How would you rate Pillars of Eternity?

[Athelas]

The other highlight of the writing is the companion characters. It's the best roster Obsidian has done imo.

The inventory is a clusterfuck. Sometimes I would pick something up as one character and it would automatically get sent to another characters pack. Sometimes it would get sent to the stash.

What do you mean? In the looting window you can choose where the loot goes to by clicking one of the mini-portraits or the stash icon.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I'd argue that the companions are actually one of the weakest parts of the game, although there is a lot of reactivity around what you decide to do with them.

I much preferred the companions in KOTOR 2, MotB and Fallout New Vegas.

 

[AN4RCHID]

The inventory is a clusterfuck. Sometimes I would pick something up as one character and it would automatically get sent to another characters pack. Sometimes it would get sent to the stash.

What do you mean? In the looting window you can choose where the loot goes to by clicking one of the mini-portraits or the stash icon.

Right, but if that character's inventory is full, or say it has two slots open and you're picking up three items, the extra stuff will be sent somewhere else without asking the player. Also the game seems to switch back and forth between having stash highlighted by default when the whole party is selected, and giving the item to the specific character who walks over to loot.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Congratulations! You win the whiner of the year award!



You can leave now.

No, you're clearly a subhuman without any taste or attention to detail. Kill yourself.

BG combat is shit, with no aimed shots, no location-dependent critical hits, no attack modes just watching helplessly your warrior swings eir weapon in general direction of the target, oh you can also fire self-guided arrows through other people including your party members, or you can use a thief - with shitty stealth implementation that works like an invisibility spell and allows you to prance in front of your enemies in broad daylight without being seen, or use shitty implementation of AD&D spells disbalanced by lack of material components with absolutely broken spells like Mirror Image which makes you invulnerable to area damage spells but you can still get poisoned or paralysed from special weapons effect despite that its mirror image hit not you. Also, mirror images get your armour AC bonus when they should get revealed as false when hit. It's the most broken spell ever and most common at the same time.
You can't even choose between fighting offensively or defensively. There's HP bloat, characters learn to be better at attacking but not better at avoiding attacks, etc. etc. etc.

A lot has changed on the Codex in recent years, including the attitude to IE games.

I blame the progressing decline. Decliners of the past fall under illusion that they were in incliners just because decline has progressed.

 

[Mareus]

Critiquing a video game doesn't make you a "whiner," retard. You don't have to love it just because it has some good aspects and is pretty.

Oh shut up you muppet. You haven't even read my posts or else you wouldn't be spewing such nonsense. What I am talking about is idiots who make stuff up and whine how the games sucks. I have no problem with critiquing video games as long as you don't make stuff up in the process. Similar as what you are trying to do here, by creating a strawman of my position on critiquing games.

 

[Ninjerk]

The inventory is a clusterfuck. Sometimes I would pick something up as one character and it would automatically get sent to another characters pack. Sometimes it would get sent to the stash.

What do you mean? In the looting window you can choose where the loot goes to by clicking one of the mini-portraits or the stash icon.

Right, but if that character's inventory is full, or say it has two slots open and you're picking up three items, the extra stuff will be sent somewhere else without asking the player. Also the game seems to switch back and forth between having stash highlighted by default when the whole party is selected, and giving the item to the specific character who walks over to loot.

Honestly, I didn't understand the loot interface the first couple times I saw it on account of how unconventional it is, but I didn't have this kind of trouble with it at all.

Fair praise regarding the dialogue stuff. There's a lot of good writing in pieces in dialogues and side quests.

What exactly did you like about camping supplies?

Going to have to go with Athelas here, and even if you somehow removed Kreia from TSL the supporting cast is still better IMO (not to say this one is all bad, but TSL is just that much better).

What the FUCK stood out to you about Temple of Skaen? I personally thought the introduction to the quest surrounding it was great and the reveal was even better, but the dungeon itself, you say?

 

[Owlish]

You haven't even read my posts

No shit. You're a whiny mess.

Stop behaving like an hysterical bitch and let's discuss this roleplaying video game like grown men.

 

[Mareus]

Congratulations! You win the whiner of the year award!



You can leave now.

No, you're clearly a subhuman without any taste or attention to detail. Kill yourself.

