles, they are similiar in some ways, and you cant knock bicycles for using older technology, because they are still fun. So Fallout 2 might use older technology (no voice acting and outdated graphics) but most people find it to be one of the best RPG's of all time.

And you dont seem like the RPG kind of guy if you dont like reading dialogue.

TheGTAvaccine

Fallout 2 has voice acting as I recall, as did Fallout 1.

I think he just doesn't like to read, though--wonder why he's here.

[QUOTE="TheGTAvaccine"]

Comparing Oblivion to Fallout 2 is like comparing bicycles to motorcycles, they are similiar in some ways, and you cant knock bicycles for using older technology, because they are still fun. So Fallout 2 might use older technology (no voice acting and outdated graphics) but most people find it to be one of the best RPG's of all time.

And you dont seem like the RPG kind of guy if you dont like reading dialogue.

0over0

Fallout 2 has voice acting as I recall, as did Fallout 1.

I think he just doesn't like to read, though--wonder why he's here.

Ah really? Nice. Well I never played it, but I have a copy of the Fallout Collection en route to my house. :D

Yea after hearing day in and day out of all the praise baldurs gate 2 always gets, I decided to try to demo a few months back and I didn't like it for the same reason you stated, I didn't like having to keep on managing my other team so frequenly. And then when you find a chest, ya have to distribute the contents to the appropriate characters one after the other. It gets really tedious fast :?

Neverwinter Nights didn't have this, and it's one of my favorite pc games ever. But some people like the team management, different strokes for different folks I guess.

I have yet to play fallout, and I keep hearing praise about it, so I'm gonna try it out this summer hopefully.

Yea after hearing day in and day out of all the praise baldurs gate 2 always gets, I decided to try to demo a few months back and I didn't like it for the same reason you stated, I didn't like having to keep on managing my other team so frequenly. And then when you find a chest, ya have to distribute the contents to the appropriate characters one after the other. It gets really tedious fast :?

Neverwinter Nights didn't have this, and it's one of my favorite pc games ever. But some people like the team management, different strokes for different folks I guess.

I have yet to play fallout, and I keep hearing praise about it, so I'm gonna try it out this summer hopefully.

Siofen

Neverwinter Nights was ok from what I remember, but it was still rather complex. I don't remember how much voice-acting it had. I haven't played NWN2 yet.

u go da hell..u go da hell and u die tc!!! :P j/k

nah seriosuly...it sounds like ure more of a hack and slasher, action rpg fan. fair enough. the first 3 u mention do not fit into those categories (especially torment..which is basically a novel in game form). i loves me a good action rpg also when i need to switch off a bit (dark alliance was critically slated..but i found it strangly addictive).

u should also try out titan quest and the dungeon siege games TC...u might enjoy them.

but there not directly comparable. its a bit like comparing command and conquer to rome total war.

[QUOTE="Timberwolf5578"][QUOTE="Siofen"]

Yea after hearing day in and day out of all the praise baldurs gate 2 always gets, I decided to try to demo a few months back and I didn't like it for the same reason you stated, I didn't like having to keep on managing my other team so frequenly. And then when you find a chest, ya have to distribute the contents to the appropriate characters one after the other. It gets really tedious fast :?

Neverwinter Nights didn't have this, and it's one of my favorite pc games ever. But some people like the team management, different strokes for different folks I guess.

I have yet to play fallout, and I keep hearing praise about it, so I'm gonna try it out this summer hopefully.

NEOSPARKING

Neverwinter Nights was ok from what I remember, but it was still rather complex. I don't remember how much voice-acting it had. I haven't played NWN2 yet.

Har.......har.......har........

Anyways, complexity is ok if it's done for the right reasons in a good way. I enjoyed Warcraft 3, AOE2, and the AOE3:TAD Demo, although they are slightly complex, but not in a boring way. And the complexities of these games greatly improve the gameplay.

Those are RTSs. You can't really compare those to RPGs (well, RPGs developed for the PC anyway) as they serve another purpose in regard to content and gameplay.DennisKumfi

Yeah but IMO there is no need to make RPGs needlessly complex. IMO, too many complexities really hinder the gameplay of RPGs. Oblivion did an excellent job of making a traditional RPG (not hack and slash) which is neither too complex nor too simple. Oblivion is just a incredible game.

On the other hand, I think most hack and slash RPGs, even though they might be a little shallow, are far far more fun to play than a borefest like BGII, Fallout2, or Planescape Torment. But that's just my opinion.

