Review RPG Codex Review: Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear

[Lurker King]

To be honest playing "more or less the same game" is fine.

No, it's not. Please, devs. Don't listen to this.

 

[AwesomeButton]

If you don't like it, write your own review.

I did, while the drama was still on:
http://www.metacritic.com/user/AwesomeButton01

That one was hilarious. You said some good stuff about the game but still gave it a one. Also it was hilarious how you ignored that TotS and ToB are also linear but bashed SoD for it :D

You "review" (more of a rant) I give

There is a character limit in Metacritic, I can only bash so much in a review.
Yes, it is a rant. I decided that, given the standards of user reviews on metacritic, I can drop the pretense of academism which "serious" reviews go for.
The score on metacritic user reviews when you are one of hundreds kf reviewers isn't a really a score, I think it should be seen as a vote. The only scores I use are 0,1,9,10. Anything yellow would just confuse the reader. Let a hundred people vote with their scores and watch the average user review score for a real sensible average. At least that's my reasoning.

 

[Murk]

This isn't a review so much as it is an optimistic recap of the main thread in crpg general.

Shill/10, would not brofist for review but has FFT avatar so you get a "you're ok Del."

 

[Alex]

I haven't really been following this game/expansion, but reading this thread now made me think of the colossal waste going on in the gaming industry. You have this great engine with its huge collection of assets in IE. It already has a combat system better than most stuff out there, an entire pre-made ruleset, a giant collection of art assets for all types of monsters, items, characters, buildings, etc. So what's the point of companies like Obsidian developing their own engines/technologies/assets to produce similar type isometric games and running out of funds and having to cut content as with PoE, when they could just license IE from Bioware/D&D and use pre-made stuff to focus on their area of expertise (writing/quest design/C&C) and produce some gem of an isometric game? Is it just so they can say their game is 3D? Do people who buy those types of RPGs even care? Would the licensing costs be prohibitive? Makes no sense to me.

Yeah let's make the same fucking shit ever, forever. This constant reuse is part of why games today are banal, unimaginative shit.

There have been 6 games in this engine already. Enough is enough. Everything it can offer was already experienced well over a decade ago.

Actually, I think there is a whole lot more you could use the engine for. I mean, if you got some older D&D modules and started implementing them, making sure to include options for what players are likely to try if they were playing the module themselves, it certainly could yield a lot of decent, if not particularly good, games. The same is true of the gold box engine (and they actually did it with FRUA, if I understand things correctly).

The major problem with reusing BG's engine is that it is somewhat limited in how it can be expanded. Depending on how it is coded, it might be a nightmare to implement certain kinds of rules.

(...snip)
I daresay it would get old after the second game and you'd want a different setting, different systems (of the same quality), different mechanics (with the same reactivity). Why do you think we aren't working on AoD2? We want to give the player something different with each and every game, not feed him the same fucking thing. Our third 'full-scale' RPG will be as different from AoD and the CSG as the CSG is different from AoD.
(snip...)

I think your logic here is flawed. Just about any longtime table RPG group will play with the same game system, and the same setting, for years. Heck, they sometimes do it for decades. If a game's system isn't flawed, it should be able to endure through several games. And reusing the same setting isn't really a problem, since the player can just play other games for a while if they get sick of it.

I think it might be argued that if you recycle the basic idea behind a game, then yes, it will eventually get old. If we took the BG saga and began to add stuff that is pretty much more of the same, so that the game would effectively go on forever, then of course people would get bored of it. But that is neither the system's or the setting's fault. Going back to the P&P argument, suppose I am running a long mega-dungeon crawl. That is, the whole campaign is centered around making incursions into a large dungeon central to the setting. This kind of game can have a whole lot of variety to it if the GM is good at making puzzles, monsters, factions, maps and whatnot, but even so players will eventually get tired or burn out of it eventually. So, the group might play something else, of course, but they could also refocus the campaign. They might, for instance, refocus the game on maritime exploration. This could significantly change how the game plays. Logistics and voyage planning suddenly become more important. Combat might now focus on mass battles and ship maneuverability. Combat might also become more rare but also more high stakes, etc.