BG combat is shit, with no aimed shots, no location-dependent critical hits, no attack modes just watching helplessly your warrior swings eir weapon in general direction of the target, oh you can also fire self-guided arrows through other people including your party members, or you can use a thief - with shitty stealth implementation that works like an invisibility spell and allows you to prance in front of your enemies in broad daylight without being seen, or use shitty implementation of AD&D spells disbalanced by lack of material components with absolutely broken spells like Mirror Image which makes you invulnerable to area damage spells but you can still get poisoned or paralysed from special weapons effect despite that its mirror image hit not you. Also, mirror images get your armour AC bonus when they should get revealed as false when hit. It's the most broken spell ever and most common at the same time.
You can't even choose between fighting offensively or defensively. There's HP bloat, characters learn to be better at attacking but not better at avoiding attacks, etc. etc. etc.

With this kind of analysis I can make any game look like shit. Its easy when you focus only on bad things that could have been done better (good stuff that btw no game of such complexity and length has ever incorporated as you describe) and ignore all the good stuff. Its called cherry picking. Don't believe me? Look how I turn Fallout into shit:
Fallout combat is shit. All you do is stand in the line of fire and take damage. There is no crouch, no climbing on roofs, no cover mechanic, and unarmored opponents can survive a shotgun blast to the head from a few inches of distance. Animations look horrible, the enemy turns take way too long and the combat often freezes leaving you with having to repeat the whole process. Add to that save corruptions, bla.. bla...bla... I could write ten pages what could be improved. See what I did there? I can do it with any game, and its not difficult when you cherry pick and focus only on things that are not there or could be done better or are in fact not so good.

If you want to argue that BG is shit, find me a game of such length, complexity, with such good story, interesting characters, party banter, romances, fantastic and humongous world, that has so many classes, so many races, so many different types of magic, class combinations, lore, great combat as you describe, great replayability, looks as good, sounds as good, has good writing, is as epic, etc..

Now I can anticipate PST. But all the complaints you had about BG combat apply to PST as well and you can add to that all the things that BG has and PST doesn't. So when you focus only on the negative stuff, by your logic PST is shit.

That is why I call you whiners. You never examine the game for what it is, but for what it isn't. Just like a whiny bitch.

 

[Mareus]

You haven't even read my posts

No shit. You're a whiny mess.

Stop behaving like an hysterical bitch and let's discuss this roleplaying video game like grown men.

Sure, when you make a valid point that I can examine critically. So far all you posted is shit.

 

[Owlish]

You haven't even read my posts

No shit. You're a whiny mess.

Stop behaving like an hysterical bitch and let's discuss this roleplaying video game like grown men.

Sure, when you make a valid point that I can examine critically. So far all you posted is shit.

Post something other than whiny spiels and then maybe we can discuss the video game like real men. I bet you played an elf, didn't you? lil bitch

 

[AN4RCHID]

Honestly, I didn't understand the loot interface the first couple times I saw it on account of how unconventional it is, but I didn't have this kind of trouble with it at all.

The main source of my frustration with the inventory isn't that things get sent to different places. That's just something that compounded my main problem with it, which is that it's a massive pile of mostly junk items that is a pain in the ass to sort through. Even Skyrim didn't have this level of sifting through garbage. In a game where character inventories are separated and limited, I would be forced to compare and assign items to characters as I pick them up, but in PoE I pick everything up and throw it on the garbage heap. Then when I want to compare my party's current gear with the dungeon loot I picked up, I'm comparing it against hundreds of marginally different items and my brain just glazes over with an inability to care.

What exactly did you like about camping supplies?

I thought it struck a good balance between limiting per-rest resources and allowing extending dungeon crawling sessions. Camping supplies aren't so rare that I would run back to inns to avoid using them, but there valuable enough that I didn't want to use them unless it was really necessary. I also like the fact that because inns give semi-permanent stat bonuses, you have a pressure to go as long as possible without camping.

Going to have to go with Athelas here, and even if you somehow removed Kreia from TSL the supporting cast is still better IMO (not to say this one is all bad, but TSL is just that much better).

Down to preference here, but I liked how all the companions stories revolved around some central themes about faith and self-determinism, and I was impressed with the amount of dialogue and party banter from all of them. I like them way more than the New Vegas companion roster anyway.