Also, in regard to voice-acting: these games all were released when there were no DVDs. I figure they would all be completely voiced where they to be released today.

(But, sadly, they don't make em like that anymore)

This is my opinion of these three borefest games:

Baldurs Gate II - Way too much micromanagement. You have to keep pausing the game during combat to micromanage your team. Way too much dialogue/reading (I want to play a game, not read a novel). And far too many options and far too complex.

Fallout 2 - Again, too many options and too complex, and too much dialogue/reading. Very boring turn-based gameplay. Dull outdated graphics.

Planescape Torment - Cool setting but way way too much dialogue/reading (story seems decent though, but again I want to play a game, not read a novel). Combat is dull. Too many options and too complex.

Now compare those games to really good RPGs like the following:

Oblivion - Great gameplay, combat is very fun. Still a decent amount of dialogue but not too much and you can actually HEAR it (voice-acting) which makes it a LOT better. Very cool missions. Fantastic graphics. Very good story. And not overly complex.

Diablo 2 - Great hack and slash RPG with excellent online multiplayer on BNET. Excellent combat and very cool skills to pick from. Just a whole lot of fun to play. Again you can HEAR the dialogue (voice-acting).

Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance - Another very well made hack and slash RPG for consoles. Excellent combat, good story, and just all around fun to play. And very good graphics for it's time. And again you can HEAR the dialogue (voice-acting).

Opinions?

Timberwolf5578

So you don't like slower paced games but you prefer faster paced action filled games with more focus on combat and less focus on everything else. Well, good for you. For me it's the other way around. Faster paced action filled games get boring quickly because there isn't much to do and/or it gets repetetive real fast.

Maybe once you've played games for a couple of years you'll figure out that in all games you get to do combat. It's not just the combat that makes a game great. Combat is just a small part of a bigger picture, it's mostly about everything else.

Nobody else picked up on the TC's obvious satire? litewo

There was no satire at all. I just consider some RPGs to be boring and overly complex.

[QUOTE="DennisKumfi"]Those are RTSs. You can't really compare those to RPGs (well, RPGs developed for the PC anyway) as they serve another purpose in regard to content and gameplay.Timberwolf5578

Yeah but IMO there is no need to make RPGs needlessly complex. IMO, too many complexities really hinder the gameplay of RPGs. Oblivion did an excellent job of making a traditional RPG (not hack and slash) which is neither too complex nor too simple. Oblivion is just a incredible game.

On the other hand, I think most hack and slash RPGs, even though they might be a little shallow, are far far more fun to play than a borefest like BGII, Fallout2, or Planescape Torment. But that's just my opinion.

complexity is one of the things that makes RPGs so engrossing. typically, in a traditional RPG that complexity affords a player multiple choices in how to deal with a given situation. shall i charm the tower guard, bribe him, sneak around him, put him to sleep with a spell, summon a wolf to distract or defeat him, incite another NPC to attack him, or just smack him around with a good sword? in many of the action RPGs (i.e. diablo 2), your options are often just kill him with a weapon or kill him with magic. sure a few have some stealth/sneaking options, but not as much as traditional RPGs tend to have.

i'd rather have all those options and play a more complex game. you may not need to use all your options on a single playthrough of a game, but it enhances replay value. because of the complexity, games can be very different for different characters.

in the end, if you don't like traditional RPGs, don't play them. i don't think you'll persuade too many people on the forums here that oblivion rocks while BG and fallout suck.

z

This is my opinion of these three borefest games:

Timberwolf5578

It seems you don't enjoy:

Reading

Choices

Complexities

And you do enjoy:

Good visuals

Being spoon-fed

Simple, click-based combat

Clearly you are into hack-n-slash games, not roleplaying games. Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape Torment and Fallout 2 are all excellent roleplaying games, regardless of how much you personally like them. I can't stand Baldur's gate 2 and Planescape Torment, for example - but that does not impact my opinion that they are excellent. Looking at the games objectively, they are excellent.

Is this a joke thread?

How can you compare such classics to Oblivion and DIablo 2. If it weren't for those classic games those wouldn't exist. Baldur's gate II is the god father (atlast one of them) to RPG's todayzerosaber456

The first Diablo came out well before the first Baldur's Gate, Fallout, & Planescape: Torment. I doubt any of those games had much influence on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion as well. I love the Baldur's Gate & Fallous series, and Planescape: Torment was sexcellent, but your argument is flawed, mang.

