It's a game that is in the 90%+ ranged for sure. It's not quite perfect simply because it's a little too scattershot and random when going from area to area. Planescape is far closer to "perfect" in that sense, since there are times when Baldur's Gate 2 does drift aimlessly, if pleasantly so. CRPGs that are perfect are a tougher nut to crack. Almost all of them have distinct flaws in one or more areas, be it combat , UI, story, balance, etc. It's really hard for me to say that any of them are perfect. There is just generally too much going on. I don't think Dark Souls is the best game of all-time, but it's still closer to perfect than games I like more. Even all-time great CRPGs like Might and Magic VI, Ultima VII, and any number of Wizardry games have significant and glaring flaws, even if they don't prevent the game from being a classic.
As I mentioned earlier, the SNES, for whatever reason, had the most games that even get into this territory. Super Mario World, A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy III. The Zelda series specifically flirts with this rarefied air more than any other. A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker all have a legit claim.
It's not quite perfect simply because it's a little too scattershot and random when going from area to area.
It is interesting that you feel that way about BG but not Dark Souls 2. Going from area to area in that game I got the very definite feeling that different areas were developed by different teams as balance and consistency were clearly off, not to mention someone's VERY confused sense of geography.
Oh, I actually DO feel that way about Dark Souls 2. It's very similar and comparable to Baldur's Gate 2 in that way. In many ways they are fundamentally better games than their predecessors, but they are also less "perfect", which is what we're talking about. But yeah, I was referring only to the original Dark Souls.
I have to assume that 'Young' in this context means 'New to the game', not teenage (or younger). Some of the best and most fun people I know are middle age.
If you give something very good/addicting to a teenager, it could be a very good game, a sport but also a drug like a cigarette, there is a higher chance this teenager will become addicted / fall in love with it.
This is because the brain isn't fully grown until you are 20-25 years old.
And this is the reason why we often tell children to learn and study while they are young because it is slightly easier. A baby can learn multiple languages without even trying while a 40 years old will struggle a bit more. It's far from difficult / impossible, only slightly harder.
If a 26 years old guy starts to smoke today, he will have an easier time to stop 4 years later than someone who started at the age of 14 and who wanted to stop when he is 18 years old.
These two examples are backed up with a lot of data, but there are more. Someone who starts to play piano at the age of 6 has an advantage over someone who starts at the age of 37. It's not impossible for the older guy to become better than the child, far from it, once again it will just be slightly harder.
And now back with the topic, I don't think there is any data to prove my point but my opinion is that it follows the same pattern:
-Pillars of Eternity will never be as well received as Baldur's Gate because the community is older. -Star Wars 7 isn't considered to be as good as the previous movies by a large part of the fanbase while I'm sure most of the 6-14 years think it was excellent and in ten years, these same people will think the episodes 7-9 are the best. -Baldur's Gate 3 will never be as good as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 because the community expects too much and the nostalgia is too strong.
So to my mind, a perfect game is a great game, like Baldur's Gate, The Legend of Zelda : Ocarina of Time and many, many many other. But you also need that a fair part of the player base is young enough to grow with the game, becoming fascinated in the process.
-Star Wars 7 isn't considered to be as good as the previous movies by a large part of the fanbase while I'm sure most of the 6-14 years think it was excellent and in ten years, these same people will think the episodes 7-9 are the best.
I guess my theory about my inner 9-year old kid is accurate then, because I freaking love it. But I might be also that I'm not overly attached to either old and new trilogy.
-Pillars of Eternity will never be as well received as Baldur's Gate because the community is older.
I think you are seeing a correlation where there is none. Pillars was not as widely received for a number of reasons. 1) Baldur's gate came first and everyone who played it back then WANT it to be the best, so they are going to find fault with anything that comes after 2) The gaming community at large has changed in the last 15 years and so have their interests and tastes (for better or worse). 3) I am not sure that, from a technical standpoint the game is mechanically superior to BG. While it does have updated graphics, I didn't feel that the level progression system or the combat system had that much over BG and the story, while engaging wasn't world beating.