What the FUCK stood out to you about Temple of Skaen? I personally thought the introduction to the quest surrounding it was great and the reveal was even better, but the dungeon itself, you say?

There are multiple entrances, multiple routes and approaches, side areas, traps and locks everywhere, the art direction is fantastic, there's some fun lore/backstory stuff, and the combat encounters are all of the 'group of humans of various classes' variety which are my favorite. And the plot with the girl was edgy as fuck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it was one of my favorite parts of the game.

 

[Starwars]

Personally, I loved the game. I'd call it a "modern classic" without hestitation, a real success. However, there are still plenty of problems so if 10 would mean a perfect score then... no. I'd give it an 8 or 9. Just like Arcanum is a fucking shitty game in many ways but is undeniably awesome and is also a classic.

It's kinda funny I think that people bring up Kreia whenever there's a great character debate going on. She *is* a good character, and especially welcome in the Star Wars universe. But she also commits the number one companion cardinal sin, which is that A) she's your bitchy tutor that you can't get rid of because of PLOT and B) most of the time you can't even talk back to her because of PLOT. It's just a big no-no.

MotB is much better in that regard. A storyfag game, where the companions are undoubtedly *very* important for the overall story (Safiya and Kaelyn especially) but they're not forced on you and you can talk back to them, trick them, or even kill them if you wish.

I'd rate PoE's companion a bit below in MotB but I think they're a pretty good bunch. And they're not really meant to be in the spotlight as much. Would say that I definitely prefer them to KOTOR2's overall.

 

[Prime Junta]

Straight non-edgy answer?

I'm not sure if this is simply a very good game or a bona fide genre-defining classic. It's too early to tell. A lot depends on the upcoming patches and eventual expansions and sequels. For example, if they'll buff selected resistances to near-immunities, encounters would get a lot more interesting as (blind + DD) or (prone + DD) wouldn't be the standard tactic that'll work against anything anymore. (How do you blind an ooze, anyway?)

OTOH they could easily screw it up in the patches as well by adjusting everything into even more sameness.

It says something that "is it better than BG2?" is even worth discussing though. Exactly which other games have prompted that particular comparison?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Congratulations! You win the whiner of the year award!



You can leave now.

No, you're clearly a subhuman without any taste or attention to detail. Kill yourself.

BG combat is shit, with no aimed shots, no location-dependent critical hits, no attack modes just watching helplessly your warrior swings eir weapon in general direction of the target, oh you can also fire self-guided arrows through other people including your party members, or you can use a thief - with shitty stealth implementation that works like an invisibility spell and allows you to prance in front of your enemies in broad daylight without being seen, or use shitty implementation of AD&D spells disbalanced by lack of material components with absolutely broken spells like Mirror Image which makes you invulnerable to area damage spells but you can still get poisoned or paralysed from special weapons effect despite that its mirror image hit not you. Also, mirror images get your armour AC bonus when they should get revealed as false when hit. It's the most broken spell ever and most common at the same time.
You can't even choose between fighting offensively or defensively. There's HP bloat, characters learn to be better at attacking but not better at avoiding attacks, etc. etc. etc.

With this kind of analysis I can make any game look like shit. Its easy when you focus only on bad things that could have been done better (good stuff that btw no game of such complexity and length has ever incorporated as you describe) and ignore all the good stuff. Its called cherry picking. Don't believe me? Look how I turn Fallout into shit:
Fallout combat is shit. All you do is stand in the line of fire and take damage. There is no crouch, no climbing on roofs, no cover mechanic, and unarmored opponents can survive a shotgun blast to the head from a few inches of distance. Animations look horrible, the enemy turns take way too long and the combat often freezes leaving you with having to repeat the whole process. Add to that save corruptions, bla.. bla...bla... I could write ten pages what could be improved. See what I did there? I can do it with any game, and its not difficult when you cherry pick and focus only on things that are not there or could be done better or are in fact not so good.

This isn't cherry picking. It's pretty serious flaws of Fallout's combat and some of them could have been avoided if Fallout would remain a GURPS game or at least if they'd think about making a combat system that somewhat resembles reality, not gets in that weird corner where it mixes gamism with simulationism at proportions that make both aspects bad. I remember the mix of HP bloat and sudden death critical hits especially infuriating.
Animations looked very good in 1997, though.