I'm with the OP because I, for one, close my eyes during cutscenes because I don't want to watch a movie whilst playing a game.DennisKumfi

:lol:

Clearly you are into hack-n-slash games, not roleplaying games. Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape Torment and Fallout 2 are all excellent roleplaying games, regardless of how much you personally like them. I can't stand Baldur's gate 2 and Planescape Torment, for example - but that does not impact my opinion that they are excellent. Looking at the games objectively, they are excellent.

mfsa

Aww. You are breaking D&D fans' hearts.

are you serious kid go get checked for ADHDbanemind

You can't really judge the games on the graphics because they are all very old now.

Also with the whole text thing they probably thought that it would take too long to record all those lines of dialogue. So we must assume that they have concerntrated just on writing it well rather than having to act it too.

I hope you like the Witcher!!

To someone else here: I really thinks thats being cynical about the "Playstation Generation" not being about to focus long enough. Have you actually done a study to prove that?

What is "dumbed down" about Fallout 3? I haven't read much info about it lately. Herrick

Anyhow, I have ZERO faith in Bethesda and their merry band of jellyheads to make anything that will even remotely resemble a role-playing game much less a Fallout role-playing game and nothing I've read has swayed me from this opinion. Bethesda talks a big game, the corporate gaming media echos their PR tripe, but I've yet to see it backed up with actual good and engaging game-play in their games.

Oblivion may have been a mediocre action/adventure game but it was abysmal from a role-playing standpoint yet it sold like crazy. I see no reason why Bethesda would mess with a formula that's made them millions. Hence, FO3 will be Oblivion with guns and swearing but it most certainly won't be Fallout.

[QUOTE="Timberwolf5578"]

This is my opinion of these three borefest games:

mfsa

It seems you don't enjoy:

Reading

Choices

Complexities

And you do enjoy:

Good visuals

Being spoon-fed

Simple, click-based combat

but I've yet to see it backed up with actual good and engaging game-play in their games.

-wildflower-

But thats just it. You haven't seen the game in action. You haven't played it yet.

Don't you have any optimism at all for this industry that developers will learn from their mistakes?

No matter how good or bad it turns out I don't think you'd be happy unless it was a cookie cutter version of Fallout 1/2 - lets be honest.

Also I played the Witcher Demo and that seems like a pretty good game. At least it has voice acting.Timberwolf5578

You don't need voice acting in video games. I do like it when everything is voice acted but only if it's done by very good voice actors. Often the voice actors are doing such a horrible job, making it sound boring or plain horrible, I just end up reading all the text instead and then I quickly skip to the next sentence. While reading the text I try to make the acting sound better by playing it in my head. Pretty much like you would do if there was only text.

But sometimes I just hate voice acting. Using voice actors in RPGs can be very hard because there is loads of dialogue and choices, atleast if you play a good RPG. So, when everything is voice acted, there is usually less dialogue or less choices that you can make in the dialogue. That's the bad thing about voice acting in games. Very often the developers compensate by making some dialogue voice acted and some others not. In these cases they often voice act, atleast, the first few sentences of a character so you can get to know the voice of the character that is speaking. Then you'll have to use your imagination.

NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer was the last good game that did it this way. There was lots of voice acting and a lot of choices in the dialogue. You could, with a charismatic character, talk your way out of many situations. Or shift situations to your advantage. That's one of the big differences between RPGs and action RPGs.

But, like I said before, you don't need voice acting. If you got a little imagination, you could play all the scenes in your head. Pretty much like you were reading a book. If you think that's too hard or you don't like doing that, just go play a different game, that you do like.

Don't try to explain to people how wrong they are for liking something that you don't, that's just your opinion. The only thing you can do is give us logical arguments, so we can understand your point of view. For example, why do you think complexity hinders the gameplay? I think complexity gives you more choice or more things to do. If anything, it benefits to the gameplay. If you take a little time to figure out what choices you got or how something works, you'll find out that it's actually much simpler then you initially had thought. Games are always simple, you just need to figure out how their system works, which is different in each game. If you are not patient enough to do that, then maybe you are lazy?

[QUOTE="Timberwolf5578"]Also I played the Witcher Demo and that seems like a pretty good game. At least it has voice acting.BlackAlpha666

You don't need voice acting in video games.

Please. Of course you need it. It contributes wholey to the immersion and atmsophere of the game. Imagine if in your beloved Crysis you couldn't hear Psycho and could only read his lines.