Of course, if you as a designer want to try something different, that is entirely your call to make. But I don't think it is fair to say that not doing this would bore your audience.

 

[Excidium II]

Alex the difference is that we have fewer videogames, one sequel/slam dunk is a lost opportunity to try something different. It takes years for one to be released unlike an adventure that you can go out and run for a few weeks using your favourite system/setting.

 

[Lhynn]

Why didn't Darth Roxor write the review?

because darth roxor has standards even with regard to shitgames

Arent you the dude that reviewed Realms of Arkania HD?

 

[Alex]

Excidium II Sure, but there is nothing wrong with not trying something new. I mean, if you are making a game and you want to try something new, some new idea you had, sure, go ahead. But you shouldn't be trying new stuff for the sake of it.

 

[Bubbles]

Why didn't Darth Roxor write the review?

because darth roxor has standards even with regard to shitgames

Arent you the dude that reviewed Realms of Arkania HD?

Still better than Pillars of Eternity.

 

[Excidium II]

Excidium II Sure, but there is nothing wrong with not trying something new. I mean, if you are making a game and you want to try something new, some new idea you had, sure, go ahead. But you shouldn't be trying new stuff for the sake of it.

I think you should. CRPGs have been in dire need of it since the genre has been around. Compare to the variety of systems, settings and approach you have among RPGs to the endless regurgitation of not-D&D we have with CRPGs.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm as much of an Infinity Engine fanboy as anybody, but I have problems with this idea that some people seem to have of the Infinity Engine as the One True Model for computer roleplaying. We're talking about a roleplaying model where a mage's fireball can destroy a group of kobolds but can never be used to break through a door, "because those are the rules". Is that really what we invented computer games for?

 

[Bubbles]

Excidium II Sure, but there is nothing wrong with not trying something new. I mean, if you are making a game and you want to try something new, some new idea you had, sure, go ahead. But you shouldn't be trying new stuff for the sake of it.

I think you should. CRPGs have been in dire need of it since the genre has been around. Compare to the variety of systems, settings and approach you have among RPGs to the endless regurgitation of not-D&D we have with CRPGs.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10176

 

[Excidium II]

 

[Excidium II]

I'm as much of an Infinity Engine fanboy as anybody, but I have problems with this idea that some people seem to have of the Infinity Engine as the One True Model for computer roleplaying. We're talking about a roleplaying model where a mage's fireball can destroy a group of kobolds but can never be used to break through a door, "because those are the rules". Is that really what we invented computer games for?

This is very pertinent because of the way Fireball works in the tabletop version of the rules. You have volume and expansion and shit then on a computer game with a processor to do calculations it's just xDy in an circle.

 

[Lhynn]

I'm as much of an Infinity Engine fanboy as anybody, but I have problems with this idea that some people seem to have of the Infinity Engine as the One True Model for computer roleplaying. We're talking about a roleplaying model where a mage's fireball can destroy a group of kobolds but can never be used to break through a door, "because those are the rules". Is that really what we invented computer games for?

Rampant industry widespread incompetence leaves you wanting for better times. Despite VDs retarded claims BG was competently made and it captured the spirit of D&D at the time perfectly, it needed to get that right and it did, so its natural that people want more of it. Especially over a decade after the fact, when the magic of DnD has seemingly been lost and people want it back.
Even as poorly written as SoD is, it still has part of that charm.

Excidium II you gotta understand that generally people will want more of what they like until you offer them something new. And theres the fact that making something new takes a lot of work. Besides, you talk as if RPGs was the only stagnant genre in the industry.

 

[Excidium II]

People are shit.