 

[Reapa]

muh fighter in bg2 didn't have no awesome button

also there's a difference between abilities and activated abilities. educate yourself you fool!

because I had a huge issue with spamming rest in previous games

you don't say you had an issue with stuff you yourself were doing yeah i guess that was a serious problem of the game itself it simply had to be changed it makes much more sense for the devs to tell you how often you can rest before you need to make a trip back to the village let's call that difficulty parameter because the amount of walks to the village is in the end what makes combat challenging

 

[Mareus]

Congratulations! You win the whiner of the year award!



You can leave now.

No, you're clearly a subhuman without any taste or attention to detail. Kill yourself.

BG combat is shit, with no aimed shots, no location-dependent critical hits, no attack modes just watching helplessly your warrior swings eir weapon in general direction of the target, oh you can also fire self-guided arrows through other people including your party members, or you can use a thief - with shitty stealth implementation that works like an invisibility spell and allows you to prance in front of your enemies in broad daylight without being seen, or use shitty implementation of AD&D spells disbalanced by lack of material components with absolutely broken spells like Mirror Image which makes you invulnerable to area damage spells but you can still get poisoned or paralysed from special weapons effect despite that its mirror image hit not you. Also, mirror images get your armour AC bonus when they should get revealed as false when hit. It's the most broken spell ever and most common at the same time.
You can't even choose between fighting offensively or defensively. There's HP bloat, characters learn to be better at attacking but not better at avoiding attacks, etc. etc. etc.

With this kind of analysis I can make any game look like shit. Its easy when you focus only on bad things that could have been done better (good stuff that btw no game of such complexity and length has ever incorporated as you describe) and ignore all the good stuff. Its called cherry picking. Don't believe me? Look how I turn Fallout into shit:
Fallout combat is shit. All you do is stand in the line of fire and take damage. There is no crouch, no climbing on roofs, no cover mechanic, and unarmored opponents can survive a shotgun blast to the head from a few inches of distance. Animations look horrible, the enemy turns take way too long and the combat often freezes leaving you with having to repeat the whole process. Add to that save corruptions, bla.. bla...bla... I could write ten pages what could be improved. See what I did there? I can do it with any game, and its not difficult when you cherry pick and focus only on things that are not there or could be done better or are in fact not so good.

This isn't cherry picking. It's pretty serious flaws of Fallout's combat and some of them could have been avoided if Fallout would remain a GURPS game or at least if they'd think about making a combat system that somewhat resembles reality, not gets in that weird corner where it mixes gamism with simulationism at proportions that make both aspects bad. I remember the mix of HP bloat and sudden death critical hits especially infuriating.
Animations looked very good in 1997, though.

You miss the point of what I was saying and it is cherry picking, because as I said you intentionally ignore the things that BG does good and what makes it a true classic, while at the same time focusing only on things that the game doesn't do or could do better in some fantasy world where artists can build any game they desire without financial limitations. I mean, there is probably around 30 things that BG does better than PST or any game out there, so if I focused only on those things while completely ignoring what PST does good and better than BG, I could make an argument that BG is 30 times better than PST and that PST sucks. But unlike you, I realize that these cherry picking type of arguments are very similar to arguments you hear from a whiny wife: "You are a horrible husband. You are never home, you don't spend enough time with me, you forgot Valentine day last time, you don't love me!", while ignoring that the guy works 12 hours a day for her so she can stay at home, is giving her more time than he gives to himself or his friends, has bought her a Valentine gift every single year for 20 years, and has said million times he loves her." -> ergo you are whiny bitch.

PS. I am still waiting for an example of the game of such length, complexity, with such good story, interesting characters, as many playable characters, with party banter, romances, fantastic and humongous world, that has so many classes, so many races, so many different types of magic, class combinations, lore, great combat as you described, great replayability, looks as good, sounds as good, has good writing, is as epic, has multiple endings, has different ending stories for each character you meet in the game, etc..

 

[Phage]

Please make the votes public so I can see who was stupid enough to rate it a 9 or a 10.

 

[Mareus]

Please make the votes public so I can see who was stupid enough to rate it a 9 or a 10.