The Witcher is an RPG that seems to handle voice acting quite nicely. It really gives the game some charm I think. Its not that its too hard to implement into an RPG - its more than the developers are too lazy to go the efforts of doing it now.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

[QUOTE="Timberwolf5578"]Also I played the Witcher Demo and that seems like a pretty good game. At least it has voice acting.biggest_loser

You don't need voice acting in video games.

Please. Of course you need it. It contributes wholey to the immersion and atmsophere of the game. Imagine if in your beloved Crysis you couldn't hear Psycho and could only read his lines.

The Witcher is an RPG that seems to handle voice acting quite nicely. It really gives the game some charm I think. Its not that its too hard to implement into an RPG - its more than the developers are too lazy to go the efforts of doing it now.

Crysis is not a RPG.

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

but I've yet to see it backed up with actual good and engaging game-play in their games.

biggest_loser

But thats just it. You haven't seen the game in action. You haven't played it yet.

Don't you have any optimism at all for this industry that developers will learn from their mistakes?

No matter how good or bad it turns out I don't think you'd be happy unless it was a cookie cutter version of Fallout 1/2 - lets be honest.

What mistakes? Just like wildflower said, Oblivion did very well. It sold many copies. So what are these mistakes that you are talking about? It sounds like Oblivion was a huge success. Their plan succeeded. Bethesda is a company. Companies want to make money. What do you think Bethesda will do next?

[QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

but I've yet to see it backed up with actual good and engaging game-play in their games.

biggest_loser

But thats just it. You haven't seen the game in action. You haven't played it yet.

Don't you have any optimism at all for this industry that developers will learn from their mistakes?

No matter how good or bad it turns out I don't think you'd be happy unless it was a cookie cutter version of Fallout 1/2 - lets be honest.

No, you're absolutely right, I am speculating. I freely admit that. Yet, each consecutive RPG Bethesda has produced has been more and more simplified. I have no reason to believe FO3 will be any different from their already established pattern and nothing I've read, previews, interviews with Todd Howard, etc., allays these fears. Who knows, maybe the game will be good but I have my, not completely unfounded, based on past precedent, reservations about that.

And, no, I'm not asking for a cookie-cutter version of Fallout 1 & 2 but I would like number 3 to at least retain some of what made those games great. Things like dialogue options and actual consequences and choices that mean something and, from the Bethesda games I've played, I've seen no reason to believe they can design these things.

Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I hope they have learned from their mistakes but what I, and I assume other Fallout fans consider their mistakes, have made their company a whole lot of money. I simply can't see them deviating too much from their established and extremely profitable designs.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="-wildflower-"]

but I've yet to see it backed up with actual good and engaging game-play in their games.

-wildflower-

But thats just it. You haven't seen the game in action. You haven't played it yet.

Don't you have any optimism at all for this industry that developers will learn from their mistakes?

No matter how good or bad it turns out I don't think you'd be happy unless it was a cookie cutter version of Fallout 1/2 - lets be honest.

No, you're absolutely right, I am speculating. I freely admit that. Yet, each consecutive RPG Bethesda has produced has been more and more simplified. I have no reason to believe FO3 will be any different from their already established pattern and nothing I've read, previews, interviews with Todd Howard, etc., allays these fears. Who knows, maybe the game will be good but I have my, not completely unfounded, based on past precedent, reservations about that.

And, no, I'm not asking for a cookie-cutter version of Fallout 1 & 2 but I would like number 3 to at least retain some of what made those games great. Things like dialogue options and actual consequences and choices that mean something and, from the Bethesda games I've played, I've seen no reason to believe they can design these things.

Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I hope they have learned from their mistakes but what I, and I assume other Fallout fans consider their mistakes, have made their company a whole lot of money. I simply can't see them deviating too much from their established and extremely profitable designs.

For your sake and mine, I hope so too

"I don't like to read"

"I like games where I don't have to think much"

The things people make threads about these days, I tell ya

There's a reason why games like the BGII, Fallout 2, and Planescape Torment are not made much these days. Because they only appeal to a niche market. Most of the general public finds them extremely boring, complex, and tedious.

Most of the general market is impatient, undereducated, and indifferant to the crap they get fed....
Grim_Wolf88

Education level has nothing to do with disliking boring games.

[QUOTE="Grim_Wolf88"]Most of the general market is impatient, undereducated, and indifferant to the crap they get fed....
Timberwolf5578

Education level has nothing to do with disliking boring games.

But it arguably has a lot to do with whether or not the individual finds them boring to begin with - boring is a subjective concept.