 

[Alex]

I'm as much of an Infinity Engine fanboy as anybody, but I have problems with this idea that some people seem to have of the Infinity Engine as the One True Model for computer roleplaying. We're talking about a roleplaying model where a mage's fireball can destroy a group of kobolds but can never be used to break through a door, "because those are the rules". Is that really what we invented computer games for?

It would be imbalanced to break doors with fireballs, because the thief would look bad.

Excidium II Sure, but there is nothing wrong with not trying something new. I mean, if you are making a game and you want to try something new, some new idea you had, sure, go ahead. But you shouldn't be trying new stuff for the sake of it.

I think you should. CRPGs have been in dire need of it since the genre has been around. Compare to the variety of systems, settings and approach you have among RPGs to the endless regurgitation of not-D&D we have with CRPGs.

All that trying new things just for the sake of being new would accomplish is make the people developing the game not care about it either. I see this idea a lot here in the Codex about settings, where people will complain about using "traditional fantasy" settings (whatever those are) and keep hoping that something different will be tried. I really can't see how we should expect better results simply for trying a different theme to the setting. In fact, most of the time I've seen people try something different with the game's setting, the result has been subpar.

Personally, I would love to see a whole lot of different things done in RPGs. I would love to see games handle dialog in a way that doesn't throw any gameplay out of the window, for instance. I would like to see RPGs that dealt with hirelings in a way similar to what AD&D outlined. Games with more reactivity and where my initiative is somewhat respected, where I don't feel like an errand boy for the NPCs. But I would like to see these ideas done right because I believe they are good ideas, not simply because they are new.

 

[Excidium II]

New might possibly be bad but same old is automatically shit.

 

[Trashos]

You'd know exactly what to expect long before a new game is released: classes, builds, spells, weapons, enemies, etc. The character system would have nothing new to offer, no joy of discovery, of figuring out how something works, no experimenting with builds, etc. Sure, it can still work if the writing is top notch but such things are very and exceed

I don't think I'd mind. Iterating on the same technology and releasing different games using the same technology has been happening both in RPGs and in other genres (FPS, "Adventure" games/Quests), and some of the best games in those genres have actually been made exactly with reused tech. I won't list non-rpg examples because I don't want to devolve this into an argument was game B better than game A.

Regarding RPGs - I guess you wouldn't say Divinity:OSII using an updated D:OS tech is a mistake? Or FO2 using the same engine as FO produced a worse RPG?

I am with Awesome Button here. I am grateful that FO2 exists, even if I wish that it were more coherent. It gave me a great time nevertheless, and it helped establishing the FO franchise as the legend that it is.

It makes sense too. On a sequel, you 've got the engine, experience and many assets already available, so you can focus on improving on everything to perfection. This is why I always hope that I get at least 2 great games on the same engine and general premise. A bigger, badder sequel can be quality if done right.

Even with some flaws, FO2, Gothic 2, and (to a lesser extent) BG2 followed on the above rule and gave me great products.

What I am trying to say is: VD, shut up, make AOD2, and take my money.
(you are going to take my money with your planned projects anyway, but you know what I mean)

 

[Alex]

New might possibly be bad but same old is automatically shit.

I think this philosophy is one of the reasons why most new games aren't worth even reading about.

 

[Excidium II]

Even with some flaws, FO2, Gothic 2, and (to a lesser extent) BG2 followed on the above rule and gave me great products.

There's a difference between a direct sequel with immediate development following the original and 5 + 1 after 15 years and stilll asking for more.

 

[Excidium II]

New might possibly be bad but same old is automatically shit.

I think this philosophy is one of the reasons why most new games aren't worth even reading about.

No it's because they are made by people who suck at games for people who suck at games.

 

[Lhynn]

Meh, originality is overrated.

 

[Excidium II]

Fuck this generation of nostalgiafags.

 

[Lhynn]

Fuck this generation of nostalgiafags.

No, fuck your unrealistic expectations, i want something well done, you want something perfectly done AND original.

 

[Alex]

Sorry Ex, I will take a well made game over an innovative one any day.