I gave it 10/10 based on the description: A modern classic, not that I think the game is perfect. On a more objective and standardized scale I would give it 8/10. You have a problem with that?

 

[Phage]

Please make the votes public so I can see who was stupid enough to rate it a 9 or a 10.

I gave it 10/10 based on the description: A modern classic, not that I think the game is perfect. On a more objective and standardized scale I would give it 8/10. You have a problem with that?

Yeah. I do.

 

[Darth Roxor]

10/10 it's okay

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Straight non-edgy answer?

I'm not sure if this is simply a very good game or a bona fide genre-defining classic. It's too early to tell. A lot depends on the upcoming patches and eventual expansions and sequels. For example, if they'll buff selected resistances to near-immunities, encounters would get a lot more interesting as (blind + DD) or (prone + DD) wouldn't be the standard tactic that'll work against anything anymore. (How do you blind an ooze, anyway?)

OTOH they could easily screw it up in the patches as well by adjusting everything into even more sameness.

Yeah, many people consider absolute (or near absolute) immunities to be crude, antiquated design that should stay in the past but they served a purpose, they forced you to change tactics depending on the enemy you face which in turn made encounters feel differently. When I can slicken Drakes, charm ghosts, terrify zombies and knock down Dragons it cheapens those encounters and makes overall gameplay repetitive.

One other big flaw for me is itemization, they built a solid fondation with a great amount of options available (that also plays into customization which I think is the game's biggest strength) and ruined it with the combination of all-powerful crafting system and absolutely terrible unique/legendary/handplaced items.

It says something that "is it better than BG2?" is even worth discussing though. Exactly which other games have prompted that particular comparison?

But it isn't, not by people who really like BG2 and hold it in high esteem which is what counts really. I mean for every genre classic you'll still have plenty of people that think it ranges from shit to "good for what it is", them thinking the latest spiritual successor/sequel/whatever surpasses the original game doesn't really say much. Codex recent #1 for example-PST is still considered by a number of people to be a shitty adventure/novel/JRPG so if (hypothetically speaking) they considered TToN to be a better game because it has better combat system (yay turn-based) and encounters it wouldn't really hold that much weight because those people don't care for original's main strengths by which the spiritual successor/sequel should be judged upon.

 

[Ivan]

Finished. Loved it

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

You miss the point of what I was saying and it is cherry picking, because as I said you intentionally ignore the things that BG does good and what makes it a true classic, while at the same time focusing only on things that the game doesn't do or could do better in some fantasy world where artists can build any game they desire without financial limitations.

You're assuming it's financial limitations, not limitations of designers themselves.
For example from what I understand ToEE is one of the best implementations of D&D on PC, yet still, despite lots of writing and choices they managed to make a game that is pretty uninspiring. Were money the problem?

In Arcanum they could make a giant world but combat mechanics had horrible flaws. Were money the problem? And why build such a giant world in first place, where half of this world is available only in late part of the game?

In Fallout they did what they did. Was money at fault or maybe loss of GURPS revealed that devs simply aren't good at designing combat systems?

Omega Syndrome had a nice game "locked" behind a boring dungeon full of worms, had forced iron man when game wasn't balanced towards iron man, author used this: http://i.imgur.com/Qa5Xs.png as a death screen.
Was it caused by lack of money?

No. Author failure is the main reason why we can't have good things.

I mean, there is probably around 30 things that BG does better than PST or any game out there, so if I focused only on those things while completely ignoring what PST does good and better than BG, I could make an argument that BG is 30 times better than PST and that PST sucks. But unlike you, I realize that these cherry picking type of arguments are very similar to arguments you hear from a whiny wife:

No, stop lying.

I started playing BG soon after playing Fallout, Fallout 2 and Ultima VII. Fallout 1 offered stat-driven dialogues and multiple quest solutions, non-linearity and freedom of movement. Fallout 2 offered it in a giant world. And combat was somewhat interesting due to critical hit tables and death animations, despite being shit. Also, it sophisticated character development system.

Then BG1 comes and suddenly pretends that Fallout 1 and 2 didn't exist.