-Star Wars 7 isn't considered to be as good as the previous movies by a large part of the fanbase while I'm sure most of the 6-14 years think it was excellent and in ten years, these same people will think the episodes 7-9 are the best.
Again, I think you are finding correlation where there may not be one. Star Wars 7 was not a superior movie to "Empire" or even "A New Hope", not because of nostalgia but for the simple reason that it didn't break any new ground the way those other two did. Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with the strategy that they used to bring back the fan base after the mistakes that were 1-3, the simple fact is that when "A New Hope" came out it was revolutionary and no one had seen anything like it. Then when "Empire" came out that raised the bar in ways that again no one had ever seen. While "TFA" was very close to the original, it wasn't 'Original' enough to surpass the source material.
-Baldur's Gate 3 will never be as good as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 because the community expects too much and the nostalgia is too strong.
I don't think you can say that. While it is true that "In some minds" you can't surpass 'The king', that in no way means that across all consumers that is the case. BG3, depending on how it is developed and marketed could surpass the originals in sales and/or technical capabilities. We won't know until we see it. And again, the community has changed significantly since BG1 was released. What sells and even what consumers want have changed. If the game only appeals to consumers of the original, it will probably not out-sell the original. If it appeals to current demographics and is marketed correctly, who knows what heights it could achieve.
But in all three cases, the relative age of the consumer or their relative adaptability of their brains only plays in from the perspective that if they were brought up on computer games, they are more likely to adapt to more games. But just because you are young doesn't mean that you (as a consumer) will make the game superior.
There were mentioned Pillars of Eternity, Baldur's gate, Dark Souls, Legend of Zelda, Star Wars... What binds them is really well designed, written and developed game world. When I start to think about it, it's immense process and brainwork. When creating the game world should you start from whole idea and then going into details or inverse ?
Tolkien, just to pick a name at random actually started with the relative languages and then built a world for them to inhabit. My understanding is that Douglas Adams was more stream of consciousness in his writing (at least for HHGTG). He would write his characters into a blind corner and then try and figure out how to get them out and into the next adventure. Often times the solution would lead him to the next idea.
What would be your perfect game and how would you design it? Or even to surpass a game class. A playable virtuality or interactive movie. What would be prefered gameplay mechanics and style, graphics, in-game physics, characterization, story...
a fps mmorpg based in a postapocalyptic sci-fi metropolis where companies compete for domination
main selling points and sources of inspiration would be: - elements of eve online (clans are freely formed by players and they control territory) - it's actually possible to achieve "world" domination and win the game - there's no instancing, death is bad, permadeath is possible - elements of gta (vibrant metropolis with detailed traffic) - elements of elder scrolls and elite (surrounding world is continuous but desertified and mostly barren, travel takes a long time; you need vehicles, there's cargo, trade and piracy) - elements of deus ex (people are cyborgs, character customization revolves around augmentations, there's hacking and players design hacking challenges for other players) - elements of x-com, fallout, planetside (base building, domes, missions and quests, team-based tactical play, powered armor and okay shooter mechanics, sci-fi vehicles) - elements of sid meier's alpha centauri (exploring for resources, building outlying bases, research) - open-ended modular tech tree: clans perform research, design items (weapons, implants, vehicles...) manufacture and sell them in a realistic, brutal, fast-moving market (bigger company researches faster and decimates the competition/opposition, stuff becomes obsolete overnight...)
Comments
As I mentioned earlier, the SNES, for whatever reason, had the most games that even get into this territory. Super Mario World, A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy III. The Zelda series specifically flirts with this rarefied air more than any other. A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker all have a legit claim.
If you give something very good/addicting to a teenager, it could be a very good game, a sport but also a drug like a cigarette, there is a higher chance this teenager will become addicted / fall in love with it.
This is because the brain isn't fully grown until you are 20-25 years old.
And this is the reason why we often tell children to learn and study while they are young because it is slightly easier. A baby can learn multiple languages without even trying while a 40 years old will struggle a bit more. It's far from difficult / impossible, only slightly harder.
If a 26 years old guy starts to smoke today, he will have an easier time to stop 4 years later than someone who started at the age of 14 and who wanted to stop when he is 18 years old.