Comparison to PST is wrong because PST has something special to offer to compensate shit combat (writing, characters, descriptions, character development, stat-checks, etc.).
BG1 doesn't have anything special to offer beyond music, graphics and sound. It's based on a bad system which it badly implements, has mostly shitty dungeons with exception of Durlag's tower, it's under-detailed, character development system is pathetic (despite that there were AD&D expansions and even rules in rulebooks that could bring it up to level of Fallout), spells are badly implemented.

You're a moron and you have no taste.

 

[Mareus]

You miss the point of what I was saying and it is cherry picking, because as I said you intentionally ignore the things that BG does good and what makes it a true classic, while at the same time focusing only on things that the game doesn't do or could do better in some fantasy world where artists can build any game they desire without financial limitations.

You're assuming it's financial limitations, not limitations of designers themselves. For example from what I understand ToEE is one of the best implementations of D&D on PC, yet still, despite lots of writing and choices they managed to make a game that is pretty uninspiring. Were money the problem?

Yes, definitely. How do you think the game was financed? By a fairy living in Tim Cain's ass, or by a publisher who gave the developer certain amount of money and time to do the game, and then since they are the ones financing the game imposing stupid shit on the game that Tim Cain would never agree to if he was independent. I mean, if you don't believe me, take it from the Tim Cain himself. He did an interview with Matt Chat, talking about how the publisher butchered certain ideas and parts of the game. That is without going into the whole "you have 18 months to finish the game, or else..." So, if you think that money does not play a huge roll, I don't know what to tell you. https://youtu.be/m4XVW6qcuzM?t=6m13s

In Arcanum they could make a giant world but combat mechanics had horrible flaws. Were money the problem? And why build such a giant world in first place, where half of this world is available only in late part of the game?

Do you understand simple concepts such as budget, time within which the game needs to be released, man-hours, etc? I mean, if you have a limited amount of people, money and time, each feature that you put into the game takes away from that limited pool of resources. As Tim Cain himself said it: "They (our games) were buggy, and I think there were two big reason why that was so. First, we tried putting a lot of features into these games. We really needed to learn how to edit, because we would spend a lot of man-hours putting a feature into a game that hardly any of the players would ultimately care about. For example, Arcanum had newspapers that reported on major incidents that were caused by the player, but I don't remember a single review mentioning that. We spent a lot of time getting that working, and those hours could have spent balancing real-time combat, or fixing the multiplayer code.

Second, we kept our team sizes small, both for budget and for management purposes. This meant we had less total man-hours to work with, and all of the late nights and weekends couldn't make up for the fact that we only had about a dozen people working on the Arcanum and Temple projects. Looking back, I am amazed our games were as feature-rich as they were, but I am not surprised they were as buggy as they were. We should have made some serious feature cuts early in their development."

So he is talking about struggling with the budget and a small team to make these games. Obviously, if he had limitless amount of money to work with, he could have invested more time and hired more people to make the game less buggy and with a more polished combat.

Money is always an issue, because its a limited resource. If you don't think so, you are wrong. Period. I mean, even the reason why Troika was closed was because they could not get any more money from the publishers for their new projects. And the reason why they couldn't get money is because the publishers were more interested in supporting big selling titles -> which translates into.... are you ready?....yeah FUCKING MONEY! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ka-ching!

In Fallout they did what they did. Was money at fault or maybe loss of GURPS revealed that devs simply aren't good at designing combat systems?

People are talking about GURPS like it would have made a huge difference for the Fallout games combat wise. It wouldn't. At least not about the complaints that I made. This is because of the way GURPS was designed into the game. It was just a module attached to the game with rules that could be edited. This explains why Tim Cain was able to save the game from being scrapped after losing the GURPS licence. All he needed to do was edit the ruleset and thus SPECIAL was born. Which means that the fundemental aspects of combat were hard coded and having GURPS would not change the fact that there is no crouch, no climbing on roofs, no cover mechanic, that unarmored opponents can survive a shotgun blast to the head from a few inches of distance. That animations look horrible, the enemy turns take way too long and the combat often freezes leaving you with having to repeat the whole process, save corruptions, etc.

Oh and if Tim Cain had a fairy in his ass that could cough up a few million dollars, legal wrangling involved would have probably be much smoother and you would end up with GURPS in Fallout.

Or maybe they could hire you with your "brilliant" understanding of how the industry works and then all of their man-hours, small team, budget balancing and feature cutting wouldn't be a problem.

Omega Syndrome had a nice game "locked" behind a boring dungeon full of worms, had forced iron man when game wasn't balanced towards iron man, author used this: http://i.imgur.com/Qa5Xs.png as a death screen.
Was it caused by lack of money?

No. Author failure is the main reason why we can't have good things.

I don't know anything about that game, so I won't comment.

I mean, there is probably around 30 things that BG does better than PST or any game out there, so if I focused only on those things while completely ignoring what PST does good and better than BG, I could make an argument that BG is 30 times better than PST and that PST sucks. But unlike you, I realize that these cherry picking type of arguments are very similar to arguments you hear from a whiny wife:

No, stop lying.

I started playing BG soon after playing Fallout, Fallout 2 and Ultima VII. Fallout 1 offered stat-driven dialogues and multiple quest solutions, non-linearity and freedom of movement. Fallout 2 offered it in a giant world. And combat was somewhat interesting due to critical hit tables and death animations, despite being shit. Also, it sophisticated character development system.

But that is not how it works, remember? You need to ignore all the good stuff and focus only on the bad. I mean, that is what you were doing with BG. Be consistent to your own criteria, man! You don't get to start talking about all the cool features Fallout has. I mean, if you are going to take against BG its inability to do aimed shots, I want to take from Fallout the inability to control party members. Lets just focus on the negatives. Lets talk about about the bugs, lets talk about save corruptions, no terrain elevation. Lets talk about the inability of your character to perform some basic things, like I don't know... like swimming or climbing, or not having a cover mechanic. That's how you examine BG, so why can't I use the same logic on Fallout?

Then BG1 comes and suddenly pretends that Fallout 1 and 2 didn't exist.

No, its not that it pretended Fallout 1 and 2 didn't exist. Its that they wanted to improve certain things like party based combat, size, scope, number of playable characters, creating a game D&D ruleset for which they needed to make a completely new engine, and since we live in a real world and not some fairy land with limitless resources they needed to cut certain ideas out to make the other stuff work as they wanted. And I agree with you btw that Fallout 1 and 2 is better than BG1 alone. However, to say that the whole BG trilogy therefore sucks is retarded beyond belief. Especially due to your whiny approach in justifying why it sucks. "It doesn't have this and it doesn't have that... " - Yeah, well Fallout doesn't have this and it doesn't have that. It doesn't mean it sucks.

Comparison to PST is wrong because PST has something special to offer to compensate shit combat (writing, characters, descriptions, character development, stat-checks, etc.).

Again, that is not how your critiquing works. Focus on the stuff that PST doesn't have. Such as romance options, character banter that is on the same level as it is in BG, humor, it doesn't have as developed combat, nor as developed character creation, or how Nameless one can't equip any armor, nor do the characters change their appearance when equipping new armor. It doesn't have the size and scope of BG trilogy and it doesn't have all the classes, oh and it doesn't have aimed shots, etc. Lets focus on the bad stuff. Ignore the good.

PS. BG had good writing, good characters with even great character development in BG2. PST had better writing, but you can have good->better without having good->everything else is total shit. Another concept that seems completely unfamiliar to those of you who can't do basic logic.

BG1 doesn't have anything special to offer beyond music, graphics and sound.

Why are you stuck on BG1 when it is just the first part of the whole saga and to get a complete experience you must play the whole trilogy? Its not like BG1 is a completely different game from BG2 and Throne of Bhaal and it fits in almost seamlessly within the whole trilogy. Could it be that you are attempting to cherry pick again, pointing out the worst examples, just so you would have a leg to stand on?

You're a moron and you have no taste.

Well, if being consistent and applying critical thinking to examining games these days qualifies one for being a moron with a bad taste, then I am proud of it. Btw, I love Fallout 1 and 2, PST, Arcanum, Vampire the Masquarade: Bloodlines, MotB, Ultima VII, and yes I love BG trilogy among other games. Yeah.. horrible taste in games, because I like something that you yourself do not like (for completely bad reasons btw). And again... if you personally don't like BG, I am fine with that. Tastes differ. But to say BG objectively sucks because of what it isn't and ignore all the stuff that it is, well.. that is just retarded imo.

 

[dieu]

If you love "BGT" so much why don't you just marry it