These two examples are backed up with a lot of data, but there are more. Someone who starts to play piano at the age of 6 has an advantage over someone who starts at the age of 37. It's not impossible for the older guy to become better than the child, far from it, once again it will just be slightly harder.
And now back with the topic, I don't think there is any data to prove my point but my opinion is that it follows the same pattern:
-Pillars of Eternity will never be as well received as Baldur's Gate because the community is older.
-Star Wars 7 isn't considered to be as good as the previous movies by a large part of the fanbase while I'm sure most of the 6-14 years think it was excellent and in ten years, these same people will think the episodes 7-9 are the best.
-Baldur's Gate 3 will never be as good as Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 because the community expects too much and the nostalgia is too strong.
So to my mind, a perfect game is a great game, like Baldur's Gate, The Legend of Zelda : Ocarina of Time and many, many many other. But you also need that a fair part of the player base is young enough to grow with the game, becoming fascinated in the process.
As far as these go, I think you are seeing a correlation where there is none. Pillars was not as widely received for a number of reasons.
1) Baldur's gate came first and everyone who played it back then WANT it to be the best, so they are going to find fault with anything that comes after
2) The gaming community at large has changed in the last 15 years and so have their interests and tastes (for better or worse).
3) I am not sure that, from a technical standpoint the game is mechanically superior to BG. While it does have updated graphics, I didn't feel that the level progression system or the combat system had that much over BG and the story, while engaging wasn't world beating. Again, I think you are finding correlation where there may not be one. Star Wars 7 was not a superior movie to "Empire" or even "A New Hope", not because of nostalgia but for the simple reason that it didn't break any new ground the way those other two did. Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with the strategy that they used to bring back the fan base after the mistakes that were 1-3, the simple fact is that when "A New Hope" came out it was revolutionary and no one had seen anything like it. Then when "Empire" came out that raised the bar in ways that again no one had ever seen. While "TFA" was very close to the original, it wasn't 'Original' enough to surpass the source material. I don't think you can say that. While it is true that "In some minds" you can't surpass 'The king', that in no way means that across all consumers that is the case. BG3, depending on how it is developed and marketed could surpass the originals in sales and/or technical capabilities. We won't know until we see it. And again, the community has changed significantly since BG1 was released. What sells and even what consumers want have changed. If the game only appeals to consumers of the original, it will probably not out-sell the original. If it appeals to current demographics and is marketed correctly, who knows what heights it could achieve.
But in all three cases, the relative age of the consumer or their relative adaptability of their brains only plays in from the perspective that if they were brought up on computer games, they are more likely to adapt to more games. But just because you are young doesn't mean that you (as a consumer) will make the game superior.
When I start to think about it, it's immense process and brainwork.
When creating the game world should you start from whole idea and then going into details or inverse ?
Tolkien, just to pick a name at random actually started with the relative languages and then built a world for them to inhabit. My understanding is that Douglas Adams was more stream of consciousness in his writing (at least for HHGTG). He would write his characters into a blind corner and then try and figure out how to get them out and into the next adventure. Often times the solution would lead him to the next idea.
main selling points and sources of inspiration would be:
- elements of eve online (clans are freely formed by players and they control territory)
- it's actually possible to achieve "world" domination and win the game
- there's no instancing, death is bad, permadeath is possible
- elements of gta (vibrant metropolis with detailed traffic)
- elements of elder scrolls and elite (surrounding world is continuous but desertified and mostly barren, travel takes a long time; you need vehicles, there's cargo, trade and piracy)
- elements of deus ex (people are cyborgs, character customization revolves around augmentations, there's hacking and players design hacking challenges for other players)
- elements of x-com, fallout, planetside (base building, domes, missions and quests, team-based tactical play, powered armor and okay shooter mechanics, sci-fi vehicles)
- elements of sid meier's alpha centauri (exploring for resources, building outlying bases, research)
- open-ended modular tech tree: clans perform research, design items (weapons, implants, vehicles...) manufacture and sell them in a realistic, brutal, fast-moving market (bigger company researches faster and decimates the competition/opposition, stuff becomes obsolete overnight...)
But hey, different strokes for different folks.